Cincinnati.com's view

Somebody once characterized a boss as having a mind like a steel trap – “Nothing gets out, nothing gets in.” Better, generally, to have an open mind, especially if you hang a shingle as a critic. I recently got a strong reminder of that verity when I tested a Chevrolet Monte Carlo. It would have been easy to fall into the trap of painting it with the same brush used for the Impala, on whose platform it is based, but that would have been to do the coupe variant an extreme disservice.

(You may recall that I found the Impala disappointing vis-à-vis General Motors¹ other two new-for-2000 large-car offerings, the Pontiac Bonneville and Buick LeSabre, though, in fairness, the Chevy folks were price-constrained.)

The Monte team obviously went their own way and created one of the most interesting mainstream Chevy products in a hound’s age. Coming on the heels of the Impala experience, it was all the more a delightful surprise.The Monte Carlo label is now more than 30 years old. The first one rolled off the line in 1969 as a 1970 model, and gained instant acceptance, more for its dramatic long-hood, short-deck styling, perhaps, than for its roadworthiness. Through succeeding generations, it offered an appeal based on both luxury and performance, although from the beginning there was an SS (Super Sport) version which usually entailed some interesting chassis and underhood upgrades.

The firebreathing 454-cubic-inch (7.-3 liter, kiddies) V-8 was made available in the 1973 season, just as the first big oil embargo was about to dampen the market’s enthusiasm for such extravagance. General Motors sluggishly set about retooling the suddenly-anachronistic car into a third-generation manifestation for the 1978 season, hacking a foot from its length and nearly half a ton from its mass, to the despair of its aficionados, who rightly saw it as symbolic of the end of an era.

With trimmer size, however, came better handling and an increasingly close relationship with the racing industry. This romance flourishes today in the wildly popular Winston Cup NASCAR series, which the Monte Carlo name, at least, dominates.

The streetgoing car is a little tamer than what the boys of Sunday bash. It’s now served up in two series, LS and SS. The big difference is in the powerplants. LS gets the 3400 V-6, while the SS relies, as so many other GM products do, on the hallowed 3800 V-6. The SS also comes with the firmer “sport” suspension, traction control, integrated fog lamps, body-color rear spoiler and rocker moldings, dual exhaust outlets and specific alloy wheels fitted with more aggressive tires than the LS, dual-zone air, cargo net, remote keyless entry, upgraded cloth seats, cruise control and leather-wrapped steering wheel with redundant audio and cruise controllers. $19,290 is the manufacturer’s suggested on the LS, $21,735 on the SS.

Even the LS comes with air conditioning, automatic transmission, power windows and locks, tilt wheel, theater-dimming lights, an AM-FM-cassette stereo and alloy wheels. Neither LS nor SS can be fitted with a manual transmission. Gussied up as the SS tester was, with added leather seating ($625), six-way power driver’s and passenger seats ($610), power sunroof ($700), premium speakers and stereo with CD player ($253), plus freight, it still bottomed at a fairly comfortable $24,483. It could have passed for a $30K car, on superficial inspection. Materials were of good quality and assembly at the Oshawa, Ontario, plant was excellent.

Both engine choices are overhead-valve dinosaurs, but like the defunct reptiles, they’re rugged and powerful. The 3.4 makes 180 hp and 205 foot-pounds of torque, while the 3.8 ups the ante to 200/225. That differential is at the edge of seat-of-the-pants perceptibility, except for the 3.8’s seemingly flat torque curve, which gives it inordinately stronger launch feel.

Compared to the 454 of yore, the output stats so retty wimpy, but fact is, they’re reasonably peppy for a 3,400-pound machine. Without trying to prematurely age any componentry, I easily managed below-8-second 0-60 sprints. Chevrolet offers a comparison chart which shows that the slightly heavier ’83 Monte SS, with a five-liter V-8, was actually a tad slower.

Plus it didn’t run (for long) on regular unleaded, as today’s engines do, or get a government-calculated 20 mpg in the city, 29 highway, as the “big” 3.8 of today does. As a bonus, GM has found a way to make the docile 3800 engine snarl almost like a V-8 when it’s working hard. Otherwise it goes about its chores with little fuss. My mileage score was 23.7, with fairly heavy-footed handling.

When hurried over a washboardy road considerably faster than the authorities recommend, the Monte Carlo seemed to run out of spring travel rather early on, although such are the suspension mounts that there was little harshness even at the extreme of travel. On merely poor roads and better, ride quality was quite good and the independent four-wheel MacPherson underpinnings maintained intimate contact with the road surface.

Steering was fairly quick and rather light and told the driver little about what was going on below. Handling was nonetheless very good and utterly predictable. Chevrolet was well-advised to fit Montes with 16-inch wheels. The 225/60 rubber provided a more-than-adequate contact patch and still was sufficiently compliant to not degrade ride quality. At the speed limit on freeways, some tire noise could be heard above the rush of air, but the overall sound level was subdued.

The enhanced stereo in the tester was about average in tuner sensitivity and well above the norm in clarity. Overall rating: very good, and the upgrade is bargain-priced as such go.

In its passion for impressing the Feds, GM has geared the Monte higher than a hard-driving man or woman would like. The SS is considerably better in this regard than the LS (a final ratio of 3.29:1 vs. 2.86, the intermediate cogs being the same), but still offered no sense of engine braking in overdrive and little even in third. I would guess the LS would be plagued with the running-away syndrome in top. The TurboHydramatic transmission used in both cars was commendably efficient and unobtrusive, no matter what demands were put on it.

I’d be eating venison for a year if the brakes weren’t as good as they are. Three whitetails, as is their wont, popped out onto the road on a blind curve in Indiana just as I was, uh, testing the Monte’s cornering ability. I had a choice of seeing whether the car would float in the adjacent river or chewing up the Goodyears, so I gave the antilock a chance to show its stuff. The hefty four-wheel discs performed beautifully, and the critters sauntered on with lofty disregard.

A coupe is made more for show than back-seat comfort, but anyone with the agility to find his or her way into the tour ist-class accommodations would be content for a while, even with another adult for company. Three prepubescents, maybe. Both headroom and legroom were in generous supply up front. Radio and air conditioning controls were well-located, even without the optional redundancy. Instruments were well-designed and well-placed.

A fine piece of work, certainly a plausible alternative to what GM defines as the primary competitors: Dodge Avenger, Chrysler Sebring, Mercury Cougar. The “secondary” foes, Honda Accord Coupe and the Toyota Solara, might still appeal more to the “import-intended,” as the trade calls ’em.

“The Gannett News Service”