(first posted 3/16/2017) The Personal Luxury party was in full swing as the 1960s came to a close, with an ever growing number of entrants targeting the upper price brackets of the American market. Cadillac and Lincoln had introduced ultra-high-end Personal Luxury coupes, sitting atop the ranks of expensive, exclusive, profit laden cars. Even Ford, a pillar of the “Low Priced Three,” had successfully served up pricey Thunderbirds for years.
For 1970, however, the big spending good times were disrupted when Chevrolet brought out the new Monte Carlo, with all the expected Personal Luxury cues at a far less premium price. Depending on their editorial slant, the buff books viewed this newest Personal Luxury player with either disdain or admiration. Plus, right out of the gate, Motor Trend even went so far as to compare the new Monte Carlo against the revamped 1970 Thunderbird and still-fresh 1970 Grand Prix, providing an assessment of the evolving category.
Chevrolet was clearly going for the jugular of the Personal Luxury segment. Formal styling and a luxurious interior were the main selling points, and abundant power was on offer as desired. But it really wasn’t about performance anymore—the Monte Carlo SS pictured in the ad, replete with fender skirts and conservative full wheel covers, was arguably the least sporty looking Super Sport ever.
Predictably, Car and Driver was less-than-enthused by the newest Chevrolet. Critiquing everything from its pastiche of Personal Luxury styling cues to its imitation burl wood dashboard trim, C&D summed up the Monte Carlo as a poseur for Middle America. The Monte Carlo SS with soggy shocks just amplified that impression. Without a doubt, the new Monte Carlo was not a car for discriminating driving enthusiasts.
The editors at Road Test Magazine, on the other hand, were more attuned to actual Middle American desires, and they saw the new Monte Carlo just as Chevrolet intended: affordable Personal Luxury for the masses.
Proving that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, Road Test praised the Monte Carlo styling. The semi-formal/semi-sporty long hood/short deck look was seen as right on target. Inside, RT editors found comfort on both the bench seat as well as the optional buckets. The simulated vinyl burl wood trim was likened to the real thing in European cars (!!!). In short, the Monte Carlo nailed all the then-current high-style features.
With Chevy being Chevy, there was also a broad array of V8 powertrain choices for the Monte Carlo, starting with a 250-horsepower 350 2-barrel and 3-speed manual all the way up to a 360-horsepower 454 4-barrel V8 with Turbo-Hydramatic for the SS. Also on offer were 4-speed manual, 2-speed Powerglide automatic and 3 additional V8 engines: 300-horsepower 350 4-barrel, 265-horepower 400 2-barrel and 330-horepower 400 4-barrel. This selection of powertrain options was the largest in the Personal Luxury category, allowing buyers to tailor their Monte Carlo to their pocketbook and performance aspirations.
Given the 6-foot long hood, there was plenty of room for any of the motors. The diagram showed the extent of the wasted space at the front of the car… But oh, that hood—the longest ever worn by any Chevrolet was sure to spark envy in the neighborhood. Handling, ride and braking were pretty much standard Chevy, and could be augmented by low-cost heavy duty suspension. However, handling wasn’t the point—fashion was.
The Monte Carlo, which carried basically the same base price as an Impala Sport Coupe, was the lowest cost entry point into the style-centric Personal Luxury segment. With a base price of $3,123 ($19,546 adjusted), the Monte Carlo was $772 cheaper ($4,832 adjusted) than its inspiration from Pontiac (note, just like the Chevy, power steering and automatic were options on the Grand Prix). As Road Test noted, most Monte Carlos were undoubtedly loaded up with $1,000 worth of options, like power steering, Turbo-Hydramatic, Air Conditioning, vinyl top, AM radio, etc.—but even so the resulting ~$4,100 price tag ($25,661 adjusted) still would have undercut the base prices of the Riviera, Toronado and Thunderbird by 15% to 18%.
So the Monte Carlo was by far the most affordable Personal Luxury car, but how did it stack-up on the road against key rivals? Motor Trend offered up their assessment in December 1969 when they compared the Monte Carlo with the fully revamped Ford Thunderbird and the popular Pontiac Grand Prix.
Motor Trend felt each of the Personal Luxury cars was long on looks (and all had long noses…), but interior packaging was “personal” at best (rather sad given the ample exterior dimensions). All three offered comfort and convenience features galore, including the newfangled radio antenna bonded inside the windshield.
Performance-wise, all three cars were pretty quick for the times (and undoubtedly guzzled plenty of gas). Stopping distances were also relatively close, with the Monte Carlo earning the shortest stops from 30 miles-per-hour while the Thunderbird offered the shortest stops from 60 miles-per-hour. But would prospective customers for these cars even read the specifications and test results? After all, the main mission of these showboats was to make a big image statement. On that score, Motor Trend took the “good,” “better” and “best” approach to the ranking, crediting the Monte Carlo for offering all the Personal Luxury car basics, while the Grand Prix represented a nice step-up in “personal style” and the Thunderbird remained the leader in Luxury.
So the new Monte Carlo was an instant contender, at a price that shook up the Personal Luxury segment. Customers responded enthusiastically, snapping up 145,976 copies, making the Monte Carlo the best seller in the segment by a large margin. Given the heightened competition from Chevrolet (and also the new Cutlass Supreme 2-door hardtop), poor Pontiac took a tumble, with Grand Prix sales dropping 68% to 65,750 units. Nor was the redesigned Thunderbird even close to the Monte Carlo: the new “Bunkie Beak” T-Bird saw sales climb just 2% versus 1969, to 50,364 (41,963 2-doors and 8,401 4-doors).
Thus the gauntlet was laid down: with the Monte Carlo, style plus affordability became a new key variable in Personal Luxury, and the ensuing decade would see the segment transformed by the phenomenal growth of medium-priced, mid-sized Personal Luxury coupes.
The original is still the best, IMO, of all Monte Carlos. Make mine a ’71 SS 454 in dark blue.
My favorite as well and are as beautiful now as they were when new.
DeLorean vastly improved the car and handling w/ the 1973 – so much so that the Monte Carlo became the market leader as sales shot through the roof.
DeLorean cribbed parts of the Mercedes suspension for the big upgrade.
Most 73’s sold on style alone. The ‘S’ model was the ‘handler’, but the other trims outsold it by a mile.
Not necessarily so. The Monte Carlo S was what you got if you ordered the optional automatic transmission in 1973 (and about 99 percent were so ordered) – along with the automatic, the S also included an uprated supsension with radial tires and front and rear sway bars, and an upgraded variable-ratio power steering system. The Landau was a further upgrade of the “S” with the Landau vinyl roof, sport mirrors and Turbine II wheels. The base 1973 Monte Carlo (very low production) included a 3-speed manual transmission, bias-ply tires and standard suspension – and (unlike the S and Landau) could not be ordered with certain options such as optional engines, air conditioning or tilt steering wheel. That base Monte was dropped after just one year, leaving the S and Landau from 1974 to 1977.
I remember the brochure describing it that way and finding it strange.
I also enjoyed stirring up controversy by saying things like “do you know that the new Monte Carlo is 3-on-the-tree only” or things like that.
Per the ’73 brochure, one could get an S/Landau with 3 on the tree/ 350-2. Just no THM for the base model. Had not known about this base with only a manual trans until now, weird.
And that $227 for the Turbo-Hydramatic plus the suspension/steering upgrades on a ’73 Monte Carlo was one “heck of a deal” considering the extra content you got for your money. Mr. D wanted the ’73 Monte Carlo to come with those items as standard equipment but was shot down by Chevrolet’s accountants who feared that a Monte Carlo with standard automatic and those other items would have had a “base” price that was way out of sight for a Chevy and might repel prospective buyers
(never mind the fact that by this time, all Impalas and Caprices had automatic transmission as standard equipment, and that for “price” buyers, Chevrolet still offered 6-cylinder Chevelles and Novas with stick shifts, manual steering/brakes and rubber floor mats, not to mention similarly-outfitted 4-cylinder Vegas).
Learn something every day, thanks for clarifying the S model data.
I double checked on oldcarbrouchures.org and there was no designated S model for 1975-77.
Base coupe was cancelled in 74, yes. But the S designation was gone for ’75. Was Base and Landau. Still, the ’75 brochure lists the radial tuned suspension with its “high caster angle”. So while the S name was gone, the suspension remained. [Same with 76-77]
Also, 3 speed manual trans still standard in ’75, but only on 350. For 76, THM was finally standard.
What suspension parts came from a Mercedes??
The 1973 Monte Carlo used the same suspension as all other Colonnade A-bodies. The big difference from the 1968-72 A-body cars was the improved geometry. That said, both generations were very similar, being SLA suspension with stamped upper and lower arms, with the spring seated on the lower arm. The 1968-72 cars had issues with positive camber gain, while this was greatly improved with the 1973-77 cars. There were several minor variations, but the 1973-77 A-bodies shared the control arms with the F-body’s and the post 1975 X-body cars (not the 77-90 Bodies as often erroneously reported).
Make my 1970ss all black, no vinyl top with 70 series tires maybe some aftermarket rear discs. SS454 trim with hd suspension package definitely
That car makes my departed ‘95 Z34 Monte the worst car ever built (believe me it was) only GM I ever owned with an amber “oil is low” idiot light and it did 1qt every 1500 miles.
Despite religious servicing everything that could break did by 55K
I share that opinion.
Here is a all original one for you guys 48k original miles has not ran in over 10 years till today
I chuckle how the testers all got the 454SS, but how many of them were actually sold? Most likely the ‘average’ ’70 Monte Carlo was the standard engine, Turbo Hydramatic, with the Powerglide version coming in second.
And I’ll agree with LightCopperMetallic, the first generation was still the best looking, with a styling that wasn’t touched until the 80’s. Just get rid of the damned vinyl roof, and replace the wheel cover with real road wheels!
3,823 SS Montes in 1970 and 1,919 in 1971. The 350-2 and Turbo was the most popular drivetrain.
I knew the numbers for the SS versions were low, which means chances of finding a mint, low mileage original are virtually none to non-existent. The SS was dropped for ’72, along with the 4-speed manual but inexplicably, Powerglide was still an option! How many of those were sold?
70-71 Monte Carlo SS’s have appeared at Collector Car auctions and in recent magazines. Original/mint ones do exist.
Regarding Powerglide, my dad’s was a low end model: 350-2, vinyl top, AM radio, but no A/C. But, I cant remember if it had a ‘glide or THM. Cant remember if the PRNDL tag if it had L2/L1, and dad wouldn’t remember either. Only had it 2 years, 🙁
Just remember first time we drove on 2 lane highway, and it passed a semi like nothing. Kicked into lower gear and took off.
Would probably have had the Turbo-Hydramatic. The 2-speed Powerglide was more like a wet noodle by comparision. Worst of all PG cars was the 1971-73 Vega with that transmission (Turbo-Hydramatic wasn’t offered on Vegas until mid-1972). Getting back to the Monte Carlo, it sure outlasted the Vega by 11 years and even outsold the Vega/Monza subcompacts from 1975-on. And how many items on a Vega were as durable as the 70-72 Monte Carlo’s Carpathian Burled Elm dashboard facing? Certainly not the “instant-rust” body or aluminum engine – at least of 71-73 models (’74 and later Vegas were a great improvement over earlier models). And that aformentioned dash trim was so durable that “termites couldn’t eat it” nor did it splinter.
I was never a big fan of the styling of subsequent generations of Monte Carlo. The first was by far, the cleanest and most tasteful. It’s also the only one that is a true hardtop.
The original Monte was a great car in itself – more than just a Malibu in a dinner jacket, as Car and Driver said The immediate successor was also a great car with improved handling characteristics but the styling for many was really an acquired taste due to the flares and body creases, along with the change from a hardtop to sedan-type body without door/window frames which led to the opera window to hide the b-pillar. Of course, Washington played its hand with the federal 5 mph front bumper in 1973 (and rear for 1974) Interiors, however, were not much better aside from the optional swiveling bucket seats and later 50/50 split bench and the dash was much more Chevelle-like than before with less burled elm (or rosewood for 76-77).
Besides being a gorgeous hardtop, THE one thing about the Monte Carlo that always dropped my jaw was that fan shroud! Writers also commented on the length of it, likening it to a “gut bucket” or a wash tub like the one we had laying around the house!
The styling may have been excessive, especially in the front overhang, but it sure was a beautiful car, and that’s all that concerned me!
Funny – I still feel the same way, I love these, and saw one on the highway two weeks ago on my way home from work.
Page 77 of the MT article references an upcoming convertible Monte…obviously things changed along the way.
These look either really good or really bad. Less is more, so the beauty shines through without the vinyl toupee, the color-keyed wheel covers, and those horrid fender skirts. The car shown in the lead picture (and the last one for that matter) are rather vomitating.
One good thing about these cars – the hood is long enough a person could remove the fan shroud and stand on the ground between the engine and radiator to change the spark plugs.
“The car shown in the lead picture (and the last one for that matter) are rather vomitating.”
You, sir, are completely lacking in that thing called *taste*. 🙂 I will happily accept those two MCs to which you so haughtily turned up your nose.
Although I will admit that the “halo” design of the vinyl roof was not my favorite. at least the vinyl trim was pretty close to the paint color. A yellow car with a brown vinyl roof might move me into your camp, though.
the ugliest Monte I have seen was in about 82 it was a mustard yellow color with the painted hubcaps and tan vinyl roof. It also has saddle color buckets and console with the rare choice of an m-20 four speed, the owner had replaced the shift knob with a color keyed croquet ball! yes it was ugly but I would be proud to own it today but sadly he wrecked soon after I discovered my first four speed Monte.
My friend has the second four speed Monte I discovered it is a pleasing cinnamon brown color with brown top and black bucket seat interior, it is in excellent condition. it was probably special ordered cause it is loaded with PW, PL, (no tilt wheel) buckets and console, F-41 suspension and rally wheels. both of these cars are/were equipped with the 300/350 attached to the four speeds.
always wanted a 70/71 Monte and almost had a SS/400 in all dark green but sadly it got away from me. these are very nice cars that combine luxury and performance quite well.
now who else knows of a four speed Monte?
Perhaps my choice of adjectives has been influenced by recent goings-on. Methinks “poorly advised” might have been equally descriptive, though absent of the pungency.
That said, this is still likely my favorite generation of Monte Carlo (absent the decorative flourishes). Having one with a 454 would be a terrific cruiser.
JPC
I agree with your completely lacking taste comment, there is an old saying
I remember hearing years ago. His taste is in his mouth……..
Well, Mr. Shafer and I agree on enough other things that I am careful to not condemn his tastes too broadly.
Those skirts were always a bit controversial, especially with the high school / college crowd that were frequently the second or third owners – that age group would almost universally remove the skirts from their cars for good.
I’m with JP, I really like the formal skirted version – the skirts fit very well on the smooth flanks. If Chevy was going to offer skirts, they got it right, the car looks good both with and without them. It’s the lack of a wheel lip flair at the front wheel that keeps things looking right. This was sort of a Chevy styling signature on their ’67 through ’76 full-size cars as well, and skirts were also fitted on a variable basis on those cars.
I really like the Road Test version of this car, very few ordering managers checked the skirt box without checking the vinyl top box. Even in black and white, that car looks very sleek and attractive.
Make mine dark metallic blue, no vinyl, 350 4 bbl, THM, PS, PB, buckets, console AM/FM stereo, tilt and cruise. And skirts! I’m having a hard time deciding on the keyed wheel covers or the Chevy wheels.
They even had sales literature printed before they pulled the plug on the convertible. It was the right move from a market standpoint.
i like that convertible. i wonder if anyone created one or if there was a shop that would convert them to soft top status?
ever seen one? i have not.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/8e/17/42/8e17422c4be575e36505fe9b5ea81abc.jpg
Quite a few out there, actually.
looks like a mini-El Dorado. Looks sharp.
This is the only era Monte I’d own, otherwise meh.
Wow, never saw that one before. A cheaper, ersatz mini-Eldorado is exactly right, and it reminds me of Bob Lutz’ 2002 Bel Air concept that was nixed in favor of the poorly received SSR. It’s unfortunate since the reason the Bel Air didn’t make the cut was likely due to how Ford bungled the last generation Thunderbird.
Yes, it’s sad that the Bel Air was axed, and we got the SSR…AND the Solstice.
The Solstice may have been sexy looking, but if my late brother’s example was typical, it was woefully underdeveloped. The space utilization – especially the trunk – was terrible.
Welcome to why mine lasted a year and a half, and to think I traded a Porsche 924S on it. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
I like this generation of Monte Carlo. I am especially fond of the model with the fender skirts. In 1971, it came with a quaint hood ornament, which I find very classy!
When I read the 1969 personal luxury comparison test earlier this week, it got me wondering how GM handled all the excess space forward of the cowl, given that the Grand Prix and Monte Carlo had A-platform 2-door bodies set to the rear of the longer 4-door frame.
I appreciate that you ran the page from Road Test, which showed the Monte in a profile line drawing. Interesting how the engine was mounted further back than on the 4-doors.
the A-specials used a different frame than the sedans. yes its the same wheelbase, but the extra length is between the front wheels and cowl, not in the cab, where the sedans used that 4″ between the seats.
My family owned a Chevrolet dealership from 1955-1982 and there were many beautiful and noteworthy cars offered by Chevrolet during that period. Which one would I most like to own as a remembrance of cars that were on the dealership showroom floor during those years? Well I think I would skip past all of the Chevrolets that you see again and again if you attend vintage car events (Corvettes, Camaros, all of the other Chevrolet muscle cars) and go right to an early Monte with skirts and no vinyl roof, maybe followed by a ’77 Caprice 2dr. slick top. That Monte I think to me was and still is the most visually striking of them all.
The Gen1 Monte was a gorgeous car. This is what the 71 Riviera should have looked like, but with larger dimensions. I happen to like the fender skirts on these.
I have always strongly preferred this car to any Monte that came later. In styling and concept, GM screwed up a lot of cars in the late 60s into the mid 70s, but this is one they nailed perfectly.
Funny, I look at the front end and see the inspiration for the Granada. Chevrolet had spent the 60s chasing Ford’s lead but this car signalled the beginning of a reversal that would hold through the 70s.
I can see your point about the Monte / Granada, but, I’m still fairly convinced Lee told the boys to look across the studio at the ’75 LTD and to reduce the headlight count by 50%. A mini-me LTD if there ever was one.
Whatever one might say about practicality, the first Monte Carlo and Grand Prix were fairly graceful designs. The ‘frogeye’ versions that replaced these in ’73 were just grotesque. As for the ’70 T-Bird, with a hideous ‘bird-beak’ now added to it’s bloated 67 restyle, at least one didn’t have to look at it from inside the car.
Happy Motoring, Mark
I dunno, I prefer the 70-71 Bird to the 68-69 and to the 72+. Except for the rear end, which was quite weak. The overall shape was really sleek and the huge proboscis was so outrageous that it kind of worked for me. These were the last Thunderbirds that made me really want one, at least until the mid 80s.
Personally, the 1970-’72 Monte Carlo is the only generation of the series that appealed to me, that I’d consider owning. Though apparently not enough to act as plenty were available used when I was in the market for used cars thirty years ago.
Always felt we were cheated by the lack of a convertible, which would have pushed me to buy one, they would have been that much more appealing. In recent years, I’ve seen a few Generation I Monte Carlos convertibles built from factory parts by enthusiasts. They are as much more appealing and desirable as I imagined then.
There was an illustration in the ’70 owner’s manual of convertible top operation and boot cover. Only the Cutlass Supreme ragtop was offered. [of the A special bodies]
“Stretched Chevelle.” How well I remember that write up.
I had subscriptions to Car & Driver, Motor Trend, Car Life and for good measure, Hot Rod, when I was 12, when the MC was new.
The 1970 remains my personal favorite, in 1988, I picked one up for $200, rusty rear quarters and all, in a tiny village north of Steubenville, OH. A year or so later, as I sought to replace a timing chain and gear, bottle jacks were placed under the frame and away I went…
…uh, wait a minute, all of a sudden the car’s not going up…because the frame had buckled.
Oh well…
It was in the process of dismantling that I REALLY discovered the car’s Chevelle origins. Door frames and glass, trunk lid, back glass, of course the entire interior, that was obvious, but I was actually impressed at how well GM had hidden the similarities. Totally unlike the GM of the 80s and 90s.
To this day they remain a temptation, but I have to keep my automotive eyes on the goal, AKA the ’57 Handyman in the garage.
I’d rather have a Chevelle or Cutlass 4 door hardtop. The Monte’s just too much hood and not enough car.
My favorite vintage car, and best car my parents had growing up, 😉
Dad always said he loved driving it in the city, compared to full size family cars.
Regarding the SS454 being tested, when not bought by many, It was calendar year ’69, the zenith of muscle/super car era, so mags were asking for powerful test cars.
The first MC was understated and unpretentious, while comfortable. The ’73 went to another level, though still like them. Just dislike the stacked square headlight look of ’76-’77.
The worst looking was the ’80, they crammed in 4 headlight in single slot. But the 78-88 G body had right size and slightly bigger back seat.
I think the 95-99, while really a Lumina coupe had the understated look, then mimicked the ’73 in final run.
Its funny that Road Test says the Monte would fit in at any GM division except Cadillac, because, oh boy, the Monte absolutely predicted the ’71 Eldorado!
I’ve seen renderings of the factory Monte convertible proposal, and with skirts, it was a more elegant and reasonable Eldorado convertible! And, of course, ’71 was the year Cadillac moved the convertible from the DeVille line to the Eldo. I suppose that the rapid death of convertible sales in the era was a major force in why GM didn’t move its convertible models to the personal luxury lines across-the-board, but the risk of a Chevy stealing the Eldorado ‘verts thunder might have been what prevented the Monte from going topless.
I meant to include a photo of this custom Monte Carlo convertible. It is very attractive…………..
Would like to see a “top up” pic.
It’s funny you say that because I always thought that the first generation Monte Carlo should have been a Cadillac. It had the look and the size was right for people who were put off by the big Cadillacs. With a Cadillac engine, chassis upgrades and much better interior materials, this could have been a money maker for Cadillac.
I was thinking the same thing. Cadillac could have struck gold turning this into a smaller than Eldorado personal coupe. Not sure of the name of the vehicle but would have complimented the Eldo. Eldorado was in the Fleetwood family so this smaller model could be in the deVille family perhaps. With Coupe deVille and Sedan deVille comes the Coupe SeVille or you get the picture of what i mean here. Didn’t Ford have a similar concept idea? They had the lower priced smaller Cougar along with the Mark III. Would have forced Lincoln to have its own Cougar with emphasis on luxury along with the big 460 cube.
The MT article was before they ‘dumbed down’ their writing. Middle of ’77, they started to read like sales brochures. I switched to C&D, then. 😉
The contrast between the C&D and Road Test articles is hilarious in retrospect. My brain agrees with C&D, but I do like the way the Monte looks.
The front bucket looks even more ridiculous in that cutaway drawing than it does in photographs.
I was never aware you couldn’t get the 4 speed manual with the 454 on the 1970 Chevy Monte Carlo considering it was 1970 and it was the peak of the muscle car era, I actually like the 1970-72 Monte Carlo’s with the fender skirts myself, for the Colonnade era Monte Carlo’s I actually liked the 1976-77 model’s with the stacked headlights over the rounded headlights of the 1973-75 models, I’m glad I’m not the only one who disliked the quad headlights on the 1980 Chevy Monte Carlo.
I always thought this gen of the Monte Carlo was gorgeous. Useless, but gorgeous.
And then came the 73. Such a travesty and buyers glommed them up like candy.
I never understood that. Nor the tepid 73 “cues” used with the ball sac tail lights on the 00s version.
This was the Monte Carlo the designers should have emulated.
IMO the stacked-square headlight ’76-77s crossed the other line into glorious tackiness.
DweezilAZ:
The “story” is that the stylists used the 70 Monte Carlo as their “inspiration” for the 73-77 Monte. Those cartoonish (IMHO) bulged fenders on the 73 were just “a bit” more exaggerated than the peaks on the 70. Even the hood was made to appear longer.
My feelings about the Monte Carlo are that the skirts were meant to invoke a certain look, but that the time period they invoked (the 30s to 40s) wasn’t going to “work” in 1970.
I’ve seen a lot of Monte Carlos over the years. I don’t categorically hate the vinyl roof, if anything, some of the colors Chevy painted these Montes did them no favors. The dark grey of the 1st car pictured is meant to invoke luxury but it makes the car look like a 40s or 50s British luxury saloon. The bright yellow with brown vinyl roof combination made the Monte look like a giant rolling eclair.
Had the Monte, GP, and T-bird all been priced closely, I don’t know where I would have spent my money. But considering the Monte’s choice of engines, transmissions, AND a floor shifter, I probably would have gone with Chevrolet. Just keep those awful skirts.
Wow…the straight-on side shot shows just how bad the proportions are. I forgot how tacky these things were. No way…Charger SE, please! (Bonus: less money for a better car.)
Fender skirts, UGH. I defintiely can be counted as a fan of these first gen Montes though, and if ever there were cars I’d happily prefer in non-original form, most of the way these came are it. The bones of the design are attractive though, basically a direct upsize of the 1965 Mustang coupe concept, and it, like the Mustang, is on of the few cars of the era that looks good to me with single headlights rather than duals, and I never cared for that on it”s successor or the company wide switchover on the 73 Collonade cars in general.
The fake woodgrain criticism from magazines and blogs has long been a gripe of mine. You’re damned if you do damnded if you don’t. Make it black it looks cheap and plasticy, make it metal it’s tinny or has too much glare, make it real genuine wood and it’ll still be assumed to be fake because it’s in a Chevrolet. There are some truly horrific woodgrain dash appliques, the ones that are flat nidoc applied over an aluminum or plastic substrates, or molded plastic with “authentic” grains simply pigmented in a single tan-brown tone, and the Burl in these Monte Carlos is simply NOT that bad, I’ve seen it, it looks no faker than some actual real woods I’ve seen in a few German cars. There needs to be a grander scale than “it’s fake, it sucks”. It’s as nitpicky and irrelevent of a complaint as the bitching about seating surfaces being leather, the ones you actually touch and want in leather, and the sides and backs of a seat being vinyl – big freaking deal! You answer their prayers and then they’ll rightfully complain about the wastefulness of the source materials! /end rant
Why won’t Chevy make car like this now?
I never found the Gen 1 MC to successfully define itself. It lacked the sportiness of the GP and lacked the “presence” of the Thunderbird. It’s taillamps looked like they were stolen from Oldsmobile… definitely not part of the Chevy family. And the lack of quad headlamps made it look cheap (enter the Gran Torino Elite and Gen II GP to validate it).
I have a 1987 Monte Carlo SS grew up with this generation of Monte Carlo SS I like the history of these cars
While these were never my favourite, you have to give Chevy credit for seeing where the market was going in the early ’70s. Chevy sold every one of these they could build in 1970 and for quite a number of years afterwards. Sure, it had a few tacky styling touches and some obvious Chevelle roots, but it was built to a price much more so than it’s direct competition. By the mid ’70s it was the segment leader and everyone else was copying it. I well recall the dealership principal at the the Chev-Olds emporium my Dad worked at pulling every string in the book to get more Monte’s, and in those days every one went out the door at sticker or better.
Hard to believe today….
This is the best of all the Monte Carlos, IMHO. Especially if equipped with a 454 4-speed!
I too, am a fan of the first gen Monte Carlo. Such a good looking car, I would definitely not turn one down if given the chance, unless the color was really off.
I also have to say the genius behind this car was Chevy decided to play Ford at it’s own game. I’m not sure what the price discrepancy between the Thunderbird and the Monte Carlo was, but if I remember right, I read somewhere that a decently loaded Monte Carlo cost less than the base price of the Thunderbird. If that’s true, than Chevrolet definitely knew how to establish the car as more than a viable competitor, even if the Monte Carlo wasn’t as unique from a mechanical standpoint as the Thunderbird was. (I think the 70 model was the last time the Thunderbird had a unique body that wasn’t shared with other Ford products, someone correct me if I’m wrong.)
Although, I have to agree with some of the commenters on here, I think the Monte Carlo definitely looks better without the vinyl roof.
Many buyers/drivers just want a car that looks nice. The Monte Carlo filled the bill on that score wonderfully.
Just taking a different tack here, look at the lead photo in regard to safety, or rather lack thereof. It’s a brochure shot, and the guy’s not wearing the separate shoulder belt (not surprising given the domestic automakers’ ridiculous designs — no inertia reel and requiring a separate buckle). Then consider the “head restraint” that only reaches as high as the driver’s shoulder blades.
6.9 miles per gallon. Out of curiosity, I googled Popular Science Archives and found a 1970 test of these cars, on which the Thunderbird got only 6.9 miles per gallon. The competition did a little better, maybe as much as 12. Granted, this was a comparison test, so real world mileage would be somewhat higher. But, if the Thunderbird got what, maybe 10-12 on the highway, that would mean it had a range of about 200-240 miles on a full tank. Which, to me, kind of negates the idea of it being an effortless highway cruiser, if you have be start looking for gas every 150-200 miles. We really used to drive like this?
My 1971 Buick Riviera (455 CID engine) would get about 13 to 14 cruising at 80 MPH, but the tank held about 25 gallons, so I think it would go 250 to 300 miles between fill ups.
Nice to see a few period articles about a car I’ve really admired styling wise. Have to agree the fender skirts and vinyl top are to options to avoid. Along with the 454, while fun at stoplights the weight over the front end and terrible MPG isn’t worth the downsides. A THM 350 4barrel (1970 higher compression would be best) is what I would choose.
GM really hit the mark on the 70-72 versions, sometimes the end result is more than the sum of it’s parts.
Wish I had a nickle for every article where the rags of the day bitched about fake wood, like it’s the deadliest sin on earth.
Today that’s been replaced by the old hard plastics vs soft touch complaints. Although in this regard the MC had lots of soft padded surfaces in it’s interior.
I’d say, from memories, that 80-90% of 1st Gen Monte’s didn’t have fender skirt option. Most had base wheel covers, or the Chevy sport wheels*, shown in the C/D and MT articles. *not just on SS
I have an AMT model kit of a ’71 state had skirts, but I clipped them off.
Got it in fall ’71 with birthday cash, and one of my favorite in collection.
Also, I recently have gotten ‘matchbox’ size Monte Carlos, from Revell. 🙂
Can’t collect real cars, so I get toys, 😉
A reduced front overhang Monte, a true front mid-engine layout with better weight distribution and lowered center of gravity.
I’m confused. Were rear fender skirts an option in the Monte Carlo? Luxury trims for example . I haven’t seen them on SS models. They look better without the “Cadillac design cue”.
Regarding manual trans, for 72 no more 4 speed option.
Chevy even bragged about in the brochure, “Sorry, no 4 on the floor, this is a luxury car”. Although 3 on the tree still standard with base v8.
Dad had a ’71 (350-4/THM) for a couple of years then sold it to his brother, who kept it for decades. It was about the only car in dull non-metallic beige that actually looked elegant instead of cheap. There was a vinyl roof but, thankfully, no fender skirts. Rust under the roof covering caused the trunk to fill with water whenever it rained. Uncle stripped the vinyl, fixed the rust and repainted in a slightly strange metallic yellowish green.
The article above is worded as if the Powerglide is the only automatic for most engines. The Powerglide was actually only available with the base 350-2bbl engine and the 350-4bbl L48 option. The TH350 were also options for both of these engines. The 400-2bbl (Small block), the 400-4-bbl (402 BB) and the 454 had the Turbohydramatic as there only automatic.
Always have loved the first gen Monte Carlo, especially the 1970-1971 with their formal grills and parking lights outside of the grille. However, do not like fender skirts on this gen of Monte at all. Also don’t like the full wheel covers. Much prefer the rally wheels and narrow stripe white or red wall. Can take or leave the vinyl top. Looks good on some but not on others. Would definitely want buckets and a console on this car as the bench and column shifter just didn’t jibe with the personal luxury segment for me. I mean, this is a two door car, not a family four door sedan.
My family used our ’70 Monte as a family car in ’74-’75. Our ’68 Plymouth wagon was less reliable for longer trips, so the MC was taken, with 4 kids, two adults. The bench seat came in handy.
Really, my dad loved the car, and just didn’t like driving the wagon anymore, 😉
Once PLC’s hit Mom and Pop’s senses, they took off in sales, leaving plain full size cars behind. Then, mostly plush big cars were for sale.
Wife and I walked into a Chevy dealer in late 1969. Wanted to see the new Monte Carlo. Sales guy said just got one off the truck, it’s in the back. Went back and looked, maroon-black interior, wife loved it. Even had the 400 2bbl small block, exactly what I wanted. But then I sat inside and something caught my eye. Looked like someone reached up under the dash and yanked most of the wiring down onto the floor.
Went across town to the Olds dealer and ordered a Cutlass Supreme. Turned out to be a great car.
The ’70 Olds Cutlass Supreme was also a PLC. It was as pretty a coupe as the GP and the Monte. Each of these cars were nice. Wonder why the auto mags didn’t include the Cutlass in this PLC test?
Most likely because the Cutlass Supreme was viewed as a new body style of the standard Cutlass series, while the Monte Carlo and Grand Prix were viewed as unique models.
Good point.
That one’s easy. The Cutlass could be had in 4-door and station wagon (the famous Vista Cruiser) versions, unlike the Monte Carlo and Grand Prix which had their own, unique sheetmetal shared with no other model type. Occasionally, a Monte Carlo or Grand Prix front end might be seen on a station wagon, but none ever left the factory so configured.
In actual practice, the vast majority of Cutlass hardtops (there were a couple variations) were most definitely viewed as a defacto PLC by their owners when equipped with the typical, luxury, brougham-type options that were also available on the MC and GP.
It’s the reason that, for at least a couple of years, the Cutlass was the US’ top-selling model in the mid-seventies (but that included all iterations) and many regarded the hardtop coupes as a poor-man’s PLC.
Sadly, in 1982, GM decided to spread the Cutlass brand-equity to other model lines (like the eighties’ Ciera and Calais) which unceremoneously diluted the name to irreverence, contributing to Oldsmobile’s ultimate demise.
Yes, you’ve got a good point there. Similar to when the Mercury Cougar branched out to four door sedans and wagons for the 1977 model year. Prior to that, it was just a two door coupe or convertible.
All of the Big 3 has given this sort of a thing a try, with varying degrees of success. Unlike the Cutlass and Cougar, a couple of nameplates which are now long gone, Chrysler actually managed to accomplish the move with the Dodge Charger, which saw a lot of movement between different models over the years until finally coming to rest on the current 4-door sedan, which has actually worked out quite well.
For more recent examples, Ford assigning the Mustang name to their Mach-E BEV seems to be doing okay, and it looks like the Corvette name will soon be on both an EV and SUV.
Agree with many comments above about the first generation Monte Carlos being the best looking of all. I also don’t like the fender skirts, which make the car look heavy in its flanks.
There is a 1971 lemon yellow MC that lives nearby and I see it out occasionally on nice days. What is most striking is that I can see the car’s Malibu roots very clearly from the rear three-quarter view. In fact, it appears the MC even shared its trunk lid with the Malibu coupe. Sort of goes against the MC’s pretensions of being a premium car.
This year of Monte Carlo came out as my first year in high school got underway. While my buddies liked the styling, I was the naysayer preferring instead the Grand Prix.
Decades later my opinion has softened, but I still prefer the Grand Prix.
I didn’t read all the comments above, but is it really possible (in the 3-car comparison) that the T-bird weighed like 1,000 lbs more than the Monte Carlo? Geesh!
No. The T-Bird was a porky thing, but the specified curb weight for the Chevrolet is the base curb weight for the Monte Carlo. The SS 454 equipment with Turbo Hydra-Matic added 284 lb, so the test car wouldn’t have been less than 3,900 lb. (It’s not clear if it had air conditioning or power windows, but those together would add 116 lb, according to the AMA specs.)
And, yet, another potential CC unicorn is discovered: a manual transmission, 1st generation Monte Carlo. Technically possible, I can’t imagine one was ever actually built but more of a marketing ploy to ‘say’ there was a low-price, loss-leader that never existed.
But if one ever actually came down the assembly line (and it survives), what a CC find!
I had no idea that you could get a SS 454 like the one shown in the ad. Absolutley love it…no poser wheels or badges, just full wheel covers and even skirts. Best SS ever.
I don’t believe I’ve ever seen IRL this era Monte or GP without a vinyl roof, so it’s shocking they tested one. The ones for sale online are probably all repaints after rear window rust repair (ought to be an acronym).
It’s Ace Ventura’s (Pet Detective) car!
Purchased a 70 monte Carlo dealer demo in 1971 with just a little over 3000 miles. Light blue with dark blue vinyl top, blue rag interior with bench seat, A/C and factory 8 TRACK tape. Dont recall which motor. The car replaced my 66 Buick Riviera. As I recall after driving the Monte the RIV (although a great car) felt like driving a parade float compared to the Monte.