1975 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Landau Vs. Chrysler Cordoba – Personal Luxury Coupes For The Disco Inferno

 

Although The Trammps’ hit “Disco Inferno” wouldn’t drop until Dec. 28, 1976, the fire was already burning by 1975: Disco and funk were warring with easy listening and classic rock on the Billboard charts, and bell bottoms and crushed velour were everywhere. Flamboyant personal luxury coupes dominated the automotive market, and Chrysler challenged the reigning champion Chevrolet Monte Carlo with a new intermediate personal car called Cordoba. Let’s take a look at how the 1975 Chrysler Cordoba compared with the 1975 Monte Carlo.

 

The 1973–1977 Chevrolet Monte Carlo was by no means the only personal luxury coupe of this era, but from a commercial standpoint, it was the one to beat. Its predecessor had sold pretty well, but the second-generation Monte introduced in 1973 was a phenomenon: By the end of the 1974 model year, Chevrolet had sold more than 600,000 of them, threatening to eclipse the A-body Chevelle/Malibu series on which the Monte Carlo was based.

 

Chrysler Corporation had never had much footing in the personal luxury market. The original 1965 Dodge Monaco had been intended as a Pontiac Grand Prix rival, but it wasn’t distinctive enough to make much impression, and Dodge quickly had second thoughts. When the muscle car market imploded in the early ’70s, Dodge had tried to reinvent the midsize Charger as a personal luxury coupe with the Charger SE (above). Its basic shape wasn’t quite in step with the aesthetic trends of the time, still more Daytona than discotheque, but it was a step in the right direction commercially, so when the B-body intermediates were refreshed for 1975, Dodge dropped the non-SE models and gave the Charger SE a more Monte Carloish look.

 

The original plan, as is now well-known, was to give Plymouth its own version of the new Charger SE coupe, to complement the new intermediate-size Plymouth Fury line. During the development process, however, Chrysler management decided to badge the Chrysler-Plymouth version of the new coupe as a Chrysler rather than a Plymouth, giving it more badge cachet, a higher price, and bigger profits. It was dubbed Cordoba, a name Chrysler had previously used for a special edition of the Chrysler Newport in 1970:

 

The intermediate-size Cordoba was the smallest U.S. model in years to wear the Chrysler badge. Chrysler had previously resisted the temptation of offering “junior editions” like the Buick Skylark or Oldsmobile Cutlass, but in the wake of the 1973–1974 OPEC oil embargo, this attitude was no longer tenable, and so Cordoba advertising proudly proclaimed it “The new small Chrysler.” They could probably have hedged a bit and called it the new smaller Chrysler, since the Cordoba was still a large car by most standards. However, it was very definitely a Monte Carlo-size car, as this table illustrates:

1975 Chevrolet Monte Carlo vs. 1975 Chrysler Cordoba,
Major Dimensions

Dimension	Monte Carlo	Cordoba
Overall Length	213.7 in.	215.3 in.
Wheelbase	116 in.	115 in.
Track, front	61.9 in.	61.9 in.
Track, rear	61.1 in.	62.0 in.
Overall width	77.6 in.	77.1 in.
Overall height, unladen	52.7 in.	52.6 in.

 

Despite the similarity in dimensions, the Cordoba didn’t quite match the proportions or the curves of the Monte Carlo. The Chevrolet’s big party trick was shifting the front wheels forward relative to the cowl, providing an extravagantly long hood, which the 1973–1977 cars matched with exaggerated side sculpting that recalled the torpedo fenders of ’40s GM cars.

 

By comparison, the Cordoba appears a little straighter and a little squarer in profile. Its overall proportions really aren’t very different, but it looks like the hood is shorter and the tail longer than the Monte’s.

 

The lighting of these photos tends to disguise the flare of the Cordoba’s front and rear fenders: It’s not as pronounced as the Monte Carlo’s, but there’s some, as these front three-quarter views reveal:

 

The swooping fenders were central to the aesthetic appeal of the Monte Carlo and its Pontiac Grand Prix and Cutlass Supreme coupe siblings — not to mention a big part of what differentiated them from the regular A-body coupes. On the other hand, if you thought the GM approach was over the top, the comparatively conservative side profile of the Cordoba and Charger SE was perhaps more palatable, albeit still firmly in the same genre.

 

When it came to the front end, the aesthetic balance was reversed. Despite the tunneled headlight treatment, from head on, the Monte Carlo seemed a bit staid, with its narrower grille arguably having less visual impact than the grille of the cheaper Malibu Classic coupe.

 

By contrast, the Imperial-like grille of the Cordoba was suitably imposing, and setting the turn signal lenses inboard of the headlights, with their own tunnels, added some gravitas and a bit of Jaguar XJ6 flavor.

 

It was a similar story in the rear. After the dramatic swell of its rear fenders and Eldorado-style vee-shaped backlight, the Monte Carlo’s tail and taillights seemed a tad anticlimactic:

 

Extending the sculpted rear decklid past the taillights added another 1930s note to the Cordoba’s neoclassical themes, although there was something aesthetically unresolved about the clutter of different shapes, and the too-obvious shutlines of the trunk added to the jumbled effect. Also, I think the chrome-ribbed triple side marker lights on the front and rear fenders seemed a little out of place on a car like this, like a JATO bottle on a biplane.

 

If you didn’t like vinyl tops, shopping for a new car in 1975 was like trying to order lunch at El Pollo Loco or KFC with a serious chicken allergy. I don’t have model-specific statistics on vinyl top installation rates, but Automotive Industries reported that 46.3 percent of all new U.S. cars in 1975 had vinyl roofs, and the percentage for cars in this class was surely much higher. A vinyl top was standard on the Monte Carlo Landau (which also had the Turbine II urethane styled wheels, pinstriping, and sport mirrors), and was commonly specified on the Monte Carlo S, where it was a $123 option.

 

Both full-length halo-style and landau tops were optional on the Cordoba, but the latter seems to have been more common. The B-pillar “opera lights” were standard.

 

The Monte Carlo rode a perimeter frame with coil springs all around, while the Cordoba had a unit body with torsion bars in front and semi-elliptical leaf springs in back. Both cars had rear anti-roll bars and front disc brakes. Heavy-duty suspensions were optional, for $17.00 on the Monte and $23.70 on the Cordoba. In standard form, the Monte Carlo was a bit more nimble, benefiting from the suspension geometry improvements made for 1973, but both cars were tuned for a plush ride rather than agile handling.

 

Both the red and green cars pictured in this post have the standard 1975 engines: the L65 350-2V in the Chevrolet, with 145 hp and 250 lb-ft of torque, and the 360-2V in the Cordoba, with 180 hp and 290 lb-ft of torque. Neither of these engines was available in California for 1975, but California buyers could get four-barrel versions of these engines that weren’t available elsewhere, with an extra 10 hp.

 

Monte Carlo buyers who wanted more power could pay an extra $113 for the LT4 400-4V engine, with 175 hp and 305 lb-ft of torque, or $285 for the LS4 Turbo-Fire 454, which had dual exhausts, 215 hp, and 350 lb-ft of torque. The LS4 was not available in California this year, and with buyers gun-shy about the fuel crisis, it was rarely ordered elsewhere.

 

Cordoba buyers could potentially order three 400 engines in place of the 360: the 400-2V, with 165 hp and 295 lb-ft of torque, or the 400-4V, making 175 hp and 300 lb-ft with single exhaust, or 235 hp and 320 lb-ft with duals. Only the single-exhaust 400-4V was available in California. For buyers nervous about fuel consumption, the 318 was also available as a no-cost alternative to the 360, although for cars in this two-ton weight class, it was a false economy: Motor Trend found the 318-powered Charger SE, with a 2.71 axle, needed 15.5 seconds to reach 60 mph and returned 19.47 mpg when driven gently, while the 360-2V Cordoba, with a 2.45 axle, managed 21.47 mpg while still running from 0 to 60 in 11.87 seconds. (Either a Cordoba with the dual-exhaust 400-4V or a Monte Carlo with the 454 could break 10 seconds in the 0 to 60 sprint, but people didn’t buy these cars for speed.)

 

In principle, automatic transmission was still optional on the Monte Carlo, listing for $235 in 1975. However, manual-shift cars were so rare that Automotive Industries erroneously stated that the Monte wasn’t offered with manual transmission in 1974 or 1975, and the stick shift wasn’t available with either the 400 or the 454.

 

Chrysler didn’t play that particular game, so there was no pretense of the Cordoba being available with any transmission other than TorqueFlite; a floor shifter was available with bucket seats and a center console. The Cordoba also included gauges for oil pressure, coolant temperature, and amps. The red Monte Carlo has a temperature gauge and an ammeter, but they were part of a $42.50 option that also included an “Econominder” gauge to encourage thriftier driving habits. (Chrysler instead offered a gimmicky “Fuel Pacer” system, which added an economy light in place of the turn signal indicator on the driver’s side front fender.)

 

Unlike the Chrysler, the Monte Carlo didn’t offer leather upholstery in 1975. The red car has the standard cloth upholstery and bench seat, although Strato-buckets and a center console were still available.

 

This low-mileage green Cordoba lacks the “rich Corinthian leather” of legend, which was optional, and only available with bucket seats in 1975.

 

Although the Bring a Trailer listing describes the green Cordoba as having buckets, I think this is actually the standard split-back bench in green crushed velour. (Brocade upholstery was available as a no-cost alternative, and there was also a much more ornate-looking dark red velour option at extra cost.) It’s hard to distinguish the split-back bench and buckets at a glance unless you’re familiar with the upholstery patterns or the buckets are paired with the center console, which was a separate option.

 

Here’s a different 1975 Cordoba with buckets, console, floor shifter, and the famous “soft Corinthian leather.”

 

Since no mention of the Cordoba would be complete without it, here’s the first Ricardo Montalban TV spot extolling the optional Corinthian leather (a marketing term concocted by copywriter Jim Nichols of the Omaha-based ad agency Bozell — Chrysler actually got its leather trim from Radel Leather Manufacturing Co. in New Jersey).

Despite the vinyl woodgrain on the instrument panel and steering wheel, a Monte Carlo with the standard bench seat mostly looked like a Chevelle inside:

 

There was a fancier Custom Cloth interior treatment on the Monte Carlo options list, priced at $260.00 with a 50/50 split bench or $252.50 with Strato-buckets …

 

… but the fanciest thing in this Dark Red car’s interior was the Landau wreath badge on each door:

 

With its crushed velour trim and deep-pile shag carpeting, the Cordoba looked more ornate inside:

 

A controversial point was the Cordoba’s filigreed metal trim, which contemporary reviewers generally hated. Even the normally polite Motor Trend remarked, “The trim looks cheap, and all it does is distract from an otherwise excellent interior.” They didn’t comment on the digital clock, a standard Cordoba feature.

 

Given the similarities in their dimensions, you’d think the Monte Carlo and Cordoba would be similar in rear seat capacity. However, while the specifications gave the Cordoba the edge in everything but headroom, Motor Trend complained that “the rear seats are almost unusable unless the front seats are at least halfway forward.” The Monte Carlo wasn’t much better, however, and the steep rake of the rear seat backrest wasn’t a recipe for long-haul comfort. Headroom also suffered with the optional sunroof, which neither of these cars has.

 

The Cordoba specifications I’ve been able to find are curiously silent on the subject of trunk space, but to look at the trunks of these cars suggests something of a draw: The Monte might have had slightly greater usable volume, probably adequate for a weekend trip for two, where the Cordoba’s slightly lower liftover height was somewhat compromised by the smaller opening — which might have been narrow enough to elicit some colorful language when trying to load or unload a particularly bulky suitcase or golf bag.

 

Both of these cars have air conditioning, which was specified by more than nine out of ten buyers. Chrysler also offered automatic climate control on the Cordoba, but Chevrolet didn’t offer its Comfortron system on the 1975 Monte Carlo.

 

Neither of these cars has the optional power windows, which, somewhat surprisingly, were specified by only 39.4 percent of Cordoba buyers and 23.8 percent of Monte Carlo buyers this year.

 

Comparing prices is a trickier matter because I don’t have a complete 1975 Cordoba option price list. However, the Cordoba started at $5,072 while the Monte Carlo Landau started at $4,754 with automatic transmission. Comparably equipped with typical options, I think the Cordoba would probably cost $350 to $400 more than a Monte Carlo Landau, and $600 or so more than a base Monte Carlo S. If you liked the Cordoba styling but not the price, you could split the difference with the similar-looking Charger SE, which started at $4,903, but contemporary buyers apparently considered the prestige of the Chrysler badge to be well worth the extra $169. The Cordoba outsold the Charger SE by a huge margin: 150,105 cars to 30,812 in 1975.

 

The brand of luxury these cars represent is an acquired taste that’s become somewhat rarefied over the years. Considered within the parameters of this genre, I think the Monte Carlo seems overcooked in some areas and overly bland in others, betraying its kinship with the Chevelle/Malibu. On the other hand, that kinship kept the price down, and if the net effect was something like wearing a Halston Ultrasuede sport coat over Wrangler jeans, it was a vibe that a lot of contemporary buyers seemed comfortable with, whether the music blasting from their 8-track decks ran to “Shining Star,” “One of These Nights,” or “Jive Talkin'” (Nos. 7, 10, and 12 on the 1975 Billboard Top 100, respectively). Little wonder that the Monte was again the champion of its segment in 1975, with production totaling 258,909 cars.

 

By comparison, the Cordoba seems like a more complete ensemble, even if some of its detailing and accessories weren’t always in the best of taste. (i confess I’m not sold on the filigreed metal trim or the gold coin hood ornament.) This green car feels more firmly rooted in easy listening or middle-of-the-road than disco or funk, but that still worked out well for Chrysler — the Cordoba quickly became a much needed money-spinning hit. And besides, the No. 1 song on the Billboard singles charts in 1975 was not yet Gloria Gaynor or the Bee Gees, but rather a poppy cover of the 1973 Neil Sedaka song “Love Will Keep Us Together” by Captain & Tennille.

Related Reading

Curbside Classic: 1970 Chevrolet Monte Carlo – A Modest Beginning To A Huge Hit (and Hips) (by Paul N)
Vintage Reviews & Comparison Test: 1970 Chevrolet Monte Carlo – Personal Luxury Gate Crasher (by GN)
Vintage R&T Road Test: 1973 Chevrolet Monte Carlo – “Underneath Baroque Architecture, Some Nice Chassis Engineering” (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1976 Chevrolet Monte Carlo – Finding Your Comfort Zone (by Jason Shafer)
My Curbside Classic: 1976 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Landau – Hope You Like Green (by Chris Green)
Curbside Classic: 1976 Chrysler Cordoba – Fine Corinthian Brougham (by Tom Klockau)
CC Capsule: 1976 Chrysler Cordoba – The Stuff Dreams Are Made Of (by Gerardo Solis)
Car Show Outtakes: 1977 Chrysler Cordoba & 1974 Chevrolet Monte Carlo – Smile! (by Joseph Dennis)
Craigslist Classics: Personal Luxury Cars, Ten Years After–1967 Ford Thunderbird and 1977 Chrysler Cordoba (by Aaron65)