It’s a funny thing to look at how much differently my leisure funds have been allocated since the beginning of general quarantine this past March. My weekly “allowance” had usually fallen into one of several buckets, including for clothing. It’s interesting now to think about buying new-to-me clothes, knowing that I probably won’t be wearing them out in any places where people can see me in them. There have been only a handful of instances, outside of semi-regular trips to the grocery or drug store, that I’ve done any kind of leisure shopping inside brick and mortar.
I understand and agree with the idea that self-care can involve doing things simply for oneself, regardless of any other potential impact. I’ve been a big proponent of that this year, as I’ve spent a lot of time both by myself and away from businesses, in general. At the same time, I do still pay attention to my clothes and presentation. I’m one of those individuals who tries to make himself look nice while working from home, even if that normally doesn’t involve video calls. I also like to take walks around my neighborhood and the surrounding areas once I’ve powered down my laptop for the day, so there is motivation for me to look presentable during business hours so that once I’m done, I can just bounce out the door with my camera.
I have heard the first generation Monte Carlo having been described as a Chevelle dressed in formal wear. When I came across this ’72 in the parking lot of a local supermarket a couple of Friday evenings ago, I remembered this metaphor and agreed wholeheartedly. A few of my friends have referred to me as the “car whisperer”, and to some degree, it does feel that way sometimes. When I saw this Monte, it was clear across the street buried in a parking lot full of Hyundais and SUVs. With one quick sprint across North Broadway, I was there, trying to be inconspicuous as I snapped a few photos before continuing my walk home.
Its shiny, black finish, factory wheels and tasteful chrome accents made this car look as stylish as I would want to for a nice evening out. Much has been made of the fact that with the Monte Carlo’s introduction, it was Chevrolet and not Ford that had discovered and pioneered a new market segment this time: the affordable personal luxury coupe.
I suppose a few cynics could question why Chevy didn’t simply make the Monte Carlo the “Chevelle coupe”. I like the 1970 – ’72 Chevelle two-door on its own merits. Also, doing so would have been beside the point. Mainstream midsize passenger cars were still the bread and butter of most domestic manufacturers before pickup trucks took over that mantle, and the two-door body style was still a viable choice for small families. It’s the same principle as how Guess, for one example, can charge several times more than Levi Strauss & Co. for a nice pair of jeans. People who paid more for a Monte Carlo over a Chevelle two-door wanted to feel more exclusive.
I wonder just how exclusive an owner of one of the early Monte Carlos could feel, when sales averaged over 150,000 units for its first three model years, with 146,000, 128,600, and 180,800 units sold, in that order. This model’s popularity would then explode with the advent of the next “Colonnade” generation for ’73, a year when 290,700 units found buyers. That’s the thing about the success of a car or concept like this. Everyone wants one, and then everybody gets one. And your prized exclusivity as an owner goes out the window. The company accountants must have rejoiced, but I’m sure that the product planners and marketers were probably a bit more challenged in pitching this car as an object to set individuals apart from the crowd.
I might rather take my ’72 Monte Carlo to the grocery store than my hypothetical Outback or Sonata, if I felt reasonably comfortable that I could get a wide parking space. Whether or not our physical proximity to other human beings must continue to be curtailed for the unforeseeable future, the seasons will change, and the snow and road salt will eventually be here, so now is the time to enjoy a car like this while one can. If it were mine, I don’t know that I’d be leaving all the windows down, because I’m just not cool enough to feign that I don’t care or wouldn’t worry that someone might try to steal my classic Chevy.
I wonder sometimes if I’m overly risk-averse, or if other more carefree individuals have simply had fewer unfortunate things happen to them than others over the course of their lives. That’s not something worth breaking my brain over. I felt like I had hit the jackpot having found this Monte Carlo in a parking lot simply by walking around the neighborhood. For the record, I think it’s completely acceptable right now to wear nice things while we’re doing our best to limit contact with others, even if nobody else sees and appreciates how we look. If a tree falls in the forest, it’s still a good looking tree, even if no one else sees it.
Edgewater, Chicago, Illinois.
Friday, August 21, 2020.
Brochure photo courtesy of www.oldcarbrochures.com.
When the first-gen Monte came out I thought it was a poseur; but then I was still enraptured by the Chevelle. Looking at this now, it strikes me as a very handsome car, especially from the rear-quarter view. I also like these better than the Colonnades, which struck me as too overwrought (across all models of that generation). I wouldn’t mind owning one of these now.
To be fair, the 1973 Monte Carlo and its siblings would have looked somewhat less overwrought (maybe by as much as 10%) if they’d been produced as originally designed – that is, without the first-generation 5-mph front bumpers.
I am with Alan and much prefer these to the 1973+ versions. As a kid who grew up surrounded by Oldsmobiles and Pontiacs, Chevrolet wasn’t really represented in my life. But I remember when these started to become common in my general area. They were no substitute for a Cutlass Supreme, but they soon would be.
One thing I do not recall seeing is very many of these in black. I like it.
I agree with Alan and J P.
Me, too! Me, too!
Count me in as well. There’s a simple elegance in these that’s missing in the later generations.
Don’t worry-Nobody’s going to steal this guys car if they know what’s good for them!
Tell. Me. Again.
Nice car. Too bad that today GM utilizes monkeys with computers instead of real car designers.
Unlike all those other car companies who aren’t using computers.
I had an uncle who owned one of these in green. It was a very nicely trimmed car, with much better build quality and materials than the ’77 Monte Carlo that my mother drove for a few years. Bruce replaced his with a ’77 or ’78 Impala, as kids had come along by then. I’d imagine that was a letdown from a style standpoint, but practicality reigned in my aunt’s household.
I’ve been back in the office since the end of May, but we’re “in a bubble”, not allowing clients or visitors in, so we’ve gone to an ultra-casual dress code. That was a novelty back in June, and I’m grateful to have been able to wear shorts and t-shirts to work through the hot and humid Florida Summer. Since it’s become obvious that this new normal may not be changing very soon I’ve taken to Amazon to up my casual game. Dressing for success might not be the order of the day, but there’s still a sense of normalcy and rightness with the world when you put on a pressed shirt in the morning. Apparently I’m a bit of a dinosaur, as I’ve always ironed my work clothes each morning before showering. Friends and co-workers seem to find this riotously funny, as I’ve learned that many people don’t own an iron, and fewer people know how to use one, but old habits are hard to break. After a couple months of throwing on a t-shirt in the morning it just felt right to go back to the old routine. So yeah, sometimes it’s good for the soul to be “dressed up”, even if you’ve got nowhere to go.
MTN, I totally agree that it was really novel and cool at first to be working from home in shorts and a t-shirt. I was all like, “lookitme! LOL!” Later, as I was establishing my post-quarantine routine, starting to bring back a little more formality to the structure of my days was key to returning to a bit of normalcy.
Good for you, for ironing. One of my work-shirt buying criteria used to be that they were of the non-iron variety, but later I decided it was simply worth the $5 a week to have them dry-cleaned. Great minds.
I will guarantee that I am in the very small minority, but always preferred the first generation Monte Carlo with the fender skirts. They matched the more delicate and refined look (especially around the tail lights) and upscale look of the Monte Carlo, as compared to the muscular look of the Malibu SS. The skirts also continue the body sculpture on the rear fenders. The Monte Carlo was almost like a Chevrolet Eldorado. I remember when they were new, and the first one’s I saw all had the skirts, and they looked very upscale and expensive. For those who wanted full wheel openings, for a muscle car look, there was always other choices including the Malibu SS, or Pontiac GTO for example. I never thought that it looked correct to turn the first generation Monte Carlo into a muscle car. They still are a nice looking car without the skirts, but the car looses some of it’s uniqueness and luxury look. You almost never see them with skirts today. I bet that there are a big supply of them out there in garages all across the country.
I agree. One of the few cars of this period where skirts look right. The color keyed wheel covers are another nice touch. Make mine a 454 equipped SS but without the rear bumper badging.
Yes Tom, I forgot to mention the body color wheel covers – just looks elegant and right on that car.
I will join your party, Bill. Certain cars look good with skirts, and this was one of them. My memory tells me that the early cars were about 50-50 equipped with skirts, but I think the take rate was down by 1972. Maybe someone actually knows if my observations are accurate.
The early to mid 70s was an odd time – some cars had traditionally been designed for skirts and skirts were thus on all of them – think most Cadillacs and the 65-68 Chryslers. Others, of course, never offered them (the majority). But these were of that group where they were optional and were seen both ways. The Pontiac Luxury LeMans was another that offered skirts on a model that usually did not come with them.
Properly optioned (350 4-BBL V8 engine, 3 speed Turbohydramatic automatic transmission, power steering, power front disc brakes, F-41 suspension package, 3:55 final drive (rear end) ratio, factory A/C, dashboard “gage” (as GM called it) package, cloth/velour interior) this first gen MC could had easily been a “keeper” for my family, handed down from my parents to me.
This generation Monte Carlo had a refined, upscale, quiet elegance to it that the later models abandoned.
The 1973-up Montes, with their swoopy front fenders, flabby rear flanks, bulbous body and overall over-wrought styling sickened me….then and today.
I concur-As a 12 year old in the fall of ’72, I remember thinking to myself, OMG, what have they done!?
GM Design really got it “RIGHT” with the styling of the first gen Monte Carlo! A clean, handsome design that has aged very gracefully; especially when compared to almost any gape mouthed, phony scooped, overwrought “designs” of today!
Despite increased sales with the restyled 73+ units, the “look” did nothing but go downhill…….IMhO. DFO
“I suppose a few cynics could question why Chevy didn’t simply make the Monte Carlo the “Chevelle coupe”.”
Ironically, this is what Chrysler attempted to do with the 1971 B-body, giving the coupes unique sheetmetal versus the stodgy sedan/station wagon. The results didn’t exactly set the world on fire. Still, it would have been interesting to see how it would have turned out if GM had tried to do the same thing.
As to the Monte Carlo, itself, this was back in the day when GM was still firing on all eight cylinders. Every generation MC seemed to be right for the times, and only faltered late in the game when affordable, large, stylish domestic coupes just stopped selling. Even the last generation, which I thought was the most poorly styled of the series and just plain odd, sold well enough (for a while, anyway) but that might have been since, by that time, it was the only one left.
It’s a shame that there’s probably zero possibility of Chevrolet ever resurrecting the name. Like ‘Malibu’ and ‘Impala’, there’s a sizable amount of brand-equity there. OTOH, Dodge and Pontiac seemed to make a solid transition from the original 2-door specialty Charger and Grand Prix to four-door sedans, so a Monte Carlo crossover might work.
“It’s a shame that there’s probably zero possibility of Chevrolet ever resurrecting the name. Like ‘Malibu’ and ‘Impala’, there’s a sizable amount of brand-equity there.”
I inherited a ’98 Monte from Dear Old Dad. It’s a very adequate car.
That said, it’s a crying shame that they devalued the Monte Carlo name by putting it on a wrong-wheel-drive econobox.
Same for the “Wimp-ala”, and the Malibu. Those used to be impressive cars, until they were downsized beyond all recognition, the name tied to vehicles so different from the ones that generated that desirable name recognition to begin with.
No different from Chrysler abusing the “Charger” nameplate by tossing it onto a four-door; when the name became great by being attached to two-doors.
Leave the grand old names alone, invent new names for new cars.
“No different from Chrysler abusing the “Charger” nameplate by tossing it onto a four-door; when the name became great by being attached to two-doors.”
I guess almost everyone erased the memories of the FWD L-body Charger. 😉
Stéphane, I actually really like this ’83 Shelby Charger! It’s not the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of “Shelby”, but I like it on its own merits as a FWD performance coupe of the economy-minded ’80s.
Aesthetically, I also like that it combines the more attractive taillamps from the early L-body coupes with the cleaned-up sail panels of the later cars.
Rudiger, I have often wondered, in Chrysler’s case, what would have happened if they had continued with a “regular” two-door alongside the “fuselage” Charger and Satellite coupes. My thought was that the latter might have maintained an extra degree of desirability versus the more pedestrian two-doors they would have been sold next to.
And yours are points well taken regarding the Grand Prix and Charger “sedans”. Chevrolet had built up a lot of brand equity with certain model names, and I don’t feel like all of that equity was squandered on subsequent, inferior products. It seems a shame to waste that.
One thing that absolutely amazed me about this car was the length of the fan shroud. I think Chevrolet added about a foot on to the front of a Chevelle frame but kept the engine in the same relative position. This made the fan shroud look like a 3 foot tunnel.
Another thing I never understood was why the 454 SS model of this car was such a poor seller. It was only offered in the 1970 and 1971 model years and dropped for the 1972 model. The first time I saw a Monte 454 SS was in late 1971 as a student at Vincennes University and I was just blown away by its presence and beauty. I guess not too many other people felt this way.
My guess is that most folks looking to put a Chevy SS 454 in their garage in 1970 and 1971, were looking for a true muscle car and not a personal luxury muscle car.
As far as I can tell, the prices were very similar: $3543.25 for the Monte SS 454 and $3486.05 for the Chevelle SS 454 in 1970; so it wasn’t that.
I don’t know if it was possible in 1970-71, but in 1972, you could still get a non-performance 454 in a Monte Carlo, all the way thru 1975. It was the SS package that went away, and likely with good reason.
There’s actually a similarity of the Monte Carlo with the original 1966-74 Dodge Charger. The difference is where the Charger tilted towards ‘sporty’ and performance, the Monte Carlo was definitely more of a personal luxury car. But it was still possible for the first two years of the 1st generation MC to get typical musclecar options (like the SS package). But by 1972, Chevrolet had seen the writing on the wall and a performance-oriented Monte Carlo was not in the cards.
The irony is that the SS package would return in 1983, but it was a mere shadow of those 1st gen SS454 cars, with a quite weak 305 V8 being the only engine. By the end of the Monte Carlo’s final generation, the MC SS was only in NASCAR association as the production FWD version had virtually nothing in common, other than a few well-known graphics packages.
Interesting to note then the Mexican 1984 Monte Carlos SS have some differences with the US version and the urband legend then they was available with a manual transmission wasn’t an urban legend.
http://www.montecarloss.com/MexicanSS.html
I bet the dropping of the SS and neutering of the 454 had a lot more to do with insurance and tightening of emissions than whether or not the badge was appropriate on the luxury MC. The Charger also dropped the R/T for 1972, and the 440 six pack was nixed. Had the Monte Carlo come out in 68 it may have enjoyed more of a bankers hot rod sort of image with performance options, but coming out in 1970, even then the writing was on the wall for muscle cars, it was too late to cultivate a chameleon image like that, which the Charger kind of successfully did for a brief period
Increased insurance surcharges for performance engines and new emission standards certainly impacted sales, but the fact is, if the early MC SS had solid sales numbers, you can bet Chevrolet would have come up with some sort of performance package to replace the SS, just like Dodge clung to performance by renaming their R/T cars as Rallye. In effect, you’d end up with something like a Monte Carlo Laguna S-3.
As a frame of reference, there was the good old 1970 Olds Cutlass SX, which was effectively a formal roof 442 without the spoilers, hood scoops, and bright colors. It didn’t exactly set any sales records, even with a clever reworking of the VIN which didn’t disclose the engine size, keeping it out of the clutches of the higher insurance rating.
Simpy put, by the early seventies, a performance PLC just wasn’t all that big of a deal, anymore. If it had been, the car credited with creating the genre, the old 1955 Chrysler 300 letter-series, wouldn’t have had its last year in 1965 and still be around (the oddball 1970 300-Hurst doesn’t count). Luxury buyers were no longer looking for a hot intermediate PLC as the banker’s hotrod; they wanted a cheaper Toronado, Eldorado, or Riviera with big car luxury and cushy ride, so that’s the direction the smaller Monte Carlo and Grand Prix took.
Enthusiasts might bemoan the loss of those early big-block SS and SJ models but, soon enough, it became clear the sales just weren’t there (for whatever reason).
I essentially agree with what you point out, and I think part of it was intermediates experienced the same knock down the performance totem pole by ponycars and sport compacts by 1970 that full sizers experienced in the mid 60s, the early Monte Carlo SS was essentially in a spot the Impala SS was in 1967-1968.
That said, I don’t think buyers seeking out PLCs were clamoring for less performance so much as increased standard comfort, reduced operating cost and less emphasis on the ever gaudy nature of what now defined American performance packages – where the 64 GTO started with a little emblem and small hood scoops ended up with giant rear wings and multicolor stripes on the Judge for example – So I don’t so much think lukewarm sales of performance packages on them was a result of buyers wanting a slow wallowing car, but that a package like the SS was simply from a different time. PLC style in the 70s harkened back to the old golden era cars like Duesenbergs, which for the era were high performance cars, but they don’t exactly look right with RWL tires, air grabbers, spoilers and graphics.
Performance packages are often stepping stones in evolution, where this engine, suspension setup or whatever technology they had that made them special ends up making its way into the standard car during the next generation in some capacity, where at some point the regular Malibu would theoretically run circles around an old Malibu SS. That’s what you see you look at the landscape of today, now 300hp is almost standard fare, and some SUVs are more nimble than some old sports cars, yet only a teeny tiny percentage of new car buyers can be called enthusiasts who’d care about such things. It’s always perilous applying our modern way of life to the past, but maybe that’s what people expected of PLCs in the 70s, only to be disappointed when the PLCs had the latest trendy look on top of engineering that was still decades old, and worse. It’s not the bemoaning the loss of the SS, it’s the bemoaning of the lack of qualities put in that package in something much newer.
SS454 Monte Carlos were quite rare in their day. Folks buying these weren’t interested in performance; they wanted the style, image and comfort. Let’s face it, these were serious broughams.
By this time, buyers looking for performance in an American car were buying Duster 340s.
Yes, there was always a certain contingent that liked some genuine muscle with their more upscale cars, the kind of guys who bought a 428 Grand Prix and such. But they were an increasingly small number, especially in relation to the huge numbers buying Monte Carlos.
I’ve said it before: the stereotypical buyer of one of these GM mid-sized PLC was trading in a Mustang or Camaro, but one with a base V8, automatic and no performance options. Maximum visual effect for the least bucks.
Bear in mind though that for 1968 only around 17% of Chargers were 440/426 R/Ts, the vast majority of those too were powered by more modest 318s, 383s and the odd slant 6. Style, image and comfort was what separated them from the Coronet, just like the Monte Carlo did the Chevelle. Brougham was definitely creeping in those as well, the vast majority had vinyl tops and the SE package took it up another notch into proto-intermediate PLC territory.
I *think* that in this generation, the Chevelle coupes were on a shorter wheelbase than the sedans or wagons, but the Monte Carlo was on the longer wheelbase chassis, making it slightly bigger than the Chevelle coupe.
Or I could be remembering all wrong. Someone here knows better than me.
You are correct in that the Chevelle coupe was on a 112″ wheelbase and the sedan and wagon was on a 116″ wheelbase. I don’t know what he wheelbase of the Monte Carlo was. I am guessing 112′ but I could be wrong.
MC wheelbase: 116″. Length: 206″
Chevelle coupe wheelbase: 112″. Length: 197.5
Chevelle 4 door wb: 116″ Length: 201.3
The MC had both a longer wheelbase as well as more front overhang.
Google is your friend. Or in this case, I am. 🙂
Even as a kid, when these were new, I just could never find the space in my heart for the Monte Carlo, always preferring the Gran Prix and Cutlass Supreme of this and subsequent generations. The Chevelle origins come through loud and clear from certain angles, especially the front and rear three-quarter views, the car seems too narrow for its length, and the long hood does nothing for me. While my views of many 1970s car have softened with time, regular sightings of a pale yellow 1971 version on local roads in recent years have done little to change my opinion.
I do agree with the author about yearning for a change from what has become a dull routine of wearing shorts and either a t-shirt or polo shirt every day for the past several months. The one or two times I have had to wear a dress shirt and slacks felt good for a change. It felt like going back to the Monte Carlo, while shorts and a polo are the equivalent of a Chevelle and the SS 396 is athletic wear.
As a luxury car I think the original version works best. The styling is quite restrained and if you selected a mid level model with buckets and console it was a very nice personal luxury car. Compare this with what was happening at Buick in 1970. The Riviera was changed into a humped back relic, only to be followed by three years of Boat tail madness. The Toronado was finishing out it’s first gen run by having been facelifted into anonymity. The Grand Prix was enjoying a successful run through it’s second year of production. The Eldo was enjoying it’s last year as a razor sharp swashbuckler only to morph into a portly Renaissance Faire poser the next year.
The Monte was a good choice for a lot of people. It probably wouldn’t have been cross shopped by a Caddy buyer but it was a real choice for other GM buyers.The price was right, it wasn’t a pretentious purchase, it was only Chevy! And it was really good looking.Unlike the GP there were cheaper base models with smaller V8s, more practical bench seats and almost no power options. The GP was always better equipped and therefore more expensive. Plus there was still the Chevrolet “cred”. It may be hard to believe now, but at this time a lot of people still felt that a Chevrolet was a safe, trusted choice. Just the way many today “trust” Toyota and Honda to be a safe purchase, with very good resale value. GM managed to taint their legacy over the years, but these Montes show that they once knew how to do things right.
This first gen Monte Carlo is gorgeous from all angles. Somehow Chevrolet was able to make 2 two door coupes and still sell a bunch of them. I didn’t even see them as competition at the time. Both were unique in their own way. I also like these cars better than the collonade cars.
I think of the 69 Grand Prix as the beginning of GM getting the personal luxury coupe right. It came along just as the Thunderbird was getting big fat and ugly. And Ford took years to get back on track.
Cool and classy. Both the Chevy and the author!
The uncle of my high school best friend had a black 70 SS454 4 speed. Classy and fast.
1st gen Monte Carlo is the best period .I own 2 .1970 big block 402 4 speed bench w ac.And 1972 small block Ls1 6 bucket seats and console .Best of both worlds!!!!
Thanks, everyone. I normally try to chime back in with any responses and thoughts I might have on the same day my essays run, but yesterday was busy.
I’ll only add that I also like the Colonnade generation that followed, in totally different ways than I like the first Monte Carlos. The 1970 – ’72 models were cleaner, but I’m a visual person and the heavily sculpted 1973 – ’77 models, while they do have their wonky angles and details, are attractive and interesting to look at.
My first neighbors had an early MC that was replaced with a beautiful, light green ’74 on Chevy Rally Wheels, and to a young preschooler who was just learning to identify makes and models of cars, it was a really beautiful machine.
That one has nothing on this Girl 1970 $$ 454. Just over 38,000 miles
We never had affordable personal luxury cars in Britain, plenty of expensive ones from Alvis, Jensen, Aston Martin etc but us paupers weren’t allowed to indulge. Ford were the first to give us what we wanted with the Capri, a car that made you feel like Steve McQueen even if it was a 1300 automatic.
Rob, it’s funny you should mention the Capri – one of my favorite cars of all time, and a new/old obsession. More on that later. Thank you for the segue!…