Road & Track Review: 1974 AMC Matador X Coupe – “Sleek & Fast But Oversize & Thirsty” and Two Years Too Late

(first posted 2/9/2018; updated with commentary 2/8/2024) 

R&T notes that thanks to the Gremlin’s (relative) success, AMC was able to increase its market share in 1973, although the impact of the energy crisis might have been a factor too. This resulted in rather unusual profits for AMC, which were plowed back into what was going to be AMC’s next big success: a stylish new coupe in the hotly contested intermediate size category, one which was considered to be the most style-conscious category in the market. Think Monte Carlo, Cutlass Supreme and such. R&T wrote that with its long hood and fastback roof, the new Matador coupe “hits the market head-on”.  As in a high-speed crash? On a NASCAR track?

Styled by Dick Teague with suggestions by Mark Donohue the sleek new coupe was designed to become a serious contender on the NASCAR speedways”.  There you have it; AMC was willing to buck the very obvious styling conventions taking over the mid-size coupe market in order to rumble and roll on the high speed tracks. That worked so well for the Dodge Daytona and the Plymouth Superbird. “The Matador coupe is an example of AMC’s ingenuity at its best“.  Just wait until the Pacer arrives!

The Matador coupe was available in AMC’s linup of engines, from the base 232 six all the way to a four-barrel 401. The tested car had the fourbarrel 360 V8 with the optional dual exhausts, thus packing 220 net hp, and backed by a Chrysler-source automatic (Torquefllite). Performance was reasonably brisk, with an 8.9 second 0-60 time. Fuel economy was poor, with 13 mpg.

In a sign of AMC’s limited budgets, the Matador’s interior did not live up to the exciting exterior in the slightest, being cheap and cheesy. R&T noted that GM had been moving to more European-inspired dashes and such, but that was nowhere to be seen here. The dash was deemed overstyled but cheap looking, and lacked the desired instruments. Ventilation, a field that was pioneered by AMC in the ’50s, was also deemed inadequate with no dash-level vents.

In another retrograde move, the seatbacks lacked adjustment; AMC had also pioneered reclining seats in the ’50s, once a major selling point back when Rambler’s styling was boxy and unsexy. How times change.

 

As to its handling, it was deemed a bit better in some regards than average, but then it did have the optional handling package. I strongly suspect it wouldn’t compare as well to Chevelle or other GM intermediate with the F41 suspension (or equivalent). AMC’s unit body construction let through more bumps and noises than the BOF construction of a comparable GM or Ford car.

Equipped with the optional radials, the Matador could be pushed along quite briskly although the understeer was rather strong. The vague GM-sourced power steering as used in this car was deemed to be good for parking but not for driving.

Although the Matador coupe got “admiring looks wherever it went”, R&T couldn’t muster much enthusiasm for the whole package, given its size and poor fuel economy at a time when resource shortages were the talk of the times. They said that two years earlier, they would likely have felt differently.

Nice landing; wrong airport.