(first posted 4/25/2018) What’s in a name? Often times plenty. It’s why many actors, musicians and other persons of note have been known to the world by names other than those they were given. Have you ever met an attractive person, and at the first exchange of names discovered that theirs is one that probably hasn’t been common or popular since early in the last century? I admire folks that rock such names with confidence.
It’s kind of like the same thing with cars. The right model name can conjure up images of power, youth, and / or freedom. Just imagine if “Special Falcon” had been chosen by Ford over “Mustang” for its affordable sporty car. No doubt, the car itself would still have been a smash hit simply based on its own qualities, but would it have been as big a success if it had been called something else?
Other cars’ model names that I can think of that seem to fit their essence in my mind are “Riviera”, for Buick’s premier personal luxury car, Oldsmobile’s early “Starfire”, with its abundance of dazzling, sparkling chrome (though this name didn’t fit quite as well on the latter-day, H-Body Monza-clone), and Mercury’s graceful and ferocious-looking “Cougar”. This brings me to our featured car, so-named for the exotic, otherworldy waterfront area of the principality of Monaco. Perhaps with “Monaco” already in its lineup, Dodge should have jumped on the “Monte Carlo” name before Chevy did, though, to be fair, the first-year, 1970 Monte Carlo was something of a pioneer in terms of being an affordable personal luxury car for the masses. Nobody at Chrysler Corporation saw that trend coming.
The downsized-for-’78 A-body platform on which the Monte Carlo and bread-and-butter stablemate Malibu was based was hardly exotic, though I’m sure that was part of its still-familiar appeal. I’ve struggled with the idea of having shrunken something like a personal luxury car for practicality – a type of car which is supposed to be somewhat ostentatious, by definition. Not everyone seems to like the looks of this generation of Monte, but I do. Shedding something like 800 pounds in base form over its 3,800-lb., Colonnade-era predecessor (literally over one-fifth of its starting weight) enabled it to come standard with a V6 (a 231-cubic inch V6 with 105 horsepower for ’78, and then a 94-horse 200 V6 for ’79), though I’m sure most of these cars were V8-powered.
The main issue many folks seem to have with it is how stylists applied many styling cues of the previous generation to these scaled-down dimensions. Aside from its slightly droopy tail (which, admittedly, was a look that was in vogue at the time), I think this downsizing was executed fairly well, blending certain heritage cues with new ideas. Risks were taken, and while not all of this MC’s angles are great, credit is to be given for the amount of fresh thinking that went into its overall appearance. About 317,000 Monte Carlos of all stripes rolled out the door for ’79, outselling even Chevrolet’s popular Camaro, which was not far behind with about 282,600 units.
Our featured example was located in the decidedly not-exotic, transitional neighborhood of Uptown, just about six years ago. Aside from a busted header panel, it looked to be in good shape. I loved the juxtaposition of its curves against the arched entryway of the beautiful, brick building behind it. The linear, geometric design of its taillamp lenses also rhymed with the grid of bricks in its background.
I always liked that the Monte Carlo had two, combined proper nouns that made up its model name. It had seemed to make it sound just a little fancier than it would have, otherwise. I’ve known a handful of individuals over the years who go or went by two names instead of just one, like “John Paul” or “Sarah Jane”. It’s almost as if their parents might have thought to themselves when first addressing them as infants, “Nope. ‘John’ isn’t quite distinctive enough. We’ll address him by his first and middle names from here on out.” I should talk. I have a bunch of names on my birth certificate, but I’ve usually always gone by just “Joe”. At some point in school, some of my friends started addressing me as “Joe Dennis”, as if hyphenated. That’s fine with me, and I suppose I then deserved to be called that for a while, since I had started to answer to it. I like to keep things simple, though.
“Endless Nights Monte Carlo Monaco”, as sourced from thewallpapers.org
Regardless, I get that “Monte Carlo” is a proper noun and the name of an actual place. What I wonder, though is how many buyers made any kind of connection between the personal luxury car from GM’s Everyman Brand and the beautiful vacation destination in Monaco. Did Ford, Mercury, or Lincoln Capri owners make that connection between any of those so-named cars and that beautiful island in southern Italy? Did driving a Dodge Aspen make its owners want to go skiing? Even to cite an example I had just used above, it’s doubtful that all Buick Riviera owners felt like they were alongside the French Riviera while driving or riding in theirs.
I suppose all of this is beside the point. All vehicles need names, and I miss the creativity that had so regularly gone into them before the norm for many brands had become alphanumeric combinations. (Thank you, Lincoln, for reversing this course.) A seven night stay in Monte Carlo in May of this year, as departing from Chicago, would cost roughly $4,000 for hotel and airfare, which is not far from the cost of some reasonably nice examples of ’79 Monte Carlos for sale on the internet as of this writing. I’m on the fence in terms of which I would enjoy more, between the car and the trip, but one thing is true – the Monte Carlo’s name definitely added something indefinable to its essence, and for that, the ones responsible for naming it get props from me.
Uptown, Chicago, Illinois.
Sunday, June 3, 2012.
Nice write up. Interestingly, the name Cougar was used on a few prototypes for what would become the Mustang.
I think a biggish reason why so many people are unhappy with the styling of this generation of Monte Carlo is that the supposedly “bread and butter” Malibu was such a good looking car. Though the main reason will always be that this car looks like a man’s size 48 long suit…that was cut down to fit a boy.
There’s a 81 Monte Carlo for sale about 90 miles from my house. It is coincidentally black, has a reported 39K original miles and looks fairly decent. Unfortunately, it has the smallish Chevy V6 good for all of 115 horsepower. Still, at $3,300 it is a tempting car.
While researching an article on a Ford Torino last year, I came across an interview with Lee Iacocca in which he said that “Torino” was also one of the finalist names for the Mustang. But at the time, Iacocca thought it was too foreign and exotic sounding.
Given the numbers of Monte Carlos, Rivieras, Monacos, Cordobas and eventually Torinos that were sold, I guess that proved to be a needless concern.
Thanks, Dan. I’ll agree with you (and Don A., below, and others) that the concurrent Malibu 2-door looked like a million bucks. Aside from a slightly generic face (IMO), there really was nothing major, aesthetically, that could have been improved on it – from its perfectly proportioned greenhouse to its clean lines.
How do you make a more-upscale car built on the same platform look more attractive (or at least more distinctive) than its already great-looking sibling? This MC was Chevy’s answer – which I don’t feel was 100% successful, but not unattractive to my eyes, by any means.
I hadn’t thought about the relative appropriateness of driving a place-named car to that place.
I would drive an Aspen to Aspen (maybe a wagon with some skis on top) and a Capri in Capri.
I can’t really imagine tracing the route of the F1 course in a 1969 Monaco. I’d drive a Pontiac to Bonneville but not Paris.
A Monte Carlo in Monte Carlo? Definately not.
Sounds like a good QOTD, what car would you like to drive to the place it’s named after?
Well I have actually driven a Galaxie in our Galaxy.
It was too far to Vega for me to get back by dinner.
I have driven a Fury while angry, does that count? But I have never driven a Thunderbird while drinking some. That would be illegal.
Hah!
EVERY time I drive my El Camino, it rolls down the inspiration for its name (“the way” or “the road”).
Works for me!
Reminds me of Robin Williams.
“Let’s see what the house wine is… hmm, Thunderbird. Ah, but it’s a good week, though!” 😉
I saw a Hyundai Tucson while vacationing in Tucson. Yup, lame.
Not quite in the same line, but when the first Lexus LS came out, the Aussie Motor magazine drove a Lexus to Texas – Texas, Queensland, that is.
While Saturn is closer than Vega, it still was a bit too far to drive for me.
Drove both of my Fleetwood Broughams (’87 and ’93) in Fleetwood, NY (but Fleetwood, PA, the real place, only in my Oldsmobile)
In the 1965 French dystopian sci-fi noir film “Alphaville”, characters drive a Ford Galaxie through space. (At least it’s referred to as a Galaxie in the film but it’s actually a Mustang.)
We actually had a version of that QOTD a few years ago: “Which Geographically-Named Car Most/Least Suits Its Namesake?” It was one of my favorite QOTDs:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/qotd/qotd-which-geographically-named-car-mostleast-suits-its-namesake/
I’m surprised as a Canadian you didn’t mention the Grand Parisienne.
I did allude to that, wouldn’t drive a Pontiac to Paris.
And a Lada to Samara? It could be loaded into a space rocket…
I could drive my 77 Malibu Classic to Malibu California. and have driven it on Malibu Drive here in the DFW metroplex.
Imagine if you were being written up for a ticket. vehicle: Malibu. Location: Malibu Drive. Reckon the officer would crack a smile at that?
I’m generally not a fan of SUVs, but I would probably appreciate a four wheel drive Tahoe if I had to drive to Lake Tahoe in the winter. I wouldn’t want to drive a two wheel drive Sierra in a Sierra Nevada winter, though.
My first car was a Buick, which I totally would have driven on Park Avenue.
I’ve driven a Suburban in the suburbs…
Great write up Joe!! I too am a fan of this gen Monte Carlo. they are a bit hard to find and expensive given the years produced. (i also like the Malibu of this gen) The 79 version finished the look of the 78 whose tailights i found did not belong on this car. the wrap around tail lights gave it a much more luxo look. don’t know why they did’nt just incorporate the 73 to 77 tail light style on it as i feel it would have looked so much better. the ride on these cars were smooth and handled better than it’s predecessor. the curves on the sides (a Monte staple)looked not as fluid as the 73-77’s but it did a nice job at keeping it on and looking distinguished. the dasboards on these cars are among the coolest in any car i’ve seen. the front end is just menacing yet luxo looking and lends itself to both boulevard cruiser or hot rod looks. truly one of the nicest cars produced and one that i would love to own. and no, when i look at a car(much like i do women)i look at the style(body and face and rear end of it) and although i am a huge Monte Carlo fan……………i’ve never thought of the place……just the car.
I have spent a lifetime being strangely ambivalent about this car. I found the original very attractive but never much cared for the follow-up of 1973-77, which seemed over-styled. This one was kind of a mixture of conservative and “out there” and I have gone back and forth on whether I like it.
I knew a guy who bought one new in that metallic orange-ish color. He seemed to like it just fine and it seemed like a respectable ride. But I liked the styling of the Cutlass Supreme and Regal better.
Totally with you on the nomenclature. Monte Carlo was a great and memorable name, especially for the time, type of car and intended audience. As I have ranted on here before, names (good ones at least) are easier to remember and leave lasting impressions. Meaningless letter combinations or alphanumerics? Not so much…. As you point out, a name cannot make a bad car good, nor truly hurt a good car–but Mustang is the perfect example of a name and a product working hand-in-hand to really amplify the brand’s impact.
As for this generation Monte Carlo, I’m really glad Chevrolet made it. Whether or not you personally care for the exaggerated styling flourishes, there were plenty of folks who did, and the design provided a clear visual link to the preceding generation. If you wanted cleaner styling on a mid-sized Chevy, there was the Malibu classic 2-door. So the Bowtie team really covered their bases.
I’d rather get there in this…
or this.
Give me the Italian Monte any time, there is not one line on the Chevy that I like, makes an Austin Allegro look good
The 4 door Caprice saloon were clean good looking cars, how could they get thisso wrong
too right. That year I would have spent my summer in Malibu
Given a choice of the Monte or the Malibu, I’d choose this in a heartbeat.
Your Monte Carlo was our Lancia “Scorpion” – a moniker I think fits this car a bit better in my mind, but (admittedly) my context is completely different than yours.
Agree with you that the same generation of 1978 – ’80 (and ’81) Chevy Malibu coupe was better looking than the ’78 – ’80 Monte, and a great-looking car in its own right.
Interesting how Chevy was able to retain the essence of the previous Colonade model when they downsized the Monte Carlo, keeping most of its stylistic flourishes in place, whereas Ford’s effort downsizing the wildly popular ’77-’79 Thunderbird hit with a dull thud despite following Chevrolet’s playbook keeping most of the previous car’s styling cues. Any idea why?
Good point, and I have a possible answer.
The Monte Carlo kept the lines of the 73-77 version intact, with the same outline in a smaller form, but in proportion to the larger version. It really looked different from the Malibu.
The Thunderbird did not keep the proportions of the previous version (not that it should have, those were bloated and too similar to the LTDII for my taste) and looked too much like the Fairmont.
When the next generation does not look like the parent, it raises suspicions….
Another factor is that the ’80 T-Bird went to framed door windows from frameless ones (as did all the new generations of Ford products around that time, even the Mustang), whereas the GM intermediate coupes all retained frameless door glass. At the time, it represented a big visual difference between Ford and GM products. (Chrysler stayed with frameless, too, for the few more years that it tried to compete in that segment.)
Agreed gottacook. The GM cars’ frameless windows enabled a more delicate window line. Ford’s treatment around the windows seemed heavy-handed, the window openings defined by a superfluity of lines, mostly chromed. Chrome gives the impression of quality, upmarket-ness, true, but heavy chrome verticals give the eye an impression of static weight. That was the last thing Ford’s T-bird design needed – with the sharp vertical lines and flattish panels on this design it looked static, almost architectural, like a building sitting there, while the GM designs, though often confused and compromised, at least looked as though they would move on down the road.
MC was a body on frame design, so could sculpt the exotic body lines a built easier, my guess? The ’81-’88 was more well received, since wasn’t trying to look like a ’77.
But then again, the ’80 T-Bird seemed to be whipped up in a hurry, and more thought seemed to be put into the ’83 Aero version, using the same platform.
Perhaps because the 1980 T-Bird was on the Fox (Fairmont) platform, which was a unibody.
Also, the Fairmont Futura Coupe already imitated the T-bird in profile.
GM did a much better job of executing the A-bodies. Maybe it was easier, since they were body on frame.
Also, the colonnade coupes where better looking cars than the T-Bird (which I thought was a decent looking car as a 12-yr old, though I couldn’t see myself buying or driving such a big wasteful car at that age, lol)
Was there a need for both a Futura coupe and the Thunderbird? Would Ford have been better off introducing the Futura coupe as a Thunderbird (perhaps with more distinctive front and rear ends), and binning that Thunderbird design?
Yes. There was an early sketch I’ve seen somewhere that was a lot of the Futura with a T-Bird name. Sadly, that idea got round-filed somewhere along the way.
My answer: The downsized Monte felt reasonably substantial and while smaller, felt like a decent car. The 1980 Thunderbird was everything the 79 was not, both for good and bad. It was smaller and more efficient, but it felt thin and cheap. It did not feel substantial. It was also slow and the Ford AOD automatic was a pig with the 302 and absolutely awful with the gutless 255.
My aunt and uncle bought one and let me drive it. Although I tended to like cars of that class, I could not wait to get out of it and tried hard to say something diplomatic about the car. It was a total fail – not pleasant to look at and not pleasant to drive.
The first car my father owned that I can remember riding in was a 1978 Monte Carlo (dark red over red). 305 V8 – indelibly marked on my memory to the point that I sometimes still have dreams where I’m driving that car.
Many didn’t like the sculpted fenders but that was actually my favorite part.
Blechh. I really dislike the styling of these MCs. The visual cues that worked on the ’73-’77 grand-scale luxury coupe didn’t translate well to a smaller size. Give me a downsized Malibu coupe instead, which is basically the same car underneath the sheetmetal. Or a ’70-’72 Monte Carlo.
Yeah, but Chevy did a better job of downsizing that style than Ford did downsizing the ’80 Thunderbird.
That’s what I call a backhanded compliment.
Great write-up… I enjoy reading about and studying the names of products and their histories/associations (and people’s names too, for that matter).
One of the most interesting pairs I can think of right now is the Ford F-150 Lariat the Buick Reatta. Two totally different vehicles but with the same name history. A “Lariat” is the rope used for lassoing livestock, but the English word “Lariat” comes from the Spanish “La Reata.” Often in the US West, the terms Lariat and Reata were used interchangeably.
That’s possibly the only thing these two vehicles have in common.
Whenever I hear “Reatta” my mind goes to “Reata”, the name of the ranch in the movie Giant. A movie in which the characters drove great cars – like a Duesenberg. They would never have driven a Reatta on Reata.
On the subject of translating names, Sedan de Ville means basically the same thing as Town Car. I did not think about that until someone else pointed it out.
I’m sure the guys at Lincoln were onto it!
Thanks, Eric.
…And up until your comment, I had assumed that “Reatta” was just a coined name. Thank you for making that connection!
I was never a fan of the Monte Carlo but I do have somewhat warmer feelings for this generation. A brand new MC was delivered to my high school in January 1978 just as I began the on-the-road portion of driver’s ed. Compared to Dad’s dying Vega and Mom’s rapidly disintegrating Torino wagon, the Monte was a breath of fresh air, with a smooth ride and crisp handling. The lumpen V6 meant drivers in training would never get into serious trouble. While the Monte Carlo never quite took me on vacation, it was always a welcome respite from the tedium of high school.
Lucky you! Our brand new driver’s ed car for 1978 was a Ford Granada with a 250 ci six.
Liked the car (comfortable, crisp handling) but the powerplant was no match for the hills of southeast Ohio. Pressing the throttle when going uphill would make the lumpen I6 kick into passing gear, resulting in LOTS of commotion but no additional locomotion.
Great tie-ins regarding names… definitely food for thought.
As for the car itself, while it never especially has been one I’ve warmed up to, I can appreciate the boldness that stylists took with the sharply curved and creased body sides, something lacking in almost every other GM from the era.
“Monte Carlo” is indeed a beautiful name, conjuring thoughts of the elegant port city, though I don’t really feel it was the most fitting name for a Chevrolet, even if it was a personal luxury coupe. Being a Chevy, it somehow can’t escape the value image in a way that the Thunderbird (which became something of a sub-brand) was able to achieve. “Monte Carlo” just seemed to exotic for a Chevy in my eyes.
I hear what you’re saying. As an aside, Brendan, since Monte Carlo is too exotic for a Chevy, what place name would you suggest as being upmarket without being excessively so?
I feel like for a Chevrolet branded personal luxury coupe in the 1970s and 1980s, anything “exotic” sounding just didn’t fit. Exotic maybe for a Chevrolet sports car, but not a personal luxury coupe that catered towards comfort and elegance.
The most appropriate name in my mind for said personal luxury coupe would be one one that conveyed traditional elegance, without sounding overly ostentatious. If we are talking geographical locations, names like “Greenwich”, “Westchester”, “Hampton”, “Potomac” or “Mulholland” come to mind.
I think all cars need a name and not a number
I miss the days where you had a actual name on a car and not C123BD or something like that.
Some of the Chinese light trucks and SUVs being sold in Australia now are particularly bad. I saw one a few weeks back bearing an unidentifiable logo with a seven-character (or was it eight?) alphanumeric model name. They might have well have badged the thing in Chinese characters!
I always liked these, even though more of a Ford guy at the time. To me, the sculpted lines (I used to call them rolling hills as a kid) belonged on a Monte Carlo. They were sorely missed by not being on the 5th Generation, which was nothing more than a 2-door Lumina. Thankfully, they were back for the 6th and final generation of this car. I actually think this 3rd gen carried off that look better than the preceding 2nd gen, which was just to big for a personal luxury car (to my eyes anyway – although I give a pass to the T-Bird… go figure).
As far as names go, I like to cite a car I owned that made no sense name-wise… LTD (pronounced el-Tee-Dee). I seem to remember some comedian saying, “Just what does LTD mean anyway? Limited? Really? How many of them did Ford make anyway, like 3 million of them?” or something to that effect. I can’t recall who it was, George Carlin maybe? I forget now, but it was pretty funny at the time having owned one. ;o)
Just wondering, is there an El Teedee in Spanish? 🙂
I agree with Leon – I do prefer names over the ‘alphabet soup’ manufacturers now use for the most part, which are becoming very convoluted (e.g. Mercedes and Infiniti). In terms of the actual Monte Carlo name, many years ago in one of its “Ten Best” issues, “Car and Driver” ran a feature called “Dull Cars named after Exciting Places”. Monte Carlo wasn’t among them, but Corsica, Monterey and Bermuda (the high-line 1958 Edsel wagon) were some of the ones listed.
Late 1980 , and the guy next door was a Chevrolet salesman . My 24 year old wife, is checking out his 81 Monte Carlo demo. “Mikey I love that car but not the colour ” Of course the next evening we’re in his cubicle writing up the order. She picked the trim, and the colours, and “sound system” AM FM with a Cassette player ! My mistakes was not stepping in at the engine option..The anemic chevy 3.8 coupled with the Metric 200 automatic.
My shift manager allowed my wife to come in and drive it off the line. The Monte was her first personal car. She was so proud of it. Showed her Dad, and her girlfriends . That “MY car” she would say, “I bought it and payed for it with my own money..(I seem to recall making a couple of payments myself)..
She drove that car everyday for nine years..It rattled, and squeaked and bits of trim fell off. 240,000 KLMs (150, 000 miles) just regular maintenance . However the engine was burning oil , and the Transmission needed to be helped from 1st to second. Even with the early rust protecting products applied, the trunk was rotting. I knew the quarters didn’t have long to go.
We traded it in on a truck, and my wife took over the 84 Caprice ..She always loved that Monte Carlo
My long time friend almost bought a 1979 two tone green Monte Carlo with the optional custom cloth interior upgrade, A/C, tilt, cruise, the top 305 4BBL V8 and a few other things but in the end the 3500 price was too steep for him at 19 years old so he passed. It was a shame he didn’t get that car as it was in near mint shape at the time, drove really smooth and nice and for some odd reason Chevy included the larger P205/70R14 tires and a rear sway bar as std equipment on all 1978-1980 Monte Carlo’s so that for sure helped. The 160 HP 305 made it pretty quick compared to all the other stuff we drove so there was that too.
The LTD Comedian was Jerry Seinfeld – the joke went something like the car is LIMITED to how many they can sell – like 850,000 a year!
While I like the lack of Opera Windows on this generation of MCs, I never cared for the taillight treatment. Had a friend who owned an ugly baby blue ‘78 MC.
Like the strong architecture in the background of your pics Joe.
I didn’t find the taillight area unattractive, but there was nothing about it that suggested either “Chevrolet” or “Monte Carlo”. The 1981 facelift brought a higher, less droopy looking decklid and a taillight treatment that was very close to what the Colonnade Montes used.
I feel the taillight treatment was an example of some of the new thinking that went into this MC’s new design direction. While I ultimately prefer what came immediately before and after it, this element was one of the chances that Chevy stylists took with this car’s overall look. While I don’t think the look of these taillights was entirely successful (and I do prefer the wraparound units on the ’79 and ’80 models), I like that Chevy tried something different for three model years on a car that was very popular.
The thing I find particularly odd is the exaggerated body lines that worked so well to convey a neoclassical hugeness to the 73-77 MC actually make the 78 look significantly smaller than it is for some reason, as the 81s look more substantial despite the same basic dimensions. Also more I look at it the more it looks like a 1960 Valiant 2 door, the lines are oddly reminiscent with the flush A pillars, bulging sweeping fenders, forward angled nose and droopy rear. Lots of Mustang II coupe as well, but the proportions are better
The thing with names, to quote your example, Falcon is a cool name of a cool bird, that got applied to the most stuffy and dorky sedan of the decade, making it less special. Is Mustang really the better name than Falcon, if not for the 4 years prior of it being applied to an accountant’s appliance? It’s hard to say how it would have gone had it had a truly anynomous or even bad name(which I’m not sure there is, other than association with a car that ended up ugly or poorly built, and forever carries that stigma), but nobody knows what Camaro means, and it has been the Mustang’s biggest competitor since it debuted… I think the literal meaning of the name only really matters for first that impression, which is why Mustangs, Barracudas, Firebirds and Cougars are all grouped together as ponycars, despite being completely different species in name from each other.
Along the lines of your Falcon example, I always thought the VW Golf was a strangely named car. I guess the name was meant to evoke upper class leisure activities, but can you imagine someone arriving at a nice country club to play a round of golf in a Golf? Or worse, arriving at a polo match in a Polo?
Golf is German for “gulf”, as in “gulf wind”. VW was naming its cars after winds such as “Passat” and “Scirocco”. While they kept the German name for the sport coupe, in the US the Golf was initially called the “Rabbit” and the Passat the “Dasher”. Later they started selling these cars in the US under their original German names.
But when you get one like this…..
Part of the reason that the name “Camaro” was chosen was because there was pressure from insurance companies and other entities back in the ’60’s to use less aggressive names, although I think Mopar and Pontiac pretty much ignored that. “Camaro” apparently is a French slang term meaning friend or pal.
Bob
This gen never looked right – it had baby wheels like the Mustang II did
Btw, Saab had it before:
https://www.hagerty.com/apps/valuationtools/1966-saab-monte_carlo
I generally find the lines of this gen Monte Carlo to be O.K. But the general dropped the ball on the bumpers. Bpody colored, endure covered is fine, But those thing chrome strips that failed to line up with any other trim and in fact tended to loosen and fall off (or flap helplessly in the wind) did the car no good. I fond hem more a bad idea than even the dual balck rubber with white inserts used on the chrome bumpers of the contemporary Grand Prix, which also tended to come loose and flail about. The 81 restyle cleaned those issues up. Other than that, and the anemic drive trains, I like the cars.
Can drop in a more powerful GM crate 350 ci V8 motor, or an LS from a full sized pickup, in G bodies easily.
I knew what Monte Carlo referred to at the time, but I never got what Capri meant until I saw this.
I love the 3rd generation Monte’s…..I had an ’80 in beige with camel vinyl buckets and camel front 1/2 roof. I felt the color keyed rally wheels made it look really cool.
OK I have to agree that the name “Monte Carlo” is a great name for this car, but does it sound better in the French pronounciation or the English ? I think the French pronounciation is way better (mon-e-car-lo)
I think the French pronounciation of Monte Carlo sounds better than the way we pronounce it her in the states. I recall old TV commercials using the French pronounciation all the time. Note-
The t in Monte is silent when pronounced in French
Good names can make good cars but, good names don’t automatically make it a success or even indicate quality. Look no further than Cavalier for proof positive of that. Cavalier is a great name, one that reeks of adventure and epicness, yet it got foisted on one of the most basic, most downtrodden, and most reviled cars in human history, and the name will forever be associated with “Low grade shitbox” because of it. The Monte Carlo nameplate fell victim to that as well, especially towards the end of it’s life when it was just a two door Impala with a bodykit.
As for this generation of Monte Carlo, I like it myself personally, but I can see where it creates a sharp divide when it comes to Love/Hate. Like the Boattail Riviera, it is an acquired taste and it has to be in the right angle and color for it to work at its best, but when it does, the appeal is obvious. Of course, I will admit, Training Day did up the coolness factor for me, as the one used in the movie was pretty sharp, and this is coming from someone who doesn’t care for lowriders.
Exactly my thoughts, like I said in my reply, automakers tend not to come up with bad names, in fact they were quite good at it. Coming out with good cars, or names fitting to their task or aesthetic, is another matter. Keeping on the topic with Chevy, Bel Air and Biscayne were great names too, better IMO than Caprice or even Impala, but because of their place in the segment they both came to be associated with cab grade standard Chevy’s for an entire generation. It took them being affordable entries to classic cars for younger generations to not be stigmatized by those names(excluding tri-fives, of course).
I also felt the same way about the Training Day Monte Carlo, and likewise I’m not into low riders, I didn’t even really like the movie all that much, but it was very flattering to this generation.
I owned a ’79 Monte Carlo. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I know that. Still, I thought it was ugly, but I bought it used, so I didn’t encourage making them, and it was one less I had to look at while out driving.
I hated mine. It’s the car that made me swear off GM for good. It wasn’t particulary roomy, fast, economical, reliable, good handling. It was very easy to get sidways on an icy road. You get the idea. The paint faded quickly. The transmission was garbage. It required both metric and inch wrenches to work on it. The carb needed an expensive rebuild at far too low mileage. The black adhesive that held the weather stripping on the trunk got all over my clothes, my hands, and anything in the trunk. Stuff broke on that car that never broke on any other car I’ve ever owned. Hell, the manual seat adjuster on the driver’s seat broke the day I went to sell it.
I understand GM is building better cars now (I certainly hope so), but they built crap for long enough, culminating in that car, that I have never bought another GM model. Considering my age and what else is available, I seriously doubt I ever will.
Love the 78-79 Monte Carlo. It looks beautiful and sporty. I think it was the best of the downsized appearance wise and Grand Prix the worst. In 81 this was reversed. Monte looks best with the fender lines.
BAH!
That generation of Monte Carlo doesn’t look as good as it’s GM counterparts. The Baroque fenders are flat-out cheesy. Yes it was popular, so I am in the minority here. On the other hand, I have EYES that burn when I look upon its undulating flanks. Just because it replaced a land yacht, doesn’t mean it needed to look like it was cutting a wake through the sea of a Chevy dealership’s Chevette yellow Minions.
Yes – sometimes shrinking down a car that kept its previous stylings can cause eye ulcers. The 1980 Thunderbird? The Lincoln Mark VI? While the MC isn’t as bad as those, GM stylists must have rolled their eyes when the design was accepted.
Honestly, I know that there was still millions of PLCs to sell and sell, they did. Yet, once you downsized from the intermediate vehicles they were based upon, you lost a lot more than weight with these compact PLCs. The bloom was off the rose. Seeing a smaller Cordoba was like seeing a Whopper Jr trying to claim that it also takes “two hands to handle a Whopper!”, and trying hard not to laugh.
Yes, they sold a lot of these MC. Walmart also sells a lot of velour jogging suits to seniors who think they’re still the Six Million Dollar Man.
Love them or hate them, the Monte Carlo’s exaggerated side ‘swoops’ were a big part of its appeal ever since they first appeared on the second generation in 1973. Frankly, considering how GM’s other downsized 1978 PLC (Grand Prix) and coupes from Olds (Cutlass) and Buick (Regal) came out, the MC was the best of the lot. It would have been my choice.
Things evened out a bit with the 1981 refresh when the Cutlass and Regal both got a more attractive ‘shovel nose’, as well as the shorter grille and sculpured sides of the Grand Prix. The Monte Carlo’s loss of the swoopy sides didn’t really do it any favors, either, although it helped when combined with the more sporty, NASCAR-inspired front end of the MC SS.
Great article! You don’t see a whole lot written about the lean Monte Carlo.
My uncle bought my aunt a sky blue Landau version brand new in 1978. He ordered it with every option available including the sun roof! She was so excited and just loved that car. Once in awhile I’d get to drive it, and it felt tight.
After he passed away, she got cancer and died two years later. Towards the end she couldn’t drive and would ask me to take her places.
Sadly after she passed, her kids inherited that car and simply ran it into the ground.
What’s in a name? You raise an interesting point about the popularity of names in certain eras, Joseph. At school I was one of four Peters. Yes, it got confusing in class sometimes. Years later at seminary we had two Peters in first year; as the younger I was naturally Second Peter. The next year another Peter shared some classes: he became the apocryphal Third Peter. 🙂
What was it that made that name so popular in the fifties?
When my daughter was born, we called her Ruth. An old name, but one that had special meaning to us. Unique? No, there was another Ruth born on that ward that week. Our son is Benjamin. Nowadays Ben is common, Ruth is not. Some people get my daughter’s and my wife’s names mixed up, assuming that Ruth is older then Jane. Not so.
But the car. I think my alter ego has said it all already. I really don’t like those contrived fender swoops, but they seemed popular on the previous model despite how they looked, so I can see why they carried them over. Here they look awkward, but without them the car looked a bit generic, as we would see. And on the rear they serve to integrate that drooping butt. If you have to have a drooping butt.
No, for my money I’d rather option up a Malibu. Much nicer looking.
Excellent find Joseph. Look at the large greenhouse, and expansive glass-area, on a 1970s personal luxury coupe.
Ask the man who owns one:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-1979-chevrolet-monte-carlo-time-is-on-my-side/