(first posted 9/11/2013) By the early seventies, AMC’s Matador and Ambassador were the equivalent of the Studebaker Lark ten years earlier: you just knew they were not long for this earth. They were the driving dead, and driven by the same cast of characters who had still been buying Studes in the sixties: old folks who were either loyal to a fault, or still held to some belief that Ramblers (or Studes) were truly superior in some way, like AMC’s devotion to those extruded aluminum window surrounds. Yes, when car companies are dying, it’s all about the little practical details. That’s because practical folks are the only ones who actually care about those details while everyone else is buying the hot new thing.
The aluminum window surrounds were a great idea actually, like so many AMC innovations (folding seats, etc.). They never rusted, and it meant that even the cheapest American 220 had a bright window trim, unlike the dismal painted window surrounds of everyone else’s strippers.
But by the seventies, folks didn’t give a rat’s ass about practical details like that. That is, those that hadn’t already drifted off to Toyotas. Most Americans pined for a new Colonnade coupe with opera windows, not a dowdy and malformed Matador sedan.
In 1973, I saw plenty of new Matador sedans just like this in Iowa City, but it was the police who were driving them. I forget what they were driving before, but suddenly this whole fleet of various pastel colored unmarked Matadors arrived replacing the black and whites. Pretty sneaky, or not actually, since nobody else was buying them except for one or two old retired farmers. We called them the rainbow patrol.
I assume AMC was cutting pretty aggressive deals with the police departments then, out of desperation to keep the the lines moving. Because suddenly Matador cop cars were everywhere. And a year or two earlier, who had ever seen a Rambler cop car? Never.
This generation Matador arrived as the 1967 Rebel, and was AMC’s last shot at a competitive mid-size line. A rather nice and clean design for the times, it just got swamped by the Big Three despite its many virtues. Love that 1967 vintage art direction in the brochure shots.
Even the sedan was a decent-looking car, comparing well against the competition. But in 1970, if memory serves me right, the Rebel morphed into the Matador, with a hip-ectomy. It just didn’t come off right, like a botched buttocks-augmentation surgery.
Of course, I wish I had found the famous 1974 Matador, with its truly mind-boggling second plastic surgery malpractice. It sprouted one of the most bizarre lip or nose extensions, and assured that everyone now knew the game was truly up for AMC’s sedans. I mean, did they do that on purpose to make sure Renault really did keep buying AMC stock on the cheap? Dick Teague; what where you thinking? I know you were pretty preoccupied with your last-gasp Matador coupe, but maybe you should have delegated the Matador face lift to someone other than the janitor.
Of course, I’m still holding out for the coupe, but it’s been a while since I saw one. But I’ve said that about so many cars I never expected to find again, so I know it’s just a matter of time. Truly one of the most remarkable cars of the era.
Perhaps you’ve noticed that I ‘m not really saying much about this actual Matador sedan. And it’s not just because it’s late and I’m tired. Believe me if, if this were the ’74 coupe, I’d be buzzing.
Instead I’m falling asleep. Beats the alternative.
The book “The Last Independent” is an interesting read chronicling AMC’s history. The ’67-’68s were my favorite AMC designs along with the first-gen Javelin.
It’s a wonder why AMC didn’t just pull the plug on this segment after 73 or even 70. Things couldn’t possibly get better with the aging platform, and the cost to even get it competitive again(if it ever was) was blown on the flash in the pan 74 coupe. With cars like the Javelin, Hornet and even Gremlin there was a glimmer optimism in the AMC lineup in the early 70s, all of which were fresh attractive and even closer in spirit to the Rambler heritage, but the dog of the showrooms were these things, even shaking the minor vestige of heritage the Rebel name carried for the utterly terrible Matador name.
On that note, GM has nothing on American Motors when it comes to name changes, Rambler Six, Rambler Classic, AMC Classic, AMC Rebel, AMC Matador, yeesh! At least they stuck with Ambassidor to the end.
The tooling was completely paid for, the assembly line just kept going, and even with few sales they still made some profit.
I like the front end styling of the 1974 through 78 Matador sedan and wagon.
The specs for the ’71-’78 Matadors match up to those of the ’67-’68 Ambassadors which became their successful full-sized line when the concurrent Rebels tanked. Logic told them to recycle that content when the Ambassador moved up in spec for 1969. Unfortunately, regardless of name, they had all the identity of those anonymous insurance company ‘every car’ renderings. Fleet buyers helped keep the assembly lines going and the rest were bought by the old AMC die-hards and loyalist keeping their trusted dealer in business.
I’ve read that, according to AMC designers. the extended hood of the 1974 Matador sedans and wagons was intended to make the cars look longer and larger.
I also recall seeing drawings in many car magazines of the period showing alleged future new Matador sedans that used the front end sheet metal from the 1974 Matador coupe. It is not unreasonable to assume that such a vehicle was a possibility.
I think this is one of my favorite titles of any post here, ever. And the writing is classic early Niedermeyer to boot. Big Fan.
The Matador itself I find interesting if only because I have no real recollection of seeing them around. I’d never been a big AMC fan but find myself appreciating them more, if for nothing else than their general uniqueness. At this point in time, even if they did suck compared to their direct contemporaries at the time, the reality is that nowadays I’d be comparing any old car to others within at least a ten-year span either way anyway, so that part’s kind of irrelevant.
It was good to re-read this one, thanks!
Yes, deserved contempt runs through this piece. The latest Collectible Automobile has a piece on the cars of 1969, and it really stands out how poorly the Rebel that preceded the first Matador did in what was a growing intermediate segment. Again, not sure why because it wasn’t a bad looking car – maybe it’s just all of the Big 3 offerings looked better, tended to be a bit bigger, and moved faster.
An interesting point from that article: In 1969 Chrysler was 1st in compacts, 2nd in intermediates (helped a lot by the Road Runner) and a distant 3rd in full size. How they bungled that market deserves more study – although I know we’ve tackled it here. AMC, of course, was #4, even in compacts. A sad requiem, indeed.
“How they bungled that [full size] market ?”
The ’69 big Mopar fuselage look turned off conservative big car buyers, who didn’t like ‘racy’ styling. Same thing happened in 1971, with B bodies.
Ford’s near luxury looks of the hidden headlight LTD were a hit in ranch house land.
Until they spoiled it with the ’74 nose job, I liked the sedan-based 2 & 4 door Matadors and Ambassadors.They just weren’t as huge & gross as Detroit’s big cars. I kind of liked those aluminum window frames too. But their styling had evolved from their cars of the late ’60s, which looked good to me, but apparently no longer appealed to mainstream America.
But I think, while overall, their cars were solidly built, what hurt AMC badly, besides the retro ’60s size and styling, was that so much of the interior trim and hardware was cheap and poorly fastened.
Too bad AMC wasted so much time & money on the bizarre frog-eye Matador fastback and pregnant cockroach Pacer! Perhaps, with cleaner styling and improved quality, they could’ve hung on until the downsized GM cars came out in ’77, and showed that maybe AMC had the right idea all along.
Happy MotorIng, Mark
I have to disagree. You may not like its front-end appearance, but I thought it made the Matador more attractive than either the 1972-73 years.
The upward-slanting design of the rear doors and the shape of the C-pillar never worked for me. They desperately needed to be upgraded with a flat beltline and squared off C-pillar. Oh, and larger, beefier tires would have helped immensely as well to get rid of that ridiculous skating-on-tiptoes stance.
The ’74-’78 front snout would have been helped a lot by a pair of quad headlights. AMC in the 1970s messed up their designs just enough so they could never been mainstream success stories. Hornet/Concord came closest to being right but even they had serious quality issues. It was like they had a death wish.
Dead on, Mr Bray. The Matador and Ambassador buyer also did not get better trim, fittings, carpet or appreciably greater quality plastics than the buyer of a Gremlin or Hornet.
My parent’s 71 Gremlin was about $2600. With rubber floor mats. Their 72 Ambassador Brougham was $5000, but one could recognize the parts bin from which both were assembled.
The Ambassador did come with the AC, power steering, power brakes, new for 72 Chrysler automatic and standard troll hair carpeting [same as the upgrade one would find in a deluxe Gremlin or Hornet SST ], as well as the same sloppy assembly found on a $1998 two passenger 71 Gremlin.
Sad, as the Ambassador was a nice package on paper: sensible size, relatively lightweight, elegant styling, roomy as an LTD or Impala according to interior dimension comparisons, well equipped for the money, superficially attractive upholstery choices and with the 304 V8, a good balance of performance and economy.
A legitimate case could be made for the Ambassador on paper at least. The longer wheelbase certainly helped the styling.
The awkwardness of the Matador nose from 71 on put it on a different level. The Ambassadors dual headlight system fixed the problems of the 74 Matador sedan front end, a far better resolution for that coffin nose.
The Ambassador did have standard AC from 1968 on, which was pretty major, as the Rolls Royce was the only car at the time that offered it for no added cost.
A shame. I love these cars. Saw a 2012 -2014 Chrysler 200 in Autumn Bronze that made me stop in my tracks and circle back to Larry H Miller Chrysler Jeep to check it out.
The color was almost identical to my parent’s Cordoba Brown Ambassador. Appropriate, I think as that 200 was sort of a modern version of AMC’s top of the line in 1972.
The parts bin ran deep at AMC. The Gremlin even used the same front suspension parts as the Ambassador and Matador. (Think of Chevrolet using the front suspension of the Impala on the Vega, or Ford putting the LTD front end on the Pinto!)
Didn’t know that, Inspector. That’s just absurd. Maybe that explains all the suspension work my folk’s 72 Ambassador needed at 50,000 miles !
Actually pretty brilliant from a cost savings frame of reference, given AMC’s lack of development funds.
But the higher up the price range those baseline parts bin pieces went ensured AMC wouldn’t be competitive in those mid size and full segments.
Very self defeating in the end.
I bought a used 3 year old 73 Matador wagon in 1976. Absolutely loved that car. It was roomy, very quick acceleration, and a comfortable ride. It was large enough to carry whatever was needed. One January evening we left our home in Ohio to drive to the St. Louis, MO airport for a flight to Phoenix and then on to Palm Springs where I had a sales meeting to attend. My idea was to save money on the flights by driving part way on each end. Had beautiful weather on the first evening. Upon arising from a fine night’s rest at our motel in Indianapolis we were greeted by better than 12 inches of snow on the ground. No choice but to battle on. We were practically the only car on the road and many semis were laying in the median along the way. We arrived at the St. Louis Airport two hours before flight time. Arriving in Phoenix at 11 pm we found our motel reservation was nonexistent and had no choice but to pile into our rental Mercury Cougar and head out to California. That was a memorable trip for many reasons but a typical uneventful ride in the Matador. Too bad they were not more popular. I sure enjoyed mine. The photo below was taken in my driveway at my house at the time in Stow, Ohio. I always thought the wagon version of the 73 Matador was far more attractive than the sedan. The Plymouth belonged to one of my Mom’s sisters. If you click to make the photo larger you will see my 1975 Toyota Chinook Roundtripper in the garage. I was very fortunate to own both of those vehicles at the same time. They were both real favorites. I drove the Toyota for nearly 9 years and 250,000 miles, having bought it in 1978 with 30,000 on the clock. It was primarily used as an on the road office for my industrial advertising sales business but also for family camping.
What a great picture, Dennis! I had no idea a Chinook could fit in a garage, does that version have a pop-top or is lower than some others?
The Matador wagon does look good. Then again, I like most all wagons. That Plymouth is sharp too.
The Toyota Chinooks were pop-ups, and the ability to fit in a garage was one of the key selling points. Well, that and not overtaxing the four cylinder engine too much. 🙂
Yes, as Paul said here, these little marvels had the pop top and fit easily into a standard garage. The garage in my photo had an office built on the back so I usually would back the Chinook into the garage and then I could step out the rear door of the Chinook right into my home office. I contracted ads for Thomas Register in northern Ohio so the Chinook was an ideal on the road office. It had a long counter for work space, a stainless steel sink just the right size to hold al my renewal contract folders plus a couch on the other side with removable cushions so.i could house the multi volume set of Thomas Register each year. I used a Little Tykes rotationallly molded plastic child’s step stool for a seat in front of the counter. I could actually reach nearly all the volumes of Thomas Register from the driver’s seat for easy checking in industrial parks. At 80,000 miles on the odometer I did need an overhaul of the 2 OR engine. I suspect the mileage showing 30,000 miles when I bought it was not accurate. I was the third owner and it burned oil from day one. I had a private mechanic who replaced everything that it might have needed in the near future and he also put in larger cylinders. After that there was no catching me on the hills of the Ohio Turnpike and it still got 15 to 19 mpg. I often dream I am driving that rig and really wish I still had it. I traded it for a cream puff 77 Chrysler New Yorker Brougham in 1986. Wish I still had that too!
My Paul you’re harsh on these cars.
They were excellent police vehicles with the right engine and handled better than similar mid-size police cars from the big three. I’m a fan of the 71-73 models and remember well watching a grey unmarked Matador with 360 accelerating from a stop to pull someone over one day. It was very quick. As a family car? Don’t know any families back then that had one.
I think that one of AMC’s big problems was that a lot of the car buying public wasn’t sure what they were all about. In less than a 15 year period they went from building Nash Ambassadors to Rambler Ambassadors to AMC Ambassadors. Nash and Hudson Ramblers morphed into the whole product line being Ramblers, and once the Rambler name was established they phased it out in favor of AMC. This is piss poor marketing no matter how you look at it. Not only does it confuse the average Joe, but it is expensive to have to make new signage to correspond with yet another change in direction.
AMC tried to use VW type ‘anti-establishment’ ads to sell ‘establishment’ type cars in 68-72. Didn’t quite work.
Pacer was promoted as a “new Rambler” a rebellious car going after Big 3, but it didn’t have the ‘Rambler gas mileage’ expected.
Import and Big 3 fans stuck with what they liked.
I’ll throw in my two bits:
The foundry I worked for in 75 had two company cars a 74 LTD and a 74 Ambassador wagon. I loathed the LTD for it’s mushy handling, and loved the Ambassador’s responsiveness. Drove that Ambassador over a fair portion of Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Illinois and Wisconsin. It always ran perfectly, was stable on the road and it’s seats never left me tired.
The few surviving AMC styling department guys show up at the local AMC owner’s meet here each August. Had a chance to talk with Vince Geraci a couple years ago, and asked him about that bump on the front end of the Matador, and, to a lesser degree, the Ambassador, starting in 74. Vince was head of interior design in the 70s, so wasn’t sure if it was to meet crash standards or something else. He suggested I drop an e-mail to Pat Foster, who is accumulating a vast amount of Nash/AMC information for a new book. Foster replied to my e-mail and said that the bumped nose was simply to make the cars look longer. Sounds crazy, but when I look at a 70-71 Thunderbird or Mercury Montego, or a 69 Gran Prix, I see a lot of crazy nose jobs.
By the way, in the current issue of Hemming’s, Pat Foster is giving a nod to Nash/AMC on the 100th anniversary of the company, both for Charles Nash’s astute management and for the many innovations the company introduced.
I’ve never been a fan of the Ford LTD of the 70s. Nor do I like the Chevy cars of the same vintage. And forget about Chryslers. Except for the Dodge Dart and the Plymouth Valiant of the 70s, I find them hideous looking.
Steve, Thanks for that info on the motivation for the nose job. It’s actually what I assumed when I first saw it at the time. AMC had been wanting to play with the big boys for some time, and they all had big-boy noses. So this was a way to do it that presumably kept the tooling changes down for the fenders.
Ironic, since 1974 was the preview of downsizing to come, with the Mustang II. And then the Seville in ’75. Now if only they’d made it look more like the Seville, they might had aomething on their hands and been a trend-setter instead of a johnny-come-lately.
And I don’t doubt the Amby drove better than the LTD. Everything did. 🙂
While the downsizing of the Matador might’ve helped sales, it’s hard to say what a change in appearance would’ve done. AMC already had the Hornet and the Gremlin.
Totally agree about the Seville look, Paul. Square up the rear roof line, flatten the belt line at the back door, put 4 square headlights on the front and bigger, beefier tires, and they’d have had a viable competitor to the ’77 Caprice on their hands. Tooling costs would have been minimal.
Ugh, sorry, can’t agree at all.
From a business perspective in 1975 sure, maybe, but wasn’t going to happen for AMC (look at how much GM put into the Seville).
From a collectors/cool perspective today, man is the Seville dull. I mean, just how much more attention would a 72 Newport get over a 76 Seville today?
Sure the Seville was a better car, but so what? One was a massive rolling slab of American art, unique to the world, while the other was a reluctant attempt to play catch-up and get with the times, sort of a cleaning up on Sunday morning after an all nighter.
Ironic, since 1974 was the preview of downsizing to come, with the Mustang II. And then the Seville in ’75. Now if only they’d made it look more like the Seville, they might had aomething on their hands and been a trend-setter instead of a johnny-come-lately.
I have pondered what niche they could have looked at, if not the Pacer and Matador coupe. Ever notice how the wheels seem sunken into the fenders on the senior AMCs? The track is actually very close to that of the Fairmont/Zephyr. Take tin snips to the body and carve off all the extra sheetmetal, while retaining the existing suspension and powertrain, then offer the new downsized Ambassador in a full 70s brougham suit, while retaining the Hornet/Gremlin as the low buck offering. I saw oodles of Granadas and Volares around in the 70s, and AMC could have been right in there with them, with the boxy styling and a better suspension.
Thing is, being “right in there with them” wouldn’t do AMC any good because they had to pull customers away from the big three, and they needed something different to do that. Say what you like about the Pacer and Matador coupe, they were different. Problem was, the clientele that likes that sort of “different” was too small.
Pacer and Matador coupe were different but they were also ugly with those big fisheyed headlights bulging up into the hood. If ever there were two cars that should have had square headlights, these were them.
I’ve never been fond of the Matador coupe, particularly from 1974 to 77. I’ve always preferred the sedan and wagon.
Hornet and Gremlin made AMC as a ‘small car expert’, and the ’74 gas crisis pushed this more. After spending cash to try to compete in NASCAR, and fastbacks, they had no cash to try to bring out new bigger cars. Renault had to step in.
They tried the Barcelona Matadors to compete with Cutlass, but those were like little kids in men’s suits too big for them.
Some dillweed put the front amber sidemarker lights on the rear, and the red rear ones on the front—see 3rd photo.
For the record, I’d love to buy a Gen 1 Matador, but they appear to be VERY scarce, and the few solid ones that come up seem to be commanding decent coin.
I should also add that I’m rather a fan of the ‘coffin-nose’ Gen 2 Matador. Yes, it is less attractive, but at least the bloody thing stands out in a crowd. To be fair I’m biased; here’s me a week ago…
I also like the “coffin nose” AMC Matador sedan and wagon of 1974-1977. I regret that I’ve never owned one, nor have I driven a Matador, but I’ve always found them more attractive than most cars of the 70s.
Thanks Car Nut.
I can say that they drive pretty much like they look – a 19ft barge from the 70s, BUT…when you turn the steering wheel the car actually turns, and aside from severe body roll, it’s definitely not a mushy ride. It’s very stable and predictable at all speeds – very easy car to drive.
For me at least, it’s not hard to imagine how a 401 + front power disks + uprated suspension = a car you could chase bad guys down in.
I agree. I reckon if you ordered the police pursuit package, you could get beefier suspension, heavier duty items. Like most people, I like a comfortable ride, but I don’t like having the car scrape the pavement every time I hit a bump, a dip, or a pothole.
I’ve always liked the AMC Matador sedan and wagon. I know there are plenty of dissenters here who find its styling hideous, and especially the protruding “coffin nose” look, but that’s their opinion, and they have a right to have it. I just happen to like the styling.
Interesting rereading some of the old comments and perspective. Here in California, Rmablers certainly had a following but by the early ’70’s those folks had either died or moved on to Toyotas. As a high school kid, I was amazed when we started seeing AMC patrol cars first on TV and then locally. That seemed as odd then as it is today when I see a British or Swedish TV show with Kia police cars. I think the fleet sales were just the end of the end for AMC. Ditto for the foray into NASCAR. By the way, I’m pretty sure the CHP never used the Matadors, as someone mentioned. Is my memory wrong?
I think you’re right about the CHP not opting for the Matadors. They used Mopars in the 1970s pretty much exclusively – such as Dodge Polaras and Monacos.
The LAPD was the big user of Matadors during that time – so you saw a lot of them on cop shows based in Southern California, such as Adam-12.
You’re correct. CHP never used the Matador. They bought full sized Dodge (never Plymouth) in the 70s up until they piloted the B-body Coronet in 1975 in response to the gas crisis. After that, they went to the B-body Monaco and then the St. Regis.
It was LAPD who was the big purchaser of Matadors in California. They were popular police cars all over the country in ’72 and ’73 because the 401 had a performance advantage relative to the competition. It didn’t hurt that they were cheaper and came with air conditioning too.
I can’t help it. I LIKE these Matador’s. Even the 74’s. Guess I just have a sickness that can’t be cured. Nor would I want to be cured. I owned a 73 Ambassador for a brief while. Same basic car as the Matador stylewise. Wish I still had it.
Whenever I see these cars I instantly think of the nuns at my church growing up. They would literally speed going up and down the street in their black Ambassador wagon! We had two AMC dealerships literally across the street from each other, so my neighborhood was full of AMC cars when I was a kid.
I always have a soft spot for AMC cars as they seemed to be behind the times in comparison to the big three. The funny thing is that people that owned them always seemed happy with them, too.
Had one just like this when I was a surfbum on Oahu 1986/87. It was an ex airforce car. It was a very reliable car and a great ride! Sweet ol memories.
Did Paul say “74 Matador Coupe”?
https://modesto.craigslist.org/cto/d/1974-amc-matador-coupe/6303439140.html
My parents had a 74 Matador Coupe. I believe theirs was either Orange or Red. Sadly, he didn’t maintain it like he should’ve, and it didn’t run very well. Since then, my mom hasn’t had a good thing to say for anything American Motors, but especially for the Matador. 🙁
My, the styling of that blue Matador coupe hasn’t aged well at all. It looks like a rejected proposal for the 2nd generation Camaro / Firebird. Check out the outline of the windshield and the door window. Also, the rear quarter panel. IIRC, the rear featured round taillights reminiscent of the Camaro’s.
5 years later it’s still there, “for sale”. https://modesto.craigslist.org/cto/d/turlock-1974-amc-matador-coupe/7540748130.html
And it had been hanging around for a while then, which is how I knew to go looking for it at the time.
Love that pic of women stacking giant blocks in a field while rocking those flared sleeves.
Fashion!
I grew up in Kenosha & my parents were from elsewhere & were GM people. We had a ’73 Impala clamshell wagon. One day I was invited along on a road trip to Madison to register my h.s. friend for college. His dad was an AMC engineer & they had a ’74 Ambassador wagon. Dad drove & I don’t think I’ve ever passed the miles from SE Wis to Madison in faster time. The Ambassador wagon seemed to me on that day to be a far superior driving car. Lighter weight, better suspension control, more powerful engine vs the weight of the car. These wagons although slightly smaller on the outside had loads of room inside. I thought the styling was fine, functional with a dash of pizazz.
If decade ending awards were handed out, the Matador sedan could be have been awarded, ‘Dumpiest Styled Domestic Car of the 70s’. These could have been decently styled cars, but a number of design details, were handled poorly IMO. Shame, as their size seemed right in many ways.
I looked and looked and looked at these cars as a boy when they were new and found them just so odd. (Then thinking that having Adam-12 cred might be their salvation from being about as sexy as a deep freezer.)
I do the same here trying to imagine what is wrong with them that they might look so odd.
Trying to think about a line here or some sculpting there, some things that would make it look less odd.
I don’t think these cars are ugly, more just a combination of random strangeness, too thicc, to thin, fussy about hinges like weird little gap hiders under the hood and deck lid, etc.
Then it hits me, just everything about them is wrong.
But I still like them for that.
Ps growing up in detroit, in the shadow of the AMC Center even, it seemed as if everybody just thought of AMC as the company saved by Romney Sr that started to build odd looking cars after he left and it was just a matter of time before they went the way of the dodo. (I think there was agreement that the Javelin, and esp AMX, made up for all the rest.)
Some go on about “AMC being ahead of GM’s 1977 B body”, but they were a HS Auto Shop project of junkyard 1967 parts, compared to a ’77 Caprice.
74-77 Matador was the joke of the industry, ignored, unloved and kept on market to say “we’ll show ’em”. Big waste of space, money and led to Renault buy out, then Chrysler…
74 coupe sales sold ok 1st year like the Pacer, to the trendy “1st on the block” car fashionistas. Then, pitiful sales. NASCAR did nothing for it, also.
Chrysler and DeSoto had aluminum bolt-on window frames on some 1959 models that looked like stainless appliques but were separate bolt-on frames.
Our family ride in 1970 was a “Rebel SST Sdn”. Was kind a /sort a optioned, relative to 1970.
The a/c was an “aftermarket, hang on the dash” one. It threw copious amounts of water after being on for a while.
The wipers turned out to be “vacuum operated”. Who knew such things existed in 1970???lol Man they were a pain.
The “304 cid V8” was sufficient and smooth. Some ladies in a pickup with a camper on it backed into the front of it in 1972; did quite a number to the front end. It was a low speed hit though.
Once the car was “supposedly” repaired, the radiator was never right. My parents, for some unknown reason, never did get it dealt with.
The car hung in until late 1975. Became second car in fall of 1973, as I recall.
Our driver’s ed car was a ’74 Matador, never thought anything about it at the time. My grandparents had a ’65 Rambler Classic which became ours when grandma wanted a new car. I LOVED driving that 2-door, fire engine Rambler, it had a very strong engine. Dad sold it to a collector since it was still like new with just 48K on it.
Perceptions of these in Australia were different. They were marketed as an “American limousine” and hence considered prestigious. I love my ’72 sedan. Those of you criticizing the “style” are victims of your social brainwashing from the 70s and 80s. AMCs were ahead of their time.