I had high hopes when I saw that the August issue of Collectible Automobile included a story about the 1968-70 AMC Javelin. Patrick Foster has been studying American Motors’ history for decades, so I expected that he would offer at least a few new historical nuggets about this pivotal car.
I also hoped that Collectible Automobile’s relatively new editor in chief, Don Sikora II, would give Foster more analytical latitude than his predecessor, John Biel. As we discussed here, Foster’s previous story on the Javelin (which focused on 1971-74 models), did not include important criticisms of the car from one of his earlier books.
Alas, my hopes were crushed. Foster’s (2024) latest Javelin story is written exclusively for the fanboy crowd. Sure, the pictures are cool and he runs through all of the usual product minutiae, but beyond that there’s no there there.
For example, Foster notes that the Javelin was given “a completely new body shell on a slightly longer wheelbase” (2024, p. 10). However, he does not say how much it cost to develop the new pony car. Nor does he mention the Javelin’s breakeven point.
Fanboys may not care about such nerdy details, but these are particularly important pieces of information for serious automotive history. The reason why is that American Motors introduced the Javelin during the depths of a financial crisis that almost killed the automaker in 1967.
Motor Trend magazine noted the Javelin’s riskiness
Even car-buff magazines that did plenty of pom-pom waving for the Javelin when it was introduced acknowledged that it was a big risk for American Motors.
For example, Motor Trend stated that the car’s unveiling “will be the real test” as to whether it can “sell 45,000 Javelins next year. If they can, it will place the company solidly in the success column and more than justify the heavy tooling costs associated with completely new automobiles. If not, that’s it, baby” (Schmidt, 1967; p. 32).
Foster knows better than anyone that the Javelin was a make-or-break car for AMC. Yet he didn’t discuss this in his latest Collectible Automobile article.
That’s why you have to read between the lines of the listed production figures: First-year sales were encouraging — more than 56,000 Javelins left the factory. Nevertheless, output fell to under 41,000 units in 1969 and around 28,000 in 1970.
Motor Trend’s breakeven-point estimate of 45,000 units strikes me as on the small side for a stand-alone body. However, if it was accurate, AMC’s pony car presumably lost money after its first year — and may not have recovered its development costs.
Foster’s article is particularly frustrating because his book, American Motors: The Last Independent, did a good job of explaining why the even weaker sales of the facelifted 1971 Javelin were doubly problematic: “Lack of volume meant lack of profit for that car line, but it also meant that the dollars spent on the new Javelin would not be available for putting some other, potentially profitable new car into production” (1993, p. 161).
Also see ‘Collectible Automobile’s 1974-83 Jeep Cherokee story avoids inconvenient questions’
I would suggest that the same could be said of the 1968 Javelin. AMC’s mid-sized platform was neglected to such a degree that output of the Rebel and Ambassador fell by 48 percent from 1967 to 1971. Might the automaker have been able to afford more substantial updates to these previously high-selling models if the Javelin had not been such a costly — and money-losing — design?
Why does Foster contradict his past criticism?
Foster doesn’t engage the above questions in his latest article. He even contradicts his past criticism of the 1971 Javelin’s facelift, which he had bluntly called a “mistake” (1993, p. 161). Foster’s new spin is that the “wild new” design “would add still more glory to the Javelin’s legacy” (2024, p. 23).
That reads like an AMC press release — and I have to ask: Why?
It’s bad enough when automotive journalists check their spines in at the door when writing about new cars, but at least there’s a compelling excuse — potential pressure from automakers, who have been known to threaten to withhold ad dollars when dissatisfied with a media outlet’s reviews of their products. Why does Foster apparently feel the need to function as a p.r. flack for car that was built more than 50 years ago by a company that no longer exists?
My guess is that the calculation is simple: There are far more fanboys than serious students of automotive history. Indie Auto regularly hears from fanboys who can’t seem to stomach any criticism of their love object. So I get why a magazine that heavily depends on subscription revenue would want to avoid getting on the bad side of too many readers.
That said, Collectible Automobile also has a reputation to uphold, e.g., in 2023 it was the winner of the Society of Automotive Historians’ Richard and Grace Brigham Award for periodicals (2024).
At the risk of sounding unkind, I don’t think Foster’s 1968-70 Javelin story is worthy of an award-winning magazine. This is fanboy fluff — not serious automotive history. If Foster’s article is a reflection of Sikora’s editorial aspirations, Collectible Automobile is heading in an unfortunate direction.
NOTES:
Production figures are from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Foster (2024) and Gunnell (2002).
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.
- Car Life; 1968. “1968 Javelin.” Jan. issue. Reprinted in AMX & Javelin Muscle Portfolio, 1968-1974. Compiled by R. M. Clarke. Brooklands Books, Surrey, UK: pp. 7-11.
- Foster, Patrick R.; 1993. American Motors: The Last Independent. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- ——; 2024. “1968-70 American Motors Javelin: On Target.” Collectible Automobile. August issue: pp. 8-23.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Schmidt, Julian; 1967. “What Hath Rambler Wrought?” Motor Trend. September issue: pp. 30-32.
- Society of Automotive Historians; 2024. “SAH Award Winners.” Accessed June 3.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- ads.aacalibrary.org: AMC Javelin (1968)
- oldcarbrochures.org: AMC Javelin (1968)
I have purchased, then subscribed to “Collectible Automobile” since its first issue in the spring of 1984. I have all of them. While I enjoy the photographs and the sales figures, the details of the model changes, the photographs of the design sketches and clays. There are also occasional interviews of automotive stylists. But unlike publications like “Car & Driver” or even “Consumer Reports”, criticism is muted. If anyone has watched the “YouTube” video comparing the 1962 Chevrolets to the 1962 Fords, there is a scary clip of an unloaded Ford Econoline nearly doing a somersault on a panic stop because of the forward weight-bias. “Collectible Automobile” in its review of the Econolines in the very same issue as the first Javelin (August, 2024) merely mentions the 150-pound steel-plate fix added to the Econoline rear floors to prevent the forward flip. (This was a huge design flaw, in my opinion, one of which if happened today, would have certainly prompted the N.H.T.S.B. to issue a recall.) “Collectible Automobile” calls it a “counterweight”. No wonder those who had the counterweight fix found the 144-cu.in. six underpowered !
Now I loved the first-generation Javelin, but not so much its odd successor. On paper, the Javelin with the 232-six or 343-V-8 was a good car (except for the trunnions instead of a more up-to-date front suspension) ! Of course, “Collectible Automobile” treats the under carriage of a car like it does the “counterweight”. I had an exchange with John Biel several years ago over my desire to see more details and photos of chassis / powertrains. Biel wrote back that these details were not what most subscribers wanted to see in the magazine. Outside sheet metal, a snapshot of an engine bay and maybe one or two photos of an interior is all that accompanies a feature article. So, Pat Foster focuses the automobiles that are his specialties: Independents and tends to ignore, I think, the realities that drove them into merger and / or oblivion. Pat may have known how to sell a 1958 Rambler on the showroom floor, but I don’t know if he could have run A.M.C. back in 1961.
I agree that Collectible Automobile does what it does because the editors think that’s what their target market wants — and they are likely right. What’s unfortunate is that what makes that cash register ring isn’t the same thing as what is needed to advance American automotive history.
I’m not convinced that giving awards to such fanboy-oriented content is very helpful, because it serves to vindicate the dumbing down of automotive history. Dumb it down enough and the field may eventually die . . . which seems to be the current trajectory.
I do not personally know Pat Foster, but I have read a number of his articles and books. I would encourage you to consider an interview with him using your platform, as he has a lot to offer, especially regarding AMC history, cars, and the like. I am sure he woudl welcome your critisms and thoughts and provide some insights of why he covers specific information and not others…it could be due to word limits set by the periodical, specific parameters set by the publisher, or the target audience. He could easily write a book, which he did…but he was writign an article, so something has to be let go or risk of rewriting another book. Yes, I agree that we should not dumb down our automotive history as it is very important for us car nuts! Thanks for sharing your thoughts as you are not alone thinking or wondering the same!
Daniel, I wrote a comment but decided that this topic needs its own post, so I’ve repeated your comment and expanded on my response here.