(first posted 1/29/2015) I want to make something very clear. From that title, it sounds like I’m criticizing this generation of Chevrolet’s personal luxury coupe for losing the rear-wheel-drive layout and V8s of its predecessor. I’m not, although such changes didn’t exactly earn this generation a storied place in history.
In my opinion, switching to FWD isn’t always a death knell; sometimes, the transition is logical. The G-body Grand Prix was an untouched relic in the Pontiac lineup when the excitement brand replaced it with a slick FWD coupe and sedan. “Why is that acceptable, but this Monte Carlo isn’t?”, you may ask. Simple. Pontiac tried something daring and new, with character. There was smooth, new styling, turbo V6s, Quad 4s and sumptuous bucket seats. Yes, there were base 2.8 sedans with bench seats, but many G-body coupes were plebeian V6s with wire wheel covers.
This Chevy is different, though. In between its launch and the G-Body Monte’s demise, there was a coupe version of the Chevrolet Lumina. It featured available Z34 trim with the new 3.4 LQ1 V6, as well as a pretty wild body kit. It stood out.
Frankly, it seems as though GM’s decision to call this a Monte Carlo was a last minute one. After all, look at the front and rear fasciae and what do you see? A Lumina.
Look at the hideous interior, and what do you see? A Lumina. I’m often quite a defender of GM vehicles, but this generation of Lumina and Monte Carlo really receive my ire.
The Lumina seemed to represent GM giving up on tackling the Camry, Accord and Taurus. Look at what the other domestics were releasing at the time. Chrysler’s LH had daring styling. Ford’s 1996 Taurus had a lot of time and money invested in its quality; the mission statement had quite simply been, “Beat Camry”. The 1995 Lumina, though, was an unambitious redesign with any hint of sportiness (Euro and Z34 trims, manual transmissions) or uniqueness (interior design) removed.
The Monte Carlo was a similarly conservative entry. Tastes had changed; aero was the new normal, but Chevrolet didn’t try to incorporate heritage cues with this new design language, bar a slightly formal C-pillar treatment. There were no more ‘hips’, and not even unique front and rear fasciae from the Lumina.
Even GM’s other brands had done a better job of differentiating their coupes from the sedans: Witness the menacing Grand Prix GTP coupe and the unique Regal coupe. Throughout its history, the Monte Carlo badge had always been affixed to a coupe on Chevy’s mid-size platform, but one that always looked very different from its siblings. It was just a bit more special. The ’95 Monte was inoffensive and hardly unattractive, but visually was so closely linked to the Lumina that it may as well have just been called the Lumina Coupe.
Value for money was the order of the day for Chevy’s new-for-1995 midsizers. The Lumina started at $15k, the Monte Carlo just under $17k. Chevrolet was trying to wrest sales leadership from Ford; forget polish or excitement, these Chevrolets were about bang for your buck. GM was now competing on value, and an extensive feature list was evidence of this. Fortunately, this kit included four-wheel disc brakes with anti-lock, as well as dual airbags.
The Monte Carlo was dynamically adequate, but less sporty than even some of its fellow W-bodies. Neutral handling and a smooth ride were positive attributes, but these cars weren’t terribly exciting to drive, thanks to numb steering and a fair amount of body roll even in the Z34.
The Lumina’s 3.4-liter V6 was carried over in the Monte Carlo Z34, but it was scarcely more powerful; it pumped out the same 215hp and 220ft-lbs as when it was introduced in the inaugural Lumina. It was a pretty high-revving engine, perhaps at the expense of reliability, and it was pleasantly gutsy. The 3.4 had impressed upon its arrival a few years prior, but even within the GM stable things were moving on: 1997 would see the launch of a supercharged 3.8 V6, pumping out an impressive 240hp and 280 ft-lbs, in the Grand Prix and Buick Regal. This generation of Monte would never see it.
The Lumina Z34’s Getrag manual transmission was also nowhere to be found. By 1998, the spunky 3.4 would be replaced by the more sedate (but more reliable) 3800 Series II; 15hp would be sacrificed for 5 ft-lbs of torque gained.
Base (LS) Montes came with the ubiquitous 3.1 V6 with 160hp and 185ft-lbs. A bench seat was standard, as was a softer suspension tune. No sales breakdown by model is available, but this generation sold a consistent 70,000 units (or thereabouts) every year. In contrast, the Lumina coupe had only ever sold in the 30-40k range, and plunged to 10k units for a shortened 1994 model year.
If you wanted to see a domestic coupe that managed to respect its heritage and be competitive, you need look no further than the Ford Thunderbird. Motor Trend agreed. In comparing the Monte with the by then six-year-old T-Bird Super Coupe, the latter emerged the victor. The Monte did undercut the Ford by a not-insignificant $4k, but their test vehicle suffered from multiple quality issues. The T-Bird was much quicker than even the rev-happy Z34, thanks to its supercharged V6, and was overall more fun-to-drive and better built.
I think what I like most about GM is that even when what they’re producing isn’t any better than average, it’s generally at least something interesting, and something that hasn’t been copied from elsewhere. Aztek. Dustbusters. V8 W-bodies. Malibu Maxx. SSR. Citation X-11. Crossover Sport Vans. If nothing else, they’re entertaining to read about. These Monte Carlos, though, were a cynical and lazy exercise. Alas, they were just competent enough and sufficiently well-priced to sell consistently. For the next generation, Chevrolet would try a little harder though: a supercharged V6 and later, a V8. Furthermore, heritage styling cues would return and, whether employed successfully or not, helped make for an interesting car. The 1995-99 Monte Carlo wasn’t.
Note: I spotted the featured Monte Carlo in Manhattan’s Financial District. Admittedly, it was a bit nerve-wracking to photograph because I didn’t want those armed guards to think I was scoping out the Reserve building. I believe this color is Purple Pearl Auburn Nightmist metallic, and it’s absolutely gorgeous. It almost makes me want this Monte. Almost.
I guess it was a nice car in isolation, but how did it compare price wise with BMW 3 series coupes and the Japanese sports coupes as well?
A Google search took me to cars.com, which shows the following base prices for 1995 (note that standard equipment varies, quite a bit in some cases):
$16,128 for the Toyota Camry DX 2-door
$16,770 for the Monte Carlo LS
$17,690 for the Honda Accord LX 2-door
$18,970 for the Monte Carlo Z34
$19,488 for the Toyota Camry LE 2-door
$20,250 for the Honda Accord EX 2-door (cloth interior)
$21,828 for the Toyota Camry LE V6 2-door
$23,468 for the Toyota Camry SE V6 2-door
$33,500 for the BMW 325is 2-door
Not that the the Accord and Camry were “sports coupes,” but they were more or less the intended competition. The Prelude and Celica were generally in the $20k to $25k range; technically, Toyota offered a $17k Celica ST, but good luck finding one.
And keep in mind that the Monte almost always had some rebates and other incentives stacked on the hood, so the out the door price was quite a bit lower than the MSRP, not to mention that of a similarly equipped Accord or Camry.
The BMW was in a whole ‘nother league…
As I looked at your comparative prices, I kept coming back to the thought “But it’s a GM.” Mentally I’d already crossed it off. I had to keep reminding myself that back in 1995 GM did not have the bad rep to the degree it has now.
I think it depends on the crowd you hung out with at that time. At that time I was right at 30 years old, and most of the guys I went to college with wouldn’t have been caught dead in a GM vehicle (or just about any domestic vehicle, for that matter). I think we probably saw them as being for older people, or less affluent people than we sought to appear as being — definitely a blue collar vibe. Fortunately, I think I got over myself and that level of snobbery, with three domestic vehicles now in my garage.
The Prelude and Celica were generally in the $20k to $25k range; technically, Toyota offered a $17k Celica ST, but good luck finding one.
I missed this earlier Today. Good luck indeed! The ’95 Celica GT coupe I bought only had one option, air conditioning, and it still had an msrp just shy of $22,000. No wonder they were as rare as hen’s teeth; A Camry coupe must have looked mighty tempting next to one of these for most people…
Those are sticker prices. American cars do not actually sell for a price near the sticker price. Japanese cars do.
Which is why I included this at the end of the original post: “And keep in mind that the Monte almost always had some rebates and other incentives stacked on the hood, so the out the door price was quite a bit lower than the MSRP, not to mention that of a similarly equipped Accord or Camry."
It was a rather nice car for the jellybean ’90s, and I still think so, but it’s not helped when 16yo kids driving plenty of beaters of this model around with rusted out rocker panel though. I think when all the beaters die out, it would become a car similar to how we see a base Ford Falcon coupe now ( with much less flexibility of modifications though )
Thunderbird is more of superior in technology, but for something capable of extending to a Lincoln Mark VIII to outrun an Eldorado, it was necessary ( otherwise Mark VIII would be a Taurus based Continental in two door body )
For the soft suspension on Monte Carlo. I suspect if it’s for the low body integrity? Usually it’s a good cover up. And comparing to less expensive W-Body, the should be better H-Body has quite awful body integrity, even with very plushy soft suspension on my ’95 LeSabre, every time I push down the gas a little deep at traffic light, I can feel how the car deformed with minor noise at the whole B pillar and near the roof.
I think the Lumina coupe was THE nadir of Chevrolet styling…it almost looks like they built it out of cast-off parts from the GM parts bin. The Z34 model looks even worse. The car pictured? It looks better, to me, than the 73-77 Monte Carlo and certainly better than the FWD Impala-based models that followed it.
I think I could actually enjoy owning and driving one of these Monte Carlos if I could find a nice, lowish mileage, well kept example.
Late in the 1995 model year I test drove a Monte Carlo with the Z34 engine. I then test drove a 4.6 liter Thunderbird.
Yes, the 3.4 was a rev-happy engine with decent power. However, the good vibes ended right there. You are correct on the interior; it just seemed cheap. The car I drove had leather seats, but I referred to them as “Band-Aid” leather as they were perforated and the same color as those Johnson & Johnson adhesive bandages. The sticker price on that unit was well north of $20k.
Conversely, the Thunderbird simply drove better and seemed equally powerful to me at the time. Ultimately, I special ordered a 4.6 liter ’96 Thunderbird with the Super Coupe suspension for right at $20k sticker price. My only regret with that Thunderbird was having to part with it when I did.
At the time, a GM loyalist friend kept bragging about the superiority of the Monte Carlo. Once he rode in my Thunderbird, that bragging dried up.
Those thunderbirds are semi-classics now. They were very popular. Unique styling, but still conservative and a nice V8 RWD layout that still got good mileage. I drove one once and thought the transmission ruined the car, it just couldn’t find a gear. One of my coworkers has one that he still drives to work every day. He had the trans rebuilt and a few other things done, but it makes financial sense to keep driving it.
“I test drove a Monte Carlo with the Z34 engine. I then test drove a 4.6 liter Thunderbird… … the Thunderbird simply drove better and seemed equally powerful to me at the time.”
I don’t know about “drove better”. But “equally powerful” is exactly what I’d expect from Ford. I have every expectation that the “4.6L” Ford engine was lame enough to be the equal of a decent 3.4L from gm.
The Z34 LQ1 DOHC six-popper in the W-body has a noticeable power transition at about 4K rpm; this was more pronounced in pre-95 engines, I think it was softened a bit for 95-newer versions of that engine. Yes, the LQ1 engine had to spin to make power.
William, I echo your sentiments on this car and its 1995-1999 Lumina sedan counterpart. Especially for a historic nameplate like Monte Carlo, this was a big disappointment, and the prime example of GM’s “let’s see how little money and effort we can put into our cars, because our Suburbans and Yukons are selling like hotcakes and that’s all that matters”.
While I actually kinda liked the Lumina sedan’s styling as a kid when these were new (I feel less enthused now), the sedan’s jellybean styling never translated well to the 2-door bodystyle. Especially the Z34, with its lower bumpers, looks like a sled. Is it me, or do the brochure pictures make the Monte Carlo look even longer and lower?
Having not seen a Monte Carlo coupe of this generation for some time, I guess I never really noticed the attempt at a formal C-pillar/fast roofline combo. The roofline looks okay, but the rear window shape is terrible.
The interiors were equally disappointing, often coming in really low-grade cloth. Even the optional velour wasn’t anything to be impressed with. IIFC, the Lumina was among the last American cars you could get with all-burgundy interior.
Nice article!
Yeah, what was it with GM and wonky rear pillar shapes in those days? The Monte Carlo’s window looks like a square peg forced into a round hole.
1988-1999 were truly GM’s lost years, and the absolute last time they could have remained relevant before the long slide into bankruptcy. They were reeling from the Roger Smith years, and it seemed practically everything they spat out sucked.
I still cringe when I see a dustbuster, a Beretta, a Corsica, a Lumina or one of these. These were their bread-and-butter cars and they completely failed on so many fronts, starting with the most obvious – design.. Oh sure they sold a few (quite a few), but their fate was sealed.
They almost went bankrupt in 1992. They should have. Then was the time to trim unnecessary brands and concentrate on Chevy, Buick and Cadillac.
Back in ’92, Oldsmobile had the upcoming aurora with all new platform ( which itself is better than just enough) with older 88 selling pretty well and Pontiac had the bonneville with head up display and supercharger 3800, which was easily a very good car despite the questionable H-Body strength, and W-Body variant Grand Prix was rather a good design too. GM at that time still had enough divisions to offer variants so it had the better chance to build a good car ( fwd C-Body didn’t work too well on Oldsmobile 98 but Park Avenue was pretty successful, H-Body LeSabre looked like a compromise but 88 looked more elegant with right proportion) and at that time Pontiac was still a big player.
I hear you. Personally I liked the Bonneville and Grand Prix before they went crazy with the clad-ons. The interiors though were tacky and Playskool.
Perhaps then GM could have contracted to where each division (except Chevy) could focus on no more than 2 strong entries or so without everyone needing the resources to stock a complete line up that competed usually only with other GM divisions.
Wow! I totally blanked out that GM made cars in the ’90 s.. I mean they were so….forgettable…the only thing I actually liked, which were the best of their class were the trucks…no, not that s10 thing. The real truck, especially in 3/4 and up ton class. To this day, the GM cars from that era are really poor value, the trucks are the opposite. They are still worth quite a bit on resale, especially in long box club or crew 4×4 Silverado trim.. Damn nice trucks….
These cars are (thankfully) fewer to be seen up here in Michigan. Those that are still running look rather decrepit-EVERY.SINGLE.LUMINA/MONTE CARLO.OF.THIS.GENERATION has rear fenders that rust through where the upper rear fender meets the rear bumper cover.
I had a 1997 Lumina. Scariest thing on it-the rear struts’ mounting area also rusted through-it was only a matter of time before the rear end just collapses on itself. (I sold it for less than a thousand).
It was also in a front-end accident The local LKQ had (still does have) Luminas and Monties galore, so picking up a replacement front bumper cover, front bumper, headlamps, air bags, and air bag computer was easy.
William is spot-on with his take on these cars. The bottom line-Luminas had four doors, Monties had two. It’s really the same car, and a great example of GM hubris.
Not all of em rusted out lol here is my 95 monte in 2023 with 135,000 actual miles
Way too many bytes taken up on the server for what amounts to be a forgettable rolling piece of scrap metal.
COTD!
+1 Although it’s made of mostly scrap plastic.
I agree Chevy should have just called this generation 2 door the Lumina as they did from 1990-94. I also agree that a proper wheel drive T-Bird coupe is a superior car (with the 4.6) to the Monte Carlo of these years. However I didn’t and still don’t find the interior any cheaper or worse than what Ford or Chrysler were doing at the time. We still get in the occasional T-Bird and it’s interior is usually a nasty soiled tan with a wobbly center console with many misaligned bits and rattles and broken pieces as an example. If we get in a 1998-2000 Lumina it’s interior is usually still mostly intact and in good shape.
I also much preferred driving the 1995-1999 Lumina sedans over the fugly ovoid overdone Taurus/Sable cars which started there sales decline that handed that title over to the Camry. The 3100/4T60 were far superior to the lower powered noisier Vulcan and Ford’s horrid AXOD in any example I drove. The Ford may have had the edge in outright handling but the Lumina with 16″ tires was smoother, quieter and pleasant on a day to day basis. I did prefer Ford’s 200 horse Duratec to GM more questionable 3.4 Twin cam even though I never had any issues with the ones I owned. The Lumina did the jelly bean look far better too with the Taurus looking like a strangled guppy fish.
As for reliability well they both had there issues but the Taurus was really hard on transaxles and springs and electrical gremlins. The Lumina counteracted with the stupid resistor key issue, intake manifold failures on the 3100 and certain color paints, mainly white, didn’t like to stay attached to the car’s body.
I know it’s popular to bash GM during this time era but from the many cars I owned, rented and driven over the years, the 1995-2000 Luminas were better day to day cars than the fish Taurus. In fact when I purchased my 1996 Lumina LS the folks and my best friend Kevin were so impressed they each bought one soon after and dad had his well over 200K miles!
A lot depends on what you want in a car. That was still a time when people preferred comfort rather than firmness. The sales numbers were decent.
Funny, wasn’t there just an article here extolling the similar virtues of the dull-as-dishwater Camry? GM essentially did the same thing, giving people what they wanted instead of what the rag writers liked. It’s main fault, IMO, was the build quality and reliability. It was comfortable and the styling may have been conservative but it was by no means bad.
“Funny, wasn’t there just an article here extolling the similar virtues of the dull-as-dishwater Camry?”
Camries are sedans. Theyre MEANT to be dull as dishwater, since they exist purely out of necessity. That type of car is something you ‘have’ to drive, dictated by circumstances. Coupes are meant to be the cars you ‘want’ to drive. You know, the cars in posters on your wall as a kid, that you draw pictures of while in detention. The car that when you finally get to own, your proud of it. You might have a 1/24 scale model of one on your desk, or a pic of it on the desktop on your computer. These Montes are literally nothing more than a lumina sedan less 2 doors, as has been told. Dull and kind of plain looking with no real performance does NOT make for a coupe that people will fall all over themselves to buy. Sedans with those attributes will do just fine.
There was a Camry Coupe that briefly interlapped these Monte Carlos, and they were frankly more exciting than these Lumina 2 doors
These were less exciting than a Camry? Wow!
I remember those camry coupes. They made about as much sense as these Montes, since both still looked very ‘family sedan’, just less 2 doors. The first Solara coupes looked nice enough, but were all camry in the bones. So not much in the way of excitement….
The Monte Carlo was ALWAYS a comfortable personal coupe with few sporting pretentions except for one or two trim levels, and even those were only sporty in a straight line. The vast majority of them were just like this.
Yeah, this one did end up failing in the end, but so did the TBird and Solara. The market virtually disappeared.
This is something you give to your son or daughter while they attend college. The kid may be embarrassed by it, but it acts as an incentive for them to finish school and make their own money. If they drop out, they realize that would be stuck with this thing for the rest of their lives.
What an incentive!!
Oh my. I rented one of the next-gen versions of these (it was offered as a “free upgrade” when I flew to Minneapolis or Indy, I can’t remember) in winter ’06 while on a Midwest tour. By the time I drove around the on-ramp and got on the highway, I got right off at the next exit and went right back to the car rental counter. The body roll was so severe and the steering so numb – plus the fact that the car was totally ill-proportioned for a FWD, and I couldn’t see out of it (and I’m a tall girl, at 6’1″) I realized I would probably crack up the car or flip it – I have never been so frightened of an automobile before or since.
I drive back, told the desk agent this and he sighed as if not surprised, and gave me a brand-new 2006 Malibu – to this day the best rental I’ve ever had, save for a nice jaunt in a 2010 Silverado Z-71 in Missouri.
” the car was totally ill-proportioned for a FWD”
How would the ‘Bu be any better in that respect? IMHO, a big heavy car with fwd and decent power from a V6 makes for an acceptable layout in a family sedan. In a coupe with sporting aspirations its just asinine. My baby sis had a ’94 Grand Prix coupe with the turd 3.1–not that far removed from the ’06 Monte you drove. A great looking car that had no cajones to back up the looks, but it drove predictably. Wonder if yours was just a Monday or Friday car?
I Personally like rear wheel drive cars but big v6 luxury coupes please me as well. I have driven 2 of the cars shown and mentioned. One was the the lumina and yes if you are wondering it was about the middle 90’s. 94 to be exact.The second one was the monte carlo except the one I had was the ss and the interior was nothing to fancy I mean mine had a split bench which I quite liked and it was fast and comfortable to drive so personally I don’t mind front or rear wheel drive but rear wheel drive is my true thing I like more.
I remember thinking WTF? when I first saw one of those turkeys. I mean really, Chevy, that’s the best you can do? IMHO they should receive at least an honorable mention as a GM Deadly Sin.
I agree. I’m on my dozenth bow tie and never even considered one of these turds of that era. Mary Barra must’ve had it top of mind when she said “no more crappy cars”
I agree this coupe looks like one of the Luminati, rather than a Monte Carlo. And while the Tbird does do better with the same aero cues, it also suffered from a cheapo interior, at least at the beginning. While one might criticize the dull styling, remember that Ford designed the ovoid Taurus to offer an “exciting” styling alternative to the Camry, and it flopped miserably.
I think these were the days when a bunch of ex-pats from Proctor & Gamble were running GM, thinking cars were no different from toothpaste if marketed correctly.
Peter DeLorenzo wrote in “The United States Of Toyota” how they brought in a Honda Accord to benchmark for the then-new Malibu…which of course was obsolete before it was even rolled out since a new Accord had come to market by that time.
“Cynical” and “lazy” are, sadly accurate ways to describe much of the bowtie’s output in these years. Unless you had one of the final B-bodies or a truck…and even then, there were just too many features that screamed “C H E A P!!!!”
Glad they’ve gotten it together. There may no longer be a real equivalent to this Lumina, er, Monte but the current Impala is so superior it almost doesn’t matter there’s no more two-door version.
“There may no longer be a real equivalent to this Lumina, er, Monte but the current Impala is so superior it almost doesn’t matter there’s no more two-door version.”
That’s because GM finally pulled their head out of their asses (sorta) and realized that a boob job on a sedan doesn’t make for a desireable coupe. For its faults, the Camaro is how it should be. Shares little to no resemblance to a whitebread family sedan.
I’m inclined to agree. The people I know who own the current gen Camaro love them.
Camaro and Monte Carlo are completely different markets. The market for the Monte simply doesn’t exist anymore.
I had several friends own these when we were in our younger 20’s, as they were cheap to buy but still fairly new. Nobody kept theirs for very long, as they did not hold up very well / did not hold up to the neglect a young driver would dish out.
The feature car’s color is Auburn Nightmist metallic, by the way.
I saw a Chevrolet Lumina very recently sans camera unfortunately as it would have fooled most of you the badges had another life on export Holden Commodores and one is in Napier it will resurface they always do and next time we will all see it.
I believe it came up yesterday so I’ll repeat it today, WORST of the W bodies. Miserable piles of shit these were, I mean I can imagine the 3800 could make one tolerable, as that powerplant usually does but the whole car around it is just horrid, and every unfortunate scenario I’ve found myself in a Lumicaro since 1995 it’s been a 3.1 or 3.4, the 3800 seems to be quite uncommon. Several of the other W bodies in the GM lineup had some redeeming qualities(Grand Prix) to hide the fact that you were riding in the crappy GM10 platform but not these, these had every bad trait of it and then some. GMs Morris Marina.
And before anyone accuses me of being harsh, keep in mind Chevy saw fit to kill the Lumina name in favor of the Impala. Quite telling.
Hard to believe GM would downgrade the Z34 Lumina into this jellybean. The LZ34 at least looked the part of a performance coupe. Never seen one with a Getrag manual tho. But these montes just look flaccid at best. The restyle was…better, at least. Glad GM finally put their 2 door eggs in the rwd/available V8 basket where they belong.
I doubt the security guards could legally do a thing to you as long as you stand on the sidewalk and do not use a tripod.
I agree with Suzulight when it comes to these cars. Even if you have the most reliable version it is still a meh vehicle in that quirky (crappy?) GM way. Growing up in the countryside I was exposed to all kinds of GM vehicles from the 70s-00s and aside from the vans, trucks, and full sized SUVs they were just there. Mostly nothing special.
Legally be damned here, that is the federal Reserve Bank of New York. It holds about 25%-30% of the world’s currency in its vaults making it one of the largest(if not the largest) treasury in the world. It is heavily protected and there are guards that are issued M16 rifles that are ordered to shoot first and ask questions later should there be something even slightly suspicious not to mention a quick call will bring the NYPD and FBI quickly due to its importance to world financial aspects.
Had an ex-government “Lemona” briefly. 3800 V6, exhaust split to 4 pipes, Recaros, certified speedo. Dripped oil onto the driveway and AC failed: SOLD.
I have to wonder if the Monte Carlo name was applied to this car simply because someone in legal said they needed to use the name ASAP or risk losing it to some other manufacturer.
I think the challenge with cars like this (or the aforementioned two-door Accord and Camry, for that matter) is that with unit bodies, keeping the price down means you’re married to a lot of the related sedan’s hardpoints. So, even if you have all-new sheet metal, the structural relationship is still pretty apparent for the same reasons you can still easily recognize your spouse or sibling if they put on a different outfit.
Well said.
Indeed, well said.
It’s likely that the original Monte Carlo and the A-body Grand Prix were so distinctive because GM simply mounted the coupe body onto the back of the longer, four-door frame, and used a different roof stamping.
While all of the remaining hard points stayed the same, it shows how a little tweaking can significantly change the proportions and character of a car. Unfortunately, I’m not sure that designers have this much latitude with unit-body platforms, in which the firewall is an integral structural member.
I think you have more flexibility with BOF cars to change the outer panels in ways that better disguise the inner stampings. In the ’60s, GM was really good at having variations on common inner body shells that really don’t look anything alike. With unit bodies, the outer sheet metal is a stressed member, so while it can have different character lines and so forth, it seems that there’s only so much you can alter its form without having to modify the monocoque shell in uneconomical ways.
Jacked up Lumina 4-dr.
My father was in the market for a family car in 1995 and looked at the Monte. We were more of a truck family, but my pops was going to take over the 92 full size Blazer since his 88 Chevy truck was getting up there in miles and my mom wanted something more practical. We didnt have a car in the family since an 86 Caprice Classic two door that we traded in on the Blazer, so i was intrigued at maybe getting something somewhat sporty.
I had just turned 16 so i tagged along with my Dad at the dealership. They had a dealership “SS’ Monte with the base motor and fake dual exhaust that they were trying to get him into. When i mean fake duals, i mean a muffler on one side and a piece of pipe not connected to anything on the other side. Seeing as my Dad had a 1968 SS396 Chevelle as his first new car, he wasnt having any of it. Cheap, slow, and bland basically describes it.
Anyways he settled on a t-top Z28 instead and that became the “family” car. Needless to say at 16 years old, i was happy with that purchase.
Wow, I never expected a CC on this car short of me writing one. I assume you’ve probably never even sat in one(?) but somehow you summarized in more words than I could despite having owned and driven one every day for over a year .
Of the many random used cars I’ve owned over the years, a 1997 Monte Carlo in forest green was actually one of the more long term ones. Mid-trim LS model, cloth bucket seats, alloy wheels. About 10 years old (at the time), well kept, and under 100k I think. It’s probably the only car I’ve ever bought, or ever will buy, using the typical process of the “non-car-person” that enthusiasts love to sneer at on sites like this. Walked through a GM dealer’s used car section with a limited amount of money, said “that Lumina looks nice” (found out it was a Monte when I saw it had no back doors), and drove it. It was quiet and smooth, everything worked, it smelled alright. A few signatures later and it was mine. I believe it came to about $4000 or so.
It wasn’t a “total piece of shit” like some people here are saying. The 3.1-liter V6 in the W-body cars is well isolated from the passenger compartment and has low NVH, the ride was a very comfortable, and it was roomy car for a modern 2-door. The interior was pretty cheap and crappy, but everything worked. Do I lust for one again? No. Do I have bad memories of it? Not really. It worked for my needs and budget at the time.
I drove Luminas and other Monte Carlos after owning that one and they really are exactly the same car down to the details . Comfy, cheap, transportation. That’s it. I’d easily take one over the 1996-1999 Taurus, which I’ve had numerous bad experiences with. At least W-bodies don’t need new transmissions as often as the average car needs new tires…
I distinctly remember Hot Rod or one of those magazines making a RWD V8 version of one of these cars. They encouraged all the readers to write to GM and tell them to “Build It” The early 90’s were really to doldrums for muscle car enthusiasts. I recall when the 94-96 Impala SS came out it had a huge following. Readers of another magazine voted it the number 3 Chevrolet of all time. I know it would be no where near that now, but that just shows how much people wanted RWD back then.
I had a Chevy High Performance subscription at the time and i think i remember that as well. It was chartreuse color and it was for sure RWD with a V8.
When we were at the dealership looking at the Monte, I told my dad to look at the Impala instead but he wasnt having any of it since it had four doors.
I never liked the looks of this car. But I would be happy to drive one over any 4 door. I actually liked the looks of the last generation of the Monte Carlo even less. But when GM dropped the Monte Carlo, Cavalier, and Cobalt, that put them out of the 2 door car business completely. None of the American automakers now make a 2 door car, other than sports/muscle cars. It’s kind of like when they all quit making convertibles. Hopefully coupes will return someday.
Exactly. Some here try to make out the old MonteCarlos to be sports cars, but they never were. This is what they were, a large-ish 2-door take on a family sedan. Oh, they had a hot model or two, but they were almost always more pretentious than actually sporty. They didn’t lose their focus or change the mission, the market changed. I think the hassle of trying to get kids and carseats in and out of the back has a lot to do with it. And the fact that the likes of the WRX made sporty 4-doors an acceptable alternative from a looks perspective.
The child car seat law, and the seat belt law, is exactly what killed the 2door. Before these law, 2doors were actually considered a safety feature for small kids. They could not fall out of an open door. And if you had the kind of 2 door without movable rear side windows(or very small rear side windows) they couldn’t even fall out of a window.
The death of the 2 door, in my opinion, resulted from these changes:
A/C as standard equipment
child safety locks(ability to disable rear door opening mechanism)
standard equipment electric windows and door locks with master controls for the driver
electric window locks
seat belt laws
child car seat laws
When 2doors became a liability for those with children, the market for 2 doors shrunk to the same demographic that buys 2 seaters. Then it’s only purpose was to give the 2 seater buyers a low insurance premium option. These were called a “+2” and the back seats were not really usable.
So in other words, more govt meddling killed the 2 door. It was govt and insurance company meddling that once killed the convertible, but it is now back. I’m feeling like getting a convertible, which would also be a 2 door. I would be all over a Mazda Miata, but I have back problems that make getting in and out of such a low car painful.
I must be in the minority then. I like the 2door Lumina much much better than the Monte Carlo version of the Impala that came after it.
IMO, the Monte Carlo, in any iteration, was NEVER an attractive car. As a matter of fact, it was the least attractive personal coupe out of any of GMs personal coupe platform. Even though they all more or less shared a basic shape at one time, the Monte always was either too bland or too overstyled (read: ugly).
IMO, the 1970-1972, and 1973-1977 Monte Carlo is one of the most beautiful cars ever built. I prefer the Grand Prix of those years, with the Monte Carlo coming in a close second. I can’t think of a single ’70s personal luxury coupe I don’t love.
I don’t like FWD, but if I’m stuck with it, I would certainly rather have a 2 door than a 4 door.
Hmmm…
I would have to go with the 1970 Dodge Charger for most attractive personal coupe of the 1970s, followed by a 1970 Ford Torino fastback
I’m with John on the Charger.
But my opinion on the Monte still stands.
I always considered the Charger a muscle car, even if it wasn’t optioned that way. I owned a ’70 Challenger non muscle car and loved it. Both it and the Charger were beautiful cars. I would have to say the ’74 Charger with the vinyl roof and 3 opera windows on each side, or the much later Cordoba based Charger came much closer to my idea of a personal luxury coupe. In the ’70s anyway, to me a personal luxury coupe had to have a landau roof and opera windows, a long hood and short deck. The Monte Carlo fit that profile perfectly, as did most of the similar cars, from the mid ’70s Chevy Monza Town Coupe with the landau roof to the Lincoln Mark V.
Ah…
Well then…for a non-muscle-ish personal coupe from the 70s I would vote the boat-tail Buick Riviera as the most attractive.
I detest vinyl on any car roof. I prefer zero windows for the backseat passengers, opera or otherwise. I agree that the hood should be long and the trunk should be short. I have another requirement for the front fender. The distance from the front wheel to the front bumper should be noticeably shorter than the distance from the front wheel to the windshield. In other words the front fender should have significantly more sheetmetal behind the wheel opening than in front of it.
This is how the roof should look:
The Monte Carlo was definitely always a style-driven product, so it turned some people off for pretty much the same reasons other people bought it. I think the original 1970–72 iteration isn’t terrible, although it is rather pretentious, and the late (1982–87) G-body is a decent design, albeit not my thing. I concur that the 1973–77 and 1978–81 cars are wildly overstyled, although apparently there was a bull market for that.
In have always preferred style driven cars, because to me a car is a lot more than just basic transportation. Not that there shouldn’t be cars designed just for basic transportation, but not all of them. I will gladly put up with some inconveniences to have style. I do think some of the cars from the ’50s/early ’60s may have been overstyled, the ’59 Cadillac and a certain Chrysler Imperial come to mind. But I don’t think anything from the ’70s was overstyled. They were all very clean designs, no huge tail fins, or missiles and rockets and other clinkers stuck all over them. Even the biggest luxury barge of the ’70s, the Lincoln Mark V, was, at least IMO very tastefully done. Remember, this was American style luxury, not European style, like BMW and Mercedes. Look way back, at the Duesenbergs, Cords, and even Rolls Royces of that era. Some would say those were overstyled.
If by “pretentious” you mean they were not basic utilitarian designs, then I guess being pretentious is not a bad thing to me.
So you are saying there isn’t a market for “over styled” cars nowdays? They still make over styled cars. They do it in a different way now. I think the original Monte Carlo is by far better looking than the ridiculous Nissan Juke and quite a bit less “over styled” as well.
I don’t know what to make of the Juke and the Cube, other than just plain ugly. I feel the same way about the Hyundai Veloster. Those abominations make the Pontiac Aztek look like a beauty queen. Would you say a ’57 Chevy Bel Air 2 door, or a ’63 Sting Ray split window coupe were overstyled? Those are two of my all time favorites, though they are very different from each other.
Like the ‘vette. Dislike the ’57 fins. I would say the ’57 is over styled but the 63-67 ‘vette is not. Only the “split” in the ’63 rear window is a tad silly. My favorite ‘vette of all time is the ’65 with fuel injected 327, stickshift, and all wheel disk brakes. That combination was only offered one year.
As a proud Lumina driver that’s an article for me. Glad about the posting…
We came to your fair country in the late 90s visiting relatives in New England then Toronto. We hadn’t got much money so we’d booked the cheapest hire car (we didn’t know anything about American driving conditions). At the airport they gave us an upgrade and when we got to the depot they upgraded us again. The man handed us the keys to a new Chevrolet Monte Carlo. Awesome, as we found they all say. This is going to be a piece of true Americana I thought, a modern classic.
What a disappointment. I shouldn’t complain because we’d only paid for an econobox, but Blimey I thought, this is an iconic name and this car’s interior feels like its made from recycled plastic. I’d seen better injection moulding with less rough edges on children’s toys. It didn’t break down, the aircon worked, it was just about powerful enough, but disappointing considering the badge it carried. We were used to crap cars in the UK and were watching the Japanese and Germans take over, but we saw that everything that we’d heard about American build quality was true and that their manufacturers were as surely going the tubes as British Leyland had.
Your country’s very quaint.
If I listed all the problems my son had with his POS, this post would be pages long. Instead, I’ll focus on the positive.
1) I got lots of bonding time with my son at the Ft. Shafter Auto Skill Center.
2) The car usually made the 3.3 mile trek from his house to pick me up at the airport without breaking down.
3) The radio didn’t work and had no provisions to connect a phone. My son actually talked during trips.
I have three Chevy W-bodies. ’92, ’93 purchased as a parts-car to fix the ’92 but it ran so good I returned it to service, and a ’98 I inherited from Dear Old Dad.
The first-gens are both Euro 3.4. Essentially a four-door Z34 without the exterior spiffs, but including the wonderful LQ1 DOHC engine, and all the Z34 suspension and steering upgrades. Marvelous cars. I still have them, but they both need some serious attention; they’ve each got around 160K miles on them. I’ll be dealing with their issues next summer.
The ’98 Monte is about what you’d expect from a car purchased by a guy in his mid-80s. Dull 3.1L engine, dull suspension, dull paint, dull interior. Still runs and drives great, and “everything” still works. The second-generation cars were clearly cost-cut and decontented compared to the 94-older W-bodies. Drum rear brakes replaced discs, windshield wipers don’t park “off the glass”, hateful cheap sunvisors, etc. Most (not all) of that can be fixed by upgrading to the “optional” equipment obtained from the Treasure Yard. Or just ordering a properly-equipped car to begin with.
This car, and all the luminas, definitely qualify as gm deadly sins. I remember looking at the 88 lumina when it came out and as a 12 year old kid, it felt bland, uninspiring, and dated. The 5/4 scale Honda accord styling was attractive but the interior was CHEAP and tacky and although the car should have been roomy, it didn’t feel roomy. Just blah. The second generation was MUCH worse. Gm took away the handsome styling of the first lumina and gave it anonymous blob styling with an even cheaper interior. The seat cloth was like cheap towels and seemed indifferently installed, bunched up and loose. Gm really gave up on that one. The w bodies for all their faults generally offered great styling and generally robust mechanicals and brand differentiation. Even among the w bodies, who would pick this over the gorgeous cutlass supreme, the sporty grand prix, or the elegant regal? The second gen grand prix was very sexy and had an attractive interior as well.
Then of course while camrys are dull, they do have quality interiors and toyota reliability and resale. The thunderbird and cougar were handsome, reasonably powerful, and sporty. Chrysler had the avenger and sebring which were sporty and attractive. Who decided, I’d rather have THIS new than anything else? I can see as a used car because they tended to be cheap and durable but as a new car?
Who the heck decided at GM, to name TWO vehicles Lumina?? Like one wasn’t bad enough? Talk about doubling-down…
There is a sense of GM not bothering with this car or its saloon counterpart. I admit I liked the wilfully plain design at the time (the studio sketches were way better than the eventual car) but now it reeks of ordinariness, plain ordinary and not extremely ordinary (which is quite an attractive feature). This is cup-of-water bland. They are the kind of American cars nobody wants to import to Europe. I found two for sale at mobile.de. One was the van and the other a ´98 in Wiesbaden, there because US service personnnel imported it when on duty there, I would suppose. It´s green metallic with a beige interior, done in that muscular organic style GM loved in the 1990s. I can´t think of a reason to want an 3.8 litre V6 that looks like a Japenese car but lacks the reliability of that or the fun factor of typical US fare.
Who knows if anyone reads this anymore. Anyway, man, you guys have some hate, so let me tell you a story. In 1995, I was living in Billings, MT. I drove there in a 1988 Nissan Sentra, talk about a bad looking and crappy car. I then bought my first new car, a 1995 Monte Carlo LS. It rode so smooth and was so fast on the highway, I freaking loved that car. Moved to Elko, NV with it, made 7 hour runs to Las Vegas all the time, then moved to Flagstaff, AZ a few years later. Around 100K, the OD gear went out and I sold it. Many years later, during COVID, I reminisced about that car and all the fun I had with it. Got a little teary-eyed and decided I wanted my Monte back. Found a 1998 in Loveland, CO last year, low miles, bought it, love it. Just bought a 1999, low miles, in Prescott, AZ a few months ago. Love that car, never let me down and never will. Cruise America Mile baby!