This month will mark the first time in seven whole years that I will have spent time with either / both of my two first cousins. That’s really a lot of time, when you think about it. This span can mean the difference between the fifth grade and high school graduation. Different presidential administrations. The beginning or end of a long-term relationship. Births. Deaths. Needless to say, I’m beside myself with excitement to be visiting with my aunt, uncle, two cousins, and their spouses and kids.
My cousins and I share the same grandparents on our moms’ side, who are sisters. This got me thinking about how only two generations of separation in a family tree can produce “branches” that, while still connected to the same tree, can be very different from one another. I’m the only adult grandchild (of five) with no children of my own. I’m also brown-skinned, whereas my cousins both have blond hair and blue eyes – though there is more than a little family resemblance. Our grandparents now have great-grandchildren with ancestry representing three different continents, which I think is a wonderful American family legacy to be a part of.
Our two featured Monte Carlos also have origins that are very much the same, though they differ (at least externally) in their respective, apparent conditions. Both are early examples of the “aero”-reskinned 1981 / ’82 models, as identifiable by their front grilles. They both also sport a two-tone paint job, in very handsome external color combinations. The car in traffic features the “Jade Green” and “Light Jade Green” combo. I’m assuming the parked car is an ’82, given its grille and the absence of its color scheme in an ’81 sales brochure I was able to locate online. (At the time of this writing, I could not find an ’82 brochure to verify the two external colors of the parked example.)
This generation of Monte is one where, on two-toned examples, the darker color looks as good on the bottom as it does on the top – which is not necessarily the case with every car with this treatment. Much like my cousins and I grew up in different states, the car in traffic was spotted in my neighborhood in the north side of Chicago, Illinois, and the parked one was seen in downtown Omaha, Nebraska. I feel spoiled by (and am completely enamored with) life in the third-largest city in the United States, but I also love Omaha, with its mixture of arts, culture, history, shopping, performance arts, Midwestern charm, and more cultural diversity than outsiders might assume. It’s a very clean and friendly city. Both Chicago and Omaha have things to really love about each place.
Part of what makes travel so much fun for me is to see a different perspective – a view of how people in other regions live from day to day. It all usually also gives me a renewed appreciation for my own, familiar, comfortable environments when I return home. These two cars may have had very different trajectories in life given their appearances, but they still seemed to be doing just fine at the time of these pictures, in their respective parts of the country.
I have always liked the ’81 restyle of the Monte Carlo, which was my favorite of this refreshed generation of G-Body personal luxury coupe, against the Pontiac Grand Prix, Oldsmobile Cutlass and Buick Regal. Aside from the Monte’s new, slightly generic face, the smoothed-out sides still carried more than a hint of the bodyside sculpting of the popular models of ’70s. Its butt-lift also did wonders, raising the horizontal surface of the trunk for better aerodynamics (and aesthetics), and reinstituting those handsome outboard taillamps.
The new, slicker Monte Carlo’s sales increased for ’81 by 26% over the prior year, going from about 149,000 to roughly 188,000. Unfortunately, sales would plummet by half for ’82, with only about 92,000 sold that model year – the very first year after its eleven-year-old introduction in which annual Monte Carlo sales would dip below six figures. People should remember the MC’s sales drop for ’82 when assessing the relative failure of the same-year Ford Thunderbird, which similarly saw its sales drop also by half that year, to 45,000 from roughly 87,000 in ’81. By another comparison, popular personal luxury coupe class leader Olds Cutlass sold 166,000 copies in ’82, against 286,000 the year before. Eighty-two was a recession year, and car sales, in general, were in the toilet.
For ’81, the Monte Carlo’s standard power came from a 110-hp V6 displacing 229 (or 231 cubic inches for California models), with optional mills including a blown 231 with 170 horses, and also two small-block V8s with either 115 horses (the 267 – a debored 305) or 150 hp (the 305). The turbo was dropped for ’82, but a new 262 diesel with 85 hp was newly available that year.
I can imagine that any two-tone MC equipped with the diesel became “three-tone” in short order, as I remember many diesel-powered cars of this era with prominent soot stains from exhaust out back. This always sort of reminded me of the hard water stains on the fixtures in my / our grandparents’ farmhouse in rural Ohio – not pleasant, but a certain inevitability.
As I prepare to visit my extended family, I am reminded of the importance to pick up the phone from time to time. My cousins and I aren’t exactly polar opposites like the metaphorical “yin” and “yang”, having some commonalities, but I think our differences have made us appreciate each other even more. We may now be living completely different lives in different states and environments, but my recollection of these two very similar Monte Carlos with opposite color schemes (which may well have originated from the same plant) served as a timely reminder that family is family and that, ultimately, none of us are so different after all.
The moving car was photographed in Edgewater, Chicago, Illinois.
Wednesday, August 8, 2018.
The stationary MC was photographed in Downtown Omaha, Nebraska.
Tuesday, October 27, 2015.
The “FUEL INJECTION 4.3” badge would indicate that it is an ’85 or ’86 model with the base 262 V6. Tthe ’84 still had the 229 V6, an ’87 would have flush headlamps.
So would the newer style side mirrors
You’re right – it’s got to be an ’85, as the ’86 got that aero front fascia and restyled taillamps. My bad!
A G-body has always been on my bucket list, although the Monte would be a distant fourth choice-wise. So I’ll likely end up with one in a few years but only if it has a 305….
GM did a great job with these. Take a look at the lead picture – seeing it behind the Altima (?) and in front of the X-box emphasizes these weren’t very physically large, although they looked it. Even the Omaha car is parked next to a LeSabre that gives some size perspective.
The two-tone of the Chicago car is one I’ve never seen and I saw loads of these back in the day. The Omaha car is more like what I remember.
Jason, to your point about the color scheme on the Chicago example, I think I remember having a similar thought when I got those pictures. I really can’t remember seeing any in this color combo.
Monte Carlos were very popular in Flint when I was growing up. These were nice, aspirational cars that many guys and gals who worked in the GM shops could afford.
What a great pair to catch in similar colors but reversed 2 tones. I prefer the Cutlasses, but these are very nice.
That big sales drop from 81 to 82 is fascinating. I had to look back at PN’s chart on sales figures to confirm my memory that the market as a whole was flat from 81 to 82, both years being terrible. I seem to remember that child seat laws were starting to become a thing about that time, which would have impacted sales of 2 doors. Also Japanese cars were on a roll with many new middle-American converts around that time. Other than that I am struggling to figure out why these suffered such a big drop from 81 to 82. Maybe the new A body Celebrity?
I hope you have a great visit with your cousins. You remind me that it has been awhile since I have spent time with some of mine.
I agree that the FWD A-Bodies likely took sales from the older G-Bodies for 1982. But I think the real culprit came from Japan: the Honda Accord was all-new that year, and was very compelling. Also the Datsun Maxima and Toyota Cressida were gaining traction. And the crisp, new Toyota Celica arrived with a “baby” personal luxury coupe vibe that would have seemed trendy during an era of higher fuel prices.
At least in NOLA, 1982 seemed to be a big year for people transitioning from the larger but underpowered domestics and into smaller, sprightlier and stylish brands from Japan.
The end of the 1970’s/early 1980’s were not a good time for the car companies in the U.S., or for anybody for that matter. The second oil shock came about starting in 1979 when Iranian oil production fell sharply and oil prices began to rise rapidly in mid-1979, more than doubling between April 1979 and April 1980. Inflation was rampant in the U.S. and unemployment was high and growing. Interest rates were already very high (by today’s standards) and in January 1980 the average new car loan rate was 14%.
However inflation continued to move upwards and so the Federal Reserve took drastic measures: they raised the prime rate, and thereby mortgage rates and car loan rates too. Car loan interest rates started climbing month by month on a nearly vertical slope, with the average new car loan rate reaching 17.22% by July 1981. Under such circumstances, the thinking became “ if you have to buy a new car you’d better buy it today because every day you wait will make it even more expensive”…and it was true. (Side-note A – I knew a girl who bought a new Camaro with a 6 cylinder somewhere during this period and had a note at 22%. I thought she was insane>). (Side-note B – Everybody including the Banks thought this was the new norm; my Company Savings Plan (which was a thing before 401K’s) offered a return of 14% guaranteed for five years on money invested in 1981; my wife and I damn near starved, but boy did we save that year).
Interest rates moved up and down some in 1981 and 1982 but peaked with the average new car loan at 17.87% in August 1982. It’s important to realize though that at the time, nobody knew that was the peak. In a world where loan rates had soared 4% in a year the betting money was on them continuing to raise. For the curious, here’s a link to where I got the data on interest rates:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TERMAFCNCNSA Of course, I also have scars on my heart to remind me of those bitter days.
So, the market for new cars was exhausted by 1982. Everyone who had to buy a car and who could possibly afford to buy one had already done so. Further, you could spend a hell of a lot of money on repairs of the old clunker and still come out ahead of the costs of buying another car, so it was better to keep the devil you knew especially noting that new car quality was horrible. (Side-note C- Chevy sold 811,000 Citations in 1980. The problems with those cars are legendary. Now realize that with interest rates as they were, nobody could afford to buy something else…they had to live with their mistake until it was paid off, which really rubbed their noses in GM’s deadly sin.)
I played around with an inflation calculator and a loan of $8,000 at 17.87% over five years meant that you paid $4,154 in interest with a monthly payment of $202.58. A car and a half!
Not a bargain when you bought a 83 Citation or other where your trade-in offer was most likely about $1,000 in 1987.
This was fascinating and very insightful, Lokki. Thank you for this.
It is precisely this sort of learned synthesis, analysis and comment that makes CC such a valuable resource. Thank you Lokki.
I’m confused. If it was equipped with the top-line mill, wouldn’t the fender callout read “FUEL INJECTION 5.0?”
Maybe I’m not reading the text closely enough.
As some earlier comments noted, the blue car is actually an ’85 to ’88 model with the fuel injected 4.3 V-6. Therefore, the engine options listed in the article don’t apply, but I think Joseph tied the 4.3 badge to the 305 V-8 (which as you indicate is actually 5.0 liters).
Chevy did build a 4.3 liter V8, but it was not fuel injected. The ’85-’88 4.3 V-6 is only fuel injected motor used in this generation Monte Carlo, so that’s the motor it has.
Nice write up Dennis!!! i’ve allways liked these Monte’s(especillay the SS versions). I will admit that i prefer The 1978 and 1979 versions best of all downsized personal luxo cars. i especially like the dashboards on these cars(Malibu included of which i also prefer the 78 to 80 versions)They give an airy feeling to the cars. The tailights on the 81 on up are definately the best this side of the 2nd gen Monte’s. One day i hope to nab a clean 78, but i would’nt pass on a well maintained 81 or 82.
Yin/Yang is a great analogy for the 1980s Monte Carlo. For a car with a single body style, the Monte Carlo had a surprising number of personalities.
Where I grew up in Philadelphia, Monte Carlos were very popular in working class neighborhoods; for anyone aged 40 or up, these were very respectable cars — often V-8s and moderately equipped. They were also popular among little-old-ladies (whose favorite configuration was a V-6 with few options and a solid bench seat). The SS of course had a different, and younger, customer base. And used Monte Carlos of this generation were aspirational cars for high school students.
Monte Carlo drivers of the time represented vastly different generations, income ranges, and reasons for liking the same car. Given their popularity in Philadelphia at the time, I think I’m genetically predisposed to liking the car.
Eric you remind me that one of these was the last car for my Philadelphia-area grandmother. She had been an Oldsmobile Girl (Scott Oldsmobile) for decades but when she went to replace her 76 Cutlass Supreme, she chose a Monte Carlo for some reason. I have suspected that she was worrying about her finances late in her life. I think it was maybe an 83 or 84, white with red velour interior. When she died around maybe 1989-90 her Monte had about 14k miles on it. A brother bought it out of her estate and it served him well during his time at the Naval Academy and as a young Navy officer.
Eric, I really like that you tied the yin/yang thing to the concurrent multiple identities these G-Bodies had, depending on level of trim. I thought the SS looked legitimately sporty (even with its upright rear window), and the LS seemed posh enough without seeming frou-frou.
This was a timely article because I’ve had Monte Carlos on my brain lately. A few weeks ago I walked by this house (Google Street View below) that had both an ’87 and 2002 silver Monte Carlos. I started thinking about how these cars could have appealed to just about anyone in Philadelphia in their day.
Oh, and I’m one of the relatively few who liked the 2000-2007 Montes as well. Like I said above, I think it’s just a genetic trail; I can’t help it.
G-Body love on Monday morning!
I remember my Mom cross-shopping Monte Carlos in 1982 when shopping for a new Cutlass but ruled them out because it was too much of a “kid’s car.”
How about some yin and yang Monte Carlo sountrack songs:
1981:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQZIhFQjUfE
1982:
More soundtrack songs on the table for 1981-82 and to a latter extent 1983 Monte Carlo. 😉
These are all classics!! ♪♫
I saw Evelyn Champagne King as part of a concert at the Portage Theater a few years back. She’s still got it.
I have always admired the 1981 “aero” restyle on GM’s mid-sized personal luxury coupes. I think each division received a really nice update that kept their styling equity from the previous cars but looked more modern and new. Arguably, this was the last comprehensive mid-cycle restyle that The General ever did–future GM products keep their basic contours through their entire lifecycles.
I definitely prefer this Monte to the one that preceded it–the distinctive side contours are still there, but subtle. The two-tone paint on the ’81 really shows off the looks well. However, by the mid-1980s, this generation Monte Carlo just seemed out-of-date–shows how quickly automotive tastes changed back in the 1980s.
I agree that this was the toning-down that the 78-80 model needed. The only thing about this restyle that always bothered me was the way the character lines worked on the sides. The advertisement showing the light brown car illustrates this perfectly. In both the front edge and again behind the door, a character line starts at the beltline and then drops from it as it goes back. This area between the belt and character lines was at a different angle which (especially in light metallic colors) gave the illusion of two pointy comet-tails on each side.
Joe’s two tone cars sort of disguise this feature.
JP, (thank you RE: earlier in the comments and) now I can’t unsee the side character line thing! The incongruous angles still don’t bother me too much, but they’re obvious now.
I don’t think there was an easier resolution / solution that could have allowed for the shape of those taillamps.
I’ve always prefered this refresh over the ’78-’80 versions of these and their corporate siblings. The initial editions always looked “forced” and cramped.
Although I must disagree on “who wore it best”.
I think the Olds Cutlass Supreme wins.
It’s a tough call on the final cars. I’d give the nod to the Cutlass coupe, in general. It was better than the Buick Regal with one exception: the menacing, monochrome Grand National.
But any of the last G-Specials were okay (even the Grand Prix). As is usual with GM, they went out with a bang and were the last gasp of GM’s affordable, RWD intermediate coupe that had ruled US sales charts since the sixties. Ironically, GM killing off the G-Special almost certainly increased enough Thunderbird sales to keep it going for another ten years before it, too, succumbed to market forces.
Back in the day I had two acquaintances, both single men in their mid-to-late 20’s. One had an ’81 Corvette and the other a V6 ’83 Monte Carlo.
The guy with the Corvette spent all his time bitching about how much the jarring suspension was killing him, and how it wasn’t getting him the tail he expected. The other whined about how slow the Monte was, and bitched about he it wasn’t getting him the tail he expected. They wound up trading cars and being (somewhat) happier for it.
Hahaha!! This made me chuckle. Life is funny that way sometimes, when the metaphorical grass actually ends up being greener.
To your point about the Corvette’s hard suspension, just a few years back, I had toyed with the idea of purchasing a similar year ‘Vette that looked good on the outside and was solid mechanically, but the interior was busted and it needed a few cosmetics outside. I was dissuaded when I thought about (among other thing$) the prospect of driving it from Chicago back to Michigan – and how I’d probably need to keep popping Advils to alleviate the pain.
Paul – sorry to do this but I had a post for this thread deleted as Spam after a minor edit. I tried to use the “Contact” link to report it, but that was rejected too.
Please see the attachment for a screen shot of the message I got. I thought I should let you know but this seems to be the only way to do so.
I’d appreciate it if you would release my original post if you can, and then delete this post too, if possible.
Thanks,
Lokki
Lokki, thanks for letting us know. I restored your original post that was marked as Spam (it’s visible now, above). I’m leaving this message here so the folks who work on the technical end of the website can see it.
Nice writeup, Dennis, thanks.
I think the advertisements are far more interesting than the cars.
“You’re proud of who you are and not afraid to show it” with two women vying mightily for your hulking manly attention. It’s just gold.
Having been born around the time this ad aired, my perspective is skewed–it looks to me like a little old lady car. The women seem to be praising the gentleman for how nice it is for a busy young guy to take his grandmother out to lunch in her car like that. He’s adorable for his thoughtfulness, but they’re going home with the bad boy in the Camaro.
I really like the first photo with the MC in line with several contemporary cars, yet another demonstration of the changing automotive landscape. So much bloat and puff in the sheetmetal of today’s cars–not admirable. Powertrains, though–what remarkable progress. 110hp out of a 3.8L V6 is so far out of whack in today’s world that it seems almost impossible. Even that Altima’s bland and thrashy 2.5/CVT combo delivers heady performance in comparison.
Heck, my Versa Note has a hp rating of 109 out of 1,598cc or 97.5 cubic inches of displacement. Cars really are better now.
Thanks, everyone! I messed up the model years royally. Whoops! Into the trash with this one if Paul deems it so. 😉
Have a great Monday, everyone.
Joe, it was a great read regardless of the model year mix up. You got your point across and the model year ID was critical to your story. Monte Carlo is a great Ying and Yang car, not only with the differences in two tone paints, but also the fact it appealed to the PLC crowd and the old school RWD gear heads especially with the Monte Carlo SS (i’d fall into the second crowd). I have always been a big fan of the 1981 refresh and IMO each division improved in looks. The Monte Carlo was definitely near the top for me in the looks department, although I still give the crown to the Buick GN.
Vince, thanks for that. My gaffe didn’t even wreck my day! I still really enjoyed writing this one.
We win some, we lose some. I’ve been wrong before, and I’ll be wrong again. 🙂
I hate how GM handled gauges back in the day in most of their models without full instrumentation…just big ugly blanks.
My old man’s ’81 as purchased. Typical paintwork with chalky roof, but basically sound.
After he finished painting it with Tremclad and a brush….A roller was probably too expensive!
Oh, no! Dean, I hope this really wasn’t your dad’s / the same car. It looks great in brown. That three-quarter angle showcases this car’s great looks.
Hope your family reunion goes wonderfully Joseph, and you share with us how it goes. And you, and everyone, enjoy a great time.
Great finds and photography as always. Quite remarkably all four of the redesigned G-Bodies resulted in significantly better styled designs. With the Monte showing perhaps the most improved looks.
As a ‘yin & yang’ response to LT. Dan’s choice of hard rock band April Wine’s “Sign of the Gypsy Queen”, the original version of this song was done by another Canadian artist with more of a folk-rock feel from almost a decade earlier in 1972. The original being a great song in its own right…
Thanks, Daniel! You guys all have great taste in music. One of your recent posts had me purchasing the digital download, which is a CC first for me.
I’ve been very excited about this upcoming trip ever since I called my Uncle Bob. It will be such a great reunion.
That’s fantastic Joseph, glad I could help. With your very detailed and expressive articles documenting so many of your favourite cars and songs, like many CC readers I’m getting a good idea of what cars and music appeal to you. So, I try to post songs and artists that think would most interest you. While perhaps being new and fresh as a listening experience.
I have a gut feeling you may have liked “Got to Be Enough” by Con Funk Shun from 1980? I absolutely loved that song then and now. With it’s great bass line and horns. It did extremely well on the Billboard R&B chart in 1980, peaking at #8. Very catchy song.
Here’s Con Funk Shun performing the song on Soul Train:
The ‘81 restyle was a winner and your examples of this gen are great, with the two-toning nicely shown. Underpowered of course, but everything was during this era.
Interesting that two-tone paint was popular during the fifties, then went dormant until making a bit of a comeback in the eighties, then disappeared again. Perhaps it’s time for a return?
I always thought these were handsome cars. I rode in one when I was young, an almost new one at the time. I was surprised that it was kind of rattly, squeaky, and rode kinda floppily. These were just my observations as a passenger. It did not make a great impression. It was probably just a bad example, because my ’79 GP, ’84 Regal, ’82 Malibu wagon and my aunt’s ’81 Cultlass Supreme all felt pretty tightly built. Unfortunately, whenever I see one the bad example is all that comes to mind.
I saw a Toyota Yaris the other day. It had it’s bumper replaced with a different color, and from a distance it looked two-toned. My son and I both thought they should come in two-tone colors, as it somehow worked for it.
Nice find and a great article! I’ve always thought that the facelifted 1981 GM personal luxury coupes were a big improvement over the 1978-80 versions, with the Monte Carlo showing the biggest improvement of all, followed by the Pontiac Grand Prix.
The Monte Carlo went from awkward and ugly to surprisingly handsome. But the Cutlass Supreme/Salon remained my favorite of all four.
What is interesting is that the 1981 and later models seem to age MUCH better than their 1978-80 counterparts. The earlier cars that show up at various car shows invariably have rusty bumpers, badly faded paint and disintegrating interior pieces (the vinyl and plastic door panels, in particular, always look awful).
For whatever reason, these problems don’t seem to plague the 1981 and later models nearly as much.
Just stumbled on this post. I had both new ’81 and ’82 Monte Carlos and my parents had new ’80 and ’84’s. I thought the ’81 was an enormous styling improvement. Mine was two-tone light jade roof and hood over dark jade everything else, like the one pic in the article. My ’82 was solid dark jade. My ’81 was stolen and never found; hence my buying the ’82. The ’81 was new and the ’82 was the dealership owner’s demo.
The first ’81 you show is the light jade and black two-tone. In ’81 the light colors were always on the top. This was switched around in later years.
My ’81 was the 267 V8, no A/C (didn’t want to spend the $$ and I hated how the V6 sounded in my parents’ ’80), Positraction, intermittent wipers, AM/FM with rear seat speaker, and remote-control driver’s side mirror. I really liked the car. My local dealer found it at another dealer about two hours away. I bought it in Jan. ’81 and it was built in Aug. ’80.