(EXPANDED FROM 2/28/2024)
We have had an uptick in discussions about early-70s AMC compacts, so I have expanded our article about the 1973-77 Hornet hatchback. I argue that this car represented Richard Teague’s best all-around sporty coupe during his tenure as head designer at American Motors. I think that says a lot because Teague had the opportunity to develop quite a few sporty coupes, from the original Marlin to the Spirit hatchback.
Before proceeding, I should explain my selection criteria. My focus is on production cars rather than concepts such as the mid-engined AMXs. Nor have I considered Teague’s designs at Packard, because those cars were more oriented toward luxury than sportiness.
I have also balanced the quality of a sporty coupe’s aesthetics with its commercial success. Thus, the Matador coupe is considered a flop despite Richard Langworth calling it “probably” Teague’s “purest work: an elegant car with smooth, gently flowing lines” (2014, p. 82).
Another consideration is whether a given sporty coupe built upon AMC’s “design DNA” or diluted it with trendy but derivative styling cues. For example, many may consider the 1968-70 Javelin to be Teague’s best work. While it was an exceptionally attractive car, it borrowed too heavily from the Big Three to be truly distinctive. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Javelin didn’t sell all that well, with only 238,000 units produced over seven years. That averaged a paltry 34,000 cars per year.
The Hornet hatchback fixed key Javelin weaknesses
The Hornet hatchback carried over some of the Javelin’s best qualities but fixed two key weaknesses. You can see a family resemblance between the two cars because of the hatchback’s coke-bottle shape, but the Hornet drew more on traditional AMC styling cues.
This was a major achievement. The hatchback managed to look like an AMC yet was modern and sporty. This was evidence that the automaker didn’t need to run away from its past in order to avoid looking dowdy.
The Hornet hatchback sold roughly as well as the Javelin in its first two years but then fell to less than half of its output thereafter. So if you go by total sales, you could argue that the Javelin was more successful.
However, the Javelin was given constant updates, including a partial reskinning after three years. In contrast, the hatchback was relatively unchanged through its five-year run. That was problematic given the introduction of fresh designs from the Big Three.
Even so, the hatchback had one big financial advantage over the Javelin — it shared sheetmetal with the rest of the Hornet lineup. The hatchback was thus more likely to have generated a profit for AMC than the Javelin or Matador coupe, both of which had unique bodies.
The hatchback showed Teague’s design maturity
The hatchback represented the maturation of Teague’s design sensibility after a number of hits and misses. His first two efforts, the 1965 and 1967 Marlin, were outright flops. Their Nash Airflyte-style fastback didn’t work on a modern sporty coupe with a short hood and long wheelbase (go here for further discussion).
The 1968 Javelin was a huge improvement, but it also ran away from AMC design cues in favor of borrowing slavishly from the competition. This included the Mustang’s U-shaped rear bumper and the second-generation Corvair’s side crease. The reskinned 1971-74 Javelins made things worse with a Camaro-style fascia and the Corvette’s exaggerated fender arches (go here).
In contrast, the hatchback was modern and sporty while still looking like an AMC. Although the car did not have unique sheetmetal like the Matador coupe, it also lacked its stylistic mistakes such as Chevrolet-style twin-pod taillights and a bug-eyed fascia (go here).
The Hornet hatchback’s embrace of AMC styling cues also contrasted with the automaker’s last sporty coupe — the 1979 Spirit hatchback. That car was most noteworthy for its anonymous styling. Teague seems to have lost his self confidence.
Hornet styling benefitted from more modern body
I am ranking the Hornet hatchback as Teague’s best sporty coupe partly because it had AMC’s most modern architecture except for the Pacer (which was too tall, wide and weird to be sporty).
When the Hornet body was introduced in 1970, it was unusually advanced for a U.S. car. A big reason why was its “fuselage” shape. The Chrysler Corporation coined that term in 1969 to tout the new styling of its big cars. However, the Hornet arguably pushed the basic approach further.
For one thing, the Hornet was given an unusually raked windshield that was fully integrated with the fenders rather than plopped on top of them. This anticipated design trends of the late-70s and early-80s.
In addition, the body sides had an exceptional amount of curvature. In fact, the Hornet had more turn under than either the Matador coupe or Javelin. This is because those cars were based on older platforms (1963 and 1964, respectively) whereas the Hornet was more of a clean-sheet design.
Let’s nitpick some of the hatchback’s design details
The hatchback’s biggest weakness was that it didn’t quite fit the long-hood, short-deck formula popular at the time. Cutting the wheelbase around four inches behind the B-pillar would have solved that problem. This would also have reduced rear legroom, but that may not have mattered so much given how the fastback’s slope already limited headroom.
If you look past the car’s proportions, I see only two problems with the design — and both were fixable. First, the grille on the 1973-74 models looked too plasticky. Fortunately, Teague replaced it in 1975 with a somewhat-better-looking design that featured Nash-style vertical bars and inset headlight pods that evoked the just-discontinued Javelin.
The hatchback’s second problem was that the rear-end styling didn’t work nearly as well once a 5-mph bumper was added in 1974. AMC took the cheap way out by not smoothing out the W-shaped deck or redesigning the taillights. The result was awkward and dated.
It wasn’t until 1978 — four years later — that the rear was given a somewhat better design when the Concord replaced the Hornet. Alas, that was too late to revive the hatchback’s sagging sales.
The Hornet didn’t get the attention it deserved
The most important thing that can be said about the Hornet hatchback is that AMC treated it as parenthetical to the Javelin and Matador coupe when the basic body had more sales potential than either of them. This partly played out in a lack of design updates. However, even more importantly, the hatchback’s greenhouse could have been the basis for a regular coupe.
Taking that step back in 1970 when the Hornet was first introduced could have been particularly profitable. At that point sales of sporty-looking compact coupes were soaring. Alas, AMC didn’t have a decent competitor because the only two-door Hornet was a utilitarian-looking sedan.
Despite an all-new design, Hornet production only reached roughly 101,000 units. That was under 4 percent more than the aging Rambler that the Hornet replaced and far behind the Valiant (268,000 units) and Maverick (579,000). A big reason why the Hornet didn’t do better was because the two-door sedan didn’t even sell as well as its dowdy Rambler predecessor.
The basic assumption behind the dramatic redesign of AMC’s compact body was that trendy styling would sell better. That didn’t prove to be very true in the car’s first few years. And by the time the hatchback was introduced, the basic design was fairly old hat.
So while I think that the 1973 Hornet Hatchback is one of Teague’s most iconic designs, it is also shrouded in tragedy. This car should have been a winner, but instead it was an also-ran that has been largely forgotten.
NOTES:
This story was originally posted on Feb. 28, 2024 and expanded on April 3, 2026. Production and market share figures were calculated from data published by the auto editors of Consumer Guide (1993, 2006), Flammang and Kowalke (1999) and Gunnell (2002). Product specifications are from the same sources.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 1993, 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, IL.
- Flammang, James M. and Ron Kowalke; 1999. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1976-1999. Third Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised Fourth Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Langworth, Richard M.; 2014. “Richard A. Teague: Life in the Bunker.” Collectible Automobile. Published December: pp. 76-83.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcaradvertising.com: AMC Hornet (1973); AMC Matador (1974)
- oldcarbrochures.org: AMC Concord (1978); AMC Hornet (1970, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977); AMC Javelin (1969, 1972); AMC Spirit (1979); Chrysler (1979); Ford Maverick (1970); Ford Mustang (1975); Plymouth Duster (1970)
I always liked the Hornet Hatch as I thought it was quite sporty looking. I agree with you that it was one of Teague’s better efforts. I didn’t realize it sold poorly but perhaps this was due to a couple things. First, the Sportabout which was half wagon/half hatch; secondly, the Gremlin. If AMC had built the Hornet Hatch on a shorter wheelbase, as you posit, they could have dropped the Gremlin. This would have made a lot of sense because a junior Hornet might have been a much better small car solution for AMC going deeper into the 70s.
Another option could have been to keep the original wheelbase while starting the slope of the hatch roof further back, thus increasing headroom. With a deft designer’s hand, I can see that evoking the long hood, short deck look still in vogue at the time. The only downside to this is again, why buy the hatch when you can get the Sportabout, with comparable cargo volume. Maybe the best solution would have been to offer it, as you suggested, without the hatch.
Regarding the interior quality of the Hornet, all I can say is those instrument panels were horrible. Even the lowly Maverick & Comet were (slightly) better, in my opinion. I especially enjoyed reading this story as you concisely illustrated how once again, AMC failed to have a clear picture of where to spend money to improve both products and sales potential.
The Hornet hatchback coupe was the Rambler Tarpon that should have happened in 1965. I don’t know if the 1964 American body could have done this, but the original Tarpon concept seems to confirm that it could have happened if Roy Abernathy had wanted it. A Tarpon-size car with an up-market interior package and bucket seats could have been as big a kick as the 1963-1/2 Falcon Sprint.
Just answering the question in the headline, my answer is: No, it was the ’56 Packard Executive. Second place was the first gen Javelin.
l agree with CJ about the Hornet “dashboards”. A horrible cheap plastic mess.
I used to own a Hornet – which which leads me to ask the question: Have you ever tried to open the door of a Gremlin or Hornet in the winter after certain overnight conditions caused the doors freeze shut? That little “tab” of a door handle was next to useless to get the door open if there was resistance (usually happened on a work day morning)!I don’t know how AMC did their winter testing, but they “forgot” about that eventuality! It happened a couple of times during my ownership.
Kenosha, Wisconsin has lots of snow and ice, as does Detroit ! You pose a great question…WHY did they design those door handles ! Form should follow function !
Stewdi, the headline asked about the “best sporty coupe.” The Packard Executive had many charms, but sporty?
On AMC door handles, it always struck me as curious that when they switched to the “Kelvinator” design in 1968 the keyway mechanism was placed inside the handle. However, when the Hornet was introduced in 1970, the keyway was moved below the door handle. Why was that? Your comment made me wonder whether ice build up within the handle could have made unlocking the door more difficult.
In defense of the Packard Executive: A flashy hardtop was very popular in the early and mid ’50s and bought by many young and young-at-heart people. It was not uncommon for many manufacturers to characterize the convertible model of the same car as a sports, or sporty car.
The ’56 Executive had the 122 inch wheelbase of a Clipper (more senior Packards measured 127). It was 200 pounds lighter than the bigger Packards.
In contrast to the Hornet Hatchback, the ’56 Packard Executive had a standard 352 cu. in. 275 horsepower V8 that took it to 60mph in just over 10 seconds. Its 4-gauges-plus speedometer on beautiful “mesh” aluminum dash overlay (then think of what the Hornet had!) and a standard self-leveling torsion bar suspension (which gave it “roadability” and notably flat cornering according to road tests) that was superior to most – if not all other – North American cars of the time.
Just try to postulate (Wow. A higher-brow word that just popped into my low-brow brain) that GM did NOT think of its ’56 Buick Century Riviera (a direct competitor) as sporty!
Welp, the only reason I didn’t say “AMC sporty coupe” was because the headline was getting long. I figured that people would get the focus of the story from the opening paragraph . . . and the rest of the story.
As we’ve discussed here, the Executive was a last-ditched effort to plug a hole in Packard’s lineup.
I categorized the above story as a “Design Notes” feature because the focus is on styling. If you’d like to discuss the Packard’s roadability, why not switch over to the Executive story?
Sometimes I’m a teenager.
Well, there is Mr. Teague’s mid-engine AMX/3, but you likely mean to discuss production models here.
My second choice was the first generation Javelin and l’ll stick to that. It was not trying to be anything else but a pony car, with that group’s sporty implications. l think it had several unique features that set it aside from others like the generic Camaro. The sides of the rear roofline carried into the top of the rea fenders, and facilitated a wonderful vinyl roof contour as shown in you illustration. All Javelins were fastbacks, whereas all the others, except early Barracudas, needed extra fastback models (or not even offered, like the GM twins).
The front grills were attractive and different without being too aggressive or too generic (like the “lesser” Camaros). The rear was especially taut and elegantly done. The heftier rear fender haunches also looked good and was done to the right degree.
l think the first Javelin design deserves much praise and ranks higher (especially comparing base models) than most other big three pony cars. Well done.
The Hornet Hatchback had a good rear roofline that lent it elegance and some sportiness, but it kept too many other elements such as fenderlines, grills, tail lights, dashboards, etc., from the Hornet that it did not differentiate itself enough from a that bread-and-butter model.
A new rear roofline and hatch does not a sports car make! So, sorry, Steve, l cannot agree with you.
“Before proceeding I should explain my selection criteria. The focus is on production cars rather than concepts such as the mid-engined AMXs….”
Yup, right there at the top of the second paragraph. See, I was thinking about you when I wrote this article.
The 1981 S-X 4 hatchback was the first all wheel drive passenger car. The first half of 1981 they were carbureted. They didn’t switch over to efi until August.
Admitting my bias toward small wagons, I would have chosen the Sportabout over the hatchback. I thought it was a very attractive design. I don’t recall any other manufacturer having a wagon in that size class at the time.
I agree the Hornet Hatchback was Teague’s best work considering the quality of design and utilization of what was at hand in a tight circumstance for AMC.
I’ve long thought the acceptance of the Gremlin, Vega, and Pinto in 1970-1 influenced the decision for automakers in the early to mid ‘70’s to offer hatches across their lines. The Nova and its other GM siblings did so in 1973 and Ford’s Pinto-based Mustang II followed in 1974.
Was this a case of AMC effectively reading the zeitgeist?
I read somewhere that AMC developed a hatchback and sportswagon version of the original Javelin. Either of those strike me as a better idea than the AMX, particularly given the Rambler brand’s reputation for offering more practical cars.
My general sense is that in the 1970s hatchbacks tended to sell in fairly small volume with compacts but did better with American subcompacts. This would be a good topic for an article.
The AMX was a low investment product that used a relatively small number of new stampings. It used the Javelin doors and trunk lid, which means it also could use the Javelin body structure where those panels close. A Javelin hatchback or sport wagon would require tooling a whole body from the windshield header back.
Even with the low investment, the marketing budget for the AMX may have been a waste of money if the goal was to sell a few thousand AMXs. The AMX probably only made business sense as a promotional tool to add some glamour to the AMC brand, which was replacing Rambler.
Fascinating case study. I’ll disagree and go with the first iterations of the Javelin with AMX next followed by the Sportabout. All three like virtually every AMC showcased design on limited budgets. Their wagon and later Eagle all wheel drive predicted a market not realized till the 80s and moreso into the 90s. If only. . .
“The reskinned 1971-74 Javelins made things worse with a Camaro-style fascia and the Corvette’s exaggerated fender arches”
“In addition, the body sides had an exceptional amount of curvature.”
With all respect, I think the two above statements/views in some regards are contradictory towards one another comparing the Javelin to Hornet. Lauding the Hornet for curvy side panels similar to Mopar C-Bodies issued one model year before while stating a critical comment on the Javelin fenders borrowed from the C3 seems cherry picking design influences.
Nothing in the article discussed engine/transmission choices. The Hornet was aimed at a broader audience with multiple body styles. So what role did image/advertising play? I understand by the mid 70s performance gave way to looking fast, 2 door mid size cars became doctored with small windows plus other non go fast ‘upgrades’ and the full brougham era was in effect.
If you reread the headline and the first section of the story, you will see that I chose to focus on Richard Teague’s styling leadership — not about engineering issues that he had no control over. In addition, to keep the article a manageable length, I narrowly focused on sporty coupes.
You might have written a different story, but I made this choice because the predominant focus of American Motors management under Roy D. Chapin Jr. was sporty coupes. And while I would agree that the Hornet Sportabout was an appealing design, its versatility suffered from the lack of a full liftgate — that was oddly never fixed. This was an example of how Chapin simply didn’t prioritize wagons or sedans as did former CEO George Romney — or even Roy Abernethy, who started the pivot to sporty coupes such as the Marlin.
Note that I think Chapin’s fixation with sporty coupes was a big strategic mistake. However, I still think that Teague deserves credit for the quality of the Hornet hatchback’s design.
My point about the 1971 Javelin was that Corvette-style fender blisters looked too exaggerated. As discussed further here, part of the problem was that AMC apparently couldn’t afford a full reskinning, so the bulging new front and rear fenders couldn’t be better integrated with door sheetmetal. Teague later stated that the 1971 redesign wasn’t one of his favorites — and that management had pushed him to make the car bigger than he wanted.
To my eyes there is a big difference between the smooth curves of the Hornet hatchback and the wild bulges of the 1971 Javelin. Perhaps you think differently.
My cousin. Who who was a medical equipment designer(would have wanted to be an automobile designer, but what are the odds of breaking in to that carreer) had a special ordered ’74 red with white stripes Hornet hatch. nice in all ways except like all AMC’s of the time, was like riding in a piece of large HVAC metal ductwork, where wad the sound insulation. On the other hand, AMC’s “Avanti”, the Matador Coupe, which Teague himself said was AMC’s finest car effort, I have 2, 1978’s they are as quiet as any separate frame car. Carefully optioned with the right wheels and colors, they attract alot of admiring attention when out andabout. Keep in mind when new the competition was all square andcolonade like Amish wagons. Today jellybean or science fiction SUV’s rule style, making the coupe almost conservative.
Teague was a talented guy but he did have some blinders, such as overestimating the commercial viability of the two-seater AMX. And if he thought the Matador coupe was worth the significant investment, he was proven to be wrong.
I would agree that the Matador coupe was an interesting design, but it always struck me as a size too large. My guess is that it could have sold a lot better if it was somewhere around the size of a Hornet hatchback — in other words, a pony car directly competing with the likes of the Pontiac Firebird. As we discuss further here, the market for sporty mid-sized coupes dried up well before the Matador coupe was introduced. This should have been painfully obvious to AMC management, but they seemed to be fixated on finally having a mid-sized car that could potentially do well in NASCAR . . . as if that would translate into adequate sales during the brougham era.
All of this said, styling is subjective. We like what we like. I wouldn’t think of telling someone that their taste in cars is wrong. Our focus at Indie Auto is to explore why things played out the way that they did, such as AMC losing its independence.
Forgot to add, back in the summer of 1977, I special ordered a 1977 Matador coupe,back in the day fairly common.After weeks dealer said 1977 was finished, want a 1978? I had the ,’77 with the small v8, had to instructions him that only the360 was available. Put in order.Car comes, fit of some panels awful. Had dealer rectify. Ride was for a unit body car, quiet except cheesy plastic interior parts squeezed and groaned.Mentioned to sales. they said what do you expect for what you paid.Sent a letter to AMC about it. Wasn’t too long after they DROPPED AMC and became the local Mercedes Benz dealer.Had the impression that they wondered who in the world would buy an AMC.
I’d strongly defend the idea that the Gen 1 Javelin was his best sporty coupe by a mile, there’s little or nothing I’d flag as being blatantly derivative of any Mustang or Camaro, it was a unique and successful design that stood perfectly well on it’s own.
Desirability tells all, just ask any pony-car fan, and the current market speaks for itself. I’ve wanted a ’68-70 Javelin for a long time and just waited too damn long, nice original ones have now become unaffordable. Contrarily I would’t own a “Sportabout” coupe on a bet, a senescent Miss Piggy with too much lipstick: stumpy, boring, and trying a bit too hard to be something it’s not… sporty?… please… well maybe to a 55 yr old spinster.
Teague was a talented guy but with more than a few misses…
As to the Matador coupe, the less said the better… what the hell was he thinking. But as always with all things taste… some people’s is all in their mouth. YMMV…it’s all good!
Boy, Randerson, you hit all the “nails on the heads” for me!!
l remember listening to the hype for the Matador coupe, anticipating it eagerly. When it finally came, l wondered what happened!! Almost felt duped!
Having owned and lived with a ’76 Hornet for 3 years (’79 thru ’82), l know what a mundane product it was, and without a V8 and preferably a manual transmission, there was NOTHING to equate it with “sporty”.
The attendant new roof of the hatchback looked a trifle odd at some angles, and “almost ok” at others – something like Steve’s pictures of ’57 Studebaker Silver Hawk coupe door window frames that looked wide, but which in “real life” didn’t look so bad and never seem to bothered anyone.
Steve can’t convince me about this Hornet – probably no matter how many times he recycles this (but he’s free to try again!): Dick Teague’s best sporty coupe was the Gen I Javelin.
Stewdi, FYI that it has never been my goal to convince you — or frankly anyone else — of anything. This is a journal of opinion. I am opining. And given the great issues of war and peace currently swirling around the world, debates about American auto history can feel rather inconsequential.
You have opined more than once (thrice?) on this subject. Seems like strong opinion.
Your last sentence is well taken. Thanks for including it.
I regularly repost articles — usually with updated and expanded content (unlike most other auto history websites, which tend to endlessly repost content without any changes). I typically do not repost a piece more than once very two years unless I have a good reason, such coming across timely new information.
Note that I may prioritize reposting stories that have recently received a sharp uptick in viewers and/or new comments. In other words, I try to respond to reader interest. That was the case with the above topic.
In addition, Indie Auto pays a fair amount of attention to independent automakers such as American Motors. I’ve been pretty consistent in arguing that Chapin’s leadership of the automaker has been unduly sanewashed by historians such as Patrick Foster.
However, you can rest assured that I would never dream of trying to convince you to change your opinion on anything.
If the aged Duster and Dart Sport continued to sell well almost until their demise, then why didn’t the Hornet hatch do the same? Here are 5 ideas that might have helped it:
1. Drop the Hornet 2-door making the hatch the sole 2-door in the lineup
2. Drop the Gremlin and make the Hornet hatch the entry-level AMC, pricing it accordingly
3. Equip and price the Sportabout slightly upmarket, to DL level for example, to give the hatch more room at the bottom of the lineup
4. The $ spent in creating the Concord should have gone towards creating a new, squared-off roofline for the Sportabout, which could effectively retire that name (replace it with Cross Country?) OR, create a 4-door hatch a la the VAM Lerma and drop the Sportabout altogether
5. Keep the hatch as the entry level model and continue to brand it as a Hornet
What do my fellow readers think?
Go with the Lerma model. However do a cleaner job than sawzall and spotwelder job the Lerma was. For a true wagon you got the Cherokee and Wagoneer.
Bang on, Kim!
While it was a nice design, The Hornet hatchback always looked pudgy to me. The Nova had a bit of that in the rear haunches as well. To my eyes, the Duster/Demon had the ideal shape. Add in their slant-six and 318 engines and you had peak compact.
When I was 19, my parents had a bare bones Sportabout wagon and I drove it often enough to know it was uninspiring and a few years behind current technology. They liked it enough to replace it with a Concord wagon, but my father was never a car person and probably was attracted by the price. The Concord was replaced by a Camry wagon that they kept to the end and I don’t think they were any more or less impressed by it.
I think the A.M.C. 1973-1977 Hornet Hatchback was marginally better style-wise than the first Javelin, but the 1967-1968 Javelins were probably put together with better materials than the Hornets. After 1870, the quality of materials and parts from suppliers, especially interior trim parts declined. Where were the purchasing agents ? If the customers could see, feel and hear the interior bits failing, one would think the buyers of the materials would be on the firing line.