Across North America there once roamed great herds of large and unmistakable beasts, unique to the continent. I’m talking about the American Bison, of course, but I could just as well have been referring to the Personal Luxury Car (PLC). Like the bovine mammals, PLCs were once almost unbelievably prolific across the land but have now dwindled to a tiny fraction of their previous population. While the buffalo made a small comeback from near extinction to stable numbers, there is no sign of that happening to the American luxury coupe. Rare examples in the wild are all that are left.
Let’s take a quick look at this unique American species (of car) before getting to Monte Carlos and finally a well-kept example of the very last one (skip to the end if you are just interested in the story on this red 2007 LS).
The Personal Luxury Car subspecies of the American coupe is famously considered to have started with the 1958 Ford Thunderbird. What is a “personal luxury car” anyway? My definition is a mid or full size two-door from a U.S. manufacturer, with a back seat, that is visually distinguished in a substantial way from related sedan and coupe models, and oriented more towards luxury over performance. That does not rule out that some examples are also good performers or that some aren’t really very luxurious. The “personal” is kind of meaningless marketing speak for what were 4-6 passenger cars, but applies to actual use more than the capabilities, because they were most commonly used by individual drivers primarily for commuting (or nightclubbing!), as opposed to general family use. They were generally owned either by people without young kids, or as a companion to another family car. The same could be said of other coupes but the PLC was supposedly meant for folks affluent in mind, if not actually in bank account, who were looking for something more stylish and/or luxurious than a typical car.
As for the Thunderbird, you couldn’t get much more “personal” than the original 55-57 two-seater, which was also more of a luxury car than a sports car. The back seat is crucial to the morphology of the PLC, though. Purists cried over the Thunderbird’s change, but sales took off. People wanted a back seat, even if they didn’t use it very often (more thoughts: could either the 1940+ Lincoln Continental or the 1955+ Chrysler 300 be actually considered the first personal luxury car?).
It took GM a while to respond to the four-place Thunderbird’s success. When they did, they clearly weren’t messing around because the original 63-65 Riviera was arguably the best styled car to ever come out of Detroit. Introduced in 1962, the 1963 Pontiac Grand Prix became fully-actualized (as people might say later on the 70’s), with its innovative clean flanks and new roofline. (Though often referenced, the 62 or 63 Grand Prix surprisingly has never received a full-scale CC article!)
With the success of the Thunderbird and Riviera, new examples proliferated both above and below their price point. Enthusiasts will quickly conjure up images of cars like the Oldsmobile Toronado, Cadillac Eldorado (the FWD one), Mercury Cougar (early ones are debatably PLCs, but later ones certainly are), Lincoln Continental Mk III+, Chrysler Cordoba, and Chevrolet Monte Carlo.
It makes you feel good about yourself, and that’s all that really mattered.
The 60’s may have had the most beautiful examples, but PLCs practically owned the 70’s. It was called “The Me Decade” for a reason and the popularity of personal luxury cars was highly reflective of the times. 1977 was probably Peak Personal Luxury, though the next few years were also very personally luxurious.
1977 Personal Luxury Cars U.S. Sales
| Monte Carlo | 411k | Cougar XR-7 | 124k | Riviera | 26k |
| Grand Prix | 288k | Mark V | 80k | Coupe DeVille * | 138k |
| Thunderbird | 318k | Eldorado coupe | 35k | Cutlass Supreme coupe* | 367k |
| Cordoba | 183k | Toronado | 34k | Regal * | 192k |
| * May not satisfy all elements of PLC definition | |||||
The 77 Monte Carlo had the highest PLC sales of all time. It’s kind of hard to wrap your head around the changes in our car buying habits that have happened in the intervening years. Today, the dwindling number of volume car models are almost all sedans, virtually all the burgeoning SUV/CUV models have four doors, as do the perpetually hot-selling pickup truck models. A couple of things are clear: these days we like utilitarian vehicles and we like rear doors. Flashy, oversized, overstuffed American coupes are not even slightly a thing in the 2020’s. Yes, there is a small market for luxurious coupes, but these would be considered more Grand Tourers or true high-end luxury cars, and they are all non-American brands.
Fifteen years after the PLC market peak, American luxury coupes were still kind of a thing in 1994 (see scientific analysis section further down), when the Monte Carlo nameplate was brought back as a 1995 model after a several year hiatus. Many of the mighty PLC models were still around: Thunderbird, Eldorado, Mark VIII, Cougar, Cutlass Supreme, Regal and Grand Prix (these three GMers also available as 4-doors), while the Riviera made a return the same year. Among the classic models, only the Toronado and Chrysler Cordoba were departed, though Chrysler had the Sebring coupe which would probably fit the PLC definition, even if it was mostly based on Mitsubishi underpinings.
It could very well be argued the 1995 Monte Carlo had a fake ID and was not a real PLC. It was really just as much a Lumina coupe as the 1994 model it replaced. It had very little to set it apart from the Lumina sedan, sharing exterior and interior styling and mechanicals. Further diluting the Monte Carlo’s PLC street cred, it’s debatable whether it was even a coupe. The 90-94 Lumina coupe could almost certainly be considered a two door sedan (roofline and backlight shared with the four door) and the new Monte Carlo possibly could as well. That’s no way to honor the Monte Carlo name!
The original 70 Monte Carlo shared its basic structure and wheelbase with the Chevelle four door sedan but was about as different as it could be. It had completely unique sheetmetal and roofline. Though it shared the same 116″ wheelbase, the proportions were different, as it had a much longer hood. This was achieved by using the body structure from the Chevelle two-door, which had a 4-inch shorter wheelbase, but using the longer sedan chassis with the 4 inches added to the body ahead of the cowl. The Monte Carlo and it’s Grand Prix brother had remarkably long hoods for “low-priced” brands. This visual distinction probably had a lot to do with their sales success.
The second generation 73-77 used the same basic formula of distinct body panels and super-sized hood, but with bolder styling. This was the one that blew out the sales numbers, along with PLCs from all over Detroit.
This brochure text is a masterstroke of over-the-top marketing prose
The Monte Carlo’s third generation was significantly downsized for 1978 and lost its special cowl-to-front-axle length. It had the same basic proportions as the Malibu sedan/coupe now, but with a bit more overhang to stretch the hood and flanks, and a more formal roofline, of course. It seemed to work, as the sales party continued for two more years. Come 1980, someone rudely turned off the disco music (cue long needle scratch sound effect) and switched on the lights, as sales dropped by about half and never really recovered. No longer the king of the showroom, it cashed checks written in the 70’s through 1988.
In an era of diminished coupe expectations, the 95-99 Monte Carlo sold relatively well (60-70k/year). At least well enough that for 2000 Chevrolet gave it another generation and restored PLC street cred with its own sheetmetal. The Lumina sedan was rebadged Impala, with styling completely different from the new Monte Carlo. The MC got fender arches that hinted at the 1970’s, just less boldly. “Tasteful” would probably be the word Chevrolet would use, as they would for the unusually shaped headlights, which could be liberally interpreted to suggest the single round headlights used on the 1970-75 Monte Carlos. They might also be interpreted to suggest Kermit The Frog’s eye pupils.
The old Monte Carlo Shield emblem also returned, making the Monte Carlo’s legitimate comeback official.
It was said that the backlight and elevated trunk height were specifically designed so the “Monte Carlo” NASCAR racecars would be favorably shaped for high-speed aerodynamics. The platform was the 110.5 inch wheelbase second generation W-body, shared with the Grand Prix. It was significantly stiffened and refined over the first-generation W-body (originally GM-10) found under the 95-99 models, which had a three-inch shorter wheelbase.
Engine Talk Section:
Engines were slightly confusing. The 2000-2005 models came with a 180hp 3.4L V6 (LA1) standard, an upgrade from 95-99’s 160hp 3.1L (L82) version of the same engine. The engine traced its lineage to the 2.8L 60º V6 (LE2) first used on the 1980 X-bodies (Citation et al.). The Grand Prix had the 3.1L version standard through 2003, so customers buying a base Monte Carlo got a substantial upgrade over a base Pontiac. However, Monte Carlo customers wanting more engine were limited to a Series II 200hp 3.8L V6 (L36) from 2000-2004, while Grand Prix buyers could get the 240hp supercharged version (L67). That changed in 2004, when the L67 supercharged engine was finally offered in the Monte Carlo.
The base engine was significantly redesigned for 2006, when it was enlarged to 3.5L and gained 31hp (plus 13 more hp for 2007, to 214hp), variable valve timing and numerous substantial refinements (LZ4). A 240hp 3.9L (LZ9) version of this engine was optional. To make things even more interesting, the supercharged V6 was jettisoned in favor of a 303hp 5.3L V8 (LS4) for 2006-2007.
Monte Carlos got a facelift for 2006, losing the Kermit lights in favor of very conventional lenses shared with the Impala. They also lost the Monte Carlo shield emblem:(
Taillights also became a bit blander, mostly losing the stacked circle look seen on 2000-2005’s. Rear spoilers had previously been optional, now standard.
Interiors changed very little over the generation’s run. A new steering wheel appeared for 2006, shared with the Impala and other Chevys. Cloth seats aren’t fancy but are very comfortable. Wasn’t cloth considered luxurious in the 70s? With the longer wheelbase, back seat space is excellent for a coupe. A large trunk and fold-down rear seat backs make cargo space generous as well.
Over the course of the latter day Monte Carlo’s run, it went from one of several PLCs to the last man standing. One by one they went to the Great Discotheque In The Sky: Regal (1996, sedan lived on), Cutlass Supreme (1997), Thunderbird (1997), Cougar (1997. Returned as a non-PLC for 1999, then died again in 2002.), Mark VIII (1998), Riviera (1999), Grand Prix (2002, sedan lived on), Eldorado (2002), and Sebring (2005, convertible and sedan lived on).
Scientific Analysis Section:
So why did the PLC thrive so in the 1970’s to decline rapidly in the 80’s, then linger for another decade or so until final extinction in the late 90’s/early 2000’s? It’s a complicated question that can only be answered with science. After extensive review of the literature and consultation with PhDs in the fields of sociology, Swiss gastronomy, malaise psychology, and automusicology, I have a theory. The pervasive need for personal luxury transport is closely tied to three other essentials in the 1970’s, as measured in precise pleasure units. Personal luxury cars satisfied the same needs as absurdly wide-legged pants, pretentious cheese dinners and highly rhythmic music fine-tuned for dancing and lovemaking. Not every 70’s hipster shared all these interests, but the correlated trends is the point.
As any scientist has told me (when I’m not really listening), correlation equals causation. The baby-boomer generation transitioned from self-absorbed leisure pursuit to more responsible family-centered activity in this time period, giving up their strange fashions, swiss dishes, smoothly danceable love music, and excessively stylish coupes. PLC demand leveled out in the mid-80’s (see very scientific chart) and remained relatively low but fairly stable until the late 90’s. Levis still had bell-bottoms, the BeeGees made music until they literally died off, and cheese remains meltable today. Individuals continued some or all these consumptions out of habit or stubbornness, but there weren’t enough to make money on PLCs much past the turn of the century.
Monte Carlo, probably by virtue of its good value, lack of competitors, and association with popular NASCAR racing continued selling 60-70k every year until it, too, finally succumbed its last three years to America’s modern indifference to luxurious coupes. Only 10,889 found homes in the final 2007 season.
One of them was this base LS model, which was a rental until purchased by its present owners when it finished its first career. They embody what is probably the typical profile of latter day Monte Carlo customers, that is to say an empty nest couple that in the past owned a couple Monte Carlos from the 70’s and 80’s. Being thus favorably disposed towards Monte Carlos and the wife not needing a four-door vehicle at the time, she was attracted to this sharp, well built, amply powered coupe. The Monte Carlo has 120k miles and has given well over a decade of trouble-free service. Since it can’t be replaced with a newer version of something similar, the owners are quite content to keep the Monte Carlo for the foreseeable future.
With conscious intervention, we managed to save the American Bison. Sadly, there was no such intervention for the Personal Luxury Car which is quite extinct in today’s showrooms, but we will hopefully have a cadre of nice survivors like this Monte Carlo indefinitely.
photographed in Houston, TX 9/25/2022
Related reading: There have been a lot of Monte Carlo CC articles over the years, here are a few of the relevant highlights
Curbside Classic: 2000-06 Chevrolet Monte Carlo – The Last Gasp Of The American Personal Luxury Coupe by William Stopford – Less about the larger PLC trend and more detail on the 2000+ Monte Carlo.
Curbside Classic: 1995-99 Chevrolet Monte Carlo – Lumina Coupe Two by William Stopford – I hadn’t read this before writing my article, at least not since 2016, but he naturally comes to the same conclusion as me about the Chevy McLovin.
Vintage Reviews & Comparison Test: 1970 Chevrolet Monte Carlo – Personal Luxury Gate Crasher by GN – lots of juicy vintage coverage of the first Monte Carlo.
My cousin has one of these last generation Monte’s with very low miles. I think it’s an “SS” but not sure if SS was made in this generation. I don’t think these cars have appreciated all that much yet?
The SS was made every year of this generation. The top engines were only available in the SS (see engine section), which was the biggest difference, though trim and suspension were somewhat different, too.
On March 3rd 1973 my Dad took the family to the local Chevrolet dealer in search of a replacement for his 1964 maroon Impala. On the showroom floor sat the most beautiful car I have ever seen…an all-new Monte Carlo in a stunning silver, a burgundy Landeau top, a matching interior and (wow!) swivel bucket seats. I begged and pleaded promising to buy it from him when i turned 16 in a few years. But, alas it was not meant to be. We went home that day in a 1973 maroon Impala. I think of that Monte Carlo often.
The Chrysler 300 seems somewhat PLC-adjacent but doesn’t feel quite like a genuine PLC to me, as it shares its sheetmetal with conventional Chryslers and is oriented as much toward performance as luxury; it’s more a proto-muscle car than a proto-PLC. The original Continental comes closer, though it’s perhaps too unique to quality, not being a luxury coupe built off a commonplace sedan platform, body structure, and interior. Likewise the Continental Mark II, though it predates the four-seat T-bird and debuts the defining PLC proportions. It was priced out of reach of middle America though, whereas PLCs typically were affordable to the middle class if they splurged and stretched their budget for a nice car. A strong case could be made that the Studebaker Golden Hawk was an early PLC – it’s based on a stretched sedan platform but has a unique body and interior, is luxurious, and has a powerful engine but is isn’t really a sporty high-performance car.
For me too, PLCs are inextricably linked with disco and other ’70s affectations. When disco died (or was shot down by firing squad – see “Disco Demolition Night”), it took personal luxury coupes down with it. Of course there was plenty of disco music after 1979; it just couldn’t be called that if you wanted anyone to buy your records. Instead it morphed into “dance music” – think early Madonna – still with a disco beat but not a disco image. Likewise, PLCs quickly had to change their image if they were to survive. The Thunderbird downplayed hedonistic loose-cushion velour and shag carpeting in favor of toned-down but sportier duds, with the Turbo Coupe being the image leader. For the Monte Carlo, it was the NASCAR-inspired Monte Carlo SS. But while PLCs soldiered on in this modified form, they never really captured the ’80s or ’90s zeitgeist the way brougham-tastic ’70s PLCs had for their decade. By the late 1980s, the sports sedan had replaced the personal luxury coupe as the preferred upscale ride, until SUVs and crossovers replaced sports sedans.
The ’90s and ’00s PLCs suffered from the general downturn of interest in two-door coupes, but I also think they were hurt by not being luxurious or stylish enough – the Monte Carlo as well as the last four-seater Thunderbirds had cheap-looking, cheap-feeling plastic-y interiors that didn’t feel like something special, the way 1960s and early-’70s Thunderbirds always did.
Good analysis. I would agree the Golden Hawk would probably fit the definition, I hadn’t thought of that one. Studebaker really pulled out all the styling stops to make it as sporty looking as possible, it seems to me to trend more towards the sport than luxury. Wasn’t the original Continental basically built off the Zephyr platform but with a lower cowl?
You’re right, whatever cache the Monte Carlo had in the 80’s it was from the NASCAR connection.
This raises some interesting points in terms of definitions. I would agree that the Chrysler 300 wasn’t a PLC, although it wasn’t a muscle car either (it was an enormous full-size hardtop). However, I might argue on the Mark II front, since I think BMW and Mercedes-Benz have both subsequently sold quite a few personal luxury cars that meet the definition in every other way, but that cost as much as houses used to. What I think muddies the waters more for the Mark II was that it was a standalone model; it wasn’t a coupe version of a sedan, but there also wasn’t a Continental sedan to which to compare it.
I think the Mark II was too special and expensive to be a PLC. It was a real flagship halo car meant to be extremely exclusive. It was never meant to be a big seller. It was meant to make an ultra-luxury statement. The later Marks were meant to be volume sellers.
A great piece that brought a tear to my eye, as the PLC is my favorite style of car….
…but then my mood was perked up to LMAO status upon reviewing your “Very Scientific Chart”… Well researched and very thoughtful, Jon. 😉
While over the years, I have had many Thunderbirds (1983 thru 1997), I’ll leave you all with a picture of my last PLC below. I’ve shared it here before.
Personally, I’ve never owned a car with 4 doors. This does not count the various 4 door cars I’ve indirectly owned through various wives over the years.
Even my last two cars that were purchased, my 2007 Mustang (a pseudo PLC, as that was all you were gonna get from Ford), and my 2016 Civic Coupe (They died after 2020) were both 2 door cars. I’ll probably keep both of them as long as I’m still driving!
Since I’ll never afford a BMW, Mercedes, or what have you, and even the Mustang is too damned pricey anymore, my next car, dare I say it, will be one with 4 doors. 😢 It may even be a CUV… Oh the humanity!!!
My 1997 Grand Prix GTP Coupe…
Thanks! That’s a sharp 97!
I had one of these last-generation MCs as a rental for a couple of weeks, while my daily driver was in the body shop. The operating dynamics were rather awful. It felt and drove ponderously, with terminal understeer at speed, and a heavy, wallowing, but rather smooth ride down the highway. The interior layout was old-school, with a small interior for the size of the car, and oriented for two up front, not four or five. One sat down low in it, and exterior visibility to the rear and rear quarters was not so good. Then there were the long, fat doors, still with a bit of the innards rattling around inside when one slammed it. One might say that the last-gen MC nailed the typical ‘70s PLC driving experience.
My Monte Carlo rental experience was more pleasant than yours. Much of the reason for that was because it was on my honeymoon (in 2005), and was in Florida. Due to those two characteristics, I didn’t mind the downsides of this car that you described… in fact it was a great car to leisurely drive around the Florida coast as a newlywed. My wife and I both liked it – after all, it seemed more special than renting an Impala sedan!
What started out as a “sports car” with a rear seat in 1958, grew into an intermediate sized “personal sporty luxury car” by 1964. It lost the “sporty” adjective when the smaller pony car was launched. During the muscle pony car boom, these earlier models went into search for a reason to coexist with their far more popular stable mates. By the time the muscle car boom ends, these pre-Mustang models found their niche as luxury coupes. The older GM models, Riviera, Toronado, Eldorado, along with the Lincoln Mark IV and TBird, became oversized luxury coupes. This left intermediate size, and more affordable models, to dominate this niche for the next decade.
These were generational rides. They were popular with empty nesters of the 1970s, who gravitated towards the larger luxury coupes, and with Boomers who picked them up as replacements for their muscle cars, pre-nesters.
This entire era comes before my ability to be in the auto market. These were the cars my parents drove. By the time I was an adult, this market was passe’ and we wanted efficient sporty economy cars, not theses. Consequently, I’ve never been a fan. Like them as museum pieces, but I’d never wanted one.
Thanks to Ford, their TBird and Cougar regained serious consideration post 1982. Yet there was no boom for these cars. They were, in a sense, coupes for those buyers not wanting four door sedans, or still pining for a personal luxury coupe. The TBird and Cougar were pretty popular however, by the time GM finally issues a two door Lumina, as the Monte Carlo – this market was very stale. You can see how disinterested GM was with the first years of the Lumina Monte Carlo – they weren’t much, but a coupe.
Conditioned as I am, all I still see these cars as waste and bloat. There’s no benefit of 4WD, flexible hauling, or usable space. Personal luxury coupes never gave any thought to riders in the back. They were padded coffins with mini windows. I always felt as though I was suffocating as a rear passenger, in bordello hell. Coupes are not practical and throughout my driving life, the idea of driving 3000+ pounds of style seems environmentally unethical.
Personal coupe has been dying for years, strangely in last two years I have been looking for a coupe as a third car since one of our kids will start driving soon. My favorite is Mercedes E class coupe which is very beautiful vehicle, more affordable is the previous generation of Honda Accord coupe that is also beautiful. BMW 3 series coupe E90) is a good choice too
I was a reluctant fan of the last generation Buick Riviera which was also a last gasp of the PLC. And I do mean gasp–it sold in pitiful numbers.
The first year 1995 actually sold in quite respectable numbers, but quickly dropped off. Don’t know if you saw the write up I did recently. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/uncategorized/1995-buick-riviera/
The Riviera was probably the last ernest attempt at a classic American personal luxury coupe, and is in many ways an excellent example of the species, but was perhaps too large for a late-90s coupe (though it doesn’t look it from a front-side view, it’s two inches longer than a Park Avenue sedan). The interior was evocative of the 1963-65 original, but let down by too much hard plastic like so many GM cars from that era. It all but cries out for wood interior trim, and several third parties obliged with your choice of species. The dash is very handsomely shaped and looks great in pictures but plasticy up close and in person; adding wood trim turns it into something gorgeous and ups the classiness several notches. I prefer the 60/40 split bench seat with column shifter (available 95-96 only; is this the last coupe so equipped?) over the buckets/console setup but both have their merits.
It really does cry out for wood trim! So much so I rarely see one on EBAY without the owner having had it installed. The first year of the Mark VIII was also absent any wood trim, and also desperately needed it.
Great article! Thanks for sharing Jon!
The first gen was beautiful, the second eye-catching, but it was all downhill from there to the epitome of 90s blandness.
In the late 90s, fondue restaurants were a brief fad, but it wasn’t cheese in the hot pot. A few are still around, but they’ve gone back to cheese and chocolate.
In a way, these PLCs were replaced by the coupe SUVs of today. Only difference is they are under the same model name as the main model instead of a different one.
With all their styling flaws/mistakes in the 80s and 90s, I was surprised GM designers did not see some of their designs were looking overly bulgy, and bloated. Besides not being well integrated. While Chrysler (for example), managed to make the first gen Dodge Avenger, and second gen Intrepid, look agile, sporty, and consistent, for their size. These and the 1993 F-Bodies, just looked fat, and dated, in the Monte Carlo’s case. With awkward details and proportions. Especially in the roof, and rear quarter. The Avenger made the Carlo look like an old guy’s car.
Totally agree Daniel.
The visually bulky rear quarter area could have been more palatable, if the C-pillar was moved forward with a smaller quarter window, and the rear encompassed a bed. It would have worked as an El Camino. On the silver Monte Carlo above, the visually heavy and squared rear quarters, look like they belong on another car. Or a mini pickup.
As hideous as the MC became, I want to believe that GM only kept it around to have something on the NASCAR track. It’s the only explanation I can think of.
I think to some extent it was a matter of reacting to the criticisms of the mid-80s cars. Cars like the N-body and 1986 E-body were mocked for looking dinky, squarish, and cookie-cutter, so a lot of ’90s GM designs went in the opposite direction, even when the results were completely out of step with where the market was going.
By 1993, the better styled cars of the competition should be their point of comparison. Not reacting to their own failures of the past.
Judged on their own, or against competitors, the ’93 F-bodies looked bloated and fat. There appears so much anecdotal consensus on this, that it should have been somewhat aware to the designers during the design stage. The ’95 Lumina, ’95 and 2000 Monte Carlos simply looked generic, and bland, compared to say, what Chrysler was doing. Trying to maintain design ties to past generations of some models, is something GM handled poorly in the ’80s and ’90. Pressure to maintain that design legacy, seeming like a design ‘anchor’, in some ways.
I don’t disagree — I find a lot of the ’90s efforts regrettable at best. (There are a few bright spots, but they were often spoiled by cheap execution and dismal interior materials.)
Admittedly, I am kind of a strange guy. Car wise, that is! Also admittedly, I am a huge GM fan even though I’ve owned numerous imports (new and used) as well as many Chrysler products (mostly Jeeps) and a handful of Ford/Lincolns. But I always come back to GM as they have done quite well for me. If memory serves correctly, I’ve owned exactly 4 of the 2 door variants. 1986 Cavalier Z24, 1987 Cavalier Z24 (my youth!!), a used 1980 Park Avenue diesel and a 1996 Ford Mustang. And yet, I’m just not a coupe guy.
Still, I just love nearly any of these cars shown above, no matter if the Thunderbird, Chryslers or GM’s. One of my all time favorites would be the 1970 to 1977 Monte Carlo and Pontiac GP. And yet I have never owned one. Fast forward to the mid 80’s to the end of the run for the Monte Carlo, and I actually dislike them a lot. I never thought they got it right and didn’t like the looks at all. Something about those still long doors and interiors that did nothing for me. And what do I have sitting in the garage at home? A 1988 Cadillac Cimarron that I just love, but it’s a 4 door. Like I said, I’m a strange car guy.
Yeah, that’s strange! But the 88 Cimarron is the best of the breed, right? I did a CC on an 88 a few years ago. If one can get past its image and reputation, it was a pretty solid car by then (as GM likes to do).
There was a period in history where being fat was a sign of wealth and commanded respect. It meant you could afford to eat whatever you wanted.
PLCs are the same sort of thing. In 1974, a Monte Carlo cost about the same as a loaded Malibu wagon, but driving the wagon made you look like a plebeian who had physical things you needed to accomplish, while the MC made you look like a person who could afford to drop $4500 on a car that was really only useful for hauling 2 people around.
Good analogy! How about a fat guy driving a 77 Monte Carlo? There’s some conspicuous consumptipn for you.
I suppose every era has it’s symbols of conspicuous consumption. Today’s would have to be some sort of jacked up pickup or monster SUV. I think the new electric Hummer is such a symbol, ironically.
PLC’s were different being no sedan or wagon variants. Plain 2 door sedans, like Impala/Galaxie were bread and butter family cars if they had 1-2 kids. Then parents got base model, bench seat PLC’s instead. my Dad loved our ’70 Monte, so got Cutlass Supremes years later.
Now, has to be an anything-UV for ‘personal style’.
BTW: The 1962-68 Grand Prix was really a different trimmed Catalina hardtop coupe. Not a true PLC, with all unique sheet metal, as the 1969+ [Never mind the FWD GP sedans]
Personal-luxury coupes were mostly an American thing, but there were a few Japanese cars from the ’70s that while much smaller than most of their American counterparts still had a strong PLC flavor. Amongst these are:
– the Mitsubishi-built Plymouth Sapporo, which in its first year only (1978) had color-keyed wheel covers, whitewalls, fully color-keyed velour-and-woodgrain interiors, and even opera lamps (is this the only Japanese car that had them?)
– the mid-’70s Mazda Cosmo had a roofline rather like late-’70s LTD and Thunderbird coupes, with a “basket handle” setup with a small opera window in front of a larger fpane of rear quarter glass.
– the first-gen Toyota Supra was a more luxurious Celica with its extended wheelbase and length all positioned in front of the firewall just as in a Monte Carlo from the first two generations. The extra length made room for an inline 6, but early Supras were more like mini-PLCs than the sports cars they later became. Car and Driver frequently compared it to the MC.
– the second-generation (1980-83) Datsun 200SX stuck with a four-cylinder only, but especially in notchback form also gave off baby-PLC vibes, with a two-tone paint scheme, whitewalls, opera windows (if a bit larger than most), and a plush velour interior.
– Later Japanese PLC-ish cars include the Honda/Acura Legend coupe.
Europe mostly didn’t do PLCs, but the Volvo 262C supposedly had some Lincoln Mark influence, and its form-over-function chopped roof and fattened-up C pillars were uncharacteristic for Volvo. Rover built an 800 Sterling coupe designed for the American market, only to pull out from North America just before it went on sale. The Mercedes S-class hardtop coupes were arguably one of the PLC’s key progenitors, dating back to 1961 for the 300SE (W112), as well as one of the last holdouts in later iterations. These were unfailingly beautiful and exclusive; it’s a wonder they didn’t spur more European luxury coupes to compete with it.
Excellent foreign counterparts! Japan was clearly trying to cash in on American coupe fever, to the extent they could. They were at their best doing their own thing, not trying to copy American makers.
Those 60’s Mercedes coupes were certainly beautiful!
Well we also had the Lancia Kappa Coupe which, to me, was very much a European PLC (I would stick my neck out and classify the Fiat 130 coupe as such). The same can be applied to the big KAD Opels. Last but not least, let us not forget the Ford Landau, the Aussie version of the breed…
The Germans absolutely did PLCs. The Mercedes-Benz SL-Class is, for all its other attributes, very much a Teutonic T-Bird (Little Bird variety), and I’m not sure what else you’d call the BMW E9, E24 (6-Series), or E31 (8-Series) coupes.
The Citroën SM was a PLC by most definitions, as was the Jaguar XJ-S, to the annoyance of E-type lovers.
You’re absolutely right about the Celica XX (the Supra became more of a sports coupe, but the original six-cylinder XX was sold in Japan as a personal luxury coupe) and Cosmo, which was arguably the first. Once the Japanese manufacturers really got into it, there was also the Toyota Soarer, which was extremely successful in the ’80s, and the Nissan Leopard (sold here as the Infiniti M30 and, in its later, weirdo four-door form, the J30).
Everything depends on your reference point. While there are many that see these coupes as big and wasteful, I see them as smaller and more fuel efficient. I wasn’t going from small to big, I was going in the opposite direction, from big to small.
My interest had been in big luxury cars, like Cadillac and Lincoln, coupe or sedan. There were many older models available at low prices during the 70’s. I considered a Riviera a more sensible choice to a Coupe de Viile. When I bought my new ’84 Cougar, it was even more sensible.
When it comes to a truck reference point I’ve got a long bed, access cab F 150. This is the same length as an “L” version of a Navigator, and longer than a Tahoe or regular Expedition. With that as my reference, even my Flex seems a bit compact!
Current Mustangs are bigger than they have ever been in the past. The ’71 -73 models seemed big, but were actually smaller than the Firebird. I consider my ’06 Mustang to be a PLC. and a Challenger is still bigger yet. I still think that there is still a small market for a real “plush” pony car, like a Mustang Grande, but better, with a Lincoln level interior. However I realize that I am probably in the minority.
I was working at GM in Fremont when the ’76-’77 Monte Carlos were being produced. I knew that they were popular. Full nine hour shifts during the week, with every other Saturday a nine hour shift! An hour of time and half every weekday, plus eight hours of time and a half on Saturday, with one hour of double time. ChaChing!!
These were the good old days!
My definition of PLC also includes the Dodge Charger and even the 67 Mercury Cougar, the former may have had performance and currently enjoys status as a muscle car legend but in execution it was a large coupe with totally unique sheetmetal, and in SE form brought even more luxury. The Cougar never really emphasized performance, it had a few notable packages (GT-E, Eliminator), but so did the Riviera(GS), it wasn’t what it was really about, which was a mini-Tbird. The ponycar itself was really a branch of the PLC lineage, but in basic form they didn’t have much of the L, just the unique coupe body.
On that note real downfall of the PLC started as early as it’s peak; the Riviera, Toronado, Lincoln Marks, Eldorado, Thunderbird were all very distinct products by the early 70s, and to a large extent the Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, and Cordoba were as well but that move to the “intermediate PLC” that distinctively dominated the 70s came with it dashboards shared with their platform mates, and further erosion from PLC pretenders like the Ford Elite and 1974 Cougar that were simply rebadged ordinary Mercury Montego coupes. The 77s were an improvement in this regard, particularly the baskethandle Tbird (effective Elite successor) but the Cougar XR7 simply got away with window plugs and vinyl coverings to camouflage the standard Cougar/LTD II roofline. Even the huge selling Cutlass Supreme, below its formal roofline it was mostly just a Cutlass 2 door. The segment was so popular few really seemed to care but once the wave of downsizing set in with ever cheapened executions the rose tinted giant 70s glasses started coming off. The 90s Monte Lumina is preceded by poorly executed PLCs like these.
Further the segment didn’t downsize well. For one downsizing and PLC is a bit of an oxymoron; the 70 Monte Carlo was smaller than a 70 Riviera, but it still grew from the Chevelle it was derived from. The 77 Thunderbird was smaller than the 76 but still as big as any Tbird from the 60s most people positively associated the name with anyway. Subjecting this segment to the grim realities of economic woes and energy shortages counters their spiritual existence.
Facing existential crisis these nameplates in the 80s and the 90s were all over the place in execution, the Thunderbird, Cougar and Lincoln Mark tried reinventing themselves into European like sport coupes like the SLC or 6 series, the Eldorado Riviera and Toronado tried taking traditional personal luxury into a high tech digital frontier, N bodies tried being sport coupes with formal styling, the G bodies either tried pretending nothing had changed since 1979, or tried capitalizing on 60s Musclecar nostalgia on strangely incongruous formal bodies, and the result was a segment that clearly lacked focus and definition. SUVs by contrast are exactly what they are, there was no question amongst product planners about what a SUV should be, and no confusion amongst customers about expectations. PLCs on the other hand? In the 80s there were a million flavors and not one of them has any resemblance to a 58 Thunderbird or 63 Riviera, a 305 Monte Carlo SS doesn’t look like nor is as fast as a 454 Chevelle SS, and the Regal Somerset or Cutlass Calais now has 4 doors. There was some modest success and notable entries in this catagory but it’s all completely fragmented, one car that appeals to one PLC customer wouldn’t even be on the radar of another.
These final Monte Carlos seemed to only exist for Chevy to keep a true coupe in NASCAR, which is possibly the strangest reason a personal luxury coupe would continue to exist. I remember seeing these at the Chicago autoshow as a kid when de-luminized came out, I actually got(not to say liked) the “retro” headlights being a car fanatic, it was obvious at the show it was the last man standing in the segment, but even I wasn’t that into it. A few years later, in my cynical teen years at that,I saw the facelifted version and saw they had grafted entire Impala front clip onto it, and right then I knew it was doomed for good, just like when the Grand Marquis started sharing front fenders with the Crown Vic, might have been the same year come to think of it.
I love the personal luxury coupe. I’ll keep my late Cretaceous period PLC going until a asteroid hits it
That’s a good point about them not updating the MC like they did the Impala. I don’t recall noticing at the time, but that is a really bad sign for a car. Sometime in the last few yeara of the Panther, Ford quit selling Crown Vics to civilians entirely. Fleet only. If you wanted one, you had to buy the Mercury. Another good sign of a short-timer.
I’ve said before, I knew the death watch was well underway when the Impala sedan got a full reskin for ’06 while the Monte Carlo got the sort of halfway facelift once reserved for station wagons, back when the coupe was the style leader of the line.
I guess I am not old enough, but I just can’t fathom why anyone would want only two doors on a car this size. Four doors can be just as stylish as two. I guess it could be like the attraction of a hardtop? It isn’t that I don’t find coupes attractive – I just find them so needlessly inefficient.
If I was in the market for a Chrysler back in 1975 – I wouldn’t have had any use for a Cordoba, but would definately sprung for a four door Valiant Brougham.
A Duster or Dart swinger hardtop still has the same basic back seat as a 4 door sedan version of those, the only drawback is the rear seat passengers need to take an extra second to get back there through the front doors, but until the advent of child seats to keep precious Jaydyn protected it wasn’t much of a hassle, and pre-child locks some parents actually liked coupes specifically so kids couldn’t open the rear doors.
Beyond that I cannot see the inefficiency of me today driving a PLC such as this Monte Carlo vs a popular new SUV or crossover for my needs, efficiency is about the same I don’t need 4 doors as I don’t have kids, I don’t need hatchback cargo area as I don’t buy bulky items all that often(and when I do I rarely have issues putting them in the trunk or back seat). Having the capability to use a vehicle more efficiently and actually using it to its full capability are two very different things, most people don’t do that, PLCs simply shed the pretense of maximum functionality for the vehicle’s footprint, is a suburban of similar length to a Cordoba really efficient when at most it hauls around husband, wife, only child and their hypoallergenic mutant poodle labrador? The Cordoba couldn’t do that?
As for sedans it’s true today they are certainly often stylish enough to negate the purpose of 2 doors, to a degree, but sedans today are a very far cry from a A body Valiant 4 door. Rear visibility has become downright terrible in many of them, ingress/egress isn’t great, and trunk openings are often small despite the trunk itself being cavernous due to the tall rear ends. In other words the same problems a Mustang or Camaro have, but with more doors. Again if it’s just you and one passenger on average using it, why need the rear doors?
To each their own of course, there used to be choice in this sort of thing.
I was born in 71 and my parents had two door cars my whole childhood. 70 Maverick, 74 Vega, 79 Rabbit, 85 Saab. Plus VW camper vans from about 78. I spent many years crawling into the backseat from the front door. It was second nature and probably still is, I just never have occasion to do it.
Most of my cars have been 2 doors, except for wagons. Since Ive had kids, we’ve had SUVs but Ive still always had a 2 door I drive.
And if I was in the market for a Chrysler in 75, it would have to be a New Yorker hardtop sedan. That is one classy looking 4 door!
Those were smaller cars. I tried to separate smaller two doors from larger two doors like these PLC. I understand small cars with two doors, but not big cars.
Still love that “first gen, M/C”!! The 2007 is just too “out of proportion”!!The Cordoba ad, touting the “small Chrysler:, is a hoot.
Those were a bit small inside here/there; long, cumbersome outside.Sister/brither in law had the “Charger cousin”. Drove soo soo nice; craning, to see over long hood, gave one a still neck/shoulders.
Oops; stiff neck/shoulders.
Two doors meant you were young and single, or wished to project that image. It’s as simple as that. A sedan or wagon meant family and adult responsibilities. I remember the Pontiac Bonneville as the first four-door that I would consider owning, an actually cool sedan that wouldn’t “cramp my style”. Perceptions started to change around that time, eventually to the point that the next generation could put fart cans and spoilers on a four-door Civic and not feel any cognitive dissonance at all. Now a coupe just looks like poor space utilization to most people and it’s hard to imagine why anyone once considered these cars cool.
Found a 2007 Monte Carlo LS for my son’s first car. Two owner car that was bought in 2008 by the now 88 year old lady, who’s son sold it to us. Just shy of 130k miles and sharp looking. Bought for $4,300.
Looks a lot like the subject car, but with aftermarket wheels. Should hopefully be a good car for him!
Funny, this car was also originally a rental car before being sold, in 2008, to family we bought it from. The original wheels/hubcaps, with studded snow tires, were also included in the sale.
It must be said that the Bee Gees really took off much earlier than the Very Scientific Chart suggests. They started recording in Australia in the late ’50s, but while it took some time for them to become known in the U.S., their first U.S. top 10 album was in 1967 and their first U.S. top 10 singles were in 1968. Their first really big No. 1 hit, “How Can You Mend a Broken Heart,” was in 1971, and their last two U.S. No. 1 singles were both in 1979. They did drop off pretty rapidly after that, save for “One” in 1989.
Saw a special about them. They were harmonic “Beatles” style of pop/folk singers and popular before disco. Their first disco album, “Main Course” was went they became associated with everything nasty about disco.
Many a pop, R&B, and soul singer of the late ’60s went disco in the seventies, often with far more embarrassing results.
I recall a Casey Kasem America’s Top 40 countdown from approximately 1978, when he announced Ethel Merman was going into the studio, to cut a disco album. lol
As a solo Bee Gee, and while in a duet, Barry Gibb had a Billboard Top 3 hit with Barbra Streisand. And the song, ‘Guilty’ in late 1980.
Here’s the Bee Gees’ first hit in their native Australia, from 1963. Imagine the ‘Saturday Night Fever’ opening with Tony Manero struttin’ down the street to this song instead of “Stayin’ Alive”:
Well, the very scientific chart is measured in smiles/1000, not radio play or album sales. So, it’s scientism is intact.
You’re right that they deserve recognition for their whole long career beyond the brief time when Disco was King. I was not familiar with the BeeGee’s pre-disco era until I read about it in preparing the article. I saw they had a period of moderate success in the late 60’s/early 70’s with a much different style. My impression was this paled in comparison to the blinding supernova of popularity they reached in the late 70’s with disco.
They really were amazing songwriting and singing talents.
I was really struck with how their peak in 77/78 perfectly matched the peak of PLC sales. It’s hard to picture a man driving a PLC at that time without the top 3 or 4 buttons of his shirt undone.
I mean, “Stayin’ Alive” is the perfect theme song for a mid-70s PLC owner (including, if we’re being perfectly honest, a lot of contemporary Corvette and Datsun 280Z owners): It’s flashy and ostentatious, although the lyrics are about desperation in the face of seventies malaise. The guitar and bass line give it a macho swagger, but Barry Gibb’s falsetto makes it golden-medallions-in-the-chest-hair macho rather than, say, Black Sabbath macho. (I’m not being snide — it’s one of the best songs of its era and one of the best of American disco.)
There’s also this:
https://www.npr.org/2008/10/25/96134166/another-use-for-stayin-alive-staying-alive
Just recently sold a 2012 Prius V with 189,000 miles that was becoming a money pit. I found an ex mechanic selling his wife’s car. A 2005 Monte Carlo SS. With only 100,000 miles. Red. Absolutely immaculate interior and exterior. He had just had the bumper replaced, hood, trunk, and roof repainted. And every tiny mechanical thing she pointed out he took care of immediately. It doesn’t have a single thing wrong with and drives like a couch. I also paid less than what I sold the Prius for. I don’t regret it. It’s a second vehicle for me and I keep it even cleaner than he did. Have it a nice clay job and polishing after I got it home and it looks like it has 10,000 miles on it. I would’ve liked a more powerful engine, but I just couldn’t pass this one up in the condition it was. Definitely don’t make them like this anymore.