The 80's monte carlo ss was a good looking car. The regular monte carlos were FUGLY, but not as much as the new ones.

I agree that the attempt to put old MC themes on the new car was not successful. That is probably related to Nascar to some extent - the original was boxier, with sharper creases.

I will say one thing though - my parents routinely get well over 30 mpg with their '96 on trips - even as high as 35 on one (It's either a 3.1 or a 3.4L).

 

Well amigo, you may want to sit down for this. The current Monte Carlo SS is just as fast as the old 305 SSs of the mid to late 80s. Both run about 16 second quarters, and both take just under 8 seconds to get to 60.

Also, that "mystique is gone forever" angle I don't understand. Until the SS of the mid 80s, Monte Carlo had no mystique. It was simply a Chevelle (then a Malibu) with a different skin. Nothing more, nothing less. GM didn't even bother to make the interior trim different.I also have a really big problem looking at the 78-80 M/Cs and seeing any mystique whatsoever.

The M/C SS of the 80s achieved it's status the same way the Impala SS a decade later: an existing boring & maligned car elavated to star status by adding a set of wheels, blacking out everything, resetting the suspension and changing the tires, and finally glueing "SS" emblems on it.

Styling is a matter of taste. I personally like the Lumina based Montes better but I can't deny the current one looks almost near awsome in black with 18" wheels (the upcomming turbo V6 should make it even more interesting). I view Solara & Accord as the automotive equivalent of Valium. Not quite what you'd take when you want to have some fun. At least the Monte looks like it could be fun. Meanwhile, Sebring & Stratus are the poster children of fleet rentals. See far more of them in Thrifty lots than Monte Carlos in Avis'.

The only things keeping me from buying one is the fact it's not RWD, and my own addiction to excess power (my last car was a T-bird SC, so I'd be M/C's target customer). Darth and others seem to like their cars, and mention how well built they are and how much they get for the price.

For me, that's enough for the current Monte Carlo to be classified as a good car. Not quite GTO, but still a good car.

 

Like I said, the '83-88 SS wasn't exactly ferocious, something that has been rectified by most owners over the years. I don't think I've seen, or heard, one of these cars running with a stock cam or exhaust in years. It really says something when so many people have seen fit to save these cars.

Does anyone really think that very many examples of the latest MC will be rolling in 15 years time?

 

Don't tell me that those velour rotating "captain's chairs" of the mid '70s had no mystique.

 

 

I'm with the guys saying the current Monte Carlo is not a very attractive car, whatever color you want to paint it. I think some of you are wearing Chevy, rose-colored glasses when you look at it and compare it to the competition.

In fact, this C/D comparison pitted the Monte Carlo SS up against the Stratus R/T and Mustang GT and the MC finished last with the Stratus first. The comments regarding the MC: "There's a pervading heaviness to this car that makes it feel slow-witted, slow on its feet, and generally reluctant"..."If you can ignore the Martian styling, this is a very nice car. But it's really selling comfort and style, not sportiness"..."absolute absence of fun-to-drive factor."

BTW, their numbers: 0-60 in 8.6, qtr in 16.6.

While I hardly consider the Monte SS a historic nameplate that should be honored for its mystique, I'm all for dropping it and all the other cosmetic "SS" models. Whatever you want to call it, an SS coupe should be rwd with optional manual transmission. Producing late '80s performance in 2003 with botched styling isn't impressing me, or anyone else that drives these things impartially.

 

Take that article with a grain of salt.

The article proclaims M/C to be by far the best built of the three, but it pigeon holes it because it's not sporty enough.

Well, I got news for everyone... Monte Carlo is not, and never has been, a sports car, or even a sports car wanna be like V6 Stangs and Stratus Coupes.

I thought the comparision was silly actually, the only domestic car that is currently even in Monte Carlo's class is Grand Prix Coupe, whic goes bye bye this year.

 

You know......

If there is one car in the Chevy line-up that is true to it's heritage....it has got to be the Monte Carlo.

The Monte Carlo is exactly what it has always been....a big comfortable coupe with a modicum of styling, and limited speed.

What is so shocking about that?

I wouldn't mind seeing alittle more performance out of it, but I don't think the current Monte Carlo SS ...FWD and all...is really inappropriate

 

Same magazine's figures for an 83 Monte Carlo SS:
http://web.archive.org/web/200108091...riverpage5.htm

Numbers: 0-60 in 8.2, qtr in 16.1.

Not exactly a smoker by current M/C standards. The later SSs had a 5 horsepower increase but never changed torque, so it's safe to say it never was any faster.

What is ironic is that the current Monte Carlo is 35 lbs heavier!

 

And Darth is right. That comparison is pretty silly. Mustang vs Monte Carlo? How about a Humvee vs a Corvette.

 

The point was to compare the 3 available all-American $25k coupe offerings. If you think it's ridiculous this is all GM has to pit against the Mustang, that's their fault and not the magazine's.

The '83 is faster than the current car. How is this short of today's MC standards? If I were you guys I'd raise my expectations for GM coupes with 200+hp--unless of course you like being outran by the likes of Tiburons, Celicas, RSXs, Eclipses, and Mustangs.

 

Monte Carlo has always been out run by the likes of Mustangs and small performance cars. It's never been a performance car or sports car, but a nice personal luxury coupe that was no slouch. That about fits with the current Monte methinks.

Also, when C&D ran that test, wasn't the Formula Firebird 5.7 and base Z28 (both under 25K) still in production? Camaro may be assembled in Canada, but the Chrysler has far more parts designed by Mitsubishi than it has by Chrysler. Especially the interior (see Eclipse).

 

80's Monte SS's are so freakin cool is unreal. I dont know where my love for them comes from, but they're just a big car yelling for a fast engine. They have a mistique that, as much as I love you Xed, the current Monte SS can never capture.

 

I feel all warm and tingly!

heheheh...

Hey - I'm not gonna rgue that the 80's Monte SS was a nice car.... one of my best friends had a Black over Burgundy SS.

Nice car, but it ran slightly slower than my 89 Camaro RS with the 5.0 Throttle Body Injection... not really a screamer

I will agree that is seems more unlikely that the current Monte will become something people talk about down the road... probably based on the single fact that it is not RWD, V8... but it really is a good car.

Again, my Monte is not exactly my dream car, and I'd much perfer RWD, but considering the almost total lack of RWD choices out there right now, the current Monte is a nice buy for what you get... even more so when it gets the Supercharger next year

 

My MCSS ran 14.50s all night long when it was stock. 16s? Who was driving? Your grandma? I heard all kinds of smack when Id roll to a light next to some Pustang. Till he saw the taillights. With a chip intake and headers the Monte ran 13.70s. On street tires. No nitrous. Fully loaded. And I could drive it anywhere. Even from Fla. to Washington DC. The new MCSS is a joke. There is no such thing as a "performance" front driver. IMO. And its ugly. Looks like any other car on the road. My wifes 99 Bonneville looks better.