The American car-buff media has struck me as rather stale lately, but one relative newcomer has offered a ray of hope. The Car Collective’s Substack is a “newsletter” (re: a website with email distribution) that is a shared venue for 11 automotive journalists. These 10 men and one woman possess a fair amount of stature within the field. Thus, I initially expected a bland, lowest-common-denominator editorial tone much like Automotive News. However, I have often been pleasantly surprised at the spunkiness of the Collective’s content.
For example, Paul A. Eisenstein (2026) argues that President Trump’s fuel-economy rollback will add thousands of dollars to American motorists’ gasoline cost over and above any savings from the deregulation. This is only partly because of the Iran War, which has spiked the price of oil.
$60.6 billion regulatory rollback creates uncertainty
Eisenstein (2026) noted that even “at an average of just $2.89 a gallon, the administration’s promised savings would be completely offset by higher fuel bills. At 50 mpg a typical driver would spend $792 annually for gas. At 34.9 that would jump to $1,136. Over the 12.5-year ownership that would come to a cumulative $4,300 in higher fuel bills, or about 3.3 times the promised savings.”
In addition, Eisenstein (2026) argued that any advantages automakers will get from the relaxed standards could be at least initially diluted by the uncertainty of administration rules surviving court challenges. Not mentioned in the article was that the current Trump term ends in two years. The election of a Democratic president in 2028 would almost certainly result in tougher regulations. Given the long lead times in developing new vehicles, a prudent automaker would presumably consider that scenario in its planning.
So while the rollback of fuel-economy rules represents a huge gift to the auto industry — the administration estimates that savings to automakers could reach $60.6 billion by 2031 — Eisenstein implies that this may be a pyrrhic victory. After all, as fuel economy becomes increasingly important to consumers, automakers that double down on big trucks and sporty cars with V8 engines may not generate the sales that they might have expected prior to the outbreak of the Iran War.
I find this to be surprisingly tough-minded analysis for a journalist who has spent so many years covering the auto industry. In addition to writing for the Collective, Eisenstein publishes the Headlight News.
Data shows how badly the 1978 Matador coupe flopped
The December issue of Collectible Automobile has a story by Don Sikora II (2026) that offers an overview of the 1978 field of intermediates. As usual, the storyline didn’t venture very far from basic names, dates and features, but I did come across some interesting data in a production table.
Out of the almost 11,000 AMC Matadors that left the factory that model year, only around 2,000 were two-door coupes. In contrast, almost 5,000 four-door sedans and roughly 4,000 wagons were produced (Sikora, 2026).
AMC was the only automaker whose coupes sold much more poorly than sedans and wagons. For example, the Chevrolet Malibu sedans (base and Classic) saw output reach approximately 147,000 units. That was above the Malibu coupe (roughly 117,000 units) but far below the Monte Carlo (358,000 units).
Let’s step back and consider that the Matador sedan and wagon were far and away the oldest U.S.-built passenger cars in 1978, with some of their sheet metal dating all the way back to 1967. In addition, these body styles were hamstrung by a particularly ugly coffin-nose fascia. Yet in 1978 they still sold far better than the coupe, which was given all-new sheet metal in 1974. That was more recent than the enormously popular Monte Carlo.
The bottom line: Trendy coupe styling was extremely popular in the mid-sized class in 1978 but few buyers liked the Matador coupe. That was despite being given a broughamtastic model that included a landau roof and two-tone paint. How could AMC management have so badly misjudged the viability of the Matador coupe?
NOTES:
Specifications and production figures were from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (1993, 2006), Sikora (2026), and Flammang and Kowalke, 1999).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, Ill.
- Eisenstein, Paul A.; 2026. “Trump Mileage Rollback Will Add Thousands to Your Fuel Bill.” The Car Collective’s Substack. Posted Sept. 29,
- Flammang, James M. and Ron Kowalke; 1999. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1976-1999. Third Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Sikora, Don II; 2026. “The Intermediates of 1978: The Second Shoe Drops.” Collectible Automobile. December issue: pp. 8-21.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: AMC Matador (1978)
If people gave a rip about fuel mileage, they wouldn’t be driving massive trucks. This is a non-story. We had 50mpg cars in the late ’70s and didn’t need EVs to get there. If you really want more, lose 1000 pounds off your car. Dump the 18 extra airbags,touchscreens,12 speaker stereo and crumple zones and learn how to drive without looking at your phone every three minutes. If you can’t drive properly and respect other motorists then you deserve any injuries that come your way. I’m not worried about being hit by other motorists because I pay attention to traffic, cooperate with big rigs and my car has more grace than that elephant most people are driving.
This website is all about the tunnel vision of Detroit and how they’ve failed to understand almost every trend that’s come down the pike. If they die because they doubled down on big trucks then I won’t cry.
You can pay all the attention to the road that is humanely possible but still get taken out by events nobody can forsee or control. That’s the moment the safety features keep you and your family alive. There are many, many videos on You Tube if you believe you don’t need protection from fate.
Rolling back “CAFE” standards is as much a gift to American vehicle buyers as it is to manufacturers. There is no mandate that Americans must buy trucks and cars that get poorer fuel economy simply because the fuel mileage threshold is reduced. When and where there is market demand for 50+ MPG vehicles (and the intrinsic compromises that go along with them), then manufacturers find ways to respond. That is what they do: Create an attractive option that fulfills consumer needs and wants…or they eventually go under. Vehicle makers should now be a little more free to create and market vehicles that buyers prefer, rather then those which the government decides are best for us.
Reducing the CAFE numbers does not automatically result in a reduction of high fuel economy vehicles being sold. That will only happen if customers choose (and can afford) big V8 trucks and high performance cars over econo-boxes.
The vehicle manufacturers exist to make money by fulfilling consumer demand. Profitable manufacturers are good for our GDP, our collective economic prosperity, and for our American way of life.
A turbocharged four cylinder is the standard engine in full size Chevy or GMC pick-ups because of CAFE standards, not because it is best suited to the vehicle nor because it is what most buyers really want. Let the government reduce its influence — not abandon it, but loosen its grip a bit. Then perhaps we can watch our industries bloom AND we can more readily buy vehicles we actually want. If GM can make profits on Chevy Bolts, then may they freely go forth building Bolts, and may they sell millions of ’em. But they should not be forced to build them as loss leaders in order to sell the trucks that make the real money. (I am using GM only as an example ; substitute Ford, Stellantis, et al, as you please).
Mr. Eisenstein would do well to remember that no one is mandating that either he, or the mythical “typical driver” he cites, must buy a vehicle with lower fuel economy. It seems quite telling, though, that he believes that all drivers should be forced to comply with his preferences for higher fuel mileage, and that corporations should be stressed by law to perpetually find ways to meet an arbitrary CAFE target that is constantly moving further and higher.
I didn’t get the impression that Eisenstein thought that “all drivers should be forced to comply with his preferences for higher mileage.” I also think it would be useful to remember why the CAFE standards were created: To reduce the U.S.’s dependence on foreign sources of oil. As the current Middle East conflict suggests, that is hardly an obsolete concern. Surely U.S. automakers are patriotic enough to support our national security interests.
In more recent years CAFE standards have also been used as a policy tool to fight climate change. I get that some folks insist that this is a “hoax.” What gets conveniently ignored in that line of argument is that the Trump administration’s full retreat from addressing climate change is a huge gift to the Chinese auto industry — which is aggressively moving forward with advanced EV technologies that have the potential to leave Detroit in the dust. Even Automotive News has expressed concerns about this.
I don’t know if you are old enough to remember how difficult it was for U.S. automakers in the late-70s and early-80s. That was the point in time when foreign automakers made huge market-share gains. As bad as things were, they would likely have been even worse without CAFE standards, which forced Detroit to start making their passenger cars more fuel efficient like the imports.
After Trump’s deregulation U.S. automakers will be on their own, so the next few years will be a big test of how “reality based” they are. If the future is like the past, I suspect that U.S. automakers will veer too much on the side of more expensive gas guzzlers . . . thereby allowing Asian automakers to further eat into their market share.
Remember, Toyota, Honda and Hyundai are all adding U.S. production capacity over the next few years. Unless total industry sales increase, that’s going to come out of someone else’s hide. Do you honestly think that it won’t at least partly come at the expense of U.S. automakers? If so, please explain how.
I would suggest that the plans of GM and Ford do not differ all that much from the foreign (mainly Asian) competition.
Honda, Hyundai and Toyota are adding more capacity in this country to build…more trucks, SUVs and crossovers.
Honda is adding two large SUVs that will slot above the Honda Pilot and Acura MDX in their respective lineups. It has also placed more priority on bringing out the next-generation CR-V (its best-selling vehicle) than on the next-generation Civic.
Hyundai plans to build body-on-frame pickups and SUVs in the U.S. The pickups will be about the size of the Ford Ranger and Toyota Tacoma. I doubt the SUVs will be any smaller.
Toyota is expanding the capacity of its San Antonio to move production of the Tacoma from Mexico to the U.S.
These aren’t going to be inexpensive vehicles. Nor will they be especially economical (except, perhaps, for the CR-V, which will be available as a hybrid).
Meanwhile, European nations haven’t changed their regulatory goals – but things don’t look that good for their automakers. VW is in dire shape, and the European operations of Stellantis are losing money. Stellantis is essentially being propped up by the North American operations, which rely heavily on sales of Jeeps and Ram pickups.
Ford is working on a platform that will supposedly be used for six vehicles priced under $40,000. (Shades of the 1960 Falcon – what’s old is new again.)
From what I’ve read, the platform will be flexible enough to accommodate electric and hybrid powerplants. Test vehicles for the Fathom pickup, a small electric powered pickup, are already being driven on public roads, which suggests Ford is nearing production. I highly doubt Ford will “pull a Cardinal” and cancel the project at this stage, no matter what changes there are in the regulations.
This platform is being driven by affordability concerns, along with the need to meet possible competition from Chinese automakers. Changing the regulations won’t make those concerns go away (and note that the Chinese are already in other markets, so Ford and GM are certainly aware of them and what they can do).
The question mark is Stellantis, but those decisions are ultimately being made in Europe, not Auburn Hills. I’ve not seen any solid plans beyond milking Jeep and Ram as much as possible to support the rest of the company.
Slapping Chrysler and Dodge nameplates on Alfa-Romeos or Fiats? That didn’t seem to work too well with the Dodge Hornet.
Selling Alfa-Romeos as BMW competitors? I’ve been poking around various forums, the Alfa-Romeo owner complaints center on lackluster reliability, indifferent dealer service and complaints about parts availibility.
Perhaps the Alfa-Romeo slogan should be “Suddenly, it’s 1975!”
Regulations – either stricter, or less strict – aren’t going to address the issues with Stellantis.
I’ve always considered the ’78 Matador coupe as a “runout” model, i.e.: a model intended to be discontinued but continued for an additional model year to use up stocks of body stampings and parts. There are other examples in this era:
1980 AMC Pacer – approximately 2,000 units
1978 Chevrolet Monza S – 2,326 units using the old Vega hatch body
1978 Dodge Charger SE – 2,800 units
I agree, but I still thought that the body-style production breakouts were revealing. Similar proportions held for 1977 even though totals were higher: The sedans garnered roughly 13,000 units, the wagons 11,000 and the coupes 7,000. I have not found breakouts for 1976 but for 1975 it was sedans around 28,000 units, coupes 22,000 and wagons 10,000. Only in 1974 did the coupes do okay: roughly 63,000 units, sedans 28,000 and wagons 10,000.
The Matador coupe was essentially a one-year wonder.
As far as the Matador coupe is concerned… ummm, to paraphrase Jim Carville… it’s the styling stupid. The sedan and wagon may have looked oldish and dorky, but the typical AMC buyers who prized function may have overlooked that to an extent.
The Trump rollbacks will harm automakers in the long run as worldwide the trend will continue to run towards EVs, hybrids, and increasing efficiency in all aspects of transportation. Not seeing this and planning accordingly would be shortsighted and even criminally negligent in some regards. Then again recent history has shown that far too many decisions are made strictly for political expediency by “the deciders” regardless of the consequences, intended or otherwise.
The December Collectible Automobile issue pictured all the ’78 sporty 2 doors. What was big was garish decals, to the extent they lean toward looking like circus wagons, not to mention 2 year durability. The Barcelona Matadors all around the worst, except the oneshot of the basic coupe stands way out for it’s stylish simplicity. Also, from 1974 onward who would buy any coupe that only got 12 mpg/17 mpg highway? The gas crisis of the mid seventies ended all gas guzzlers early. The Matador coupe had quite the tonnage for a coupe, all around so yesterday starting in 1974.
The Olds Cutlass was the most popular car in America for 1976. It was about the same size as the Matador and got about the same gas mileage. The downsized full size Chevy was the most popular car in America in 1977. It was about the same size as the Matador and got about the same gas mileage.
The Natador appeared to be a mashing of the just ended Javelin with A conventional sedan. Amc must have felt the a sporty car was needed,but with a back seat. Didn’t thunderbird do the same?.
Today there is car that l am jonesing for. It too is a sporty midsized with decent interior space and get this…
It is has a fastback roofline. That car?
Dodge’s own Charger.This the closest thing ‘to a revived Thunderbird.
New Matador sedans and wagons were a rare sight on the road after 1975. From what I remember, the people who bought them were older, and most likely Nash/Rambler/AMC loyalists who probably had started out with a brand-new Nash Statesman or Ambassador in the early 1950s. Needless to say, their numbers had dwindled considerably by the mid-1970s.
With the coupe, the “X” versions were okay, but the basic coupes were awkward and the Barcelona editions were obviously trying to be something they were never meant to be. People who wanted a flamboyant, intermediate personal luxury coupe would buy a Chevrolet Monte Carlo, Chrysler Cordoba or post-1976 Ford Thunderbird.
Those who wanted something more understated and stylish bought an Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme/Salon or Buick Regal.
They weren’t going to be tempted by a coupe that looked awkward from some angles, and wore a much less prestigious nameplate.