(EXPANDED FROM 8/21/2020)
Patrick Foster (2024) illustrates how fanboy sentiment can undercut the quality of historical analysis by arguing that AMC should have offered a luxury spin-off of the 1974 Matador coupe — and that the car should have been named the Ambassador.
“With tunneled headlamps and an upright grille, it would have hit the personal luxury market at exactly the right time,” wrote Foster (2024) in a Hemmings column. “Chrysler’s Cordoba — which used those styling touches by the way — was one of the hottest-selling cars of the late 1970s.”
Foster (2024) also argued that the Ambassador four-door sedan and wagon should have been shifted to the Matador’s four-inch-shorter wheelbase. Keeping the nameplate around after 1974 could have bolstered AMC’s flagging sales. In addition, as a top-of-line car, the Ambassadors “were very profitable to build.”
Although Foster pointed to practical reasons for continuing to produce the Ambassador, he heavily grounded his argument in the historical significance of the nameplate, which was one of the longest-running in the U.S. auto industry.
A good idea until you think much about it
It was undoubtedly true that the Ambassador was more profitable than the Matador. In addition, the mid-sized market was shifting toward luxury models to such a degree that the Ambassador had a better chance of capturing sales. Indeed, I suspect that the Ambassador’s sedan and wagon would have overshadowed the Matador’s in sales to the point that the latter would have been phased out.
The Ambassador coupe may not have been as successful because slapping an upright grille on a Matador coupe’s sporty body would likely have not been enough to be competitive in the personal luxury coupe market. This essay will primarily talk about that, but before doing so I would like to make a broader point: Foster was effectively arguing that AMC perpetuate what had been one of its most dysfunctional strategies of the late-60s and early-70s — nameplate proliferation.
Also see ‘Was Mac’s Motor City Garage wrong about the 1974-78 Matador coupe?’
As a case in point, up through the mid-60s the mid-sized Classic sold remarkably well against Big Three competition. However, once AMC expanded the Ambassador from a top-end Classic model to a separate line, that balkanized the automaker’s resources to the point where none of the cars on its mid-sized platform sold very well (go here for further discussion).
AMC was so small that it could not afford to give all of its nameplates adequate support when it came to marketing and design updates. That was clearly apparent with the 1974 Ambassador and Matador sedans and wagons, which were in their eighth year of production — and really showing their age. Not surprisingly, the Ambassador’s meager output fell by 49 percent, so the nameplate was dropped.
The coupe needed much more than an upright grille
But back to the Ambassador coupe’s styling. It would not have looked right if given only an upright grille. At the very least, the Matador’s bulls-eye taillights would have also needed to be replaced with something more luxurious looking, such as a full-width design. That couldn’t have been accomplished without sheetmetal changes to the rear of the car because the basic design lacked flexibility.
But even then, the Ambassador would pose little threat to the likes of the Chevrolet Monte Carlo or Chrysler Cordoba. A key problem was the fastback roofline. The steep slope of the C-pillar did not mesh well with a landau roof and opera windows. That became apparent when the Matador coupe was given a high-end Barcelona model in 1977. Even with two-tone paint, the fastback looked overly bulky.
AMC needed a notchback — or at least a semi-fastback — to do brougham properly. However, fixing that would have been costly because the trunk lid and rear-quarter sheetmetal would have needed significant reworking.
Without those changes, an Ambassador coupe would have come off as too half baked — much like the 1978 Pacer’s unfortunate facelift, where a radiator grille clashed with an otherwise avant-garde shape.
The Matador coupe was too sporty looking
The Matador coupe’s core challenge was that it did only one thing well — look sporty. This displayed strikingly bad judgment. For starters, AMC was too small to support a stand-alone body style. To make matters worse, the Matador coupe targeted a small and declining market.
As Foster (2013) has noted, AMC achieved more viable economies of scale when it squeezed a high number of models from each of its bodies. The best example of that during the early-70s was the automaker’s compact platform. Four Hornet body styles were offered in addition to a shorter-wheelbase Gremlin.
The Matador coupe’s styling was too specialized to allow such a broad range of spin-offs. The body was so sporty that it didn’t even lend itself to a four-door sedan and wagon. This was a bad move. By 1974 AMC’s mid-sized family cars were among the oldest passenger cars in the U.S. auto industry.
Foster (1993) estimated that AMC needed to sell more than 80,000 units per year to cover the cost of the Matador coupe’s unique sheetmetal. That was almost as much as AMC’s entire output of Matadors and Ambassadors in 1973 or 1972. Meeting such an ambitious target would have been a challenge even with a design that had broad appeal. The Matador coupe did not.
What’s with the fastback, dude?
After AMC decided to offer a coupe-only body, you would think management would have tried to maximize sales. That would have required styling flexible enough to appeal to both sporty and luxury coupe buyers. One way General Motors and Ford did that was to field both notchback and fastback body styles.
But what if AMC could only afford one body style? The Chrysler Corporation offered a number of examples. The 1971-74 Dodge Charger was fairly successful in appealing to both sporty and luxury coupe buyers with a semi-fastback design.
Another decent compromise was the two-door coupe for the 1976 Plymouth Volare and Dodge Aspen. The C-pillar had a sharper slope than a typical notchback, but it still looked okay with a landau roof and opera windows.
I don’t see how AMC management could have justified a full-fledged fastback Matador. The automaker already had a lovely fastback in the Hornet hatchback. Meanwhile, as far back as 1971-72 nobody’s mid-sized fastback was selling very well. In addition, a fastback roofline worked against one of AMC’s biggest advantages in the mid-sized class — an unusually roomy body.
But even if AMC had spent the extra money necessary to give the Ambassador a notchback, that step may not have been enough. The car’s ultra-long, low snout and spare side sculpting would have still deviated sharply from the neoclassical look of Big Three offerings.
Was AMC obsessed with stock car racing?
So what could possibly have motivated AMC to spend an estimated $40 million on the Matador coupe (Foster, 2013)? My best guess is that the automaker was determined to become a major player in NASCAR racing. A more aerodynamic shape would give the Matador coupe a competitive edge.
Former AMC designer Bob Nixon denied that this was the case. “Racing was never a factor in deciding the styling direction,” he told Foster (2014) in an interview for Collectible Automobile magazine. Perhaps Nixon was telling the truth. Nevertheless, I have raised a number of questions about his veracity here. For example, Car and Driver wrote the following after the magazine test drove the Matador coupe:
“The AMC public relations department is sworn not to admit it, but there’s more than an aesthetic reason to why the Matador’s lines look like the handiwork of an aircraft designer. The racing contingent in American Motors has its eye on the Winston cup for 1974, and aerodynamics are very much a key to success in Grand National Stock Car racing” (1973, p. 45)
As it turned out, the Matador coupe didn’t do all that well in stock car racing (Wikipedia, 2020). Nor did it sell well. This is why one could reasonably call the car an expensive flop that helped to kill AMC as an independent automaker.
Could a luxury spin-off have saved the Matador coupe?
The Matador coupe was a stunningly bad idea — and adding an Ambassador variant likely wouldn’t have kept it from being a big money loser for AMC. A notchback variant presumably would have sold better, but its appeal as a luxury coupe might have been limited if it carried over any Matador coupe sheetmetal such as doors and front fenders.
Foster’s (2024) Hemmings column would have been on better ground to question the whole premise of the Matador coupe. For example, AMC could have come up with a new two-door coupe that shared sheetmetal with a reskinned sedan and wagon. Foster (2013) has shown photographs of a proposed redesign slated for introduction around 1972. With some updating, those cars could have looked okay if they came out in 1974.
Also see ‘Proposed 1972-73 design could have saved AMC from ill-fated 1974 Matador coupe’
I would agree with Foster that the Ambassador nameplate was worth preserving. One option would have been to ditch the Matador and call its entire mid-sized line Ambassadors. Another option would have been to use the Ambassador nameplate as a high-end luxury compact. Foster’s (1993) first AMC book pointed to a third option: The Ambassador and Matador sharing a downsized mid-sized platform.
Instead, AMC gambled on the boy racer Matador coupe. Foster’s (2024) column concluded that “management was feeling a little too cocky” because of strong sales of the Hornet and Gremlin. That’s a ginger way of putting it. I would point to the Matador coupe as yet another example of CEO Roy D. Chapin Jr.’s reckless incompetence during the 1970s. Foster seems hesitant to talk so bluntly, perhaps because of his friendship with Chapin (go here for further discussion).
NOTES:
This story was originally posted on Aug. 21, 2020 and expanded on Oct. 29, 2025. Specifications for the Matador coupe were from Car and Driver (1973) magazine. Production figures were calculated from base data in Gunnell (2002), and Flammang and Kowalke (1999).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Car and Driver; 1973. “Matador X: It’s unquestionably, this year’s style leader. Published November: pp. 41-46, 104.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Flammang, James M. and Ron Kowalke; 1999. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1976-1999. Third Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Foster, Patrick R.; 1993. American Motors: The Last Independent. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- ——–; 2013. American Motors Corporation: The Rise and Fall of America’s Last Independent Automaker. MBI Publishing Co., Minneapolis, MN.
- ——–; 2014. “Bob Nixon: Designer of Iconic AMCs.” Collectible Automobile, pp. 74-81. June issue.
- ——–; 2024. “Please tell me why AMC’s Ambassador is not more well regarded than it currently is.” Hemmings. Posted August 17, 2020; updated Dec. 19.
- Wikipedia; 2020. “AMC Matador.” Page last edited August 12.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: AMC Ambassador (1974); AMC Hornet (1973); AMC Matador (1974, 1975, 1976); AMC Pacer (1979); Chevrolet Malibu (1974); Chrysler Cordoba (1975); Dodge Charger (1973); Mercury Montego (1972); Plymouth Volare (1976); Pontiac Grand Am (1973)
PHOTOGRAPHY:
- 1974 AMC Matador by Cristopher Ziemnowicz (CZmarlin) via Wikipedia’s Creative Commons 4.0. The image was taken at the Rambler Ranch collection in Elizabeth, Colorado.
Here is a novel idea. Can somebody resurrect the AMC line ? Its not a crayzee idea.
Begin at the top – with a large SUV and call it Ambassador II. 4 wheel drive of course. It might be a smash.
Next a Matador sedan at around 111” wheelbase. Matador classic with 4 wheel drive and luxury leaning. Like old Ambassador – more or less.
Then a shortened Matador frame about 109” For a sporty / personal car – the new Javelin. With designer interiors.
And revive Concord/ Hornet/ and Eagle. Eagle with 4 wheel drive. Again on the shortened Matador frame. And finally import a small car to be called Gremlin.
I can already see the possibilities.
Phil, AMC was running on fumes since 1975. The only reason comedians didn’t make fun of the Pacer and Matador coupe like they did with the Edsel earlier is no one cared. The average consumer of today looks at AMC products as something their grandparents drove. About the best thing you could say about successful AMC products is they were inoffensive. It’s fun to dream, though. Owned- 1965 Classic hardtop, 1974 Levi’s Hornet Sportback, 1978 Concorde sedan, and 1982 Eagle wagon.
AMC is to luxury what Velveeta is to cheese.
Yes and no. It’s true that American Motors’ reputation was primarily rooted in smaller economy cars, particularly during the Rambler era. However, both Hudson and Nash were primarily rooted in the premium-priced field, and the early Rambler was priced around high-end Chevrolets and effectively functioned as a halo model.
Also note that once American Motors stopped building big cars, it still offered high-end Ambassador models. They tended to have fancier trim and features that the Big Three reserved for its big cars. Thus, it was no surprise that the Ambassador was an early purveyor of brougham (go here for further discussion). And even in the early-70s the high-end Ambassador models arguably had more luxurious interiors than Plymouth’s (go here).
Maybe so. But I doubt that a couple on their way to pick out a brand new Buick ever said, “Wait! We need to check out that AMC Matador first!”
That’s true, but in 1974 the Matador coupe with Brougham trim and a V8 was priced at $3,348. That was quite a bit lower than a Buick Century Regal ($4,201) and even slightly less than a Ford Gran Torino ($3,411), Chevrolet Malibu Classic ($3,595) and about the same as a base Plymouth Satellite Sebring ($3,353). Note that the lowest-priced Century coupe listed for $3,790, which was $3 less than a base Oldsmobile Cutlass.
In other words, the Matador coupe wasn’t trying to compete with the likes of the Century and Cutlass Supreme — or even the Chevrolet Monte Carlo, whose base price in 1974 was $3,885.
Damn, you would think there would be lines outside the dealers.
The Matador coupe had a curious pricing strategy for 1974. It was only slightly more expensive than a Matador four-door sedan or a base Malibu coupe but had distinctive sheetmetal typically reserved for halo cars. In addition, advertising visually emphasized the rather plain base model. So what were they selling? An entry-level, mid-sized car that happened to be as swoopy as a race car? AMC was so unsure about what was the Matador coupe’s unique value proposition that full-page introductory ads were headlined: “Newest mid-size for !974.”
It’s safe to say that between design idiosyncrasies and incoherent marketing, the Matador was AMC’s answer to a question no one was asking. Automotive history repeats itself more often than most of us realize. I can just imagine someone buying a new 1958 Edsel and hanging on to it for 16 long tortuous years, only to trade the flawed beast in on a new Matador coupe.
Wonder how much the Edsel dealer gave him for the Frazer?