07 Monte
#51
12-18-2007, 06:27 AM
RE: 07 Monte
ORIGINAL: tackett24
Nicely put gale. I know exactly what you mean about just going and staring/admirring our Monte. Hey this has made me think of something....does anyone know the 1/4 times for the 07 3.5 vs. 00-05 3.8 (non s/c). Because I know the power in the 3.5 is moderate (210 right?)but on a bulky body. Still I would think the times would be close, and I think my 3.8 is far from slow.
Nicely put gale. I know exactly what you mean about just going and staring/admirring our Monte. Hey this has made me think of something....does anyone know the 1/4 times for the 07 3.5 vs. 00-05 3.8 (non s/c). Because I know the power in the 3.5 is moderate (210 right?)but on a bulky body. Still I would think the times would be close, and I think my 3.8 is far from slow.
These numbers seemodd to me, since the 3.8 has more torque and a lower gear ratio. However, since I'venever driven a Monte with anything other than the5.3, I don't have an educated opinion.
#52
12-18-2007, 12:41 PM
RE: 07 Monte
Hey no need to rub your huge 5.3 engine in my face lol. But ya those numbers seem off because I have drove an Impala with the 3.5 (keeping in mind it wieghs even more) and I didnt think that it was as powerful as my 3.8 as far as off the line torque goes, but who knows
#53
12-18-2007, 12:55 PM
RE: 07 Monte
gale155,You have had your say.
So lets all move on.The Monte Carlo is a nice car.I will moderate my opinoin on the car as a whole.The 3.5 engine 211 hp is under powered for the size and weight of the "07"Monte Carlo.Other than that I like the car or I would not have bought it.There are many good things about the Monte Carlo.There are also some bad problems,that have shown up un this forum.Major rotor problems keep coming up on the threads.I have owned many cars including the 409 Chevy(1963)Tri-power chevy(1960)427Hemi-Charger(1964),etc not to mention many non-muscle cars and have never had a single rotor problem.This Monte Carlo is starting to show a possible rotor problem at 14k.This is not good.Yes you are right,the 1960's cars did not have rotors.The "04" Pontiac Grand PrixGTP(supercharged)I sold in April of this year has rotors and at 32K Showed no rotor or pad problems.The engineers on the Monte Carlo should have been more vigilant in designing the brake systems on these cars.Hopefully if the Monte Carlo makes a return in a few years,the problem and other problems will be taken care of.
Doug
So lets all move on.The Monte Carlo is a nice car.I will moderate my opinoin on the car as a whole.The 3.5 engine 211 hp is under powered for the size and weight of the "07"Monte Carlo.Other than that I like the car or I would not have bought it.There are many good things about the Monte Carlo.There are also some bad problems,that have shown up un this forum.Major rotor problems keep coming up on the threads.I have owned many cars including the 409 Chevy(1963)Tri-power chevy(1960)427Hemi-Charger(1964),etc not to mention many non-muscle cars and have never had a single rotor problem.This Monte Carlo is starting to show a possible rotor problem at 14k.This is not good.Yes you are right,the 1960's cars did not have rotors.The "04" Pontiac Grand PrixGTP(supercharged)I sold in April of this year has rotors and at 32K Showed no rotor or pad problems.The engineers on the Monte Carlo should have been more vigilant in designing the brake systems on these cars.Hopefully if the Monte Carlo makes a return in a few years,the problem and other problems will be taken care of.
Doug
#55
12-18-2007, 01:27 PM
RE: 07 Monte
ORIGINAL: gale155
According to cars.com, an 07 3.5 does 0-60 in 7.39 seconds, and the 1/4 in 16.24 @ 85.87 mph. For the 05 3.8, they're showing 0-60 in 8.64, and the 1/4 in 16.44 @ 87.04.
These numbers seemodd to me, since the 3.8 has more torque and a lower gear ratio. However, since I'venever driven a Monte with anything other than the5.3, I don't have an educated opinion.
ORIGINAL: tackett24
Nicely put gale. I know exactly what you mean about just going and staring/admirring our Monte. Hey this has made me think of something....does anyone know the 1/4 times for the 07 3.5 vs. 00-05 3.8 (non s/c). Because I know the power in the 3.5 is moderate (210 right?)but on a bulky body. Still I would think the times would be close, and I think my 3.8 is far from slow.
Nicely put gale. I know exactly what you mean about just going and staring/admirring our Monte. Hey this has made me think of something....does anyone know the 1/4 times for the 07 3.5 vs. 00-05 3.8 (non s/c). Because I know the power in the 3.5 is moderate (210 right?)but on a bulky body. Still I would think the times would be close, and I think my 3.8 is far from slow.
These numbers seemodd to me, since the 3.8 has more torque and a lower gear ratio. However, since I'venever driven a Monte with anything other than the5.3, I don't have an educated opinion.
#56
12-18-2007, 04:55 PM
RE: 07 Monte
ORIGINAL: tackett24
Hey no need to rub your huge 5.3 engine in my face lol. But ya those numbers seem off because I have drove an Impala with the 3.5 (keeping in mind it wieghs even more) and I didnt think that it was as powerful as my 3.8 as far as off the line torque goes, but who knows
Hey no need to rub your huge 5.3 engine in my face lol. But ya those numbers seem off because I have drove an Impala with the 3.5 (keeping in mind it wieghs even more) and I didnt think that it was as powerful as my 3.8 as far as off the line torque goes, but who knows
#57
12-18-2007, 04:59 PM
RE: 07 Monte
ORIGINAL: doug4321
gale155,You have had your say.
So lets all move on.The Monte Carlo is a nice car.I will moderate my opinoin on the car as a whole.The 3.5 engine 211 hp is under powered for the size and weight of the "07"Monte Carlo.Other than that I like the car or I would not have bought it.There are many good things about the Monte Carlo.There are also some bad problems,that have shown up un this forum.Major rotor problems keep coming up on the threads.I have owned many cars including the 409 Chevy(1963)Tri-power chevy(1960)427Hemi-Charger(1964),etc not to mention many non-muscle cars and have never had a single rotor problem.This Monte Carlo is starting to show a possible rotor problem at 14k.This is not good.Yes you are right,the 1960's cars did not have rotors.The "04" Pontiac Grand PrixGTP(supercharged)I sold in April of this year has rotors and at 32K Showed no rotor or pad problems.The engineers on the Monte Carlo should have been more vigilant in designing the brake systems on these cars.Hopefully if the Monte Carlo makes a return in a few years,the problem and other problems will be taken care of.
Doug
gale155,You have had your say.
So lets all move on.The Monte Carlo is a nice car.I will moderate my opinoin on the car as a whole.The 3.5 engine 211 hp is under powered for the size and weight of the "07"Monte Carlo.Other than that I like the car or I would not have bought it.There are many good things about the Monte Carlo.There are also some bad problems,that have shown up un this forum.Major rotor problems keep coming up on the threads.I have owned many cars including the 409 Chevy(1963)Tri-power chevy(1960)427Hemi-Charger(1964),etc not to mention many non-muscle cars and have never had a single rotor problem.This Monte Carlo is starting to show a possible rotor problem at 14k.This is not good.Yes you are right,the 1960's cars did not have rotors.The "04" Pontiac Grand PrixGTP(supercharged)I sold in April of this year has rotors and at 32K Showed no rotor or pad problems.The engineers on the Monte Carlo should have been more vigilant in designing the brake systems on these cars.Hopefully if the Monte Carlo makes a return in a few years,the problem and other problems will be taken care of.
Doug
#58
12-18-2007, 05:10 PM
RE: 07 Monte
SO I did nto read the past 5 pages casue I am sure they went off topic lol
I own a 3.5 v6 MC. I love it. I find it has tons of power and even more traction. I kick er down and it hauls. I like the looks on the faces of them civic drivers think there the best and that they can beet my "grandpaish car". lol Mines bone stock for now but I am sure with some power adders like CAI and some Exhust it will be much better.
I own a 3.5 v6 MC. I love it. I find it has tons of power and even more traction. I kick er down and it hauls. I like the looks on the faces of them civic drivers think there the best and that they can beet my "grandpaish car". lol Mines bone stock for now but I am sure with some power adders like CAI and some Exhust it will be much better.
#59
12-18-2007, 06:32 PM
RE: 07 Monte
For what it's worth Doug, the 99 and up Grand Am's have the same issue with the rotors.
Trust me, I know. Went through it myself.
I'd suggest going with some aftermarket slotted rotors. Many people here have done that, and are much happier with them over the stockers.
Trust me, I know. Went through it myself.
I'd suggest going with some aftermarket slotted rotors. Many people here have done that, and are much happier with them over the stockers.
#60
12-18-2007, 06:49 PM
RE: 07 Monte
I know the 3.5 motivated '06 we rented to travel to the Monte Nats in 2006 seemed like a decent moving car. And it got incredible gas mileage for us.
When shopping for an '06 Monte the Chevy saleslady said to stay clear of the Montes with 3.5s under the hood "As I wouldn't be happy with the performance." were her words. But still the car we rented seemed to be okay.
Was horsepower rating for the '07 3.5 V6 increased versus the '06 3.5s?
When shopping for an '06 Monte the Chevy saleslady said to stay clear of the Montes with 3.5s under the hood "As I wouldn't be happy with the performance." were her words. But still the car we rented seemed to be okay.
Was horsepower rating for the '07 3.5 V6 increased versus the '06 3.5s?