The American car-buff media has struck me as rather stale lately, but one relative newcomer has offered a ray of hope. The Car Collective’s Substack is a “newsletter” (re: a website with email distribution) that is a shared venue for 11 automotive journalists. These 10 men and one woman possess a fair amount of stature within the field. Thus, I initially expected a bland, lowest-common-denominator editorial tone much like Automotive News. However, I have often been pleasantly surprised at the spunkiness of the Collective’s content.
For example, Paul A. Eisenstein (2026) argues that President Trump’s fuel-economy rollback will add thousands of dollars to American motorists’ gasoline cost over and above any savings from the deregulation. This is only partly because of the Iran War, which has spiked the price of oil.
$60.6 billion regulatory rollback creates uncertainty
Eisenstein (2026) noted that even “at an average of just $2.89 a gallon, the administration’s promised savings would be completely offset by higher fuel bills. At 50 mpg a typical driver would spend $792 annually for gas. At 34.9 that would jump to $1,136. Over the 12.5-year ownership that would come to a cumulative $4,300 in higher fuel bills, or about 3.3 times the promised savings.”
In addition, Eisenstein (2026) argued that any advantages automakers will get from the relaxed standards could be at least initially diluted by the uncertainty of administration rules surviving court challenges. Not mentioned in the article was that the current Trump term ends in two years. The election of a Democratic president in 2028 would almost certainly result in tougher regulations. Given the long lead times in developing new vehicles, a prudent automaker would presumably consider that scenario in its planning.
So while the rollback of fuel-economy rules represents a huge gift to the auto industry — the administration estimates that savings to automakers could reach $60.6 billion by 2031 — Eisenstein implies that this may be a pyrrhic victory. After all, as fuel economy becomes increasingly important to consumers, automakers that double down on big trucks and sporty cars with V8 engines may not generate the sales that they might have expected prior to the outbreak of the Iran War.
I find this to be surprisingly tough-minded analysis for a journalist who has spent so many years covering the auto industry. In addition to writing for the Collective, Eisenstein publishes the Headlight News.
Data shows how badly the 1978 Matador coupe flopped
The December issue of Collectible Automobile has a story by Don Sikora II (2026) that offers an overview of the 1978 field of intermediates. As usual, the storyline didn’t venture very far from basic names, dates and features, but I did come across some interesting data in a production table.
Out of the almost 11,000 AMC Matadors that left the factory that model year, only around 2,000 were two-door coupes. In contrast, almost 5,000 four-door sedans and roughly 4,000 wagons were produced (Sikora, 2026).
AMC was the only automaker whose coupes sold much more poorly than sedans and wagons. For example, the Chevrolet Malibu sedans (base and Classic) saw output reach approximately 147,000 units. That was above the Malibu coupe (roughly 117,000 units) but far below the Monte Carlo (358,000 units).
Let’s step back and consider that the Matador sedan and wagon were far and away the oldest U.S.-built passenger cars in 1978, with some of their sheet metal dating all the way back to 1967. In addition, these body styles were hamstrung by a particularly ugly coffin-nose fascia. Yet in 1978 they still sold far better than the coupe, which was given all-new sheet metal in 1974. That was more recent than the enormously popular Monte Carlo.
The bottom line: Trendy coupe styling was extremely popular in the mid-sized class in 1978 but few buyers liked the Matador coupe. That was despite being given a broughamtastic model that included a landau roof and two-tone paint. How could AMC management have so badly misjudged the viability of the Matador coupe?
NOTES:
Specifications and production figures were from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (1993, 2006), Sikora (2026), and Flammang and Kowalke, 1999).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, Ill.
- Eisenstein, Paul A.; 2026. “Trump Mileage Rollback Will Add Thousands to Your Fuel Bill.” The Car Collective’s Substack. Posted Sept. 29,
- Flammang, James M. and Ron Kowalke; 1999. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1976-1999. Third Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Sikora, Don II; 2026. “The Intermediates of 1978: The Second Shoe Drops.” Collectible Automobile. December issue: pp. 8-21.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: AMC Matador (1978)
If people gave a rip about fuel mileage, they wouldn’t be driving massive trucks. This is a non-story. We had 50mpg cars in the late ’70s and didn’t need EVs to get there. If you really want more, lose 1000 pounds off your car. Dump the 18 extra airbags,touchscreens,12 speaker stereo and crumple zones and learn how to drive without looking at your phone every three minutes. If you can’t drive properly and respect other motorists then you deserve any injuries that come your way. I’m not worried about being hit by other motorists because I pay attention to traffic, cooperate with big rigs and my car has more grace than that elephant most people are driving.
This website is all about the tunnel vision of Detroit and how they’ve failed to understand almost every trend that’s come down the pike. If they die because they doubled down on big trucks then I won’t cry.