(EXPANDED FROM 10/4/2014)
We have previously critiqued American Motors designer Bob Nixon’s recollections about the Pacer (go here). Now let’s discuss his take on the 1974 Matador and 1965 Marlin. This portion of his Collectible Automobile interview with Patrick Foster (2014) also led me to question the credibility of his narrative.
That’s too bad because Nixon’s long management-level experience gave him an unusual capacity to fill in the historical record about American Motors. I was frankly surprised that Foster didn’t push back against the more questionable aspects of the designer’s spin.
Alas, Nixon subsequently died (Tate, 2022), so the window for asking him follow-up questions has closed. Let’s explore why this was a missed opportunity.
Nixon avoided discussing Matador coupe’s viability
I was hoping that Nixon would shed light on internal discussions about the Matador coupe’s viability, but he chose to stay mum. However, when Foster (2014) asked whether the car’s introduction had been delayed, he said yes — for financial reasons — but did not recall for how long.
That’s too bad, because AMC histories have been vague on the specific timeline and rationale for ditching a more conventional redesign of the entire Matador lineup in favor of a more radical strategy of largely focusing development dollars on a coupe that emphasized exceptionally sporty styling.
Also see ‘Should AMC have given the 1974 Matador coupe a luxury spin-off?’
Foster (1993) estimated that the Matador coupe would need to sell more than 80,000 units per year to amortize the costs of its unique sheetmetal. That’s almost as much as AMC’s entire annual production of Matadors and Ambassadors in both 1973 and 1972 — and higher than in 1971. Why did management think they could achieve such high sales when the market for sporty mid-sized coupes had been shrinking since 1970?
The brands that had done the best in the mid-sized field were emphasizing opera-windowed luxury models. Even the wedge-shaped Dodge Charger got into the act — with decent results (go here for further discussion). Yet the Matador coupe was not given a flexible-enough design to allow it to effectively pivot toward the luxury market. Why? Nixon didn’t say.
Matador coupe: Meant to sell big but not to race?
When Foster (2014) asked how Nixon felt about the Matador coupe’s design today, he responded by saying that “I think for its place and time it was pretty good.” That’s a curious response given that the coupe sold well below its breakeven point even in its first year — and went quickly downhill from there.
Another curious response was to the question of whether the coupe’s swoopy shape was specifically created to better compete in NASCAR racing, Nixon said no. “Racing was never a factor in deciding the styling direction.”
Also see ‘Proposed 1972-73 design could have saved AMC from ill-fated 1974 Matador coupe’
Car and Driver (1973) offered a different take when the car was introduced: “The AMC public relations department is sworn not to admit it, but there’s more than an aesthetic reason to why the Matador’s lines look like the handiwork of an aircraft designer. The racing contingent in American Motors has its eye on the Winston cup for 1974, and aerodynamics are very much a key to success in Grand National Stock Car racing.”
Who to believe? In light of Nixon’s self-serving attempt to rewrite the history of the Pacer, I would be inclined to question his veracity here as well.
Yup, them big family cars were doing just fine
When asked by Foster (2014) whether AMC ever considered doing a sedan or wagon version of the Matador coupe, Nixon said no because AMC was already “getting a decent share of the sedan and wagon market.”
It’s true that in recent years AMC had sold relatively few two-door hardtops on its larger platform, which was used for its mid-sized Matador and supposedly full-sized Ambassador. This contrasted sharply with the Big Three, whose coupes represented a high proportion of mid-sized sales.
What Nixon did not say was that by the beginning of the 1974 model year, the body used for the sedan and wagon had been in production seven years — one year longer than Detroit’s typical product cycle. To make matters worse, the cars had not received a full reskinning after two or three years. As a result, by 1970 sedan and wagon sales fell below 100,000 — less than half their output in 1965 (go here).
The sales collapse of what used to be AMC’s most popular products goes a long way toward explaining why the company struggled to make a profit until its smaller cars saw a spike in sales in 1973-74 partly due to an oil embargo.
Nixon also didn’t mention that the mid-sized cars AMC unveiled in 1974 were very different than an aborted proposal. Foster (2013) shows photos of two- and a four-door models, which suggests that the entire line would have been reskinned. The more conventional styling might have sold better. Did Nixon honestly regret that management instead went with the Matador coupe?
Can we all agree that the Marlin really sucked?
Nixon criticized management for moving a proposed compact sporty coupe called the Tarpon onto AMC’s mid-sized platform. He quite rightly argued that the resulting Marlin “was too damn big” and that the fastback roofline “went on forever” (Foster, 2014; p. 76).
What’s confusing is Nixon saying that “Dick Teague was a strong advocate of the Marlin” (Foster, 2014; p. 76). This suggests that the AMC design chief supported a mid-sized fastback — which goes against what Teague and others have recalled. Is that what Nixon meant or was he using the Marlin name interchangeably with the Tarpon?
Also see ‘Might the Rambler Tarpon have sold better than the Plymouth Barracuda?’
Nixon focused on dismissing the Marlin rather than explaining how the Tarpon might have been more successful. For example, his argument that the Marlin “was just too much fastback” could also have been said of the Tarpon.
One of the main reasons AMC head Roy Abernethy reportedly pressed for the larger Marlin was that the company’s compact platform would not have a small-block V8 available until possibly a year after the Tarpon was slated for launch. Nixon implied that the Tarpon would have been fine without the V8 initially, but it would be interesting to hear whether he thought that might have influenced the car’s design.
What would you do with an interviewee who spins?
One question I would have wanted to ask was whether Nixon saw his role as making a car that sold well or merely looked good. Under the latter scenario, I could see him feeling comfortable giving the Matador coupe’s styling a thumbs up even though it was a market failure that contributed to AMC’s demise.
So perhaps that’s where he was coming from. Then again, endorsing the Matador’s styling could have also been just a p.r. maneuver: Never admit a mistake.
My overall impression is that Nixon’s primary goals were to burnish his legacy, say thank you to a few key people and settle some scores. I suppose that a certain amount of spin is inevitable with oral histories, but he really put his foot on the gas at certain junctures.
That raises some journalistic questions. What responsibility does an auto history publication have to present accurate information? When an interviewee offers a view at variance with what other credible sources have stated, does that media outlet have a responsibility to note the competing takes? Or is it the reader’s job to separate truth from spin?
Also see ‘Collectible Automobile puffs up the 1971-74 AMC Javelin’
These questions inevitably lead to the biggest one of all: Is automotive history a serious field of inquiry or is it naught but infotainment for bored retirees?
Of course, it isn’t clear whether Foster was given the latitude by Collectible Automobile’s editors to point out Nixon’s inaccuracies, obfuscations and redirects. But in a way it doesn’t matter — an opportunity was missed to fill in the historical record.
NOTES:
This article was originally posted Oct. 4, 2014 and expanded on Dec. 26, 2024 (and split off from the AMC Pacer story). Production figures calculated from Gunnell (2002). Dimensions and weights are from the Automobile Catalog (2014), Gunnell (2002) and the manufacturers.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Automobile Catalog; 2014. “Search Automobile Catalog.” Accessed October 4, 2014.
- Car and Driver; 1973. “Matador X: It’s unquestionably, this year’s style leader. Published November.
- Foster, Patrick R.; 1993. American Motors: The Last Independent. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- ——–; 2013. American Motors Corporation: The Rise and Fall of America’s Last Independent Automaker. MBI Publishing Co., Minneapolis, MN.
- ——–; 2014. “Bob Nixon: Designer of Iconic AMCs.”Collectible Automobile, pp. 74-81. June issue.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Tate, Robert; 2022. “Remembering AMC Designer Bob Nixon.” Motor Cities. Posted May 4.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcaradvertising.com: AMC Matador (1974)
- oldcarbrochures.org: American Motors Ambassador (1974): American (1965); Matador (1974, 1978); Dodge Charger (1973)
PHOTOGRAPHY:
- 1974 AMC Matador sedan by Cristopher Ziemnowicz (CZmarlin) via Wikipedia’s Creative Commons 4.0. The image was taken at the Rambler Ranch collection in Elizabeth, Colorado.
Be the first to comment