This is not a car I would normally stop my walk for to shoot, but this particular one is a recent arrival in our part of town, and has been making its presence heard. It seems to be crying for attention through its loud twin exhausts when on the go, or when it rode my tail the other day in traffic, so I decided to indulge it. Maybe that will quiet it down some.
I only know the year thanks to Carfax, as a 1985 looks just like a 1990 to my Monte Carlo-untrained eyes. I do know that it and the similar-age Honda Civic behind it sit in front of two very non-Eugene typical houses: white, with a hint of Colonial affectation but also some Moderne. Or something in between. Transitional? What is this style of house called? They’re either from the late 1920s or more likely the late 1930s (there’s hardly any houses from the early-mid 1930s, for obvious reasons). You see, I’m more interested in the houses than this Monte Carlo.
This Monte Carlo is also lost between two eras. Conceived in the height of the Great Brougham Epoch, with baroque hips and other embellishments, the Aero Era quickly left it in its wake. Efforts were made to sleek it down for this new slippery age, and the sloping front nose, cleaned up flanks, and longer tail with even a spoiler make it clear that this Monte wants to fly with the new kids on the block. Well, not the little Civic behind it; more like the Thunderbird, which ushered in the new era in 1983, and left the Monte looking like an antique overnight.
Although most of the Broughamesque filigree was blown away by its stressful trip to the wind tunnel, a few remnants of that older era are still to be found, like this Monte Carlo heraldic shield and helmet, or whatever it is.
It also graces the bowsprit (or is that too nautical instead of aerodynamical?). At first, I assumed the gray pattern behind it were part of an artistic effort to make the nose of this Monte better conform to the carefully designed and executed multi-hue custom paint job on the rest of the body.
But on closer examination, I’m not quite so sure. But then that goes for the rest of the car too.
My first thought was wonderment at how long GM kept building this Monte after the aero TBird made it so obsolete. But then I realized that had GM tried a replacement, they probably would have mucked it up in the way they did so many new cars in the mid 80s. It seemed like GM’s best later efforts were the ones that they just kind of forgot about and left alone.
JP: had Chevrolet not opted out of the program, it would have looked like another version of the N Body.
Those were supposed to replace the Riviera, Monte Carlo, Grand Prix and Toronado, but the sales of the RWD two doors had increased and remained in production.
At least according to the car rags of the period.
Hey Dweezil – Zappa fan?
Anywho, wonder what the citizens of late ’87
would have thought of this done on the then
new W-bod: !
jpcavanaugh: It’s just the sheet metal. It’s what’s under
that suppository-smooth exterior that really matters. 🙂
I guess I am in the minority that found the aero T-Bird ugly as sin when it came out. I don’t find it nearly as ugly in retrospect…but I still don’t find it attractive.
As “ground breaking” as the “aero” bird was, I agree with you. If I was shopping mid size RWD coupés in 83, I’d have gone with the Monte, or More likely Regal.
I think there were plenty of people who detested the aero-Bird, but subsequently warmed to it (myself included). In fact, I would have to say that the aero-Bird is one of the best examples of a polarizing design when it initially came out, and the public eventually accepted it as the norm.
Other bold, auto styling experiments didn’t work out nearly as well (looking at you, Aztek).
I loved the aero-Bird when it was introduced, but it was initially a polarizing design. Thunderbird (and Cougar XR-7) sales were so low by 1982, however, that Ford had little to lose by wiping the slate clean and essentially starting over in the style department.
I have a lot of affection for GM G-specials such as this Monte Carlo – maybe because they were popular cars where I grew up in Philadelphia, or maybe because I view them as traditionalism’s last successful stand. They were RWD V-8 2-doors, which against all odds sold spectacularly well in a decade that favored FWD 4-cyl. 4-doors. I’ve always been intrigued by that paradox, and I like the car, as well.
Personally, I prefer the more luxury-oriented models rather that the high-performance SS here, but really, I like them all. For quite a while, I’ve been searching for a good G-special for a CC here; eventually I’ll find a good one.
As for the house, I would call it a colonial revival… at least that what it appears to my architecturally-untrained eyes. I like it, too. I think the 1930s was the best decade for house designs.
The house behind the Honda almost looks like it has elements of American Foursquare, which I find mildly interesting, because I always thought American Foursquare was only used for farmhouses and in small Midwestern towns.
The attached pic is kinda small, but I like it because it looks very much like my own house.
These were pretty popular in larger midwestern cities too. Indianapolis is full of them.
I’ve seen these across the country, at least in the Northern half. There’s a good number of them in Eugene. It was such a practical design that it was adopted widely. And Sears sold a lot of them as packages.
Yours is pretty big one.
Looks like I was typing thee comment below just as this one appeared. Great minds, and all that stuff.
The foursquare is one of the most widely replicated house designs of early 20th century America, I think. The design is so simple and space efficient that it lends itself well to almost every geographical area and works fairly well on both level and hilly terrain. I owned an 1889 Victorian with essentially the same basic floorplan and design features (with more of-the-era gingerbread and tom foolery), which I figured to be from around the beginning of the trend, but while only an architectural hobbyist and not a real scholar, I can’t quite put my finger on when the style was born. Maybe somebody here is more knowledgeable about these.
Ours is about the size of the one in the pic, which is fairly big for its time (c. 1922). It was practically a mansion when it was built, with running water to the upstairs bathroom and electric lights in every room. When my grandpa moved in in 1963, he added on a (rather poorly built, in comparison to the house) kitchen/half-story from an even older house. Full wiring throughout the house and a remodel of that kitchen were done over the next 5 years, and my dad replaced the wooden entryway hanging off the kitchen with a proper concrete-foundationed porch when he took over the place in ’89.
Our house also has a covered porch like the one in the sample pic, although ours just has a concrete base with no stone or brickwork, and we never used it as our main entrance (even when company comes over, they come in through the kitchen). About ten years ago we replaced the tin roof over this porch with shingles, and removed the railings that had allowed the porch roof to serve as an upper deck (the door from the bedroom was sealed up). But the biggest project ever done was when we remodeled/expanded the kitchen in 2009, which involved digging a new room in the basement as well. Between the remodels, repaintings, and new landscaping, the house is almost unrecognizable from its original state.
It seems that every second house in Pittsburgh and It’s older suburbs built between 1895 and 1930 is an American Foursquare. There are seven just on my street!
I agree, I’ve always liked the G-Specials as well. Might be the last occasion where GM’s brand strategy worked, one platform yielding several different models that were distinctive without any of them being glaringly ugly (Ahem, N-Car).
Architect here. I’ll argue that this is NOT a Foursquare, which to my knowledge was literally four square—two rooms across and two rooms deep. One of the two front rooms was the entry foyer, which meant the entrance could not be in the middle. The house pictured is three rooms wide. It seems to me to be a Moderne interpretation of a Colonial.
The reference to foursquare was to the next door house, which does have its entry on the side like one.
But I’m glad you confirmed my guess about the house behind the MC being a Moderne take on a Colonial.
At the same time, the “Honda house” seems to almost have a little bit of Colonial in it too, with the added-on side room (and connected garage? I can’t quite tell) and chimney(s?) on the side. Most Foursquares had the chimney run up through the center of the house; I’m looking at the inside corner of my room right now at the chimney cut-out covered in (ugh) wood paneling–which has at least been painted the same color as the walls to hide it a little bit.
Definitely moderne! To me, the influence I see is the Frank Lloyd Wright’s Winslow House (1893). The materials, size, and entryway are of course very different, but I just can’t shake the resemblance of roof pitch and placement of windows and even the car port where Lloyd Wright places the Porte Cochere.
I keep seeing more details on this cute little colonial moderne house (as you term it, Paul) that remind me of both the Winslow House and even of subtle Art Deco touches:
1. The eaves of the roof, while small, are very similar to the Winslow house.
2. Hidden by the tall shrubs and white paint, is a transition in materials from board and batten on the first floor to clapbord on the second floor. Also similar to the demarcation of floors using different materials on the Winslow House.
3. The entryway created by the square overhang and ornamented balcony, as well as the little three pane window, see to be very subtle Art Deco influences. Note the window above the door in this picture below, and the entryway in the picture to follow.
And a more formal Art Deco entryway
Last chance to enjoy the 305 V8 in a coupe that wasn’t a Camaro. That was likely half the appeal right there although their higher than expected sales is likely what caused GM to introduce the W-body coupes BEFORE the sedans and then get caught looking like an idiot again.
“enjoy the 305 V8” is almost a oxymoron
LOL, Almost chocked on my beer!
The HO 305 was at least a little better suited to the car than the standard ones that saw duty in Caprices and non-SS MC’s. Though it always baffled me why they didn’t just give it a 350.
“Wait until the soft camshaft lobes and leaking valve seals ruin the 305 and replace it with a 350 longblock” you mean.
There are two types of people, those who don’t like 80s Monte Carlos, and those who shouldn’t.
Good article with those nice houses (though I prefer bigger front porches) and I wonder how close to ending up in a junkyard is this Monte Carlo? While I prefer the 78-79 Monte Carlo the rest are alright looking, but I hardly ever see them in Portland, OR. I kind of like the 00-06 version a bit as well.
Unless it has a frame rust issue, not close at all. SS Monte’s of that era tend to bottom around $4K if they’re still mostly in one piece.
OTOH they’re not valuable enough to warrant proper restorations so you frequently find them looking like this one.
depending on where you live, they’ve probably all been donked by now.
Like others here, I prefer these Monte Carlos in their “luxury” guise, complete with vinyl roof. Unfortunately, the Chevy specialty coupes you find today look like the one pictured here.
As far as 80s Thunderbird versus Monte Carlo, to me the Ford looks like it was STYLED, while the Chevy looks DESIGNED. What’s the difference? People do styling while machines/ccomputers do designing.
And yet, I like the upright styling of the GM coupes because these cars MUST have a vinyl roof.
This late iteration of the Monte Carlo was actually pretty cleanly styled, molded in tailamp emblems excluded. My uncle purchased a new 86 Monte SS with T tops back in the day. I think his reasoning that it was sporty looking and more comfortable to get in and out of than a camaro, plus it was much cheaper to insure, are reasons that many people who had already “done” the camaro ,with its heavy doors and bathtub seating position, tiny trunk compartment and punishing ride, would find this car appealing on many levels.
A friend’s mom had the Buick Regal edition when I was a kid. Same crappy box-on-box interior as our ’81 Century 4-door A-body (later G-body), but there was something awesome about those GM 2-doors to me. If I was in the car-buying age range back then I bet I would have bought one (and then once the door handle fell off in my hand, swore off GMs forever. My grandpa also had an ’81 Century, and his came from the factory with one Century emblem on the left rear fender, and a Regal emblem on the right rear fender. 2 marks of excellence for the price of one.)
My friend’s father bought a 79 Monte Carlo new, he had the convertor removed and true duals installed, black with red interior. The weekends we got to cruise in that car were truly special.
This looks like an alternative to a Camaro. Ugh.
I do like those houses. I recently viewed a house built in the late 1700s that is defined as being French Creole Colonial. Another house I viewed on the way to Nashville is described as some variation of antebellum
There’s a lot of crossover in vernacular architecture, and these do have a touch of other influences, including antebellum. Gone With The Wind had a huge effect, and there were mini-Taras built all over the country.
When I lived in Memphis I came across a house one afternoon when I took a new route home that was designed to look like Tara….but on a smaller scale. There it sat, with a big front yard, on a lot that was situated among ranch-style homes.
In this late-80s/early-90s era, I’d take a G-Special over F-Car any day (Monte SS or Regal T-Type/Grand National being the two obvious preferences).
I prefer my Monte Carlos with all of the Brougham goodness possible heaped upon them. I’ve never been a fan of the mid-80’s SS models, and actually I wonder if this is an SS or just a more “run-of-the-mill” pedestrian Monte with some “upgrades” to make it a “tribute” car. Either way, it’s not may favorite. I think the Monte Carlo jumped the shark by 1980-83ish, regardless of sales stats.
As for the houses (which I too am far more interested in than either of their streetfront ornaments), they almost look like a pair of Sears mail order foursquares, each “upgraded” and “modernized” over the decades, one rather successfully and tastefully so and the other maybe a bit haphazardly and with little true inspiration.
Maybe I’m taking a theme a bit too far, but it almost begs that we compare/contrast the house that the Monte sits in front of (rather haphazardly, hurriedly and cheaply updated and modernized) with the house behind the Honda (tasteful, high quality, well thought out design cues for a good long-term investment). Hmmmm…
It’s my semi-educated guess that the house that sits behind the Monte Carlo has not been updated or modernized (with the possible exception of the carport) and that it was designed as a center-hall colonial with both moderne and Art Deco details.
I don’t know if anyone else can agree with my thoughts on the Monte Carlo: At the time I thought it aged very badly, and seemed like a down-market car that tended to bring to mind the word cheesey.
Fast forward to today, and I think it’s aged very well. It’s simple, but with character, and includes some of the strengths of GMs best designs of the 70s (X-body seville, b-body caprice and others), and yet has a bit of 1980’s sleekness too.
I agree — though I didn’t consider them cheesy when new. Of course, a rough-condition beaten-down SS isn’t the best example to convince folks of the Monte Carlo’s merits.
The later-year LS like this one shows the simple, characterful lines, in my opinion — although the wire wheel covers do distract from that in this example. And even over a very long production run, these cars remained attractive.
That car with color-matched Rally wheels would be very attractive.
Done like that, the styling seems to work. SS-style, not so much.
For me, the 1969 Monte Carlo was shockingly gorgeous…simple, elegant, classic. All subsequent iterations of the MC overdid the theme in some way.
Then again I grew up in the era of big, beautiful 2-door boulevard cruisers and loved everything in that category to some degree…Coupe de Ville, T-Bird, Grand Prix, Riviera, Cordoba…and almost every make had a luxury coupe…an era that has sadly ended. Anyway I now drive a saloon and when I take a relaxed summer evening cruise through the twi-lighted city under the open sunroof pretend it has only 2-doors with a cozy back seat under a stylishly elegant formal roofline…and yes, I wouldn’t mind an opera window too.
I always really liked the ’70-’72 Monte Carlo. Even though the 1st Gen was basically a Chevelle with a longer wheelbase and front end, the result was a really good looking design. None of the later cars impressed me as much.
Yep, that first gen was a masterful disguise of the “lowly” a bodies. GM was still at the top of their game when it was designed.
I am with you. That original Monte was a really elegant design. The 73-77 was always too heavily sculpted IMHO, and the 78+ was a tad plain.
+1.
When I said “conceived in the Brougham Epoch”, I was referring to the gaudy gen2 1973 version, not the original, which was a relatively clean design.
Yes, but the Gen 1 Monte did predict the ’71 Eldorado to no small degree. Something got lost in that translation!
It did, but after 73, both the Eldo and the Monte became “cartoon” versions of themselves.
I think you mean the ’70 Monte Carlo as that was the first year; there was no ’69 model.
When GM refreshed for 1981 what became the G-Special (in 1982), I thought only the Pontiac Grand Prix and Buick Regal were improved over 1980. The Cutlass Supreme remained okay, but I was never a fan of the ’81 and up bumpers.
I can warm up to this Monte, but would not have bought one back in day. It never seemed right, and the tweaks over the ’81-’88 period always seemed forced – modern touches on an old design. If I were to have purchased a G-Special retro mobile in 1988, I’d have gone for the Cutlass Supreme V-8. I knew a few guys that were a bit older then me that did just that – turned out to be a good move considering the W-body that replaced it!
I was quite firmly in the Thunderbird / Cougar camp when the ’83s came out, and toyed with buying one until I eventually picked out an ’89 with my wife to be. Being 27 at the time we purchased it, we were probably the dream demographic Ford was looking for. The only person I can think of that owned this generation Monte was the 65 year old mother of a friend of mine.
Do the doors on these sound like the doors on the ’73-’77 models? ‘click-grooonch-slam rattle rattle’.
This wins. That is the sound.
yes.
(I’ve got a 77 Malibu Classic sedan that rattles like that with the window down, up it slams with a nice ‘clack!’ from the latch.)
you forgot the “slosh slosh” for water that was unable to escape the plugged drain holes.
Of the final revision of the G-Specials, I like the Monte Carlo SS the least. That bumperless, aero-nose has never looked right and, if memory serves, this might have been one of the first cars that didn’t have any semblance of a front bumper, not even so much as a piece of chrome-plated plastic. Someone mentioned earlier that they preferred the look of the standard Monte over this one, and I have to agree.
In fact, one of the things that simply blows my mind on the new, retro-ponycars is the lack of any kind of ersatz chrome bumpers. There are aftermarket companies that make them and it’s simply amazing the difference it makes on the appearance of the cars.
The Monte Carlo SS was meant to catch up with T-birds on the NASCAR track first and to have sales appeal second. It was essentially a halo model for all the hot Chevys as much as or more than the rest of the Monte Carlo line.
You might remember the Dodge Daytona and Plymouth Superbirds had no front bumpers for the benefit of aerodynamics, just like the Monte SS. I was still in high school when the SS came out and all of us thought the look was much better and aggressive, plus the engine had a hp bump after years of hp and rear axle ratios dropping. As a NASCAR fan looking back these 80’s cars were the last that had anything to do with what was on the track, they had to use the factory style front end and some sheetmetal.
These mid 80s montes were pure art compared to the 80 to 82 Ford Thunderbird and mercury cougar! My neighbor and his wife had a beautiful 79 Thunderbird with the t top option. One day in early May of 81 the pulled into their driveway in a triple white 81 t bird. They had traded in the the handsome, if largish, burgundy 79 on this ugly, chalk white tub. They fell out of love with it and sold it by the end of the next summer. He later admitted that his wife saw it in the showroom and just impulsively had to have it.
These mid 80s montes were pure art compared to the 80 to 82 Ford Thunderbird and mercury cougar! My neighbor and his wife had a beautiful 79 Thunderbird with the t top option. One day in early May of 81 the pulled into their driveway in a triple white 81 t bird. They had traded in the the handsome, if largish, burgundy 79 on this ugly, chalk white tub. They fell out of love with it and sold it by the end of the next summer. He later admitted that his wife saw it in the showroom and just impulsively had to have it. Those cars were so repulsive looking! They were only made worse by optioning the TRX tire and wheel package. A totally obsolete metric sized tire that was expensive,had poor treadlife and was terrible in cold or slushy conditions!
I know you all think this is a beater, but I think it’s actually a new variation of rat-look. He’s going for a “Daytona pre-season testing” paint job 😉
“You see, I’m more interested in the houses than this Monte Carlo.”
And that has been the case with Monte Carlos for a lo-o-ong time. Most people have very little interest in them, no matter how old they get.
This example doesn’t do the car justice, though. Too rough.
As for the T-bird, well, back in the day my brother owned an ’85 T-bird when I had a ’79 Monte, so I spent plenty of time with both cars. The T-bird was a sensation. It got everyone’s attention and instant appreciation. My brother said it was very popular with the girls he dated, too. The Monte – eh, no one cared. But the Monte totally out-handled the T-bird as a driver. I couldn’t believe how numb the power steering was on the Ford, and how its performance just never matched its looks, while the Chevy was always supremely competent and while no sports car by any means, it never lacked for power. Today, I STILL have a ’79 Monte. The T-bird, eh…
I guess I’m one of the few contrarians here, but I’ve always loved the Monte SS. Yeah, it’s very much an 80’s period piece, and yeah, depending on where you are in the country they might have associations with a certain type of driver, but I still like ’em. Maybe I watched too much NASCAR, maybe it’s because I knew they were mechanically related to the Malibu in our family…but I’ve always been a fan. Though I do think the alloys of the ’86+ cars suit it better than the steel rallys used on the ’83-’85 SS.
This one, though. That paint job. Yeesh. Rattle can black would be an improvement over this primered mess.
This car is the mullet mobile, not the Camaro. It seems to me that by the time these cars were all 5 years old, they all looked like this.
I generally like the G-body specials the and the MC-SS, being the cheapest hi-po version, seemed like it got most of the redneck go-fast treatments. (I believe the Pontiac Grand Prix of this same period just got most of the rednecks, period.)
Actually rather nice cars, huge trunks (you can put a full sized hydraulic jack, a Kennedy box and have plenty of room left over for beer coolers, don’t ask how I know…), smooth ride, somewhat decent handling, too. But many of the owners were of that “Dale Earnhardt is God” mentality and gave this poor car a bad rep.
These cars looked far less matronly than the first downsized Monte Carlos of 1978.
Ugh! That paint job is almost as bad as the subject car.
I am rather matuculas of my vehicles and tend to keep them 4 – 5 years. I have had many cars, mostly ford and GM.
I had a 74 Monte Carlo. I liked the handling and the looks of the car at the time. It was the 350 4 bbl dual exhaust package. But the power was mediocre at best when the temps were above 70 degrees f. When it was totalled off I bought a 78 Thunderbird with 302 buckets and consol. Handling was similar, turning radius was much better on the T bird. But the true distinguishing differences was reliability. The T bird was hands down the better of the 2 cars.
After the T bird I bought an 83 Buick Lesabre Limited. Beautiful cars, all of them. But the troubles I had with those last 2 GMs have turned me to Fords, which I have had at least 10 of since, trucks cars and SUVs. I do not miss them or their clunky doors.
‘matuculas’? Eh, do you mean ‘meticulous’?
Even as a Ford guy, I liked the Monte Carlo from this era – potentially this is the last decent car that GM made that you can actually use to carry four adults. I have a friend (he’s a Chevy guy) and I value the ability to carry four adults when needed and the Monte does the trick reasonably well.
I still don’t know why GM Part Duh has their chief designer, Welburn, celebrated at all – he’s produced zero beautiful production cars and apparently he only does show cars that are never turned into production vehicles. i find most current GM products to be repugnant (that new Malibu looks like a lima bean). The new Shamaro is boxy and awkward and looks too much like the junk that preceded it. And don’t get me started on the Shamvette….
But we can agree, this Monte was a beaut in an era when GM was nailing its own coffin shut.