(EXPANDED FROM 7/15/2024)
One of Indie Auto’s first harshly negative comments came from someone who was infuriated with my essay about the 1974 AMC Ambassador, where I criticized the car’s looks.
“Worst stupid article I have ever read on any car review. Moron author probably thinks a Citroen Ami looks great.” The writer proceeded to laud the 1974 Ambassador’s “very handsome front end.” He then suggested comparing the car to its competitors — all of whom were also required to meet new 5-mph bumper rules.
That was a good idea. However, I didn’t write the following article for our dear reader, who apparently took his bat and ball and went home. His missive concluded: “I hate idiots that enjoy bad mouthing anything with no knowledge or taste. Can’t argue with stupid. Last time I waste time on your website.”
I would imagine that if the writer did read this follow-up piece, he would find it just as “moronic” as the first one. If so, whatever. I come out of journalism, so am used to my work being heavily criticized.
Ambassador gets longer nose to go with new bumper
The Ambassador grew more than any other full-sized low-priced car when adding 5-mph bumpers. The 1974 sedan was 8.2 inches longer than in 1972, which was the last year before the feds began phasing in the new bumper rules (go here for further discussion).
As with its competition, the Ambassador’s growth partly reflected a bigger rear bumper. However, the addition of an unusually long nose contributed to the car’s extra length. Up through 1973 the AMC had a fairly flat front end.
The design team managed by Richard Teague had to work around one limitation not shared by most of its competitors. For 1974 the Ambassador shared the same front bumper with the Matador sedan and wagon. Up until then the Matador had a modest nose, but for 1974 it got much bigger. Even with a cleaner grille beginning in 1975 it still looked exceptionally long.
The front end of the 1974 Ambassador and Matador were similar in size to an aborted reskinning slated for 1972 or 1973 (Foster, 2013). I wonder whether that redesign had advanced far enough that AMC tried to salvage the basic look — and even some inner-fascia tooling (go here for further discussion). If so, I don’t think it came off nearly as well as the aborted reskinning.
The Ambassador was hurt by other cost cutting
The Ambassador’s front end was also hurt by grille trim that arguably wasn’t as fancy as the competition’s. Whereas at least the top-end Chevrolet, Ford and Plymouth heavily used chrome, the Ambassador’s new grille appears to have a fair amount of silver- and black-painted plastic.
The Ambassador’s rear end was also hurt by cost cutting. Part of the problem was that AMC designers were not allowed to update either the rear quarter panels or the trunk lid even though they were the oldest in the full-sized class. The fenders were last redesigned in 1970 and the trunk lid was redone in 1969.
This was a particular problem because the Ambassador’s rear sheet metal was designed back when everyone was copying the original Ford Mustang’s high-mounted bumpers. That approach worked less well once a 5-mph bumper was added at the base of the rear end.
To make matters worse, designers were now required to use the same rear bumper for both the sedan and wagon. This required an awkward compromise because the wagon had corners that jutted outward whereas the sedan had a V-shape. If the sedan could have maintained that shape it would have looked at least slightly less ponderous with a 5-mph bumper.
Chevrolet grew less than half as much as Ambassador
One could argue that AMC designers were at an additional disadvantage because they had to somehow integrate beefier bumpers with old sheet metal. However, Chevrolet was in the same boat, yet the length of its cars only grew 2.8 inches between 1972 and 1974.
One advantage the full-sized Chevrolet arguably had over the Ambassador was that its front bumper already extended fairly far out from the sheet metal, which allowed the bumpers to better absorb impacts.
In addition, Chevrolet designers made only evolutionary changes to the car’s basic look, which included a modest V-shaped front end. In contrast, the 1974 Ambassador’s front end represented a major shift in stylistic direction.
Fitting a 5-mph bumper to the rear end was also less problematic because the deck had a tapered shape. This made the rear end look less massive when adding a lower-mounted and more-protruding bumper.
Ford gets new sheet metal but tacked-on bumpers
For 1973 the big Ford received a reskinning. In theory, that allowed designers to come up with a new look that would better fit 5-mph bumpers. Even so, the car’s overall length grew by 6.3 inches.
This was the second-largest increase aside from the Ambassador. The reason why was that Ford tended to tack on prodigious bumpers rather than try to integrate them into a car’s design like Chrysler did.
Ford’s rear-end redesign was both the boxiest and plainest in the low-priced class. However, at least it didn’t look weirdly off-balance like the Ambassador.
Plymouth redesign best integrates 5-mph bumpers
The Plymouth Fury was the only full-sized entry that offered a brand new body for 1974. Even though the car had the flattest front end, its overall length still went up 5.6 inches over 1972 models. However, the Plymouth showed how a longer snout wasn’t required to comply with the new regulations. Indeed, the car’s modest power dome grille was similar in shape to the 1971-73 Matador’s.
The Plymouth shared one stylistic disadvantage with the Ambassador. The 1974 Fury appears to have used the same front bumper as the big Dodge (the hood also appears to be shared). That arguably undercut the individuality of each car’s styling. This may have contributed to the Fury’s relatively plain look. The top-end Dodge Monaco had more of a “brougham” vibe that competed better with the Ford LTD and Chevrolet Caprice than the top-end Gran Fury.
On the plus side, the Fury had by far the most integrated 5-mph bumpers in the low-priced class. This was particularly apparent in the rear, where the bumper was an extension of the sheet metal rather than protruding out like a battering ram.
So how well did the 1974 Ambassador do?
If we go by how well the Ambassador sold in 1974, the redesign was not successful. Output for the entire full-sized, low-priced field dropped by 37 percent but the Ambassador fell by 49 percent.
The Fury saw an even steeper decline — 55 percent. That was eye-opening given the Plymouth’s new body. Nevertheless, I don’t think AMC had a whole lot to brag about. Ambassador production was already so low that it didn’t have much further to drop. In 1973 only 49,000 units left the factory compared to 261,000 units for the Fury.
Are we thus surprised that the Ambassador was discontinued for 1975 and Matador sedans and wagons were given a new top-end Brougham model to fill the resulting gap in AMC’s lineup?
The Ambassador needed to be downsized
How much did the Ambassador’s styling contribute to its untimely demise? Indie Auto commentator Henry Alfred Duryea (2020) quite rightly suggested that the car’s front end looked better than the Matador’s. Agreed, but I would still argue that AMC designers jumped the shark.
That snout was too big. The 1971-73 Matador’s more modest shape would have nicely captured the brougham look without being overwrought. Now factor in the rear-end styling, which had all of the elegance of an aircraft carrier. Rather than looking more modern, the 1974 Ambassador had a “that-ain’t-quite-right” vibe of a car designed in South America or the Eastern Bloc.
That said, the Ambassador’s styling was arguably not the key factor in its demise. As discussed here, the bigger problem was that AMC was vainly trying to compete in the full-sized field with a stretched mid-sized body. The Ambassador might have sold better if it had been shifted to the Matador’s 118-inch wheelbase and positioned as a top-end, mid-sized model. This appears to have been the goal of a proposed redesign that was aborted in favor of the ill-fated Matador coupe.
Also see ‘The 1967-74 AMC Ambassador didn’t measure up in roominess or quality’
An even better strategy might have been to downsize the Ambassador to the Hornet platform and turn it into a luxury compact somewhat akin to the Ford Granada or Plymouth Volare. AMC instead tried to squeeze one last drop of sales from the moribund 122-inch wheelbase . . . and got as much out of the deal as they put into it. Call this a moronic take if you will, but the 1974 Ambassador strikes me as a dispiriting end to a venerable nameplate.
NOTES:
This story was originally posted on Sept. 11., 2020 and expanded on July 15, 2024 and Aug. 5, 2026. Market share and production figures were calculated from base data from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2002) and Gunnell (2002). Dimensions are from Gunnell, Automobile Catalog (2020) and automaker marketing materials.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide. 2002. ; 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, Ill.
- Automobile Catalog; 2020. “Search Automobile Catalog.” Accessed September 9.
- Duryea, Henry Alfred; 2020. Commentator in “1974 AMC Ambassador: GM envy to the ZiL degree.” Indie Auto. Posted 7:24 p.m., August 22.
- Foster, Patrick R.; 2013. American Motors Corporation: The Rise and Fall of America’s Last Independent Automaker. MBI Publishing Co., Minneapolis, MN.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcaradvertising.com: Ford LTD (1972)
- oldcarbrochures.org: AMC Ambassador (1972, 1974); AMC Matador (1972, 1975); Chevrolet (1972, 1974); Dodge (1974); Ford (1973, 1974); Plymouth Fury (1974)
PHOTOGRAPHY:
- Banner image of 1974 AMC Matador by Christopher Ziemnowicz (CZmarlin) via Wikipedia’s Creative Commons 4.0. The image was taken at the Rambler Ranch collection in Elizabeth, Colorado.
- 1970 Ambassador two-door hardtop by Christopher Ziemnowicz via Wikipedia’s Creative Commons 1.0.
- 1974 Ambassador grille by Christopher Ziemnowicz via Wikipedia’s Creative Commons 3.0.
- 1974 Ambassador sedan rear by Christopher Ziemnowicz via Wikipedia’s Creative Commons 3.0.
- 1974 Ambassador sedan front by Christopher Ziemnowicz via Wikipedia’s Creative Commons 4.0.
- 1974 Ambassador wagon rear by Christopher Ziemnowicz via Wikipedia’s Creative Commons 4.0.
- 1974 Ambassador wagon front by Christopher Ziemnowicz via Wikipedia’s Creative Commons 4.0.
I thought of the same thing, Ambassador would have been a better nameplate for the Matador sedan and wagon. We could wonder if AMC would have been more lucky with the “small Ambassador” than Plymouth was with its “small Fury” who replaced the Satellite monicker while the full-size Fury was rebranded Gran Fury?
Two points: First, I understand (I could be wrong) that the designers were trying cut costs by reusing the ‘71-73 front fenders, which dictated the long ungainly snouts on the Amb/Mat, and:
Second, (I agree with Pat Foster on this one) IF AMC had designed the ‘74 Matador not specifically as a sporty coupe and instead as a common body (sedan, coupe and wagon models), the Amb/Mat could have done a much better job integrating the bumpers into the new design. Moreover, the existing sedan/wagon dated all the way back to 1967 and was WAY overdue for a redesign already…
There was some sketches once showing proposed Matador sedan and wagons using the front end of the coupe. https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2022/01/rare-rides-icons-the-amc-matador-medium-large-and-personal-part-iii/
Stéphane, do you know where TTAC found the images of the proposed Matador sedan and wagon? I vaguely recall that Motor Trend ran a story (with sketches by Harry Bradley?) but haven’t been able to find it. Perhaps you’ve even linked to it before and I just don’t remember. Please help my poor, tired brain.
I wish I knew, if it wasn’t Motor Trend perhaps some other car magazine.
And to add more mystery about the Matador sedan, there was once a 1978 Matador with a customized front end with squared headlights who was sold since. https://jalopnik.com/theres-something-different-about-this-1978-amc-matador-1847958425
And in Mexico, the Matador coupe was sold as Classic AMX. VAM in Mexico (who built AMC vehicules there), keeped the Classic monicker instead of changing it for Rebel and Matador.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/32167597@N06/3011784200
Even though I was a fan of the 1974 Matador coupe, I think in retrospect, that the 1963-1967 Dodge Darts and Dodge / Fargo Trucks killed the big-eyed single headlight look. The Dodge / Fargo truck of that era made things worse be enclosing the headlight with big chrome reflectors. Were the reflectors purely for decoration ?
In terms of front ensembles for 1974 Ambassador Caprice and LTD looked very good. The Caprice was very Cadilac inspired. The LTD boxy character was completely in tone with entire company’s look. And this was before 75 Seville. Ambassador looked well-in with its fussy protruding grille/eggcrate combo, which harmonized with the hood bulge – possibly a Lincoln Mercury innovation from about 1969.
And my favorite the Plymouth Fury with its expertly integrated bumpers and simple design language. I liked the entire car – and felt the much later 1990 Top Lexus LS seemed somehow similar.