Malaise era '71 Monte Carlo

[Leif in Calif]

I saw this ad today and my mother had a near identical example.  I was an engineering student in 1970, I thought "what the heck were they thinking?". 

https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/cto/d/mountain-view-sweet-1971-monte-carlo/7709596336.html

It was a pretty car, but they purposely made the hood much longer ("The longest hood in Chevrolet History!!!) for no good reason. Check the diagram below: 

All that length but the back seat was far from spacious, and got about 12 miles to the gallon without producing much power. Where did all that fuel go? Plus, this one has the highly sought after accessory: Aftermarket sunroof! 

[TerryB]

The era of personal luxury with a hint of sport in the S/S option.  Sun roof was added later on.  Mustang and Cougar used a similar marketing plan.  As for mpg, gas was cheap and plentiful, at least until 1973.

[Leif in Calif]

2 minutes ago, TerryB said:

The era of personal luxury with a hint of sport in the S/S option.  Sun roof was added later on.  Mustang and Cougar used a similar marketing plan.  As for mpg, gas was cheap and plentiful, at least until 1973.

I did a little research posting this and noticed that very few contemporary road tests listed mileage! It obviously just wasn't an issue. 

Given the limited range in the ratio of fuel to air where combustion can take place, and knowing that pick up trucks can get MPG in mid 20's now, the efficiency of cars in the early 70's is truly remarkable! 

[Jim Skelly]

How ironic for all that extra space under the hood.  My '01 Monte Carlo SS was so cramped under the hood that you had to remove a brace to get at the battery.  To remove the battery you had to turn it up at a 45-degree angle, then completely vertical on end, to remove it!  The power steering reservoir was by the firewall and you had to reach down with an arm to feel the cap to remove that, then use a long, narrow funnel to add fluid.  GM was too cheap to relocate the reservoir up in front or on the side of the engine where it belonged.  

[rocketraider]

That long nose probably had to do with amortizing costs with the Pontiac Grand Prix. Strange idea though since the Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Holiday coupe was in that same A body family, and it didn't have the long snout.

[Pfeil]

Pontiac's GM Pete Estes had been promoted to GM of Chevrolet, just like Pontiac's Bunkie Knudsen in the fall of 61. Delorean was now in charge of Pontiac. The Grand Prix was not a sporty car or personal luxury coupe any longer and DeLorean needed to bring it back to it's roots. 1968 "A" bodies were split between a 112" coupe/hardtop and 116" wheelbase 4 door hardtop and 4 door sedan. Bill Mitchell G.M. Styling boss who was an advocate of short rear deck long hoods (67 Eldo, 66 Toronado etc.) helped shape it. Pontiac/Delorean did not have enough money to develop solely for Pontiac so he went to his old boss, Pete Estes now at Chevrolet to see if Chevrolet would be interested in its own version of the Grand Prix, Monte Carlo. With one-year exclusivity for Pontiac. So, 1969 for Pontiac and 1970 for Monte Carlo. 

If it hadn't been for DeLorean or Estes, none of this would have happened.

FYI, when in 1963 Delorean went to his boss (Estes) (GM) at Pontiac to pledge for the LeMans/GTO, it was Estes who gave the OK and circumvented the corporation's new "A" body rules. Estes put his career on the line for that OK. Estes would later become president of General Motors.

Edited January 22 by Pfeil (see edit history)

[58L-Y8]

"It was a pretty car, but they purposely made the hood much longer ("The longest hood in Chevrolet History!!!) for no good reason."

 

Only one good reason: SALES!!!  439,393 1970-'72 Monte Carlos sold in those first three years taking full advantage of the burgeoning long hood/short deck personal luxury coupe segment.   Ford had moved the Thunderbird up to the ~$5,000 class, had no comparable ~$3,200 personal luxury coupe unless one counts the Cougar, which apparent from the sales the public didn't consider comparable.

[8E45E]

I don't quantify a first-gen Monte Carlo as a 'malaise' car.  One could still order performance options, and it was still a true pillarless hardtop.

 

The ghastly pimped-out '73-'77 'colonnade' Monte Carlos and Grand Prix's with the opera windows were true malaise cars.

 

Craig

 

 

[John Byrd]

45 minutes ago, 8E45E said:

I don't quantify a first-gen Monte Carlo as a 'malaise' car.  One could still order performance options, and it was still a true pillarless hardtop.

 

The ghastly pimped-out '73-'77 'colonnade' Monte Carlos and Grand Prix's with the opera windows were true malaise cars.

 

Craig

 

 

Exactly Craig !

[Frank DuVal]

11 hours ago, Leif in Calif said:

I was an engineering student in 1970, I thought "what the heck were they thinking?". 

They were thinking it looked good, and sales proved so did the public!🍾

 

Must be the engineering thing, I didn't think they looked good then either! Now you know why we were not in Art and Color.... at GM!🤣

 

But malaise era was the low horsepower bland styling of the very late 70s, and 80s. You could get some horsepower in a '71. Sure, not as much as the '70, but remember they changed the advertised horsepower from wild guesses with no accessories/etc. in 1970 to NET in 1971. 1971 with a 454 still moved smartly along. Then after the 1973 oil embargo it was harder to sell them.😉

 

Later I owned an 1981 Eldorado (cause it was cheap used car at the time) and discovered I liked the style of long hood short rear deck.👍

Edited January 22 by Frank DuVal (see edit history)

[TAKerry]

I believe the thinking was Euro touring car styling. Long in the front short in the back. Same formula that produced the second gen f body.

[EmTee]

1 hour ago, TAKerry said:

Same formula that produced the second gen f body.

[60FlatTop]

I came back to the states in 1970 in the new car market and the billboards had a great silver gray Monte with a black vinyl top. If you were there you would know how natural it was.

 

The long nose and short deck might even be considered a throwback by some.

 

 

 

There was enough room up there to throw in a new Honda 600 and call it your crumple zone.

 

I might add that I see a lot of hindsight writing that critiques the flavors but doesn't now the taste.

[31Buick96S]

I’ll grant that fuel economy isn’t my ‘70 Monte Carlo’s strong suit, 😂, but I love the look. I also like how it drives.  A good running 383 SBC will cure the malaise…

[Gearheadengineer]

Forget the hood - these have what must be the longest fan shroud ever!

[Pfeil]

4 hours ago, TAKerry said:

I believe the thinking was Euro touring car styling. Long in the front short in the back. Same formula that produced the second gen f body.

First F body first. how about a 30's V-16 Cadillac

Or a 1951 Ferrari 

Oh Goodness if the trunk on this one got any shorter there wouldn't be a trunk! 

[60FlatTop]

Being a happy Malaise car owner I would not have starting hanging that tag on cars until around 1980. The big down sizings of 1977-78 were more of the turning point I saw.

 

My little squared off Buick is the typical outline. When I first started driving it a friend asked "Are you driving a Mercedes-Benz now?". I could have had a Granada!

[Lee H]

I wonder if Edsel Ford knew what he was creating?

[Jim Skelly]

5 hours ago, Pfeil said:

 

Or a 1951 Ferrari 

 

Geez, that is one ugly car, and one of the worst two-tone designs ever.  Of course, it's worth a fortune now!

Edited January 22 by Jim Skelly (see edit history)

[Pfeil]

1 hour ago, Lee H said:

I wonder if Edsel Ford knew what he was creating?

No doubt and was the infusion to the Ford company and its relative spinoffs that was really needed. He died far too young. 

Love this shot,

[rocketraider]

5 hours ago, Lee H said:

I wonder if Edsel Ford knew what he was creating?

A man of Edsel Ford's taste and sense of proportion, presence and design almost certainly knew the influence the Continental would ultimately have. Henry I in the way or not.

[rocketraider]

4 hours ago, Jim Skelly said:

 

Geez, that is one ugly car, and one of the worst two-tone designs ever.  Of course, it's worth a fortune now!

Poor thing IS a little stubby-looking. No grace at all.

 

Now imagine it two-toned with a Buick-style Sweepspear. Instant improvement!

[Billy Kingsley]

This generation Monte Carlo played a pretty big role in auto racing too. Chevrolet had been out of the sport for a decade, with all factory support ending in 1963. 

 

Realizing that Chevrolet was losing out to Ford and Dodge, they came back in a big way with Junior Johnson and Charlie Glotzbach. Today the Monte Carlo nameplate is the most successful in NASCAR history, despite not appearing on a race track since 2007. The record still stands. 

 

[alsancle]

On 1/21/2024 at 1:28 PM, Leif in Calif said:

I saw this ad today and my mother had a near identical example.  I was an engineering student in 1970, I thought "what the heck were they thinking?". 

https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/cto/d/mountain-view-sweet-1971-monte-carlo/7709596336.html

It was a pretty car, but they purposely made the hood much longer ("The longest hood in Chevrolet History!!!) for no good reason. Check the diagram below: 

All that length but the back seat was far from spacious, and got about 12 miles to the gallon without producing much power. Where did all that fuel go? Plus, this one has the highly sought after accessory: Aftermarket sunroof! 

 

On 1/21/2024 at 9:10 PM, 58L-Y8 said:

"It was a pretty car, but they purposely made the hood much longer ("The longest hood in Chevrolet History!!!) for no good reason."

 

Only one good reason: SALES!!!  439,393 1970-'72 Monte Carlos sold in those first three years taking full advantage of the burgeoning long hood/short deck personal luxury coupe segment.   Ford had moved the Thunderbird up to the ~$5,000 class, had no comparable ~$3,200 personal luxury coupe unless one counts the Cougar, which apparent from the sales the public didn't consider comparable.

Steve, perhaps you can explain why the longer hood and shorter trunk, typically makes more aesthetically pleasing form.

 

I know that for a pre-World War II car, the length of the hood is directly proportional to how valuable the car is. Long Hooded cars are valuable, shorthanded, cars are usually not. At least relative to the length of the car. 

[EmTee]

1 hour ago, alsancle said:

I know that for a pre-World War II car, the length of the hood is directly proportional to how valuable the car is.

I suspect at least part of the reason is related to the fact that the more powerful cars had more cylinders and with the most common in-line architecture, that translated to a longer hood.

[John_S_in_Penna]

1 hour ago, alsancle said:

I know that for a pre-World War II car, the length of the hood is directly proportional to how valuable the car is. 

What I describe may be common knowledge to most of us,

but from the time (early 1900's) the engine was put up front--

instead of centrally located beneath the car--the seating position

and whole car could be lowered a bit.  The engine up front

naturally made for a "long hood, short rear deck" look.

 

Trunk length gradually increased in the 1940's and

early 1950's as people traveled more and needed the space.

 

In the 1950's, with new superhighways, less rail travel,

and more long-distance travel by car, trunks increased in

length.  The rear overhang grew.  I believe it was the Ford

Mustang's design that resurrected the short deck at that time.

The 1964 Buick Electra shown below shows just how different

the Mustang's proportions were:

 

Edited January 23 by John_S_in_Penna (see edit history)

[60FlatTop]

The concept of that design goes back quite a bit farther than some recognize.

 

 

[alsancle]

7 minutes ago, John_S_in_Penna said:

What I describe may be common knowledge to most of us,

but from the time (early 1900's) the engine was put up front--

instead of centrally located beneath the car--the seating position

and whole car could be lowered a bit.  The engine up front

naturally made for a "long hood, short rear deck" look.

 

Trunk length gradually increased in the 1940's and

early 1950's as people traveled more and needed the space.

 

In the 1950's, with new superhighways, less rail travel,

and more long-distance travel by car, trunks increased in

length.  The rear overhang grew.  I believe it was the Ford

Mustang's design that resurrected the short deck at that time.

 

 

The GTO 64-67 was a shorter hood longer rear deck design that worked (at least for me in HS).   They went to the long hood short trunk in 68.

[8E45E]

8 minutes ago, John_S_in_Penna said:

The 1964 Buick Electra shown below shows just how different

the Mustang's proportions were:

 

From 1961-'64. Buick and Cadillac offered both 'short deck' and 'long deck' models.

 

Craig

[alsancle]

I never liked the Monte Carlo although I have softened in my old age.   Probably why large red cadillacs are starting to look good to me now.

 

Anyways,  back during the glorious lock down days I came close to owning this.    I liked everything about it (except that it was not an original 4 barrell car).    The 400 four speed was a rare combo.  Thought it was a really cool car.

 

https://rmsothebys.com/en/auctions/fl20/palm-beach/lots/r0070-1970-chevrolet-monte-carlo/846277

 

Matching numbers 250 hp, 400 cu. in. V-8 engine (see photos)

Rare factory four-speed manual transmission

Equipped with 3.42:1 Positraction rear-end

Documented by original build sheet

Air conditioning; power brakes and steering

Accompanied by original owner’s manual and Protect-O-Plate

 

[alsancle]

Also,  I never thought of 71 as the Malaise era.   That started in 73/74 to me.

[EmTee]

Now, if it was a 402... 

[60FlatTop]

 

This silver with black vinyl top job was on billboards in South Carolina and Georgia when the car was new. 50+ years ago, when it was in context, it was stunning for the GM crowd. It was a luxury Chevy reminiscent of the '66 Caprice when it appeared It was a car way out of reach for a 22 year old sailor.

Although I liked the luxury look I went into the showroom and asked for a black two door Biscayne, red interior, 350, and a 4 speed. "Nice car, kid, but we don't make two door Biscaynes anymore. How about an Impala?". They just didn't get it.

 

I bought this instead.

 

About $1800 vs $3800. In early '70s money.

[Leif in Calif]

The Monte Carlo did look great. I just thought that two foot fan shroud was the automotive equivalent of "falsies".  

[John_S_in_Penna]

11 minutes ago, Leif in Calif said:

The Monte Carlo did look great. I just thought that two foot fan shroud was the automotive equivalent of "falsies".  

How did other long-hood cars achieve their long hoods

without such a long fan shroud?

 

Ideally, the radiator should be close to the front to 

catch the air;  the engine should be as far back as

possible for good weight distribution.  And shouldn't

the fan be close to the engine?  

 

Others knowing more than I can be educational.  Thanks.

[Pfeil]

4 hours ago, EmTee said:

I suspect at least part of the reason is related to the fact that the more powerful cars had more cylinders and with the most common in-line architecture, that translated to a longer hood.

That's why a 49-52 Chevrolet "A" body has a 115" wheelbase, a 49-1951 1/2 Olds 76-88-"A" body have a 119.5 wheelbase, and a 49-52-"A" Pontiac straight eight/ six have a 120" wheelbase. All those "A" bodies are the same distance from the firewall back.

 

What length increase would it be between a six and a V-12, Or a straight eight and a V-16?? not much if any. 

[58L-Y8]

8 hours ago, alsancle said:

 

Steve, perhaps you can explain why the longer hood and shorter trunk, typically makes more aesthetically pleasing form.

 

I know that for a pre-World War II car, the length of the hood is directly proportional to how valuable the car is. Long Hooded cars are valuable, shorthanded, cars are usually not. At least relative to the length of the car. 

A.J.:
That's a difficult thing to quantify.  It's an aesthetic response to the proportional variations within the overall mass of the vehicle.  It could be as simple as we find variations in comparative masses more pleasing than those that are more closely matched in size.   Not much of a conclusive answer. 

Steve
 

[STEVE POLLARD]

6 hours ago, alsancle said:

Anyways,  back during the glorious lock down days I came close to owning this. 

My Godfather had the exact one, but it had the small block 350 in it..... I believe 3 years later during the gas crunch, he traded it in on one of these....

 

[alsancle]

3 minutes ago, STEVE POLLARD said:

My Godfather had the exact one, but it had the small block 350 in it..... I believe 3 years later during the gas crunch, he traded it in on one of these....

 

I think 75% of them have the 350. 454 and the 400 are much harder to find. Add in the four speed, and that’s what made me really interested in this car.

[Pfeil]

9 hours ago, alsancle said:

 

The GTO 64-67 was a shorter hood longer rear deck design that worked (at least for me in HS).   They went to the long hood short trunk in 68.

You would think the 64-65 would be a better-balanced driving car than the 68+ design but it's not.

Open the hood on a 64 Tempest/ LeMans/GTO and the engine pops right out at you, my 69 is a different story, engine sits way back and lower in the chassis (that's why I change spark plugs through the inner fender wells- a must with A/C cars. The 64-65 car has the engine sitting almost halfway over the centerline between the front spindles, on the 68+ cars, the front of the cylinder head is almost even with the centerline and is lower, also, the front track is widened from 58" front and rear to 61" front and 60" rear on 68+ coupe cars. And the biggest news for handling is the 64-67 wheelbase of 115" was reduced to 112" on the two door cars. FYI the 1969 Grand Prix's "G" body's engine sits even further back than the 68+ "A" body. That's why you are seeing such a distance in front of the engine-but it makes the car handle better.