What’s a Matador? The AMC Matador, Rebel, and Classic

With its smooth curves and clean lines, this week’s subject could easily have been a prop on Space: 1999. Car and Driver called it the best-styled car of 1974, but some critics still consider it one of the ugliest designs of the seventies and it remains one of the most polarizing. It was a bold move for struggling American Motors and ultimately became a financial disaster. This week, we look at the history of the AMC Matador and its midsize predecessors, the Rambler Classic and Rambler/AMC Rebel.

1974 AMC Matador coupe badge


In 1956, American Motors chairman George Romney decided to bet the company’s future on the compact Rambler, abandoning the venerable Nash and Hudson brands and launching a vaguely messianic (if mercifully tongue-in-cheek) crusade against oversize, gas-guzzling “Detroit dinosaurs.”

In 1958, AMC’s first model year following the demise of Nash and Hudson, Romney hedged his bets with two additional Rambler models: the subcompact Rambler American (really the original Rambler with new skin) and the big Ambassador. This put AMC in the novel position of offering cars in three distinct sizes, something many of its competitors wouldn’t match until the mid-1960s.

Despite that variety, AMC’s bread and butter was the midsize Rambler; the American sold only half as many copies and the Ambassador was at best a niche item. About the same size as a modern Toyota Camry, the “standard” Rambler accounted for nearly 117,000 sales in 1958, about 259,000 in 1959, and nearly 315,000 in 1960.

1959 Rambler Custom front 3q2
The midsize Rambler was available with either a 196 cu. in. (3,205 cc) six or a 250 cu. in. (4,099 cc) V8. V8 cars were called Rambler Rebel; the sixes were simply Rambler 6. Low demand led to the cancellation of the Rebel after 1960, at which point the 6 was renamed Rambler Classic.

Even after the Big Three introduced their first compacts in 1960, the Rambler occupied a unique niche. It was bigger than most of the domestic compacts, but still much smaller than any contemporary full-size car. Renamed Rambler Classic in 1961, it continued to sell strongly through 1963, briefly elevating AMC to the number-three slot in total domestic sales.

By 1964, the Big Three had bracketed the Classic with an array of compacts and intermediates. The Classic was smaller than new midsize rivals like the Ford Fairlane and Chevrolet Chevelle and AMC couldn’t match those competitors’ larger dealer networks or marketing budgets. Furthermore, by the mid-sixties, buyers were losing interest in economy cars and turning back to performance and luxury. Classic sales began to slide and AMC’s market share was shrinking at a similar rate.


George Romney left AMC in January 1962 to pursue a political career. His replacement, former sales VP Roy Abernethy, did not share Romney’s enthusiasm for compacts. Abernethy had previously been at Kaiser-Frazer and Packard and, like many automotive salesmen of his era, preferred large cars to small ones.

Under Abernerthy’s auspices, AMC moved away from its previous niche-market focus back toward the mainstream. Each of the company’s offerings grew larger, gained a convertible model, and received attractive, if bland styling, courtesy of Dick Teague’s design staff. In 1965, AMC stretched the Classic by 5 inches (127 mm), bringing it closer to the size of its intermediate rivals. It also added an optional 327 cu. in. (5,354 cc) V8, which hadn’t been offered in the midsize Rambler since 1957.

1966 Rambler Rebel front 3q
AMC revived the Rebel badge in 1966 as a sub-series of the Classic line, offered only in two-door hardtop form. This car has the optional 327 (5,354 cc) V8 with 270 gross horsepower (201 kW), linked to the rare four-speed manual transmission.

1966 Rambler Rebel rear 3q
The 1965-1966 Rambler Classic still rode the 112-inch (2,845mm) wheelbase introduced in 1963, but it was about 5 inches (127 mm) longer than before, thanks mostly to a longer tail. Equipped like this one, it weighed around 3,500 pounds (1,575 kg).

Despite those moves, Classic sales continued to fall, sinking to about 126,000 by 1966. The intermediate market was booming — Ford sold more than 317,000 Fairlanes in 1966 — but AMC, which had essentially pioneered the genre, was in danger of being shut out. The Classic was competent and pleasantly styled, but it was no longer particularly compact or economical. AMC was moving away from the values established by Romney, but it had yet to find any other defining virtues. Resale values were not robust and an increasing number of buyers didn’t look at Ramblers twice.


American’s first attempt to address its image problem became one of its most memorable blunders: the Rambler Marlin.

In early 1963, stylist Robert Nixon penned a compact fastback coupe called Tarpon, based on the Rambler American platform. AMC showed a mock-up at conventions in Detroit and Chicago in early 1964, to generally good response. Dick Teague lobbied hard to build the Tarpon, which would have been AMC’s rival to the Ford Mustang and Plymouth Barracuda, both of which debuted a few months later.

Roy Abernethy, however, was concerned that AMC did not have a V8 that would fit in the Rambler American’s engine bay, which would put the Tarpon at a competitive disadvantage. Furthermore, Abernethy thought the Tarpon was just too small, particularly when he discovered that he couldn’t wear his hat in the back seat. Rather than simply vetoing the Tarpon, he suggested transferring it to the bigger Rambler Classic platform. Teague was hardly thrilled, but he reluctantly scaled up the design for the larger platform, which went on sale in early 1965 as the Rambler Marlin.

1965 Rambler Marlin side
A 1965 Rambler Marlin. (Photo © 2008 Christopher Ziemnowicz; released to the public domain by the photographer)

Like the contemporary Dodge Charger, which was similarly based on the intermediate Dodge Coronet, the Marlin was essentially a Classic with a fastback hardtop roof. It looked sleek from some angles, gawky and odd from others. Even Dick Teague and his stylists didn’t like it much.

The public was not enthralled either. First-year sales were an uninspiring 10,327 and the second year was less than half that figure. Teague persuaded Abernethy to switch the Marlin to the even-bigger Ambassador platform for 1967, which at least gave it better proportions, but sales sank even further. The Marlin disappeared for good at the end of the 1967 model year.


Although it could be politely described as an interesting failure, the Marlin was at least distinctive, which could not be said for the contemporary Classic. In 1967, AMC transformed it into a cut-down version of the Ambassador, which brought its dimensions very close to those of the contemporary Chevrolet Chevelle. AMC also dropped the Classic name in favor of Rebel, and began to phase out the Rambler nameplate. (It disappeared from Rebels in 1968.) It didn’t help: sales fell to fewer than 101,000 units in 1967 and fewer than 74,000 units in 1968. By comparison, in 1967 alone, Pontiac sold nearly 220,000 Tempests and Le Mans plus 81,722 GTOs.

1966 Rambler Rebel back seat
Believe it or not, this is the original upholstery, and the throw pillow was standard equipment. Many mid-sixties AMC products, including both the Rebel and the Ambassador, had wild, rococo trim, complete with throw pillows.

Roy Chapin, Jr., who replaced Roy Abernethy as chairman and CEO in January 1967, was trying hard to change AMC’s frumpy image, launching the sporty Javelin and AMX and initiating an aggressive racing program. He even gave the green light to the Hurst SC/Rambler, a hot rod version of the Rambler American. These efforts did nothing to help sales of the Rebel, which fell to a depressing 60,000 for 1969. Neither did the high-performance Rebel Machine, added in 1970, which arrived just as the market for intermediate Supercars was collapsing. Rebel sales were dismal and a model that had once been AMC’s core product was now nearly invisible.

Chapin and Gerry Meyers, who by that time was AMC’s VP of product development, were well aware of the Rebel’s shortcomings. The problem — which was becoming AMC’s perennial curse — was a lack of capital. The company’s scant resources were focused on the desperately needed Hornet compact and its wacky subcompact derivative, the Gremlin, both of which debuted in 1970. The moribund Rebel would have to wait.

1967 Rambler Rebel SST front 3q
The late-sixties Rambler Rebel was an attractive car in two-door hardtop form, although you could argue that it was a stylistic goulash, borrowing themes from the Ford Fairlane, Pontiac Le Mans, and Dodge Coronet. The SST was the sportiest model, with a 343 cu. in. (5,624 cc) version of AMC’s small V8, launched in mid-1966. With only 280 gross horsepower (209 kW), even the most powerful Rebel SST was no match for a Fairlane GTA, let alone a GTO; in June 1967, Car Life‘s Rebel SST with automatic took nine seconds to go from 0-60 mph (0-97 km/h) with a top speed of 110 mph (176 km/h), not in the Supercar league. (Photo © 2009 William Hamilton; used with permission)


The Rebel’s replacement finally bowed for the 1971 model year. For the second time in five years, it had a new name: AMC Matador. The new moniker did not go over well in some Spanish-speaking export markets; while “Matador” usually implies a bullfighter, it more literally means “killer.”

Like the Rebel, the Matador shared much of its body structure with the Ambassador, distinguished by a different front clip and a shorter wheelbase: 118 inches (2,997 mm) versus 122 inches (3,099 mm). In overall dimensions, the Matador was only slightly smaller than the “Detroit dinosaurs” George Romney had decried a decade earlier and it was wholly undistinguished in both design and engineering. AMC, with a flash of bemused self-awareness reminiscent of Doyle Dane Bernbach’s famous Volkswagen ads, made a joke of the Matador’s anonymity, launching a series of TV commercials asking, “What’s a Matador?”

Whatever else the Matador was, it was not a strong seller. The 1971 tally was less than 46,000 sales, rising to just under 55,000 for 1972. Sales for many intermediates were down in the early seventies as buyers gravitated to compacts and subcompacts and AMC, which had never firmly established itself in the intermediate market, was hit particularly hard. Fortunately, American’s investment in the Hornet and Gremlin was paying off, allowing the company to post a modest profit for 1971 and even better numbers for 1972 and 1973. AMC’s market share climbed from 3.3% in 1972 to 4.2% in 1973 and the company reported profits of $44.5 million.

Nevertheless, Gerry Meyers was not happy about AMC’s lack of presence in the intermediate market, which was starting to grow again by 1972, reaching nearly 20% of the market the following year. AMC didn’t have an entry in the popular and lucrative personal luxury class, either. In fact, the hardtop coupe was the slowest-selling Matador, in a segment where two-door hardtops were customarily the most popular (and profitable) models. Customers were not taken with the Matador’s blocky styling and peculiar protruding snout. Even NASCAR driver Mark Donohue, who drove Matador stock cars for Roger Penske, reportedly dubbed it “the flying brick.”

1972 AMC Matador hardtop front 3q
The AMC Matador coupe’s roofline and rear fenders bear a striking resemblance to those of the late-sixties Chrysler C-body hardtops, but its bulging grille reminded one critic of big-nosed comedian Jimmy Durante. A few — perhaps 50 — 1971 Matadors were Machines, similar to the previous year’s Rebel Machine, but without its gaudy paint and ostentatious hood scoop. They had either a 360 cu. in. (5,892 cc) engine with 285 gross horsepower (213 kW), shared with the rare Hornet SC/360, or a 401 (6,573 cc) with 330 hp (246 kW). (Photo © 2008 Improbcat; used with permission)

Fortunately, thanks to the profits the company had earned in 1971 and 1972, AMC finally had the money to do something about it. Meyers asked Dick Teague to develop a better-looking Matador coupe for the 1974 model year.


Bob Nixon, who had styled the 1964 Rambler American, the Tarpon, and the Gremlin, became AMC’s Director of Design for Exteriors in the late sixties. He led the exterior design of the new Matador coupe while his friend and colleague Vince Geraci, who had previously headed large-car design, developed the interior.

1974 AMC Matador coupe side
By 1974, the former dinosaur hunter had become a dinosaur. The AMC Matador coupe is a Brobdingnagian 209.3 in (5,316 mm) long on a 114-in (2,896mm) wheelbase, weighing around two tons. Although it was the shortest of the 1974 intermediates, it was actually 1.3 inches (33 mm) longer than a full-size 1959 Ford Galaxie. Some of the AMC’s size and bulk was attributable to the federally mandated 5 mph (8 km/h bumpers), but even without them, the Matador was no compact.

Unlike the previous Matador coupe, the new coupe shared no sheet metal with the sedan and wagon. It also had a shorter wheelbase, 114 inches (2,896 mm) compared to 118 inches (2,997 mm) for the four-doors. GM had used a similar split-wheelbase strategy for its intermediate coupes and sedans since 1968, but it was new for AMC, which seldom had the money for such extravagances. While the coupe broke no new ground mechanically, it was different enough from the sedan to make it expensive to build. AMC spent around $40 million on development and tooling, which wouldn’t have been a vast amount for GM or Ford, but was a lot for the cash-strapped independent.

Like GM’s 1973 intermediates, the Matador coupe abandoned the customary pillarless hardtop style for fixed B-pillars and wide rear quarter windows. The B-pillars were linked by a steel hoop through the headliner, in anticipation of more stringent roof crush standards. Like the old Rambler Marlin, the coupe had a steeply sloping fastback roof, flowing smoothly into the flared rear fenders and drooping tail.

1974 AMC Matador X rear quarter window
Unlike GM’s contemporary “Colonnade” hardtops, which had fixed quarter windows, the AMC Matador coupe’s rear windows do roll down, a boon to rear-seat passengers. The rear seat is not really suitable for adults, however, a consequence of the sloping roof.

Many contemporary observers assumed the sleek styling was dictated by the need for better aerodynamics on the high-speed NASCAR ovals; Mark Donohue hadn’t called the old Matador a brick simply because he didn’t like its looks. However, Bob Nixon said that racing had little to with the design; the bigger concern was creating some semblance of design continuity between the swoopy new coupe and previous AMC models. Nixon was also struggling to integrate the now-mandatory 5 mph (8 km/h) bumpers in an aesthetically satisfying way, something few automakers managed during this period.

1974 AMC Matador X coupe taillights
One of the Matador coupe’s many interesting styling features are its free-standing bumpers, which stand out from the body on telescoping hydraulic struts concealed by articulated plastic boots. Omitting the usual vanity panel between the body and the bumper reduced the visual mass of the bumper, helping to avoid the battering-ram effect of many of its contemporaries. The Matador X was the sporty model, priced $504 above the basic V8 coupe; there was also a plusher Brougham model. In 1975, both became option packages rather than models.


When the Matador coupe went on sale in the fall of 1973, it was not only a striking departure for AMC; it defied the contemporary trend toward feverish neo-Classical design, embodied by the Lincoln Continental Mark series and Chevrolet Monte Carlo. In November 1973, Car and Driver compared it to the work of artist Charles Eames, praising the Matador’s lack of ersatz formal grilles and opera windows. On the latter point, the magazine spoke too soon: Opera windows and a padded vinyl roof become optional on the top-of-the-line Brougham coupe in January 1974. There was also a rather gaudy Oleg Cassini decor package with copper trim inside and out.

1974 AMC Matador X coupe front
The Matador coupe’s round headlights were intended to evoke the 1964-1965 Rambler American, lending a touch of styling continuity to the new car. The flat nose and recessed grille (blacked out on sporty X models) bears no resemblance to the contemporary Matador sedan and wagon. This car originally had the basic 304 (4,977 cc) V8 with 150 hp (112 kW), linked to a three-speed Torque-Command automatic (actually a Chrysler TorqueFlite 904). Its present owner has retrofitted it with a 360 (5,892 cc) and dual exhausts, making about 200 hp (149 kW).

Beyond its radical styling, the Matador’s virtues were modest. With a full load of options, it weighed 4,050 lb (1,837 kg), which meant that even with the biggest engine, AMC’s 401 (6,573 cc) V8, performance was far from overwhelming. Car and Driver clocked a 401 Matador X from 0-60 mph (0-97 km/h) in just over eight seconds; Road & Track‘s March 1974 test car, with the smaller 360 (5,892 cc) V8, managed the same in just under nine seconds and a top speed of 116 mph (187 km/h). The Matador’s handling was no worse than most intermediate rivals, but with nearly 60% of its static weight on the front wheels, it was hardly agile. The interior was cramped, more of a 2+2 than a true four-seater, and there was more noise and harshness than a contemporary Torino or Chevelle. Fuel economy, once AMC’s great strength, was dismal, a consequence of the hefty curb weight and primitive emissions controls. AMC had a come a long way since the days of George Romney, not necessarily for the better.

1974 AMC Matador X coupe dash
The Matador coupe’s interior differed little from that of the sedan and wagon. A tachometer was not available, but the dash does feature a primitive fuel economy gauge, located above the fuel gauge on the right side of the wheel. The sport steering wheel was standard on the Matador X; Broughams had fake woodgrain on the dash. This car has bucket seats, a $68.50 option on the Matador X, but not the optional center console and floor shifter.

The Matador coupe’s sales, like those of those of the industry at large, took a nasty hit from the OPEC oil embargo, which began shortly after its introduction. When the dust settled, AMC had sold almost 100,000 Matadors, more than 62,000 of which were the new coupe. Compared to the dismal sales of the previous Matador and Rebel hardtops, that was decent and it even beat out a few competitors, like the Plymouth Satellite Sebring and Mercury Montego. On the other hand, Oldsmobile sold almost 240,000 Cutlass coupes in 1974 while Chevrolet sold 240,000 Chevelle, Malibu, and Laguna two-doors and 312,000 Monte Carlos.

The slick new body also failed to make the Matador a serious contender on the racetrack. Roger Penske’s Matadors scored only a single victory in 1974. Bobby Allison managed three wins in 1975, which was respectable, but the 1976 season was a disaster. Plagued with technical failures, the Matador scored no victories, and AMC terminated its support of NASCAR at the end of the season. The following year, Roger Penske switched to Mercury.

1974 AMC Matador X coupe rear 3q
The jarring discontinuity between the rear quarter window and the backlight is one of the minor elements that make the Matador coupe’s intriguing shape less than satisfactory, as is the awkward crease near the trailing edge of the decklid. Note the substantial tumblehome (inward curvature of the roof sides), which combines with the curving fenders to make the Matador unusually curvaceous for an American car of this era. All these complex curves made the Matador expensive to build; it ultimately lost money for AMC.


If the Matador had continued to sell at its 1974 volume, AMC probably would have deemed it a success. Unfortunately, once the initial demand was sated, customers were few and far between. Matador coupe sales fell to less than 23,000 in 1975, despite the car’s featured role in the James Bond movie The Man with the Golden Gun, in which the villainous Scaramanga (portrayed by Christopher Lee) transforms his Matador into an airplane to escape from 007. Buyers were apparently not moved and AMC lost $27.5 million in 1975.

AMC tried to spark interest in the Matador coupe (and other seventies models) with a series of these special trim packages and designer editions. The first of these in the Matador line was the 1974-1975 Oleg Cassini package, followed in 1976 by the two-tone Barcelona and then the even-gaudier Barcelona II.

1974 AMC Matador X coupe left rear 3q
The trim-and-tape-stripe AMC Matador X model sold around 10,000 copies in 1974, became an option package in 1975, and disappeared after that. Intermediate buyers of the time were no longer very interested in sportiness, particularly since there was now very little to back it up. Many buyers were content with the basic 304 (4,977 cc) V8, which provided leisurely acceleration.

The following year was even worse. Although the domestic auto market was starting to recover, the Matador still sold poorly, leading AMC to offer rebates of up to $600 per car. A problem with emissions control sensors also forced the company to recall nearly all non-California Matadors, which cost American more than $3 million. AMC’s losses for 1976 totaled $46.3 million.

In 1977, NASCAR driver Bobby Allison, no longer affiliated with Roger Penske, persuaded AMC to back another run at the Winston Cup. Allison’s Matador failed to win a single race, however, and the publicity value was minimal. Matador coupe sales totaled less than 7,000 for 1977 and just over 2,000 for 1978, its final year. As with the contemporary Pacer, the Matador coupe’s novelty wore off quickly and we suspect the only reason AMC kept it alive was to minimize the losses it was going to take on the coupe’s tooling. Sales of sedans and wagons weren’t much better, and AMC canceled the entire line in 1978. Gerry Meyers, who became chairman in the fall of 1977, decided there wasn’t enough demand to merit a replacement. By 1979, AMC’s biggest car was the compact Concord, introduced in 1977.

1975 AMC Matador Cassini badge
The Oleg Cassini Matador was an optional trim package offered only in 1974 and 1975. In 1974, it cost $299 and was available only on the Matador Brougham. In 1975, the Brougham itself became an option package rather than a model, but you still had to order it to get the Cassini package, which cost an extra $236. AMC sold 6,165 Oleg Cassini packages in 1974, an additional 1,817 in 1975. AMC’s special designer editions, which also included a Levi’s Edition Gremlin, were among the first such cross-promotions, but they were definitely not the last. In 1976, Lincoln launched designer editions of its popular Continental Mark series by Cartier, Emilio Pucci, Givenchy, and Bill Blass, to great success. (Photo © 2007 Tigersnarl; used with permission)


AMC had high hopes for the Matador coupe; if it had been a hit, it would have brightened the company’s financial picture considerably, especially given the commercial failure of the Pacer. Bob Nixon’s team even did some design studies for sedan and wagon derivatives of the coupe, which could have replaced the existing four-doors. As it was, AMC lost a lot of money on the coupe. Total production was something less than 110,000 for five model years (no precise figures are available for 1976), which was probably not enough to recoup its tooling costs.

The Matador’s failure only exacerbated AMC’s financial problems. Paul Tippett, who became president in 1977, joked grimly to Time in 1979 that the company should change its name to “Ailing American Motors” since the press so often described AMC that way. AMC did recover somewhat in 1979-1980, thanks mostly to robust Jeep sales and good business for its truck and bus subsidiary, AM General, but even so, it remained dangerously under-capitalized.

With the company’s long-term future still in doubt, the AMC board opted for an alliance with the French automaker Renault. That relationship did not prove successful for either side and Renault finally sold AMC to Chrysler in 1987. By the time of the Chrysler buyout, AMC’s survival had become increasingly dependent on the Jeep brand, which is the only part of the company that still survives today. [Author’s note: It is now, like other Chrysler marks, the property of FCA US LLC.] (We should note that designer Bob Nixon, who eventually replaced Dick Teague as VP of styling, also led the design of the extremely successful Jeep XJ Cherokee and ZJ Grand Cherokee. He joined Chrysler styling after the merger and retired in 1992.)

1975 AMC Matador wagon front 3q
The Matador wagon survived with few changes through 1978; by the end, it sold better than the coupe despite costing more. A 1975 V8 wagon like this one had a base price of just under $4,000, nearly $400 more than a V8 coupe. It accounted for just over 8,100 sales that year. (Photo © 2009 The Gremlin72; used with permission)

Thirty-five years on, the Matador coupe remains a polarizing design. Like its Pacer cousin, it has become something of a cult object. There are fans who still insist it was the best-looking domestic car of the seventies, a judgement that in our view says more about contemporary American design than it does about the Matador. To our eyes, the Matador coupe is an agglomeration of interesting details that don’t quite add up to a pleasing whole. It’s fascinating to look at, but not pretty.

Dick Teague himself claimed that no big fastback had ever really succeeded and sales figures tend to support that conclusion; the early Barracuda and Charger weren’t much more successful than the Marlin and Matador and even the Mustang fastback, beloved of so many modern collectors, didn’t sell nearly as well as the notchback hardtop.

More to the point, the clean, sleek, space-capsule lines so praised by contemporary critics were not what coupe buyers were after in the mid-seventies. What the market wanted, for better or worse, were upright grilles, padded formal roofs, opera windows, coach lights, stand-up hood ornaments; the comparative sales of the Matador and Chevrolet Monte Carlo make that clear enough. True, Chevrolet had something like three times as many dealers as AMC and Chevy’s annual advertising budget exceeded the Matador coupe’s total development costs, but the Matador was significantly cheaper than the Monte, and we would expect that to count for something. The fact that the Monte Carlo outsold the Matador by around 10 to one suggests that buyers just didn’t care much for the Matador’s looks.

On the other hand, we’re not sure that a cookie-cutter Continental Mark IV knock-off would have sold much better. AMC generally did best when it went its own way; whenever the company tried to follow the herd, it usually got trampled.

When the Gremlin came out in 1970, Dick Teague told Motor Trend that AMC had made it different on purpose, to give it character and attract attention. Odd as it was, we doubt that the Gremlin would have sold nearly as well if it had been more orthodox. The Matador coupe was a similar calculated risk and even though it didn’t quite pay off, it was a commendably bold effort. Indeed, if AMC hadn’t been willing to take such chances, we don’t think the company would have survived half as long as it did. For that reason, we kind of like the Matador even if we do find the styling a little cross-eyed.

# # #


Our sources on the development of the 1974-1978 Matador Coupe included the Auto Editors of Consumer Guide, “1974-1978 AMC Matador,” HowStuffWorks.com, 26 October 2007, auto.howstuffworks. com/ 1974-1978-amc-matador1.htm, accessed 7 December 2009), and Encyclopedia of American Cars: Over 65 Years of Automotive History, (Lincolnwood, IL: Publications International, 1996); Craig Bond’s website, “The Coupe Coop!” Matadorcoupe.com, August 2008, www.matadorcoupe. com, accessed 7 December 2009; Patrick Foster, “1974 AMC Matador Coupe: Kenosha’s Question Marque,” Collectible Automobile December 1996, pp. 50-58; Dave Holls and Michael Lamm, A Century of Automotive Style: 100 Years of American Car Design (Stockton, CA: Lamm-Morada Publishing Co. Inc., 1997); David Knowles, MG: The Untold Story (Osceola, WI: Motorbooks International, 1997); and the remarks of former AMC advertising manager Barney Brogan in a conversation with the author on 12 September 2009.

We also consulted the following period road tests: Steven Kelly, “American Look-Alikes – Rebel SST & Ambassador,” Motor Trend Vol. 19, No. 2 (February 1967), pp. 75-78; “Rebels, a Pair – 770 & SST,” Car Life June 1967, both of which are reprinted in AMC Rambler Limited Edition Extra 1956-1969, ed. R.M. Clarke (Cobham, Surrey: Brooklands Books Ltd., 2004); “American Motors Matador X: Sleek & fast but oversize & thirsty,” Road & Track Vol. 25, No. 7 (March 1974), pp. 42-45; Bob Hall, “AMC Matador Barcelona II: What price individuality?” Motor Trend Vol. 29, No. 8 (August 1977), pp. 107-109; “Matador X: It is, unquestioningly, this year’s style leader,” Car and Driver Vol. 19, No. 5 (November 1973), pp. 41-46, 104; and Jim McCraw, “Matador X 401: It’s the Real Thing!” Super Stock February 1974, pp. 50-52, 67.

Our source for Paul Tippett’s joke about “Ailing American Motors” was “AMC’s Charge,” Time 19 November 1979, www.time. com, accessed 8 December 2009, although it also appears in Barnaby J. Feder, “A.M.C.’s Long, Hard Struggle, The New York Times 10 March 1987, www.nytimes. com, accessed 9 December 2009; it may have been a remark Tipppett made on several occasions! Dick Teague’s comments about the intentionally outré styling of the Gremlin appeared in an interview with Eric Dahlquist in Motor Trend Vol. 22 No. 3 (March 1970), p. 72.


Add a Comment
  1. Although AMC never seems to have made many lasting engineering/styling contributions to the automobile, I do recall that the early 1960s Rambler (’63, I believe) was the first american manufacturer that used curved side windows. These very soon were copied by all domestic car companies.

    1. The ’63 Ramblers did have curved glass, but it wasn’t first — Imperial used curved side glass from 1957 on, as did the Lincoln Continental from 1961 to 1963.

  2. I owned one of the rare 1978 Barcelona coupes. Thank you for the rare youtube video clip of the Barcelona II! After seeing it, even I have a renewed appreciation for it! It comes off as much more eye-catching (in a positive way) in the “moving” picture than it does in still photos.
    God bless the folks of American Motors, for all they accomplished and for all that they set out to do.

  3. In 1974, my dad gave me a black, limited edition 1974 Matador as a graduation present. It had the 1/2 vinyl roof and porthole windows in the back. For some reason, I want to say it was a Mario Andretti special edition?? Can ANYONE give me more information on this car? I’ve tried to tell my husband about it, but he says he’s never seen nor heard about one with the porthole windows. I LOVED this car and would give anything to have another one just like it. Any information you could give me would be greatly appreciated!!

    1. The Matador that your Dad gave you was most likely a 1974 Matador D/L coupe. When Penske racing tested the Matador coupe on the Nascar superspeedways they found that the big quarter window created too much aerodynamic drag. To solve this problem they had AMC create the D/L
      package, with the small “porthole” rear quarter window. Thye had to offer it as a production model because Nascar rules stated that 500 of a car model must be avaialable to the public to qualify it as a stock item that could be used on the tracks. If you see a picture of Penske’s first 1974 Matador prototype it has the big rear window. Whenit hits it’s first race, the Winston Western 500, it had the small quarter window. When asked about the rear window treatment, Penske replied it was a “Penske window” which is what you might have heard your dad say when you got the car. depite what was said in this site, the AMC Matador won 3 races in 1975, and finished in the top 5 10 times in 17 races, despite it being the only Mataodr on the track. Hope this helps you.

      1. Bob — Thanks for the info!

    2. The only ’74 special edition Matador of which I’m aware was the Oleg Cassini Edition, which is mentioned in the article text. Midway through the ’74 model year, AMC added the D/L Formal Window Package, which had "opera windows." Since they’re not round, they probably don’t technically count as portholes, but that’s really nitpicking.

      I’m not sure if you could combine the Formal Window Package with the Cassini package, but that would be my guess.

      I don’t know of any Matador packages named after racing drivers. There was a Mark Donohue Edition of the Javelin, but while Donohue did race Matadors, I don’t believe they did any similar packages for the Matador. It’s conceivable that there was some super limited edition I’ve never heard of, though.

  4. I had a 1967 Rambler Rebel, with a small V8, that gave decent MPG and power. I still consider it one of the best cars I’ve ever owned, and I’ve had stuff from the “big three” as well as Jeep; and German & Japanese cars. I loved my Rebel, and regret that AMC isn’t around any more to give me another option when car shopping.

  5. Robert Wilson – have to disagree with you about AMC not making any lasting engineering/styling contributions to the automobile. Remember the Dodge Intrepid/Chrysler Concorde twins of the early nineties through about 2002? The cab forward design originally came from the crew at AMC. Chrysler got it when they bought the company out in ’87. Unfortunately, they scrapped everything but Jeep, took over the cab forward design, and plowed most existing parts into the ground. Makes it a real pain for folks like me, trying to restore my ’71 Mat.

  6. But didn’t the cab forward idea come from Renault?

    1. Given the close relationship between the two companies between 1980 and 1987, it seems like the best answer is probably “sort of?”

  7. What about unit construction?

    1. What about it specifically? The Matador was indeed unitized — AMC (and before it, Nash and Hudson) had been early adopters of monocoque construction, in Nash’s case even before the war. By the mid-seventies, it was no longer all that novel, since Chrysler, Ford, and (to a lesser extent) GM had all been offering at least some unit-bodied models since 1960. Sadly, it probably did contribute to the Matador’s financial losses, since unit construction is more expensive to tool. There were arguably noise and vibration penalties, as well. It’s worth noting that Ford abandoned unitized construction for all but its compact and subcompact models a few years before the Matador coupe; the Ford and Mercury intermediates switched back to body on frame for 1972.

  8. Oh, I thought AMC invented it. My bad.

    1. Nope — unit body construction for cars was patented by Vittorio Lancia back in 1919. Nash (which later merged with Hudson to form AMC) was among the first American automakers to adopt it, for the 1941 Nash 600, although that gets into some fussy arguments about whether the ‘bridge-and-truss’ construction of the Chrysler Airflow and Lincoln Zephyr counts as unitized or not. (They did technically have separate frames, but they weren’t really self-supporting.)

  9. I want a Matador Barcelona. What a wonderfully awful car that was…

  10. It’s too bad the Matador didn’t sell very well. My parents had a 74 Matador coupe, and they didn’t like the car. I don’t blame the car, I blame my father. My father wasn’t at all good with maintenance of cars, so he just let the car go to pot. It’s too bad, since it was a nice looking car as well.

  11. [b]I’ve always been interested in the AMC Matador. Unfortunately, my interest in the Matador didn’t start under the best of circumstances. My parents had a 1974-75 Matador coupe when I was about 4 or 5 yrs of age. A nice looking car at the time. The problem was that it wasn’t very reliable. It had problems galore, everything from trim parts falling off the car, to the engine performing like it had only four cylinders instead of the eight like it had. At the time, my mom blamed the car itself, or blamed American Motors for developing a p.o.s. car. I, for one, disagree. As with anything that’s machinery, it takes maintenance to keep a car running reliably, and unfortunately, my father didn’t take care of his cars very well. Therefore, the car didn’t run well half the time.[/b]

  12. AMC was the first to use unitized construction on the entire US built car line. And it was leaps ahead of the big three.

    1. It was the first U.S. automaker to do so, yes, although as I mentioned previously, by the time the Matador was introduced, unitized construction was no longer all that novel.

  13. I used to drive an early 70’s, think it was a 72 or 74, police suspension version of the 4 door at work. My recollection of them was that I liked them except for one thing, even when they had low miles, around 24K, the shop could never get the shake out of them. Cruising the interstate at speeds over 65 made the front end feel like it was coming apart and no matter how many times I had it serviced it always shook. Ihink it only had the base V8 but it was very peppy, perhaps it had a performance axle ratio, and the drive train felt very “tight”. I like “boxy” up to a point and always thought these cars were pretty decent looking for their purpose.

  14. My parents had a 1974 or 75 AMC Matador coupe when I was a boy, probably age 3 or 4 yrs. While its styling may have been attractive, it wasn’t very reliable. It seemed to run on 4 cylinders instead of the 8 cylinders that were under the hood.

  15. I liked the Matadors, the ones in Canada were veritable "Toughies". When I saw one in The Man with the Golden Gun, I had to fight off crowds in the Quebec City AMC dealer to get one, and it gave me sterling service when I took it to BC. We Canadians were satisfied with the big AMC’s even if Roger Moore drove a Hornet X. I STILL want a Matador Wagon, and I love those cars over ANYTHING the so-called "Big 3" had, in spades!!

  16. Ive had every body style of Matador and the 71-73 hardtop is the best looking and performing of them all. My current version has a stout 401 and 727 automatic and will outhandle and outrun ANY bugeye coupe. The size of the bug eye is its downfall in every way and destroyed handling. WAY better looking than the hideous bugeye as well

  17. I seriously doubt the underlying premise that the car was a financial failure. It may not have been as successful as expected. There are no financial break outs in any publication by AMC of it’s costs to developed or Gross Margin earned related to any model, including the Matador The $40,000,000 figure is pure speculation and not cited in any document. Being an Accountant, I can assure you that this is some figure someone made up on the internet or came out of an interview of an elderly AMC employee that remembered incorrectly the figure. I would suggest the figure was more like 4,000,000, 10 times less. This incorrect figure has been now taken as fact. The fate (sales dropping off) is more related to the OPEC Energy Crisis and shift to smaller cars than it was to styling. It was just ill timed, like Chrysler’s 1974 Larger C body cars. The 74 AMC Matador Compared to a 74 Torino/Montego Coupe or a Plymouth Satellite Sebring Coupe, styling isn’t that different. Only GM was moving forward with formal personal luxury cars hard. Ford, Chrysler and AMC all had to play catch up. You can hardly call the Chevy Chevelle or Pontiac LeMans of 1973 or 74 Neoclassic in design either. Other inaccuracies in your article relate to Renault and Chrysler, Renault never merged with AMC, they only owned a less than 50% Stake. Chrysler acquired AMC thru a public offering in the stock market buying up shares after Renault sold it’s 46% stake. The comment about "Ailing AMC" was too taken out of context from Time. The point was that it wasn’t always "ailing", but the press always referred to it that way. There were periods in the 70’s where AMC was producing significant amounts of cash and it wasn’t cash strapped. The original Renault connection was an extension of a business relationship that had existed since George Romney. AMC and Renault had ties far back. Renault Ramblers were sold in France and Ramblers were produced in Belgium by Renault. The original stake Renault took in AMC was small and it was an "Alliance" to jointly develop and reduce design costs. This article propagates many myths and is factually flawed in many ways.

    1. Fair point regarding the word "merger" in regards to the AMC-Renault deal, and I’ve amended the text.

      However, I must point out that the text does NOT say that AMC *lost* $40 million on the Matador, but that that was the estimated cost of development and tooling, which seemed reasonably credible based on what AMC was spending on other new products during this period. (By contrast, I don’t think a $4 million tooling budget sounds credible for an American car of that era, if that’s what you meant by the $4 million figure.) Obviously, the only way AMC would have lost ALL of its tooling and development costs would have been if the car had never gone on sale at all (which wasn’t the case) or perhaps in the event of some really horrendous recall or other calamity (likewise). Also, I will freely acknowledge that trying to estimate per-car profits or losses at the corporate level is always challenging and complicated because a lot depends on amortization schedules and allocation of fixed overhead costs.

      Looking at the prevailing sales trends of the era, it’s very hard for me not to conclude that the Matador was a commercial flop. Yes, most new car sales were affected to some extent by the OPEC embargo, but the mid-seventies were a boom time for intermediates and particularly for personal luxury coupes. As a case in point, sales of the Chevrolet Monte Carlo actually increased by about 10% from 1973 to 1974 despite the embargo, higher base prices, and the elimination of the price leader base model. Of course, no one (probably least of all AMC) expected the Matador to sell in Chevrolet numbers, but the fact that the Matador coupe was unable to claim a bigger slice of such a rich market segment strongly suggests it was just not in step with the trends of the time.

      One may, of course, take issue with the term "neoclassical" to describe the prevailing American styling idiom of the time (discounting outliers like Stutz or Excalibur), but the point remains that what contemporary buyers seemed to prefer in midsize coupes tended to the ornate and overdecorated, both at the lower end of the spectrum (the aforementioned Monte Carlo) and at the high end (Chrysler Cordoba, Lincoln Continental Mark IV and V, et al). Even at GM, intermediates that tried to pursue a sportier styling direction, like the Chevrolet Laguna and the first Pontiac Grand Am, didn’t go over very well in comparison. I think the Matador coupe fell into the same unfortunate trap as the outgoing Dodge Charger and Plymouth Satellite/Sebring: It was too flamboyant for people who just wanted an unassuming two-door intermediate, but not sufficiently formal to make a smooth transition to the plush velour lounge lizard era.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Click here to read our comment policy. You must be at least 18 to comment and PLEASE DON'T POST COPYRIGHTED CONTENT YOU DON'T OWN!
Except as otherwise noted, all text and images are copyright © Aaron Severson dba Ate Up With Motor. All rights reserved.. Trademarks referenced herein are the property of their respective owners and are used here for informational/nominative purposes; this is not an official or authorized website of any automaker or other business entity.