posted by chrisjcieslak
You Cohort posters have been batting 1000 lately, especially with the color-coordination. Great shot, Chris! On Friday, it was this brown Skylark in front of a brownstone, and today it’s a green Matador wagon in front of a green restaurant. The smell of good food instead of The Stench of Death. But those were pretty strong words for me to use on a ’73 Matador, and today I’ll find some more delicate ones. This wagon is downright delicious.
1973 was a good year for the Matador, as its front end would be mutilated for 1974. But even then, the ’74 Matador has its defenders, as this post that was written as a rebuttal to my ’73 CC makes quite forcefully clear. But that was all in the bad old days. Now Niedermeyer can appreciate what a rare find this is, and wax eloquently on its clean lines and tasteful proportions; well, the wagon that is, as it was spared the hip augmentation that the sedan was cursed with.
That’s the good fate wagons often are blessed with, when the manufacturers decide to refresh or facelift or otherwise fold, spindle or mutilate a good design but don’t have enough budget to inflict it on the wagons. This ’73 Matador wagon is remarkable similar to the ’67 version, except the front end.
Especially the view from the back. Almost identical to what AMC was building in the late 60s.
And almost identical to a ’66-’67 Chevelle wagon. Well, the GM A Body was clearly on Dick Teague’s mind or pinned to his drawing board when the ’67 Rebel was being created copied. That’s ok; beats his flights of genuine creativity as with the Pacer and Matador coupe.
And this one’s for sale; unfortunately, no price.
But here’s a number in case you’re seriously tempted.
I’ve run out of pictures, so we’ll use the first one again. In 1973, the Matador was starting to really show its age, compared to the flamboyant competition from the big three intermediates. It was now the Studebaker Lark Wagonaire of its times. But that still had some appeal to folks who liked things as they had been. And in this case, that’s no a bad thing.
No price? No call. I already know he wants too much. Nice car though.
It’s my Matador and I am a SHE. Most are shocked that this vehicle is not owned by a man. When I am out driving with a man all inquiries are directed towards him, and I LOVE the look on people’s faces when I tell them it is mine. If you want more info or to get in touch watch these videos on my Instagram page: https://www.instagram.com/stories/highlights/17989243291220427/
I’m asking $8k or best offer.
My grandfather had one of these–same color even. It ended up getting stolen while parked in front of the Casa Columbo in Millburn NJ–Grandpa’s favorite hangout. Haven’t seen one in a long time. I remember the steering wheel had a bull’s eye in the center, and the automatic shift quadrant said “SHIFT COMMAND”, which sounded very impressive, but it was just an ordinary shift lever.
Those red tail light lenses were easily broken!
This Matador wagon replaced a ’57 Rambler station wagon, which Grandpa bought new because my father (“Johnny”) told him that Ramblers were the best cars.
Up till then, Grandpa was driving a mid-30s Ford woodie wagon with major rust holes in the floor–good for splashing Grandma in the passenger seat while driving over puddles!
Great looking wagon! Love the green. That shot of the Chevelle brings back memories of my Dad’s ’64 Tempest wagon. I loved that wagon. Almost all of them. Luckily I have one today, only I call it an SUV around my Wife!
Locally, there were active, successful AMC dealers within a forty mile radius so all AMC models were in abundance here in western New York. Matadors always appeared in driveways of former Rambler Classic and Rebel owners. Not surprisingly though, few switched from a comparable Big Three make to AMC, no matter what they fielded, conquest sales were hard to come by.
As the ’70’s wore on, other makes displaced the Matadors, until the only ones seen were state or local government fleet cars, plus a few older diehards loyalists. The county sheriff had a few of the 401 ci Matador police cruisers that had the reputation of being faster than anything else in the garage but spent a lot of time at the AMC dealer getting fixed too.
One longtime Ambassador owner who usually traded every four years traded his ’71 for a well-optioned ’75 Matador in this green. Evidently not very satisfied, it was replaced with a Mercury Monarch the next year. One by one, AMC loyalist drained away.
I never noticed before how good ‘ole AMC did a loop bumper on the cheap on these by segmenting it into an upper and lower piece. Kind of cool and it doesn’t look too bad, at least from the A-pillar forward.
But, man, does the A-pillar on back scream, “Sixties Chevelle wagon!”. It’d be a tough mash-up, but imagine if some clever wag actually mated the doghouse from a ’66-’67 to one of these and removed the Matador emblems. Except for the upright taillights and flush AMC door handles, no one would be able to tell the difference.
The very first thing that comes to mind when I see one of these old AMC Matadors and those extruded door glass moldings is this:
I always really liked the looks of the ‘71-‘73 Matador. Seemed they were the police car of choice on TV back then, along with the ‘71-‘72 Satellite. This Matador wagon is coincidentally wearing Chrysler Corp poverty caps. My parents had, which I ultimately received, a ‘68 Rebel. While it was ultra-dependable, it was a crappily engineered car. Having never personally experienced a Matador, I hope they were better, but it’s not likely. As far as the wagon’s rear being “nearly identical” to the ‘66-‘67 Chevelle’s, that seems a stretch; I’ll say “similar”.
It seems the moniker “Big 3” didn’t really fall into use until after the demise of AMC; I always recall AMC was considered a major manufacturer; though until I learned their history, I never realized how small they were, but that seems to apply to Chrysler, too.
The pic of the wagon is kinda funny. It’s obviously been repainted and tarted up. Parked uncomfortably close to the Mercedes, with decent looking modern cars nearby. Smack dab in front of the restaurant. Not helping their hip, trendy vibe. At. All. Rock on!
Interesting take on the Big 3. Even more intriguing might be that the Big 3 of today is GM, Ford, and Tesla. Evidently, the market valuation of Tesla is much greater than FCA, not to mention that FCA might not be considered a US company anymore.
I distinctly remember the “Big 3” being referred to often throughout the ’70s, long before AMC was doa, my thought was always that it came from earlier days when there were still independents, as well as that AMC was never even close sales-wise to the big 3, and they were based in Kenosha, so an outsider even more. I also (largely as a diehard Mopar guy) take some issue with Tesla replacing Chrysler as one of the big 3, Chrysler, though owned (partially?) by Fiat, is still based and made (at least as much as Ford and GM) in the US and Idk about you, but I see a lot more Chryslers, Dodges, Rams (don’t get me started) and Jeeps than I do Teslas…But it sure is awesome to see a this old beauty still kickin’
Wow, Paul, what a nice surprise to find this afternoon! Thanks for posting these!
What a nice find! There is one of these you can see in the ariel view of the squad car parking lot on Adam-12 in LA police livery, of course. And look again, people, there is no phone # on the sign either
There was another sign on the other side of the vehicle- if I see it again (this was taken right by where I live) I’ll see if there’s any other info.
I love it! So clean. Nice color too. I’ve never seen one in my area and if the price were decent I’d drive it happily.
Very nice, even in green. I would be sorely tempted but even Illinois is far enough away to keep me from dreaming in green technicolor.
Made my day, thanks for posting this
The Rebel/Matador wagon was great at space-utilization, and could be gotten as a 3-seater (in the days before minivans, that was a real plus!)
They were also good performing and decent handling. AMC’s V-8’s would equal any of its rivals, and Torque Command was Chrysler’s 727, at least on 360/401 cars.
I’d take one, even in green!
I believe that the Torqueflite replaced an earlier Borg Warner automatic across the board beginning with the 1973 models.
I have also read this.
AMC outsourced the best of the American auto parts: Mopar’s superlative Torqueflite automatic transmission, GM’s power steering system, FoMoCo/Holly carburetors, AMC’s own HVAC system was the equal of the other’s units.
I think it was ’72 [update: yup, ’72], the same year AMC started a big quality-and-warranty push.
L.A.P.D. bought Matador patrol cars for a few years, with generally good results. Along with the standard 4 door sedans were a number of wagons for sergeants and other special duties. The wagons had the police package and the high performance 401 V-8’s in them, just like the sedans. A few of the wagons were still in service during the late 80’s.
I find it hard to believe that front bumper actually met FMVSS 215 that went in to effect on 9/1/1972 (the 5 mph front bumper law). It looks to me like AMC followed the big Chryslers for 1973 by adding huge rubber bumper guards to do all the heavy lifting the law required. Maybe that’s why the 1974 Matador had a major front end redesign as AMC realized it could no longer take the easy way out on the bumper law.
The 1973 front bumper sticks out about 2 inches further than the 1972, so AMC must have changed the brackets to meet the standard in 1973. Or at least appear to be trying.
I recall there was an exemption for models that were within a year or two of redesign. Cars like the 73 Imperial and even 74 Charger got by with less frontal ugliness. The 73 Mustang, too.
I don’t recall that exemption but thanks for enlightening me. That must have been how the 1973 Camaro Rally Sport passed as those “bumperettes” on the the left and right side were nothing more than decoration and would have offered no protection whatsoever in a collision.
I am not certain enough to say “nuh-uh”, but I’d bet you a root beer there was no such exemption in the statute. Makers meeting the standard in cheap and questionable ways (pass the test but offer little or no real-world benefit), on the other hand, I would not bet against.
…and now I am certain enough to say “Nuh-uh”: there was nothing like an exemption for models that were within a year or two of redesign. What actually happened was a two-stage introduction of the tests. The Federal Register for 16 April 1971 contains the whole dissertation (pdf), but here’s the relevant part:
Many comments to the docket indicated that manufacturers would encounter substantial difficulties in meeting the pendulum-test requirements at the beginning of the 1973 model year. The industry evidently has been preparing for a substantial upgrading of passsenger
car bumpers for the 1973 models. There are, however, considerable differences in the designs selected, with respect to such aspects as the height of the bumpers, both top and bottom, the extent to which they protect the vehicle corners, the material with which they are faced, and the details of their configuration. All these aspects have a considerable effect on whether the vehicles would meet the pendulum-test requirement. In the pendulum
test a precisely configured block is used as a striker, with the requirement that only a particular projecting ridge on the block may contact the vehicle. The difficulties of compliance are compounded by the fact that manufacturers are in an advanced stage of preparation for the 1973 models.
Some of the comments to the docket suggested that a barrier test should be substituted for the pendulum, at least for the first phase of the requirements. A barrier test does not by itself involve the configuration of the front and rear contact surfaces. It does, however,
establish the basic strength of those surfaces and the supporting structures, and the vehicle’s overall ability to withstand impacts at the specified energy levels.
It has been decided, therefore, to utilize fixed barrier collision tests in the first
phase, model year 1973, and upgrade the requirements by adding pendulum tests for model year 1974. It was suggested in several of the comments that less bumper strength was needed on the rear than on the front, since vehicles are struck less frequently and less severely, from a statistical standpoint, from that direction. Many of the designs presently in preparation for 1973-model production offer rear protection in the 2-to-3-m.p.h. range, as compared with 5 m.p.h. at the front. In recognition of these factors,
the requirement for rear impact protection on 1973 models is a barrier impact at 2 1/2 m.p.h., while the front is required to meet a 5-m.p.h. barrier impact.
For the 1974 models (effective September 1, 1973), a pendulum test requirement is added in a form similar to that proposed in the November 24 notice, with a front impact speed of 5 m.p.h. and a rear impact speed of 4 m.ph.
I located a NHTSA document from the early 80s that noted how Rule 215 (Exterior Protection) went into effect 9/1/72, and noted that “Certain special-configuration vehicles with less than 115 inch wheelbase were exempted from the September 1, 1973, pendulum impact requirement until August 31, 1974.”
I am thinking 73 Mustang and 73-74 Javelin at the very least. And I wonder if the 73-74 Charger might have been fractionally under the listed 115 inch wheelbase to come under this exemption. The E body cars certainly would have. Every new design in that 73-74 timeframe definitely got the big frontal logs.
I was wrong on the details but was sure I remembered an exemption of some kind that allowed a few cars to sneak through.
The document is : https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/805866
Ooh,found another that went into more detail. A 1977 review of 4 FMVSS including 216 (bumpers). Found here: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/805866
In its summary it noted “Until Oct.31, 1974, there was an exemption from the pendulum test for vehicles that have less than 115 in. wheel base, or a convertible top, or no roof support between A-pillar and rear support, or no rear seating positions.”
I guess this tells us what “special configuration vehicles” were.
is it possible that the front end cap has been replaced at one time or another. Both reflectors on the front fenders are missing.
Wow! This is my Matador! I didn’t put the price or my number on the sign because window selling in Illinois is illegal – usually people leave me a note and I call them back. I am asking $8k or best offer. I have put over $10k into this project and the paint and tailgate is the last repairs it needs. I’m the second owner (that I know of). Originally it belonged to an elderly man who passed away and his widow sold it to a friend who was a scrapper, who then sold it to my ex who gave it to me 11 years ago. We put in a new radiator, hoses, pumps, breaks, rebuilt trans, tires, dual exhaust, carb, and more. Interior is near mint aside from a rip on the seam in the front center bench, which is a fairly easy repair. My email is mariahkarson@gmail.com if you’re interested. Thank you!
This wagon is now on BaT!
Oct. 2023