I have a 86 ss maroon near great condition. i first saw this car when i was 6 years old in toys r us. thats right the match box car. then i seen it in my neighborhood in brooklyn. i instantly fell in love with it. now i am 33 years old married two kids one on the way and i finally just fulfilled my dream. although the car is bone stock i am dropping in a 350 330hp 380 torque chevy motor in but keeping the body orginal. a nice true dual exhaust and thats it. to me this car is a muscle car all the way and if anything the last one. becasue it was carbbed,rear wheel drive, even though the motor was a 305,at that time there wasnt much going under the hoods. had we not have the gas crisis or oil embargo these cars would have the 350 or maybe bigger in them.

the thing i dont get is why would people not consider it a muscle car. its a v8 rear wheel drive full frame car. and nascar kicked *** with it. this car still has that eye blinking head turning status. honestly i only put in a set of flow master in it and it sounds like a beast. i had a id on the highway waving up to him just so he can compliment me on the car. a guy in a 2009 dodge charger srt pulled up next to me and gave me a thumbs up. i dont know why this car doesnt get the credit it fully deserves. i mean i could care less i love my car i have since i had the matchbox.

 

I'd say it is just as much of a muscle car as you could get in the 80's along with the hot rod Buick Grand Nationals and GNX's.
Thing is most consider the early 70's pre-gas price rise to be the last of the true muscle cars. Big blocks, 4 speeds, dual/triple carbs, etc. That was when a Hemi was a 7.0 liter motor as opposed to what they are now.

 

During the 60's and 70's the Birth of the Muscle Car They had horsepower that Ranked 375hp- 450hp I owner several of them and would not consider the Monte Carlo in the same group. I like the 80's Monte Carlo but a Muscle Car it wouldn't be the same as what I had. It was label a Luxury sport.
The bad thing about the Muscle Car for instance the 69 Chevelle SS. The designation was in the VIN Number and when you got your insurance on this Car you paid thru the nose. This was an era that the Chevelle SS cost me less than 3K, I made about 7000.00 per year in 1970 gas was .35 cents per gal. for Premium. That car along with a Z-28 I owned would walk all over the 80's Monte unless it was modified. With the Z-28 I owned had the factory LT1350 small block, Headers, edelbrock,Holly Carb, Hurst 4spd shifter on a Muncie trans, traction bars, and a Posi, all from the Factory. That thing ran the quarter in 12 sec depending on reaction time. Not much came around that I didn't walk all over. This guy had a GTX who thought he could get me. OOPs he was wrong, he came back with a Hemi and tried again but I was to quick, and he couldn't drive.


But the draw backs as I indicated were in the Insurance and I had a clean record, guys that I ran against didn't and they just had Liability and paid big dollars. Similarly today we all want the Super Sport, nice cars but the gas mileage is bad because it's an SS, so a 4.00 per gal, if your a show off you better have a high paying job or own a money tree.
That's is my take on the Muscle Car I lived the era, it was fun.
This is a real Muscle Car.

 

During the late 70's- late 80s the Monte became a pony car. But then again nothing packed the power to achieve the muscle car status. The GnX id consider being the only muscle car of that era.

 

The Monte Carlo was considered a Luxury Sport. A mild, dependable engine, soft suspension for a smooth ride (but terrible handling), and lots of weight with a large body and plush interior. The only Monte (imo) that even comes close to being considered a muscle car is the '71 big block.

 

If an old Monte is a muscle car, then an old Mercury Montego is a muscle car.

 

A Montego...that is funny. I didn't say an old Monte was a muscle car. I said that the only Monte that comes close to being considered a muscle car would be the '71 big block. I have seen those cars put away 427 Mustangs, 396 Chevelles, 440 Mopars, ect. With that in mind, some would consider it a muscle car, but I'm not one of them.

 

I guess depends on your definition of a Muscle Car. Is it engine power? Styling? Drivetrain? or a Combination?

The argument could be made if you look at it era to era. For example, the 6th Gen could be considered a Muscle car for GM of its era (after '02) even with the V6 because GM killed off the F-body (good bye Camaro and my personal favorite the Pontiac Firebird Trans Am). The only "muscle" car left on the American market is the Mustang.

The V6 Monte is comparable to the v6 Firebird and v6 Camaros. And engine wise, a 6th Gen SS is comparable to your average 3rd Gen F-body [with the 305] (which I hate saying because I LOVE 3rd Gen F-bodies. Always wanted a 3rd Gen T/A):

3rd Gen. Camaro / 3rd Gen Firebird - (305) LB9 "Tuned Port Injection 5.0L" - 190 hp (142 kW)-230 hp (172 kW)

6th Gen. Monte Carlo SS - 3.8 L L36 V6 200 hp (150 kW)
-And these are conservative numbers, 100% stock.

*I included average so I don't **** off too many fellow 3rd Gen F-body people.