The Junkyard Outtake knows no bounds – except for such obvious ones as ‘watch out for oncoming loaders’ and ‘keep the torch away from the gas tank’. And so it was that we broke new ground this week, using not one but two CC Clues (here and here) to make this Monza Spyder into a real mindbender for the commentariat.
Congrats go out to all those who correctly ascertained (or guessed) its identity – especially Junqueboi, who was the first to see its snow-covered undercarriage and suggest it was an H-body; and Lt.BrunoStachel, who narrowed it down to the correct model based on what little could be seen of the bumper trim.
Make the jump to see the rest of our featured Monza – plus an amazingly well-optioned Oldsmobile, and a sneak peek at next week’s finds.
When I first spotted this stickered-up V8 Monza, it was sitting in a more-or-less normal fashion. But upon returning with my camera, I found that it had been stood up on its side. This very picture was used for its first CC Clue on Thursday.
The odd angle made it easy to shoot the hood, with its telltale graphics.
But it didn’t make shooting the side any easier. I had to hold the camera over my head, release the shutter, and hope for the best.
“5.0 Litre V8”. The malaise-era 305s weren’t anything to write home about – but then, how much motor do you really need to move a 2800-pound car?
Four-lug Keystone Klassic lookalikes. Certainly not something most of us see everyday. (Too bad they weren’t a complete set… impostors or not, someone would have wanted them.)
Unfortunately, these are all the shots I have of this unique Monza. Perhaps one day it’ll be laid back down on all fours, at which point I can get a proper side shot, and maybe even a few pictures of the interior (complete with console shifter and a spider decorated glove box cover, which I kinda want for a souvenir if no one else buys it by crushing time).
Speaking of GM coupes with unique options, look what was hiding behind the Monza. It’s a ’92 Cutlass Supreme International – one of the most jazzed-up examples of this model I’ve ever encountered. I know I’ve mentioned it in the past… and now, here it is.
For starters, it’s a white coupe with black leather. I dig it already. We can also see it has automatic climate control, a switch for factory foglights, full analog instrumentation, and the umpteen-way power buckets with their center controls. The shape of the steering wheel suggests it once had HVAC and radio controls around the horn.
Too bad it’s saddled with the anemic 3.1 V6 and was deprived of the popular power sunroof… and, call me crazy, but I would want the “fancier” ETR tuner with an equalizer and AM Stereo (which it may well have had originally; the current unit looks like a transplant). As a well-known singer once sang, you can’t always get what you want. Still, it does have a lot of goodies.
And wait! What’s with that bump on top of the dash? And the extra controls beneath the cigarette lighter! Could it be…?
No, you’re not seeing things – this is a HUD-equpped car. Plenty of W-body Grand Prixes had the Heads Up Display option, but I have yet to encounter another Cutlass with one (other than those which were swapped in by overachieving enthusiasts).
But it gets better: this one’s even got rear buckets! Damn you, whoever you were that yanked this car’s door glass so many years ago!
If all that wasn’t enticing enough… it’s even got the duck tail spoiler. Why can’t I find one like this on the road instead?
Next week, we’ll head back to the U-Pull to see what’s left of our favorite finds from weeks past, and to check out a couple new arrivals – including a Fleetwood with see-through doors and a Marquis Brougham coupe that you’ll have to see to believe.
Four seat buckets. One of my favorite options for the W-Body. But only to be had in the Cutlass and G.P. Funny that I would have guessed that this car would have had the 3.4 DoubleOverheadMess under the hood instead of its lesser brethren seeing as the Olds dealer looked like they checked off every extra cost option in the book except for the drop top option. My dream Cutlass would be a 1990 coupe with the HO Quad4 and 5 speed manual. Yes I know I’m a gluten for punishment.
It is very cool to see a car like this Monza. Our junkyards are so organized, picked over and late model… mostly a bunch of newer cars I could care less about on any level. I think I need to take some junkyard road-trips to nearby states next summer with the Cadillac and see what we discover.
Anyhow, what a shame, that Oldsmobile was really loaded with nice options and color combo. It’s got some ‘Touring Sedan-esque’ features happening there. Seeing again here some of the interior details, really nice bolstered seats, styling direction, etc… It still boils my blood that GM axed Oldsmobile Division.
But what really gets me is when boneyard cars still have these great survivor leather interiors that someone could put to use in so many different vehicles, and they are allowed to ‘turn to stone’ from direct water/weather access because someone needed a $3 trim piece and decided to just leave doors wide open or worse, take a sledge-hammer to the windows ‘just because’. uuggh, not just a waste, but… a sin.
I was going to type exactly what you wrote. Thanks for sparing me the work.
I really thought the loaded W-bodies were the bee’s knees when they debuted. I was in kindergarten and first grade during the product roll-outs and the cars were often displayed inside the local shopping mall.
Maybe for rational adults of the era, it all came across as juvenile, but for me, all those buttons all over the place-along with the 4-place seating-seemed snazzy. I’ve never used that word before, but it just fits, in this case. My favorite version was the Regal with the digital dash.
I had a tarted-up Cutlass with a digital dash, but the Regal’s was way cooler (snazzy, as you might say). I had forgotten about that one. My dad had a GS(?) model with it. Both nice cars back in the day! Both had 2.8 V6s I believe (’88 models?).
Yes I remember these, enjoyed seeing that lit up nite picture. very nice. The Pontiac 6000 STE & Trans Am GTA’s had a really ‘snazzy’ dash layout & digital IP with all sorts of back-lit panels with various information about your car. They also had the most redundant steering-wheels controls I think I had ever seen in a car.
This subject reminded me of the digital talking dash in my Mom’s 1987 Maxima GXE-last of the awesome ‘squared off’ design. -Sidenote: Was her 1st foreign car & directly due to the Eldo Biarritz’s singular downfall, the crap-tastic HT4100. Her only complaint on the Nissan ‘too small’, so next was an ’89 Mark VII LSC that she drove for 14+ yrs)
We are all car fans here, so thought many of you might enjoy this guys great website > http://www.doubleyoudigital.nl/~cars_digital%20dashboards.php
That was fun looking at those dashboards, thanks for posting the link.
Yep, I did like the digital dash on my 86 STE, and the radio controls on the steering wheel. I spent good money on the radio to have it fixed when it died instead of updating it to something newer, just to have the SWC work with the radio.
So far it’s the only car I’ve ever owned that I got it to read a legitimate 125mph on the speedo (deep into the redline)
Yanns, the link I posted below, has a picture of your old Cutlass digital dash, as well as your Father’s Buick dash (and… alot more. enjoy!)
Thank you. I actually came across that site one lounging Saturday (perhaps you posted the link here before). I was in a very techno-80s mood and it was great (reliving the Apple II, etc.)!
The way I remember the dash was how the Toronado’s was, but I clearly must be wrong (my sister had a Toronado back then, too).
Were you the one who posted the picture of the long-hooded Cadillac going down a steep hill the other day? Wow that was a great sight seeing that crest and wreath at the end of a loooong hood again. I learned to drive in my father’s Fleetwood; that was the epitome of 80s luxury (to me, anyway)!
Neat Vega, wonder why it is on its side and wonder how much of the tacked on doo-dads are actually from the factory?
The Oldsmobile is quite cool and dare I say full of cheesy, but awesome 1990s GM goodness. Truthfully though, how reliable are these cars (compared to a 1990s Toyota Camry) because growing up in the 1990s and 2000s I was surrounded by a lot 70s, 80s, and 2000s era Detroit products which were anywhere from complete piles to pretty decent. In all honesty I rather have a bench seat for a road trips as a passenger than buckets since I have logged thousands of miles on various bench seats and prefer them to buckets.
I strongly suspect it was/is a factory Spyder. It would be hard to imagine someone going to the extent necessary to properly “clone” one. You’d see things they missed otherwise.
I assume it was on its side to cut out the catalytic converter and gas tank, to prepare it for crushing.
Cheesy? Probably, in an early ’90s tech gadget sort of way. Electronic accessory problems were common, the 3.1 V6 was well-known for having intake and head gasket failures, and the DOHC 3.4 was pretty much a bomb. That said, I had good luck with mine, and wouldn’t mind owning another.
The faux Touring Sedan is nearing completion – and just in time, too, as the miles are up to 98,7xx. Soon it too will be sold (gotta get my $$ out before it hits 100K). Just as well; nice as it is, I’d rather have a coupe.
What I need is to find is a Cutlass like this one, in a few months once the project backlog is shorter – one with a shot motor and/or tranny, and a clean body. Then I need to find a totaled Regal GS or GTP, and get wrenching. Now THAT would be a FWD car I could see hanging onto!
A more-or-less complete black leather CS interior is waiting in my attic. Someday it will see the inside of a car again!
Keith-
I have a HUUUUUUUUGE favor to ask. Is there ANY way you could snag the complete taillight assemblies, rear spoiler, and driver’s side door of that Monza ? My taillights are cracked and opaque and the drivers’ side door is seriously crunched, and the damage was bad enough to fubar the window regulator assembly as well.
I’m not joking- I’m completely serious. I’ll glady reimburse you for both the parts and your efforts.
Here’s my little project:
You probably wouldn’t want any of the metal off this one. It looks okay in the pics, but it’s RUUUUUUSTY in person. Plus, I can’t imagine showing up at the post office with a Monza door in tow!
I also fear for its spoiler, what with the rolling and other manhandling it’s experienced – and will continue to experience.
The next several days are predicted to bring record low temps… but maybe next weekend I’ll be able to get back out to that yard. I’ll look the stuff over then and see.
I am curious as to the flaws and strengths of the Quad4 and the 3.4L DOHC V6. Are there any articles here in CC or anywhere else that could fill me in on those engines.
Keith what is a Touring Sedan and what model years.
Not sure if there’s an article here specifically addressing either motor (a quick search turned up nothing but comments), but I’m sure someone will come along with more details.
From my (limited) experience with each: Quad4s eat head gaskets and timing chains for breakfast, plus they used an interference design; DOHC 3.4s are spunky but finicky, a total PITA to work on, and their longevity in the hands of boy racer types was dismal at best.
A Touring Sedan? Basically an Olds 98 with FE3 suspension, special appearance pieces, and lots of luxury options – including an exclusive leather interior with real wood trim and a basket-handle shifter. They aren’t very common.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1992-oldsmobile-touring-sedan-a-regency-with-an-attitude/
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/1988-olds-touring-sedan-i-miss-you/
Mine is a faux Touring Sedan because, although I’ve applied the vast majority of TS options, it started life as a Regency Brougham. It’s not a “clone”, more of a custom job designed to use up some TS and Trofeo parts I had laying around.
Try searching the internet. The Quad 4 was eventually improved and fixed to the point where guys are building HO Quad 4s for midget racers and such.
3.4 DOHC HO is a hopeless basket case. My uncle had a 30th Anniversary model Cutlass Convertible with the 3.4. Allow me to say my uncle is a dyed in the wool GM man and would have kept that car to his dying day. But he could not keep the engine alive even with meticulous maintenance. It developed a fatal internal coolant leak.
I’m going from memory here… The early 2.3 Q4’s from 1988 to 1992, were pretty rough and tough machines. No balance shafts, and if not maintained, would go through head gaskets. Even if maintained, would likely eat a head gasket. There are various flavors of the High Output motor starting in 1988 thru 1992. But regardless of that, those heads are highly desired.
In 1995 the HO heads go away, but get balance shafts and an integral power steering pump attached to the intake (IIRC) cam. These engines seem to have much better durability. In 1996 the displacement gets bumped up to 2.4 and the name changed to Twin Cam along with another head re-design. Throughout their history, there were several known problems with the motors, particularly oiling issues and another with the #3 bearing being rather weak, but related to the oiling issues, I believe. But I think for a street motor, one of the HO versions would be fine…
There’s an excellent page on the Q4 on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quad_4
If I were doing a “blue-sky” project of any kind, I’d hunt down a W-41 out of the Cutlass Calais IS/Acheiva SC bodies. (Actually, I’d just hunt down an Achieva SC). Failing that, I’d look for a LG0, but I have a fondness for the transitional LD9 Q4. The LD9 with the balance shafts make the motor rather easy to live with.
An LD9 with the W-41 head and the post-2002 Getrag behind it would make a rockin’ powertrain for some lucky J-body for me someday…
EDIT: I forgot about Quad4rods.com. They specialize in putting Q4’s in hot rods and old Lotus (Loti?) and other Brit mobiles.
If those pictures were taken anywhere near Calgary Alberta I think I might know a guy who owned that Monza 20 years ago, or one just like it. These weren’t exactly rare back then but it was the only silver one I ever saw. V-8 Monzas were a real peach to work on, and stock ones were good for maybe a 17 second quarter mile. His plan involved wheel tubs, roll cage, tunnel ram etc. but then he got his girlfriend pregnant and the Monza sat. Last time I saw it, it had lost it’s spot in the garage to a Family Truckster of some sort and was under a tarp in the backyard but that was back when I still had a full head of hair. Good find anyway, I haven’t seen one of these in years.
The hot ticket for the Monza came in 1975, and then for one year only. While the rest of the country got the exceptionally lame 262 V-8, for California, the smallest SBC GM had that was certified was the 350-2Bbl, so that’s what got shoehorned into the Monza. The 350 was detuned to 125hp for California use (the next year saw the 140hp 305). I doubt it would have taken much effort to get more horsepower out of the 350 and, as stated in the article, there wouldn’t have been much more needed in a 2800 lb car.
The 262 was finally abandoned after 1976, making the 305 the only V8 available in all 50 states thru 1979. By 1980, no V8 was available.
I think you had to take an automatic with the 350, too (not sure about the 305). Still, for those seventies’ Monza aficionados out there, the ‘California special’ 1975 350 Monza is the one to have. I recall a Car and Driver article on it back in the day, and they loved it, proclaiming it a return to the musclecar era. The 350 Monza was really just a factory Vega V8 conversion that was one of the most popular hotrods of the seventies.
I know you could get the 305 with a 4 speed for at least a couple of years. I’ve seen and worked on several. The biggest reason these things were stones at the drag strip was rear end gearing, something like 2.93:1. They use a wide ratio 4 speed with low gearing for first and second to give a punchy feel around town but it didn’t have enough power to pull in 3rd or 4th. Easily remedied, but then you had to deal with traction issues, wheel hop, body flex and so on. I had a little side business building V-8 Vegas back then and found out the hard way what it took to make an H body perform. I had a lot of fun doing it but these cars were really a lot happier with a V-6. By the time you got one sorted out it would have been cheaper and easier to start with a Nova or Camaro. I won a lot of races though!
The ‘4-speed that felt like a 5-speed with a missing third gear’ was also used in the Fox-chassis Mustang, too, and was a big sore spot with the return of the 5.0 V8 in the 1982 Mustang GT. Things got a lot better when ‘real’ 5-speed transmissions finally made their appearance a couple of years later.
I suspect it was a sign of the times, what with some of the highest (relative) gas prices. Both GM and Ford tried shenanigans like this to get the best possible fuel mileage out of their V8s at the lowest cost, with the unfortunate result of miserable performance.
Those H-bodies were very modern looking cars for their time. With their rounded off lines, they could have been produced into the 90s with a few minor facelifts and people would still think the design was current. Kind of like an American NSU Ro80. The look of that Cutlass and other early W-bodies screams “college kid’s car” to me.
I think a Monza with a chevy 60* v6 would be a good combo. I had a base 75 Monza, it had the vega 2bbl. engine & a 4spd. I think full instrumentation & sway bars front & rear were standard items. I liked the handling of the car for the short time that I drove it.
This site is making me grow fond of these cheesy 70’s cars. Monza Spyders, Cobra IIs, Pinto panel wagons. Bold and fun looking cars.
I’m sure most of that fondness comes from never being inside of them. And being so poorly built they weren’t around by the time I started driving in 1990.
Back in the day, wanting to replace my six cylinder, ’74 Comet, I test drove a Monza with a 262. I thought the V8 Monza the most powerful, fun car I had ever driven!
I didn’t care for the hatchback styling on it though and it was yellow. Yecch.
I liked my V8 4-speed 75 Monza quite a bit. It had good performance, great handling, and 2500 rpm would get me 80 mph in fourth. I bought it new, drove it off the showroom floor, and put over 100k miles on it.
I’ve had 2 of the W body Cutlasses in addition to an 01 Grand Prix (2nd gen) . Although the intake gaskets and head gaskets do fail on the 3.1, I don’t think they’re notorious in the way some other cars are- – – it possibly will happen, and the longer you keep it, it probably will need replacing at some point, but is still not overwhelmingly likely. The 3.4 DOHC I had in the 93 Convertible was designed to frustrate servicing and the rest of the car just gradually disintegrated. I loved it but it was extremely difficult to keep from falling apart. I then traded it on a new Catera . . . talk about frying pan into the fire! The 3.1 sedan is about as solid and reliable a mid nineties sedan gets. Even compared with the Camcord, they hold up well with only some minor plastic bits coming apart- ours is now 19 years old. Camcords just tend to get repaired when a $1000 repair comes up, or get the steady stream of $300 minor fixes, whereas the owners for these tend to neglect repairs until they finally get too decrepit to drive.
Love that Monza Spyder. Like Phil here above me said, I too love these tape job muscle cars from the mid-seventies.This is when I came of driver license eligible age!
It was about 76 or 77 that the Monza Mirage was available, basically the Spyder with the V8, white paint with red and blue full length trunk to hood stripes. It had plastic body flares and cladding that mirrored it’s IMSA racing cousin.