Mecum Auctions (Monte Carlo) and Bring a Trailer (Cordoba)
Although The Trammps’ hit “Disco Inferno” wouldn’t drop until Dec. 28, 1976, the fire was already burning by 1975: Disco and funk were warring with easy listening and classic rock on the Billboard charts, and bell bottoms and crushed velour were everywhere. Flamboyant personal luxury coupes dominated the automotive market, and Chrysler challenged the reigning champion Chevrolet Monte Carlo with a new intermediate personal car called Cordoba. Let’s take a look at how the 1975 Chrysler Cordoba compared with the 1975 Monte Carlo.
1975 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Landau in Dark Red Metallic / Mecum Auctions
The 1973–1977 Chevrolet Monte Carlo was by no means the only personal luxury coupe of this era, but from a commercial standpoint, it was the one to beat. Its predecessor had sold pretty well, but the second-generation Monte introduced in 1973 was a phenomenon: By the end of the 1974 model year, Chevrolet had sold more than 600,000 of them, threatening to eclipse the A-body Chevelle/Malibu series on which the Monte Carlo was based.
1974 Dodge Charger SE in Dark Gold Metallic / Barn Finds
Chrysler Corporation had never had much footing in the personal luxury market. The original 1965 Dodge Monaco had been intended as a Pontiac Grand Prix rival, but it wasn’t distinctive enough to make much impression, and Dodge quickly had second thoughts. When the muscle car market imploded in the early ’70s, Dodge had tried to reinvent the midsize Charger as a personal luxury coupe with the Charger SE (above). Its basic shape wasn’t quite in step with the aesthetic trends of the time, still more Daytona than discotheque, but it was a step in the right direction commercially, so when the B-body intermediates were refreshed for 1975, Dodge dropped the non-SE models and gave the Charger SE a more Monte Carloish look.
1975 Dodge Charger SE in Eggshell White / Mecum Auctions
The original plan, as is now well-known, was to give Plymouth its own version of the new Charger SE coupe, to complement the new intermediate-size Plymouth Fury line. During the development process, however, Chrysler management decided to badge the Chrysler-Plymouth version of the new coupe as a Chrysler rather than a Plymouth, giving it more badge cachet, a higher price, and bigger profits. It was dubbed Cordoba, a name Chrysler had previously used for a special edition of the Chrysler Newport in 1970:
1970 Chrysler Newport in Cordoba Gold / Mecum Auctions
1970 Chrysler Newport Cordoba had special Aztec Gold interior trim / Mecum Auctions
The intermediate-size Cordoba was the smallest U.S. model in years to wear the Chrysler badge. Chrysler had previously resisted the temptation of offering “junior editions” like the Buick Skylark or Oldsmobile Cutlass, but in the wake of the 1973–1974 OPEC oil embargo, this attitude was no longer tenable, and so Cordoba advertising proudly proclaimed it “The new small Chrysler.” They could probably have hedged a bit and called it the new smaller Chrysler, since the Cordoba was still a large car by most standards. However, it was very definitely a Monte Carlo-size car, as this table illustrates:
| Dimension | Monte Carlo | Cordoba |
|---|---|---|
| Overall Length | 213.7 in. | 215.3 in. |
| Wheelbase | 116 in. | 115 in. |
| Track, front | 61.9 in. | 61.9 in. |
| Track, rear | 61.1 in. | 62.0 in. |
| Overall width | 77.6 in. | 77.1 in. |
| Overall height, unladen | 52.7 in. | 52.6 in. |
Despite the similarity in dimensions, the Cordoba didn’t quite match the proportions or the curves of the Monte Carlo. The Chevrolet’s big party trick was shifting the front wheels forward relative to the cowl, providing an extravagantly long hood, which the 1973–1977 cars matched with exaggerated side sculpting that recalled the torpedo fenders of ’40s GM cars.
1975 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Landau / Mecum Auctions
By comparison, the Cordoba appears a little straighter and a little squarer in profile. Its overall proportions really aren’t very different, but it looks like the hood is shorter and the tail longer than the Monte’s.
1975 Chrysler Cordoba in Frosty Green Metallic / Bring a Trailer
The lighting of these photos tends to disguise the flare of the Cordoba’s front and rear fenders: It’s not as pronounced as the Monte Carlo’s, but there’s some, as these front three-quarter views reveal:
1975 Chrysler Cordoba / Bring a Trailer
The swooping fenders were central to the aesthetic appeal of the Monte Carlo and its Pontiac Grand Prix and Cutlass Supreme coupe siblings — not to mention a big part of what differentiated them from the regular A-body coupes. On the other hand, if you thought the GM approach was over the top, the comparatively conservative side profile of the Cordoba and Charger SE was perhaps more palatable, albeit still firmly in the same genre.
1975 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Landau / Mecum Auctions
When it came to the front end, the aesthetic balance was reversed. Despite the tunneled headlight treatment, from head on, the Monte Carlo seemed a bit staid, with its narrower grille arguably having less visual impact than the grille of the cheaper Malibu Classic coupe.
1975 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Landau in Dark Red Metallic / Mecum Auctions
1975 Chevrolet Malibu Classic in Dark Brown Metallic / Mecum Auctions
By contrast, the Imperial-like grille of the Cordoba was suitably imposing, and setting the turn signal lenses inboard of the headlights, with their own tunnels, added some gravitas and a bit of Jaguar XJ6 flavor.
1975 Chrysler Cordoba in Frosty Green Metallic / Bring a Trailer
1975 Jaguar XJ6 sedan in black / Chequered Flag International via ClasicCars.com
It was a similar story in the rear. After the dramatic swell of its rear fenders and Eldorado-style vee-shaped backlight, the Monte Carlo’s tail and taillights seemed a tad anticlimactic:
1975 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Landau / Mecum Auctions
Extending the sculpted rear decklid past the taillights added another 1930s note to the Cordoba’s neoclassical themes, although there was something aesthetically unresolved about the clutter of different shapes, and the too-obvious shutlines of the trunk added to the jumbled effect. Also, I think the chrome-ribbed triple side marker lights on the front and rear fenders seemed a little out of place on a car like this, like a JATO bottle on a biplane.
1975 Chrysler Cordoba / Bring a Trailer
Additionally, as XR7Matt pointed out, the Cordoba rear treatment also looks not a little like the Monte Carlo’s Pontiac Grand Prix cousin:
1973 Pontiac Grand Prix SJ in Light Gold Metallic with Burgundy vinyl top / MJClassicCars via ClassicCars.com
If you didn’t like vinyl tops, shopping for a new car in 1975 was like trying to order lunch at El Pollo Loco or KFC with a serious chicken allergy. I don’t have model-specific statistics on vinyl top installation rates, but Automotive Industries reported that 46.3 percent of all new U.S. cars in 1975 had vinyl roofs, and the percentage for cars in this class was surely much higher. A vinyl top was standard on the Monte Carlo Landau (which also had the Turbine II urethane styled wheels, pinstriping, and sport mirrors), and was commonly specified on the Monte Carlo S, where it was a $123 option.
1975 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Landau with maroon (Dark Red) landau top / Bring a Trailer
Both full-length halo-style and landau tops were optional on the Cordoba, but the latter seems to have been more common. The B-pillar “opera lights” were standard.
1975 Chrysler Cordoba with green landau top / Bring a Trailer
The Monte Carlo rode a perimeter frame with coil springs all around, while the Cordoba had a unit body with torsion bars in front and semi-elliptical leaf springs in back. Both cars had rear anti-roll bars and front disc brakes. Heavy-duty suspensions were optional, for $17.00 on the Monte and $23.70 on the Cordoba. In standard form, the Monte Carlo was a bit more nimble, benefiting from the suspension geometry improvements made for 1973, but both cars were tuned for a plush ride rather than agile handling.
1975 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Landau / Bring a Trailer
1975 Chrysler Cordoba / Bring a Trailer
Both the red and green cars pictured in this post have the standard 1975 engines: the L65 350-2V in the Chevrolet, with 145 hp and 250 lb-ft of torque, and the 360-2V in the Cordoba, with 180 hp and 290 lb-ft of torque. Neither of these engines was available in California for 1975, but California buyers could get four-barrel versions of these engines that weren’t available elsewhere, with an extra 10 hp.
Chevrolet L65 350-2V V-8 / Mecum Auctions
Monte Carlo buyers who wanted more power could pay an extra $113 for the LT4 400-4V engine, with 175 hp and 305 lb-ft of torque, or $285 for the LS4 Turbo-Fire 454, which had dual exhausts, 215 hp, and 350 lb-ft of torque. The LS4 was not available in California this year, and with buyers gun-shy about the fuel crisis, it was rarely ordered elsewhere.
Chrysler LA-series 360-2V V-8 / Bring a Trailer
Cordoba buyers could potentially order three 400 engines in place of the 360: the 400-2V, with 165 hp and 295 lb-ft of torque, or the 400-4V, making 175 hp and 300 lb-ft with single exhaust, or 235 hp and 320 lb-ft with duals. Only the single-exhaust 400-4V was available in California. For buyers nervous about fuel consumption, the 318 was also available as a no-cost alternative to the 360, although for cars in this two-ton weight class, it was a false economy: Motor Trend found the 318-powered Charger SE, with a 2.71 axle, needed 15.5 seconds to reach 60 mph and returned 19.47 mpg when driven gently, while the 360-2V Cordoba, with a 2.45 axle, managed 21.47 mpg while still running from 0 to 60 in 11.87 seconds. (Either a Cordoba with the dual-exhaust 400-4V or a Monte Carlo with the 454 could break 10 seconds in the 0 to 60 sprint, but people didn’t buy these cars for speed.)
1975 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Landau with Turbo Hydra-Matic / Bring a Trailer
In principle, automatic transmission was still optional on the Monte Carlo, listing for $235 in 1975. However, manual-shift cars were so rare that Automotive Industries erroneously stated that the Monte wasn’t offered with manual transmission in 1974 or 1975, and the stick shift wasn’t available with either the 400 or the 454.
1975 Chrysler Cordoba with column-shifted TorqueFlite / Bring a Trailer
Chrysler didn’t play that particular game, so there was no pretense of the Cordoba being available with any transmission other than TorqueFlite; a floor shifter was available with bucket seats and a center console. The Cordoba also included gauges for oil pressure, coolant temperature, and amps. The red Monte Carlo has a temperature gauge and an ammeter, but they were part of a $42.50 option that also included an “Econominder” gauge to encourage thriftier driving habits. (Chrysler instead offered a gimmicky “Fuel Pacer” system, which added an economy light in place of the turn signal indicator on the driver’s side front fender.)
1975 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Landau with Dark Red cloth bench / Mecum Auctions
Unlike the Chrysler, the Monte Carlo didn’t offer leather upholstery in 1975. The red car has the standard cloth upholstery and bench seat, although Strato-buckets and a center console were still available.
1975 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Landau with Dark Red cloth bench seat / Bring a Trailer
This low-mileage green Cordoba lacks the “rich Corinthian leather” of legend, which was optional, and only available with bucket seats in 1975.
1975 Chrysler Cordoba with green crushed velour upholstery / Bring a Trailer
Although the Bring a Trailer listing describes the green Cordoba as having buckets, I think this is actually the standard split-back bench in green crushed velour. (Brocade upholstery was available as a no-cost alternative, and there was also a much more ornate-looking dark red velour option at extra cost.) It’s hard to distinguish the split-back bench and buckets at a glance unless you’re familiar with the upholstery patterns or the buckets are paired with the center console, which was a separate option.
1975 Chrysler Cordoba with green crushed velour split-back bench seat / Bring a Trailer
Here’s a different 1975 Cordoba with buckets, console, floor shifter, and the famous “soft Corinthian leather.”
1975 Chrysler Cordoba with black leather-and-vinyl bucket seats / Barn Finds
Since no mention of the Cordoba would be complete without it, here’s the first Ricardo Montalban TV spot extolling the optional Corinthian leather (a marketing term concocted by copywriter Jim Nichols of the Omaha-based ad agency Bozell — Chrysler actually got its leather trim from Radel Leather Manufacturing Co. in New Jersey).
Despite the vinyl woodgrain on the instrument panel and steering wheel, a Monte Carlo with the standard bench seat mostly looked like a Chevelle inside:
1975 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Landau with red cloth interior / Mecum Auctions
There was a fancier Custom Cloth interior treatment on the Monte Carlo options list, priced at $260.00 with a 50/50 split bench or $252.50 with Strato-buckets …
1975 Chevrolet Monte Carlo with blue Custom Cloth split-bench seat / Old Car Manual Project Brochure Collection
… but the fanciest thing in this Dark Red car’s interior was the Landau wreath badge on each door:
1975 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Landau / Bring a Trailer
With its crushed velour trim and deep-pile shag carpeting, the Cordoba looked more ornate inside:
1975 Chrysler Cordoba with green velour upholstery / Bring a Trailer
A controversial point was the Cordoba’s filigreed metal trim, which contemporary reviewers generally hated. Even the normally polite Motor Trend remarked, “The trim looks cheap, and all it does is distract from an otherwise excellent interior.” They didn’t comment on the digital clock, a standard Cordoba feature.
1975 Chrysler Cordoba / Bring a Trailer
Given the similarities in their dimensions, you’d think the Monte Carlo and Cordoba would be similar in rear seat capacity. However, while the specifications gave the Cordoba the edge in everything but headroom, Motor Trend complained that “the rear seats are almost unusable unless the front seats are at least halfway forward.” The Monte Carlo wasn’t much better, however, and the steep rake of the rear seat backrest wasn’t a recipe for long-haul comfort. Headroom also suffered with the optional sunroof, which neither of these cars has.
1975 Chevrolet Monte Carlo with Dark Red cloth upholstery / Bring a Trailer
1975 Chrysler Cordoba with green velour upholstery / Bring a Trailer
The Cordoba specifications I’ve been able to find are curiously silent on the subject of trunk space, but to look at the trunks of these cars suggests something of a draw: The Monte might have had slightly greater usable volume, probably adequate for a weekend trip for two, where the Cordoba’s slightly lower liftover height was somewhat compromised by the smaller opening — which might have been narrow enough to elicit some colorful language when trying to load or unload a particularly bulky suitcase or golf bag.
1975 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Landau / Bring a Trailer
1975 Chrysler Cordoba / Bring a Trailer
Both of these cars have air conditioning, which was specified by more than nine out of ten buyers. Chrysler also offered automatic climate control on the Cordoba, but Chevrolet didn’t offer its Comfortron system on the 1975 Monte Carlo.
1975 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Landau / Bring a Trailer
Neither of these cars has the optional power windows, which, somewhat surprisingly, were specified by only 39.4 percent of Cordoba buyers and 23.8 percent of Monte Carlo buyers this year.
1975 Chrysler Cordoba / Bring a Trailer
Comparing prices is a trickier matter because I don’t have a complete 1975 Cordoba option price list. However, the Cordoba started at $5,072 while the Monte Carlo Landau started at $4,754 with automatic transmission. Comparably equipped with typical options, I think the Cordoba would probably cost $350 to $400 more than a Monte Carlo Landau, and $600 or so more than a base Monte Carlo S. If you liked the Cordoba styling but not the price, you could split the difference with the similar-looking Charger SE, which started at $4,903, but contemporary buyers apparently considered the prestige of the Chrysler badge to be well worth the extra $169. The Cordoba outsold the Charger SE by a huge margin: 150,105 cars to 30,812 in 1975.
1975 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Landau / Mecum Auctions
The brand of luxury these cars represent is an acquired taste that’s become somewhat rarefied over the years. Considered within the parameters of this genre, I think the Monte Carlo seems overcooked in some areas and overly bland in others, betraying its kinship with the Chevelle/Malibu. On the other hand, that kinship kept the price down, and if the net effect was something like wearing a Halston Ultrasuede sport coat over Wrangler jeans, it was a vibe that a lot of contemporary buyers seemed comfortable with, whether the music blasting from their 8-track decks ran to “Shining Star,” “One of These Nights,” or “Jive Talkin'” (Nos. 7, 10, and 12 on the 1975 Billboard Top 100, respectively). Little wonder that the Monte was again the champion of its segment in 1975, with production totaling 258,909 cars.
1975 Chrysler Cordoba / Bring a Trailer
By comparison, the Cordoba seems like a more complete ensemble, even if some of its detailing and accessories weren’t always in the best of taste. (i confess I’m not sold on the filigreed metal trim or the gold coin hood ornament.) This green car feels more firmly rooted in easy listening or middle-of-the-road than disco or funk, but that still worked out well for Chrysler — the Cordoba quickly became a much needed money-spinning hit. And besides, the No. 1 song on the Billboard singles charts in 1975 was not yet Gloria Gaynor or the Bee Gees, but rather a poppy cover of the 1973 Neil Sedaka song “Love Will Keep Us Together” by Captain & Tennille.
Related Reading
Curbside Classic: 1970 Chevrolet Monte Carlo – A Modest Beginning To A Huge Hit (and Hips) (by Paul N)
Vintage Reviews & Comparison Test: 1970 Chevrolet Monte Carlo – Personal Luxury Gate Crasher (by GN)
Vintage R&T Road Test: 1973 Chevrolet Monte Carlo – “Underneath Baroque Architecture, Some Nice Chassis Engineering” (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1976 Chevrolet Monte Carlo – Finding Your Comfort Zone (by Jason Shafer)
My Curbside Classic: 1976 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Landau – Hope You Like Green (by Chris Green)
Curbside Classic: 1976 Chrysler Cordoba – Fine Corinthian Brougham (by Tom Klockau)
CC Capsule: 1976 Chrysler Cordoba – The Stuff Dreams Are Made Of (by Gerardo Solis)
Car Show Outtakes: 1977 Chrysler Cordoba & 1974 Chevrolet Monte Carlo – Smile! (by Joseph Dennis)
Craigslist Classics: Personal Luxury Cars, Ten Years After–1967 Ford Thunderbird and 1977 Chrysler Cordoba (by Aaron65)
It could be interesting to know how the Cordoba would have done if it was a Plymouth and if it was, would they still called Cordoba or using other names like Belmont or Mirada (later used by Dodge).
Still, what if the 1975 Charger got a front end close to what the 1978-79 Magnum XE got?
And if you’re interested in which songs who charted the Billboard Hot 100 in 1975 along with the Cashbox Top 100, who was once Billboard’s big rival.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_1975
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cash_Box_Top_100_number-one_singles_of_1975
Still, what if the 1975 Charger got a front end close to what the 1978-79 Magnum XE got?
I wonder this too, I also wonder how the Charger would have performed in the market had the Cordoba been a Plymouth as intended. These are fascinating cars to speculate on. The Magnum was more or less a flop like the Charger of 75-78 was but to my eyes(much much younger than the target demo of the time, in fact lacking existence), but was it too obvious of a facelift to the target demo? Was it just outdated in its size to be taken as a credible sporty car? Ultimately I think the answers to these questions doomed it, whether the production Magnum or the imaginary to us 1975 with the same style.
I actually kind of sort of like the 75-78 Charger over the Cordoba for various trim reasons, and am quite fond of the Magnum, but I have eclectic tastes; I’ve held onto a 94 Cougar for 20 years this year not just for nostalgia but I always liked the design few others do, whatever. The Magnum was probably too little too late and still too much of a departure from the Charger for 1975 if it debuted then.
The other “what if” I’ve pondered which I’m pretty sure was from here on CC regarding the Australian Landau fastback/LTD mashup is what if the 73-74 Charger body carried over to 75 and just the front end of the 75 was grafted onto it; would it have done better or worse? The front end is definitely the highlight of the Cordoba/Charger IMO, and where the formalized body worked great for the Cordoba I think that aspect more than any is what killed the Charger’s credibility.
I miss the corduroy and velour interiors of the past. More comfortable, more breathable, more durable than the plastic thread seats of today.
Also miss the variety of colors. Again, everything is jet black today…yuck!!
There was a day, when GM and I were friends, that I’d choose the Monte Carlo. I recall riding in a 1973 model with my dad’s boss. He ordered it all the way including the 454 and at 10 the power was impressive.
However, after my last GM pickup left me holding the bag, I don’t really think about them anymore. A failing transmission is one thing. But to be told that “there are simply no parts available to fix your truck” well, I fold.
So, yes, I would look at a Cordoba. And if I had my now mature mind, I’d look at Toyota!
Great read
FWIW, I wonder if the split-back bench seats pointed out in the Cordoba pictures were actually the 60/40 split bench. They were very common on the 78 models i was familiar with. Extremely comfortable.
Chrysler described the seat as a “split-back bench seat with folding center armrest.” See the Cordoba pages of the 1975 Chrysler dealer data book.
Fantastic write up Aaron!! Thank you for this in-depth examination! I’d go with the Monte…it just seemed so much more stylish for at the time…
It may be hard for those who weren’t around to appreciate how popular the Monte Carlo was in the early Seventies. They were everywhere.
The Cordoba was launched in the teeth of the 1975 recession and wasn’t as ubiquitous but given the economy and Chrysler’s well publicized financial problems it sold amazingly well. Derivative it may have been but it was the right car at the time. Being a Chrysler instead of a Plymouth, to answer Stephane’s question above, elevated it considerably, I’m sure. The Chrysler name still meant something to many people at the time.
Still, had that been a Plymouth, I wonder if it might helped Plymouth in sales and production numbers for 1975 who was around 462 000 cars compared to 654 000 cars for 1974 to better face the oil crisis?
Then what if the Cordoba was released a model year earlier instead of having the C-bodies restyled for the 1974 model year?
Plymouth was paired with Chrysler, so the question for dealers would have been, “Would badging it as a Plymouth, with less content and lower prices, increase sales volume enough to make up for somewhat thinner per-car margins?” As the division eventually concluded, I think the answer was “Probably not” (although that’s a debatable point), and badging it as a Chrysler with a $5,000+ sticker probably lowered the break-even point significantly.
The Cordoba for me, if it had to come down to one of them. I could never quite swallow the MC’s huge hips. And the round-headlight Cordoba front end is quite well done.
None of this rubbish about Corinthian Leather coming from NJ; it really did come from the town of Corinth, Italy.
Lies!
What would have become of Chrysler (the company and the nameplate) without the Cordoba? I hate to think. It had been a long time since Chrysler built a car that appealed to people other than Mopar loyalists.
That emblem that looked like a Spanish coin – that was the work of a guy in Chrysler’s styling department named Don Butler. Don was a cousin to my mother and I met him a couple of times. He did trim and emblems, and specifically told me that he had done this one. He retired not long after.
I see the Jaguar resemblance, but the inboard parking lights proportionally make me think Camaro RS even more.
That too, yeah.
I went for the ’75 Monte, but the Cordoba interior’s were more plush, considering they used genuine Corinthian leather from Sterling Heights. Odd point is that my two Monte’s were built in Oshawa (or “Scwha” for the locals), and the Cordoba’s were built in Windsor, Ontario. so maybe Corinthian leather really came from retired Quebec dairy cattle?
I like the Cordoba front view quite a lot. My father had one for a year as a company car. Looking at the profile picture here, as compared to the MC, it just seems that something is off. The Cordoba is 2″ longer so maybe that has something to do with it but, to me, the greenhouse looks a tad too small. Hard to put a finger on it. Maybe a two inches longer in the back or an inch taller. Something, that I didn’t see in person. The profile of the MC looks fine to my eye.
The Cordoba greenhouse isn’t really smaller, but it looks somewhat smaller because the windshield is more raked and the backlight lacks the vee-shape of the Monte. I think it’s mostly perceptual (to the extent that the Cordoba greenhouse is smaller in volume — if it is at all — it’s ahead of the steering wheel and behind the package shelf), but I see what you mean.
I had never noticed just how much more raked back the Cordoba’s windshield is than the Monte’s before reading this. The difference is quite pronounced.
That’s because much of this inner body is a carryover from the 1971 Charger and Satellite coupes.
It would be hard to drive anything that says “late ’70s” more than one of these cars. I think the Chrysler corporation made the right move in not branding these a Plymouth. Somehow the name “chrysler” carried the right message in this market.
My Dad worked at the Chev Olds emporium in this period, and I rode in the back seat of plenty of Montes and Cutlass’s. Back seat accomodations were very much a secondary consideration with these.
While the Monte spurs some nostalgia, today I think I’d take a Cordoba with this green interior!
The Cordoba rear was borrowed from the Eldorado, with different taillight placement.
I wonder why Chevy didn’t switch the MC and Chevelle grilles so they better match the cars’ themes.
How long did the A Body swivel buckets last after ’73? They looked too low-mounted for practical use, and the lowish backs required shortish people.
Also a whole lot of Grand Prix back there, including taillight placement
This is an excellent point that hadn’t occurred to me — I noted that in the text, with a picture of the ’73, whose taillight shape is closer to the Cordoba’s.
I think the Grand Prix resemblance is stronger than the 1971–’72 Eldorado relationship. Although the Eldo is also using the sculpted decklid to evoke early ’30s accessory trunks, the different shape and taillight placement is less similar, and the Cordoba tail doesn’t look much like the 1973–1975 Eldorado, which lost a lot of the original sculpted shape.
The Grand Prix resemblance is quite strong, though, including the awkwardly shaped trunk opening the deck design produces (which is worse than on the Cordoba).
That said, I think the Grand Prix pulls off the rear deck treatment better because the way the deck is peaked in the middle echoes the vee-shape of the backlight. With the Cordoba, the sculpted center section of the deck has no graphical relationship to the rest, so while it’s neoclassical, it doesn’t seem as cohesive.
I agree. In my head I had the resemblance noted but when googling GPs for an image I thought “wow that’s a lot better looking”
Could they have seen the ’73 GP (which had simple side lights) in time to influence the ’75 Cordoba?
Maybe? I’m not sure about the particulars of the development timeline.
I turned 21 in 1975, so I was at the right place to experience the disco phenomenon first hand. The fashions may seem kind of tacky now, but it was nice to see young people getting dressed up and hitting the clubs and discos. Especially after the hippie thing of the ’60’s, where grooming and sometimes, personal hygiene were not priorities, with many. By 1976 I was working at GMAD Fremont Ca, screwing together many of the new Monte Carlos that were being enjoyed by buyers everywhere. Plain Montes like the red one featured here were pretty much the norm, a really loaded up, highly optioned example would catch my attention because they were so rare.
I had a co worker who ordered a new Monte and found out when it was going to be built. He had talked to assemblers at each station along the way, advising them that HIS car was coming down the line soon. He took “build” day off, and came in and followed his car down the assembly line ensuring that every operation was done correctly. That had to be the best Monte Carlo ever made!
The success of the Monte Carlo was that the car looked great to most people, even those who wouldn’t buy one because they needed something more practical. The car started off as being affordable, and the buyer could either keep it that way, or doll it up to near El Dorado specs. And it was a Chevy underneath, nothing pretentious. Chevy still had a strong reputation for building reliable cars at this time. The purchase of a Monte Carlo was an indulgence, but not seen as something totally irresponsible.
While I liked the ’73 Monte best, without the impact bumpers, I thought that the ’76 was still pretty nice as it still had the dual round headlamps. I could have bought a new Monte at that time, but I was driving a ’70 Coupe de Ville and there was no question that it was a much superior car in every way. Though today I wouldn’t mind having a Monte Carlo.
To me the Monte Carlo looked…and still looks…like a caricature to the point of being grotesque.
Its cousin Pontiac Grand Prix looks a whole lot better. But in the sport-luxury era, Chrysler got the Cordoba right, quite a change from its origins as the shrunken 1962 Dodge and Plymouth.
My wife learned to drive in her father’s ’76 Cordoba, the only car he ever bought brand new, and yes, it had soft, Corinthian leather. She had to sit on phone books to see over the steering wheel and used the hood ornament as an aiming device. The Cordoba probably saved Chrysler’s bacon in the mid 70s. Although the Duster, Valiant and Dart sold reasonable well, the profit margin on the Cordoba was likely much, much higher.
One of my girlfriends in college had a ’76 Monte Carlo that I enjoyed driving. Despite the long hood and being so much bigger than my ’74 Celica, the Monte handled well, and hers had the 350, so it could move. The interior on these cars is awfully plain, though. A Malibu Classic had a fold down center armrest, something you couldn’t get on a Monte Carlo with a standard interior until the 80s. I probably would have chosen a Cutlass, Grand Prix or Regal for their nicer interiors compared to the Monte.
Chevy Vegas
Ford Pintos
Death of the muscle cars
High insurance rates
Energy Crisis 1
Watergate
Nixon resignation
Gerald Ford
Inflation
The fall of Saigon
Disco
Polyester
Strange Fashion
Energy Crisis ll
Jimmy Carter
Amercan hostages in Iran
Three Mile Island
I guess the 70s were a decade to remember ……..for all the wrong reasons.
The first one of these I remember was the brand-new Cordoba bought by our neighbor in the summer of 1975. The car was metallic maroon with a white landau vinyl roof, and velour maroon interior. It was a sharp car. This family was originally from the Detroit area, and the story was that he had flown home to visit his mother, picked up the Cordoba there, and drove it home.
We saw these as a copy of the Monte Carlo, but they were an improvement in some ways. Starting with the all-new 1974 C-body, and continuing with its 1975 intermediates and the 1976 F-body, Chrysler Corporation did the best job of integrating the 5-mph bumpers into the overall design. GM cars seemed to have a chrome railroad tie hung on each end, and the Fords weren’t much better.
While the Cordoba was a success, turning the Dodge Charger into a badge-engineered version of the Cordoba destroyed its sales. The 1973 and 1974 Chargers had been fairly successful, if I recall correctly. The 1978-79 Magnum was more distinctive offering. While sales weren’t very high, it did sell better than the 1975-77 Charger, even though the basic design was long-in-the-tooth by that point.
I always found it strange that the Charger was offered concurrently with the Magnum in 1978. I just assumed it replaced the Charger. Then I found a brochure for it at the local Dodge dealer. Other than that brochure, they were invisible amid all the promotion of the Magnum.
Good side-by-side. At the time I didn’t notice how thoroughly the Cordoba was trying to copy the Monte!
The two-way wipe or wash switch is a neat gimmick. Valiants had an ordinary turn knob.
The Monte Carlo is garish, yet extremely popular. Shame it has those Baroque fender lines. The rest of the auto styling is very nice. I’d rather have a Chrysler than a Chevy. The Cordoba is tastefully styled. It was more exclusive. Monte Carlos were EVERYWHERE. I bet there were more than a few on my blue-collar neighborhood, but no Cordobas.
In the end, the MC is the definitive PLC, but the Cordoba is just a better version of them.
I love the Monte Carlo fenders, because no other car maker was doing anything like it. I think it’s the fenders that make the Monte Carlo unique.
The Monte was a mostly well built car at the time. The same cannot be said for any Chrysler, which were hit and miss to the extreme.
Management at Chrysler was so stuck in the mud that this was the “small” Chrysler. Meanwhile across town, Cadillac had introduced a truly small Cadillac, the Seville. It’s the same year that The Chrysler Corporation decided that Imperial didn’t need to be a separate brand. One of the many reasons that the corporation and the Chrysler brand were in such dire straits by the end of the decade.
A .9 of an inch smaller wheelbase and a comparable curb weight does not make a Seville “truly smaller” than a Cordoba.
Well, the Seville was over 11 inches shorter overall and over 5 inches narrower than the Cordoba. However, as you say, the Seville did weigh about as much, and I have a very hard time calling a 17-foot-long, 4,300-pound car “truly small” even by the standards of the mid-70s.
But Cadillac introduced the Seville in Spring 1975, making it probably as a “1975½” or 1976 model than a 1975 model.
And the Cordoba had worked so well, then Chrysler decided to get another “small” Chrysler with the M-body LeBaron who morphed later into Fifth Avenue.
The second-gen Monte Carlo, along with the contemporary Ford Gran Torino, are the two Seventies automotive style icons that became horribly dated ten minutes after production ended. I have never liked the Monte Carlo, then or now, for the reasons cited above: tacky exterior styling and, as typically equipped, an interior that offered no luxury or indeed little more than a plastic-lined basic Malibu.
I find the Cordoba somewhat better looking, with a much nicer interior that would never be confused with the Fury coupe across the showroom floor. The cloth interior looks quite nice though I would have preferred that fine Corinthian leather on the buckets.
Still, if pressed, I would have opted for a well-equipped Olds Cutlass Supreme rather than either of these two.
Excellent write up, Aaron! I was ten years old when these cars came out and they were everywhere. A family friend had a Cordoba identical to the one featured here and one my playmate’s dads had a 1975 Monte Carlo. The Monte was loaded and had the 454, the only one I have ever seen in the wild. At that age, my major concern for cars was how roomy the back seat was. It struck me as odd that cars this big has such cramped rear accommodations. Another friend’s dad has a Chrysler Newport which was, in my childhood opinion, a much better place to send time than the back seat of a two door coupe.
Loads of these cars were sold but they were not exactly known for their durability. They disappeared off the streets very suddenly.
I never really thought of it until you made this comparison, but the GM vs. Mopar styling approach of these two cars echoes the same relationship between the two companies’ 1968 intermediates.
I hated both of these cars, but was unable to avoid spending a fair amount of time in either one. A friend of mine, at 19(WTF?) ordered a ’74 MC, but it ended up coming in as a ’75. It had a 350 and was optioned to the max. I don’t think there was anything you could get on it that it didn’t have, except maybe a block heater. It was maroon inside and out, and I drove it and while I hated the plain old Chevelle too(and every other Colonade car), I would have taken it over the MC, anytime. A family friend bought a Cordoba, I didn’t hate its looks as much as I did the MC, it was in a sort of silverish blue, and like the MC, was loaded up with options. It had the 360 2 barrel on it, soon replaced with a Thermo-Quad four barrel from a wrecked ’74 Charger and an aluminum Edelbrock intake manifold. Dual exhaust, and 3.55 gears were also added and it drove very much like a softer version of my ’74 Roadrunner, which made perfect sense. I moved away for 7 years, and when I came back, I was shocked that both cars were still around, if now pretty tired looking. By the time both were 10 years old, they were gone, never to be seen again. The guy who had the MC drives a 300 C today, and the couple that had the Cordoba drive (him) a Challenger Scat Pack, and her a Charger Scat Pack.
Given the choice between these two, I’d go for the Cordoba. That green combination looks really nice, and the Chrysler is a better representation of the PLC than the Monte.
Like others have said regarding the Monte, there’s just too much Chevelle/Malibu DNA here to be taken as seriously as the Cordoba.
The “Rolling Hills” on the side profile of the Chevrolet are just too much. By 1984, they had toned that down and it was a bit more palatable, although by then, I preferred the Grand Prix, but ultimately chose the Thunderbird.
I suppose that the statute of limitations has long since expired, but I’m still embarrassed to say that my brother and I in our college years convinced our mother to replace her austere 1967 Chevy Bel Air 2-door sedan with a 1973 Monte Carlo. This came about when she began thinking about a new car in the summer of 1972, and we learned that the large Chevys would no longer fit in our 18-foot-long garage. Therefore, it was obvious that something smaller was needed.
The best choice in retrospect, if in fact she insisted on sticking with Chevy, was to get a Malibu 4-door, especially since our aging grandparents were living with us at the time. Instead, she went with our advice and got a Monte Carlo with those long heavy doors and difficult entry into the rear seat. This is where my grandfather sat when my grandmother also rode along with my mother driving (neither of them ever learned to drive).
We thought the Monte Carlo of the time was a spectacular looking car; in fact, my brother commented that it was the “best looking [domestic] ‘73.” The car was special ordered with a limited number of options, including air conditioning, AM radio, body side molding, bumper guards, auxiliary lighting, and other minor features.
Standard features on the S model included the 350 cubic inch 2-barrel V8, automatic transmission, power steering, power disc/drum brakes, and 15-inch radial tires. We did not order the optional vinyl roof, a wise decision in hindsight. It looked good in dark blue metallic, with a matching dark blue cloth interior.
I still think the original ‘73 is the best looking of the second-generation Monte Carlos, mainly because of the fine-mesh grille and round headlights up front plus the rear 2.5 mph bumper containing the license plate and the deck lid extending down to the bumper, reducing liftover height.
Overall, it turned out to be a reliable car once we got past the initial teething problems. One little nit that I remember was the ill-fitting plastic glove compartment lid.