(EXPANDED FROM 12/24/2021)
Curbside Classic commentator XR7Matt (2014) offered a fascinating justification for the stylistic excesses of the 1973-77 Chevrolet Monte Carlo:
“Space efficiency is marketing buzz that everyone has fallen for in recent years, it’s actual day to day use is about as important as peak horsepower ratings. At least style over substance was honest and up front, function over style is a farce.”
All one has to do is walk through a parking lot to wonder how often all of the SUVs, minivans and wagons are filled to capacity. However, at least today’s consumers pay more attention to the practical aspects of vehicle usage than in the 1970s, when cars often functioned as rolling sculpture.
Chevrolet may have described the Monte Carlo as a “trim, personal-sized gem,” but even for a 1970s car it was exceptionally inefficient. The Monte Carlo was classified as mid-sized but weighed almost two tons — and had little more usable space than a compact.
In contrast, a full-sized Caprice was only 10 inches longer and two inches wider but offered decent room for six passengers.
The Monte Carlo was like the rest of GM’s 1973-77 mid-sized cars: They were “designed in an atmosphere of unlimited faith in the traditional way of building American cars — big on the outside, small on the inside, heavy, posh and thirsty,” noted Richard M. Langworth and Jan. P. Noyle (1985, p. 324).
It would be one thing if the Monte Carlo looked good. But Paul Niedermeyer (2014) has quite rightly criticized its styling as “downright bizarre, like the victim of a botched breast and hip augmentation.”
As we discuss here, John Z. DeLorean allegedly tried — but failed — to shrink GM’s so-called A-body, mid-sized cars when they were redesigned for 1973. So as a mental exercise, let’s visualize what the Monte Carlo might have looked like if it lost some heft but kept its basic look.
Putting the Monte Carlo on a modest diet
The below-shown 1976 Monte Carlo was photoshopped to cut its length by roughly nine inches. Along the way some of the car’s stylistic excesses were toned down. Most notably, the forward-thrusting fender blisters were given more understated curves. I also couldn’t resist increasing the size of the virtually useless opera window.
To my eyes this is an improvement. But it’s still like putting lipstick on a pig. The mid-sized “personal coupe” of the mid-1970s was an evolutionary dead end. Indeed, this type of dinosaur might not have even roamed the highways if Detroit groupthink had not been so pervasive in the late-60s and early-70s.
Studebaker and Rambler hinted at a better direction
Studebaker toyed with the idea of a personal coupe called the Sceptre that had relatively compact dimensions for that era (go here for further discussion). Unfortunately, the automaker was too far gone to raise the capital needed to put its concept car into production in 1966 or 1967 (Langworth, 1993).
Meanwhile, American Motors came out with a premium-priced Ambassador model with almost European proportions. For 1964 a top-of-line two-door hardtop called the 990H anticipated the personal coupes of the 1970s by offering an unusually luxurious interior.
Also see ‘Was the 1966 Olds Cutlass Supreme the first mid-sized brougham model?’
The Rambler was so space efficient that its interior was roomier than a 1976 Monte Carlo even though the car was almost four inches narrower and a whopping 23 inches shorter.
Unfortunately, by the 1970s American Motors management got on the bigger, glitzier, more powerful bandwagon. By 1974 the Ambassador was 30 inches longer, three inches wider and roughly 700 pounds heavier than its 1964 predecessor (go here for further discussion).
GM’s compacts keep growing and growing . . .
The 1962-63 Buick Skylark was arguably the granddaddy of the popularly priced personal coupe. Alas, in 1964 General Motors upsized its compact Y-Body to mid-sized status.
For 1964 Chevrolet introduced its own mid-sized car, the Chevelle. In keeping with its more plebeian status, it was a good 10 inches shorter than a Skylark. Even so, the Chevelle had a similar footprint to the big cars of the mid-50s.
Also see ‘1964-77 Chevrolet Chevelle Malibu shows growth of mid-sized American cars’
The key thing to keep in mind is that by the mid-60s Detroit had already made its cars considerably larger than only a decade earlier. Yet in the 1970s all of the U.S. automakers would continue to bloat out their lineups.
As a case in point, the 1973 Monte Carlo was more than 17 inches longer, almost four inches wider and 740 pounds heavier than a comparably equipped 1964 Chevelle. Note that this was before 5-mph bumpers were required on both the front and rear of passenger cars. Once that happened, the Monte Carlo’s length grew to 213 inches. That was as long as a 1965 Impala — what used to go for a full-sized car.
CAFE standards put personal coupes on a diet
Federal CAFE fuel-economy standards have been much maligned within the auto industry, but they did force Detroit to put its cars on a badly needed diet. Personal coupes may have most benefitted from a downsizing.
For 1978 the Monte Carlo was shrunk almost 13 inches in length, 6 inches in width and around 700 pounds. The car was still longer and heavier than a 1964 Chevelle, but it stopped being the poster child for dripping excess.
One can debate whether GM initially got the styling right (go here for a discussion about the 1978 Pontiac Grand Prix). Even so, one can also reasonably argue that the A-body personal coupes should never have grown as large as the 1973-77 models.
Today we can wonder why GM — and the rest of the U.S. automakers — needed to go through this binge-purge cycle. If you didn’t live through that time it can be hard to believe that none of the U.S. automakers could resist the pressure to constantly upsize their product line. Yet that was the case because industry groupthink was so strong. And even a half century later some car buffs may still wax nostalgic for those times.
NOTES:
This story was first posted on March 10, 2015 and expanded Oct. 15, 2020, Dec. 24, 2021 and Dec. 22, 2023. Dimensions are from the manufacturer as well as Gunnell (2002) and Flammang and Kowalke (1999). Weights are for two-door hardtops with base V8 engines (when available) and comparable trim levels.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Flammang, James M. and Ron Kowalke; 1999. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1976-1999. Third Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Langworth, Richard M.; 1993. Studebaker 1946-1966: The Classic Postwar Years. Motorbooks International, Osceola, WI.
- Langworth, Richard M. and Jan P. Norbye; 1985. The Complete History of General Motors 1908-1986. Publications International, Skokie, IL.
- Niedermeyer, Paul; 2014. “CC Outake: Bulgemobile.” Curbside Classic. Posted Nov. 24.
- XR7Matt; 2014. Comment in, “CC Outtake: Bulgemobile.” Curbside Classic. Posted 8:10 pm, Nov. 24.
BROCHURES & ADVERTISING:
- autohistorypreservationsociety.org: Buick Skylark (1963, 1964); Rambler Ambassador (1964)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Chevrolet Monte Carlo (1973, 1976, 1977, 1981); Chevrolet Nova (1977); Ford Granada (1976)
PHOTOGRAPHY:
- Milwaukee Art Museum: Brooks Stevens Archives
The Personal Luxury cars were very popular in the 1970’s. As space inefficient as they were. Every American car brand had one, maybe even two PLC’s. Back then it was all about style and not practicality. If you want a toned down MC buy the Chevy Malibu Classic Coupe. Both the Malibu 2 door and the MC were pretty much the same car. After the 1978 downsize I prefer the Malibu coupe over the MC. Because it’s toned down lol And the Caprice/Impala are not in the same category as the MC. They were full sized cars. THe MC is a mid sized car.
On the build sheet for my 1974 Monte Carlo, it’s classified as a “sport coupe”.
When one is 6-6 they are not “space inefficient.” Refuse to by one of these joke pickup trucks one finds today. The 300 is big enough, but I guess I’ll stick with my 2000 Eldorado “PLC.” About the last ones made!
Matt, it makes sense that you’d prefer a car that fits a 6-6 frame. Are you talking about your fuselage Chrysler, which was one of the roomiest cars of that era? As the story notes, the Monte Carlo had less interior room than a 1964 Rambler even though the latter was much smaller on the outside. That’s what I mean by space inefficient.
Oh no, you’re absolutely right. I know that a lot of people make fun of the “PLC” cars as being the height of frivolity and excess, but I really miss them. They were meant for one thing, and one thing only, the commute. An SUV to me is still a ’75 Scout II or bust.
Yes, not to mention seats are getting so narrow too. The bucket seats in my ‘65 Plymouth Sport Fury fit me better than the seats in my 2019 Audi A4.
I had a new 1976 Monte Carlo which I factory ordered. I think it was and still is a beautiful car. Too bad that you don’t see the beauty!
John, the basic challenge of talking about automobile styling is that at a certain point it’s subjective. We each like what we like. So if you consider a 1976 Monte Carlo to be a beautiful car, more power to you.
The more objective side of the conversation comes in when we talk about whether a car is space efficient. On that score the 1978 Monte Carlo is clearly superior to the 1973-77 models.
Did GM ever look at a smaller 100-inch platform based on either the 110-inch 1962 X Platform and 108-inch 1978 A / G Platform?
That’s a good question. I have not seen indications that GM did so but have not drilled down on that topic. Perhaps a reader can offer more specifics.
There article initially asks whether the styling of the 1973-77 Monte Carlo was “honest,” but then segues into the question of whether the car was simply too big and inefficient for its purpose of providing daily transportation. Those are two separate questions.
The downsized 1978 version was certainly more rationally sized – and, thus, much easier to drive and park – but I wouldn’t say its styling was any more honest than that of the prior generation. The too-faithful application of the basic themes of the 1973-77 generation to a smaller platform didn’t work.
The best Monte Carlos, from a styling standpoint, were the 1970-72 models, and the 1981 and later models. The 1981 model is a rare example of the facelifted version of a vehicle being far superior to the original. I don’t know if I would call the styling of the 1981 model more “honest,” but I would say it’s considerably cleaner and better proportioned. The 1973-77 Monte Carlos had the size to pull off the fender blisters and hood sculpturing. Those features look almost cartoonish on the 1978-80 models.
The downsized 1978 and later GM A- and G-bodies were just right from a size standpoint. Not too big, and not too small…and, from an interior space standpoint, much more usable on a daily basis.
But, in addition to the styling miscues on some models (the Buick Regal, Chevrolet Malibu and Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme come off the best), GM cut too many costs. The fixed rear windows on the wagons and four-door sedans were annoying, and the interior materials didn’t wear very well after a few years.
Why hasn’t anyone mentioned that the 1973 Chevrolet Monte Carlo was Motor Trend’s car of the year?
Hindsight is always 20/20. Applying today’s sensibilities to (then criticizing) something made 45 years ago is at once unfair to the item being critiqued and unworthy of a respected journalist.
Mark, you are absolutely right that hindsight is 20/20. It may be helpful to know that Indie Auto explores the past through a narrower lens than most other auto history websites. We ask: What were the main drivers behind the fall of the U.S. auto industry, which represents one of the most spectacular industrial collapses of the last century (go here for further discussion).
To your specific question, I didn’t mention the Motor Trend Car of the Year Award because, frankly, I’ve never taken it very seriously from a journalistic standpoint. If you would like to argue on its behalf I’m all ears.
It might also be helpful to consider that it is entirely fine to like a car that could be criticized in some fashion. We each like what we like.
Some enlightenment on the Monte Carlo getting Car of the Year. The car that actually won was the Pontiac Grand Am. It was the publisher’s decision to give the award to the Monte Carlo because Chevrolet committed to a better advertising buy with Motor Trend.
The Car of the Year had a lot to do with getting more advertising and general public notoriety for Motor Trend (internally joked as being the land of the living dead) than much else. Editorial integrity was not the strong suit for them. Not a fault of their staff but the reality of the way Petersen Publication functioned.
Poor Motor Trend: C.O.Y. honors include the Vega 2300 in 1971, the Chevrolet Citation in 1980 and the Chevrolet Malibu of 1997. You cannot win on your picks all of the time !
Can one accept that it was honestly styled in the sense of being a piece of Jazz Age nostalgia at a cultural moment when such nostalgia held sway? I think it was that. The trouble with appreciating it now as it was intended then is that we see it through our own cultural lens of 1973: Watergate, blaxploitation, etc.
As for space efficiency, these are coupes for heaven’s sake. Coupes were never intended to be space efficient. The Jazz Age coupes that inspired it weren’t space efficient. If you wanted space you would have bought a sedan.
I’m not making a coupe-versus-sedan argument. My point is that the Monte Carlo should have never gotten any bigger than the downsized 1978 model. The only reason that it did was because General Motors — like the rest of the U.S. automakers — had become addicted to increasingly bigger, glitzier and more powerful cars. That wasn’t preordained in heaven — it was the product of a generation of executives and designers who became increasingly out of touch with a changing society. One result of that insularity: The imports ate our lunch. Lots of economic dislocation ensued.
That’s not a particularly radical idea. Nor is it grounded purely in a present-tense sensibility. Brock Yates made a similar argument back during that time period.
It’s not a particularly radical idea, but I do think its as much “groupthink” as anything Detroit did in the early ’70’s. I think exterior design had very very little to do with the decline of market dominance by the Big 3. You’re right in that Detroit misjudged the “changing society,” but I think design and feel and look of the cars is WAY down the list
Matt, so what then do you think were the leading factors that led the public to turn away from Detroit fare in favor of foreign automobiles?
Yes, but still I think you are looking at the wrong frame of reference, being the earlier A bodies, which I would argue are really 2 door sedans. Compare the 1973 Monte Carlo to say the 1946 Chevrolet Stylemaster Sport Coupe. Same wheelbase. Almost the same width. The 1946 is taller and the 1973 is longer, but probably the total amount of passenger volume and cargo volume is comparable. What I think happened is that true coupes, that is full sized sedan frames with truncated passenger compartments, were very popular in the 1920s-1940s, but died out by the mid-1950s. The A specials were seeking to recreate that market. If you didn’t know that the oil embargo was coming, why not try it and see? The more serious criticism I think you could level is about how much the intermediate sedans were allowed to grow without adding any more passenger or cargo volume.
Brock Yates was among the automotive writers who argued in the late-60s that American cars had gotten “too large, too heavy, too clumsy and too inefficient to meet the needs of the modern driver.” Meanwhile, the market share of imports doubled well before the oil embargo (go here for a graph). The hand writing was on the wall.
To your last point, here’s an excerpt from my story: “However, for a popular-priced car it was exceptionally inefficient. The Monte Carlo weighed almost two tons but had the usable space of a compact. In contrast, a Caprice was only 10 inches longer and two inches wider but offered decent room for six passengers.”
The Brock Yates quotes are always kind of funny to me, since he was a product of his time, too. Yeah, he didn’t like design and engineering choice of the Big 3, but he wanted us all to be driving MGB’s and Triumphs. He would’ve hated nothing more than a “SUV” or a Lexus. He was also pretty set against a lot of safety features, and this was in the 70’s! Imagine lane assist!
Oh, I see it as a problem in two parts. Big question, so I’ll try not to write an essay. The first was misjudging the American consumer. A tremendous backlash towards the Big 3 dealer system. The change in the idea of “quality,” and parts that failed less frequently, but were far more expensive and difficult to replace. I think Detroit was absolutely caught flat-footed that people would pay dealers to change, for example, a headlight bulb and not have the ability to do it themselves. Took them a long time to catch up to that. And they certainly weren’t prepared for the ’70’s regulations. For a country that, just 20 years earlier had thought what’s good for GM is good for America, to require the absolute change of business model in such a short time was inconceivable too many.
Finally, I think they misjudged the “loyalty” of the American consumer. Although it was more often done by the corporation, this time the consumer broke the social contract forged in basic industry in the 50’s and 60’s. Secondly, The engineering of the product was out of date. Lack of re-investment in plants and processes and, like steel, a lot of taking wealth out of the industry.
To be honest, I think there was (is) an unwarranted backlash against the American union worker that started in the mid-70’s. I think the Big 3 thought they would be given the benefit of the doubt because they, in fact, did at first honor their part of the bargain. Suppliers, parts manufacturers, etc. were all union and had long term contracts with the assemblers. This led to inflexibility and inability to adapt to new technologies, like miniturization. And, obviously, the massive social debt, like retiree healthcare and pensions, that Detroit (and Ft. Wayne and Kenosha) faced that their Social Democratic German and Japanese counterparts did not.
Obviously, each one of these points could be book-length, but I hope that gives an idea. I mean, look at what people are buying today? The “air hauler” pickup craze. Bigger, more powerful, glitzier (and never used)…Looks like GM was right, just 50 years late.
Matt, you make a variety of nuanced points that I agree with — and I’d love to see more discussion along these lines. For the moment I would like to make a point of process — that Indie Auto attempts to address this big of topic in small pieces.
For example, this Monte Carlo story is classified as a “Fake Design” because the focus is on how the car could have maintained its basic look even if it was somewhat smaller. The “History” section offers a broader purview, such as a story on the decline in Lincoln’s focus on quality of assembly in the 1970s. And the “Data Dives” section includes a story that documents how the auto industry’s continued fixation with bigger, glitzier and more powerful vehicles has resulted in too little reduction in greenhouse gases.
You have pointed to some additional issues that Indie Auto articles could delve into.
Awesome! Not trying to be contrarian. I love the website, and I’ve learned a lot. I’m an “independent,” too. International pickups are my true loves. Keep up the great work
Regarding Steve’s comment about “poster child for dripping excess,” I suggest we add perspective. This is the era of shag carpet, bell bottoms, Farrah Fawcett hair, custom vans, etc. Though garish by today’s standard the styling hit the mark and sales show it.
As for the mid-sized “personal coupe” of the mid-1970s being an Evolutionary Deadend have to agree, that doesn’t make it a bad thing. There are many profitable genres that shoot to epic heights then quickly die a grisly death, like Disco
Having been down-sized from a 1979 Chrysler Cordoba with saddle leather and every option Chrysler could load onto the car as a company car to a very nice small-block 1981 Chevrolet Monte Carlo in the fall of 1980, while the Chrysler was “king-of-the-road”, its “Lean-Burn” 400 got awful gas-mileage, the Chevy was nimble and light on its feet.
The restyle of the 1978 down-sized Monte Carlo was much more “honest” and attractive, in my opinion. Later, with another company, I was provided with a V-6 Chevrolet Malibu station wagon, which was a great car. My thought is that for most people, the G.M. down-sized intermediates were very good cars until G.M. got most of the bugs out of the front-drive successors.
The Design studio chief for the 1978 Monte Carlo was Kip Wasenko (based on memory). He visited a group of us at Art Center in what should have been 1976 or 1977. One of the things we talked about was the design development for upcoming Monte Carlo. We all hated the “go for baroque” current 2nd generation design. I didn’t take it that Kip disagreed with that viewpoint but then he offered up how the other portions of GM management would weigh in on how the 2nd generation sold a million units with that grotesque styling it sure made it harder for Design to argue for a far cleaner look.
So, we see the 3rd generation of 1978 with a far toned down iteration of the second iteration rather than something that could have been even cleaner. When working 3 to 5 years in advance not everyone sees the same future.
Reading through all of the additional comments, I think the biggest question for the G.M. 1973-1977 “personal luxury coupes”, which for me, only the Grand Prix and the Cutlass Supreme looked “right”, is why did the take the excellent platform of the 1964-1972 intermediates and add more sheet metal weight and length (other than 5-m.p.h. bumper structures and side-impact structures)? The 1964-1967 G.M. intermediates on the 115-inch wheelbase offered seating for five (with bucket seats) although it was a bit tight in the rear for three adults. (This is where A.M.C. missed the ball, as an up-to-date Classic (Rebel ?) hardtop with a 343-cu.in. V-8 and stiffer suspension could have been a better seller than the Matador.) This is where the G.M. engineering staff could have set a tighter weight target for the coupes and two-doors. My problem, which began with Ford, the Chrysler and then G.M., was the lengthening of the front overhangs of all cars by 1973. Useless weight, in most cases. John DeLorean may have sold a lot of 1969 Grand Prixs and 1970-1972 Monte Carlos by putting the coupes on a 116-inch wheelbase, but he created a monster that soon was out of his control because styling over-ruled engineering and common sense until the fall of 1973.
Personally, I have no problem with super-sized “personal luxury coupes” as true, limited production luxury cars. “Luxury” implies excess and having more than one really needs, after all – and not necessarily a good taste. Bringing this genre to the mass market seems to be the real problem, IMO, as making it more affordable kind of defies the whole purpose of the “luxury” part – just as making it more of a “bread-and-butter” model like the Monte Carlo defies the “personal” part.
The “Monte-Carlo on a diet” fake design is well-proportioned, but could only work in an environment where a regular bread-and-butter sedan is designed even more efficiently. Like an S-Klasse coupe in 1970s Germany. A “luxury” coupe with the proportions of a family sedan is a joke – it probably _should_ have a certain amount of “stylistic excess”.
To me, the 2001 Thunderbird is a good example of a PLC that is not “over the top”, but also is sufficiently distinguished from a typical mid-size family hauler. But to achieve that in its size class, it had to be a two-seater – which of course was not a viable concept anymore. In contrast, the 1995 Monte Carlo looked like (and, if I am not wrong, essentially was) a two-door version of a regular Lumina sedan. No bueno.
Let us not forget that when the Eldorado/Toro/Riv was downsized again in 1986 sales fell off a cliff. It may have been more of the size of the BMW 6 Series but that was a place that the US market did not accept. The next generation went back up in size and did better. [Interesting story on Dean’s Garage on the design development of this last generation of Eldo.]
My point is that smaller and more efficient was not always where the buying public was actually at.
Reverting back to the mainstream Personal Luxury Coupe segment by GM, Ford, Chrysler see this as a mass market approach of stylishness. These were not being sold based upon numerical values of hip or shoulder room, or even weight, they were desirable because of their stylishness and affordability.
I’ve not argued that smaller always sells better. For example, in a piece on the Mustang I point to years when the Camaro sold better even though it was bigger. However, the overall pattern is that the Mustang usually did better when it was smaller (go here).
Cars of the mid-80s strike me as a somewhat different conversation given the changed nature of the marketplace, but as a quick aside I would suggest that the problems with the 1986 redesign of the GM triumvirate transcended their smaller size. I’ll write about that at some other point.
To predict one observation about your future article concerning the 1986-1987 Riviera / Toronado / Eldorado, the biggest problem was that the cars were hardly indistinguishable from the two-door Buick Somerset Regal and the Olds N-body Calais. The Eldorado hardly looked like a Cadillac on the outside. No wonder Mercedes-Benz, B.M.W. and Audi made inroads in the 1980s. Chuck Jordan’s “Sheer Look” styling template for everything G.M. produced (except for trucks and the Corvette) is analogous to Virgil Exner, Sr.’s use of the 1960 Valiant to set the styling template for Chrysler for 1962. Having cars significantly resemble each other across brands destroyed whatever styling leadership G.M. once held.
Blame the sameness issue on Irv Ribycki and those that made him VP instead of Chuck.
Chuck tried to put individuality as soon as he finally ascended. The next generation of Eldo was done under his leadership and it was far better of a design.
The “shear look” was a worldwide design idiom although different names were used. One can point to Guigaro/Ital Design as the early proponent of this idiom. Everyone, everywhere went this path as “next”.
Eventually, the next idiom would be a soft form. Look at the later designs under Chuck’s time as VP to see how he embraced that.