What a difference a decade makes. In the early part of the sixties, all of Europe was falling over themselves to imitate the 1960 Corvair’s clean and airy body design. Ten years on, American car design had been well sucked up into the depths of the Great Brougham Epoch, where crude plastic surgery all-too often replaced actual design, with bulging breasts and hips, poofy padded wigs, hood and buttocks augmentation, and oddly enough, fat implants on a massive scale; all of which came at the expense of the qualities modern cars once did espouse, and would do so again. So here we have the American and European COTY winners for 1973. And which one showed the way forward? Or maybe that’s a leading question.
Am I biased? Sure; for starters, I prefer to see breasts and hips where they belong,
instead of tacked on to the sides of a car.
I make no bones about it; in 1973, the new Audi 80/Fox was my lust object. There was a (well heeled for the times) grad student down the street from me in Iowa City that had a brand new Fox, and always parked it on the front lawn, as students are so fond of doing. Of course, I’d read all about it in auto, motor und sport, as well as the rave reviews in the American buff books, but seeing one in the flesh really made the juices flow. This is what I want…
The Monte Carlo? Well, let’s just say I was…um…impressed, in a strange sort of way. The whole 1973 Colonnade line-up was a bit overwhelming when it arrived; there were just so many unexpected aspects to them: their sheer size, the huge difference between the coupes and sedans, and the flamboyant styling.
A very impressive beast, if that was your thing. And it certainly was with lots of Americans. Obviously, not on the university campuses of 1973, but the suburbs were lapping up Monte Carlos like warm milk. These big coupes were the perfect replacements for the cramped Mustangs and Camaros Americans had stuffed themselves into a few years earlier; only in comparison to a pony car did a Monte Carlo seem somewhat roomy. And by the time you’re forty and driving off to the office, dreams of genuine performance cars had been replaced with more…sedate realities. No wonder he looks so put out.
Yes, let’s do make our own comparison between the Monte Carlo and the Great Road Cars of Europe. Where shall we begin? OK, GM rightfully could crow about the significantly improved handling in these cars, mostly though if they were equipped with the handling package. It’s to GM’s credit that they finally saw the light in the early seventies, and began to address the intrinsic deficiencies in most big American cars. These efforts would really pay off in the 1977 B-Bodies, but it started (mostly) here. And of course, it also ended mostly with that.
Because the “Great Road Cars of Europe” were more than just decent handling on a smooth road. If you were going to tackle an alpine pass with some zest, there were other considerations. But obviously, this was all marketing BS anyway. What Americans wanted in a Monte Carlo was a flashy comfortable ride with which to impress the neighbors, if it handled a bit better, that was icing on the cake. Ford had no trouble selling its wallowing competitors. But in 1973, GM was well aware of the ascendency of European cars, and paying lip service to it was their solution.
There wasn’t anything resembling the “Great European Road Cars” in the Monte’s interior, that’s for sure. Typical mid-seventies GM cheap hard plastic extrusions that showed every scratch were all to predominant.
As the smallest and cheapest Audi, the 80/Fox interior certainly wasn’t exactly plush, but it was very clean, with a well-organized instrument nacelle, genuine wood trim, and a high-quality padded dash cover, and typical VW/Audi firm seats. Needless to say, comparing these two cars is really a futile exercise, as their respective functions and markets were almost totally opposite.
The Audi 80/Fox marked the beginning of the whole modern era at both Audi and VW. It premiered the famous 827 SOHC four engine that found itself under the hoods of VAG products for decades, in all sorts of permutations. Even though the early ones weren’t yet fuel injected, the 1.5 and 1.6 fours were always eager to please, especially in the very light Audi. Handling was superb for the times, considering it was FWD. The 80 was badge-engineered into the VW Passat, and much of what was learned from the 80 was put to good use in the Golf/Rabbit that arrived a couple of years later. The 80 was the car that saved VW, period. And its direct successor, the Audi A4, has become one of the most successful products in its class.
The Monte Carlo was tried and true under the hood, and the overwhelming majority came with the classic 350/THM combo that gave adequate performance given the times. The standard two-barrel version made 145 hp; the four-barrel upped that to 175. The 245 hp 454 was still available too, but there was no SS454 version like in the old Monte.
The Monte Carlo S did come with standard steel-belted radials and suspension tuning, but externally there was little to tell them apart externally from its less-capable version. What was the take rate on the “S”? Who knows, but I suspect none too high.
image: oldparkedcars.com
There’s no need to go on; these two are as opposite as Dolly Parton and Isabeli Fontana. To each their own. But if you’re going to accuse me of bias because I showed pictures of new Audi 80s and a beater Monte Carlo, well, that’s because I’ve yet to find a Fox in the wild. But the hunt continues.
If one will call any colonnade the 1973 CCOTY, it must be the Pontiac Grand Am (especially with a 4 speed stick).
I believe Junqueboi and Zackman would agree with me (hopefully).
Well Alfasaab99, I just about almost completely agree with you, LOL
The 73 GP, not a bad choice Junqueboi.
Sorry neither is my cup of tea
Since no one else is being picky, I guess I’ll do it. The pictured Monte is a ’74. However the one in the ad is indeed a ’73.
I was going to be picky, but you stole my thunder. I owned a 1973 and a 1977, both of which were predominantly bulletproof and gorgeous. And I would love to have them both back. And looking at the picture of that 1974 makes me wonder: why do people not know how to drive and simply just run into things without a care in the world? That, to me, is senseless. But to the average Joe Blow car aimer (not driver), their car is just an appliance anyway. Saw a 2006 vintage Civic yesterday without a straight body panel on it. What is the damned use of getting a nice car and then just driving it into something?
The S was actually the best-selling Monte Carlo: 61 percent of ’73 Monte production was the S, which outsold the more expensive Landau by about 70,000 units. From 1974 to 1977, the S became the base model, since the previous ‘plain’ Monte sold in very small numbers.
According to the 1973 brochure, virtually every one sold would have had to be an S or a Landau. The base coupe was unavailable with auto trans or radial tires, while S included THM and radials.
Yes, a theoretical base model with 3-on-the-tree only, bias tires only. I used to think that surely nobody would ever order something like that, but years of browsing Hemmings and E-Bay have puzzlingly shown me otherwise.
I would assume that the main rationale for the base coupe was to be able to advertise a lower list price — the difference in that case being $147.
That was actually a useful amount of money in 1973.
The Fox was the first small displacement car that was truly fast. I remember a comparison test in Car and Driver where the Fox and Opel 1900 placed 1st and 2nd. The Opel was the handling king but the Fox by far the fastest.
The problem with the Fox and Dasher was that the federalization of those was hurried. My aunt had a 74 Dasher that had carburetor and transmission issues the dealer could not solve. Some days it would not start and we lived in warm California. She traded that in after a few months for a 74 Super Beetle.
The light-weight construction (and new technologies) that made the Fox and Dasher perform so well gave less longevity than Americans were used to from German products. These were very rare to see on the road just 10 years later.
The survival rates of the Colonnades and B-bodies that followed seem much higher.
These still look really attractive to me, but they were problematic and repair costs were too high compared with domestic cars.
My Dad bought a ’74 Fox in about 1976 or so. It was dark green with a tan interior and it had a 3 speed automatic. He was a stick shift guy but these cars were very hard to find in northern michigan, so he settled on the auto. The car spent a lot more time sitting broken than it did running. I remember the auto trans went out and that was the final blow. It was the first car that I drove and I spent a lot of time running up and down our dirt road in it. That pic of the interior brought back a flood of memories.
It rusted really quickly in our snow/salt environment. My dad hated that car, but replaced with another VW–a 1978 Rabbit.
My neighbor bought an Audi Fox when they were new. IIRC, he wasn’t happy with it. All I remember about it was that it was a silver two door and stood out on a street where a couple air cooled VWs were about as exotic as things got. He replaced it with a Pennsylvania Rabbit, followed by a string of Subarus. He was a pharmaceuticals rep, so he also always had a big American company car that changed every year or two. He was a WWII vet that came back after touring post-war Europe in an MG with two duffel bags sticking up from the back, a whiskey bottle propping them apart so he could see what was behind him. Great man.
That orange Fox is simply stunning(the attractive lady in the photo certainly helps also)!
The Monte Carlo(or should it be called the Monty Python?) is simply totally overblown styling that just reminds me of American automobiles in the late 50’s when styling ran amok.
I hadn’t thought about it before but I agree with you about the Monte Carlo’s styling. It really does harken back to late 50’s.
No, there wasn’t anything that ugly in late 50’s American cars. Not even the tacked-on fins on Studebaker Hawks.
How about a 58 Lincoln if you want ugly?
I never cared for the Monte’s hips. However it still would not stop me from using it to tow the audi to the scrapyard though. Although the Monte would clearly triumph over the audi across the scales (as it would in every other area 🙂 ), the German Junque funds would still probably cover several trunkfuls of additional colonnade parts to bring back home to a few of its cousins.
Admittedly, I do like the hips on a boat-tailed Riviera.
I can agree that the GM Colonnades were huge in their impact. For quite a few years, they were simply everywhere. If we were to choose a Colonnade for CCOTY, however, I might go with the Cutlass Supreme. This was the beginning of the mid-size Oldsmobile’s dominance.
I will echo PN’s praises of the handling on these cars. My mother bought a 74 Luxury LeMans. Although the Pontiac 2 bbl 350 was a bit of a performance dog, the car could really handle. Don’t ask me how I know this, just trust me. I was in high school. I spent time in a lot of other cars, but that LeMans with its fast variable ratio steering and its flat-cornering suspension was the best handling mid size or larger American sedan I had ever driven to that point.
I knew two people who owned 3 Foxes. They were very attractive cars. Unfortunately, both owners never owned another (so far as I know). One family had two at one time, and I understood that they were both quite troublesome and expensive to maintain. At least one of them was replaced by a Nova.
I understand the Audi 100’s reputation was why its successor was called the 5000 in the US market.
Nowadays, Audi seems to be dominant in Deutschen Überautos.
And still as unreliable, difficult/expensive to maintain, and rapidly depreciating as ever.
Put a “foxy” blonde model in the photo, apparently, & even sophisticated Germans will sleepwalk in a Freudian trance to their Audi dealers & fork over the Deutschmarks. OTOH, I guess Chevy here wanted people to stare at the curves on the fenders, not the models.
How about a comparative study of the psychology of car marketing?
That would be fascinating. Why is it that the most rational, logical car-marketing campaigns are done for illogical reasons or on quirky or obsolete products? Witness the VW Beetle campaign…which seemed to appeal to THE most illogical of market segments, kids and hippie-types.
Witness the longtime Checker ads in the back of National Geographic. Their numbers kept going…going…gone.
Witness the Studebaker campaign in its last two years. While Studebaker’s own board was busy sacking its enthusiastic CEO, Sherwood Egbert…and looking to deliberately alienate dealers.
The last “logical” car with a “logical” campaign…was McNamara’s original Falcon. It did well, but in a time of uncertainly and only for a short period. Rambler did almost as well with a car promoted to be as rational as the Falcon…unlike Ford, AMC didn’t have the resources to change. And instead they took on the stench of death.
So…I guess it’s a given, that the very act of buying a new car, is an illogical, emotionally-driven action. For whatever reason.
When I was about 8 years old I responded to one of those Checker ads in the back of National Geo (in writing of course) requesting a brochure. My dad was really pissed off when a Checker salesman called during dinner time asking for me, though perhaps not as disappointed as the salesman when he realized I was an 8 year old kid, whose dad had no interest in buying a new Marathon.
My deep blue Monte was the essence of 70’s cool baby! Quarter vinyl landau roof, replete with blue VINYL seating. Ouch! And get this– NO AIR. It was all about looking good. If I recall correctly it came in around $2,500. Gawdamn near fried my ass in that on numerous occasions, but ohhhh mamma it looked goooooood.
The Chevy’s styling is overdone almost to the degree of ugliness. But the Audi… remove those AutoUnion rings from it’s grille and it will look almost completely generic (no wonder they made them sooo large). Two polar opposites, indeed. Neither of which would be in my taste though.
And on the Audi interior, it actually seems to be quite cheap-looking, with alot of hard moulded plastic parts, at least on this photo
http://www.autowp.ru/pictures/audi/80/autowp.ru_audi_80_31.jpg
I was also surprised to read in some of the comments that these cars haven’t lasted for long, as I still see 2nd gen (B2) Audi 80’s, which are all much older than 10 years, quite often, and AFAIR they were technically almost similar to the 1st gen (B1). But may be in the early-to-mid 70s the design has been unpolished yet ?
The biege MC in the ‘On the street’ is a 1974, but is similar to ’73, btw.
The restyled Ford LTD was in contention for Motor Trend COTY. It was voted best full size.
What if the LTD tank had won, months before the 1st Gas Crisis? MT would have had egg on their face, but then when have they not?
Ford did get COTY honors the following year with the 1974 Mustang II.
@ Calibrick- new technologies? Fast? An Audi 80?
Fwd and a SOHC engine were hardly new tech – they still had carbs!! Or would an automatic choke Weber have baffled American mechanics too much?
At Audi the platform, SOHC engines and transmissions were all-new, virtually nothing came from the 100LS. I believe this was the first car with negative scrub suspension geometry. Just having the engine up front was new tech for the VW. I think VAG bit off more than they could chew, at least when combined with US emission requirements. The carbed cars not only ran poorly, they ran hot.
When the Fox went to 1.6L and FI it became a 10 sec car, 0-60. That was very quick for 1975, probably quicker than a 350 Monte Carlo.
Here is that CandD comparison test. As I remembered they thought the Fox was fast. The Nova LN did surprisingly well, note the comments about the handling.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5630318
“The Fox is one crafty little car. It seems large on the inside but compact on the outside. It has a tiny 1588cc motor yet packs the punch to match hubcaps with a lot of modern-day Detroit V8s.”
0-60 in 8.7 seconds for the Nova LN? I think this may have been a result of the old practice of Detroit supplying the magazines with juiced cars. No way 155HP was able to motivate 3,900lbs. of car anywhere near that quickly!!
The Fox was definitely fast for it’s time, and definitely also faster than a 350-powered Monte – in a straight line or any other scenario.
I’d love to have any one of those cars in that test!!
It may be due to my recent respite from all things Brougham, but I would take the Audi. Those vintage publicity photos and the lovely ladies in them are likely furthering my decision, but I like the clean lines and no-nonsense bucket seats and instrument panel.
I have always liked the styling of these, in addition to the bigger Audi 100 coupes and sedans. They were the A4 and A6 of their day…
Finally, why does the guy in the picture of the blue ’73 Monte look so mad? Did somebody just burn down his house?
Well, the first impression I had of a high school friend’s 76 Monte (in 1981) was that the door itself was about three feet deep, and when it shut, it didn’t exactly sound or feel solid. It felt like three feet of parts just sort of followed each other until the first part encountered the door latch and the others just kinda bumped into each other in sequence for a second or so. I’d push on the door to see in fact if the door had actually shut – it had. When I encountered other Montes of that generation through the years, that impression never went away.
The second was the huge hood that when opened revealed about five feet of styling crammed into ten feet of engine compartment. The long radiator fan duct, the various large spaces between assemblies, the huge firewall jutting forward from the windshield wipers…it all seemed ludicrous and I happily went back to my solid feeling Karmann Ghia – which sort of embraced the same concept of the Monte Carlo but was expressed in a Germanic fashion.
My vote goes for the Audi. I could still afford to drive the Audi with today’s gas prices, the Monte Carlo would struggle to get better than 12 mpg under optimal conditions.
More of that good GM Kool-Aid, please! Even though our family’s foreign exchange student rep owned a Fox, that he was fond of taking us in rides for, I still fell for the overwrought styling of the ’73 Monte Carlos, as did many of my friends at the time. Good Friend Camel (unfiltered) even bought a ’74 model-just like the blue car in the ’73 ad. Other than for the confining front swivel seats (too upright to sleep in) it was the perfect car for road-tripping from the Midwest to the West Coast to visit the relatives and see the sights in the summer of ’74. Smooth, quiet, cool, powerful enough, and with an actually functional tape player for all our Beach Boys tunes. The good vibrations did not last very long, however. It needed a new engine at 50,000 miles and that big car payment got old. Now we look back and miss his ’62 Bel Air four door, which had given much better service, and gaze longingly at the simpler lines of the previous Monte Carlo. As my brother asks, “What were we thinking? Oh, right-we weren’t!”
The Monte might do 12mpg under city/winter conditions, and about 16-18 on the highway with the 350. The Monte would also start and run under horrible winter conditions, be easy and inexpensive to repair, blow cold A/C, and drive comfortable with an automatic transmission. Car magazines fell over backwards for the Fox and Dasher, but in Northern Quebec, they were appearing on the back lots after two years, and had all but disappeared by 5 years old. I’m not saying that the Monte is a model of space or fuel efficieny, and styling is strictly subjective, but the Fox fizzled after a couple of years and the Monte sold scads.
People look back and think that that the Fox was the choice mainly because it’s size and packaging is more reflective of today’s cars, but they tend to forget the chronic repairs, rust, and dependability. Don’t confuse the Fox with an ’87 Accord.
+1
In many ways the Audi Fox was like the Audi 100LS all over again, at least for American buyers. Great on paper, great reviews, nice driving but unreliable and underdeveloped.
Audi seems to be one of those companies that gets a continuous pass on every shitty car it has made, the 100, the Fox, the 4000, 5000, etc etc , even today, they make a nice car, but its still crap, they still have issues, still are expensive to fix.
+1 Carmine, those Audis were always invading my high school auto class. I learned a lot fixing those things. As for the Monte, I’m bias I love my colonnades. I was thinking of buying a Grand Prix with t-tops to expand the collection. My CCOTY vote’s for the Monte.
Preaching to the choir, Second Monte as found – Note original looking over tired Pontiac Goole in approval
As polished up a bit. The only Audi Fox’s that I could find were in the picture books!
Theres another Monte behind the GoooLE no?
You can just make out the front with the hood cracked open to get the battery out over the back of the Gooole. The Monte in the garage had been sitting for about 5 years in a fairly dry garage. I looked it over for fluids, pumped up the tires, and primed it with some gas (red container just visible on the ground). She fired right up after a couple of turns, and I was able to drive it out of the garage and home. The tranny was making a funky noise in 1st gear, but would shift into second and third without issue.
One of the manager’s at the local Firestone that I deal with piped up that he had a spare tranny that I could have for a Hun, and later in the year, some guy followed me home in a snowstorm, because he spotted me in the original Monte, and offered up a perfect interior that was identical to the beaten one in the car shown. He even brought it over for free!
I still count the snowstorm encounter as one of the most fortunate car stories that I’ve ever had. What are the odds of getting the correct 1975 bench interior in depression brown, when there were so many colours and permutations of seating, i.e. bench, split bench, buckets, etc. It’s stuff like this that makes getting an old car going again/
The Monte Carlo’s of this vintage were always too overdone for me. Too many curves, too much hood length, with an interior still the same size as a 112″ Colonnade coupe. I don’t dislike them, they just aren’t my favorite Colonnade. I also prefered the ‘faster’ roofline of the 112″ Chevelle coupe over the more formal upright roof of the Monte Carlo. That said, anyone who grew up in the 1970’s still seems to have very found memories of the Monte Carlo of this vintage.
I also agree that the Grand Am would be my choice for CCOTY for 1973. It was GM’s first attempt to make a “drivers car” out of a traditional American car, and it was even available as a 4-door. Styling wise, it wasn’t the greatest, and it wasn’t the sales succes of the Monte Carlo, but the concept was far ahead of it’s time.
The Fox is not my taste The euro cars were fun to drive but man they are homely. If I were looking for a little roundabout and lived in an area with lots of small curcy roads, it’d be a better choice than the Monte. But since I do a lot of long distance high speed driving, I’ll take the Monte any day of the week.
Both the ’73 Pontiac Grand Am and that year’s Olds Cutlass Salon had better seating than the Monte Carlo with either the standard bench or optional swiveling Strato bucket seats. The Grand Am had basically the same seats, but they were far more practical and usable as those had recliners and adjustable lumbar support – plus a dashboard with full instrumentation and real African Crossfire Mahogany trim which was also repeated on the console. The Salon seats only had the recliners but were comfortable and usable with a very good cordoroy (or perforated vinyl) trim, and also had the dimmer switch mounted in the turn signal, a feature that would soon spread to other GM cars and those of the competition.
Hello??? I can’t believe you guys have all forgotten the 1973 Honda Civic! It’s only the arrival of one of the iconic makes and models of our time. Car of the Year, would be the Car of the Decade if not for the Accord which followed in ’77. Need I say more?
Here’s the Car and Driver road test from March, 1973.
CCOTY nominations are held every Friday, and open to all comers…I ran out of time. But it sure is a valid choice. Still, I’ll take the Fox, if I could turn back the clock; those early Civic 1200s were a bit too small and buzzy for even my taste.
Darn.. I should have prepared for my all time favorite year ever. Oh well.
Is there an official means of nominating a car besides just leaching onto another car’s posting like I always do?
Just send me a text and pictures, via the Contact form. And it’s not too late to do something this weekend for 1973, if you can hop on it.
Wish I had time this week or this weekend. My ’77 Civic CVCC 5-speed was one of my very favorites, maybe the most loved car I’ve ever owned. Just model-year evolutionary changes from the ’73 to my ’77. Someday I want to write one up as a CC. All I need is time…..
Damn… I want to agree so bad. I have a ridiculous amount of love for these cars – but the early ones did kinda have a lot of problems. Also, the Civic actually came out in 1972, in Japan at least.
Whatever, though – I do agree. It’s not like the Audi Fox (which I also love) was any more reliable. At least the Civic was ludicrously easy to fix when anything did go wrong, and you could practically lift the engine out with your bare hands.
I spent my evening preparing the truck/dolly for the early morning trip (to bring another gem home of course!) and while outside thinking about it…I may as well save the ’73 Grand Prix for a COTL write-up (if I ever get around to submitting anything here). At least I know what to do now. Thanks!
I hate to rain on your parade, but…
In rust country, these things rusted. With a vengeance. The trannies were fairly fragile (try “rocking” one of these things out of a snow drift), saggy interiors, they seemed to have an appetite for head gaskets and the emissions controls…
Well, I have to take that one back, it seems to me very few got it right.
They rusted everywhere. That was the one caveat to Japanese cars for a long time… really up until the early 1990’s, and the early Hondas were probably the worst offenders.
Thanks for posting the link. Hard to believe but considering how many of the early Civic I used to work on back in the day but I had never seen the “sedan” ie non hatchback version. It looks very similar to that of the 600 I used to have. I wonder if the trunk lid was plastic as it was on my 600.
Great call, Mike. I had forgotten all about that one, and it was a genuine game-changer.
You got me thinking, and I thought of another vehicle at the opposite end of the spectrum: the 1973 Suburban. Travelall led the way, but the 73 Suburban took the concept and hit the big time. By the time this vehicle was finished in the early 90s, it was well on the way to becoming the preferred family vehicle in much of the country.
All in all, I would say the choice is between the 73 Civic and the 73 Suburban as CCOTY.
I mean if we’re gonna consider a Colonnade, HERE’s the best Colonnade ever IMO! Be gentle because I love this thing.
Ah, ’73 GP–the best year for these!
I spotted a nice ’76 last fall. It was an SJ model with white interior, buckets and console. After ’73, the ’76 is my second-favorite.
🙂 I agree. The ’76 is my #2 favorite Colonnade GP. LOVE the front header panel styling!
I went to my senior high school prom (in 1980) in a 1977 Grand Prix (SJ IIRC). T-tops, gold with white leather interior and white quarter landau roof, 350/THM, dual exhausts, the Rally wheels with the trim rings… Man what a ride…
I think the Pontiacs escaped the 70’s with the best looking of all of the cars…
I have experience with both of these, but can’t say I’d like to have either in my garage.
My week long fling with a Fox is mentioned here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coup-cars-of-uncle-peter/
And a buddy had a Monte Carlo same condition and color as this in the early 90’s. It had Corvette rally rims, and with a warmed over 350 and 3.42 gears in the rear it would run a mid 14 second quarter mile. It was a wunnerful sight to see, going through the traps with those curvy front fenders high in the air. It had a white vinyl interior with swivel buckets, and there must have been two feet between the radiator and the front of the motor, it was ridiculous how long the hood was… Good times..
In a weird sort of way, I liked the 1973 Monte Carlos. The 1974 refresh was just fugly. It went from voluptuous to bloated. I think it was the bumpers, actually. Of all of the GM cars, the Pontiacs came out looking the cleanest in 1974.
I hate to pile on, but I too will add to the chorus of bad Audi Fox stories. Growing up, there were these two buddies who shared a house (and weed, jobs and girlfriends, apparently), one had a 914 Porsche, the other a Fox. Of course this is 37 years ago, but IIRC, the guy with the 914 drove the car like any other car. The Fox had so much downtime that the owner finally gave up and bought one of the last VW Beetles, the ones with fuel injection and air conditioning. I don’t think the Fox lasted two years.
WRT to those ads… Yowza! Man I miss German ads!
I have a fair amount of experience with the Colonnade Montes, as many of my friends had them back then. They were not fantastic cars with regards to mileage, assembly or quality control, but they did run fairly well and handled rather well too. I alluded to that in the posts about the 1972 CCCOTY. Having read Aaron Severinson’s comment about the Monte Carlo S becoming the standard version after 1973, it makes sense to me now.
But if either one of these cars (MC vs. Fox) are my choices, I’m going with none of the above.
Not sure what you mean about the “1974 refresh”; do the differences between ’73 and ’74 (5-mph rear bumper and different taillight lenses and grille pattern) really constitute a refresh? [The front bumpers of the ’73 and ’74 look the same, unlike (for example) the Grand Prix.]
My bad. I was thinking of the 1975 revision. I don’t know why I don’t like that version, but I don’t. You’re correct, the 74 had the fat bumper on the back, and otherwise identical to the 73.
I was a huge fan of the previous version, this one just came off as a bit overstyled. But the 73-74 was the best example of the breed. For this time period, drop me in a Cutlass Coupe, a LeMans/GTO or a Grand Prix, I’d be a happy puppy.
This kind of excess is still going on. Look at Hyundai. I can’t decide if the new Sonata reminds me more of one of these, or a ’59 Chevy .
Yeah, I vacillate back and forth on the Sonata. There’s one that parks behind my office, I see it every evening when I leave work.
There are days I look at it and I think WOW, and there are other days I look at it and I think WTF?
I’m no fan of Montes but I have to admit, nothing you can own says “1973” like a Monte Carlo. The civic was indeed the more significant car, given what was about to happen with oil prices, but I guess I’ll go with the flow on this one. They were surprisingly pleasant cars to drive.
Its not fat Paul….its zoftig.
Thanks a lot, Chevy, for ruining the Monte Carlo. I realized times were changing, but for GM and soon for Ford and Chrysler, the earth-shaking changes to the auto industry, did the cars really have to change so radically?
I will admit the Colonnades were really the best mid-sized cars of that era.
I hereby nominate the Colonnades as CCOTY, Specifically the Pontiac Grand-Am for 1973.
With respect to the actual driving experience – at least in the case of the Pontiacs with Radial Tuned Suspension, like the ’74 Luxury LeMans coupe we had then – I would agree that the colonnade cars were “the best mid-sized cars of that era,” but the exterior trim was definitely shoddy (among other body problems).
Has anyone ever seen photos of the colonnade cars that were originally supposed to have been released as 1972 models, without the federal bumpers? I never have, but I presume they exist.
The butterscotch colour on the Audi is very cool along with the pastoral German countryside and especially the women in those ads. .
Sexist as hell yes, but still very cool.
Something about West Germany in the 70’s it would seem.
The MC brings up images of my friends 74 -this being the late 80’s -with silver body and burgendy vinyl top IIRC and getting busted by the cops while we were, uh, smoking something.
To me these cars were too big,too common, hard on gas and driven by guys named Todd.
Audis of this vintage are long gone in the Great White North, but for shear aesthetics I would nominate the Audi 80 a close second, after the 1973 Toyota Celica as CCOTY.
Longevity wise, at least mechanically I’d take the Monte, but I thought they were butt ugly compared to their predecessors.
The Audi was a good design for the day and still looks good today. Audis tend to get expensive as they age, particularly the modern ones.
Back in the day I would have taken the Audi with no hesitation.
I owned a ’78 VW Rabbit. The Audi 80’s little brother. It was a fun car to drive, as long as the road was smooth. I got careless, & broadsided a telephone pole with it. Luckily I was alone in the car. If my girlfriend had been with me….well….let’s just say her Dad pleaded with me to get something bigger to haul his daughter around in. I took the insurance settlement, & bought a used ’77 Monte Carlo. Very stripped version. No Landau, bench seat & a 305 with 350 THM. I have to say, I loved that thing! smooooooth! Crappy milage, but I didn’t care. Pops was happy, & so was the future Mrs. 🙂
Great choice, gbatfus. Quite opposite of Car & Driver which derided the Monte Carlo as “an overstyled Chevelle in a dinner jacket.” They liked the 73-77 cars even less with one writer calling it a mismash of styling features that were neither in symphony or harmony with each other and likened Monte owners to Americans who had a taste for soap operas, TV hockey and hideous Robert Hall (a now-defunct clothier) suits. Yet C&D never did a road test of either a first or second-gen Monte. Which is just as well. Suppose it were 1975 and they tested a Landau with a 400 cid V8, swivel seats and all the extras – they would have carped about the cramped interior particularly in back, the swivel seats and the lack of trunk space along with the poor fuel economy, of course. Then they would have said the “real” car of the year for 1975 was – wait for it – The Volkswagon Rabbit, renowned for its compact dimensions and “package efficiency” thanks to front-wheel-drive, side-mounted engine and electric cooling fan along with an interior (in the base model) that looked like it was straight out of the VW Thing (Kubelwagon). But then they would have had to realize the Rabbit at its then-$3,500 price tag was a bit “pricey” for a small car and noted that a Vega, Pinto or Datsun B-210 had more space for 4 passengers and their luggage than the Monte Carlo along with still double the gas mileage. Then they would have said that “we know not everybody wants a small car” and then noted that there were plenty of other cars at the same local Chevy dealer as the Monte Carlo that were better value for the money such as the Vega, the BMW-sized Nova, the Chevelle Malibu wagon and even the Caprice sedan – each with much more interior and cargo space than the Monte without its overbloated styling. Then C&D would have said those who had to have a Monte-sized car would do better with a Grand Am or Cutlass Salon as they had better seats (both reclining on Salon and only passenger recline on Grand Am for ’75) even offered as four-door sedans. This is all SATIRE about C&D back in the day, you know.
All I can say it’s give me the Monte, anyday, anytime, anyway !
I loved the Colonnades when they came out for the ’73 MY, especially the Chevelle and the Grand Am, but the Monte Carlo always seemed like a caricature of the design, And when the down-sized cars came out (’78) the squashed proportions of the new Monte Carlo made it even worse, if that was possible. I also liked the Audi 80 (and like Paul, read Auto Motor und Sport, found in our local “smoke shop” that sold European magazines). A significant car technically, and for really establishing both the Audi brand and the H2O VW lineage, but also perhaps the first German cars sold in the US that did not live up to the durability of the Beetle, Porsche, Mercedes and even the BMW 1602/2002. In that respect it set standards that have lasted to this day. And from that perspective, a comparison of the Audi and the Honda Civic would be interesting. Or perhaps that should be done for 1975, with the Rabbit and the Civic 5 speed.
Sorry I was too busy looking at the frauleins. 😛
There were girls? I had to go back and look!
I was blinded with fury upon seeing a Colonnade and dreading when the 1973 CCOTY rolled around!
…the “scenery” was quite attractive!
Not taking away anyone’ personal preferences, but European and Japanese cars have always been more about function before form. European cars have always been more of a driver’s car and Japanese always efficient and utlitarian. I have a friend who drops off his 74 Chevelle periodically for servicing and he always leaves it with me for a time with the understanding that my “tip” is the ability to pleasure drive it occasionally. The fact will still remain between that car (actual car pictured below) will ALWAYS get more looks and admiration than a comparable Audi 80/Fox.
I’m a sucker for every 1973 non-Vega product GM built but I find the ’74 Malibu Classic more attractive than the ’73 Malibu. GM somehow tucked in the front bumpers quite a bit on this one model in ’74.
This is a shot of mine shortly before I towed it 600 miles home to NC. It lives inside now. Colonnades and water do not mix well for long periods of time.
The fact will still remain between that car (actual car pictured below) will ALWAYS get more looks and admiration than a comparable Audi 80/Fox.
“Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.”
What a taut, great handling car the Audi Fox was. But what an awful reliability record it had, like its VW Dasher sibling. Which I had.
Where are you in NC Junque? The Chevrolet intermediates were still technically Chevelles only adopting the Malibu name exclusively in 1978.
Hi Craig. Between Durham and Danville: specifically 27291. And you?
I get sloppy sometimes when I call out cars and sometimes throw out the “what I see them as” names instead of the actual correct name. 🙂
Well, judging from a brand new Audi A5, with it’s bulging lines, and strong v8, loaded with gadgets and LED’s who really showed the way to the future in the end? 😉
I had a 73 Monte Carlo. Beat vettes off the line every time and nothing could pull a gal out of a snow mound better. Never got stuck the whole time I owned it, but man, those carburetors would clog up constantly. I think I rebuilt mine 3 times if I remember right.