The Art Institute of Chicago had an exhibition of some of the works of French, Post-Impressionist painter Paul Cezanne between May and September of last year. It was something I had wanted to see, but didn’t. Even if my saturation point for museums is probably between an hour or two, I was disappointed with myself for having missed that opportunity, but I also realize there are so many other things in Chicago for me to explore. At some point over the past couple of years, I decided that the value of getting out and enjoying more of this city outweighs what can sometimes feel like a little social anxiety among large groups of people. I also realize it’s likely that I won’t always be this mobile and independent for the rest of my life. That’s called keeping it real. In the spirit of thankfulness, I strive to be more intentional in maximizing my experience of life at this stage.
This has included a lot of walking. On a Tuesday last July, I had taken the morning off from work for a necessary appointment. The meeting didn’t last as long as I had expected it to, which then left me with almost an entire half-day before I had to report back to the office. I was right there on the famed Magnificent Mile district of Michigan Avenue, with hours to kill and a little bit of money in my pocket. If I had been feeling less adventurous, I might have simply caught a bus to the office, fired up my laptop, and started insuring things. That day, however, I decided to walk the distance of just under two miles from my appointment to my cubicle. It was while en route that I saw this quote from Cezanne in a large window of a retail business on Michigan Avenue:
“You have to hurry up if you want to see something, everything disappears.” – Paul Cezanne
C’est vrai. This quote from this famous painter has since embedded itself within my psyche and has become something of a mission statement for me in this new year. My intent is not to overdo it or spread my energy or resources too thin, but to get more out of living right where I am and not to defer enjoyment of things and activities under the false assumption that they’ll always be there for me later. The Chevrolet Monte Carlo was one of those things I had always taken for granted would always be there, until it wasn’t… for six model years, anyway, when it returned for ’95 as what was basically a two-door Lumina before being given a more distinctive redesign for 2000. The ’07 model year was its last, and it’s probably not coming back.
As a kid in the mid-’80s, I didn’t have any illusions about the G-body, rear-drive Monte Carlo becoming more of an outlier with each passing year amid Chevrolet’s (and General Motors’) shift toward front-wheel-drive and more fuel efficient vehicles. As long as I had been alive, though, there had always been a new Monte Carlo for sale, and I suppose a part of me thought this would always be the case. I was more than halfway to the office by foot when our featured car appeared near the intersection of Monroe & Wabash in the Loop and headed south. The driver appeared to be enjoying himself behind the wheel on this warm, sunny day, and his apparent happiness was contagious. The t-tops were off, and the car’s tasteful, aftermarket Centerline wheels gleamed in the shadows beneath the elevated Loop tracks. The Chevy’s throaty exhaust note was like music.
The Aerocoupe version of the Monte Carlo Super Sport was introduced for ’86. Its huge, sloping, wraparound rear backlight and foreshortened trunk gave it a more slippery profile and aided in cheating the wind on the racetrack. Only two hundred of the ’86s were built, just enough to qualify it for NASCAR racing, where the track version was successful with 18 wins that season, up from 14 the year before. Power came from a high-output version of the 305 cubic inch V8 with 180 horsepower, coupled with a four-speed overdrive automatic transmission. The F41 heavy-duty suspension was included with the Super Sport package. For ’87, 6,052 Aerocoupes were produced, with production having moved from Arlington, Texas to Pontiac, Michigan that year. Final conversion work for both model years was performed by Cars & Concepts in Brighton, Michigan.
Wendella Boat Tours, near the history Wrigley Building on Michigan Avenue.
Monte Carlo sales had peaked in ’77, the final year of the second-generation, with over 411,000 units sold. It was solidly in the personal luxury camp then, with no sporting pretensions. Just ten model years later, sales of the once-mighty MC would top out at just over 79,000, with a pretty even split between the LS and SS trim levels. The final rear-drive Monte Carlo would exit after just the next year, with only 30,200 sold, all up. There was no Aerocoupe version of the Super Sport available for ’88, and the SS outsold the LS “Luxury Sport” by more than 2,000 units in its final year on the G-platform.
All of the ’86 Aerocoupes were white with a burgundy interior, but the ’87s were also offered in black, dark maroon metallic, and silver metallic. I hadn’t remembered seeing any Montes of this era in the glossy medium gray color of the above example, but upon closer examination of these photos and seeing what I believe to be the original color peeking through a few small spots on its soft front fascia, this one might have originally been in the dark red color. I think this non-factory paint color serves the car’s lines and overall look as nicely as the aftermarket wheels, and this Monte clearly showed pride of ownership.
The fountain at Chase Tower.
There was a real sense of magic that lingered when I finally arrived at my cubicle to start work for the afternoon, on what would otherwise have been an ordinary day spent without paying attention to my everyday surroundings. Instead of adventurously winding through downtown streets to get to the office, I could just as easily have chosen to spend that time browsing at a few retail stores or sitting in a coffee shop and playing games on my phone before jumping on a bus and riding straight to the office.
By choosing to walk and to maximize my morning, I was able to observe in greater detail the beauty of the fountain at Chase Tower and overhear the guides aboard the Wendella boats that take people on tours of the Chicago River. I was also able to spot in the wild an example of a rare, latter-day Chevy muscle car. Cezanne’s words ring true, and I want to see and do as much as I can before those things are no longer available, like Chevy’s Monte Carlo, with or without the fastback glass. Here’s to living more of life with the t-tops off.
Downtown, The Loop, Chicago, Illinois.
Thursday, July 7, 2022.
Brochure photos were as sourced from www.oldcarbrochures.org.
So correct about life. Last week I was visiting with a high school cohort I had not seen in five years. As we were catching up, he made a very wise statement about life being about experiences and how he was needing to catch up on those.
That sentiment goes hand-in-hand with what you say as things generally end way too quickly.
I would also apply that sentiment to this Monte…by defending the color change. Life is way too short to have a car you like in a color you don’t. So good for the owner if he’s the one who made the change. This color change could have furthered the life of this Monte, so there’s nothing but good coming from that.
I never personally liked that ‘blueberry’ SS color and would have stuck with red. Additionally, I would guess that red was rarer and likely worth more. But it probably needed bodywork and the owner figured, “what the hell” and had it resprayed in what he liked. That, or maybe it was cheaper to go with something much more common and available. At least he went with an OEM color.
With that said, I can’t say I was enamored with the ‘Aerocoupe’ in the first place. It was definitely a quick-and-dirty effort to make the MC (and, by extension, the Pontiac Grand Prix 2+2 version) more competitive on the racetrack. To that end, I guess the modificiation was successful.
But it still didn’t look too terrific.
The Aerocoupe definitely looked less organic than the ’83 Ford Thunderbird, but once I got used to that rear window, it did start to grow on me. I saw these as being kind of like an ’80s “Laguna S-3”, with a few functional tweaks that made them a bit more interesting to look at, even if not the most conventionally attractive.
I’m am with you and your friend completely about life being about experiences (especially as compared with things). I’ve been a little slower to delete e-mails from sites like Expedia that offer travel packages.
And I really liked the idea of the owner’s prerogative to paint the car the color he likes, which was a great point. What if one wanted one of these, but wanted it in a different color than the four that were offered? I wouldn’t respray a Hagerty No. 1 or 2 car, but this one looked both lived-in and loved enough to where I would have considered doing the same.
My ‘88 Monte SS, exiting my driveway for the last time, after being sold and giving way to the then brand new 2000 model in the background. You know you really liked a car when you still have its VIN memorized to this day. I also owned an ‘84 and a 2003, but the ‘88 was my favorite and first new car.
Great pictures, Shep – and amazing that you had its VIN committed to memory. I have yet to experience new-car ownership, but given the models available today and my own personal tastes, it probably wouldn’t be as cool as your ’88 Monte!
I am losing count of the number of cars like this Monte was to you – something that was comfortably familiar as background scenery but that silently disappeared. I was recently thinking of a similar phenomenon about humans recently – when you think about it, the entire population of the earth turns over about every 80-90 years, and for those who are actually running things, it is maybe a 60 year churn before the oldsters who survive become irrelevant to the way things work. Depressing, right?
I can’t say I ever loved these, and it never occurred to me to test drive a Monte Carlo when I was first shopping new in 1985, but I liked them better as they got older.
JP, I had a thought this past weekend as I was waiting on an L train platform and watched a parade of vehicles pass underneath. All but maybe two or three were SUVs, along with a handful of “regular” passenger cars. I had recently read (here at CC?) that the Malibu is the last passenger sedan Chevrolet still offers.
So, even the idea of just a car is becoming obsolete, and not just certain specific models. It has taken some mental adjustment for me. In the meantime, I’ve purchased a few more car books to read.
The thing that fascinates me about cars is the combination of architecture and motion. They are contradicting each other and force compromise. The Chicago scenery is the perfect background to showcase this effort. The roofline of the Aerocoupe combined with the battleship gray is a perfect example.
In 2018 we spent a weekend with friends in Chicago, staying in a boutique hotel and dining at The Fisk. Most importantly we took a Chicago River Architecture Tour and absolutely loved it.
https://www.viator.com/tours/Chicago/Chicago-River-Architecture-Tour/d673-76126P1
This is such a great point about the contrast between a car of any given era as seen against the architecture of some of the buildings here in Chicago. There have been times when I’ve seen a vintage car in traffic downtown and have wanted to compose a photo with an older, more “classic” looking building in the background and could only find something newer and more commercial.
Other times, there has been a newer vehicle and there’s been some architectural landmark behind it. That’s the way it goes.
I have taken several of the different architectural tours on the Chicago River, and I think I’ll always find it fascinating. Even when friends or family have come to visit, I’ve always enjoyed the ride and have learned new facts. This is truly the architectural capital of the U.S.
Like you, I’ve taken for granted that Monte Carlo SS’s would always be there. Possibly because their survival rate has been relatively high, possibly because they’ve just blended into the background. Regardless, I’d rarely make an effort to photograph one.
However, back in September I came across an Aerocoupe, and it struck me as being intriguing enough to take pictures (below). My backlog of cars to write about is far bigger than the time I have to do so, but still, I hope to get an article written up on this sometime in the next… year… hopefully!
The Aerocoupe is just flat-out neat due to its rarity and just the odd circumstance of producing a mere handful of cars with that oddly-shaped rear window. For that alone, I love it. Yes, I know it makes no logical sense.
Cezanne’s words do indeed ring true. Just seeing a car riding around with open t-tops is a fast-disappearing event. Glad you captured this one.
Eric, thanks for this, and also for that picture. I do hope you get to writing about yours, but I just noticed something. I had identified the model year of my example through a license plate search which told me it was an ’87, but it has the flat taillamps of the ’86! We can clearly see that yours has the ’87 taillamp lenses on it. I wonder what the story is there.
Maybe the one I photographed was a late ’86 build that was serialed as an ’87? A leftover body from the original run of 200 ’86 Aerocoupes? There’s got to be a story there.
What isn’t so readily apparent is how insane that back window alters access to the “trunk”. Considering the challenges that opening presents for even smallish items, I’m actually impressed they sold as many as they did:
I always forget when looking at the trunk when closed that even though the edge of it goes all the way down to the bumper, there’s that entire inner panel behind it with relatively high liftover and somewhat blocked access to the trunk. People weren’t buying these to get groceries with, though, so I’m guessing those who really wanted one made do with this situation.
I’m hard pressed to think of a car that successfully underwent an image makeover as sweeping as the Monte Carlo, at least in single generation in that short a time. I suppose the Beetle and Mini qualify – small, cheap, basic economy cars that in their later years were purchased more as icons than for their practical value. But both of those had decades to undergo that transformation. Certainly the Thunderbird underwent several image makeovers, sometimes being a Monte competitor, but those were accompanied with several complete redesigns over the years. Ah, thought of one – the 1950 Rambler which started out as a small but upscale car but by the end of the decade (as the American) became a car for tightwads. But the Monte went from a full-tilt personal-luxury Brougham in 1978 (or 81 if you start with the facelifted car) and became best known for its NASCAR ties by 1987, if not quite a muscle car like its platform-mate Buick Grand National. I wonder if the ’78-81 Olds and Buick fastback Aerocoupes could has salvaged themselves by entering them in race series; they already had a Aerocoupe-like roofline.
The Aerocoupe rear window doesn’t look so striking anymore, now that most mundane sedans like a Honda Accord meet or exceed that backlight angle and have similarly short trunk openings.
It seems like every mainstream sedan is a fastback these days. Now that you point it out, I’m pretty sure that white Accord has a rear window at a flatter, “faster” angle than that of the Aerocoupe.
That’s an interesting idea about the Cutlass and Century Aerobacks. I’m wondering now, between those and the Monte Carlo Aeroback (and similar, though not identical Pontiac Grand Prix 2+2) which had better aerodynamic properties.
Very true about the burgeoning number of fastbacks among a shrinking number of sedans. I think style-leader Audi really got it going some years ago when it hung a very 60’s-evoking fastback on the A7.
As for the MC, I didn’t like the first two generations – too baroque for my taste; part of the whole Brougham thing – although you could get an SS with an honest to God 454! The most attractive generation was this one, number 4. I think the Aerocoupe looks better in person than in photos; although your photos here as always are superb.
The Audi A7 is an actual hatchback though, so I give it a pass. (I just learned there’s an A7 sedan in China though; doesn’t look right to my eyes).
I checked out the Chinese A7 Sedan; I agree it looks a bit awkward from the side; otherwise I like it.
I also like the Chinese A7. It seems to be to the other A7 what the Passat CC was to the regular VW Passat
The Monte Carlo did that transformation not once, but twice. The sporty roots were there in the beginning, then it became progressively more personal-luxury, then at some point reversed direction again. Just as the original 1970 Monte was created by heaping extra bling onto a basic 2-door Chevelle, so with the Super Sport’s debut in 1983, GM started to reposition the Monte Carlo from a personal-luxury coupe back into some sort of latter-day Chevelle again.
Walking is my/our default mode. Nary a day goes by without at least 4 or 5 miles of urban or nature walking. I’ve always been that way; Stephanie too.
We walk downtown or by the UO as part of our urban loop. It takes us some 15 minutes to get downtown and 18-20 minutes to the campus. All a long our walk, I see folks waiting at the bus stops, waiting 10-12 or more minutes for the none-too frequent buses in our part of town. I always feel like telling them: walk! You’ll get there in almost the same time, but you’ll feel so much better! We evolved to be walking for a good part of our day. And walking has been proven to be the single most effective basic exercise regime.
It was directly as a consequence of one of our urban walks in 2009 that I decided to stop and shoot pictures of a ’72 Cadillac parked at the curb and write a post on it for ttac. And I titled it “Curbside Classic”.
So yes, walking can and will open up all sorts of new experiences, as well as likely prolong your time to have more of them.
Wonderful shots of this MC, by the way. They remind me of your early shots that first caught my eye at the Cohort. It’s a great setting to see cars like this on the go in an urban environment. “Rolling Classics”.
Thanks, Paul. We’ve had a very mild winter here in Chicago and I’ve been trying to get out on weekends to walk for at least an hour or more. The limiting factor hasn’t been the cold, but the shorter days, but I feel pretty safe and the days are getting longer. I’ve discovered so many things I love about taking walks in my neighborhood probably since the beginning of the decade. It’s one of my favorite things, and to your point, low-impact exercise.
Agree 100% – I walk 3-4 miles a day and find it the best form of exercise. I listen to a lot of podcasts that way too.
Cool car we rarely see now, almost a museum piece. BTW anyone visiting Chicago should take the wonderful Architectural Tour by boat, it provides an overview of many of the unique historical architectural gems; it’s very worth taking. Our S-I-L used to live in Grayslake about 45 min NW and she convinced us to go into the city to do the boat tour and we’re very glad we did.
The Architectural Tour is definitely time and money well-spent!
These were good looking cars like the 3rd Gen F-body’s of the ’80’s.
However, the drivetrains were terrible. Engines, transmissions and weak rear axle.
No manual transmission option.
The chassis and brakes were terrible.
Totally slow, terrible handling, steering and braking.
Build quality was abysmal and the cars were heavy.
And they were expensive.
Unlike the Fox body Mustangs of the ’80’s.
Excellent 5.0L engine, excellent T-5 manual trans, excellent 8.8″ rear axle.
Kinda quick, pretty good handling, excellent rack and pinion steering, average braking.
Average build quality, average styling and looks, fairly light cars.
Ran circles around the GM G-bodies of the ’80’s.
And they were much cheaper.
And that’s why these cars pretty much disappeared and Fox body Mustangs still are everywhere with a huge following.
Just my thoughts…
I was surprised to learn when I was researching a different Super Sport last year that these couldn’t be had with a manual transmission. They were popular cars, though, so many buyers couldn’t have been too turned off by that.
The popularity of the last RWD MC SS has always baffled me. I know that GM was concerned about CAFE requirements but, c’mon, a 305/automatic ‘musclecar’? You’d have thought there was some way they could have offered a 350, even for a limited time. Hell, a 350 Aerocoupe would have been perfect and a whole lot more desirable.
Compared with the similar, weak-engined 307 Olds 442 and 305 (same engine as the MC) Pontiac Grand Prix, I guess the 305 was ‘good enough’. Maybe that old NASCAR marketing wisdom of ‘race on Sunday, sell on Monday’ was still working?
For someone who wanted real G-Special performance, I suppose there was always the Buick Grand National.
Same question could be asked about Thunderbirds of the era, being only available with the lopo 5.0 rather than the 5.0 H.O. in the Mustang, even for the sport package and Cougar XR7. If CAFE wasn’t the reason(I doubt there’s much appreciable difference in mileage) I get the impression that Ford and GM were calculatingly trying to keep exclusivity in the performance versions of the Camaro and Mustang, and not oversaturate the fragile performance market like they had done in the early 70s.
The Grand National was the exception but it used an exclusive powertrain, once it got street cred and the press took notice that it was faster than the Vette GM promptly dumped turbo engined Buicks like a hot potato, and revealingly put that powertrain in a special edition F body for 89. Coincidence?
Some of the GM A/G bodies did offer a floor shift manual transmission early on; I’ve seen a ’79 Grand Prix with one. The Cutlass in the late ’70s even offered a 5 speed (Detroit’s first?) It obviously wasn’t a high priority for GM given how awkward they looked, not bothering to color-key any of the floor shift components, and not placing them in the standard consoles. Without looking I don’t know if Chevy or Buick offered a manual in these cars.
To say nothing of the oddly-equipped Iraqi taxi Malibus with the 3-speed on the floor.
Could get 3 speed on the floor in A/G Malibu and Century with 6 cyl. motors. [Depends on year]. Chevys had 4 speed with V8 available, which G body collectors seek out.
I remember a 3 speed aero back Century at ’78 Chicago Auto Show, as one of the ‘sit in’ models.
Ever own an ’88 SS, JB? 12 years never dogged me once. The torque and 3.73 rear made it jump nicely off the line. Great factory exhaust note.
“Fired up my laptop, and started insuring things.” 🙂
That quote brings to mind an episode from the original Bob Newhart show (S3, Ep2, The Gray Flannel Shrink) – my very favorite Chicago-based show – where Bob briefly considers leaving his personal practice and taking a corporate job as the on-staff psychologist for an insurance company that was founded in the 19th century with the company motto “We’ve Got to Insure These Guys”. Cracks me up each time I think of that. And I think 50 years later has done a little bit in keeping me focused for the most part on staying out of the corporate world.
Your choice to walk around your beautiful city instead of getting back to insuring those guys was clearly a better choice for so many reasons. Having control over my own time is one reason why I am able on average double the miles walked by the majority of Americans each day (1.5 to 2 miles). I feel that my average 5 miles a day is not so great an achievement, but it nevertheless seems beneficial in many ways.
Great post, Joseph.
Thank you, Jeff. And now you’ve reminded me that I had picked up one season (not sure which one) of the “Bob Newhart Show” on DVD from a local thrift store – one of my all-time favorite shows, and also one of the reasons I had decided to study psychology. And that opening montage of him walking through the city, and ending up at a condo building that’s only a handful of blocks from where I live now. It all makes me smile.
That Cezanne quote seems to be in conflict with a well known, more homey truism; “slow down and smell the roses.” But I think that the essence of the quote is the need to make it a priority to see things, the fleeting occurrences, before they disappear. Like a hummingbird hovering among the flowers in the garden, a ray of sunlight breaking out a cloud filled sky, or the smile that lights up the face of a delighted child. If not, we can live our lives oblivious to the many wonderful happenings and moments that we could experience more fully, if we were only paying attention!
Sometimes I feel a bit embarrassed by my interest in cars, it can seem shallow and superficial to some judgmental people, but that’s not all we are interested in, is it Joseph? The cars are just landmarks that help us enjoy the various mileposts in our lives, the people and experiences that have brought us to this point in our lives. I’m now at an age well past the novelty of discovery. A lot of things have passed out of my life, people too, but that is the way of the world. The challenge is to try to maintain an appreciation and curiosity about our lives and the world as we transition into the final quarter.
Yes, the Monte Carlo is gone, but it is fondly remembered by many. Lots of memorable cars have come along since then, and there is still time to enjoy the ones that are still here! Thanks for the post.
Jose, not to put you on the spot, but I always get a lot of great food for thought from your comments, so thank you. I had read something within the past few months (and I cannot remember who it was from, or about, etc.), but it talked about how one particular individual with a lot of years and experience was able to hold onto the wonder of life and was thus able to maintain a youthful mind. That stuck with me, and it’s not that far off from how I experience many things, or at least try to. Stay curious! That’s my motto. Well, one of them.
Were these the last NASCAR homologation specials ever produced? I prefer the regular notchback roofline on G bodies but just like I’d rather have a regular Charger or Roadrunner from an aesthetics standpoint than the “winged warriors” the direct racing connection does add a special aura to the aerocoupe.
I actually see Monte Carlo SSs pretty regularly here in the burbs, with the Turbo Buicks becoming auction footballs, never to leave the comfort of a investor collectors garage/warehouse, the SS are really the only G bodies I see anymore, I kind of like how they’re not quite sacred (yet), with this one sporting period correct centerlines. I met a guy with a donked one at an auto parts store and other than the wheels he kept it otherwise pristine and drives it on the reg.
Matt, I think you’re right about these being the last homologation specials. I’ve been thinking about this since I read your comment, and I can’t think of another example that came after these. Then, again, the NASCAR rules changed at some point (didn’t they?) to where they could use a generic bodyshell with corporate identification cues painted or stuck on. I’m the wrong person to ask about NASCAR, but that thought did cross my mind. Great observations.
And agree on the Monte SSs not quite being seen as sacred and able to be seen out and about. I’ve been sitting on pictures of yet another white SS I photographed in (I think) 2020, but then this Aerocoupe happened along.
Thank you for another great post, I’m so pleased you’re still posting.
The comments are, as ever, really interesting as well.
Cezanne was a favourite of mine when I started getting interested in art and architecture as a teenager, but I had never heard that quote before. I’m not sure how it sits with my image of Cezanne as someone who always took their time and kept returning to the same subject over and over.
Glad to read some G-Body content with a great story behind it. Well done.