GM Inside News Forum banner
21 - 40 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
316 Posts
It actually has the same amount of torque (225lb ft) and 20 more horsepower than the L-69 305 V-8. Surprisingly perhaps, it weighs slightly more than the '83-'87 vintage, but it consistenly runs in the high middle 15 second range. I've seen two magazine tests where the SS runs below 16.0, but most tests of it are around 16.2 in the quarter mile. Anyway you slice it, the current model has a slight edge.
this is no surprise at all actually since i own an 86 monte SS. yes the car is rather anemic and the transmission does indeed suck, but i also think it's one of the best looking cars to come out of the 80's. it is also one of the last easily modifiable and affordable rear drive cars offered in america. the fact that that current model is just slightly faster than the 80's models really isn't impressive at all considering there is a 10-15 year difference. it was the 80's, nothing was fast (except buick GN's).

i'm not asking GM to make a really high performance monte carlo, i understand it started as a luxury coupe. however, if it is a "luxury coupe", then all the "race inspired" features and decals and boy racer junk they throw on it really is stupid. they need to make the car elegant and attractive, and with a sporting attitude. not a racer, just something that will perform well when you want it to. you're right though, the 80's model really did change the way people looked at the car which has largely led to how it is perceived today.

PS.~ i'm thinking of selling my monte if anyone is interested *shameless plug* :rolleyes:. 1986 SS. Black with red stripes, 40,000 miles. Lowered 2" in front, 1.5" in back. 17" torque thrust wheels. Everything else all original. Excellent Condition. Just email me if you are interested...i could try sending some pics. [email protected]
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,963 Posts
ahaha no, it didnt shock me at all. The baddest they got was the L69, and that wasnt as strong as the Fbody's model. Then they got the super LG4!!
The 3.4 makes as much power as the L69 did, and the 3.8 makes more, not to mention the 3.8 SC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,056 Posts
KingElvis, I enjoyed reading your input.
I felt the same way when I started looking at the Dodge Stratus coupe as my next car. Since 2001, Chrysler has improved it and a 7 year drive train warranty is nothing to scoff. It is a solid car, based on the Galant platform and assembled in Normal Illinois. The interior, in 2001-2003, was rather garish with either the gray or brown interior (shades of the 2004 Impala SS-why no ebony?) but black was added for 2004 along with a good looking dash for the Sebring. In the Ill suburbs, I've seen many of them lately but you could have received at least 500 below the invoice plus another $3000 rebate. It was a close decision.
Being 5'11", I figure myself to be average in height but I did not like having to duck down to look out the window. The low roof line needed getting used to.
The 3.0L v-6 has been the standard Mitsu motor although fiited with 4 valves per cylinder. My 2-valved Caravan 3L has 170,000 + miles and the car has never failed to start.
So, I really wanted to buy one. so, why did I choose the supercharged Monte?

Chevy upgraded the transmission with a larger torque converter, the 3.8L is a tested motor, the suspension was tweaked and the tires enlarged to 17". So, all the stuff that Chevy does not advertise got my attention.
The torque curve shows a lot of low end torque versus having some small engine screaming constantly to get the horsepower.
And the car is comfortable to sit in. And FWD does have its place for winter driving.
And I wanted a cruiser. On the street, you cannot tell if it is FWD or RWD, a v-6 or a v-8. It could use a little more rumble from the exhaust, though.
I guess that it was time to give Chevy a chance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
315 Posts
Originally posted by KingElvis@May 20 2004, 04:14 PM
It actually has the same amount of torque (225lb ft) and 20 more horsepower than the L-69 305 V-8. Surprisingly perhaps, it weighs slightly more than the '83-'87 vintage, but it consistenly runs in the high middle 15 second range. I've seen two magazine tests where the SS runs below 16.0, but most tests of it are around 16.2 in the quarter mile. Anyway you slice it, the current model has a slight edge.

The early three speed models seem to have been best at the drags.
I own a stock 1983 SS and raced it against the 2002 Impala LS I had, and the Monte won by a nose..... neither car is very fast however.

The sad thing is that no one would dream of comparing a 1983 Camaro to a 2002 for performance, just as no one would compare a 1984 Corvette to a new one. The Monte Carlo has been left in the performance dust due to its Buick V6 that only provides adequate performance when Supercharged. To keep up, a current Monte should run low 14s at the worst. For 2005 Chevrolet finally decided to quit calling the 3800 non-supercharged Monte an SS. They will be badged as LTs.

Lets hope Chevrolet will come through in 2006 with a good V8, even if it is front drive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
For me I have a 98 Z34 monte and I love it. This generation of the "aero-coupe" is what got me into the MCs to begin with. Even though I love my Z34 I would love the addition of a manual trans with 5 or 6 gears, for the automatic I would absolutely love to have a TipTronic (tap-shift). For the engine, the 3800 series 2 is not all that bad, now granted I see other cars that have less displacement and produce more HP, but it is not a bad engine. Although I didnt mind sittin in my friend's 89 IROC-Z! Now THAT was a fun car! Not saying my Monte or any MC is not fun, but it could use a few things to make it more of a "sports" car. I would say a manual trans available, an L67 engine as a BASE engine. But have an upgradable FWD V8 (Dont know if GM makes a FWD V8, I know Lincoln does). Or just go for what everyone wants and throw in a RWD V8 with auto or manual. But also have a lower stance, better factory body kit, different trunk lid or at least one that doesnt look like it got 2 beams thrown on it, and defintely have some styling in the interior that would be more sporty.

It seems as though there is a high enough interest in getting this car to be more of a sports car. At least thats what I gather from this board and a few others. So for Chevy to totally not listen to its buyers would be just plain dumb. I say if we cant have the Camaro, we need to have some sort of sports car in its place until it returns (hopefully). I say why not the Monte Carlo? Now this could get a lot of Camaro and Impala fans upset and with good reason. But the Impala to me has become more of a family sedan car and not really a sporty kind of car any longer. The new generation of Impala does not have the "pimp out" or "gangsta" look to it at all. So that leaves the Monte just sitting there as a sore thumb. It doesnt know if it is a sports car or a family car. I say go for the sport car direction. We have the Impala in the family section and something needs to be in the Camaro's spot for a little bit of time. Of course this could mean a total revamp of the MC, which Chevy may not be willing to do, but if there is a huge interest in the MC, then I think it might happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
316 Posts
the impala never was designed to be a "pimp out" or "gangsta" car. not now, and not ever before. in the 60's the impala was a family car that you could option out with a really large motor. it was not a sports car, it was a large car that if appropriately optioned, could really haul ***. the mid 90's impala SS was essentially the same thing only it was hyped more because a car like that was much harder to come by straight from the factory in the 90's than it was in the 60's. i pray to God that chevy will never make an impala with the intention of it being a "pimp out" or "gangsta" car as you so eloquently put it. they simply need an attractive, aggressive looking large car that is available with common sensible motors as well as high performance motors. that is what the impala should be. and RWD too, of course.

by the way, i don't think 98 monte carlo's are ever really called "aero coupes". that title is reserved for the 86 and 87 models that were designed specially for NASCAR competition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,882 Posts
Originally posted by 3eb@May 21 2004, 12:57 AM
[PS.~ i'm thinking of selling my monte if anyone is interested *shameless plug* :rolleyes:.  1986 SS. Black with red stripes, 40,000 miles.  Lowered 2" in front, 1.5" in back.  17" torque thrust wheels.  Everything else all original.  Excellent Condition.  Just email me if you are interested...i could try sending some pics. [email protected]
No way. I hear these cars are rather anemic and the transmissions suck. :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
316 Posts
ha, you got me there. "suck" is really the wrong word, i think a shift kit would help it out a lot, it just shifts too early a lot of times and that is the main thing that annoys me. the car gets up and goes well enough, but it's nothing that's ever going to surprise anyone ya know? it's still a lot of fun...i could do really nice smokey burnouts with it until i put the bigger wheels and tires on it. so basically what i'm saying is that the engine and trans work just fine, but they are from the 80's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,882 Posts
Originally posted by 3eb@May 21 2004, 07:42 PM
ha, you got me there. "suck" is really the wrong word, i think a shift kit would help it out a lot, it just shifts too early a lot of times and that is the main thing that annoys me. the car gets up and goes well enough, but it's nothing that's ever going to surprise anyone ya know? it's still a lot of fun...i could do really nice smokey burnouts with it until i put the bigger wheels and tires on it. so basically what i'm saying is that the engine and trans work just fine, but they are from the 80's.
I was a big fan of the MC SS in the eighties. It had very decent performance for that time, particularly in '83 when it came out. Those were dark days. Cars should always be judged with other cars of that era.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
The Monte Carlo sells well today because it's a solid, well-built and reliable car that is very competitive. It serves well as a daily driver with very respectable gas mileage and slippery road surface traction (being FWD), while also delivering respectable performance numbers. It's also a very safe car, with a 5 star crash test rating. For the money, you just can't go wrong. That's why it sells.

You have to stop comparing it to the gas-guzzler Monte of years ago, and compare it to the competition today. In many cases, you have to spend thousands more to get the same performance...and even then, the actual track numbers betray the competition. It's style makes the Honda Accord Coupe look positively boring, yet it's engineering will ensure that today's Monte Carlo will be just as reliable and last just as long as that boring Honda. Taste is subjective, but add me to the number of people who think the Monte Carlo looks great.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,872 Posts
The next-gen Monte must have a better interior (as well as a refreshed outside). It must include an optional V-8 engine and standard V-6 (Eaton supercharger??? with enough horsepower. I am begging Chevrolet not to make a mistake with this one. Also,it must have 'quality' and good ratings (such as Malibu) to help it sell..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
I was a very big fan of the '83 vintage SS, as they appeared around the time I was a freshman in high school. I still have a real soft spot for them. It seems this is one of those cars that people can't bring themselves to junk. In the midwest, where road salt and the attendant rust are cold hard facts of life, these clapped out SSs are legion. No matter how delapidated they get, there is always some guy willing to give you a grand for it. On the other hand, there are many MCSS that aren't really restored, but look extremely well maintained.

An important turning point represented by the '87 aerocoupe, is that it was the last NASCAR stocker to resemble the actual car both outside and inside. It had a live rear axle, 4bbl carb and ohv V-8. Also the stocker and racer used the exact same shaped fenders. Now it doesn't matter what the real car looks like, they just give it the generic nose and paint on 'styling.' You will never see NASCAR homolgation models like the Daytona, Superbird, Talledega, Spoiler or Laguna again because of this.

Posters are right to say that we can't compare the performance of cars 20 years apart. On the other hand, I think some would be surprised how close 1980's cars are to many '60's musclecars. People tend to take the performance of say, a ZL-1 427 Camaro and compare it to an L-69 Camaro of '84, even though they only made a few hundred 427 Camaros and they were almost all trailered to the dragstrip. The SS396 Chevelle could just crack the 14 second bracket, and that was in the solid lifter, 375hp L-78 screamer with 4 speed (remember too that you had to get powerglide if you wanted automatic until the '67 finally added the THM400 trans). The typical, 325hp SS396 was about a mid fifteen second car - that's right about where a 5 speed L-69 Z-28 was at in '84. By '85 the IROC Z had the tuned port injection LB9. There was a 'hot' and 'cold' version, with the hotter rated at 215hp, it broke into the 14 second bracket, and that was (I'm pretty sure) with the new THM700 automatic transmission (3.06:1 low gear). They also had to use a stronger 7 3/4" ring gear from Borg Warner Australia to replace the 7 1/2" that debuted with the downsized era in '77.

When the Z-28 returned for '77 after a two year hiatus, Motor Trend tested a 'loaded' version with AC and the automatic transmission, which also got you the 3.42:1 axle, while the standard model was a 3.73:1 and four speed. This auto trans Z-28 scored a 15.4 e.t. You wonder if a 'stripped' Z, without power robbing air conditioning and the 4 speed and lower gears could have flirted with the 14 second bracket right off the showroom floor.

Nowadays, you have to work hard to find any car, including compacts, that does 0-60mph in more than ten seconds are does the quarter in 18 seconds or more. In the '60s you could have bought a 170 cubic inch Valiant that did the quarter in 22 seconds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
I must say I can't contemplate a 5.3L front driver. Seems like you'd be burning up transaxles at quite a rate with 325lb/ft of torque to play with.
GM had 455 cube front driver Caddy way back in the 60's ,I'd guess they would know how to build a strong transaxle.
even used that drivetrain in the GMC motorhome once,
www.gmcmotorhome.com
still rear drive MC would be better imo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Originally posted by Smilingoat@May 19 2004, 11:37 PM
ive come to take PM's info with a grain of salt, expecially the years that they suggest.



i really hope the prediction they had on the looks of the new GMC pick up is wrong, i mean just look at it!


:unsure:
Yikes! They uglified it big time! I'm glad my brother got his Silverado (last night) before that. :flush:

Speaking of, does anyone know the impedance of the speakers? Are they 4 ohms? I still remember the 97 Blazer my father had with 9.7 ohm speakers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,013 Posts
Originally posted by Dodge Drivin' Paul@May 23 2004, 01:07 PM
The Monte Carlo sells well today because it's a solid, well-built and reliable car that is very competitive.
While I have liked Monte Carlos, I have to disagree with what you say. We all know the 3800 engine is reliable, but I've never heard anyone say that the current generation Monte Carlo is quote "solid, well-built, reliable, and competitive".
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,146 Posts
Just to add my own part. The Monte Carlos, Impalas etc that are built here in Oshawa have been reported to have some of the fewest problems (per 100 cars I think it's based on) in the North American market. That's where the well built part comes from. The quality at the Oshawa plants are pretty darn good. The Montes are pretty solid cars. Ours, while it has been driven hard on occasion and never really abused, has stood up to all it has seen without trouble and has never given us any problems. I think as far as I've heard this is the case among most MC owners. I do agree that while the cars HP are lower than probably most of it's competitors, I think it's TQ is still higher than half since most *** motors aren't known for torque.
I'm waiting myself for a RWD MC with either a really strong non-superchargd V6 in the future or a V8. Depending on what's out there when it comes for me to buy my own new car in a few years, I'll be looking at the MC's, Silverado's, Colorado SS if there is one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
gmt5.3 i have a cadillac 472 cubic inch v8 in my back garage and next to it is the front wheel drive tranny it was bolted to. Came out of a 68 eldorado. Yeah they can make strong ones but the tranny on the thing is huge. Had to be to handle around 520 ft-lbs of torque. If they wanted to they could make a front wheel drive tranny that could handle 325ft-lbs of torque no problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
if this car had a manuel tranny i would trade my car in a heartbeat for it!!!
 
21 - 40 of 45 Posts
Top