Oh lord please tell me you are kidding. This is one of the most ignorant comments I have ever heard. Any automobile designer who takes himself seriously will tell you that car is laughably ugly. It's got these, 'I wannabe a '70s body' lines on a fat and slow family hauler chassis. It's heavy, slow, disgracefully ugly, and slapping a SS badge on it doesn't make it sporty. IT'S NOT A SPORTS CAR NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU WANT IT TO BE. It does however fit in with the other car designs(jokes) at GM. Malibu(Could it be blander looking, makes me realize why the retro craze is so popular), Aztec(enough said), cavalier(....do I need to say anything, **** poor quality and build, bland styling) GM needs to get their car line in gear. Stop with all the junk, stop with all the cladding, they are treating us consumers like idiots. I bought my SS for the LS1 and what I think are the only decent looks in the chevy car line up besides of course the venerable vette. Call me names, get mad, whatever it won't bother me. I know many people feel like I do and GM has been feeling the pressure from us, their car line is going down down down.

 

...and then you go on to make equally ignorant statements. I don't understand, the Monte is not some hideous offensively-styled car, and I think the sales of it would prove me correct. If you don't like it that's fine, but I don't see where anyone could compare it to, say, the absolutely grotesque Aztek. People act like it's the ugliest car ever.

 

Thats because it is the ugliest car ever. At least in the last 10 years. People buy them because of the NASCAR connection and they dont want a car like the Z28 thats hard to get in and out of and rides rough. They arent interested in fast. Because for the same money they could have gotten a Z. So they got a Monte. Rides great gets good mileage and has a sporty "theme".

 

More subjective nonsense.

I traded in my 99 M6 Z28 on a 02 Monte Carlo SS.

I have zero interest in NASCAR.

Obviously I wanted a Z28, as I bought one new 3 years ago.

Yes, I am "interested in fast".

 

I'll be the first to admit that the current Monte is not the "ugliest" coupe in the market. (I'd say that the Celica takes the cake, right down to the '59 Chevrolet inspired "fin crease" on the rear fenders.) In fact, the unusually great length of the current car gives it decent presence.

The Monte Carlo resurrection was originally supposed to occur on the B-body back in the early '90s. An increase in fuel prices after the Gulf War, combined with the weak reception of the '91 Caprice scotched that idea. The styling of that cancelled effort actually resembled the later 1995 Lumina-based Monte Carlo, except with a less pidgeon-toed stance.

Darth Xed, I'm not criticising your buying decision, just the cynicism of GM's corporate management. The car you currently own is a good one (nice color combo) although the Monte Carlo should have been a much better vehicle.

Maintaining the styling themes from past models really ruined the appearance of both the 2000 Impala and Montecarlo. The strange rear-quarter window in the Impy was an obvious attempt to connect that car with the 1994 Caprice. (I think the idea was to "fool" former Caprice buyers into thinking Chevrolet had a full-sized car again.) The same goes for the fender creases on the MC, remeniscent of the fender flares of the 1970 original. The end result was ungainly, in both cases.

Exhumations are always stinky and unpopular. If they can't do a proper Camaro resurrection, GM should let the name die.

 

Um, when exactly was Monte Carlo ever a sports car?

As far as heavy & slow, it's 15 pounds heavier, & less than half a second slower to 60 than the SS of the 80s, so it's far from the pig you make it to be.

 

Thanks for the compliment!

When you say "although the Monte Carlo should have been a much better vehicle. " , what exactly do you mean?

It is a WONDERFUL car. Built ROCK-SOLID. It literally makes my 99 Z28 feels like it was built by monkeys as far as build quality goes, and I was never one to b!tch alot about the build quality on my Camaro...

I think what this all boils down to is the fact that it is not RWD.

I've stated this in the past, but if the current Monte Carlo was exactly the same car, but was RWD, most people would like it on this board. If it were RWD, with a V8, people would drool over it.

I am on the record as saying I'd perfer it to be RWD, and a V8 as well, but that does not diminish the fact that this is a wonderful vehicle.

Hell, I HATE FWD torque-steer, but I didn't buy this car to go and do burnouts at every stop light.

To be totally honest, it was a VERY VERY hard move for me to buy a new car. It was time for the Z28 to go for a few reasons. If there were a new, modern 5th gen Camaro/Firebird, I would have, barring it being completely hideous, bought one.

After a LONG LONG period of trying to decide what I'd want to drive everyday, it boiled down to CTS, Monte Carlo SS, and Grand Prix GT/GTP.

My first choice was CTS. It was RWD, but the problem was it was significantly more than the other two, had no rebates at the time, and had 4 doors.

I considered Grand Prix (especially GTP because of the extra HP) but, I did not like the fact that it was unchanged since 97, and would be an 'old model' when the 04 comes out.

That made me turn to Monte Carlo SS... $2500 rebate,I like the styling a lot, it has lots of toys for the money, it has excellent build quality, has 'adequate' power... overall, I am quite happy with it. It is a nice car.

Is it everything I want in a car? No. Is it still a great car? Yes.

 

I still wouldn't like the current Monte Carlo, even if it been rear wheel drive. This car is poorly proportioned, a fault that is independent of frontwheel drive architecture. I understand that FWD cars will have inherently longer front overhangs, but why does this car need an enormous rear overhang as well. Why did it need the fussy rear treatment, the fender slashes or the artificially large C-pillar blindspot? I blame the retro design brief that went along with the Monte Carlo name.

So you bought the Monte Carlo because of the build quality, "adequate" performance and $2,500 rebate? I guess some people, myself included, don't share the same priorities.

 

So be it, that would be your choice. I can't argue with you opinion on styling...you are entitled to like it or dislike it. However, I still strongly believe the general tone on these boards would be different it it were RWD. Even if some people won't admit it, or dont even realize it themselves.


Show me any Monte Carlo that doesn't have larger overhangs. In general, larger front overhangs add to the saftety factor in frontal crashes (from what Ive read) because there is more area to absorb impact energy... this is a reason Volvo had/has large overhangs up front. As for the rear, well, it's pretty obvious to me... trunk space. This, as I and GuionM have said several times, is not a sports car. It is a medium to large sized 2 door car.

Now, I am one of the biggest anti-retro voices on this board, and I do not consider the current Monte Carlo to be retro in the slightest. There are some very, very minor styling cues taken from past Monte's (the general shape of the taillamp bezels, and perhaps the body creases), but it ends there. What is 'fussy' about the rear end? What is wrong with the 'fender slashes'? They give the car character, and make it stand out in a world of we-all-look-the-same cars. Styling is totally subjective, and you have a right to not like it, but I would hardly call it misporportioned.

As for the 'artificially large C-pillar blind spot, well, it is certainly no bigger than the 4th gen, or 3rd gen, F-body blind spot. I hardly even notice it during driving.


Build quality? ABSOLUTELY!

"Adequate" performace? Not really a factor that mad me WANT to buy it, but it wasn't so ridiculously underpowered that it forced me disregard it, either.... hence the term "adequate".

$2,500 rebate? You bet it made me look at it even more. Why wouldn't I want to save an additional $2500?

I also bought it for a number of other reasons:

1) I LIKE the styling.
2) I LIKE features on it such as heated seats, dual-zone climate control, low tire pressure sensors, and a host of other items.
3)I LIKE the fact that is is VERY quiet inside, with the radio off and the windows up... no rattles and squeaks here.
4) There was NOTHING else out there that offered me exactly what I wanted. This is the hole that the lack of a new 5th generation F-Body leaves.... until a 5th Gen or something in that class comes out, I'll be forced into a compromise of some kind. Monte Carlo met most of what I wanted considering what is available at this time.

 

Just thought I would throw my opinion in on this. I have a 97 Z34 monte. And I love the car. I got it because I wrecked my 91 z28 and I needed something easier on the insurance. Also I feel as though these cars have a lot of classic styling and they will be around for a long time. Now onto the 99+ montes. Heck I love their looks the interiors are awesome. I would love to have one but my car is just fine for me right now. BTW my car has the DOHC 3.4 with 215hp and I think it would be a good match for the 80's MC SS. Also I have some fuel for the fire. Here is a link to a 406 LT1-t56 monte that John Moss made FOR GM. I think it is safe to say that you guys would this car to have gone into production. BTW I would love to see someone do the same thing to a 99+ monte but this time with the LS1.

 

The '95 Monte Carlo wasn't half bad - the styling was originally based on the cancelled 5th gen. RWD Monte Carlo. (The '95 Lumina apparently was styled after its MC stablemate, not the otherway around.) In any case, this big block Monte has tasteful fender flares and looks awesome.

 

Part of the reason I bought my car was because we don't have that many up here. Tons and tons of mustangs though.

We have a lot of LT1s now but LS1s and 3rd gens...nice ones....are rare.

Last year when word of the Fbody's demise came about, Camaro/Firebird prices went up $2000-$3000 cdn.

They've gone back down now but 3rd gens have been going up in price along with 2nd gens.

 

quote by Z28Wilson:

I agree completely! Although I am a little guilty of that too since I've taken lately to keeping my TA off the street in the winter. However, a couple weeks ago I drove my IROC-Z to work all week and it was a blast. If I had bought it while wringing my hands about its value year to year, I'd probably not enjoy it much.

And I agree about the clear and obvious niche now filled almost entirely by the Mustang. Camaro will be back - and it needs to be!

This stuff about the Monte... there's some things I don't like about its styling (headlight shape for one)... but also some which I think are pretty cool. I like the rear end view and taillights... the roofline... and the strong resemblance to NASCAR (I am a fan). But that's just me (or is it?). The Monte is a sales success for Chevy right now, due to value, build quality (that's right!) and versatility - eg, pass-thru folding rear seat. Plus, virtually all the performance aftermarket parts for the Grand Prix GT are direct bolt-on's. I just got a custom PCM for my GTP from DHP, and it rocks!

 

In the last 15-20 years or so, the average family sedan/coupe has gained close to 100hp. The fact that the new "SS" is marginally slower (at the same weight) makes it look WORSE, not better, and completely unworthy of an SS nameplate.

You are right about the 'sports car'. It was always a "Personal Luxury Coupe" - some of them had gusto, but most did not.

 

WERM - I do agree it's a stretch to call the current MC an SS with only 205 hp. However I think it's also a reach to declare it 'completely unworthy' of an SS designation. Car & Drivel recently clocked a MC SS at 8.6 sec for 0-60. By comparison, according to your yardstick, the 1967 Impala SS 427 (0-60 8.4s), the 1970 Chevelle SS 396 (0-60 8.1s), the 1966 Nova SS 327 (0-60 8.6s), the 1968 Nova SS 327 (0-60 8.7s) and the 1971 Nova SS 350 (0-60 8.5s) are also unworthy. Even the most potent MC SS made, the 1970 MC SS 454, had 0-60 of 7.7. Shall I see how many Fords are not really "GT's" by that yardstick?

BTW I got a lot of the above data from a book of mine, "Consumer Guide to Muscle Cars"... it also has some interesting racing history for Monte Carlos:

I believe the next-generation Monte will get back to its racing roots. Monte Carlo SS