Now this was worth stopping for on the way to the lumberyard. Round-eye Monte’s aren’t exactly getting any more common these days, and a purple one to boot. I know someone out there needs to relive the seventies, so hurry. While we’re waiting for you to grab your checkbook and race over here, I’ll make sure no one nabs it. Does that means I have to start saying something about it in the meanwhile? Uh-oh.
I just realized: we’ve never done a full-on CC on the gen2 Monte Carlo. Well, I’m not the one to do it, at least not today. I just don’t have the time and my gush-additive tank is running a bit low low. Yes, it’s an awesome time capsule. No, at the time, I wasn’t exactly too wild about it.
It’s a rolling sculpture, just not a very restrained one. Hips, bulges, skegs, ridges; protrusions of all sorts everywhere.
I was pretty challenged by all of the ’73 Colonnades, but the MC was at or near the top. Whoa! Where is this trend-line going to end up? It was like 1958 all over; one just knew this was going to end in a crash. But party on, while the gas is cheap. Or semi-cheap. Since the Colonnades arrived just before the first energy crisis, the timing was not exactly favorable. But that didn’t hurt its sales, at least not for long. The gen2 MC was a mammoth hit for Chevrolet.
This 1975 represents the low point in its sales trajectory, with a mere 260k sold. It ramped right back up, and in 1977, some 400k of them were lovingly embraced by their new owners. That’s right in Camry territory.
The Landau consistently sold a bit less than the base S coupe, despite this artistically crafted medallion. I’d like one of those; it’s worth buying the car for that alone.
The interior certainly doesn’t show any artistry or fine craftsmanship. Classic seventies GM cheap plastics and wobbly fit and finish. Never mind keeping those huge doors from sagging. Hey, it’s vintage, and this is what the seventies are all about. It’s not like GM was the only one pushing cars that were a bit lacking in precision fit and finish. Just more of them.
This is the MC penalty box, reserved for those that didn’t fawn over them. The best revenge: take a hater for a ride, in the back seat. Make no mistake; I love these cars; please don’t make me sit back there! What can I do to make amends? What’s taking you so long?
Someone will buy it and most likely put ridiculously-oversized wheels underneath it.
Now you’re making me cry.
That’s a good example of how to show the sadness for the eventual Donk-ification of this car.
swivel the two front seats, flip the rear view mirror up, hop in the back at the drive-in movie, the best “make-out” car i ever owned.
The owner took the trouble to remove the vinyl top from a Landau car, repaint it, and reapply the Landau emblem, sans the vinyl roof. Upside is various aftermarket suppliers cover the Monte for R&R pretty extensively so if you have the money you can make it right in short order.
http://tinyurl.com/chggdd8 Yours on eBay for $15.
One interesting thing about Monte’s is that, while the front did go from round to square lights in 1976, the rear end seemed to change year by year.
If you didn’t like the color you could always convert it to a Custom Cloud…
No WAY purple was a factory color.
Nope. I started to guess that the owner wanted it to stand out, but doesn’t one of these Montes do that all by itself these days?
I like the color more than the car…
I remember going for a test drive in one of these when Dad and Stepmom were looking for a car in 74. Yup, I sat in the penalty box. They ended up with a Cutlass Supreme coupe instead. At the time, I preferred the Cutlass to the Monte. Still do.
Funny, looking at these pics, I realized that at the time, I never realized how much the back up lights make me think of an olds (even if the olds lamps on our 76 cutlass were outboard and down and paired with a reflector… If memory serves…
And there’s the one Colonnade I could entertain owning.
I still remember seeing the new ’73 Chevelles at the local Chevy dealer with those cow-catcher bumpers and how revolting they looked compared to the trim, sleek ’68-’72s that preceded them…that said, the Chevelles got better-looking as the years wore on, the bumpers were better integrated. At least the cow-catchers look like they belonged on the Montes. One could never, ever say that about a ’73 Malibu.
Also a 307 powered ’73 Chevelle is not as fast as a 305 powered ’77 Chevelle. They got marginally faster as the model lifetime moved on.
The 73s look good from the rear, but that front bumper on the non-Laguna models is just blocky. I like the 74-75 front bumpers the best, the 76-77 fronts are meh. the 74-75 rears are tidy as well, and the 76-77 rears are just meh as well.
Lots of Dads were dumping big plain cars for Montes, GP’s, and Cutlass Supremes. My Dad loved our 1970 MC, and to him it was a “sporty car”. Compared to Ramblers and wagons we had.
Gas Crisis #1 get many to move from full to mid size cars. Hence, Cutlass was #1 in 1976.
That is why I have a four door 77 Malibu Classic.. Both cars share a 116″ WB but mine has it where it counts, in rear seat legroom, the Montes had it where it didn’t in front of the firewall. The two foot long fan shroud make it seem like the engine bay goes on for miles.
I like the extra room, plus it has roll down rear windows (ht to Zackman) and I do ride in the back seat on occasion and 6’2″ me appreciates being able to sit in the back without having to adjust the seat from where I normally have it. the sedans also have lots of glass to see out of, you don’t feel like you are in a sensory deprivation tank.
Looks like this one was a bench seat car originally and the owner installed buckets, never cared for the console in these cars, too low and not terribly useful for anything but covering the shifter.
Over boosted steering? Compared to a Ford? We had s 74 LeMans. Its variable ratio steering was like a sports cars compared to my 67 Ford.My dad’s newer Fords were not much different. Maybe Chevy used a different steering setup.
Motor Trend ballyhooed to the moon over the handling of these things. I’ve never sampled one myself, though.
if you are in the DFW area, you can give my big ole green sedan a whirl. Its basically a 4 door Monte Carlo, and in nearly the same green as Chris’ – just faded out way more.
Yes for sure a bench car, the rear seat is cloth, factory bucket cars were vinyl only.
Between the purple paint and the incorrect seats, this is hideous. I wouId never be in the market for this, but I would fork over $3500 only if it were an untouched original, much like the Chris Green Machine. I’m sure he paid more than that for his, but you get the idea. Molested examples are an auto disqualify with me.
Also, FWIW, the factory swivel buckets in these are very difficult to recover. I worked in a trim shop and nobody who ever inquired regarding them got the work done. They would whine about the quoted price and hurl all manner of accusations of gouging, etc, but the truth is that they were double the amount of time of a conventional seat.
speaking of recovering seats.. I need to order the cover for mine.
What made the buckets so difficult?
yeah.. that looks like a royal pita. Makes my bench seem like a walk in the park – relatively speaking
Chrisgreencar here! I have been traveling and didn’t get a chance to see this until now. I love ’75 Monte Carlos, but this one isn’t really my style…I only go for original, unmolested cars, absolutely! I actually didn’t pay all that much more for mine, but it was a long time ago. Although mine doesn’t have the swivel buckets, it’s all original inside and it does have a deluxe 50/50 split seat interior (which was part of the Landau model package) and I wouldn’t change a thing about it!
There are few cars I hated more than this. Excess on steroids. I actually liked the colonnades, although they seem to be designed as 4-doors and wagons, with 2-doors a second thought. Then came these. So overcooked, that I dubbed them, at the time, the Chevrolet Monte Python, which, for me, came to define a whole genre.
At this time, I would have taken almost any european car over this. Just don’t bother telling me how I would have suffered – I figured it out on my own!
I’ve never seen a purple Monte
I hope I never see one
But I can tell you, gosh by golly
I’d rather see than own one.
that console is not factory. it’s from Walmart. Have one in my CVPI.
Wheres my snakeskin platforms and leopardskin fedora?What a pimpmobile,I can’t decide if I want it or should run away!
Turn the RWL tires in and take off the mudflaps and it would look really good even in the purple. Interior is in great shape.
Fun seats in the front, you could get those with swivel buckets
Not fun in the back, I had a couple of friends with them and dreaded riding in the back. Couldn’t see a thing out that tiny window and no leg room.
There must be two feet from the grille to the radiator in these, and another two feet from the rad to the front of the engine.
I know someone out there needs to relive the seventies
Some folks out there never stopped living them.
The early Monte Carlos I kind of liked, but never considered owning one. They seemed to me a genre-straddling attempt to combine Sportiness with Luxury that didn’t achieve either objective particularly well. Sort of like the MC’s relative the El Camino, whose compromise between two different genres was often described as “neither a very good car nor a very good truck.” (Or even, to stretch the analogy, the Amphicar, which was widely believed to be neither a very good car nor a very good boat.)
To me, that “personal luxury car” combo platter of competing agendas that the Monte Carlo and its many siblings and shadows from the Great Broughamalaise Epoch were trying to balance, was better exemplified by the last two Lincoln Marks, the VII and (especially) the VIII. From what I know about them (which ain’t all that much), they seem like the best of both worlds, rather than the worst of both worlds. Cars that would — as the Monte Carlo promised to but didn’t deliver — allow a driver to have both a smooth, soft ride AND still have something exciting happen when you stomp on the accelerator.
You’re all missing the point.
It’s all about the hood!
Montes had the longest hoods of any production cars of the 70s. That meant something.
I’m assuming that holds true for the 75 as well. As Chris Greencar can I’m sure attest, there’s something kinda special about piloting one of these.
Aside from that dubious distinction, well, I guess that’s it then.
Huh? It’s an inflated midsize, but still a midsize. The modern-Hyundai-esque exaggerated sculpting and tiny greenhouse are making it seem bigger than it is.
Never forget the first time someone popped the hood of a GM car with a giganormous hood, equipped with a V6. The fan…worked one end of what seemed a three-foot fan shroud which had the dimensions of a wind tunnel. Now…teen-age-me was wondering…why the HELL would they do THAT?
Of course that was prior to the age of the Electric Fan. But still…it seemed silly to have room to stand two abreast between radiator and engine.
“Yeah…right”? Why bother commenting if that’s all you have to add?
“Montes had the longest hoods of any production cars of the 70s.”
I’m quite certain this is inaccurate. Most if not all full-size cars before 1977 would have more hood than a ’75 Monte Carlo.
Paid $50.for a 73 two tone gold and white landau, drove it almost 2 years man was it ruff but it still floated over the bumps, pot holes and everything else. Sold it to my cuz for $50. so she could get $1000. on trade in for a new car. By then I had my 75 Culass S.
In the mid 80s, my college girlfriend had a ’76 Monte with a 350 that I loved driving. Way more power than my ’74 Celica, it handled well and rode beautifully, even if it guzzled gas at twice the rate of my Celica. Sure, the styling was over the top and the materials, fit and finish suspect, but it wasn’t hard to see why Chevrolet sold a crap-ton of them. An Automobile magazine article on the Chevrolet centennial quotes designer Dave Hollis, who says GM made more money on the second-generation Monte Carlo than anything it ever made. I don’t doubt it.
That color and those wheels, it looks like a meth dealer starter kit, does it come with brown leather pants and a mustache?
The truly discriminating narcotics entrepreneur prefers Montes from the ’80s. They’re more classier, eh?
Plus, they go good with a Crown-and-Coke.
Where is Chris Green when you need him?
Or Zackman, who presumably fainted at the shot of the back seat and fixed windows.
Here I am.. laughing at all the comments about the poor misunderstood 2nd generation Monte Carlo.
These were the SUV of their day. Everyone had a “personal luxury car” or wanted one – or so it seemed.
Another parallel to SUVs is that they used the base platform of a plain vehicle (intermediate sedan/pickup truck) and tarted it up at minimum cost for maximum profit.
Basically all cars are like that. I mean you can come up with 4-5 cars that would cover 99% of people’s needs yet we have over 200+ models for sale. So clearly most cars are just variations of about two dozen or so basic designs that do nothing but satisfy our subjective needs. Some cars are a little more blatant than others. In the end, its all about whether the vehicle satisfies our wants and needs.
Sad. Not the car, it’s just another bloated example of something I don’t want. Sad because of the abuse I put my young self through in the seventies. I almost did not survive the first time and sure don’t want to go through it again.
Now the cars I had in the seventies from the 68 Nova, 67 Chevelle, 70 beetle, etc. Those I would happily do again.
My ’76 MC Landau was white over red w/ white vinyl interior and plenty of white tape striping. I loved the swivel buckets and the way that long hood would reach for the stars on acceleration. Great car and great memories!
Could the inspiration for the Monte Carlo’s swooper-duper side-sculptings have been the Allard Clipper?
There was a factory purple Monte Carlo you know. My 07 in lovely Lunar Quartz Metallic.
Do you have a number to call really intrested in the car ready to buy