With a love-it-or-hate-it style, the Matador Coupe was like nothing else before or since. Meant to take on such worthy competitors as the Chevy Monte Carlo and Pontiac Grand Prix in the personal luxury coupe era, they never caught on, for obvious reasons. The seller has this 1974 AMC Matador Coupe posted here on craigslist in Minden, Louisiana, and they’re asking $7,500. Here is the original listing, and thanks to Pat L. for the tip!
If you don’t like the styling of the Matador Coupe, you disagree with one of the most-respected car magazines of all time: Car and Driver. Believe it or not, in the fall of 1973, they named the new Matador Coupe as “1974’s Best Styled Car“. AMC’s Richard Teague and Robert Nixon, along with the designated design team, were given the task of creating a competitor in the personal luxury class and this was the result. The infamous front “face” was reportedly an homage to the third-generation Rambler American, styled by Richard Teague.
Some of the details weren’t exactly breathtaking, at least in a good way. The crazed fish eye headlights have to be the most unusual feature, followed by somewhat similar tail lights. However, the oddly low, wide, and swooping body was a close competitor. I like them, especially one in yellow as Marty Milner got a new one on Adam-12 and I’m an Adam-12 nerd.
The new Matador Coupe was made from 1973 for the 1974 model year, until the end of 1978. AMC offered a two-door Matador before the swoopy new Coupe and they’re rarer to see today, with almost ten times as many Matador Coupes being sold in 1974 than the 1973 Matador two-door hardtops. The seller says that this Matador coupe has 40,000 miles on it and it looks great from what we can see in the too-small and vertical (sigh) photos. They say that it has an excellent original interior and it sure looks perfect in the photos.
The base engine was a 232-six, but this one has a 304-cu.in. OHV V8, which would have had 150 horsepower. The full range of engines would have been available early on, up to the 401 V8. This car has factory AC but it isn’t currently working – otherwise, this looks like a winner to me. Hagerty is at $8,400 for a #3 good-condition car and this has to be all of that. Any thoughts on this Matador Coupe?
I’ll be the first to comment🐴 This isn’t the first Matador coupe we’ve seen on here lately. There was that Special Edition Maroon car a few weeks ago and someone had a pic of a Matador Coupe with the bumpers removed and it was a decent looking car imo🤔 Not a bad price for this nice Yella Survivor especially with that 304…Certainly better than a Straight 6! Certainly won’t see another one like it, if you are a Yellow Car driver, and you would have a nice example if you were to purchase this one✌…GLWTS
I was always in the camp that didn’t like these. I just think the proportions are really weird (tires and wheels look way to small) and it looks kind of bloated
This is the car you give to your kid for having failing grades.
Bumpers removed example the best looking one agreed
I owned a 1974 Matador in 1982. Paid $500. I recall it had a vacuum gauge represented by a, “fuel economy” gauge in the dash that took up about half the space.
I drove it from Chicago to Cheyenne, WY for my little brother to use while in a Auto Mechanics school. He rebuilt the tranny as part of his studies and we drove it back in late December. Heater worked fine.
Ok, ok, I thought it was the ugliest car and was glad to sell it at a profit after driving it 2 years.
V-8, bucket seats, tan paint with light brown interior. Solid daily driver but I took “smack talk” when driving it.
AND THE vacuum “Poor, Good, Excellent” gauge worked fine….
My parents had purchased this in a bronze color brand new as kids . My dad came home and said here is our new car. we were like eeww. where is our Cadillac….my sister and i hated this car the look of it..
This Bull Fighter model in Daisy Yellow with the
checkerboard cloth interior might be one of a kind.
THE DONKEY LADY WAS NO BETTER.. from what i heard..
Somewhat surprisingly this doesn’t appear to have AMC’s trademark reclining seats. (They were optional but popular.) If it weren’t so far away I’d be really tempted.
These were way out there style-wise. It’s amazing that the Company thought these cars would be competitive against the likes of the Chevy Monte Carlo or Olds Cutlass. They did sell pretty well the first year by AMC standards but sales quickly took a nosedive.
The design of those 1974 -’78 AMC coupes is rather unappealing ! They have a ” very stodgey” appearance with little refinements overall . The interior is quite nice , but as for the body , I would give it very low ratings , The AMC Concord was a much nicer model introduced for 1977 .
“very stodgey”? They are very sleek compared to the Malibu brick.
But styling is in the eye of the beholder.
I agree with the Concord comment, I had a 4 door with stick…. on the floor! In the same yellow! However, does anyone remember that this body style ran and won in NASCAR back in the day!
Those were known as the (in)famous “Nash” seats. Infamous if you had a teenage daughter at the time and her date pulled up in a Nash or AMC.
Base Matadors withsmall wheels are awkward. Fully optioned “X’s” is the award winner. Special wheels etc. Matador Coupe had same style problem as the Studebaker Avanti,during that time period only old fashioned looking square cars were popular, no newfangled curvy styles.
First thought, “Give me the Monte”
Awesome, brave and nice styling. The vinyl top doesn’t do any favors. I love these, without the vinyl and stuffed vinyl tops!
I like the contrasting driver side and passenger side wheels. You get a whole new vibe when you go to the other side of the car.
An ol’ Used Car trick
Humm. What else is a bit squirrelly then? Seems about the laziest approach to maintaining a car ever.
Nice catch on the hubcaps Joe. I looked at pics several times and missed it. Lol.
I must say, as much as I loved the Javelin, how in the hell did AMC survive the 1970s selling the Gremlin, the Pacer and the Matador coupe…all at the same time???
( * ) ugly.
What’s a Matador?
Oh, that’s a Matador.
Sister car to the Ford Granada and Mercury Monarch.
I believe both the Granada and Monarch sold a.bit better than this ugly duckling (all due respect to ducks !)
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I’m sure some cars you like, others consider to be ugly.
The Ford Granada and Mercury Monarch were good practical cars for the times. They were nice looking compared to the competition. You got a comfortable car for little money, If that is what you mean, I agree.
I’ve always loved these, I remember seeing a brand new one up close in the Fall of ’73.
No one is neutral about these, they either love or hate them.
With that way of thinking,I wonder how many TR7 owners
also have a Matador?
Richard…..you are right. Put me in the camp that loves the MATADOR COUPE!!
I feel like someone at AMC came up with a great design for a Matador coupe, but executives found prototypes to be too tight inside and ordered the design to be widened by 4 inches, completely ruining the proportions.
Bought an X model in that same color yellow brand new. 360, four barrel, magnum wheels, black stripe. Loved that car. Traded it in four years later on a Bandit Trans Am.
So stated above, Car & Driver named it 1974’s Best Styled Car?!!!! Well, there was a lot of drug use back then. It was and still is FUGLY. Sorry to the Matador lovers.
Didn’t Kent McCord’s character have the Matador?
I never minded these and still don’t. Credit to AMC for trying something different.
If AMC gets credit for “trying something different” they have a LOT of credit. Have a look at all of their … em … “designs”.
Their Javelins and AMXs are timeless in styling. Both early and later styles. And whats wrong with the Rebel and 1973 back Matadors?
I was born in 1971 and have loved cars since my earliest memories. I always thought everything AMC made was just frickin’ weird as early as 3 years old (?) I had family we would visit every summer in Louisville and some related 2nd cousins owned an AMC dealership, so that’s what the family there all drove. Imagine being in your formative years only knowing the likes of GM and Ford to find yourself surrounded by a recent fleet of AMC’s ! I don’t dislike them, they’re fun to look at and comment on. I’d feel cool sporting a ’74 Gran Prix, could not see myself in this.
Fuel injected with CDI ignition straight 6 swap, modern 5 speed automatic transmission, hub spacers and new shocks and springs, enough lift to get 18 inch rims and nice not too low of a profile tires. The narrow track enhanced the bloated appearance of not too terrible of an obviously classic period car design. It could easily get 25mpg+ done properly, and not be slow. No point in heavy V8 engines especially if it’s only 150hp. My 4 cylinder 2.2EFI Fuel injected Toyota is 150HP. Even that as a FWD would not only be great gas mileage, but you’d lose the rear differential, suspension for that RWD, and be way faster than that V8 ship’s anchor. It would be a very fun and rewarding project to show AMC why they failed.
The only issue to the 1974 Matador styling is that it came out too late. It parallels the 1971 Dodge Chargers and Plymouth Satellites.
Don’t forget, it certainly has much better styling than the bricks that GM was selling in 1974. There isn’t a worse looking car than the 1974 Malibu bricks.
They look like door stops.
The Matador’s styling I agree with Car and Driver was well executed styling. with the best styled “safety bumpers” that served a purpose with out looking
like battering rams.
The body lines flow smoothly from front to back with a smooth transition around the rear and continuing to the other side.
Even those rear side windows are operational, unlike the sealed rear windows on GM cars.
Sadly as usual people tend not to be objective when it comes to AMC but
show their bias against anything AMC.
I don’t dislike AMC, I would love to own several models if I had money and a large barn. Objectively speaking, they just made some very strange looking cars that didn’t appeal to most. It’s in the eye of the beholder and I’m certainly not alone in seeing cars like this and the Pacer as weird looking…
Just switch in the 1987 up mighty Jeep 4.0 which is an AMC design.
It has Fuel Inj, better head design, 4 speed Overdrive. Its a common swap into any AMC, as it is an AMC altho Chrysler ised it well into the late 1990s. AMC had gteat mechanicals but they were too quick to sell big cars with tiny, yet tough, 232 or 258 I 6 engines.
They were ahead of their time with the 4 wheel drive Eagle and the boxy Cherokee. The Gremlin and Pacer were sucesses. THIS Maddy Coupe is actually the car that sunk AMC. Id love to own it.
When I was a kid a neighbor had a black Matador. He had it decked out with a set of chrome Craiger wheels and wide tires on the back. The tires and wheels really set the car apart.
I worked at an AMC dealership when these came out. We all thought this was going to be the salvation of AMC/Jeep. We all liked the styling. Now nearly 50 years later not so much, and of course the rest is history.
Interesting! Ive always thought that was the case. I read that his was Dick Teagues pet project. I know it took tons of $$ in tooling at the worst time. Sad. Chryslers buyout was aggressive. AM wouldve survived as everyone decided the SUV was cool. If theyd not birthed this coupe and hung on alittle longer.
I donno what’s wrong with people’s eyes but that is a beautiful car! I love mine! Better looking than just about any other offering from the 70s! Except me of course!
Being kinda weird myself I’ve always liked these. They are a completely different car with both bumpers removed.
I prefer the later models, the Matador Barcelona with the smaller rear side windows compared to the pointy ones.
The 70s was a good time for AMC. Too bad their days were numbered.
I liked these matadors.They were different looking and to me being unique is cool.Maybe that is why it was in a James Bond movie.
This car was obviously designed for a smaller bumper, perhaps a blade or more likely one matching the body contour, as with the Javelin. Knowing Dick Teague’s work, I suspect the latter. They simply did the best they could, like everyone in 1973.
How did this car perform being built in 1974? I’ve read a lot that all makes of cars built in 1974 should be avoided, as manufacturers de-tuned cars to meet more stringent emissions standards before unleaded gas and catalytic converters became available in 1975.
Actually looks like an enlarged Pinto. The thing about AMC was that they made the best engines across the board. Some AMC engines are running just as smooth as when they were new. Of course Chevy’s mighty mouse 327 has a great record also and the slant six and Audis 2 liter.
The rear 3/4 view is the best angle for this car. The taillights give a foreign feel to the car, which I think was the point. AMC was trying to appeal to people abandoning the being 3. I always appreciate the interiors of AMC cars, especially their choice of seat fabrics over the years. Plaid, paisley, brocaded when the others all went to single colors. I’d really like to find one of the hatchback versions.
So I think Car and Driver must have been way deep into hallucinogenics back in the mid-70’s.
Always liked these and owned a 78 for a few years in the 2000s. Enjoyed seeing all the parts that AMC sourced from other car makers – Chrysler trans, GM steering column and locks/keys, Phillips radio from a Ford, smelled like Ford plastic inside, same dome light as my 84 Buick…
Listing update: someone must have grabbed this one, the seller deleted the ad!