How many cars during the 1980s, regardless of origin, could be configured to present such different personalities as did the Monte Carlo and was able to achieve this while having only one basic body style?
Likely few, and the the Monte Carlo would undoubtedly be a contender for any such title. So let’s add another to its roster of personalities – the Aerocoupe.
Before further elaboration we first need to talk about the Monte itself and how its various personalities sprang forth.
Falling in line with what was sweeping General Motors and the other American manufacturers in the late 1970s, the Monte Carlo was downsized for 1978. In comparison to the 1977 Monte, wheelbases were down 8 inches, weight was down 600 or so pounds, a V6 could now be found under its long hood for the first time, and sales were down about 50,000 units from 411,000 the prior year.
To its credit, GM carefully stuck to it’s Monte Carlo playbook. The Monte could only be had as a two-door coupe and, in what had become a Monte Carlo trademark, some form of side sculpting remained intact. How successful this look was on this particular car is a very subjective thing.
The Monte kept the same basic look for 1979. Model year 1980 could, in retrospect, be viewed as an unusual type of hybrid. Using the 1979 tail, the four-eyed face was a strong preview into what would grace most Monte’s until their hiatus which began after the 1988 model year.
No doubt opinions vary but this new beak was definitely less overwrought (although overwrought was a Monte Carlo trademark of sorts), providing a degree of elegance via simplicity that had been on sabbatical.
The metamorphosis would be complete for 1981 and, like a caterpillar turning into a monarch, the final result was infinitely more aesthetically pleasing in its final form (another admittedly subjective statement and let’s not count those tires and wheel covers in that assessment).
For one who has never used the phrase “design language” in his life, the body sculpting, albeit toned down and refined, along with the vertical tail lights effectively reincarnated the design language of the phenomenally popular 1970s models and successfully translated it into a distinctly new era. The reshaping of its rear flanks also eliminated the saggy ass appearance of the prior three model years, providing a much more square shouldered look.
With the use of shoulder pads being so prevalent in clothing during the 1980s, this square shouldered look was a timely and relevant one.
So successful was it, a similar concept was carried over to the Monte Carlos of the mid-2000s. In particular, vertical tail lights such as these were keeping in the Monte Carlo idiom.
As had always been the recipe, the Monte Carlo was intended as a personal luxury coupe. There had been the SS454 performance variant early on, but those were few. For most, the Monte Carlo was an affordable and attractive isolation chamber, a car that provided a degree of sophistication for a marginal premium.
1984 shown
For 1983, Chevrolet introduced the Monte Carlo SS, It was a nod of glowing respect to the initial SS models, one that had more standard under hood motivation than all those lesser, more plebeian Montes.
It also gave a slicker schnoz for racing purposes.
Wisely, Chevrolet opted to not name the car “SS305”. After such legendary engines as the 327, 350, 396, 427, and 454, any reference to the comparatively petite 305 would have likely backfired. The SS was the second personality to appear from the Monte Carlo during the 1980s.
If examining the verbiage in this picture, reading about a “high output” 5.0 liter V8 pumping out 180 horsepower in 1984 isn’t an oxymoronic statement if you keep it in context. If it still seems oxymoronic, you simply had to be there there; at that time, this was pretty heady stuff compared to what had devolved into the norm. It was a 20% bump in output from the regular 305 (5.0 liter) V8 making 150 horsepower – an amount comparable to, but mainly higher than, many other V8 engines of the time in the 5.0 to 5.2 liter range.
This extra oomph propelled a 3,400 pound 1985 Monte Carlo SS from a standing start to 60 mph in 7.7 seconds, less than a second slower than a 1985 Camaro IROC-Z28. That 7.7 seconds is comparable to a 1980 Corvette or a 2011 Chevrolet Suburban 4×4.
It’s the need for extra oomph that spurred creation of the Aerocoupe. At the time the Monte Carlo was the de facto Chevrolet stock car in NASCAR races and there was one particular car that was eating its lunch.
The Ford Thunderbird.
While we won’t focus on racing results, let’s just say the success on the track between the Monte Carlo and Thunderbird was palpable, just like it was in the showroom.
In factory retail configuration, the coefficient of drag for the Monte Carlo was 0.375 where it was 0.35 for the Thunderbird. More drag takes more power to achieve the same speed and Chevrolet was at a deficit. They were faced with a dilemma of how to address this as having Ford outperform them was simply against the natural laws of the universe.
At this point we need to stop and ponder the Monte Carlo itself. This is directly from the 1986 brochure for the Monte Carlo and it delightfully encapsulates the divergent dynamic that was overtaking the Monte Carlo. Note the THREE (!!!) different header panels available on the same car in the same model year.
To be fair, this was the time of transitioning to the flush mounted headlamps as neither the 1985 nor 1987 brochures show this, but still. This “Three Faced Monte” really sounded like a card game.
In a sense, this scattered approach is reminiscent of an old movie…
The Three Faces of Eve was about a woman with a split personality. There was straight-laced and innocent yet tormented Eve White (the aero headlamped Monte Carlo Luxury Sport Coupe, a name that contains a certain degree of torment itself); there was Eve Black, the fun loving socialite (Monte Carlo SS), and then there was the personality that was somewhere in the middle (the Monte Carlo Sport Coupe).
This all begs a question… What was Chevrolet’s target?
Necessity is the mother of invention. Chevrolet was on the receiving end of very pointed complaints from the various racing teams due to the poor aerodynamics of the G-body. The popularity of the Monte Carlo had declined considerably in the prior decade with annual sales now the 125,000 range, with just over one-third of them being SS models by 1986.
So Chevrolet got creative; in a way, it was quite similar to what Ford did when it created the Sports Roof Galaxie for 1963 or what Chrysler did by making the Dodge Daytona in 1969.
The rear glass was extended at a 25 degree angle with the trunk lid being shortened and incorporating a small spoiler. The header panel from the SS was retained. Two hundred units, just enough to meet NASCAR rules, were built in 1986. The following year found 6,052 Aerocoupes spilling forth from the Chevrolet factory.
While this wasn’t a cure-all for the Monte’s aerodynamic ills on the race track, it helped slow the bleeding. The all important coefficient of drag dropped an entire hundredth to 0.365. While frontal area is a different story entirely, this lowered coefficient of drag brought the Monte Carlo Aerocoupe in line with a 1986 Ferrari Testarossa. Or a 2008 Cadillac Escalade hybrid.
It’s pretty obvious an ad-writer at Chevrolet was pretty clueless; that advertised coefficient of drag of 3.65 is likely comparable to that of most single family dwellings.
hemmings.com
It needs to be mentioned Chevrolet wasn’t alone in making aerodynamic improvements to the G-body for racing purposes. Pontiac did similar to the Grand Prix, calling it the Grand Prix 2+2. Even more rare than the Monte Carlo Aerocoupe, only 1,224 copies were built for 1986 only.
Given the different header panel for the 2+2, something not found on any other Grand Prix, it certainly suggests the standard Grand Prix was even less aerodynamic than the Monte Carlo SS.
For about two years I’ve been seeing this Monte Carlo Aerocoupe all around town. It’s been parked at a variety of places but never at an opportune time to nab pictures. My chance finally came back on a Sunday evening in May. My wife and I had stopped at a grocery store on the east end of town and this Monte was parked at a repair facility adjacent to the store.
Oddly, I took no interior pictures. The interior is regular Monte Carlo with the blueish seats having upholstery that is frighteningly similar to what I had in a 1993 Buick Century I owned a few years ago.
Thinking back, I’ve only seen one other Aerocoupe in my life – and that was thirty years ago. It was parked in this building, in the showroom of what had been Jim Bishop Chevrolet in Cape Girardeau. If memory serves, that white Monte Carlo Aerocoupe languished there for quite a while.
But it’s good to see this low volume speciality car being used as it was meant to be. Being a Monte Carlo, an example of what the GM of yore did best, there is little doubt this Aerocoupe will still be around in another thirty years.
Found May 6, 2018, in Jefferson City, Missouri
Related Reading:
1970 Monte Carlo – A Modest Beginning To A Huge Hit (and Hips) by PN
1976 Monte Carlo – Finding Your Comfort Zone by JS
1979 Monte Carlo – Exotic Destinations by Joe Dennis
1995-1999 Monte Carlo – Lumina Coupe Two by William Stopford
2000 – 2006 Monte Carlo – The Last Gasp Of The American Personal Luxury Coupe by William Stopford
Automotive Aerodynamics: Drag Area – Size Matters by Mike Butts
The 1986 Aerocoupe didn’t conform to NASCAR’s established volume rules for eligibility at all. NASCAR rewrote or ignored its volume rules to give Chevy some help to catch Bill Elliott’s Ford. In addition to the tiny number of 1986 street cars, NASCAR allowed the cars to race before the minimum number were built. Less than 100 1986 Monte Carlos were converted by Chevrolet’s contractor Cars & Concepts before the 1986 Daytona 500.
The 1987 models were regular assembly line products.
NASCAR was really trying to help Chevy along and ignoring that rule. When the MCSS replacement hit the track, the Lumina, for the 1989 season… the street car wasn’t even available yet. It didn’t come out until the 1990 year model. Even as a teenager at the time, I thought this was messed up that they were racing a “stock car” that you couldn’t yet buy.
Not a NASCAR follower here, To me each race looks like precision driving. No one seems to pass others. Everyone starts and stops pretty much in the same position. Snob alert!! Give me Grand Prix, or Formula One..Yeah, yeah, let the outrage commence! 🙂 However, I do like the Aero Coupes Back then it really was about racing a “stock” car. Now we have what to me seems like a “funny” car on an oval track. Weird “stock” looking fiberglass bodies and nothin stock at all underneath. FWD stock cars like Camry and Fusion, now have RWD? running stock V6’s, really? When did that happen? Like I said, not a follower of NASCAR. Just curious.
Give me 50s,60s, and early 70s NASCAR, before the big sponsors and subsequent “toning down” and “TV-izing”. The good ole’ boys!
When stock WAS stock!
Don’t forget, though, the France family WAS NASCAR, they were the law, and it weren’t hardly no democracy!
I’m surprised they haven’t started putting RAV4 and Ford Escape headlight stickers on them at this point. I briefly watched NASCAR as a very young boy, but I wasn’t even 10 years old when the Thunderbirds were inexplicably turned into Taurus “coupes” and I completely thought it was asinine and checked out of the “sport” forever.
Headlight …stickers. That’s one thing up front, but I’ve long wondered what difference a “functioning brake lights” rule would make to the racin’.
(and maybe truth-in-advertising would require functional left blinkers front and rear, hard-wired to flash all the time).
“Back then it really was about racing a “stock” car”
Not really. These things were rolling on full tube chassis at this point. The only thing stock about them was the firewall, floorpans and the veneer of metal that made it look like the street going versions.
Here’s an under hood shot of an 84 Buick Regal Cup car.
What I meant was, a lot stocker than now, and the farther back in time you went, the even more stocker they got.
Ahh. I misunderstood.
They didn’t just look like them, they had to match the contours of the production cars. Tube frames were inevitable for safety reasons. The current bodies are because manufacturers no longer have interest in producing cars related to NASCAR racing in any way. And the sport is in steep decline.
Huge improvement just visually over the 1920s style regular green house.
Having an ‘83 T-Bird at the time, and watching them clean up in NASCAR due to their aerodynamics, my first thought when I saw one of these was, “CHEATERS!!!” 😀
But I suppose that’s what they had to do.
When I got my ‘88 5.0LX ‘Bird, I recall I could regularly take these with ease in the stoplight drag. The difference likely being sequential port EFI versus a glorified carburetor (throttle body?). I’m not sure, but someone here will likely correct me if I’ve got that wrong.
All derisiveness aside, I actually like these and briefly had (my ex’s car) an ‘84 Monte with the 4.3L V6. It was a nice car until someone rear ended my wife while claiming to have a sneezing fit. Our 3 months with that car was all too brief.
Jason, I see you left out the 2-door Lumina that briefly wore this nameplate in the nineties. That was probably wise, as that car was the most un-Monte-Carlo of them all!
Monte SS had an eQudrajet for emissions compliance.
GM took FOREVER to add TBI to the passenger car V8s. The 305 didn’t get TBI until 1989 when the RWD Monte Carlo was already smoldering in its grave awaiting a W-body resurrection. The Olds 307 (used until 1991) NEVER GOT TBI or EFI!
Signed,
Disillusioned Former GM FanBoy
“GM took FOREVER to add TBI to the passenger car V8s.”
Even stranger, the base Monte Carlo 4.3 liter V-6 offered TBI for the final four years (’85-’88), and some light trucks offered a TBI equipped V-8 in ’87.
So an in-tank fuel pump and basic wiring were installed in the Monte Carlo in ’85, and a TBI equipped V-8 was available for use in ’87. All Chevy had to do was bolt it in.
Where’s all the love? Next you’ll be dissing the Mustang II.
By “un-Monte-Carlo-like”, I simply mean it’s missing key design cues like the “rolling hills” stamped into the sheet metal on the sides. All Montes have that look except this one. They would’ve been better off just calling this a Lumina Sport Coupe or something…. of course GM played fast & loose with that name as well, using the Lumina name on a Dustbuster Van, but I digresss…
As far as “dissing the Mustang II” goes, I am actually in the minority amongst my fellow Mustang enthusiasts as I’ve said on these pages before, “I don’t hate these cars”. During peak malaise, were lucky we got a Mustang at all. And, it was the right car at the right time for Ford as they sold A LOT of them. And since we’re on the subject of design cues, at the risk of upsetting the many Fox enthusiasts here, the Mustang II looked a lot more like a Mustang than the Fox ever did.
The only Monte Carlo I ever really liked was the first-generation ’70-’72 models, and even then the ’72 got an overly glitzy grille. The ’73 was busy and messy (a modern version of the sharknose Graham?) but at least its large size helped it carry its styling excesses. I hated the downsized ’78, and the ’81 restyle only somewhat improved things. My take on the MC SS is that the rakish nose belongs on a less stodgy car – like what was done for the El Camino SS. The semi-fastback Aerocoupe is a strange mixture to my eyes.
A friend and co-worker bought a new Monte Carlo SS in 1986 – white with a maroon interior. He loved the car, but he had no end of transmission problems.
I agree about the early Montes. I loved the 70 and came thisclose to buying one. It had just come off the truck that afternoon and nothing was touched when my wife and I stopped at the dealer. It had the 400 SBC, just what I wanted. My wife happened to open the passenger door when I heard her gasp…..looks like someone had reached up under the dash and grabbed a handfull of the wiring and hoses etc and yanked it all down onto the floor.
I got “the look” that said she’ll be waiting for me out in our car!
To finish the story, we wound up getting a 70 Cutlass Supreme, which was the same body as the Monte. Lived happily ever after!
Nice catch with the Aerocoupe. These are from the last time that stock cars looked like the actual cars – check out those headlights on the T-Bird – and not just stickers representing lights.
These were pretty distinctive and rare when new, though the regular Monte SSs were quite popular, along with the Cutlass of course. The T-Bird really looked modern though when it came out, too bad that the headlamp laws hadn’t changed yet to allow composite lamps, the 83 T-Bird with flush headlamps would have looked even more futuristic.
Since Ford introduced the first US flush headlights on the 1984 Lincoln Mark VII, they had the means to put flush lights on the T-bird, perhaps for the 1985 facelift. For some reason, they passed on the opportunity and decided to wait until the 1987 restyle.
To answer the question of “who was Chevrolet’s intended target for the Monte Carlo?”, I think it was really anyone who wanted a large, RWD Chevy coupe. By the late-1980s, the Monte Carlo was Chevy’s only remaining car of this type, as Caprice, Impala, and Malibu coupes had all been discontinued. So in essence, the Monte Carlo’s multiple flavors were in attempt to cover small segments that had been vacated. Of course, this also caused even further overlap with other GM brands, which was GM’s great downfall of this era.
You are nicer than I am!
That section got reworked many times as I was always too tempted to answer my own question. Those pithy answers always came across as mean spirited which was never the intent.
In the end it seemed best to just leave it open ended.
Haha. I’m facing a similar situation regarding how to address the perceived demographic for the Pontiac Grand Am in the early-00s in an article I’m working on. I decided to leave it open ended too for risk of offending anyone.
I really wanted one of these when they came out.
Intended target? They almost got me when I was 17. Watching NASCAR and reading car magazines, I knew it was coming. The dealership in the tiny town where I went to high school got one displayed on the corner of the lot. Oh, man. The salesman actually took me somewhat seriously, though it was no doubt partially due to knowing my Dad had a body shop. I had some money from working in the shop and the farm down the road. I guess Dad didn’t want to co-sign. Hmm.
I later bought a traded in ’71 Chevelle from the same dealership for $675 and got busy fixing it up in the shop. I still think the SS is a cool car.
…Yes, I wore a mullet in those days and listened to a ton of heavy metal back then (my name here is kinda autobiographical.)
I really wanted my parents to get one when these were out. I was around 8 when these were out. I absolutely adored the MCSS, and couldn’t understand why my dad wouldn’t want to get rid of our old stodgy station wagon and get one of these cool cars.
The Cutlass and the Regal were so much better looking, especially after the 1981 facelift and performance wise Buick blew everyone out of the water with the Grand National and 3.8 turbo
In 1987, I was 14 and my Mom bought a new Corvette. My two older brothers were already of driving age and I was only 2 years away from my license, so she figured that since she had a good job, that was the time to trade our ’82 Delta 88 and get the Vette she always wanted and my Dad’s ’83 Riviera could be the family car for the next 2 years. Now, most 14 year old boys would have been thrilled to have a Mom with a new Corvette (and truthfully, I was!) but being the big NASCAR and musclecar fan I was at the time, I would have much rather have had the shiny new maroon Monte Carlo SS with T-Tops (it wasn’t an Aeroback though) that was also on the dealers lot, or the black K5 Blazer but Mom wasn’t having any of that.
So I would have been one of the ones that bought one new back then (and not an Aerocoupe) and only if I couldn’t get a deal on a Grand National
I’m getting too old to have a solid memory of this, but it is my recollection that the Aerocoupe could not be had with a full-size spare tire, because the mail-slot trunk lid was not big enough to fit it through. Instead, one got one of the famous GM inflatable spare tires.
Jason, I agree with all of your insights regarding the metamorphosis of the Monte Carlo as it underwent downsizing in the late seventies. In 1974, I bought a new Monte Carlo S coupe. I agree that its styling was a bit over the top, but in triple black with Landau half-vinyl top, Rallye wheels and white pinstripe tires, it struck me as kind of a smaller 1967 Eldorado (the bent-glass backlight added to the illusion). In fall 1977, I went to a local Buick dealer, intent on ordering a 1978 Regal coupe. After seeing one in the metal, I didn’t have the stomach to buy one. It really brought home to me Bill Mitchell’s remark about “tailoring the dwarf.” Instead, I ordered a downsized 1978 Cadillac Sedan de Ville, whose smaller dimensions I had finally come to accept. For 1978, the Sedan de Ville had the same padded vinyl roof and smaller backlight as the 1977 Fleetwood Brougham, which sweetened the deal for me. I never cared for the 1978-’80 Monte Carlo, but found the 1980 four-headlight facelift an improvement. The 1981 freshening recalled the look of my 1974, albeit with toned-down styling and better-integrated bumpers, now that GM had learned how to successfully disguise their energy-absorbing function. As for the Aerocoupe, I didn’t consider it a stylistic improvement over the notchback, but agree that it served the interests of the NASCAR Chevrolet teams, to some degree. I can’t remember the last time I saw an Aercoupe, but in these parts (WNY), even the once-common Monte Carlo standard coupes are rarely seen. Rust truly never sleeps. Great write-up, Jason!
Actually that average single family dwelling would likely have a drag coefficient approaching 1.000, defined as it is as “the ratio of the aerodynamic drag of a given object, compared to the drag of a vertical planar surface of equal surface area as that object”. ie, the frontal silhouette of that Monte Carlo as drawn on the brick wall of the side of that house….lol…
Which makes 3.65 look even more ludicrous. My intent was to poke fun with that statement in the article.
I saw many of these back in their day, and wanted one. I liked the look and my then-hate for GM lessened a lot when these came out.
Funny how these were around at the same time the “bustle back” Cadillac and Lincolns came out!
If I recall, I last saw one in Middletown, OH – about 25 minutes from me. It was white as well, and wasn’t in bad shape, either
Speaking of back then – FWIW, I finally found photos of our 1990 Acclaim and 1980 LeBaron, aka “The Batmobile”!
I’ll post them at the next appropriate time.
I recall seeing a new Grand Prix 2+2 on display at the an autoshow back in the day. It was displayed in a back corner away from the main area like they were embarrassed to show it. As a Pontiac enthusiast I walked around it for awhile. Not one other person seemed to notice it. With a sticker price of $21k it’s no wonder they weren’t big sellers. Recently I witnessed one on a flatbed leaving my neighborhood. It watched it languish in a neighbor’s driveway for 16 years untouched. I hope it went to a good home. Didn’t look to bad other than 4 flats, a droopy headliner, and a little surface rust. Shoulda to some pics.
In my neck of the woods there was a Grand Prix 2+2 that was driven by the quintessential little old lady. Id see it every now and then, always driven by her. I alway wondered if she knew what she had. There must have been an interesting story in how she came to own such a car. I last saw it about 20 years ago.
This may have been silly from a consumer perspective, but it sure helped make NASCAR a lot more interesting than it is today. Drivers had personalities back then too.
This filled me in about something that never crossed my radar, Jason. I remember the stock-bodied NASCAR of my youthful 1960s-70s, but then somehow didn’t much follow it for years—and then all of a sudden I sort of “awoke” to the sculpted shells with headlights painted on, RWD versions of FWD cars, and all that.
I knew about the earlier Ford and Chrysler efforts to streamline for NASCAR, but this one was new to me–and I have no memory of ever seeing one on the street.
I saw one in Erie, PA in the past year.
I wonder how long the three-faced Monte Carlo actually lasted. It seems to me that it was a case of GM having far more 1981-85 style fronts on hand than the parts department would ever need at the end of the ’85 model year and the only way to get rid was to use ’em up, reserving the planned facelift for the “Luxury” trim level until they were all gone (start of calendar ’86? spring?)
Wait…what? Y’mean these were real? The only other time I’ve seen one, that I recall, was on “Breaking Bad”—or maybe it was “Better Call Saul”—and I thought it was a custom job done by (or for) the thugs driving it, using a backglass from a ’77-’79 Caprice or Impala coupé. Guess not, but until I went and looked side-by-side, I was tempted to think this was just GM using up dust-gathering stock of those backglasses.
Tim Richmond drove one of these to 7 wins in the 1986 NASCAR season, and came within mere few points of winning the championship-all while dying of AIDS he didn’t know he had yet. That cat had personality too. R.I.P Tim
I always kind of liked these. Congratulations on a rare find! I am sure I have seen at least one over the years, but it’s been a while.
There’s one around here I often see at car shows. The owner, for whatever reason, decided to give it Lambo doors.
This is one of the few cars I want to own in a totally unmolested state. (Oddly, that list is growing as I get older.)
The Grand Prix 2+2 was more interesting but not quite as well executed. That “face” wasn’t nearly as well designed as the Monte’s. And from what I remember the GPs rear glass and decklid weren’t quite ready for primetime either.
I was always baffled by the last G-Special RWD ‘musclecars’. For starters, the only hot ride of the quartet was the Grand National with the turbo V6. The others all had V8s but, man, were they lame. So why didn’t the Grand National get the aero rear window treatment? I know little about NASCAR rules of the time so I can only guess it had something to do with the turbocharged V6.
In that regard, I never quite understood why the MCSS didn’t get the 350. I mean, c’mon, the Camaro had it as an option and I can’t imagine GM was worried about cannibalization. I guess it was a CAFE thing. Whatever it was, a 350 in the Monte would have made a world of difference.
I read this yesterday on the way to work and am late with my comment, but Jason, great piece, and I love the analogy! Nice work, as always.
I, also, was somewhat confused by all of the hats that this (and subsequent generations of) MC was required to wear, using the same basic styling.
I’ve learned to fell in love with Eve Monte Carlo and it’s unstable mindset. Eve can have as many faces she want and I still like her. Of course, she might need a V8 350 and a 6-speed manual, but that’s pretty easy. In the end, she’s a woman that needs a help from one who can truly love her. And I don’t suspect that she’ll reward accordingly to the courageous men who take her through extreme behavior changes on the road. For sure, Eve isn’t for every kind of men. It’s kindly on the drive, wildly on the race. Let her soul unwind over you.
(Sounds like a good advertising text, but that’s how my love works.)