It was July, 1972 when the Raspberries released their hit song about a girl asking her guy to, well… you know.
That same month, AMC’s design team likely was wrapping up work on their new mid-sized coupe that was set to launch as a 1974 model, and despite the approval of AMC VP of Design, Dick Teague and Exterior Design Director Bob Nixon, one can’t help but wonder if some on the team felt that maybe they had not gone all the way. Not pushed themselves to see how complete love could be.
I will attempt to heed the lyric’s call and lay out some alternative designs, after making a few observations about the car that perhaps had not been fully explored in previous articles.
First off, some praise of AMC’s designers for knowing how to create beauty, a few years earlier having sculpted the vivacious AMX/3 mid-engine sports car.
Unfortunately, like a pin-up, it wasn’t a real relationship. Not the kind that led to tooling, production, healthy sales throughout its lifecycle, and profits that helped the company not just survive but thrive.
Alas, still starry-eyed from their mid-engine fling they found themselves knee-deep in the design of a 2-door car that would attempt to crash the biggest party of all: the mid-sized personal coupe market.
Traditional design cues were expected, such as a vinyl top, lounge interior, and external tinsel, and painted stripes. Distinction – real or only suggested by Marketing – was also required, lest one get lost in the crowd.
There was also the near concurrent development of the Pacer, which while not a design influence was definitely influencing corporate affairs, being the official “out-there” program unbounded by market segment rules and norms, and consuming precious capital and engineering resources. All to answer a question that apparently not enough consumers had asked.
By far the most passionate voice beckoning Studio seemed to come from that mid-engine beauty that never advanced past a few development vehicles. The designers simply could not get AMX/3 out of their heads, and many of its appearance elements found their way into the new coupe.
For example, the team did a commendable job dialing in the AMX/3’s mid-engine, cab-forward proportions, cleverly using the corporate mid-sized platform’s shortest axle-to-dash and fashioning an extra-long front overhang. They also kept AMX/3’s fastback profile and body chamfer with kick-up over the rear wheels. And they chose a rear overhang that was noticeably shorter than the existing Matador/Ambassador.
But by then the designers were apparently dating others too, passing on the mid-engine car’s alluring face in favor of the 1964 American’s tunneled headlights, and a Sesame Street smile. With it came a celebration of family time, six cylinders, fuel economy, “enough power” and cute little gremlins. The Seventies had become the decade of sedation.
Other ailments afflicting the car included a body chamfer continuing into the rear instead of being terminated like AMX/3 (and Camaro and Pinto). Perhaps this had been done to provide acceptable rear headroom and luggage space without adding rear overhang, but the resulting double chamfer on the decklid visually dragged down the rear whereas the AMX/3 maintained a sprightly bobtail posture.
And like a pogo stick ridden by a kid wearing husky Plain Pockets, the coupe’s swollen surfaces had too much lateral overhang when placed atop tires and wheels too small and skinny, and there was too much suspension travel. Brown paint and a brown vinyl top only served to give the car a puffy Earth Shoe vibe, and the four oversized taillights pined to be dipped in a dream and given back to The Candy Man.
In the end, one has to wonder if AMC’s Studio rank and file were truly happy with what they had created. Did they now know how complete love could be, or was there still a hole in the place where their heart should have been? Whichever the case, the entire program team would soon come to realize that this particular relationship had been, from a sales and profit perspective, little more than a long one-year stand.
And so it is time for us to cue up some alternative designs. We can start by creating a storyline that serves as catalyst for Studio’s would-have-been change of heart. For inspiration, let’s open up our parents’ stereo console and put a different Raspberries 45 on the turntable.
Anything inspirational coming to mind?
Hmm… perhaps a car with a more serious AMX/3 appearance and purpose could have materialized after several of AMC’s designers exited the theater after having seen the latest 007 film, Diamonds Are Forever, and one of them blurted out: “Our Matador coupe’s appearance stinks! Why don’t we go in a different direction and do a Bond car? Something that works for a slightly older and more mature Sean Connery who nonetheless remains impeccably tailored as he gets into his car on Savile Row… and lately at American 24-hour gas stations.”
Another designer might have sarcastically added: “The way our current design is going, it’ll end up in a Bond flick alright, having sprouted wings and crawling out of a dirty hovel, with no sign of Sean anywhere!”
In trying to imagine the more AMX/3-like car that this rogue band of designers might have come up with, a good starting point is this 1974 Matador X with 15-inch wheels, courtesy ClassicCars.com. Toggle between it and the modified image below it to see the changes.
As the second image suggests, dialing in more AMX/3 would have meant lowering the front fender and hood lines and front apron. The radiator and its support structure may have needed to be lowered too. In the rear, the overhang would have needed to be shortened around 6-inches, similar to Pacer. And all extraneous exterior tinsel would need to go. And if the sobbing junior wheel designer bemoaned what to do now that his raised white letters had been taken away, his godfather boss could have barked: “You can ACT like a MAN!”
An alternative design would have been to apply the original rear overhang to this modified car, thereby reducing the wheelbase from 114 to 108 inches. Repackaging the rear seat further rearward relative to the rear axle would not have been a problem, AMC having already done this for Gremlin and planning to do so for Pacer. The change would have resulted in nicely balanced proportions similar to classic European RWD GTs.
But the striking mid-engine shape would be gone, and for that reason as well as a less accommodating rear seat package, this alternative likely would have occupied the runner-up position.
For front appearance, the designer’s first impulse might have been to hide the headlights behind doors that, along with rectangular turn signals and grill, would be forward-leaning like the underside of AMX/3’s front fascia, with the headlight doors retracting downward into the apron to expose the fixed lights. A center depression in the hood would move the design even closer to AMX/3. The third image shows the headlight doors retracted down into the apron. (Photo courtesy ClassicCars.com)
The hood depression in exaggerated form actually appeared on a period AMT model car.
An alternative front design would marry the 1970 Alfa Romeo Montreal’s partially hidden headlamps to the originally envisioned coupe’s headlamps and bezels, to create a polished and somewhat menacing MI6 look.
Of course, for 007’s car, these would double as missile launchers. Again, toggle between the images, the last showing the headlights fully exposed, with the doors above them retracted rearward. Thankfully, the unsightly Aurora Imposters-like understructure around the exposed lights would have been hard to see at night.
Horizontal taillights comprised of triple “innies” on each side of the license plate, instead of the original four round “outies” would have unified the rear. Extra wide rear wheels and tires would have helped to reduce lateral overhang, and the decklid would be replaced by a liftback for expandable cargo space, again like the Europeans and also the ’73 Hornet Hatchback.
AMC’s final opportunity would have been to realize that its rethought coupe was destined for something greater than the mainstream mid-size personal coupe market. With more technical sophistication and better quality, the car could have legitimately entered the luxury coupe market, blowing past Grand Prix, Riviera and Toronado in pricing, and closing in on Eldorado and Mark IV.
That technical sophistication would have probably needed to include a fuel-injected 401 CID V8 for both power and drivability, an independent rear suspension (and maybe an improved front suspension), rack-and-pinion steering and isolated front and rear suspensions like Pacer, four-wheel disc brakes, wide 15-inch alloys, some of the advanced safety features that Pacer championed, and a level of quality and craftsmanship that surpassed anything that AMC had ever offered.
The 1975 Cadillac Seville proved that a less-is-more formula could work for an American car, with profitability achieved not through high sales but high margins and a lasting design. No doubt AMC needed to learn how to command higher pricing for everything that it sold, and what better place to start than with a comfortable, practical, easy-to-own exotic marketed separately from AMC, perhaps by simply using AMX for brand and nameplate.
AMX’s marketers would also need to withstand Hollywood pressure, by never allowing their car to become deep-sea rated. “Sink our car and you sink our product placement deal. The same goes for anything that flies. Using AMX design gestures rather than whole cars, Mr. Teague and his team would be more than happy to dream up cool mini-subs and jets that give you what you want while strengthening our brand.”
But such a brand would need to change with the times, the grand touring coupe of the Seventies giving way to a 4 or 5-door luxury sport sedan in the Eighties, a sporty AWD luxury crossover for the new Millenium, and who knows what for 2030 and beyond.
By steering clear of the traditional American personal coupe market… and quickly popping the Pacer thought-bubble at the first sign of its appearance, imagine what the combined investment spent on the original Matador coupe and Pacer could have instead bought. Not only a stand-out American-sized luxury GT, but progress on a modern small car, perhaps as part of a joint venture with a Japanese company eager to establish a U.S. presence.
Honda perhaps? Time for another Raspberries song…
Further reading:
Curbside Classic: 1975 AMC Matador Coupe – The Matador & Me
Curbside Classic: 1975 Matador Coupe X- Great X-pectations
Curbside Classic: 1974 AMC Oleg Cassini Matador Brougham – That’s A Matador?
I was young, and easily manipulated, like a lot fans of this car. But I really liked how AMC was trying so hard to stand out from the Big Three. When they should have been taking practical steps with their sparse cash, strengthening their compact lineup. And refreshing their Matador sedan and wagon, for mass appeal.
Their advertising was unique. And cars like the Hornet and Gremlin, exuded a lot of character, and youthful appeal. Marketing like the Buyer Protection Plan, was practical and original. And AMC genuinely represented the underdog, whom everyone cheered for.
Again, being young and naive, I was floored by the Matador Coupe when I first saw photos of it in Motor Trend and Car and Driver. The Matador X Coupe, always seen in red, was far out by 1974 standards. Now a footnote, a timepiece, and icon of that era. Wholly impractical. But a mid ’70s pop culture star. Early Matador X Coupes were always the best version.
An appropriate pop song from 1974, that heavily reminds me of AMC and the brash Matador Coupe, is ‘Who do You Think You Are?’.
AMC had, with the direction of the chair of design Dick Teague had a four door version of the Matador coupe on the drawing boards. A modern day four door coupe. The existing four door Matador sedan and wagon were based on the Rebel from over a decade earlier and getting long in the tooth. By 1978-80 they decided to focus on, correctly due to the fuel crisis and CAFE their compacts Concord, Spirit and Pacer as well as the groundbreaking Eagle awd.
I like the renderings you made and agree with your conclusions. I think that – like other cars coming from GM and Mopar during that era – it suffers because I’m fairly certain it was not designed with the 5 MPH bumpers in mind. Remove the bumpers and replace with roll pans, use a wheel/tire combination to fill up those arches, drop the car a couple of inches and suddenly it does not look bad.
True. But doing so is simply Alpha-ing a vehicle intended to be Beta. Once women began throwing in their aprons, their entering the employment economy meant that their expendable income was not only partied out at Chippendale exhibitions. Their entering the automobile market destroyed a traditional domain where AMXs and Corvettes once ruled. Designers suddenly were faced with a challenge of drawing-in newly-prosperous female buyers, through softened fabrication using plush upholstery, somewhat feminine styling cues, Ricardo Montalban television advertisement and plenty of vanity.
Biologically-male buyers of rather odd to most of us vehicles such as these later Matador(a)s and Renault Fuegos were usually hair dresser or fashion designer types. Only a Boy named Sue would dare show up to his new job’s first day at an oil rig in one of these
Some observers take issue with the Matador Coupe’s round tail lights, and grille and hood design, that emphasized its round headlights. To me, this is a big part of what defined AMC’s look at the time. A very ’70s look. The grille and headlight treatment added to the character of cars like the Hornet, Gremlin, and Pacer. Not intended to be overtly serious or masculine. Appealing to both sexes, and kids in their teens. As well as older people. Not meant to intimidate. Friendly faces, simple, light, clean and almost outer space inspired, and nicely representative of pop culture in that era.
The Hornet Hatchback, was perhaps the Matador Coupe’s leading competitor. Given their similar appearances, while sharing the same showroom. The added appeal of the Hornet’s natch design, lighter weight, lower price, and potential better economy, giving the compact, an edge. Such a tremendous risk AMC took with these.
I was very young at the time, and found these cars quite attractive. Along with the Hornets. The Sportabout remains one of my favourite domestic designs of the ’70s, in spite of its limited cargo capacity.
As with the Pacer, AMC was relying far too much on styling selling these cars.
Another headwind was, the 1st oil shock hit exactly at the time these were introduced. This was the wrong car to address that. An issue apart from the styling, but, this surely did have an effect on sales.
Someone needs to fix the side windows. Opera windows?
The photo shop versions look sooo much better than the original!!
Too bad an update was not made, could have been a serious contender during the height of the personal luxury car craze and brought in needed cash flow. If in doubt, think ’73 Monte Carlo or ’77 Thunderbird.
AMC gets kudos for trying to be different, but different does not equate with good. Yes, no one would ever mistake this for anything from the big three, but the ‘74 Matador coupe was just plain weird, bordering on ugly. The sedan version was even worse. I mean, who would buy this over Monte Carlo, Grand Prix and the other GM intermediates, or the following year Cordoba. Even Ford’s GranTorino came off better. Factor in AMC’s questionable build quality at the time and you get the loser it was.
My dad always said…”that’s why they make different flavored ice-cream” when it comes to taste. For over a decade I’ve watched and listened to the opinions of folks when they come look at this car. Some think it is the ugliest car ever built, while another will come by and rave over how beautiful it is. I guess Dad was right. Go Figure! LOL
If Sid and Marty Krofft designed cars, they’d be AMC cars (for non-Gen Xers, do a Google image search).
What makes the Matador such a frustrating design is that it’s so close to something sharp and harmonious as these rendering show. Did AMC’s designers just lack the talent to bring a good idea to its fullest expression? Or was this a great design ruined by a committee? I look at some of the bloated, distorted models GM and Chrysler were rolling out in the early 70s and I wonder if there was some kind of mind virus at work. Or maybe everybody was just stoned.
I’m sure AMC was relying too heavily on Dick Teague. His other designs provided needed market share and cash flow on a shoe string budget (ie: Gremlin).
But, not every design is a home run as per the Matador and Pacer. The above photoshop revisions were within AMC’s grasp, but others in the studio may have felt intimidated to speak up or a mindset of “we’re not like GM, we are AMC!!”
“Did AMC’s designers just lack the talent to bring a good idea to its fullest expression? Or was this a great design ruined by a committee?”
I’ve often asked myself the same question. From the calm assurance of the ’64-5 American… to this.
Absolutely loved this, Paul. Can’t wait to read more from you.
I saw and read about the ’74 Matador coupe long before I had seen pictures of the AMX/3, but once I did, so much came into clearer focus. I have professed my love for these Matador coupes before, but yeah. Translating the look of an exotic sports car design exercise into an intermediate was a dicey proposition. While I like the finished product (especially in dark colors – headlights, taillamps, and all), some of the design elements just didn’t come together quite right.
I love your renderings, BTW, even though I’m partial to the idiosyncrasies of the actual production model. I mean, a Matador coupe without the “outies” (LOL!) taillamps just loses something for me.
Keep up the stellar work.
Thanks, Joseph. Appreciate that! Am finding all the comments very interesting. There’s something to be learned from each. I had fun thinking back to the early 70s when I was 10 yrs old. In retrospect, it was a unique time.
My memories of this car had nothing to do with the styling. In fact, I recall the shape getting some appreciation as helping AMC’s new NASCAR effort. But by the mid-70’s, AMC was irrelevant for most buyers, a purveyor of cheap and weird Gremlins and maybe some bigger sedans for government fleets. The Pacer didn’t help things, and by the time the 4wd Eagle and attractively restyled Spirits came along, it was too late. As attractive as these photoshop efforts are, I don’t think they would have made a difference.
AMC went in the wrong direction, and if this Matador coupe was more sportier looking – still would have flopped. The problem was no one wanted a car that size with swoopy lines. The Brougham Age was upon us, and all AMC needed to do is refresh their dated Matador which already had the right proportions, so that they could create a PLC like the Monte Carlo, Cougar or Cutlass. Simple and a lot less money. Both the four and two door Matador was hampered by dated belt lines, and needed a refresh into a more formal look. AMC really screwed the pooch here. By 1972, this market shifted and AMC tried producing a car whose looks peaked five years earlier. Worse, was when AMC tried to make this swoopy coupe look like a PLC with the Barcelona option. Nasty.
Chrysler was hampered by the same issue. The Satellite and Coronet were both styled like something from the 1960s. Ford had enough Brougham in the ugly Torino options to create Cougars, Montegos and Elites with some success. The Cordoba was a home run because it copied the MC, GP and Mark III look, and added Jaguar-esque touches.
AMC made it money with the Hornet. The wasted their money on a Pacer and this. No one wanted either car. Had AMC refreshed the Matador and sunk Pacer money into the Hornet, they would have been able to keep up a lot longer than they did.
I’ve never been able to find anything to like in the styling of the Matador or most any of the AMC’s. But that Monte Carlo!! That was and still is one of my favorite cars of all time in that exact body style.
Car and Driver named the Matador the best styled car of 1974.
I assume they meant of the new cars that year. What else was there? Mustang II, Ford Elite, Cougar….I’d go with the big Chryslers.
I do like the imagined revisions. Have to say the front does have a bit of Ford (Mercury) Capri in it, upsized. Overall. it might well have proven a winner.
Paul, thanks for this; I really enjoyed it.
I very much like where you took this car with your changes, especially the last profile, with the shorter wheelbase and lowered hood. The problem is that it’s no longer a mid-sized coupe, but looks very much like a GM F-Body (Camaro/Firebird) fighter, sharing much of their proportions, shape and feel.
And I really like your solution with the headlights, the partial covers over the lower-set round lights.
This could have made an excellent Javelin; much better than the ridiculous gen 2 version.
Of course I’m not sure how much a new Javelin would have helped AMC, even a handsome one like this.
Thanks Paul!
In thinking about it, those fastback F-bodies had the longest production run of any American car of the Seventies except for the Vette, and that car picked up the full fastback way out in ’78.
On top of all that was a broad coupe market that extended in size and price all the way up to Lincoln and Cadillac.
So, if you are AMC struggling to find a voice, why not stake a claim in a niche that nobody occupies? And content and price the base car not all the way down in the basement with Chevelle, but right there in Lincoln and Cadillac’s rearview? Poof, out of nowhere, like Steve McQueen.
It would have been good schooling for AMC, upping their ability to deliver quality and engineering excellence.
There were no rules governing any of this, then or now, except those self-imposed.
Images of the AMX/3 remind me that this was the time period when John DeLorean was making his famous departure from GM. I had read in an unofficial biography of him that someone at AMC (board chairman?) offered DeLorean the AMC CEO position. For some reason, the name Alfred Bloomingdale always springs to mind. The offer was very generous and included DeLorean being free to build his sports car which would have undoubtedly had some AMX/3 to it.
But, DeLorean being Delorean, tried to squeeze a bit more out of the deal, and the offer was rescinded. The way it was put was that DeLorean had never dealt with anyone on that level and didn’t understand there was no negotiation. He tried to backtrack by telling the go-between “tell them I was kidding!” but it was over. Supposedly, all the person making the offer said was, “at least we found out what kind of man he was”.
But just imagine how differently things might have played out if DeLorean had been running AMC in the mid-seventies.
Those are some quality styling updates! I especially like the rear view that has a vague Maserati Khamsin look about it.
I agree, I think Paul’s revisions demonstrate how the basic styling of the Matador would have worked well on a sporty compact. Unfortunately the design really didn’t work on a mid-size car scale, and though the Matador’s style was contemporary in the early 70’s that market was rapidly heading in another direction. AMC knew this, look at the Matador Barcelona.
I know we all love Dick Teague – I do. Yet there seems to be about this time that his style language didn’t help AMC. We can look back at his work and applaud, yet there were some stylings he needed to have evolved into, but either didn’t want to, or couldn’t.
For instance, it seems he just couldn’t get himself to create a formal car. I love the Rambler American, and in 1966, he showed us that he could do a very attractive squared-off look for it. Yet, as soon as the American was replaced with the Hornet, he goes right back into what seems to be his comfort zone design language.
Paul West here suggests that he couldn’t go all the way and if you take a look at where Teague held back, he held back and instead of creating a “go all the way” line for the front and side lights, accent lines and rear ends – yeah – Teague pulls back. There is no “go” with the Pacer when it desperately needed go lines. It looks like a squat dumpy car and it really needed help. Those window lines seem deliberate, but even without touching those, the body lines just do not move. Those parking light are turned DOWN, instead of up? The tail lights wrap around and are turned down? C’MON MAN! There isn’t a single speed line. The Pacer looks like it is standing still, even when it is going top speed.
Same with this Matador coupe. The shape says one thing, and as Paul West points out, the front and back end says another thing. Teague just won’t commit. His Hornet Sportabout clearly shows that he can craft a beautiful car, but even the Sportabout hold back. Worse, the Hornet coupe and sedan are just frumpy.
Teague worked magic, but we need to see that by this time, he doesn’t show anything cutting edge. By the time we see his work on the Alliance, Renault does the job. When it comes to the Jeep Cherokee, we see once again how well he can do a larger 1980s version of the 1966 Rambler, as a Jeep. That generation of Jeep Cherokee is perfection, as was his Wagoneer twenty years earlier.
Going from the Hornet to the Concord, we can see how his design language simply fails to deliver a formal auto design, as the Concord looks like it is trying to be all things without being anything.
“…his Wagoneer of twenty years earlier.” was the work of Brooks Stevens who designed it for Kaiser Jeep, not AMC. I agree that it was perfection too.
Darn – that’s right!
Appreciate all the comments, everyone. One thing that keeps swirling in my mind about AMC in these years was its need to become a leader in quality, because that’s what drove sales and pricing, as much or more than styling. And speaking of AMC, for some reason am hooked on that Pacer wagon of late, 1977 only and with a clean exterior.
100 % agree that AMC needed to go Brougham with a personal luxury coupe or skip it all together. The Pacer was reckless and it was a blessing GM canceled their wankel program or it would have been an even bigger fiasco likely losing the majority of year one sales, the only year it sold well at all.
I have some history with AMC products from the late sixties and into the seventies and haveasoft spot for them.
I like to imagine AMC looking at cars like the Corona and saying to themselves let’s scale these up to American sized cars.
Consider A Hornet and Gremlin with a Japanese like interior including the reclining seats they were famous for but largely abandoning, McPherson struts and precise steering, an earlier emphasis on quality and long warranties, and a commitment to economy of operation. The Hornet would have really been something instead of the handsome coal cart it was. My 1970 was crude!
The Matador and Ambassador could have been updated along similar lines perhaps with some international flair. The Javeline might have moved from pony car to PLC. A modern small car program could have been funded by profits from sensible investments in successful product. We likely wouldn’t have an independent AMC today but it might have lasted longer and even s
have an identity today as part of a larger automobile group.
I guess it all made sense to AMC management at the time.
It should be remembered that if Chrysler was one model cycle behind with their GM-cloned cars, AMC was ‘two’ model cycles behind.
So, when the planning was made for the Matador coupe, it was way back when those types of ersatz sporty intermediates were still selling. In effect, they copied Chrysler’s 1971 coupes with sheetmetal completely different from the sedans in an attempt to cover both the performance ‘and’ brougham markets.
Unfortunately, cars like the 1971-74 Charger SE and Satellite Sebring Plus were only marginally successful. The time was completely past by the time the Matador coupe arrived for 1974. The out-of-the-box front and rear styling didn’t help matters, either.
I would have never connected the AMX/3 to the Matador in a million years but now I can’t unsee it, and I love a good “what if” exercise. Great photoshops!
My big what if with the Matador is actually the opposite, rather than leaning into sport, go all the way with PLC, with the only change being a formal roofline and flat deck ala the Cutlass Supreme, Monte Carlo and Cordoba. It would have made it a less overtly unique product being yet another PLC but that’s realistically exactly what the Matador was competing against, but its fastback roofline was totally out of fashion. Ford’s PLC efforts were somewhat hampered by the basic Torino body’s incongruous cokebottle figure but imagine if they didn’t have that formal roof bodystyle to cut some opera windows into, imagine if the Cougar and Elite had to make do with the 72-73 sportsroof body! That would have been remarkably similar to what the Matador really was.
I think the Raspberries song AMC execs were most likely singing is the one that went “I just want a Hit Record”…
They didn’t have one with either the Matador coupe or the Pacer, what would be their last all-new car designs.
Gold medal award for Article of the Day! You win the coveted Curbie award. Gold medal award in the supporting categories for Best use of Photoshop, and also Best use of Imagination as well as best Remedial Styling.
But seriously Paul, a great read. The Matador was one of those cars that didn’t look right, but I could never put my finger on just what it needed. And that always annoyed me. You have fixed that. It needed more AMX/3, particularly that tail bob; not only that but you have explained why. Either with or without the wheelbase cut, both would have worked.
Now pardon me while I go hunt up another old Matador kit to realise your design in scale. Don’t hold your breath, this will take a while.
Thanks Peter, greatly appreciated. And also appreciate hearing opposing views, helps to see the original differently. That’s the nice thing about this site… all ships rise with the tide.
Has been years since I saw the Matador Coupe and was hoping to study it this summer at the Orphan Car Show in Ypsilanti, but none were there. Fortunately, there was a Pacer.
Fellow I knew at the time had a Matador. When he decided to trade it, he went for something just as unique, an ’81 Dodge Mirada. Also a car with somewhat outlandish “Hey look at me!” styling. Very stand out in the crowd (or the parking lot) personna among all those Malibus, Cutlasses, and Monte Carlos.
I like this Matador just as it is.
If it looked different, it would be something else, which had already been built.
First word and adjective that came to mind as I was growing up, to describe these, was ‘swoopy’. Normally, a somewhat positive word, that identifies an aerodynamic shape. But not for a new mid-1970s domestic car, in an era of conservation of resources, and fuel.
This car was outlandish for the era. That was a big part of its appeal. I loved the swoopy shape, on a long wheelbase. None of the Big Three would ever put out a car like this in the ’70s. Why AMC was soon on life support. lol
The kid and car styling nut in me, loved the decadence of its design. Unfortunately, as I grew older, I soon saw how out-of-step it was with the times.
Outstanding work and presentation Paul!
It really was the weirdness and unconventionality of the design, that made it unique and appealing for me. Look at the bizarre way the vinyl roof was handled. GM would never put out a wild car like this. And obviously, why sales would take a hit. Too far outside the boundaries of what appeals to people. And their comfort area. Unusual, but lots of character.
I was 12 when the Raspberries released “Go All the Way.” Great song. They played it a lot at the Roller Rink we all went to on Saturday nights. Come to think of it, one of my friend’s parents used to drive us there in a Matador station wagon. Is that possible, or is my mind playing tricks on me…
Great story with fascinating ideas. I so wanted to love this car as a kid, but the look on the street was such a let down compared to those pics in Motor Trend. And, at the end of the day, it was unfortunately just another AMC duct tape and chicken wire job. They would have been better off with a Grand Matador Elite like object.
Sadly, my favorite image above is in the Monte Carlo ad…the car, the message, the pure simplicity of the image…a design that I appreciate far more today than at the time.
Ahh, especially a ’72 MC, clean and with skirts. Chevy had to wait a dozen years before it was allowed to answer T-Bird, GM’s higher brands apparently getting to go first.
Wonder if CC has ever posed the QOTD: Which PLC is the Fairest of Them All?
Quick search suggests it has:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/qotd/qotd-which-1970s-personal-luxury-coupe-would-you-buy/
Great idea on ” which PLC is fairest of them all”. We could have a healthy debate on a 70 versus 72 Monte Carlo…that demure 70 grille sans hood ornament has such simple elegance that I can’t resist. Though one could argue it’s not brougham’d up enough to win fairest PLC.
It looked good, generally, from the front or sides if the enterprising owner put oversize wheels and tires on it, and jacked up the rear. Which some did. The rear still looked weird, but if you jacked up the rear it looked better, because it didn’t “sag” so much.
Dick Teague was famous for designing the Gremlin on a paper napkin on an airplane. I wonder what kind of paper he designed this car on?
Dick Teague, Raymond Loewy, and Virgil Exner. Three designers that both sunk and saved different automakers (Packard, AMC for Teague, Studebaker for Loewy, and Chrysler for Exner).
If I had to choose a designer, I’d have gone with Brooks Stevens.
The napkin thing is likely exaggerated, unless the paper napkin story was the AMX GT show car, or the marrying of the theme of that to the Hornet was done on said napkin. Either way, by the time the Gremlin made production the design was a little more fleshed out than the old tale suggests
“I wonder what kind of paper he designed this car on?”
A paper tablecloth?
I really liked your analysis, but I did not like these when they came out, and still find them to have proportions and lines that are almost (but now quite) awful. Too long in the front, too short in the back, too wide over the track, and a greenhouse that emphasized the problems rather than disguising them.
This car’s whole problem is that it was not offering up what the public was buying in late 1973 when it came out. Chrysler’s fuselage language was like week-old bread by then, and AMC tried to out-fuselage Chrysler. Like it or not, the formal look was in and there was nothing formal about these, even when given an Oleg Cassini edition or when an opera window roof was added.
This car might have had a chance in 1969-1970, but maybe not even then. The 1967-69 was the most mainstream mid-size car AMC ever built, but they still sold terribly. AMC never really had “a thing” after the sensible Rambler went into the sunset. Style? Quality? Engineering? Roadability? Longevity? Ride/comfort? AMC is not the first thing that comes to mind with any of those words.
Great analysis and presentation, Paul! A thoroughly entertaining and thought-provoking read. The pop-culture contextual references of the designer’s reluctance to “go all the way” make perfect sense in the way they compromised too many aspects of the Matador coupe’s styling. While the AMX/3 mid-engine proportion favor the 114″ wb photo-modified elevation (expertly executed!), the 108″ wb version could have been a credible 3rd-generation Javelin if applied to that platform.
AMC build quality and an engineering advancements push were in dire need by the 1970’s. Both would have advanced their cars in desirability and the attendant increase in the prices and margin returns. The imports offered various advantages, one of which was noticeable better build and durability quality than could be had from domestic carmakers. Had AMC management placed primary emphasis on build quality earlier, by the end of the 1970’s the improved reputation alone would have boosted sales.
Had Teague et al decided to seriously play in the neo-classic formal PLC segment, a simple restyle of the 122″ wb Ambassador coupe with all the current styling hallmarks would have fit the bill perfectly.