(first posted 4/26/2016) In the April 1971 issue, Road Test Magazine was rather pleased to find a relatively “normal” Javelin available for testing from AMC. After all, press cars were (and still are) usually loaded versions of top luxury or performance models in a line, but as a result seldom represented the cars that average consumers actually bought. So while this Javelin might have been “boring” by the standards of the late 1960s, it was likely right on target for the tastes of the 1970s. After all, thanks to government regulations and soaring insurance rates, by 1971 even the Pony Cars and Muscle Cars were shifting their emphasis from sport to luxury.
I have always admired the styling of the first generation Javelin, with its stylish simplicity inside and out. The 1971 redesigned changed all that: even though the car underneath was basically the same, to my eyes the looks got bloated and gimmicky. If I were ranking the segment players by looks in 1971, this car would have scored dead last.
Based on the performance results, this Javelin was definitely equipped more for “show” than “go” (or stopping for that matter), but then again those cushy buckets were likely more important to the target customer than any innate abilities of the machine itself.
Today, space saver spare tires are the norm, so it’s funny to see them being written about as such a novelty back in 1971. Though given the minimal trunk room in Pony Cars, it was a wise option for the segment.
For the most part, Road Test ranked the car as “good.” Notably, ride and comfort were ranked “excellent,” an important result as the Pony Car class turned to comfort. In this case, Road Test’s pricing of $4,417 came pretty close to how their test car seemed to be equipped. I checked out the 1971 American Car Price Guide for cross reference, and here is the listing for the Javelin:
Based on the details Road Test provided about their test car, here’s what I envision this specific Javelin would have cost at retail:
| Javelin SST 2-Door Hardtop | $2,999.00 |
| 290hp 360 4V V8 | $84.30 |
| Shift Command and Console | $312.80 |
| Vinyl covered roof | $88.40 |
| Bucket Seats, Corduroy Fabric | $52.45 |
| Insulation Group | $22.20 |
| Rally Side Stripes | $34.00 |
| Turbo Cast Wheel Covers | $51.35 |
| Rocker Panel Molding | $33.75 |
| Rally Side Stripes | $34.00 |
| Power Steering | $107.50 |
| Power Disc Brakes, Front | $88.40 |
| AM/FM Radio | $139.65 |
| Air Conditioning | $398.50 |
| Tinted Glass, All Windows | $35.40 |
| Visibility Group with electric wipers/washers | $44.90 |
| Space Saver Spare Tire | $13.60 |
| D78 x 14 WSW Tires | $36.10 |
| Total | $4,576.30 |
| Note: 5% was added to all option retail prices as per the pricing guide instructions |
Adjusted for inflation, this works out to $26,908 today–a fair enough price for a stylish, comfort-oriented personal car. Probably most of the units AMC sold were priced like this, or lower–reflecting the tastes of the times. High performance was rapidly on the way out, comfort and style were on the way in. Sales reflected the new reality: this Javelin SST, with 19,000 units sold for 1971, was well positioned against the Ford Mustang Grande (17,406 sold) and the Pontiac Firebird Esprit (20,185 sold) in the quest for cushy Pony Car customers.
Now that is one very ungainly car…
I totally agree. I thought the 1970 Javelin was better looking than anything offered after that.
They do look good in race trim though.
Everything looks good in that trim.
They very much remind me on the 10-14 Mustangs vs the 05-09s, from the overembellished fenders to the big sloping rear end. I don’t dislike the 71 Javelins quite as much though, I will credit AMC for doing such a good camouflage job with their limited resources, it’s hard to believe the windshield, back glass, door and trunk skins were all carry overs.
Back glass on a ’71 is very different from that on a ’68-70. But you are right, windshield, doors, trunk were carry over.
AMC was attempting to emulate the ’71 Mustang which also displayed a lengthen snout and a extended arse.
However, I prefer the ’71 thru ’73 Mustangs any day over the ’64 thru ’70 models.
Especially if Jill St John is driving!!!
They were some big time “rust buckets”.
All Fords were in that era. My ’73 Galaxie was mostly bondo over supporting rusty bits in the quarters and the front fenders, with suspicious bubbling under the vinyl top around the top and bottom of the rear window. Rust in the quarters was so bad I had to ream out the drain holes regularly (getting brown flakes of metal and nasty smelling water all over my gloves every time) or they would fill up as the rust and bits blocked water from leaving.
I’d just been looking at that article and going, “For a car that looked prettycool in person, that really didn’t photograph well.” It really does look all misshapen in these shots.
“MacPherson strut suspension…as long used on AMC products”
WTF?
I find the editorial accuracy of this magazine to be consistently inconsistent. No wonder they went out of business. Seriously; they should have known better. No American conventional cars used MacPherson struts back then.
I thought the same thing the moment I read that line. In the specs page they make a point of saying “McPherson strut towers”, maybe one of the editors was trying to make the distinction of that aspect (coil high mounted around a shock tube) as being McPhersonish, but that may be giving them too much credit.
What specifically distinguishes a MacPherson strut is the lack of an upper control arm, with and the shock/spring strut acting as its replacement. Quite different than having the coil spring mounted above the upper control arm.
Yes, I wasn’t arguing, but there are a faction of people who firmly believe and spread the idea that a strut = coilover spring, just because that’s one aspect commonly associated with the Strut assembly.
It’s funny and frustrating in the older Ford forums where you’ll often see someone in need of struts for an MN12 Thunderbird, despite being SLA, and someone looking for a pair of front shocks for their Foxbody mustang despite being mounted rigidly to the spindle lol
Same mentality as those who claim to have an XJ, TJ, etc powered by the infamous ‘4.0 V6’ which is supposedly the best engine Jeep ever made!
The same was claimed in the 71 Ambassador road test as well.
It’s too bad. I really like the way they talk about practical things like the spare tire and ease of repair like the “field replaceable” fenders. That kind of writing is completely gone from today’s media.
I didn’t quite understand the “field replaceable fenders” part either – I don’t know of ANY mass produced car in that period or any period that didn’t have replaceable bolt on front fenders. Quarter panels yes, but that’s not the case with the Javelin either, so I’m not sure what they’re on about.
I know its a minor point, but the ’65 Rambler front fenders have a tack weld in brass at the cowl, with bolts for the rest. Go figure.
There must have been some reason, but I can’t think of any. I think the reference keeps stuff like similar vintage Karmann Ghias in mind, as some semi coach built vehicles were different, and not so easily repaired as a Beetle was.
Some imports did not have bolted-on front fenders. Saab 99 for one example at that time. To replace the front fenders you’d need to get out the torch.
While it may be unusual for a magazine to reveiw a non muscle edition of a “pony” car, (Sometimes I say “Fish Car” to honor Plymouth beating Ford by a couple months, LOL..) I still consider them legit “pony” cars. as wide options was the hallmark of the concept. An Electra 225 could only be one kind of car,by design and marketing intent, The “pony” cars at the very start were intended to be whatever the buyer wanted/needed. A 6cyl stylish commuter car, inexpensive “personal luxury” car or a Hi-Po muscle car. Not that that’s reflected at the cruises or shows today, It was variety that made the genre so popular in the sixties.
Always liked the ’68-’70 body style better…never understood why AMC (and other manufacturers, too) felt the need to “bulk up” these nicely trim vehicles. AMC did have some cool interiors for this vintage Javelin…I thought the Cardin was particularly cool for its day!
It would be awesome if someone did this today, I mean, could you imagine a young driver seeing this: “OMG, It’s got COLORS! What will they think of next”
My best friend growing up put this interior in the ’74 304 Javelin that he fixed up. He bought 3 Javelins and cobbled together a very nice Javelin using the one that had the best body, his 304 with the 3 speed stick on the floor as his foundation. He got the ‘Pierre Cardin’ as a parts car (it had a seized up engine 340? maybe?), and its body wasn’t as nice, but it had THAT interior that was in remarkable shape. His third Javelin was an old beater that he used to run around in while his project was under way. The beater was a rusty old blue ’72 or ’73 with the optional Fred Flintstone floorboards and a 360-4V. That car was very fast and very scary. Seeing the lane markers under your feet at 90mph was a little unnerving. Ah, youth. This was all in 1984… he 22, and me 24. I was driving around in a nearly new 1983 T-Bird (with actual MacPherson struts unlike the subject car), but he was a Javelin fan. When the 304 was finished, he painted it bright orange (with white all around the back window only) I know that sounds weird, but the car was strikingly beautiful. He sold what was left of the other two cars to an even younger ‘enthusiast’. I sure hope that kid took the floor-pan out of the Pierre Cardin and put it in the blue Javelin if his intention was to drive that 360… Yikes!
I get their point regarding the trepidation of the space saver spares, as they weren’t anything like the ones in use today, which are now simply preinflated miniature tires. The ones they describe on the AMC (which were also used by Ford and Mopar AFAIK) however were wheels placed where the full sized spare would go, so they still take up some sizeable trunk space, only difference was the tire was balloonable and deflated around the rim. So in the event of a blowout, a stressful enough event as it is, you need to dick around with this extra process with a one time use gas bottle, and after you limp it to a service station you need to stop back at the dealer to “reset” your space saver kit. No thanks.
I find the owners manual info refreshing, it’s nice when manufacturers don’t treat their customers like idiots who could only screw things up if they mess with their product themselves. That unfortunately is ever more the prevailing wisdom today, in all industries, chock full of throw aways, they don’t even want repair professionals to mess with anything!
A massive reason that many said “phooey” and just chucked a “real” spare in the trunk, even at the loss of space!
The body of the car isn’t bad looking. It’s just the grille that doesn’t look very attractive. I thought the 1970 Javelin grille was more attractive.
Do not be fooled folks, this was a specially prepped non “press car”. Taking a poll here. How many of us knew somebody who actually bought one of these equipped this very way??
My father-in-law had a very similarly equipped 71 Javelin SST. Repainted in Quicksilver with black canopy roof and no stripes. That was the late 90’s early 00’s It was gorgeous. I wish he hadn’t sold it. At least they still have the 68 AMX
I like the look of these cars but as much as the article claims they are testing a modestly optioned car its still more loaded than 90% of the cars I remember back then.
The early Mustangs were not pushed as “supercars”, “muscle cars” or “high performance”. This Javelin was a more common set up of stylish coupes, even during the high point of ‘muscle car mania’, 1968.
Not all 2 door cars on the street then were today’s “Barrett-Jackson 6 figure cream-puffs.”
“Based on the performance results, this Javelin was definitely equipped more for “show” than “go”
Although the braking numbers are not impressive, the acceleration numbers are pretty on par for the “typical pony car” of the era. I have an old magazine test for five Pony cars from 1969 all with midsized (approx. 350 CI) engines. For the most part they ran high 15 sec 1/4 mile times, although the Firebird was 17.0 secs. So this Javelin isn’t too far off.
These kind of performance number were pretty decent for the era. My uncle had a 1969 Camaro 350 with a 4-speed. By todays standards a 4cylinder Honda Accord could beat it in a 1/4 mile drag. But to this day, my Uncle talks about how fast that car was and how he passed 5 cars at a time on the two lanes. I guess compared to his 1958 Pontiac he had before that, it was pretty fast.
Unless the ’58 was a fuelie Bonneville.!
Far from, it was a Pontiac Pathfinder with the 261 six.
The 68 AMX with the 390 did 14.3 in the quarter mile which was remarkable for the time. It was even played up in their ads.
That’s fast even today.
Sure there were other cars that ran times like that too, but my point was that average pony car wasn’t running 14 sec 1/4 miles. That Javelin reflected more of the typical performance. The average car was much slower then and people tolerated much lower performance, Today people want much more. People complain a Prius is painfully slow and it almost has the identical 1/4 mile time to that 1969 Firebird 350 I mentioned above (Prius 17.3 @ 81 mph, Firebird 17.0 @ 80 mph).
My point was that even with the 360 it wasn’t far off from the 390 in the AMX.
but the prius dosen’t have over 300LBS of tourqe frying those poly glass smoke makers (probubly single track) for the first 30 feet of take off!! people need to relize tire tecnology was shit!! you can look at old 1/4 mile test of most muscle cars and shave a good second or two off by taking the crapy tires in acount!! and alot were single track.
My stock (no bolt ons) 430 powered Electra ith just carb tuning and slight tweaking of the ignition curve dual exhausts and 40 series flowmasters does high 14s with crappy 2.78 gearing on a peg leg rear end.
My car weighs 1500 pounds more and is “rated” at 360 gross hp. Horsepower ratings back then were horsechit
must be a pretty sick 350 4spd if a honda civic could pass it in the 1/4 mile!!
even a new civic S.I turbo coupe has trouble doing a 15 sec 1/4 mile!!
they can barley stay with my old crown vic police interceptor with 460.000 on it!!
but I am completely biased, have no use for imports or 4 bangers!!! ever!!!
I loved the 68 Javelin. It was just perfect. Then AMC mucked it up with those stupid blips over the front wheels and a ridiculous amount of front overhang. Makes it look like an anteater.
From the company that made it’s reputation on a “less is more” philosophy. Quite a turn around and not in a good way.
Console optional, mmmmmm. Good times. Were it so today.
An interesting read for me because my best friend’s mother got a new 72 Javelin AMX. After getting used to looking at the car in AMX trim, the standard Javelins never looked right to me.
Everyone likes to rag on the Javelin for getting all bloated in 1971, but they went right where almost everyone else went with their ponycars (Mustang/Cougar and Mopar E bodies). And, for once, AMC’s sales were competitive with the others in the segment. Of course, we all now know with hindsight that Chevy and Pontiac led the way with a radical re-thinking of the ponycar formula.
I like the 1965-70 Mustangs, but I would take this Javelin over the 1971-73 Mustangs, based on looks alone. These Javelins also made a better “stylish coupe” than the Mopar E-bodies from the 1970s.
In 1974 AMC released a show car that featured a Hornet front end mated to a hatchback body style. With a new front end, and a few other changes, this car became the 1979 Spirit.
I’ve always thought that AMC should have released a restyled version of that car (it would have needed a revised front to eliminate the resemblance to the Hornet) as the “downsized” 1975 Javelin. It would have sold well, particularly since the Mopar competition vanished after 1974, and the Mercury Cougar moved into the personal luxury class after 1973.
The “wrap around” driver-oriented instrument panel was evidently a fad back then; I remember our big 1970 Ford had that, too. However, I have trouble believing this was wholly motivated by ergonomic purism, as including the temperature & radio controls there makes passenger access more difficult, causing a distracting intrusion into the driver’s “space.”
And putting the radio low in the dash, as many cars have done over the years, takes the driver’s eyes further away from the road for something getting a lot of attention (hence, many modern cars having radio/phone controls on the wheel).
Somebody in Detroit got VERY serious about the old high school cruising rule #1: “He who drives controls the radio.”
It all started with the 1969 Pontiac Grand Prix, at least among domestic cars.
The 1969 full-size Fords featured a “cockpit style” instrument panel with the radio mounted far away from the passenger, but the Grand Prix took an additional step by making the console an integral part of the design. This gave the feeling that the dashboard wrapped around the driver. The full-size Fords couldn’t take the concept as far, as they still had to make a provision for full-width bench seats.
Yep, Dad had a ’69 Ford Galaxie back in the ’70s and I never liked the radio being so far away from the passenger side. I mean, he was busy driving, wasn’t he, so no time to switch channels to hear the latest Captain and Tenille song! LOL
You could argue that the 1962 Studebaker GT Hawk and the 1963 Avanti began that cockpit style instrument panel trend – the Hawk without the console and the Avanti with. The difference, of course, is that Studebaker left the radio accessible to the passenger.
I definitely agree the 1968-70 styling of the Javelin was far better, I always thought the 1971-up Javelin’s looked way too similar to the Ford Mustang’s of the same vintage, especially the nose.
I just bought a 74 javalin 360 4spd car project with the GO PACKAGE. don’t know why people hate on this body style so much! if they have the right stance/tires/wheels and paint, they can be one tough looking mother fucker!! but i will be putting a built chevy small block baked by a M-22 rockcrusher. I am a chev man after all. just like diffrent cars that you wont see all the time.
I think what bothers me about the 71-74 Javelins is that they look like they were styled by at least 8 or 9 different teams of stylists. And no 2 teams ever saw what any of the others were doing.
Case in point? A decent enough looking front end but the sides (even ignoring those fender bulges) look very bulky. Then there is that odd sculpting on the roof. The tail light section that doesn’t really match the front.
On the other hand, the interior isn’t too bad, just not completely thought out (door panels/arm rests) and/or put together all that well.
And Javelin wheelcovers always looked just a bit cheesy.
True, though this was one of those few cars that benefited from a mid cycle refresh, the 73-74s got a much nicer taillight treatment(albeit another blatant copy of the Dodge Challenger) and the roof sculpting was smoothed out. They weren’t transformed by the change but they do look a bit more uniform at least.
I classify the looks of the ’71 Javelin as “different”. Then again, most of AMC’s offerings strayed from the norm. Yet, I like it. I had driven one of these years ago and it felt like a large, sporty yet luxurious coupe. Sort of a blend of a Camaro and Mustang.
My dad had a ’72 Javelin SST, purchased new. The long front overhang combined with the short rear overhang gave the car a unique appearance. I think his had the 304 V8 in it. I was a kid back then, and I remember with the hood open I could climb over the grille and stand on the garage floor in the space between the radiator and the engine.
Fun review, I like how when talking about the driver “he uses the container in the console”. Somehow I doubt there was an additional container for female drivers, hmm.
I had that same U-bar shifter in my 72 Matador, which I though was as cool as could be, being 18 when I did that.
That’s a pretty poor quarter mile time for a 360 equipped car, 16.08? My 258 six cylinder Matador ran a best of 17.7 which is still slow, but it was a few hundred pounds heavier than the Javelin too.
“he” was the generic term for both sexes. Like “mankind”, a general reference to the species, not gender specific.
Yes, “he” can be neuter depending on context. Another example: Women these days call groups of mixed gender, or even each other, “guys.”
This bodystyle gets a lot of hate, but I love it. Its definitely not something easily ignored and that’s the appeal. Its kind of funny that they chose a 4bbl 360 to power the ‘docile’ version. Even though the 401 would have been top dog, this was no slouch. One of the I-6’s or the 304 seems more in line with what they were trying to test. But I guess you get what you get.
0-60 in 9+ seconds though?!?! Seems slow. But then it IS a slushbox and the tires in those days were total garbage. And I didnt see what gearing it had in the rear end, either. The ’78 CJ-7 I had with a swapped in 360 would hit 60 faster than that.
I like these a lot, too. Yes, some non-AMX versions – in the wrong color or with the wrong options – can look less than great, but most I’ve seen have undeniable style.
The first Javelins were more obviously and typically pretty, but I found the second ones more to my liking once I had acquired that taste.
Agreed…the wrong color or wheel/tire package can absolutely destroy the lines of this car. Its a thin line between gorgeous and gag. The dinky wheels, whitewalls and cheeseball hubcaps just kill the look of the test car.
Ive always been all in for the whole Javelin/AMX gang. My first exposure to them was an AFX slotcar that Ive had since just a kid…and still do. So nostalgia is why im a bit partial to the 2nd gen model. They’re all just awesome cars, and along with the ‘Cuda, ’68 Charger, and Duster/Demon these rank with my dream muscle cars.
This slotcar pic is just a lazy Google grab, but its the same deco. Amazingly, mine is in near perfect shape. Blue is my favorite color and my birthday is on the 5th of March so from a young age, it seemed this car was just meant for me. Ill never part with it. Along with a 1/24 scale AMT model Jeep, its one of the things Ive owned the longest.
Sounds like the leaded fuel every other tank suggestion was because AMC had not gone to hardened seats yet, unlike GM which switched over for’ 71. Probably wishful thinking on AMC’s part that the power rating was the same with reduced compression. But then, power ratings were pretty suspect back then anyway.
Do have to give credit for the do it yourself instructions in the owners manual and the inexpensive service manual offer.
Interesting how they used a dirt/gravel road to exaggerate the understeering car. I’ll bet they really wouldn’t have liked the handling with the heavy 401 engine over the front wheels.
’68-’70 was so much better looking then this. I think I remember hearing the lump over the fenders was a NASCAR requirement to be legal on the race cars of the day, sort of like the reason for the Plymouth Superbird.
The 401 was no heavier…same engine family. In 1971, the 401 also had a much higher compression ratio (about 10:1?). I’ve driven a ’72 AMX (401, Go Pack). I think it handles fairly well, but the Go-Pack adds stabilizer bars (or larger ones?), and a limited slip rear, and the AMX ran 15 inch rims.
Good to know the 401 was same weight. Handling package and decent wheels/tires probably make a big improvement.
The AMC V-8’s 290 – 401 all used the same basic block.
In 1971 AMC started the year with the 401 engine still being high compression (10.2:1), but then a few months into production reduced it to 9:5.
If buyers opted for the SST trim level. they had a car with a nose that emulated the one on the Concorde jetliner
Why not the Boeing 2707 instead? Maybe it was its strange double-jointed nose, unlike the simpler Concorde & Tu-144. But after a lot of fuss, Congress finally canned it, a rare example of US fiscal discipline during a spendthrift era. But it was not a happy time to be in the aerospace biz with that, Nixon’s Vietnamization, & end of the Apollo program.
AMC got so overwrought and rococo in the 70s, moreso than the Big Three it seems. Was Dick Teague drinking mushroom tea?
These Javelins get ragged on, but like the eponymous 71 Mustangs, I like them a lot. I will however say this, I like these cars, as long as they are in AMX trim. Without it, they look really odd and awkward. The decklid spoiler on the AMX helps out a lot in this regard, as the stock rear end reminds me of the kids I went to school with who would sag their pants to look cool, too low and not pleasant. The Javelin in this regard reminds me of the late 2nd gen F bodies, they actually benefit from the additional sport options on the body, as without them they look kind of awkward.
My grandmother actually drove one of the first generation Javelins as the family car when my dad and his brother were little. It was an odd choice for the family car, but it was what was what they grew up with until my granddad got his first new car, a 1975 Monte Carlo. The Javelin was another one of those AMC cars that served my dad’s family well, along with his Gremlin and his grandfather’s Matador.
Totally agree about the AMX package, and like the second gen firebirds the ductail spoiler in particular transforms them.
Wasn’t ’71 the final year AMC used Borg-Warner automatics, before they went to Chrysler transmissions for ’72 ?? Maybe that would have subdued the quarter mile ETs…
Trunk may be big but Trunk Lid is so shallow you may not be able to put flat tire in trunk. Change my rear snow tires and had to have friend take home in his truck.
The Javelin platform, with appropriately neo-classic/brougham-tastic styling and interior, might well have become AMC’s Cordoba: a sales success built on repurposed components. The other platform they had available to do this was the 122″wb two door Ambassador, missed that too, gave us the Matador coupe……..
I always thought the 67 Marlin on the Ambassador wheelbase would have made a good personal luxury type of car.
Unfortunately, the Marlin name was poison by 1967, even on the longer Ambassador wheelbase. The 1967 version isn’t a bad-looking car, but sales failed to break even 5,000, if I recall correctly.
The 67’s are a rarity for sure.
i was surprised at the comment relating to the inconvenient placement of the ashtray that “smoking is frowned upon nowadays”. i didn’t start till 79 and even then you could still light up in stores, airplanes, workplace, even hospitals. now i drive a car that has no ashtray and the cig lighter is a power outlet.
i really like a lot of the AMC cars from the 60-70 era (S/C rambler YA!) but i’d rather smoke get in my eyes than look at this Javelin.
I never read Road Test back on the day, except perhaps in desperation at a news stand, but I do appreciate some of their pragmatism. They may not know McPherson struts, but they took the time to calculate $/Pound. Because, you know, value. Much more useful than that “Calculated Data” section in the Road & Track road test panels, with the mysterious Wear Index and Cu Ft/Ton Mile .
Notice the general criticism of AMC steering in the road test. Otherwise, I had a general good opinion about AMC products.
Thank you for running this article again. It’s nice to reminded of an era when AMC wasn’t a movie theater and Javelin wasn’t a tank-buster.
What’s behind those virtual Post-It™ notes on the 8th picture (this one)?
I’ve got a few issues of Road Test. I like that they deliberately didn’t go nipping at the heels of the tiresome buff books (Car and Track, Driver Trend, Road & Motor), and some of the articles are of good quality—thoughtfully written and factually correct. But other articles aren’t; they read as though the Road Test staff just said “Enuf, toss me a brewski”.
My second grade teacher Mrs. Long had a purple one and she was not impressed.
I was but she wasn’t,,, lol
One of my classmates got a new Javelin back in 1973, I didn’t think that was as cool as a Camaro, but I was a bit jealous. I’m pretty sure that it had the small V8, but it was a nice NEW car. Most of the Pony cars back in the day were not the “firebreathing” models, they were mostly base V8s. The hot models seemed just as uncommon as the base six equipped cars. The typical two barrel 289/302 single exhaust, automatic equipped Mustang with an open, non performance, differential was no supercar.
Now we can better appreciate the brilliance of the Plymouth Duster. You take a solid compact sedan and give it a sporty body, whereby saving the costs of creating another vehicle and giving a company the ability to improve both the compact sedan and the sporty coupe based off of it.
AMC needed to have avoided a second generation Javelin, a Matador Coupe, a Matador sedan/wagon and Pacer – focusing their best on a new Hornet/Gremlin instead with sporty coupe versions spun off of it. As a matter of fact, due to need. that is what ended up happening with AMX at the end of its life, as a cosplay version of the Hornet.
This was the secret of the Fairmont/Mustang success seven years later.
Brougham luxury wanted classic lines, not swoopy sporty lines. A new solid sedan would have given AMC years more life had it been unveiled by 1974.