Proposed 1972-73 design could have saved AMC from ill-fated 1974 Matador coupe

February 4, 2022 Steve Design Notes 15
1972 AMC Ambassador proposal by Brooks Stevens

The above image apparently shows an early design proposal by Brooks Stevens for a reskinned AMC Ambassador planned for 1972-73. The design has a resemblance to mockups pictured in a Patrick Foster (2013) book. These designs were ultimately scrapped in favor of the radically styled 1974 Matador coupe and a half-hearted facelift of AMC’s larger sedans and wagons.

Truth be told, the Stevens’s design looks rather crude compared to the mockups pictured in Foster’s book. The latter had more rounded contours than Stevens’s sedan. In addition, the front fender tops were unusually low for a Detroit car of that era, which gave the fascia a surprisingly sleek look even on the four-door sedan.

1977 AMC Matador sedan
The 1974-78 Matador’s Jimmy Durante nose appears to be as long as on a proposed reskinning but looked ugly rather than attractive because of carryover fenders and a taller hood line (Old Car Brochures).

The stylishness of the reskinned sedan was quite a feat because it appeared to carry over the rather tall windshield from the previous-generation Ambassador and Matador. This suggests that the new design would have continued to be the roomiest of the mid-sized cars.

Hardtop was more ‘normal’ than Matador coupe

The proportions of the reskinned Ambassador four-door sedan and two-door hardtop suggest that the nameplate would have no longer sported unique front sheetmetal with an excessively long wheelbase ahead of the cowl. However, AMC designers clearly worked harder to differentiate the hardtop from the sedan.

Also see ‘1974 AMC Ambassador: GM envy to the ZiL degree’

Although the two-door model shared the same front and rear design as the sedan, it apparently had a shorter wheelbase behind the B-pillars, a lower windshield and a beltline and greenhouse that sloped farther downward.

1971 AMC Javelin AMX
The proposed two-door hardtop’s side crease had a coke-bottle look that shared a family resemblance to the 1971-74 Javelin but was softer and better integrated. It looked clean rather than over the top (Old Car Brochures).

The proposed hardtop was thus a compromise between the previous-generation hardtop — which deviated only modestly from the sedan — and the 1974 Matador coupe, which had completely unique sheetmetal. The hardtop was distinctive enough that it would not have been confused with any Big Three car of that era, but it still looked a lot more “normal” than the Matador coupe.

1970 Mercury Cyclone
The proposed hardtop had a semi-fastback roofline that was somewhat similar to that of a 1970-71 Mercury Montego and Cyclone. However, the AMC had more glass area and a more rounded appearance (Old Car Brochures).

Interestingly, even though the Ambassador was presumably still AMC’s top-of-line luxury nameplate, the hardtop pictured in Foster’s (2013) book eschewed the then-popular “brougham” look. The car had a semi-fastback roofline, sporty road wheels and no vinyl roof. The overall vibe was a bit like the 1966 Buick Riviera — an understated sporty luxury coupe. Very different from the boy-racer Matador coupe.

Also see ‘Should AMC have given the 1974 Matador coupe a luxury spin-off?’

Note that the hardtop’s design looks like it could have plausibly shared door sheetmetal with a next-generation Javelin. That would have allowed AMC to go back to the system used for 1963-64 models, where sharing doors between compact and mid-sized models saved the company a meaningful amount of money.

1974 Ambassador was hopelessly uncompetitive
The coffin nose of the 1974 Ambassador and Matador appears to be so similar to the aborted 1972-73 AMCs that I wonder whether designers tried to salvage the development costs of some front-end components (Old Car Brochures).

Would more ‘normal’ mid-sized cars have sold better?

With the luxury of hindsight we can speculate that the proposed 1972-73 reskinning of AMC’s larger cars would have penciled out better than the Matador coupe and facelifted sedan and wagon. That’s even if the automaker had waited until 1974 to introduce them.

Also see ‘Was Mac’s Motor City Garage wrong about the 1974-78 Matador coupe?’

For one thing, the sedans and wagons could have sold meaningfully better if they had been given new sheetmetal. Former AMC designer Bob Nixon was delusional to suggest that these cars didn’t need more of an updating because they were already “getting a decent share of the sedan and wagon market” (Foster, 2014). The key reason why the 1974 facelift came off so badly was because the body was a positively ancient eight years old. 

1978 Chevrolet Impala
The 1974 Matador sedan was remarkably similar in size and space efficiency to the downsized 1977 Chevrolet Caprice. With better styling might it have led the parade to more space-efficient six-passenger family cars (Old Car Brochures).

The reskinned Ambassador sedan pictured in Foster’s (2013) book appears to have been the same size as the previous-generation Matador. With updated styling that didn’t offend, might AMC have been able to steal some sales away from Detroit’s full-sized cars in the wake of the oil embargo of 1973-74?

Also see ‘Separating truth from spin with AMC’s Bob Nixon’

By the same token, might the reskinned two-door hardtop have been able to adapt to the broughamization of the mid-sized market better than the Matador coupe? It’s true that the hardtop’s semi-fastback roofline did not possess the ideal shape for a landau roof treatment. Even so, the overall styling of the car fit that era much better.

1978 AMC Matador
The Matador coupe was designed so specifically to be a sporty coupe that it looked ridiculous when given a brougham treatment. Here the relative blandness of the proposed hardtop would have been a big advantage (Old Car Brochures).

Perhaps most importantly, even if the hardtop’s sales fizzled as quickly as the Matador coupe’s, AMC’s investment in the reskinning still could have paid off with better sedan and wagon sales.

Also see ‘1974 AMC Ambassador: Was its styling ruined by bumper regs?’

AMC reportedly spent roughly $40 million to develop the Matador coupe and facelift the sedan and wagon. That was a substantial amount of money — roughly equivalent to what was spent on the 1970 Hornet (Foster, 1993). It’s hard to see how the proposed reskinning could have cost any more than that . . . or that AMC would have gotten so little return on its investment.

Brooks Stevens AMC Ambassador proposal
The right side of Stevens’s proposal has larger wheel openings and a vertical front fender ridge. The mockup shown in Foster’s (2013) book has a more rounded beltline similar to the previous generation (Milwaukee Art Museum, 1977)

NOTES:

Two photographs of Stevens’s proposed Ambassador are dated Sept. 12, 1977 (Milwaukee Art Museum). I assume this date does not reflect when the proposal was developed because his consulting contract with AMC reportedly ended in 1969 (Adamson, 2003), which was around the time AMC presumably would have started work on 1972 redesigns. In addition, the pictured mockups did not have 5-mph bumpers like other post-1973 U.S. cars and the basic design looks like an early version of the proposals shown in Foster’s (2013) book.

Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.

RE:SOURCES

Patrick Foster's latest AMC book

ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:

  • oldcarbrochures.org: AMC Ambassador (1974); AMC Javelin (1971); AMC Matador (1977, 1978); Chevrolet Impala (1978); Mercury Cyclone (1970)

PHOTOGRAPHS:

Related Articles

15 Comments

  1. AMC never showed the ’74’s front end in it’s brochures.
    The one pictured here is an improvement if there ever was one. The’74 was a waterfall affair with bull’s eye turn signals and an effect like an automotive version of Groucho Marx.
    People make constant references about how Awkward and awful the Ambassador front end is.
    However it works infinitely better than the Matador’s because the dual headlamp configuration balances it out, plus the fender end caps don’t look like cheap fillers for the same openings as previously used on the 71-73 Matador. Like ’58 Studebaker pods for dual headlights: cheap, quick and awkward.
    I had just learned to drive when the Matador coupe came out. I thought it was beautiful, and unlike the “broughamed” opera windowed offerings of the Big Three, the rear windows still rolled down if ordered without that heinous landau roof.
    My folk’s had a ’72 Ambassador Brougham, brand new after having had a new ’71 Gremlin.
    I think why AMC couldn’t get traction with the Ambassador was that the materials and hardware used in it were no better in quality than that used on it’s Gremlin and Hornet.
    The Ambassador didn’t get better quality, better interior plastics, better workmanship.
    At that time as AMC’s quality had dropped so hard the Buyer Protection Plan had to be implemented. My folks saw this first hand and I remember well.
    Even the rags at the time noticed.
    Motor Trend in a comparison test of the new Javelin mentioned AMC’s ad tag line for that year :”If you had to compete with GM Ford and Chrysler, what would you do ?”
    MT’s answer was: kick some butts on the assembly line and get the employees to finish their work”.
    They went on to mention the water and air leaks, assembly screw ups etc.
    Such a shame. I loved AMC and it’s cars but sometime around 1967 their well known rep for quality started a quick decline.
    Sorry for the gas. I love the IA articles on the Independents, always

    Reply

  2. Wish I could edit.
    Correction: ‘AMC never showed the ’74 Matador SEDAN’s front end…’ in the brochure.
    Sorry

    Reply

  3. At this time, AMC needed to figure out how to style a body to remain attractive for 7-8 years, given their available resources for re-tooling. Neither Stevens’ proposal nor the in-house ones have the legs to have sold in the early 80s. But what if AMC had gone back to consulting Pininfarina and re-skinned along the lines of the Fiat 130 coupe and Peugeot 604? That might have worked.

    Reply

    • It would have been interesting to see what the Italians could come up with — and whether American car buyers would have been attracted to a European approach to a mid-sized car during the depths of the brougham era. It could have worked but had an element of gambling to it.

      I think that the all-time best idea was to move AMC’s entire passenger-car lineup to an updated Hornet platform. That would have given the automaker the economies of scale needed to more easily navigate the second half of the 1970s. An Italian design might have worked even better on a compact.

      The above story is based upon the premise of AMC management having to choose between the proposed 1972-73 reskinning and the Matador coupe. Stevens’s design strikes me as rather amateurish and the in-house proposal as okay but hardly award winning. To my eyes the exaggerated nose was its worst feature, particularly when adding 5-mph bumpers.

      I also think that they missed a golden opportunity to put the car on a bit of a diet. After all, the Matador and Ambassador were based on the same platform as the meaningfully smaller 1963 Rambler Classic/Ambassador (go here for further discussion).

      Reply

  4. I echo the appreciation of the articles on independents! Thank you!
    l was never a fan of the Matador coupes, even though l was a Hornet owner at the time. I even bought a couple of shares of AMC and still have the original certificate (l never turned it in when Chrysler purchased AMC)!
    A friend and l took a test drive in a used Matador coupe. It did not change my opinion. My boss inherited his father-in-law’s low mileage Matador coupe and he hated it. Never ran right.
    Dweezil’s assessment that AMC’s quality went quickly downhill in the ’60s seems to ring true. My Hornet’s dash panel was a plastic mess. The top of the front fenders rusted through in 6 years despite care. The rear springs were weak. The car was reliable, though! Only replaced brakes and a water pump on the 258.
    Looking at the pictures of Brooks Stevens”72 AMC proposal, l don’t think it was very “inspired” and would not likely lead to anything really attractive.
    Perhaps he liked working with Studebaker better! His facelifts there were miracles!

    Reply

  5. From the right side, the Ambassador mockup looks like it might have been a reasonable proposal for the 1969 full-size Ford, albeit with a front end that is completely out of place and is somewhat predictive of the 1973 Chevelle, sans cow-catcher bumper. In the end, it doesn’t appear anyone at AMC was really interested in breathing life back into their mid-size vehicles in a meaningful way (ie, updated sedans & wagons). I find it more than a little ironic that about 15 years later, while under Renault’s wing, AMC initiated development of the large Premier sedan, created by Italdesign, and which ended up being sold by Eagle dealers (and as the Monaco by Dodge dealers). The Premier, according to Wikipedia, was targeted for annual production of 150,000 units. Actual first-year production was just over 32,000 cars. European-cache and good media reviews didn’t help it nor would they have on a mid-sized 1970s AMC product. AMC’s experience with Renault in the 1980s ended up being an example of American and European car companies at odds with one another at the expense of product and marketshare.

    Reply

  6. I don’t argue that Pininfarina styling would have increased market share. It might have: remember that Bill Mitchell acknowledged the Fiat 130 coupe as an inspiration for the 1977 Chevrolet B body. But GM was seen as the style leader, so AMC going in a different direction 3 years earlier may very possibly have lacked mass appeal.

    My argument is different. By the 1970s, the Matador and Ambassador were largely selling to AMC/Nash loyalists. An exterior that was plainer and more elegant than what was fashionable in Detroit could have enabled sales to those loyalists to go on for longer without retooling. If AMC could have sold just 35,000 cars off its large platform for 8 years to its loyal clientele, that would be 280,000 units in all. Given that the basic engineering had already been paid for as well as the body structure under the skin, this would likely have yielded significant incremental profit. As it was, the increased sales obtained by the 74 Matador coupe were a flash in the pan and the platform didn’t live past 4 years.

    Reply

  7. Back in the 1970s, I had little to no appreciation for AMC. But after learning more about the company, I could only wish that it had worked on quality control, just as Chrysler did with its 1965 models; reskinned the Ambassador/Matador in time for the 1973 oil crunch; and offer a new Javelin coupe that could have shared doors with an Ambassador coupe. It also should have looked into reskinning the Hornet, making it more fuel efficient. But we know Detroit doesn’t think outside the box, sadly.

    Reply

  8. The sedan proposal looks like he had a thing for pimpmobile headlights, and finished it off with a Mercury Bobcat grille. You mention the 2 door design and go to great lengths to describe it but no photos?

    Reply

    • I don’t have access to photos that are not copyrighted. However, those photos are in Foster’s book (go here). I have disagreed with his analysis on a number of fronts but still think that his book makes a valuable contribution to AMC history. It’s well worth buying!

      The rise of the Internet has cultivated the idea that information should be free. The problem with that view is it takes time and skill to produce good-quality automotive history. If we want writers to keep on producing it, then we need to somehow pay them — such as by buying their books and magazines. Websites that repost copyrighted material without permission may please their readers in the short run but undercut the long-term viability of the automotive history field.

      It’s also illegal.

      Reply

  10. Did Brook Stevens have friends in the Chrysler Styling Dept?
    The 1972 proposal’s front end has a strong resemblance to the 1975-77 Chrysler Cordoba.
    From the B pillar back, it looks like the 1974 Plymouth Fury

    Reply

  11. The more I gaze at Stevens’ proposal for the Matador, the more I think that it was only marginally better than the extended snout of the Matador / Ambassador sedans. Without better quality in the 1970s and more cohesive styling, I don’t think the A.M.C. would have been any more successful in the marketplace. Except for the 1965-1968 Ambassadors, the first-generation Javelins, the 1970 Hornet and the 1964-1969 Americans, the high watermark for A.M.C. styling was the 1963 Classic and Ambassador.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*