At certain angles and with the light just so, a gen2 Monte Carlo can look downright bizarre, like the victim of a botched breast and hip augmentation.
From another angle, the problem is, well, not quite so severe. But no one will ever accuse it of being one of the more natural looking bodies.
I hear disco music and picture people in lime green leisure suits driving to go dance to said disco music whenever I see ’73-’77 Monte.
“Too great to be changed, too changed to be great.”
UGH! I remember riding around in one of these monstrosities as a 9 year old kid in the back seat in 82′ It was a 77′ as seen here. Seriously, why the hell have a 9 foot long hood and 12 inches of back seat room. Come to think about it, I also rode in a Renault Le Car around the same time, a 1980 model. It was about half the size of this land yacht but the back seat was actually roomier than this disco inferno coked-up GM machine.
My father had one. Considering that by this point I’d taught him to always go for the suspension option on whatever he bought, this one was a major backslide. Handled horribly, built cheaply, an absolutely pathetic automobile.
The again, what can you expect? Its a brougham. GM should have been forced into bankruptcy decades earlier, as punishment for building this crap.
Yet it sold in HUGE volumes.
Schlock sells and never forget it.
My ’74 Pinto’s back seat wasn’t much smaller than those ’73-’77 intermediate’s back seats. Pretty damn pathetic.
These were not meant to be family cars*, but for single adults going to town.
But still, one couldn’t really go on a double date or more friends. Style was the main attribute.
*Even though my dad would haul 4 kids around in his ’70 MC.
It looked weird to me even when it was new, and it has not aged well. Creases and folds and gimcracks and geegaws, like too much makeup and a really awful dress on a homely woman.
Ugly.
Agreed – but people bought it!
Why, I have no idea.
When they saw what AMC, Ford and Mopar were turning out it wasn’t so bad after all.
+1 Below is the concurrent AMC Matador (www.matadorcoupe.com).
But let me play opthamologist and ask everyone: “Which is better, this one? Or this one? (Monte Carlo or Matador) Just like going to the eye doctor, sometimes you just can’t make up your mind.
Design-wise, Chevy went with a retro (30s) look on the Monte Carlo, beginning in 1973: simulated pontoon fender lines and the round headlights (and the hood sculpting that accented those lights -a very 30s look). That was a risky design.
AMC’s 70s Matador coupe also went with a ’30s -style design, accenting the headlights (big nacells that magnified the headlight to 30s era size).
The production numbers tell the story about who bought more of which car.
But looking back -which is better, this or this? AND, like the ’57 Hudson or the ’61 Plymouth or ’59 Cadillaac, do we just love them because they’re over-the-top?
Below -an angle that highlights the 30s retro styling on the ’73 Monte Carlo -was it the square headlights of the ’76 -’77 that hurts or improves the design?
The poor, ugly Matador coupe! It missed its market completely. I think if it had not had those stupid headlight nacelles, and the hood had sloped to meet four modern rectangular headlights the front end would have looked much better. That, plus a squared-up, more formal rear roofline, and it may have been more successful. I don’t have Photoshop, but this would make a great “What If” article.
As for the Monte Carlo, well it’s no Grand Prix, IMO the best looking of these GM coupes.
A square plug in a round hole is always a recipe for failure. The only thing worse is dual stacked rectangular headlights in a car designed for rounds.
This or a Matador? Matador, hands down – but like the Marlin, it would have looked better a size smaller.
’74 Matadors were aimed at the fastback ’73 Chevelles and Torinos, which were assumed to be the volume coupes when designed. But, AMC couldn’t afford to have a ‘Matador Supreme’ coupe with formal roof.
Maybe AMC couldn’t afford a “Matador Supreme Coupe”, but they sure tried!
It sold well because it suited the tastes of the time.
I more or less agree with G. Poon. Originally I greatly detested the look of the second gen Monte Carlo. I will say that after some period of time, the style kind of grew on me, and I began to accept it. Even sort of liked it to some degree. Such as in green with a white vinyl top and white interior But not with the stacked headlights, as this one has.
That first shot really emphasizes the severe tumblehome of these cars. No wonder it was so easy to drop excess weight when downsizing came.
Yes, these and the 1971-1976 big cars have this elongated-tube fuselage styling that is really noticeable from the side.
Some small cars too, ever notice how barrel-sided the Pinto is?
Oh yeah, it was common on lots of cars, Vegas have it too. I think of the 66 Riviera/Toronado as “patient zero” for this extreme roll under and swoopy fastback/fuselage styling.
That tuck under was so you could get a better footing when stepping out of the car, particulary if you were in platforms or heels. Apparently with rooflines so low by then, it was felt to be an issue by designers.
Don’t know how well it worked in practice, but it looked pretty cool!
I’ve never heard the “easier to step out” theory. Not sure if it was the truth or PR nonsense, but it make sense.
If you read Popular Mechanics Owner’s Reports of cars during that era, a very common complaint was that the severe tuck-under made the lower fenders vulnerable to rock chips and dirt/salt/sand thrown from the wheels. Come to think of it, you would see aftermarket mud flaps on cars fairly often in those days.
Bill Mitchell, head of GM styling, was a big proponent of this extreme tumblehome. Not the most practical or space-efficient design, and it was greatly toned down with the arrival of GM’s downsized cars in the late 70s.
And back then, you automatically put chrome or black plastic mud flaps on the trailing end of your wheel wells if you wanted any paint left on the lower body sides after the first winter. I never could understand the idea of tucking the fenders behind the tyres with all the crap that the tyres will spit out.
In any of its iterations, the MC has always been odd-looking to me. A writer from Motor Trend IIRC pretty much called it ugly regardless of generation. The worst may have been the 1st generation Lumina-based coupe.
The first gens look great and the 80s models are cool, the rest, IMO, are ugly as hell or worse, bland as hell.
complaining about rear seat room in these is like complaining about trunk space in a Vette. the point is riding in style for a driver and one passenger.
What? These cars are gigantic. Style or not the backseat should have room. And if “style” was the point of these cars I’d say they missed the mark unless you’re a pimp.
Ever see how people dressed in the 70s? It wasn’t exactly an era of subtlety, Pimps were just trying to stand out inan already gaudy era lol
Space efficiency is marketing buzz that everyone has fallen for in recent years, it’s actual day to day use is about as important as peak horsepower ratings. At least style over substance was honest and up front, function over style is a farce.
function over style is a farce
Comment of the day 🙂
Yay! 😀
Great comment, and one that will provoke endless unresolvable discussion. Me, I’m probably more about function than style, but when style complements function, then all the planets align and eberyone is happy. I’m thinking Mk I Range Rover, maybe the mini. Porsche of course, But I also love it when stlye takes over, like this beast here, and many terrifying 40s/50s beasts.
If I have to choose, then it’s function. Give me an ugly off roader, or a bloaty station wagon, and I’m happier than in a beautiful but unreliable British sports car or a perfectly proportioned but rust-prone Alfasud.
Must’ve been a lotta pimps around in ’70s America, then.
Or wannabe pimps.
I like this generation of MC, though I prefer the earlier ones with round headlights. The chromed steelies with baby moon caps look out of place on this one IMO. Needs rally wheels or the polycast “Turbine II” wheels, with white letter tires.
I’ve always though this gen of Monte Carls were just fugly. There were common as dirt when I was a kid while the first gen was thinning out, I always wondered why they took such a drastic design turn from the first to the second gen.
The short stub ones are ugly too, not sure what gen but I think they’re from the late 70’s early 80s. I hadn’t seen one for decades but there was one in remarkably good shape in Williston North Dakota that apparently was someone’s DD. But it was squished and ugly looking.
Wow, I am surprised at the negative comments on this generation Monte Carlo. I’ve always thought that it was a very striking, good looking automobile! The years following had some weird moments – 1978 to 1980 to be exact – and the Lumina based coupes were weird looking as well. But the ’73-’77 Montes, I feel, are nice looking cars.
They ARE great looking cars and they sold accordingly well. So well, in fact that they spawned Cordobas and Ford Elites, which would be their great greatest sin.
If you say so. Sales figures, especially from the 70s don’t mean they were good looking. Mustang 2s sold well too and those things are ridiculous looking.
This one is in that ugly 70s brown too. We had an Impala in that same, or very close to it color. My grandma also had a citation in the same or similar color. It just always reminds me of old crappy cars.
We say so. I had an emerald green 1977 with beige Landau and interior with swivel buckets. GM or not , one of the best cars I ever had.
Like I said if you say so . I think they’re fugly.
Mustang II’s are reviled because they were horrible cars, not because they were ugly. They sold in droves precisely because of their styling and for no other reason.
You don’t think their fuel mileage and small size helped? You really think people bought them for their looks lol?
You seriously think they sold that well because people thought (and still think?) they were good looking cars?
Because from everything I’ve ever read or heard about those cars most people think they’re flat out ugly, especially the notch backs.
I also have never read much about them being intrinsically bad cars or anything.
I think they look ridiculous personally.
I don’t have to rely upon what “I read or heard about” when the Mustang II came out. I was 21 years old and a number of people I knew bought them because they were downsized after the bloated 1971 – 73 Mustangs. Unfortunately the Pinto underneath the II was not the reliable car the Falcon was for the original Mustang. But you cannot tell me their looks were not praised, because they were. A number of cars popular in their time look goofy now, but revising history to say that was always so is wrong.
The reason I have to rely on what I’ve read about Mustang 2s is because Mustang 2s are almost extinct. You still see examples of every other Mustang Generation everywhere….but 2s? All but gone.
And that isn’t because they were mechanically bad cars. It’s because they’re ugly and nobody bothers to restore them or keep them around. Once they got a bit beat up people just got rid of them.
They were the ” right car at the right time” but again I don’t think that has much to do with looks. They were small and semi-sporty, so people bought them. People bought Citations and Cavaliers too but just like the Mustang 2 those cars are almost gone.
People bought Neons and PT Cruisers too, almost all gone.
Some cars are disposable, the Mustang 2 is an example of that. Even Mustang fans generally disown the car.
I like this generation also, but I think the 78’s and up looked very similar but better because they had a similar shape but they had the proper proportions.
Not a great looking car but a lot nicer than the Thunderbird from the same period and that’s from a Ford fan!I saw a dark blue one in the South Shore area of Blackpool when at the punk festival.It seemed at home in the run down sea front cruising past a strip club.
That half vinyl roof looks like Joe Dirt’s haircut
I never though a Colonnade could look like a saggy, boney old lady!
I recall there was one of these always parked at my karate studio (about 20 years ago) with a plastic cup for a turn signal
I dunno- I kind of like them. Ugly but somehow still attractive, and it brings back memories. Dad had one of these for about a year, it was a burgundy ’73 Monte Carlo “S” with a full vinyl roof. I was learning to drive and the front end was a bit loose; there was a lot of play in the steering which took some getting used to. I liked riding in it well enough, but no one ever sat in the back seat. The glovebox was also very shallow, I thought, and didn’t have much room for maps, flashlight, smokes, all that sort of thing. Despite these shortcommings, the 350 V-8 had a good amount of punch (it was a 4-bbl), and I liked the burled wood dash. The day the Kingdome was demolished, we decided to go see the pile of rubble. Dad parked right in a line with the other spectators’ cars, (actually just improvised space on what was once a throughfare) and we joined the crowd of onlookers. I was studying a corner of the debris when we heard a metallic crunching sound; before I knew what was going on, I looked around, dad was shouting “Hey!” and running down the street after a big extended cab pickup with a utility trailer that had just backed into the front end while trying to maneuver out of the makeshift parking lot. Luckily, the big shelf bumper on the Monte saved it from any harm, other than a few minor scrapes. As a self conscious 16 year old, I pretended I didn’t know him 🙁 Sometimes I wish we had held onto that car. Guess that’s why I fell for a blue ’77 Grand Prix a decade later. Thinking of Carrie Fisher’s character in the Blues Brothers, the GP really needed a coat of red lacquer and a flame thrower to be complete.
Compared to the other clamshell coupes, the Monte Carlo did have a different look thanks to the forward cant. It really embodies “The Spirit of Motion”.
… Which means it was the second car in history to be so characterized.
Not many people know that the project manager on this design was ferried to scout meetings during the War in his Dad’s 1939 Graham….
No kidding? The beautiful Shark nosed Graham? Now it all makes sense. . .
Don’t repeat that, lest history be rewritten….
I should say what changes I made so the ideas don’t become facts
I moved the greenhouse back, though I it could have stayed where it was, then made the rear quarter windows smaller, then added a padded roof.
I absolutely love the Gen2 Monte Carlo, though I have to admit I like the Grand Prix better. Back in the day, the mid ’70s Grand Prix was my dream car.
Also, they made them really wide without making the frame any wider. When you see one on stock wheels and tires, it looks like the tires are halfway under the body. They were also very heavy relative to the chassis’ components. I had a ’74 Malibu that ate steering/suspension bits like M&Ms.
I’ve had a 76 and 77 Malibu Classic, and they suffer from typical GM front end wear.
Every 100,000 miles or so you have to rebuild the front ends. Or at least I have to. Not much different than newer cars. Not any different than my 95 Explorer, if you remember to grease the ball joints.
I agree that the track is too narrow for the body, as mine with stock wheels and tires looks like it just hulks over the wheels.
Sheesh people. And everyone wonders why all we have to look at today are Camcordaltoptimas.
The designers of this Monte took some chances with classic design cues and came up with something that sold VERY, VERY, well for a five year run. It probably would have done well for another two years. And, its successor borrowed many of this car’s design cues and also did very well.
Now that everyone is all riled up, please pour yourself a double bourbon, cue up some Muzak, and stare at the image below for a while. You will soon return to your previous somnambulant state. I picked silver to help speed the process.
Pleasant dreams………
An excellent point sir. It’s easy to ridicule cars like the Monte, but in the ’70s Chevy sold every one they could make. The “me too” cars from the competition did pretty well also. No, they weren’t great cars by today’s standards but the first rule of business is to give people what they want. In the mid ’70s, a whole lot of people wanted “personal” cars like this.
Not really my favourite, but it’s nice to see one still on the road. They were actually a pretty decent car to drive if equipped properly.
“No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
H.L. Mencken, (1926)
That’s the full version of the oft-paraphrased quote.
@Syke,
Mr. Mencken may have been right in 1926, but I would counter by pointing out that GM themselves eventually proved him wrong, at least on the business side. I believe his statement still holds true on the political side though……
The bulk of buyers tend to gravitate to the best products in a price quality matrix. The Accord, Camry, Fusion, Altima, etc., tend to embody this today.
As I’m sure you know, the ’77-’96 GM B body was basically a modification of this car. This chassis ran from 1973 through 1996, and for most of those years was a massive best seller that was highly ranked by both enthusiast and objective consumer opinion. Most iterations were good handlers, reliable, comfortable, and met the needs of their buyers very, very, well.
This was the Camry of its time, to call all those buyers fools, is, well, ……..
But, if one looks at pics of 70’s parking lots, there are lots of ‘me too’ opera window coupes. The Cordoba was a true carbon copy of Monte/GP, why didn’t Bill Mitchell ask for francise fee?
Every generation has a common style that is popular. A younger kid today wouldn’t be able to tell a MC from a GP, saying ‘look all alike’.
Yes. The Monte Carlo was not necessarily the first car in the “personal luxury” segment, but the ’73-’77 version probably cemented in the concept as the quintessential ’70s car. The successful followers were legion. Most were quite distinct compared to many of today’s cars, but for younger observers, these cars do fit the look of an era.
Ohhhhhhh, is that the silver mist grey metallic mica or the mica silver grey metallic mist? I can’t decide, I like them both soooooooooooo much. I hope it has the Special Edition Value group B with the sandstone grey cloth, 15 inch special edition alloy wheels with the chrome tipped deluxe power window controls!
Wow I think you’re right! Luckly for the owner of this rare gem someone blocked out the plate numbers, this Elanor would definitely be a target for an international car theft ring!
Yuk. Now THAT is an ugly car. A jelly bean 4 door that looks just like every other jelly bean 4 door on the road. I was 16 in 1975, and the personal luxury coupes were my favorite type of car, even over Camaros and Mustangs. A few years back, someone I know got over $20,000 for a near mint low mileage Monte Carlo. Don’t remember the year, but it was a second gen with round headlights. If I had the money, I would have bought it.
I loved all the personal luxury coupes of that era. The Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, Cutlass Supreme, Buick Regal, Gran Torino Elite, Lincoln Continental Mark IV and Mark V and the ’77-’79 Thunderbird. I also really liked the Mustang II, other than the name. I actually liked the notchback Ghia model more than the fastback. I thing the Mustang, either body style, was way better looking than the Fox bodied ’79-’93s, which didn’t even resemble a Mustang. The ’71-’73 Mach 1 Mustangs were absolutely stunning.
If you think ’70s cars were ugly, just take a look at the made by kitchenaid appliances we have today. The Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger are the only nice looking American cars left, and they just ruined the Mustang for 2015.
Never liked the retro Camaro and the Mustang is still a good looker.The Chrysler 300 still looks great though I’d have the Vauxhall version of the Chevy SS
I agree the Mustang II should have dropped the II, but I disagree about the ’71-’73 Mach I – the ’74 II was a welcome relief to a iconic car that had grown fat and bloated and practically useless.
I also think the ’15 is stunningly gorgeous – modern yet clearly a Mustang. The ’05 was a huge improvement over the ’04, but the ’10 update improved even more. One thing I do love about the ’15 is the vastly upgraded interior.
I thought the opposite about the 05 and 10 update, the 04 still looked like a Mustang and was still right sized and comparably lightweight. The 05 was bloated and the 10-14 was bloated and horribly awkward (especially the kim kardashian ass). I like the 15 much more save for the front end (will slanted headlights ever end???)
I love the 79-93 foxbodies too though. The Mustang isn’t a Porsche 911, it never represented a basic design evolution save for the 67/68 update and the retro Mustang II and the Retro 05-14. I don’t know why clean sheet updates are considered ok with Camaros and just blasphemous with the Mustang. The proportions always were true to the name.
My family has always driven Mustangs, so I’ve test driven the new Ecoboost and the new 5.0 ’15 Mustangs. They’re great cars, but until we parked one next to my dad’s ’12, they just aren’t changed enough. Every panel is new, but the overall effect is so similar to the ’05 that I wonder how dated it will look in five to seven years.
Are you kidding, you could get white vinyl swivel buckets in these cars!
For that reason alone they are a true classic.
The body looks great to me. That face though…
If by “bizarre” you mean AWESOME, then yeah.
No wonder the Cutlass Supreme sold so well. Count me in the camp of those who think this car was grossly over styled. The 70-72 had been so clean.
This gen of MC reminds me of the 1962 “plucked chicken” Mopars, and especially Exners concept for a 1962 DeSoto with its “chicken wing” rear fenders. What do you think?
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1960s-chrysler-concept-cars3.htm
Good point, being younger than all those cars, in fact they were pretty much extinct by the time I knew any better, I didn’t really understand the hate for the 62s before I got perspective, many very successful 70s cars like this gave them a run for the money.
Like so many American cars the first one was the best and subsequent restyles were never as good.I saw a dark green 70 Monte Carlo at a show in summer and it looked very attractive
Most of the ’73 and up colonnades had a lot of body sculpting – I give GM credit for still producing several distinctive cars, most of which sold quite well. The early Cutlass was also pretty busy. But, I liked the Cutlass well enough to own the ’73 and toned down ’76 versions.
Not mine, but representative………
As a teen, when the Colonnades came out, I really liked the Malibu and Cutlass. But I thought the MC was ugly from all angles and in all light. 40+ years later I’m less of a Colonnade fan, except for the Cutlass, but the MC has not grown on me. But as always, I appreciate the diversity of opinion and insight here on CC.
Paul, you seriously missed the Toyota Pr(egg)via parked behind the Monte?! For shame! For shame!
They’re everywhere here. Even the taxis. Who bother?
In Michigan, these eggs are about as common as Donks in Eugene (i.e. nonexistent).
These Monte Carloes look alright enough, but it is the 78-79s that I really like and want to someday own one.
My mother bought a ’73 MC when we found out that the full-size Chevy wouldn’t fit in our 1932-era garage. My brother and I thought it was so cooling-looking back then. Ours was dark blue, with a matching cloth interior. It was an S model, sparsely optioned, with a bench front seat, single-speaker AM radio, and no vinyl roof. The single round headlights fit the styling much better IMO than the stacked rectangular quads used in the ’76 and ’77 models. That extreme tumblehome meant that road splash onto the fenders was a real problem in keeping the lower body sides clean.
After some early teething problems, which required the car to be towed to the dealer (twice as I recall), it turned out to be reasonably reliable, going on to be my brother’s car when he moved out to the San Diego area in 1984 and going well past 100K miles.
I have to admit, I prefer the styling of these Montes to the ’78-’80s and even the ’71-’72. Especially like the ’73-’75 with the round headlights.
The ’70, however, will always be at the top of my list of fave Monte Carlos.
Better looking than any given CUV at least. Present 2014 isn’t exactly an era of good taste either.
I’m a huge fan of both the CR-V and Lincoln MK-C. They both have distinctive design lines, perhaps off-putting with the Honda but I like them.
That is a truly grotesque angle.
The first generation was fine. Everything after was bleah……
Repelling yet compelling………….. I used to see one around home 5-6 years ago. A RHD conversion.
1977 monte carlo was the first car I ever financed, compared to the cars running around today, this has a lot of style versus the jelly beans running around, it wasn’t a family car, it was a middle income persons personal sporty coupe, I actually like the same year grand prix better, but the price on this car was great, they looked a lot better with the chevy rallys than these baby moon reversed wheels, brings back memories!
The thing was that you could use these as family cars, when I was a kid, both my parents had 2 door cars, people just made their kids climb in the back,they didn’t need to sit in gigantic car seats until they were like 18 and they didn’t need 2 big screen tv’s and headphones, you sat in the back and you glimpsed at the world through a narrow opera window.
Exactly! Kids today are spoiled brats if you ask me!
If I were a kid today I’d throw a fit about sitting in an asinine car seat, I loved sitting in the front factory seat at 5 years old. It’s the overprotective parents and nazi parent group lobbies that are the brats enacting these laws!
I mean the kids are spoiled with the DVD players, headphones and such. We sat in the back seat and endured looking out a small opera window and were content. Kids today have all kinds of DVD screens, video games etc. and they all seem miserable!!
Our Quest had a VHS player(with AUX so it would play DVD and games too), I think I used it maybe twice on our long family road trips, I much preferred the scenery or sleeping and we’d always rotate along the way and I preferred riding up front. I think all that entertainment junk is to make the kids/preteens forget they look and feel like complete wimps sitting in car seats.
i normally don’t like front end changes of the later versions of the same car but I personally thought the stacked headlights on the 1976-77’s improved among the rounded headlights on the 1973-75’s along with the taillights (never liked the 1973-74 taillights), my mother used to own a 1976 Chevy Monte Carlo and it was a great car, wish she still had that car today.
For some reason that rear shot makes me think of those old R. Crumb “Keep On Trucking” posters….
In many ways, a good looking car. But as so many have mentioned, it didn’t age well. The sagging doors (I have never seen one without…) are like a facelift gone wrong. It ruins the lines on a love it or hate it body style.
The irony is that unlike cosmetic surgery this is easy to remedy. An hour or so, a ratchet and some jacks, all it takes to get the trim lens correct.
A little attention and love are all these (most) old girls need.
As a side benefit you won’t have to slam the doors three time to close them!
Depressingly common neglect.
Love and respect your elders!
I owned a couple of these GM cars and the doors were fine throughout several years of ownership. A little sagging after almost 40 years isn’t too bad, and like you said, an easy fix.
I had a ’74 Century Luxus coupe back in ’84 and it had saggy doors.
Yes, at ten years of age, many two door cars of the era had some door sag. Again, an easy fix and you are good for another 10 years. Not exactly a fatal flaw, more like maintenance.
My oldest daily driver is currently 12 years old. I’ve had some that were as old as 21. All got compliments as cool older cars because I put the appropriate effort into them.
Sort of ironic they used 73 design cues on the 2nd Gen Monte Carlo of the 00s when these are so over styled and bloated. The 1st Gen should have been the benchmark. It still looks clean and elegant.
This one’s a monster, though a product of the times. The 00 Monte Carlo with it’s ball sac tail lights that hint at the shape of the 70s MC and the hot mess front end “suggestion” of round head lights, the baroque sculpting that mimicked the flanks of the 2nd Gen MC were a product of what ? The times at GM where half measures were entrenched and built right in ?
This MC is totally ridiculous, but at least the designers went all out. There were so much a part of the era and so common they don’t look at all odd now.
The headlights on the 6th gen MC are like Kermit the Frog’s eyes. After your comment, I will never see the taillights on these cars the same. Ewww.
i see one and think “nice lumina”
I have a 73 Monte Carlo and I cannot go anywhere without people yelling “What year?”, “Nice car”! Basically they loose their mind. I loved these cars as a 70’s kid and have had one my entire life since I was 16. I always get compliments so I’m kind of taken aback by all the negativity here. To each his own I guess, but someone must’ve like them as they sold about 1.5 million of them between 73-77 and I don’t think it was because the Matador was ugly…
I can’t understand all the Monte Carlo bashing in this blog either, Scott. I’ve always thought the MC was a great looking car, at least the 73-77 style to be certain. My uncle had a 1976 Landau, white with a black vinyl top and black cloth interior. He bought it new and I can still smell that new car smell it had – a very distinctive smell, I might add!
I went to college in the late ’70s and the MC, Trans Am, and Cutlass were THE cars to have. GM cornered the market on stylin’ back then, although I was a big brougham Cougar fan myself…
It’s also surprising all of the comments this Monte generated. Surely gets attention either way. It’s a big car and this one does not really do the 2nd gens much justice with the dog dish hub cabs. They really need something to fill out the wheel wells and IMO Rally’s are a MUST! Tom C I had a white 74 with a black top and interior when I was younger. I sold it and regretted it horribly. I have kept the one I have now knowing I will just go find another!
Wow, I had the exact same color combination in 1974. Sort of wanted a Cutlass but the Monte was quite a bit cheaper with the same equipment + the swing out bucket seats a must have at the time. The car shown has the “Landau” – “brougham, I sort of suppose” badge so it should have the factory mag wheels and not the ‘moons as shown.
No accounting for taste that far back. Mine or anyone else s but it was a pretty good car. Replaced it in 1975 with a Thunderbird that blew its 1st engine with 38 miles on it. 36 Miles from the dealership, give or take.
This design actually makes sense with larger wheels believe it or not. I seen a white Monte go thru the intersection at Proto Junction in NLR about 10 years ago with a set of 20 inch wheels on. The design actually was improved!
Wow, no 5 mile/hr. bumper complaints yet…
Yuck, a reminder of how bad the Monte Carlo looked by the late seventies. The only model that appealed to me back then was the 73-74 model. Now I would say the clean styling of the 70 -72 is more my preference.
As young man back then I couldn’t understand why the Monte Carlo sold so well. The Cutlass was much better looking. Overall the mid to late seventies was the Dark Ages of the North American automobile. They were also so big, so awkward in styling, so poorly built. Now my biggest gripe is the lack of colour in automotibiles–inside and out.
Except for the wheels that looks just like the one my buddy Rick had way back in high school, right down to the tan landau top.
This vintage Monte is also pretty close to the one Joe Pesci drove in Casino.
“When he said……..a couple a hundred yards down the road……I gave myself 50/50”
My “77 was a victim to Northern Virginia road salt. What a pity! Loved that car!
Although not in my top 10 (or for that matter my Top 1000 😀 ) I do sorta like these Monte’s. I have been coveting a certain one a friend owns and am trying to talk him into selling it to me. It’s a ’73, white with a black full vinyl top rust-free Texas car needed a bit of restoration. Swivel seats, console with floor shift, tilt, cruise, p/w, p/l, a/c, Posi, all 4 original Rally wheels, sunroof, and the piece de resistance… it’s original 454 still resides under her massive hood. I want it so damn badly…
I wasn’t particularly fond of the Monte Carlos when they first came out in 1970, but when the ’73’s debuted, OH GAWD! Hate Hate Hate…….. Absolutely one of the UGLIEST Chevrolets EVER.
I don’t understand the hate I’m seeing here, but I’m 50 and I grew up with these every where. Nearly got one as a high school daily driver but Dad went for a ’76 Cougar instead. I do remember the cool seats that would swivel out with the touch of a lever. The hood seemed impossibly long and when I opened it, I was bemused by the three foot long fan shroud. Dad nearly got it as we’d had a ’78 Monte Carlo with the 305, but the Cougar had the doors that didn’t have the moving parts inside that went ‘thwap-wap-wap’ when you slammed it and seemed to be more solid. The Monte’s styling was much, much better.
Me either. Such a ubiquitous car from the Seventies, seems everyone I knew owned one at one time or another, myself included (a well-worn ’74). Not pretty, not especially ugly either. Just… Seventies.
also is it just me or does the dog dish hubcaps ruin the look of the car, I think they look better with the center caps in the middle of the hubcaps.
One last comment. To me the ’73-’77 Monte Carlo is a beautiful car. Classic ’70s. If you don’t like the Monte Carlo, what do you think of some of the seriously over done late ’50s and early ’60s cars? They are from an era before me, but I would be very happy to drive one. ANYTHING but these hideous 4 door ovaloid jelly bean cars.
I also like the first generation, and the fourth generation, especially the SS.
It’s funny that some people complain about these being overstyled, but don’t say the same thing about the cars of the 1950’s .In the days of 30 cent gas stylists could afford to use sheetmetal as sculptural material .I wonder if hydrogen powered cars ever become truly mass market we will see a return to such flamboyant styling.
91k miles…$2500
http://seattle.craigslist.org/sno/cto/4750816888.html
If I had the garage space I’d show that Monte some love.
Wow! If I was local I would snap that up, even if just to flip. That seems seriously underpriced unless the photos are hiding something major. And it’s a great color and has the swivel buckets/console!
I’m also 50, and remember when these were so common as to be almost invisible. I never liked them, and always thought them ungainly and ludicrously proportioned…But good heavens the “personal luxury” class of car, with the Monte at the vanguard, certainly captured the market for a time in the 70s.
Yep, the Monte was a winner, and the catalyst for the imitator Ford Elite and then the Cordoba (and less well remembered 75 Fury coupe). They were all hugely successful. Like disco, though, when the fashion faded it went away fast. As a teenager yearning for BMWs and Alfas, it was easy to make fun of these beasts. Although I was intrigued (still am) by some of the imports’ efforts to cash in on the craze, such as the Mazda Cosmo, the 78+ “chest wig” 280ZX, gen 2 Celica/Supra, etc. The most bizarre interpretation of the craze, to me at least, was the chop-top Volvo 262C.
Those Volvo Bertone coupes were pricy yet sooooo gorgeous. And unloved…
As a 15-year owner of one of these, I have to comment. Of course it’s a bit over the top, but it’s also fun and as many are saying, was a big seller for a long time. I certainly get plenty of positive comments about it, and I don’t think there is an equal number of people who see it and are holding their tongues about how ugly they think it is! It was so popular that it was almost immediately copied. The Ford Elite (1974) and Chrysler Cordoba (1975) wouldn’t have existed or at least wouldn’t have looked anything like they did if not for the Monte Carlo they were reacting to. I do agree that the car has some bad angles (especially the rear) and the severe tumblehome can make the track look narrow and awkward from some angles. But overall it’s a winner to me. It doesn’t hurt that mine is lime green!
I think maybe you need to have grown up when the ’73-77 Monte was new (I was in kindergarten when these hit the streets) to “get” how normal and accepted, and aspired to it was at the time.
I knew someone in CC Land had this car, and I’m glad you chimed in. I would not have sought out your color back in the day, but I associate this with good ’70s memories. The daughter of the neighbors next door, about 10 years older than me, moved back in after a divorce. She would spend a lot of time in a bikini in the back yard, giving 15 year old me a great deal to think about. She drove your car.
For the record, my ’76 Cutlass was that popular pale yellow with the buckskin vinyl top. Not a color I sought, but as a used car, it was a loaded low mileage executive cruiser. Even the cops gave me compliments as they wrote tickets!
To me, the Cordoba was light years better looking than the MC, as usual for the styling Chrysler “copied”. A better term would be “perfected”, IMHO. And the green paint? Sorry, but.. oh hell no. That ruined even a good looking car.
Thanks for posting that picture of the green/white Monte Carlo. It is now my desktop. Somehow, the Monte Carlo managed to be luxurious, elegant, and sporty at the same time. I have looked long and hard on Craigslist for a ’70s personal luxury coupe, and they are all either trashed or customized beyond recognition. The Monte Carlo is very popular as a low rider, or worse yet, as the recipient of 40″ wheels. And as nice as I think the design is, the quality was not very good, and has not held up over time. Cars don’t rust here, but the sun destroys all the plastic and rubber, and the paint.
Yes, disco and polyester leisure suits were awful, but that doesn’t mean the cars were. IMO, the ’70s was the best decade for cars ever. Of course you can never top a ’57 Chevy Bel Air, but some beautiful cars were made in the ’70s. I’m wondering just how long this jelly bean look is going to last, or if cars will ever have style again. Seems like every generation has had it’s own look, but the current ovaloid egg shape is here to stay. And will there ever be 2 door cars again?
A little off topic, but I own a 1973 Ford Pinto Squire wagon. It is a light brown with simulated woodgrain panels. Completely original except for the eBay 8 track. Still solid as a rock and runs great after 41 years. Thinking about putting it on here.
Thank you! I used to own a Pinto, too!
Great picture, great car! Congratulations…
Quite like it from the front (the round-lamp cars of this generation have always looked bug-eyed to me), but quite *dis*like it from that back. That’s the angle where it does look somewhat…swollen.
Unlike the first generation which was a pleasure to behold, I was sick of this one the day it was introduced! Worse, it hung around so long, so, so long! Must be Mitchell was having a bad day!
Squishy photo from rear looks like a Mustang II, and shot from above in front looks like a Cordoba. Everyman’s lumpy-mobile?
I remember going to the Chevy dealer with my friend who was picking up a part for his Nova, and there was a brand new maroon MC sitting there, and we just laughed at it. All the ’73 GM Colonade cars were pretty sad, but the MC was the worst. We were dumbfounded when another friend of ours bought his first new car, a ’75 MC, maroon with a white vinyl top. We asked him, “Are you really 19, or 49?”. He didn’t see the humor in it, and wasn’t happy when his girlfriend at the time said, “Why did you buy this ugly ass car?” The pitiful thing of it all was he sold his really nice, rust free 1970 Chevelle SS to buy it. Almost 40 years later, the MC is a faint memory, the SS is truly missed. On top of that, the SS is still around here, looks like new. The guy who bought it from him still has it, 39 years later. Meanwhile, the friend is looking for a decent 68-70 Chevelle SS that he can afford to buy, Good luck.
I loved this car at 16, still love it at 55. Now that I can afford a decent car, there is nothing out there I want.
Obviously this is no match for a Chevelle SS, though I prefer the ’70-’72 model SS396 with the “cowl induction hood” Those were collectors items back when they were new.The Monte Carlo was just a great looking average ’70s car, which looks better than ever when compared to the junk available today.
These sold like hotcakes during the 70’s. Most buyers were single or just married couples or elderly owners who’s children were long moved out of the house. Rear seat legroom didn’t much matter. A roomy front seat, a large trunk, a smooth torquey V8 under hood and styling that stood out from the sedans were the attractions along with dressier interiors and the in vogue landau vinyl half tops. The 350 Chevy V8, which was most commonly ordered up to about 1976 was a solid engine and the 305 could be made into a decent mill when the soft factory cam and valve seals were ditched in favor of upgrades.
I think it’s a good idea to show what these cars looked like when they were fresh. They should be seen as a purchase choice that was a bit flamboyant and stylish at a time when many cars on the highways were tired leftovers from the 1960s and even cars from the 1950s weren’t at all rare.
And this
And this one too