We have generated quite a bit of lively discussion recently on the 1974 and 1976 Malibu posts. Clearly there are quite a bit of opinions regarding the Malibu’s nose between 1974-77, and not all of it is complimentary. What if Chevrolet had added the front clip from their Broughamiest mid-size Brougham, the Monte Carlo? Let’s start off with the Monte Malibu Landau coupe, as seen above. Does it work?
Here we have the Monte Malibu sedan. By the way, I was limited in selection from oldcarbrochures.com because I needed a similar angle for merging two different cars into one. That’s also why they are black and white. They’d look really wonky in vertical two-tones. Maybe they do anyway.
Last but not least, we have the Monte Malibu Classic Brougham Estate, how’s that for a name? Could it have given the Vista Cruiser and Century Estate Wagon a run for their money? Who knows; anything went in the car business during the Great Brougham Epoch!
This exercise looks best in the Station wagon version!
It’s the colonnade roof that’s the problem, not the front end. Strange how all the A-Specials looked good while the sedan A bodies looked odd. And those wagon taillights!
Tom, you’re breaking my heart here.. No! Nonononono.. The Quad light cars to top it off! Argh..
I should do one with the ’75 Monte nose, huh?
Something tells me it still wouldn’t work.. 😀
Though, being crazy for “Malaise” GM, I’d be lying if I said I never thought of this..
Well, here it is regardless. Brace yourself…
And how about a wagon?
You know how to torture a guy.. Behind the wagon, there’s a sad child. You did that!
Now I know what Volvophiles felt when the 262c came out..
I could live with that. The Monte’s execution of the safety bumpers looked nine times better than the Chevelle’s did.
There usually a good reason why the car maker didnt do this and this is it.
The Monte/GP shared the extra long wheelbase with the A body sedans and wagons, but the inner body shell of the smaller wheelbase A body coupes. It therefore used its extra wheelbase to make the front clip longer between the firewall and the front wheels. To attach the Monte front clip to the Sedan/Wagon would require a wheelbase that did not exist. The collanade sedans for all 4 divisions were very weak sellers vs coupes for all 5 years compared with sedans of the 68-72 and 78-88 generations. My guess is that the thin rear pillar styling hurt sales because it was perceived as downscale vs angular styling of coupes and weak sales A sedans happened from the start, hence the use of angular styling in all GM sedans that came after 73 starting with the 75 x cars. GM did not bother to restyle the weak selling sedans mid-cycle because the coupes were selling so well and they were too busy with other projects like the B/C and new A/G.
Strong coupe sales were not at all unusual back in the 70s. They typically outsold sedans 2 to 1 for most brands. Sedans didn’t take over in popularity until sometime in the 80s.
When child safety seat laws started to become popular.
And it’s worth noting that the Monte Carlo actually outsold the Malibu Classic Colonnades, despite a significantly higher price. I can only conclude that buyers were willing to pay the premium for the Monte Carlo styling.
I thought the Colonnade sedans were a better-proportioned package than the awkward-looking ’68-’72 sedans, and were nicer cars than the ’78-’87s. The four door Colonnades may have been a little out of place in the Brougham-tastic ’70s, but not compared to the idiotic Buick/Olds Aeroback sedans and their cheapass fixed rear door glass.. The Century wagon actually outsold its sedan counterpart in ’78-’79.
Meh…
Looks like something that would have been tried by the people behind the cheesy customs of the 70s. (Such as the Stutz Blackhawk.)
I could understand if a person just wanted to swear off these years. I did. But Tom, your rendition looks as good to me as what the factory did. I guess that’s damning with faint praise. Sorry. I’m out.
There was an photo in one of the magazines (might have be Collectible Automobile) that showed a Chevelle wagon with the Laguna front clip, and that looked mighty fine. I don’t think the Monte front works as well due to the lack of rear fender flares….Plump for a Century/Regal wagon if you like flared front fenders on your wagon/sedans.
In ’73, there really was a Laguna wagon.
I almost got into an argument with a “J blog” “Editor” over that Wagon. Life was too short..
There was also the opportunity to get an SS Wagon and Sedan in 73.
If you knew how to punch the cards right, you could even get a 73-75 Laguna-El Camino..
Why not a Monte Camino? It would have made Chevy’s car/truck distinct from the GMC Sprint.
I taught of the same idea for a “Monte Camino” or a “El Carlo”, great minds meet. 🙂
The Monte Carlo’s nose really requires the MC rear fender character lines. Now a 4-door and wagon version of the MC would be pretty cool. Or maybe just a 2 door MC shooting brake.
Of course in the coupe-crazy days before the popularity of Volvo, BMW and MB made sedans “stylish”, that would have killed MC sales….
I seem to be in a minority of one, but I think these – the coupe especially – are kinda handsome… albeit in a very 70s sorta way.
The ‘Montebu’ never would have happened, and for a simple reason: profit. In typical GM marketing fashion, I have no doubt that the Malibu was intentionally made more dowdy looking than the Monte Carlo because there likely was little real cost difference between the two. It’s not much different when, in the sixties, the carburator for the Firebird 400 had an added block in the throttle linkage to keep it from completely opening so it wouldn’t be faster than the exact same engine in the GTO.
To make a Malibu look as good as the more profitable Monte Carlo would have removed most of the rationale for a customer to spend more money on the latter and cannibalized Monte Carlo sales (and profit):
Customer: “I would like a Malibu coupe but the Monte Carlo looks so much better”.
Salesman: “Well, for only a few more dollars per month, you can have that Monte Carlo!”.
+1.
Kinda like the idea that from the 60s through the 80s the Big Three made their small cars “penalty boxes” because they wanted you to buy something bigger, nicer, and more profitable.
In large measure, the intermediate-sized personal luxury car did the half-way good-looking intermediate hardtop in. Absent a simiilar-sized PLC, sixties’ GM intermediates are well styled and all still look good today.
But with the arrival of the enormously successful, intermediate Grand Prix in 1969, followed by the Monte Carlo in ’70, although the ’70-’72 intermediate hardtops were still looking good, ever after, it sure looks like GM sacrificed the styling of the Chevelle and LeMans coupes to keep sales (and bigger profits) of the PLCs up.
The ’78 downsizing hurt the plain 2 doors sales. Especially the Olds/Buick Aerobacks. When the 1980 442 was put on the formal roof Cutlass Supreme, that was the end of the slants. But also, Olds/Buick offered plain bench seat Supremes/Regals that sold like hotcakes. And, by 1981, Chevy/Pontiac buyers preferred a base formal roof MC/GP, over the plain Malibu/LeMans.
How about the Monte Camino ?