Thunderbird, dead as a dodo. Eldorado, from gold to scrap metal. Riviera, washed away. Lincoln Mark, assassinated. By 2006, the personal luxury coupe – the flavour of the decade in the 1970s – was almost dead. There was just one survivor: the Chevrolet Monte Carlo, soon to join its two-door brethren in the automotive graveyard.
By the broadest definition, a personal luxury coupe was a coupe sized similarly to a corresponding sedan line – often based on the same platform – but which offered coupe style with no sporting pretences. Even by that generous definition, the Monte Carlo could scarcely be considered a personal luxury coupe by the 2000s.
After a brief hibernation, the Monte Carlo nameplate had been dusted off in 1995 on a direct replacement for the Lumina coupe. And it may as well have been called the Lumina coupe – the cars were mechanically identical and looked the same, inside and out. The Monte Carlo had always looked markedly different from the mid-size sedan from which it was derived and yet that differentiation was gone for the ’95.
That differentiation had returned for the redesigned 2000 model. Designers seemed to be harkening back to the Monte’s first and most successful decade. There were distinctive sculpted sides, badges with cursive script, and vertical taillights, much like the first three generations of Monte. The droopy headlights were certainly unique, as were the aforementioned and rather blobby taillights which were notable for their use of clear plastic lenses à la the Toyota Supra. The Monte’s styling wasn’t everyone’s cup of tea but at least it looked different from its sedan counterpart, the new 2000 Impala, with which it shared the W-Body platform.
For the first time since 1988, the SS nameplate reappeared on the Monte Carlo. Those hoping for a V8 engine were disappointed as the SS name was used on Montes powered by GM’s ubiquitous 3.8 V6 (200 hp, 225 ft-lbs). Lesser Montes wore the LS nameplate and used GM’s 3.4 V6 (180 hp, 205 ft-lbs). Both engines were acceptably powerful for the mid/full-sized two-door segment but calling the 3.8 Monte an “SS” was perplexing considering the Monte Carlo’s NASCAR involvement and the availability of a more powerful supercharged 3.8 elsewhere in the GM lineup. Furthermore, the SS produced the same horsepower and just 11 more pound-feet of torque than a Toyota Camry Solara V6. This was no muscle car, even if the launch advertising felt very early 1970s muscle due to its use of the Tasmanian Devil.
Of course, most Monte Carlos over the years had been relatively sedate, luxury-oriented coupes with adequately powerful V6 or V8 engines. Chevrolet also had the more sport-oriented Camaro in its lineup, at least until 2002. But the Monte Carlo’s NASCAR involvement meant Chevrolet doubled down on its positioning of the Monte Carlo as a sporty coupe when its powertrains were anything but. This led to numerous special editions like the 2002 Dale Earnhardt Signature Edition (aka the “Intimidator”), as well as other limited-run models named after NASCAR drivers.
Set aside its quirky styling and the Monte Carlo was just another run-of-the-mill early 2000s W-Body with all the benefits and drawbacks that came with that association. The interior had the typical, drab, plastic ambience of most GM products of the era, although it was unique from the Impala’s, surprisingly spacious for a coupe, and had a nicely driver-oriented center stack. Handling was tidy, the engines were sufficiently powerful and fuel-efficient, and the ride was composed, even in the firmer-suspended SS models. It felt like an Impala coupe and all the Tasmanian Devil commercials and NASCAR tie-ins couldn’t disguise that fact. And while even the Camry Solara was available with a stick, the Monte Carlo’s sole transmission was a four-speed automatic.
Sales were initially down from the previous generation. While that may seem a symptom of a declining market for coupes, the Monte Carlo actually bucked the trend and sold fairly consistently around the 60-70,000 annual unit range. Honda and Toyota – which sold the rival Accord coupe and Camry Solara, respectively – chose not to report sales of their coupes vis-à-vis the related sedans. Although Chrysler and Dodge unified their mid-size coupes’ names with their sedans’ in 2000, they still reported sales separately most years. The Sebring coupe mustered around 10,000 units annually, while the Stratus coupe sold around 20,000 units. Even the Pontiac Grand Prix coupe was shaded by both its sedan counterpart and the Monte Carlo, accounting for just 15% of Grand Prix sales in 2001.
So, the Monte Carlo managed to make hay in a market turning ever further away from coupes. It even managed to outlast the vaunted Camaro, discontinued in 2002. The belated addition of a supercharged 3.8 V6 in 2004 – producing 240 hp and 280 ft-lbs – should have helped keep the Monte moving, right? Wrong. Perhaps because of its advancing age, the Monte Carlo’s sales collapsed in 2005 to 33,562, following a smaller dip in 2004.
It was time for a makeover. In 2006, Chevrolet provided one and it proved to be a mixed bag. On one hand, the Monte Carlo had its first V8 engine in almost 20 years. On the other, the Monte Carlo now wore identical frontend styling to the also refreshed Impala. While the Impala had an all-new and much more elegant interior, the Monte Carlo kept its old one, Chevrolet merely adding the new corporate radio unit and some new switchgear.
At least things were fresher under the hood. The SS was once again V8-powered, using GM’s new FWD version of the 5.3 small-block LS4 V8. With 303 hp and 323 ft-lbs, the SS was satisfyingly rapid and even posted good fuel economy numbers thanks to its Displacement on Demand system. That V8, however, proved to be too much power for the Monte’s ageing chassis and torque steer was marked, while transmission reliability has proved iffy. Like the Impala SS, the Monte Carlo SS lacked the extensive suspension tweaks afforded to the mechanically-related and LS4-powered Pontiac Grand Prix GXP. But hey, there was a V8 Monte again.
Between 2006 and 2007, the V8 SS accounted for around 33% of sales. The remainder were of the LS, LT and LTZ coupes. These lesser Montes used GM’s new “High Value” pushrod V6s, an evolution of the old 3.4 V6 and utilizing variable cam timing. The LS and LT used a 3.5 version with 211 hp and 214 ft-lbs, while the LTZ’s V6 displaced 3.9 liters and produced 242 hp and 242 ft-lbs. The LTZ proved short-lived, axed after just one year and robbing the Monte lineup of the 3.9.
The rest of the Monte lineup wasn’t far behind it. After just two model years, the revised Monte Carlo was discontinued. Sales had incrementally increased in 2006 but then collapsed by 60% in 2007 and GM cited the impressive new 2008 Malibu as being yet another threat to the ongoing performance of the Monte.
Shortly before its axing, GM’s Bob Lutz – head of Global Product Development – had spoken to reporters about the company’s ambitious plans for a whole raft of vehicles on the Holden VE Commodore’s Zeta platform. Besides the Chevrolet Camaro and the Pontiac G8, Lutz spoke of upcoming Buick and Cadillac flagship sedans on the platform, a resurrected Pontiac GTO and Chevrolet El Camino, as well as Zeta replacements for the Impala and Monte Carlo. It all sounded like a GM enthusiast’s wet dream but GM’s perilous financial situation managed to kill all of those projects except for the Camaro and short-lived G8.
While that cavalcade of Zeta variants would have improved economies of scale for the platform, the notion of a Zeta Monte Carlo existing alongside a Zeta Camaro seemed like a poor business decision, if a really freaking cool one. Sure, such a Monte would have likely offered a plusher ride and more cabin space than the Camaro, but could Chevrolet have sustained two similarly-sized, similarly-priced coupes in a crossover-crazy market?
The Monte Carlo nameplate is unlikely to return anytime soon, unless Chevrolet develops a shapely four-door coupe or five-door, Audi A7-style liftback. And while it finally received some horsepower again towards the end, it’s hard to say the Monte went out on a high note. That’s not to deride the car, however. The 2000-06 Monte was a competent if unexciting car. Was it a personal luxury coupe? Its drab interior and laughable “sporty” positioning suggest ‘no’, but its unique styling says ‘yes’. And if it was, it was truly the last of its breed.
2000-05 Monte photographed in Washington Heights, Manhattan, NY in 2017.
2006-07 Montes photographed in Long Island City, Queens, NY in 2014 and by the National Mall in Washington D.C. in 2012.
Related Reading:
Future Curbside Classic: 2006-09 Chevrolet Impala SS – A Hot Mess
Curbside Classic: 2004-08 Pontiac Grand Prix – The Final Lap
Very enjoyable article. The Monte always seemed to me one of those vehicles that started at a high point, and went slowly downward with each subsequent new model. The original 1970 model I thought was very well designed, in a restrained way. The 73 Brougham era models was a little too “wavy” for me. The shrunken 78’s were stunted, and the 81 – 88’s a little better balanced, and everything after that pretty hopeless. No offense to anyone who owns one.
You make a good point about the long, slow slide from 1970. Kind of like GM as a whole.
I actually liked the first FWD Montes, even if it was kind of bland looking. I even considered buying one a couple of times when I wanted some cheap wheels that didn’t look too cheap.
Unfortunately, the 2000-2006 model(s) look a bit tortured. Like the stylists had no idea what they wanted the car to look like, just that the results needs to be reasonably aerodynamic. Then, they realized the resulting design wasn’t long enough to cover the Impala platform…..so they stretched it like a piece of taffy.
‘Tortured’ is a good way to describe this era Monte Carlo. All cars are designed by a committee, but some just really look like it, and the Monte Carlo is one of them. Of all the styling faux pas, the one that really stands out is the C-pillar where the quarter window meets the rear window. That’s really the point that highlights the disjointed nature of the whole car. It’s one of those styling jobs that, while not outright bad, just doesn’t look right from any angle.
To their credit, Chevrolet at least tried to take some of the strangeness out with the later refresh of the Impala front end, but with the rest of the car left as is, it didn’t help much. Instead of looking 100% strange, it just looked like an Impala doghouse tacked onto the same car (which is pretty much what it was)..
The sad thing is one is left to wonder if they had gotten the styling of the last MC right, maybe one large, domestic 2-door coupe might have survived. Instead, we got the gun-slit, Hot Wheels-version of a retro ponycar Camaro that you can’t see out of.
+1. Where’s Bill Mitchell when you need him? This wouldn’t have made production under his watch.
The new generation Monte Carlo (Lumina Coupe replacement) was an attractive design in comparison to the original Lumina. However, I never liked the second generation Monte Carlo that replaced it. The whole headlight assembly looks “melted” and I think the C-pillar looks awkward. Then there are those puffy taillights. They remind me of GM dashboard designs of that era – as if they were having an allergic reaction to something. The 2006 refreshed Impala front end was quite an improvement – at least for the front of the vehicle.
I’ve said before, the ’06-07 facelift-when-the-sedan-got-a-full-reskin of the sort traditionally done with utilitarian station wagons was a wake-up call/slap in the face to anyone who still thought of the coupe as a style leader. And I was unaware that they didn’t even get the new dash.
Quite a timely article as lately I’ve been seeing a number of these in small, locally owned used car lots. They have a small amount of intrigue, primarily due to bucking trends for the time it was built.
The sales of these are much better than what I would have guessed. The only one I ever saw with any frequency was a black ’04 or ’05 supercharged SS that belonged to a coworker. She retired before I ever got pictures.
In the big scheme of things, GM deserves credit for keeping the name alive a while longer and, in some key ways, keeping the Monte true to its heritage.
I was never too keen on this gen Monte. i felt there was no excitement to the car. the attempt to bring back some MC styling queue’s was half assed and just gave us a really bland car. at this point the Monte was treated as an after thought. it was a good car and good looking…………….just not what a Monte could have been with some real effort. i feel the nascar connection kind of directed the styling of the car and in effect…………ruined it.
These just never did it for me. I found the styling forced and awkward on each version. How I miss Oldsmobile day already. 🙂
Great point on how the Monte both strayed from and yet remained somewhat true to its original mission. In 1970 it seems that American cars came in 3 basic flavors: sport, luxury and plain vanilla. The original Monte sort of straddled all three by allowing the buyer to spec out the car in any of the three ways. This one straddled all three flavors too, but by trying to average them.
As much as I would have wanted to love this, it has to be the most ungainly, over-designed car fostered on the market in many, many years!
I think they tried too hard to differentiate it from the Impala, which was quirky enough as it was – although I owned an ’04 Impala for over 8 years.
A neighbor down the street had a bright red 2004 M/C SS for sale. No takers, yet.
The funny thing is the ’00 Impala was, in my eyes, a very handsome vehicle with some subtle heritage styling cues. It’s not hard to envisage a ’00 Impala coupe would have been a good-looking car.
This Monte? I can tolerate the front and rear, if I don’t pay too much attention to the individual details, but something just goes wrong in the side view.
My thoughts exactly.
I found the last version of the Monte Carlo to be perplexing in its existence, as in, why bother? The 200 HP SS version was joke-worthy though the V8 version helped in the cred department. I assumed it hung around strictly due to NASCAR homologation needs but after seeing the recently departed SS given the 23 skidoo, in spite of its NASCAR bearing, I decided that wasn’t a viable reason.
There is something a little odd about the proportions of this generation of Monte Carlo. The styling from the rear suggests that the MC wanted to be an El Camino but somehow got lost along the way.
I can see that.
Yup, I think you hit the nail on the head there, Tonyola. I can’t figure out how the designers could have fixed it, though, or why it looks so pickup-y. Is it because the side window curves up in that way? Is it the angle of the rear window, or the length of the rear overhang? There’s something seriously iffy with the proportions.
These were sad, sad versions of mediocrity that would have been better served as Luminas rather than besmirching the Monte Carlo legacy. The PLC was a car that really was of a certain time, and the Monte Carlo was a great standard bearer for Chevrolet in the first few versions. Even the downsizing in 78 was not a death knell to the model, although it signaled the end of “true” PLCs. To me, a PLC was originally marketed to a relatively successful single guy, not young but not old, with no kids to haul around. The car was slightly sporty, not overly so, and comfortable and relatively luxurious, compared to what was on the market, and completely American. It was a type of car that begged to be taken on a road trip, alone or with one other person with you, eating up miles without wearing the driver out. By the time these versions of the Monte Carlo were rolled out, they screamed rabid Nascar Fan rather than Don Draper. The PLC driver demographic, for good or for bad, ended up going with sports sedans as they were developing, never to return.
Interesting that you would say that. I never knew anyone who owned a Monte Carlo from new, but 1 male co-worker came close to trading a Vega GT wagon for one. Most of my friends who owned a PLC at some point in the 80s bought either a Cutlass Supreme or a Buick Regal. In the 90s, friends with PLCs were usually female.
These will always be to me little more than Lumina coupes with a legacy name glued upon them.
Such ugly cars. It’s like they weren’t even trying. The Grand Prix coupe looked far better IMO.
Had a 2003 SS and a 2004 SS Monte Carlo as well as a 2006 impala SS one of my boys is now using. Cars are like women. Beautiful in eyes of beholder. The 03 was a rare color combination in SS trim and always got complimented. The black impala always turned heads too. Plenty of power. Nice interiors. Good gas mileage. Would they take down a Cobra? No but not everyone drag races.
I never liked the styling of these cars. The details seemed way too heavy handed. The bulbous pre-facelift headlights, the awkward taillights and rear and those swooping character lines on the side all looked a little disjointed as a whole…like different teams were responsible for different areas and no one talked to each other. I think the W-bodies were solid driving cars but for a segment that emphasized style, I think the General could have done something more cohesive.
Wow, you were able to talk positively about this car for far longer than I could have, and that is praiseworthy.
This car was cool for about five minutes in 2000. It could probably count as a Deadly Sin.
Agreed. One of the most heinous looking cars of all time. Woof.
“while transmission reliability has proved iffy”
No no no, you see the transmission in these cars is a wear item.
Like tires.
I’ll go against the grain here and say that I liked these Monte Carlos. In fact, had I been in the market for a new car at the time, I would have actually considered one.
Why? First of all, I liked the GM W-body cars. Like with many people, my main experiences with W-cars were as rentals, but they were my rental car of choice back then… and in those days I took a number of long-distance trips in rental cars. Any car that I still liked after a 2,500-mile trip is worthy of consideration to buy, in my opinion.
Secondly, I like personal luxury coupes. I did then, and still do. If our ’95 Thunderbird hadn’t been so reliable, I might have been in the market for a replacement in 2005 or so. Also, I grew up in a neighborhood where Monte Carlos were very popular, so maybe their appeal is just ingrained in me.
Third, I was in my 30s at the time, and was no longer as interested in flat-out acceleration or performance as I once had been. The Monte’s V-6 provided good power, and I found the suspension & ride balance to be perfectly acceptable… or, to sum in up in one pithy word: Nice.
And yes, Nice was good enough. I liked the looks, the comfort, the performance and the cost… and while none of those characteristics stood out as stellar, the overall package was something I’d consider buying.
If I had been younger, I would have dismissed the Monte Carlo for a lack of excitement… if I was older, I’d have dismissed it for a lack of practicality. But at the time, it seemed to satisfy what I wanted in a car. Unfortunately for the Monte Carlo, my interest in it peaked during a decade when I bought no new cars at all. Oh, well. But I still like ’em.
A V8 RT Challenger with heated leather one could argue has a certain PLC cred by virtue of it’s heavy weight and “gran touring” attitude.
Just playing devils advocate.
In many ways all three current “ponycars” are personal luxury coupes in all but name, Camaro and Mustang included. They’re filling dual roles.
I remember the Chicago auto show where the 5.3l Monte was displayed, it kind of shattered my “V8 fixes everything” mentality I had as a kid, especially after seeing the generic Impala nose in addition(which was even more dull than the previous Impala nose). Having driven a 5.3 Impala, the power is basically wasted, foot to the floor from a stop and you’re fighting the wheel, foot to the floor from a roll and it didn’t feel much stronger than the late supercharged 3800s.
I have to echo the sentiments that the Lumina coupe Monte Carlo was better looking, despite being much more generic and half hearted. The 2000 has too much going on and the end result is every detail seems somehow disconnected – most cars have a face with the headlights acting as eyes, but with these I only find myself looking at individual details, as if there’s a disfigurement I can’t look away from, and all stare at is one headlight with that big round circle in the middle, and it looks like a cyclops. I would actually say I do prefer the dull 2006 refresh since it solved that, but the rear of the car is still another mess to be solved, the way the vertical taillights are shaped look an awful lot like a pair of these ? ?
Great piece and overview, Will. You (and other commenters) effectively drove home the point that the Monte Carlo’s general identity shifted from being an archetypal personal luxury car (pitched more toward style and luxury) to having more sporty leanings by the end of its run.
I was just so happy that the “Monte Carlo” name had returned for ’95 that I gave the (not unattractive) “Lumina coupe” a free pass. When the ’00 came out, I liked it immediately. It’s like stylists had really committed to bringing some heritage cues and identity back to this nameplate, also with some updates (a formal grille and opera windows were not coming back).
The only design detail I disliked wasn’t the headlights – it was the humped trunklid. The rest of it I liked. I thought the ’06 facelift was unfortunate and bland, if far from ugly.
I had owned Chevelles for years but longed for a little more luxury. I chose to buy a 2003 Jeff Gordon SS Monte Carlo because of it’s good looks and the car was loaded with extras. Only after driving it I discovered the comfort and reliability, plus around 20 miles per gallon. I loath 4 door sports cars, so thanks GM for one last personal luxury coupe. Frank Longacre
These cars weren’t my cup of tea, but they at least propped up the Grand Prix coupes and GXP sedans which were rather under-rated cars.
All the complaints about the styling reminds me of a certain strain of hypocrisy that infects automotive enthusiasts. So many people complain “All cars look the same now, how boring!” and then when a vehicle comes along that looks a little different the same people shout “Ugh it’s hideous!”
For example, people complained for years that all CUV’s look the same. The Nissan Juke comes along with a swoopy roofline, hidden rear doors, and unusual turn signals. “OMG it looks different, kill it with fire.” Now Nissan is replacing the Juke with the Kick…which looks like any other generic CUV. Great job, automotive-enthusiast community, you’ve successfully enforced conformity.
That being said, the phenomenon is probably just human nature. The same sentiments killed the Edsel and the Chrysler Airflow.
I would argue that the Airflow was avant garde, the Juke was different and funky, and those qualities scared some people off.
The Edsel had an unfortunate face (cleft palate), but the Monster Carlo is just a result of incompetence, or compromise forced by budget limitations. It’s like a British Leyland product signed off by someone muttering “Bah, good enough!”.
Tonito:
Everything you’re saying boils down to “They look weird.” Of course one can dig for alternative explanations for why these cars met with varying degrees of marketplace failure (bad timing, poor materials or assembly, etc) but when people talk about them it always boils down to “They look weird.”
I recognize that taste in car styling is subjective, but my point was the other examples were “different” and may have been unsuccessful due to the conservative marketplace. The Monster wasn’t unconventional – just ugly.
Find me someone from GM’s design team who said in an interview “Ah, Monte Carlo, my finest work. The world was not ready for one as beautiful as you”.
Edited to say I have nothing against the Juke, the Cube, the Citroen Ami and a host of other cars people have decried as ugly on this site. I don’t like the Camaro pictured in this article, but I’m not saying it’s badly designed – I am saying that about the Monte Carlo and I stand by it.
Comment of the day, Harry. You’ve actually touched on a bugbear of mine that I’m planning on addressing in a future piece. A lot of enthusiasts really do complain whenever something is unconventional in appearance but at the same time complain that everything looks so similar. It is frustrating. Would people rather have a world of 99% CR-Vs and Tucsons – handsome but conservative and conventional – or a world with a much larger proportion of weird and wonderful designs like the Juke?
William:
Thanks for getting my point. I look forward to reading such an article; I’m sure there are many more examples than the few I gave
“So many people complain “All cars look the same now, how boring!” and then when a vehicle comes along that looks a little different the same people shout “Ugh it’s hideous!”” You can make something look “different” without making it ugly, just saying.
I will go against the grain here and state I like this generation of Monte a lot.
I will also go against the collective here by stating that I thought the 2nd Gen Monte (73-77) and 3rd gen Monte(78-80) were ugly. The 2nd Gen had a almost cartoonish look to it with its long assed front end. I am betting that just the front end had its own zip code. There was no need for a front end to be that long.
The 3rd generation just looked like a downsized version of the 2nd gen and looked just as dated. What the heck is with that bulge on the rear quarter panels of the 3rd gen?
I liked the 4th generation.
I do disagree with the assessment that GM really did not care about this car and just dumped it on the market. The gauges and everything the driver needed was in reach without taking eyes off the wheel.
The car was comfy to drive. It was easy to get in and out(unlike the Camaro). The SS version was quick.
Was it a sports car that was capable of driving around the Nürburgring at high speed? No it was not. However, you could take a 1000 mile trip in it without wearing out your back. It rode well on roads and gave good comfort. Isn’t this the main point of a PLC?
Good points Leon. If this isn’t a 21st century PLC, I don’t know what is.
Sorry Leon but while I can appreciate the Monte has its good points and Chevy stylists certainly put some effort into its styling, there was really little to distinguish the car from the fleet of other W-Bodies and it was actually deficient in not offering a supercharged V6 right away. And if it was really a personal luxury coupe, why was the interior just as drab and plastic as an Impala? You are right though, it was nice to see a more driver-oriented center stack.
.
As for your point on the 2nd gen model, pointlessly long hoods and deficient packaging was very much the norm in the segment at the time.
The ’00 Monte, like so many other GM cars of its time, had some solid foundations but a lack of attention to detail.
That certainly won’t be a popular opinion on this site. While these cars weren’t perfect I still give GM credit for continuing this old formula up until 2007 and always found these solid smooth driving and relatively roomy cruisers. I do agree that the 3800 SC should have been offered before 2004 but that was GM’s way of saying Chevrolet was value and if you wanted sporty or more power you had to move up to a Pontiac. Note too that Oldsmobile’s version of this car, the 4 door Intrigue did not have a high powered variant and used the 3800 and later the 3.5 Shortstar that was slightly quicker than the 3800 on the open road but slower off the line. That left Pontiac and Buick with the power options but Buick did not have a Regal coupe by this time.
In Maine these cars are very likely to be adorned in a NASCAR/Dale/Dale Jr motif.
This is a car I know well. Mom and Dad bought one new in late 2000, they actually ended up with the first 2001 MC SS that came into the dealership. They still own the car with around 120K on it. Mom loved it from day one and still does, Dad isn’t as crazy about it and drives his car when he can. I’m on the other extreme, I absolutely HATE that car. First up is the styling, overall its not terrible, but some detail always stood out to me as odd. The upright taillights were supposed to invoke memories of Montie’s of old. What I saw reminded me of those Mickey Mouse balloons inside a balloon. The odd shape of the headlights was supposed to be a styling nod to the Chevy Bow Tie…yeah, sure. Then there were those side creases, enough said.
On to the interior, cant add much that hasn’t been said about early 2000s GM interiors. I’m still shocked that the drivers inside door handle hasn’t broken yet. THe first time I got into the car I thought it was going to break it felt so flimsy. The main power outlet at the front of the console has never worked from day one and the dealer has never been able to fix the problem…..or the heated drivers seat that only worked the first few years.
Driving it? Even with the n/a 3.8, torque steer was its middle name (maybe they could have called it the Monte Carlo TS…..or maybe not). The ride wasn’t bad even on Chicago streets but the car never gave you the kind of confidence to really push it to see what it would do. The one thing it did do well was highway travel. More than once I had it on road trips and it wasn’t exciting to drive but it did get you there and you weren’t beat to hell when you got there.
First gen Montie’s, great. Second gen, king of the PLC era (at least in sales). Third gen, ok I’ll give them some Nascar cred especially the Aerocoupes. All the rest of the FWD gens, blllaaaaaaattttttttttttttt !
That said, excellent write up on some SS’s best forgotten.
Yes! I knew there was something those taillights reminded me of, and I absolutely see it: those Mickey balloons!
Didn’t know about the rationale for those weird headlights. I wonder why Jaguar ended up launching the XF with such similar ones…
It seems like most GM cars of that era had some fundamentally good qualities but just really needed a lot of polish. A shame they cheaped out so much.
In Jaguar’s case, they sort of look like cat eyes.
I have 2 95 pace cars. 14 and 78. I have an 03 and 04. Love these cars. If they would have stuck with the original design and plan of a V8 RWD just like the original #3 intimidator. Euro mirrors . Low profile. It would have never stayed on the show room floor. But like everything GM does. It turns out to be a flop.
I just never warmed to these. The lower body styling was ok, but that roof line styling esp. at the rear was just out to lunch IMO! Seriously, were GM stylists going out of their way in some sort of competition to see who could come up with the ugliest cars around?
A generous look at these. 🙂
I try to be fair to all cars. I’m no fan of these but I recognize they had their fans and positive attributes, although I’ve certainly called out its flaws. But ultimately, I think it was laughable to pitch this as a sporty coupe when it was really an inferior quality Solara. And that performance inferiority to the Grand Prix really irks me for some reason — if the Monte SS was so sporty, why didn’t it get the supercharged engine until 2004?
One of these days, I’ll have to find a car I can really lay into.
There’s an accounting firm here that has several of these painted in various Earnhardt paint schemes.
the 2000MY face looks like Grandpa Simpson
“That’s not to deride the car”…
I will. It’s a total POS Bart Simpson underachieving phoned-in garbage Deadly Sin.
Actually, I don’t mind the styling. Yes, there are some awkward cues around the rear side window/C pillar/rear window but I’ve seen worse. And the front and rear were kinda cool.
But to me, the execution was little more than two steps above the 2000’s equivalent of an ’82 Celebrity. SO night and day compared to the home runs the General hits today, or was hitting 50 years ago.
This would have been an ideal foundation to revise and update the front suspension to an arrangement that could have better taken the torque of that LS4 V8…the V8 that should’ve been available from 2001 on. With a transmission that was more rugged. AND an optional stick.
I might have actually have bought such a car. And had they existed, all those cool Gordon/Earnhardt/Johnson etc. editions would be TRULY collectible because the cars themselves would be cool to drive. Even if you didn’t.
And if this comment seems a little, well, acidic, all I can say is to drive an ’89-’95 Ford Taurus SHO for comparison. I know the AXOD of the ’93-’95s was a weak spot, but was it unreasonable to expect GM to offer at least one model of Monte that offered that kind of driving experience?
I don’t think so. But the General of 2001-2008 thought otherwise.
Thankfully the Impalas of today are light years better than those W-bodies.
Chas:
“Thankfully the Impalas of today are light years better than those W-bodies.”
Would it be too much to ask for them to put out a coupe? Get more volume by diversifying the product range. Maybe even a Chevy version of that Buick wagon in case they can get some of those Outback sales. You don’t have to call them all Impala, of course. There are plenty of other names laying around: Caprice, Bel Air, Biscayne, etc.
While I worked at my previous tech job in a bank my co-worker was getting more and more tired of being stranded and repairing his 1995 green 4 door Neon. I showed him a picture of the new for 2000 Monte Carlo and he really liked it as it reminded him of his dads 1980’s version of that car in all it’s G-body glory.
When the car came out we checked them out on a weekly basis at our two Chevy dealerships and he eventually landed a tan 2001 LS with roof, leather wheel, trip computer and power everything. He loved that car and kept it until 2012 after which he lost that job exactly 9 years after I left there. After landing a new job that required a much longer commute he traded for a Hyundai Elantra with the intent of better MPG. Even so his Monte would easily pull 32 on the road or more with the 3400 engine and his Elantra sees about 36-37 so it wasn’t a drastic difference on the highway. He still talks about that car to this day. It was his baby.
If there was ever a car designed by committee it was the last gen Monte Carlo. Looks like three people worked on it it, one did the front, one did the passenger compartment, and one did the trunk, and they weren’t allowed any communication with each other. Just a gawdawful mishmash of unpleasant styling. The world will be a better place when all of these fugly monstrosities are crushed and gone.
Styling aside, I’ve always felt that when Chevy introduced the new 110.5″ WB W-body “full-size,” it should’ve still been called Lumina or Monte Carlo, and saved the Impala name for a G-body (112.2″ WB) sedan as a counterpart to the Bonneville, 2nd-gen Aurora, and LeSabre.
Test drove a new base 2004 Monte & was astonished how the drivers seat was 98% as comfortable as that in a low mileage 2002 Volvo S60 I had driven the day before.
Center stack & dash seemed to vaguely echo the classic 70-72 first generation of Monte.
Researching the 3.4 engine revealed enough potential concerns to not buy the Monte.
2005 Monte had a redesigned dash I did not like & a 3.5 I was not sure would avoid the previous engine’s problems.
2005 did NOT come with a 3.5L
That started in 2006 when they looked like an impala coupe.
I own a 2003 SS and have changed it to a
Supercharged top end. A fwd that does low 12’s at the track and can still get 35mpg on the highway is better than 99% of the cars made by its competitors of the same year range.
I love the odd styling because it’s doesn’t look like any other car. It has styling flaws but overall with the black top silver ground effects it gets compliments every time I drive it. And it’s a blast to pull up next to V8 mustangs from the 1996-2005 range and absolutely destroy them off a traffic light.
What a bunch of complainers. These cars look great and I miss the PLC segments. I have enough money to drive what I want and d still take a Supercharged SS Intimidator. No problem! It’s a buck the norm design that caters to the driver and nobody else. That’s the whole point.