(first posted 9/1/2015) Mom had come to visit me in Chicago several years ago, and she and I had taken the Metra commuter rail out to the southwestern Chicago suburb of Aurora to visit with an old family friend. Alvina was waiting for us in the restaurant adjacent to the station, but as soon as Mom and I deboarded the train, I spotted a Chevrolet Monte Carlo from the dawn of the so-called Malaise Era that I knew I had to photograph. I then noticed it happened to be parked next to its as-yet-final iteration, the refreshed 2006-’07 W-Body. Mom politely abided me, fanning herself in the shade, while I got a few shots of both cars. (Thanks, Mom.)
Flipping through the frames in my camera’s viewer, I wondered if the owner/driver of the newer Monte was aware he or she had parked next to his / her car’s predecessor. I imagined the respective drivers of each car being quite different – with the older one being owned by a working-class male in his late-twenties / early-thirties, and with the newer one perhaps being driven by a middle-aged female with an office job. This isn’t to stereotype – these guesses would be based on previous observations of drivers of cars similar to these. These two Chevies, separated by three decades, simply seem reflective of different walks of life despite sharing a nameplate.
The expressively-styled ’75 looks like yet another GM Colonnade coupe which could have been transported from my Michigan high school’s parking lot in the late 80’s / early 90’s. The cars I like best tend to be closest to factory stock, but in terms of aftermarket wheels, I can think of only a handful of mid-70’s coupes that Cragars would not improve the looks of. The rattlecan grey and suspension rake don’t disagree with me, either. The neatly creased rear window appeared to be sealed with duct tape – a situation which probably should have been addressed ASAP with a more permanent solution (I’m hoping it was), and there was some apparent lower-body rot, but otherwise, this ’75 appeared to have some decent bones for a daily driver.
With the newer Monte not being a period piece, I focused not on its condition, but on its styling – questioning the success of the 00’s interpretation of the classic, Colonnade Monte Carlo design cues. Let’s forget for a second that the older one is RWD and the newer one is powered by the front wheels. I’m glad the opera windows weren’t brought back – those fulfilled their role in the 70’s, but didn’t need an encore. The echoes of the pontoon fenders etched into the bodyside sculpturing was a tastefully-scaled retro touch. That the 2006-’07 models shared the Impala’s front-end sheetmetal didn’t enhance the family resemblance to older Monte Carlos, but I think the final front was more attractive than that of the 2000-’05 models – which looked a little like it was perpetually welling up. I do give Chevy extra points for bringing back the pleasing, teardrop shape of the older car’s taillights.
One styling element of the last models I never quite understood was the humped trunklid. That wasn’t one of the original styling cues from any previous generation of Monte Carlo, and it just didn’t work. The standard trunklid spoiler which came in the final two seasons seemed like a tacit acknowledgement of this from the Bow Tie people. That piece of plastic improved the looks of the last cars immensely.
Chevrolet had moved over 130,000 units of the inaugural-year 1970 models (one of which, coincidentally, was the last production Chevrolet automobile to roll off an assembly line in my hometown of Flint, Michigan). While the Monte Carlo would go on to sell 411,000 for banner year ’77, the ’75 total was almost 259,000 – a very healthy figure. The final ’07 models sold a paltry 4% of the ’75 figure (just under 11,000). There were six model years between 1989 and 1994 when there was no Monte Carlo, and it has now been almost nine model years since the last, new ’07 models rolled out of factory doors. And with that last model year, one of GM’s (and America’s) once most-popular cars seems to have permanently peaced-out.
All photos are as taken by the author in (Chicago suburb) Aurora, Illinois.
Sunday, June 17, 2012.
Related reading:
Paul Neidermeyer’s piece on the inaugural 1970 models: Curbside Classic: 1970 Chevrolet Monte Carlo – A Modest Beginning To A Huge Hit (and Hips)
Chris Green’s piece on his pristine ’76: My Curbside Classic: 1976 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Landau – Hope You Like Green
William Stopford’s piece on the later car’s immediate predecessor: Curbside Classic: 1995-99 Chevrolet Monte Carlo – Lumina Coupe Two
Am I the only one who thinks these penultimate 2006-2014 Impalas/Carlos are pretty good looking? I keep finding myself looking at police-spec versions on Ebay, because I want all the auxiliary coolers and heavy-duty components, a column shifter, and a trunk bigger than some pickup beds.
EDIT: Oh, and that 300-horsepower direct-injected V6.
And the police models don’t have a speed limiter 🙂
Just like how I love me a late ’80s GTA or IROC-Z, I will cop to an irrational love for all of these with a 90 degree engine and/or a manual. The difference being that a combination of a 3800 and 4T65e has the kind of indefinite repair-ability that appeals to me in a way.
I wouldn’t say bad-looking, but the 2006 Impala was an extremely conservative design based more on a pastiche of 1990s Camcords than anything Chevy. (Meanwhile, even Toyota was adding more “styling” while Chevy was making the last of the jellybeans.) Plus the long overhangs and four hooker trunk was a throw-back even in the mid 2000s.
The less said about the Monte Carlo, the better. Some NASCAR wannabe might run me over for being repulsed by his car.
When the restyled ’06 Impalas came out, I remember reading popular opinion in magazines that the redesign was an improvement over the 2000-’05 models – which I agreed with. I think it just hung around too long.
I really liked the 2000 Monte restyle when it came out (saved for the humped trunklid) – it really looked like a Monte, but to echo nlpnt’s comment below, felt it should have received a more thorough restyle for 2006.
It is amazing to me how so many seventies personal luxury cars morphed into pseudo muscle cars when they got old. The luxury of the cars just faded. Maybe that is why the last of these took on so many Nascar affectations. They must have thought that was where the remaining market lay.
Part of it was the NASCAR rules required a certain minimum frontal area that ruled out ponycar and compact-based body shapes, and well into the ’90s required the body shape to be based on a two-door production model. The personal luxury nameplate was usually the last big coupe left standing as the two-door take rate melted away, so it became the NASCAR model by default. From there it was marketed to NASCAR fans.
Brilliant insight – and now I understand more of where that came from. Thanks for pointing that out.
I always found these final W-body Monte Carlos pretty sad. Like the Lumina-based MCs that came before, these Monte Carlos suffered from subpar interiors and very awkward rooflines. The Impala-based MCs looked far more bogged-down for a “lead sled” look too. Like the sedan, they kind of screamed “rental car” to me. Unfortunately, it was with these final Monte Carlos that I came to realize discontinuing the historic nameplate was not such a bad idea.
I agree 100 percent. GM tried to paste a few retro styling cues on to a generic front-wheel-drive platform. It simply didn’t work. The basic proportions of the W-body platform are wrong for this type of car.
This model at least looks a little less awkward than the horrid 2000-2005 Monte Carlo, which looked as if the stylists for the front and rear hated each other and refused to speak.
As the owner of an 86 Monte Carlo SS… It’s always funny, when I pull up next to one of these newer FWD Monte SSs.
The drivers always crane their neck to look over.
The Monte Carlo, is supposed to be RWD and a personal luxury coupe. Not like that faker, who has NO hint of the original formula.
The FWD gens that went from 95-07, make good Luminas(which they really are)… But make awful Monte Carlos.
In this W body Monte Carlo’s defense, in the latter years 06-07, the SS was available with a V8… But, so what, I still wouldn’t buy one. The outside styling is too bland and atrocious. 😛
I remember when Hot Rod Magazine asked readers to fill out and mail in a form petitioning GM for a V8 Monte Carlo (this was shortly after the nameplate was resurrected on the W-platform.) They got their wish, but not driving the wheels they wanted.
Someone had went so far as to transplant a ’95-ish MC body with the rwd guts of a contemporary F body. In other words…they did it right!
I love the restyle of the 06-07 Monte Carlo and think that restyled front end should have been there since the beginning of the 6th generation.
As much as I love the 1981-1988 Monte Carlo (especially the SS), I would choose a 2006-2007 Monte SS over a 1980’s Monte carlo SS. The power difference is like night and day.(heck even the base V6’s offered in 2006 and 2007 could beat a stock 1980’s Monte SS)
A stock 1985 Monte Carlo SS got a 305 V8 that had a Rochester Quadra-Junk 4bbl carb that gave up 180hp. It also used the THM200-R4. By contrast the top of the line Camaro IROC-Z got a 215hp 305 with fuel injection and a 700-R4.
That is what is most bothersome in regards to GM, they jumped at the chance to at Fuel injection to the J cars, F body cars, the downsized C/H platforms and yet they left the B body and G body cars to wither on the vine with a carb. It took till 1985 for the Monte, Caprice, Grand Prix to get a 4.3l V6 with fuel injection and till 1989 for the Caprice Classic to get a V8 with FI
If I had to choose between a 2006 base Monte Carlo with a V6 or a top of the line 1986 Monte SS, I would choose the base 2006 as it has a 242 hp V6 with fuel injection. I hate carburetors.
No worries, Leon.
Nothing wrong with having a preference… That’s what makes this site great.
We all have cars that will or won’t peak someone’s interest. I own 3 G-bodies, myself… An 81 Malibu Classic Sport coupe, 86 Monte Carlo SS and an 85 Buick Regal.
I find them to be a nice riding, reliable platform, though they do have their idiosyncrasies and quirks.
I also have other cars, Japanese, European and American. So I’m open minded to all makes, not always to certain models.
My buddy had a 2001 Monte Carlo, he flipped for a quick sale. It rode very well, but that plastic interior and cheap cloth seats were garbage compared to the plusher 80’s G-bodies.
Typical GM penny pinching that started around 1992. My friend was grateful, when someone finally bought the thing. Lol
That’s why the 80s Ford’s of the day were so much better. The t bird hands better v8 fuel injected engines. The 302 Ford was more durable and was easy to modify for more power. The t bird and cougar was mire modern too. Monte Carlo should have had an injected 350 back then
Plus, Ford interiors had WAY better interiors, without the sagging headliners, that were so problematic on 1977-88 GM cars.
Riding in one of those GMs, with a drooping headliner, was like sitting under a circus tent. 🙂
What are you talking about? I see Ford’s with sagging headliners all the time. Heck we just had to swap out the headliner on a early 1990’s Grand Marquis.
I prefer the Malaise era generation Monte Carlo.
The personal luxury car: a clever way for Detroit to make more money by taking a “mid-size” 2-door, restyling it to give it even less room (but still enough for dad, mom, 2 kids) but make it look “luxurious”, and charge a lot more. It was very profitable, especially in the last few years before the ayatollahs.
But now I like them! And GM’s were the best! Personally, I like the Cutlass Supreme, but I’d take an M-C over a G-P, not to mention a Cordoba or a T-bird
The 1973-77 Monte Carlos looked like large size “whales” while the 2006-07 Monte Carlo looks very tidy in size. I would rather have the smaller sized Montes any day.
When these cars were new the demographics of the buyers would not have been that different. I was starting high school when the Monte Carlo was first released. I even worked at GM screwing together the last couple of years of the full sized generation in 1976-1977. The Early Monte was a car for the middle class person on the way up to aspire to. It was like a junior class Cadillac Eldorado and it’s appeal transcended it”s humble nameplate. Probably due to it’s very snazzy style. The Delorean connection had made this into one of GMs best driving cars. I’m sure many were sold to former Buick, Oldsmobile, and Pontiac owners. The second gen shown here was already well de-contented from the first models. Chevy put together an attractively priced base package that was pretty much irresistible to the striving young manager. There were lots of options to tailor it to your tastes and budget. Different engines, wheels, interior options even swiveling bucket seats, and the choice of so many different color options. The Monte at this time was much like the early Mustang, in that there were so many different combinations possible that it made your particular car unique. And this will seem almost unbelievable to younger readers, at this time some American cars were still considered ” Prestigious” by the general population. I think your perception of the current owners is probably correct because such older cars are generally not owned by a non enthusiast owner. While many of these early Monte Carlos were lost to the Lowrider movement it seems like the pseudo muscle car faction are also strong advocates of these cars. The styling of that late model is just “Bleh.” What a waste of sheetmetal. I personally prefer the more honest shape of the Lumina based versions. The styling of the early Monte may seem baroque, but have you checked out the side sculpturing on a late model MBZ E350 coupe?
I always liked the dodgesqe forward lean of the headlights in the older Montys… Makes the car look fast just sitting still. The newer version just looks too conservative. Not brash and fast looking. Government Motors missed again.
It’s not even a caricature of its former self, just a sad, sad shadow of its former self. As much so as the Impala of that generation, from which the final Monte Carlos are way too obviously based. To me, it reeks of not even trying and just waiting for death to come.
I like the 75 Monte Carlo. I like the lines of the fenders and the car looks good from any angle. They were nice cars and easy to modify and looked way nicer than the cutlass. I also like the 78-81 smaller version. But I don’t like the newer one at all. Its hideous abd badly proportioned and cheap looking and v6 fwd. To me it’s about the ugliest Monte Carlo ever. The Monte equivalent of an 80 t bird. Styling from an older model that do sent translate well to the smaller car along with lame drive train. The personal luxury coupe did not go out with a bang. I rode in one once and I didn’t like it at all. Very cheap looking interior and cramped. Way inferior to a 90s t bird or cougar. My favorite Monte Carlo ever is the 76? Custom cloud version. Now that was a sharp car.
Two low points of Chevrolet styling. The ball sac taillights of the W version owe nothing to any previous Monte Carlo and the lame attempts at “retro” just seem contrived and dumbed down, as if the designer was afraid to go the full Monte on a distinctive tribute design. [I hear the groans out there].
One of several mashups GM did during that era: 03-05 Cavalier re-fresh, cartoonish Colorado and Canyon, 03 Saturn L, 05 ION, 06 VUE, Aztek, 05-07 Malibu the list is long in GM’s crimes against sheet metal [and polymer] at the turn of the century.
I totally agree. The whole rear end is blobby an unformed, as if they were trying to do an aero version of the ’75 by putting it under a heat gun.
As I mentioned in another comments section, there probably exists out there an alternate universe where the W-body Chevy was not the Lumina, but the Monte Carlo, both coupe and sedan. Then in 2000, the Impala nameplate would’ve been given not to the newly-extended WB W-body sedan, but to a 112.2″ WB G-body sedan like the Bonneville/Aurora/LeSabre.
Nothing else changes, but it’s just a little difference.
It has only been recently that I have started to warm to the colonnade Monte. Back when they were new, I considered them exaggerated and a bit cartoonish. Either they or I have mellowed, because I like it as a 70s period piece now.
This particular one reminds me of my upper Midwest youth – that perpetual battle between primer and rust (hint – the rust always won.) This rusted, primered, jacked and re-wheeled Chebby was no doubt driven by Bevis and Butthead’s parents back in the day.
The new Monte is just background noise to me. It is neither ugly nor attractive. But what a fabulous pairing for your picture!
JPC, I agree with you on the recent model – neither great nor horrible. I think it could have been much, much worse. I’ve always liked the Colonnade Montes (especially the 1973 – ’75 models) as my favorite childhood neighbors had a beautiful, green ’74. That was probably one of my first favorite cars.
I did enjoy the “tribute” touches on those final MC’s–the fender sculpturing and vertical-emphasis tails worked nicely in my opinion. Sadly, the awkward roofline and Impala nose didn’t sit all that well with those tribute touches, and you ended up with a car that looked anonymous in places and patchwork in others. I don’t find it ugly, but I’ve never been in a rush to go find one, either.
The colonnade MC is still a love/hate car. I enjoy the profile and the tail design, but that original round-lamp nose is a baroque bridge too far for me. I think I’m one of about 5 people (total) that actually prefer the “stacked squares” look of the ’76 facelift.
I had a ’78 Monte and loved it at the time but now I look back at photos from that generation and don’t see what I even liked about them. I don’t like the ’75 generation either nor the last one but mid 80’s, oh yeah I still love those but they seem to be a rare sighting now on the roads in Florida except for in the SS models. I’m assuming those non SS models met the crusher during the Cash For Clunkers tragedy.
I think the mid-80’s Montes stand beside the first models as the best-balanced designs. I do also like the downsized 78’s, but wish the rear deck didn’t droop quite as much. I still occasionally see a mid-80’s SS around Chicago.
I wouldn’t mind a stacked headlight ’77 with the 305. Comfy ride and 22 mpg on the highway. Not one bit.
I was never a fan of either of these Montes. The ’75’s vestigial pontoon fenders always came off as hokey to me and ruined an otherwise clean design. Other colonnades just look better and not so over wrought. The fwd based montes are all fodder for the trashbin. I mean…what were they thinking? Theres nothing inherently ‘wrong’ with fwd cars…as appliances. The sedan variants filled their roles nicely for what they are, which is basic bread n butter cars for non car people. 2 doors anymore ARE for car people. Just slightly cleaner/sportier looks dont cut it alone. What we got as the GTO in ’04 with the Aussie Monaro reskin is what SHOULD have been the Monte and/or Grand Prix since about the mid 90s. THATS what would have really taken off by storm.
FWIW, I really liked the mid 80s G body Montes in SS trim, preferably with T-tops. Just a nice clean looking car that had all the right stuff (although lacking a manual trans was a sore spot) and a certain muscle car swagger that the contemporary aero birds just couldnt really capture.
I agree, Mopar.
This is my G-body 86 Monte Carlo SS, complete with T-tops off, to enjoy the Summer day… Also, no that’s not a Mopar tail stripe, just a variation with the Chevy symbol and custom Bahama Blue SS decals. 😉
The “big” Monte 73-77 generation is one of the only cars that I can recall that had recognizable styling changes each year of that generation to it, for example each model year had different tail lights. As far as looks etc my favorite gen of Monte Carlo was the 81-88, primarily the 81 to 86 before they added those euro style headlights! Not too big, not too small but still had that classic American big car ride!
I’m partial to the ’75. Not so much the rebadged Lumina’s.
That is one gorgeous ’75!
I knew the Monte was over in 2005 when it only got half a restyle. That was a long-established practice for load-lugging utliltarian wagons, but it inverted the notion of a coupe as a style leader which was really what the Monte Carlo had originally been about.
The 75 is easily recognizable as a Monte Carlo, even if it had no badges to identify it. The new one is so generic that it is just invisible in a crowded parking lot. Monte Carlo was a name that conjured an automotive vision of a distinctive, luxurious car in a tough sort of way, then they went front wheel drive and all of that changed, and not because of the front wheel drive.
The 1st gen (’70-72) is the one I would want. Liked them when they were new, even more now. Few and far between today, sadly.
I’m surprised the featured 75 does’nt have the requisite giant bow tie decal in the rear window in case ya did’nt know it was a Chevy. Actually I think it’s cool that it’s being driven and enjoyed by It’s owner. Here in the Midwest thousands of these met their demise as dirt track racers. I prefer mine stock. My 76 Landau is a little old lady survivor with 24000 miles is almost the same story as Chris Green’s above except mines white and my name is’nt. I drive it to a few local shows and cruise nights. It’s got a date with the interstate at the end of this month, heading up to Springfield IL for the Mother Road Festival and 1000 car cruise. As for the late model Montes , they’re OK for a girls car, just hang a pound of trinkets and frilly stuff on the inside rear view mirror and your good to go.
Laughed out loud at “rattlecan grey”. When I was growing up, these Montes were one of the teenage headbanger “muscle cars” of choice. This was in the saltbelt, and given the colonnades’ propensity to rust out the rear fenders, 90% of them were in some combination of bondo tan and spraypaint gray while the owner saved up his 3.85s for a trip to Earl Sheib.
How could you not make your mom wait to take that picture? What a perfect juxtaposition! Of course, I’m partial to the Colonnade ’75, but I think people are being a little too hard on the later model. I think it deserves a bit of respect for even getting made at all as late as 2006. It’s a large coupe, and those are almost completely extinct now, as they were in 2006. Yeah, it’s front wheel drive, and it has a few awkward lines, but let’s face it, so did the Colonnade, especially from behind. But I love it anyway. It’s the heart and soul of the 1970s. The 2006 model will keep getting more interesting as the years go by.
Chris, I think you’re right about your prediction about the last Montes appealing more with time. I remember being kind of excited when the nameplate returned for ’95, even if I was a little underwhelmed by the actual car. I liked the ’95 roofline, though, and thought it was a smartly modernized take on that of the original 1970 – ’72 models.
Here’s my 07 in Lunar Quartz Metallic which is a really dark purple. It’s a great car. I bought it for a commuter and in the four years I’ve owned it it’s never left me stranded. There are very few of these and I also like having something distinctive. I hope they bring it back in RWD form. That’d be fun.
I think your car looks great! Could the last MC’s be a case of the right or wrong color making the difference? (And thanks for being the contrarian…I wanted someone to say something nice about the last Montes!)
My buddy had a 77 Monte and one time we were leaving a basement of a parking garage and you could see nothing but hood untill it crested the top–very funny at the time. Most guys I went to school with wanted the Grand Prix’s or Cutlass Supremes if they were into luxo coupes–they were plentiful after the 1978 downsizing–but even in 1979 we knew the 68-72 GM A bodys were the cars to own.
Seeing the duct tape around the back window reminds me of how the old Chevy’s in salt country used to leak around the back window.
I actually like the 2000-2007 Monte Carlo. The 95-99 MC looked like a 2 door Lumina but the 00-07 looked nothing like the Impala of those years. i am surprised at all the hate towards the 00-07 due to it being FWD. Perhaps in the 1980’s a car being FWD was a liability(could not exceed a certain horsepower amount due to the transaxle) but today’s FWD car is pretty robust and the 2007 MC SS put out 303hp. I have driven a few 2006-2007 Monte Carlo SS and I find it to be a fast car that is comfortable to drive in(which is what a luxury Personal Coupe should be)
I have also driven several 1980’s Monte Carlo SS in various conditions ranging from restored to beater and I have found them all to be cheap feeling. In fact I got to sit in a brand new one at a dealer in 1987 when I was 10 years old and also felt that it felt cheap(cheap plastic, cheap finish on the gauges, seats that sucked etc)
Now don’t think that I am bashing the 1980’s Montes because i love them. As somebody born in 1977, I grew up with the downsized 1978-1988 Monte Carlo and they were everywhere but even to my 10 year old self, I could see that they were pretty outdated looking by 1987.
I am also a big G body fan and I have owned/still own 3 of them.(1980 Malibu, 1987 Cutlass Supreme and a 1985 Cutlass Supreme(I still own this car) ) and I will be honest with you folks, the G body really was not that good of a car even back then.
So I will take the 2000-2007 Monte with its FWD, ABS and fuel injection
Bet a new rear windshield is expensive, when you add the glass and the labor. Was it shared with any other models?
If it did, probably the closest Colonnade it shared it with, would be the 1973-77 Pontiac Grand Prix.
Montes were NEVER good-looking…NEVER….
Troll alert
I like the older one better. I also see a mid 00’s Impala in the background, which was a good looking car, as was posted the other day in its comparison with the ’62. I think that Impala was a better looking effort than the newer Monte.
I would say that the 06-07 Monte is just a rehashed Mailbupala to me, with a few body panel pressings altered. I’m not calling it a GM deadly sin, because it’s apparent they didn’t spend much money or time on making it look unique and original. The mid ’70s Monte was perhaps a cousin of the Grand Prix, but it was unique and attractive. You knew what it was from a fair distance. It had personality and style. It had a stance that made you look. These new ones? Just another blobmobile.
You mentioned the teardrop taillights. Those are more reminiscent of the Dodge Caravan taxi in the background than a prior Chevy.
As if to say, “Foo on you Mopar guy, here I am and I ain’t so bad as you think” I encountered this nice black example later in the day after I made my remarks above.
The owner was quite perfect about picking a parking spot far away from other possible intruders, and grocery buggies, and double checked that he had locked his car before donning his mask and proceeding to do his shopping. Good on him.
I see the lower slope of the hood. I see the bulge on the back hips to remind one of the ’70s Monte. I see the chrome strip below the rocker panel. And I still think it’s an Impalabu in poor disguise. A weak effort by the General.
It’s nice to see the ’75 has its bumper rub strips (maybe they were standard by then). So many ’73+ Chevies were sold with the distracting exposed bolt heads, which always read “stripo” in my mind. The huge visual mass of the 5 mph bumpers needed breaking up, too.
I can’t see a Colonnade without thinking of the cheap, clunky sound closing the door made when the window was not all the way up. Same with the 2nd gen Camaro. I’m sure other cars with frameless windows made similar noises, but those two are seared, seared in my memory.
Nice article, thanks.
Resemblance? I need to go to my optometrist!