The quintessential ’70s Chevrolet gets the Car And Driver treatment with a glowing review and not many snarky comments, with those appearing mostly directed elsewhere. Meanwhile, DeLorean gets kudos and is given one more chance to bask in the spotlight.
Just as recent as this past April, the ’73 Monte Carlo R & T review went up on this site (Posted here, with Paul’s commentary), mostly confirming Car And Driver’s assesment. Clouds on the horizon do appear though, with constant references to Mercedes vehicles, even if expressed under DeLorean’s admiration for their engineering.
Odd to think this would be one of DeLorean’s last truly glowing moments. In ‘On A Clear Day You Can See General Motors,’ he expressed his frustrations with Chevrolet’s inefficient operations and GM’s stuffy corporate culture, with him leaving not long after the Monte’s launch. In the meantime, the Monte Carlo was to become part of the American landscape, with many a sample surrounding the nation’s high schools in beater form for years to come.
“…the demand for 3-speed manual versions is as intense as is the demand for 78RPM records…”
I grew up reading lines like this from C/D and R&T, and they still give me a laugh!
I think 78rpm records probably ended up far outselling base 3-speed manual Monte Carlos.
It’s always the bean-counters vs. the car guys (at least according to Bob Lutz). The bean counters weren’t conceding much here. Power steering would surely be an absolute necessity anyway and it would be more trouble than it’s worth to have a different caster angle for those few base cars.
Harrumph. Would that be the same Bob Lutz who is said quality is overrated and is said to have been the quasi-anonymous one who groused about the original Chev Cruze being of excessively high quality and wanted a return to the centre of the lane for the second model?
Or some other Bob Lutz?
Not really talking about quality here, just referencing the semi-famous title of Lutz’s book. I hadn’t heard that story about Lutz. I did read the book and he spends a fair amount of space explaining his efforts to improve GM product quality and manufacturing consistency.
I meant to suggest Lutz™ (the brand) is not completely aligned with Lutz himself.
I read “Car Guys & Beancounters”, as well as “Guts”, and came away from them with an unfavourable opinion of Mr. Lutz as a self-impressed, pretentious blowhard. Opinions may vary, and an automatic transmission is required in California.
I read “Car Guys & Beancounters”, as well as “Guts”, and came away from them with an unfavourable opinion of Mr. Lutz as a self-impressed, pretentious blowhard.
I didn’t have to read his books to know that. I knew it a long time ago.
Lutz was a consummate self-promoter. But his track record was highly mixed; there’s a lot of stinkers in the list of cars he’s associated with. But I give him credit for where it’s due, but even then, there’s inevitable shortcomings.
Quality? He was the man behind the Chrysler LH, cloud cars and the Neon. They all looked swoopy and exciting, but were all brittle. So much for quality.
And he was like a broken record on tv for years predicting Tesla’s inevitable demise. He’s had to take that back.
Lutz’s books were largely autobiographical, so there’s a degree of self promotion and a self – centered attitude. That’s the nature of autobiographies. One reads them for the views, opinions and experiences of the author, no different than DeLorean’s book “On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors”, Iaccoca’s autobiography, and even Alfred Sloan’s ” My Years with General Motors”.
I found all these books to have large dollops of insight but by no means do I think they’re impartial or that the authors walk on water.
Two issues stick in my mind from Lutz’s book, his claim that GM’s product testing process was fundamentally flawed, with an example of an overpowering spring in the pop- out ashtray of one vehicle, supposedly put there to perform well in very cold weather, and a claim that costs were not properly controlled, observing that GM engineered a unique wiring harness for Saab – division vehicles, rather than using the existing and cheaper Opel unit.
These are interesting observations in their own right, regardless of my opinion of the man.
Yup, an autobiography warrants some amount of boasting and crowing, but I detect a pretty stark and significant difference between Lutz’s and, say, Iacocca’s. I can roll my eyes at stuff either of them says, and neither man could be called a meek, humble, indecisive, quiet introvert. But there seems a qualitative difference in how they wield their egos (and their money, power, influence, etc) and how they describe the wielding, which—as I say—gives me a dimmer opinion of the one than the other.
That ashtray spring spec story sticks out in my mind, too, as an example of this what I’m squawking about.
In 2015, when I bought my first Elantra, I drove a Cruze first. I liked it, better than the Elantra, but not $3,000 better. It felt like a Jetta, though. It had that solid heft that used to be exclusive to VW in that size class. I actually think that right when that became really relevant they nailed it. It really felt like an expensive car, but just not fast. For the last 6 years that it was really important to have a good compact, Chevy did.
I honestly never heard that quote from Lutz and am a bit surprised by it. No doubt he is a blow hard and the ultimate self promoter but his actions with Buick were tangible in the areas of quality.
His stated goal was to make Buick an American Lexus and although the efforts fell short, Buick’s sedans were greatly improved. The original LaCrosse was vastly improved over the preceding Regal even though it still used the aging W-body chassis. It was well put together and reliable, albeit boring.
The replacement using the Epsilon chassis was even better and a great full sized car. I loved Buick’s tag line back then: “The new class of world class”. Aspirational, unlike the horrid “is that a Buick?” campaign.
Unfortunately, Buick is relegated to selling tarted up cross over vehicles
FWIS, Buicks got better because they had to appeal to Chinese buyers cross-shopping them with Mercedes
Too bad these cars became so common throughout the next two decades. Monte Carlos became wallpaper. They became a gateway drug for brougham car addiction which swept away muscle cars, efficient styling, and sedans. Growing up in this era meant climbing over front seats to reach a cramped claustraphobic velour pit. Sorry, I’m not old enough, and too practical to think these cars as desireable.
VanillaDude: It’s hard to take issue with your stance, but “in the day” the shift toward a more appealing (to me, at least) ride/handling balance was quite significant. The GM A-bodies introduced in 1973 were a volume family that took a big step. The Monte Carlo, along with the Grand Am., Grand Prix, and Cutlass Salon were the leading edge of this seismic shift.
What balance? They became soft, poor-handling pseudo-luxury cars with pillows seats, mushy suspension, and tacky styling. Few even bothered with the pretense of handling.
The Collonades all handled substantially better than the earlier A bodies with the Monte Carlo being the cream of the crop, and they did it without sacrificing ride quality as previous harsh HD suspensions tended to.
VanillaDude: This would be unlike the bland and wall-paper like Camry and Accords today? Those two cars are what has ushered in the bland and forgettable appliances so many use to clog up our roadways today.
Camry of 2022 is far from 2002, beige isn’t even offered. And younger buyers like them. “Japanese Buicks” are dead, heck even Buick sedans are no longer sold.
Also, we are awash with ‘trucks’ on highways, with SUV’s and 4 door pickups dominating the market, even with supply chain issues. Not the beige 4 doors of 20 years ago, unless at a retirement village, but even there, elders are turning to CUV’s.
silver = beige on the boring meter. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say the CUV is the new shape of the camcord, they’re dull looking milquetoast appliances just the same.
The Brougham PLC was a fad that had its zenith in mainstream popularity for 10 years max, and unlike today there were more than plenty of alternatives to it to choose if you didn’t like it. Greyscale FWD based 4 door sedans and crossovers are going on 25 years now of being the mainstream standard and that isn’t likely to change other than the switch to EV. Chasing absolute profit and subscription plans will further consolidate cars into one shape and you’re personalized options will be part of a monthly fee. Yeah, thank god we don’t have colorful expressive cars like the Monte Carlo on roads anymore, the present/future of the automobile is soooooo much better off in its stark analytical efficiency!
You must not have driven on our roadways recently. Don’t see many of either “bland” car.
By this time, it had been clear for a while that the muscle cars had already pretty much blown away, though: They’d priced themselves out of their intended market (both in MSRP and in terms of insurance rates), and the survivors were increasingly paper tigerish. The pony cars had also gotten bloated and pricey, which hurt their appeal to the original audience that mostly wanted an affordable commuter with a little panache. So, the two-door Nova and Duster assumed the latter role, and the muscle cars were superseded by cars like this.
I have never driven this, or any generation of the Monte, or it’s siblings at other GM divisions (with the exception of a downsized Cutlass Supreme).
However, I have never cared for the looks of this generation of Monte so it would have to be a pretty good driver.
BTW, I did get to drive a 300 6 3 for a couple of hours back in the early 70s, no complaints about the steering, handling, and certainly not the acceleration.
When did Chevy stop offering a manual transmission in the Monte?
“When did Chevy stop offering a manual transmission in the Monte?”
Some A bodies (including the EL Camino) included a manual option until 1981, but it appears the Monte Carlo last offered it in 1979.
I saw a collanade cutlass with the 260 and 5 speed dog leg transmission. Which the downsized A bodies also had on occasion.
Anything found in this Monte Carlo could be found in a Buick Regal, with classier and more restrained exterior styling cues.
Actually, no. The front suspension and its tuning were unique to the MC; that’s pretty much the whole gist of this article.
Having driven literally dozens of Monte Carlos and Buick Regals as brand new/near new rental cars; I can assure us all that this front suspension that the editors of “Car & Driver” magazine was so enthused about didn’t make it out into “The Real World” very often….it at all.
you are wrong – the Monte Carlo was a much better handler than the Buick – and the Monte Carlo beat the Grand Am as the best of class – the Buick wasn’t even runner up
Mark, the high caster front suspension was the ONLY one ever used on the 73+ MC. The article makes that perfectly clear. Yes, the base MC only had that and standard PS. The S and Landau, which constituted the overwhelming majority (98%) of MC sales, also got the radial tires and the rear sway bar.
I’m guessing you just couldn’t tell the difference. It’s not like the MC was set up to handle like a sports car. It was just better than average for American cars. It set a new bar.
Perhaps so, Paul.
Most of my MC/Regal driving was done in city traffic or crowded interstate expressways; where the high caster suspension would not had been all that noticeable.
It’s also possible that the passing of time since 1973 has dulled and blurred my recalled driving impressions.
I do seem to recall the Buick 350 engine being more peppy than the Chevy 305/350 engines.
To my eyes the exterior styling cues of the Buick Regal were less cartoonish swoopy and more elegant and upscale than the Chevy Monte Carlo.
BTW R&T tested all three of the new GM “Euro” 1973 mid-sizers, (Cutlass salon, Pontiac GA and MC). We posted those here not long ago. R&T deemed the MC the best of the bunch:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/vintage-rt-road-test-1973-chevrolet-monte-carlo-underneath-baroque-architecture-some-nice-chassis-engineering/
Buick didn’t really offer a “Euro” handling package at the time.
Definitely. A co-worker had a 73 Regal that I really liked for it’s styling. Never got to drive it, tho, and being a Buick I would imagine the steering and suspension tuning would be quite different.
Back then I wonder how many Montes had the ” top flight ” suspension tuning which made all the difference? Wasn’t this tuning eventually dialed out in a cost cutting maneuver?
A Buick V8 was not “found” in a MC back then, but GM’s divisional id’s were starting to fade.
I’m laughing reading this. I never thought of these as anything close to a “driver’s car.” These were a triumph of dubious style over substance. Just look at the Stutz influence in the front end and side sculpting. Ugh. Wheelbase extension Rambler style (under the hood only) instead of Jaguar (all in the back seat). Wheelcovers that are nearly as ugly as the long-time Mercury ones but with only fake vent holes. Less than 150 hp.
4 doors or not, the Culass Salon was a much more appealing package. DeLorean is saying the right stuff, but I’m not buying it.
The MC was intended to be a big seller, which it was. DeLorean gets credit for inventing the category, with the ’69 GP. The MC quickly came to dominate the segment, which in turn quickly came to dominate the US sales charts, in the form of the Cutlass Supreme.
The purpose of GM was to sell lots of cars, and the MC and its GM 2-door coupe brethren did just that. The fact that it had a significantly improved front suspension was icing on the cake.
How many Cutlass Salons did Olds sell?
Olds Cutlass whole line [coupes/sedans/wagons], not just the Supreme coupe, was #1 selling model in 1976, and only one year.
Monte Carlo’s sales numbers were not added to the Chevelle/Malibu line, nor were Grand Prix to LeMans. So, that is also why Cutlass was listed as first. If MC and Chevelle were combined, then maybe would been #1 for more then one year?
Monte Carlo and Grand Prix used a longer wheelbase at that time, the Olds line didn’t have that difference, so it wouldn’t make as much sense to separate them. I don’t think it was just ’76, either. I believe it was the #1 in 1984 too.
I’d say the reason Monte Carlo wasn’t combined with Chevelle/Malibu and Grand Prix with LeMans was that they had different bodies (A-Special vs A) and were styled differently. All Cutlass variants shared the A-Body with the same basic styling, and all 2-door Cutlasses had a 112-in. wheelbase vs. the MC and GP which had 116-inch wheelbases (the extra 4 inches produced the longer hoods).
Hate to burst your bubble, but the Monte outsold the Olds and the Pontiac pretty much all years of this generation. DeLorean may have set the Grand Prix on a new trajectory with the 69 model, but he definitely hit the SALES mark with the Monte Carlo. The 73 Monte sold nearly 290K units with the Olds at just under 220K units.
Oldsmobile wanted a version of the 1969 Grand Prix/1970 Monte Carlo. GM management said “no,” but did allow Oldsmobile to place a formal hardtop roofline on its version of the A-body two-door hardtop, and sell it as an upscale version of the Cutlass.
Keeping the formal-roof coupe as part of the Cutlass line turned out to be a winning strategy for Oldsmobile. For several years after 1975, the Cutlass was either the number-one seller, or in hot pursuit of whatever was.
Neat old article in C&D! Love the lead photo. I’ve been researching Delorean for a future CC article and trying to determine which side of him more reflects reality: the flamboyant, superficial con man or the skilled, accomplished auto executive. I think his reign at Chevrolet holds the key, but it is the least written about portion of his career. So, it’s interesting to me to get insights into his time there.
I never knew that the 73 Monte Carlo had handling attributes not shared with other A and G bodies. Since Delorean left Chevrolet soon after, I wonder if the MC’s unique features held for the rest of that generation. Did Chevrolet either drop them or did other divisions pick them up (since they apparently worked so well)? I have heard the 73-77 A-bodies are considered pretty good handlers, for the era at least and with optional handling packages, as are the 77+ B-bodies which used mostly the same chassis.
I also note the AutoWorld ad on the last page. I used to get the AutoWorld model cars catalog when I was a kid (last I got it was early 90’s). Pre-internet, it was a cross between amazon and a candy store for car-crazy model building kids.
I’m reasonably certain that the unique handling features for the Monte Carlo lasted through the 1973-77 run, and that the base model with the 3-on-the-tree but without the radial tires and rear anti-sway bar accounted for about 1% of production in 1973. I’m not sure this price leader was even offered after ’73.
It wasn’t. 1974 was only S and Landau. And yes, the suspension stayed the same through this generation.
Suggested title: The Man DeLorean.
Say it out loud.
Disney might sue. But I’ll keep it in mind:)
Autoworld is still out there, Model Kits, Johnny Lightning and slot cars
I’ve always like these cars, but the Pontiac GP was my personal favorite even though I’ve never owned one single Pontiac in my life. I’ve owned lots of Chevy’s, Buick’s, Olds, Cadillac’s and even one Saturn (between new and used). But never a Pontiac.
I fondly recall my brother having a red with red cloth and a white top MC from around 1973-1975.
I’m sure other GM executives enjoyed reading about DeLorean.
We had a ’73 Century wagon with the heavy duty suspension that I was able to drive with my learner’s permit before Dad traded it for a ’77 Electra with a very soft ride. The wagon developed cowl shudders pretty quickly, there was just too much flexing for the stiffer springs. My memory is that the car could outhandle the tires.
I’ve read that in their ’71 big cars, GM intentionally added frame flexibility to soften major impacts. It would not surprise me if the Colonnades had similar engineering.
My brother and I convinced our mother to buy one of these 1973 Monte Carlos when she was thinking of replacing her ’67 Bel Air with another full-sizer in the summer of 1972. From looking at the brochures, we learned that the big Chevys were now too long to fit in our 1935-era garage, so it was time to downsize.
Now a Malibu 4-door would have been the logical choice, especially since our grandparents lived with us then. But our mother had always purchased 2-door Chevys, so why not spurge for once? We pored over the MC brochures when the ‘73s came out and had her car special-ordered.
It was an S model with the 350 2-barrel V8 like the one tested by R&T, except with no vinyl roof, and was dark blue with matching blue cloth seats. Options were carefully considered, so we added only a/c, AM radio, body side molding, bumper guards (but no rub strips), auxiliary lighting, and a few other minor bits.
We loved the car, but it did have some initial quality issues, such as having to be towed back to the dealer twice due to carb issues. These were fixed somehow, and the car proved to be reliable over the long haul. Those doors were heavy though, the long hood hampered visiblilty when pulling out into blind interesections, and gas mileage couldn’t crack the 20 mpg mark even at 55 mph.
WOW! You made out better than me. I was 12 when the family went to the Chevy dealer to replace the ’64 Impala. One look at the silver Monte Carlo on the floor and I was in love. Silver/burgandy/burgandy Landeau top, and the kicker were the swivel bucket seats. I begged and pleaded, even used the “I’ll buy it from you when I turned 16. But alas it was not meant to be. We left with the burgandy Caprice Classic 4 door hardtop. Buy the time I turned 16, the Mopar bug bit me bad.
Ha, well we had 3 factors going for us: I was 20 and my brother was 18 at the time, the big Chevy wouldn’t fit in our garage, and my mother was resistant to change, so going to 4 doors was not yet an option!
This generation of Monte Carlo became a laughable cliche as there were swarms of silver ones with a red vinyl roof and horrible red velour interior at every singles (swingles) apartment complex in Dallas in the 70s. Grand Prixs gave them a run for their money when guys had a few more dollars to spend.
I have always wondered if some of those engineering tricks made it across the hall into Pontiac’s versions. I recall that my mother’s 74 Luxury LeMans had both front and rear sway bars and a quick steering ratio so that its handling was night and day from the typical Detroit vehicle of just a few years earlier, and from anything Ford was building (at least the ones I drove) even then.
Whether our car had a handling package (though it also had bias ply tires) or whether Pontiac’s basic setup was improved along the lines of that in the Monte Carlo, that Pontiac was a hoot to drive, let down only by the doggish 2 bbl 350. I cannot recall driving a US car with handling in that class until we got the 77 New Yorker equipped with factory HD suspension. Even then I think the Pontiac’s steering was better.
To the best of my knowledge, the specific changes made for the MC (high caster angle) was unique to the MC because its volumes allowed Chevy to justify the changed parts.
It’s important to point out that what was done for the MC was not exactly some radical change; it just contributed to a change in the steering feel to closer approximate the one in a Mercedes.
The suspensions for all of the colonnade cars was new that year, and the other divisions also benefited from that, especially with their sport/HD suspension options.
Just how different the MC felt from the others would have requited a comparison test. I’m not sure that ever happened. I doubt it would have made a big difference, except for a bit more feedback in the steering.
This change was about steering feeling/feedback, not and not so much about actual handling ability.
GM had a good size in the 1968-1972 Cutlass, Chevelle and Buick (was it A or G body?). And their 1969-1972 GP and ’70-’72 MC were good sized so why did they go and make all of the Colonnades bigger outside? I can see reworking the suspensions for better handling, but why make them bigger than their predecessors?
The Chevy, Pontiac, Olds and Buick intermediates were all A bodies except for the MC and GP, those were the G bodies from 70-72 and then in 73 they were all A bodies until the 80s when the FWD A body came out.
The Collonades aren’t that much bigger than the 68-72s, the biggest increase is in length which can probably be attributed to the front 5mph bumpers, which would increase length another couple inches in 1974 when the rear ones were added.
Just imagine what if GM had launched them originally for the 1972 model year instead of 1973? Maybe Chrysler would had replied early launching the Cordoba for 1974 instead of 1975 and would have forced Ford to move the Cougar more earlier to the personnal luxury field. Btw, the September 1972 issue of Car & Driver featured a Monte Carlo on the cover.
Interesting thought. I kind of doubt it because the timing of those moves were tied to other products. Cordoba was part of an overall moderate reworking of the B body, and the Cougar became more of a personal luxury car when it left the Mustang platform after 73.
I’m personally glad for GM’s delay. I like the 68-72 generation better and they have been much more beloved as classic cars than the colonnades.
Did the caster angle change catch on?
In my limited experience, Ford power steering was so numb and feedbackless in the early-mid 70s, you’d think GM & Chrysler would have capitalized on it more than they did. People who were used to it must not have noticed, but I found it scarier than our ’56 Oldsboat.
I suspect the change to r&p steering had a bigger impact on steering feel, and it was a much bigger investment.
Having owned a ’77 with a 350, it really didn’t handle like a boat. Mine had Eagle STs (and rally wheels!) so that may have helped.
But yes, even when I owned it (and it was very clean!) I thought the styling was ridiculous.
I was in grade school when these were introduced, and I recall even young kids associated this generation of Monte with older ladies men. Perhaps, there was validity to the stereotype afterall? lol
My friends and I would sing this Peanuts classic by Vince Guaraldi, when this one particular teacher drove by in his Monte. “Joe Cool, back in school… ” (Couldn’t figure out what we were singing. But, he knew we were making fun of him.) haha
I think ya had to be there to truly appreciate what C&D was saying.
ALTHOUGH…a ’68-72 Chevelle with an F-41 sway bar package, radials and discs was quite competent and comfortable.
YET…it was ChryCo that was known for handling back then, even though concerns about ride quality resulted in their softening up their “torsion-quiet ride” to a point where they weren’t much different then the competition.
And Ford?! Let’s just say their best days of drivability were a few years off in the Fall of ’72.
In the 70s, GM as a whole began to get serious about handling, and even though their mid-and-full-size cars were overwrought and cheap, they were quite driveable for 1973. Again, the best was yet to come. But for that time, it’s not too surprising to see the favorable comparison to Mercedes in the handling department.
The significant difference is that the ’73 Monte Carlo had the handling package “standard” on the vast majority of cars, whereas the F-41 suspension, while available, had to actually be ordered, and the average buyer at the time couldn’t be bothered.
My dad’s first three Chevrolets after leaving the dealership were: ’67 Camaro RS, 327 with 2-barrel, Powerglide (typical ‘secretary’s car’), 1970 Camaro RS, 350 with 2-barrel, Turbo Hydramatic . . . . but . . . . I talked him into spending the couple of bucks extra for the F-41 option, and a ’73 Monte Carlo S, 350 with 2-barrel, Turbo Hydramatic.
Getting him to buy the F-41 option on the ’70 was a complete eye opener for him, and dad was no sports car guy, but had driven enough cars in his business life to be able to tell the difference of a good handling car. By the time of the ’73, he didn’t want yet another Camaro, and my digging up the Car and Driver review for him, and the understanding that the handling package came standard with the automatic was a big selling point.
True to form, dad never owned another Chevrolet without checking the handling package box on the order form (don’t ask about the couple of Buicks he also had in those last 20 years), right up to his final car, a ’92 Caprice with the police suspension package.
That’s the one effect I had on his car buying tastes.
Neat that this article had an impact on him!
This article seems more like a transcribed press – release than an impartial driving impression of a new car. However, GM cars were nicer – driving cars than their American contemporaries, so they were doing something right. And, if true, forcing executives to drive the best of the competition is quite clever
I’ll add…. those neo – classic sculpted body lines. I was a car – crazy 8 year old when these cars came out and I recognized the look. I was very much aware of classic – era 1920’s/30’s influence on American culture of the day, from the movies through to fashion in clothing and interior design.
But even I, at 8 years old thought those body lines were childish , a mocking, ironic imitation of classic era styling . I wondered how many adults would find such an approach appealing. ………..Quite a few, it seems.
Car magazine previews are often press kit-driven, but in this era, Car and Driver, in particular, was in the midst of a 20-year evangelical obsession with European (and eventually more specifically German) road manners and aesthetics. So, anything that seemed like a move in either direction was greeted with loud enthusiasm. In retrospect, it sometimes sounds rather silly, but it was consistent and I assume sincere.
In this case, I think it may also have been a strategic choice. I assume that for advance preview tests like this, even more than with regular road tests, being too vitriolic is a good way not to be invited back, and C/D editors were obviously not impressed by the Monte Carlo’s big selling point, the new styling. You’ll note that the snippy remarks about the styling (“Grosse Pointe Gothic” indeed) are mostly saved for the very end, on the “continued on p. 80” wrap-up, after having said a variety of generally nice and even-handed things to keep the Chevrolet marketing people below the boiling point and the advertising department from tearing out their hair.
To be fair, CD’s gusto for better handling cars seems to have paid off. All modern cars handle well. They don’t pogo, porpoise, wallow or understeer all that much.
When one goes from, say, a 1970 300SEL to a 1970 Caprice Classic, the Benz will be massively better in pretty much every metric. However, were one to go from a 2022 E350 to a 2022 Camry, the Benz isn’t hugely better than the Toyota. In fact, it could well be worse given what I have seen from MB products in the last decade or so.
That’s how far we have come and CD’s advocacy might have something to do it.
I remember too many Chevrolets of this era rode around with their bumper bolts showing. What did they charge for rub strips, $25? They’re like the flat black bumpers of the 90s–cheapskates.
Good point! I mentioned above about special ordering a 1973 MC for my mother. We didn’t realize that “deluxe bumpers” as described in the brochures meant rub strips, so we specified only bumper guards and so got the exposed carriage bolts on the bumper faces.
An interesting period review of a car that was a very common sight on the street. In 1973 or so, it seemed that every stylin’ guy or gal wanted a Monte Carlo or a 240/260 Z. Plus the odd Cordoba or such.
I was a little bemused on reading the spec sheets for the subject 1973 MC. That’s partially because I owned a slightly larger 1973 Fury III 2dr. The Chev 350 2bbl. was rated at 145 hp. My Plymouth 360 2bbl was rated 170. I believe that the front discs are very similar size. On the rear brakes, the Chev has 9.5×2, the Fury 11×2 as I recall.
I did an informal 0-60 timing on my Fury and got approximately a 9 second time. For some reason, Plymouth used a fairly high stall speed torque converter for a production car with the 360. Perhaps it was due to the 4 dr. Fury with 360 4bbl being a very popular urban police car. That was not a fuel mileage enhancing item.
I had a Dodge Diplomat cop car with a 360 4 barrel in it. It really hauled gas. It also sucked ever more fuel than a Chevrolet 9C1, which is saying something.
Who could had guessed what over-wrought and bulging blimpmobile styling changes could happen only 3 years later?
Suspension or not. They were ugly, Grosse Point Gothic sums it up perfectly. The seat backs didn’t recline so I couldn’t fit in any of these 1973-1977 GM personal luxury coupes. But the 1977 New Chevrolet…
This article mentions the base Monte with 3-speed only, but the brochure online shows the S and Landau came standard with the 3-speed and big tires and suspension pieces, too.
I wonder if the base model even lasted the whole ’73 model year. I seem to remember it being something like an asterisk in the brochure, but the brochure I looked at yesterday doesn’t even mention it.