Check it out.

https://www.theautopian.com/the-final-chevrolet-monte-carlo-looked-faster-than-it-was-gm-hit-or-miss/

 

Id never heard this before, but its pretty neat. I wonder what 1st gen Ws got this vs rear coils? I did see a few threads here and there on them (mostly on Cutlass), but there wasn't much info out there.

To be fair, rounded bodies were the future in the mid 90s. Everyone was rounding their bodies to separate it from the very boxy 80s stuff. If Chevy would've kept the 5th gen monte as squared off as the previous Lumina, they would've been ridiculed by the magazines at the time and might even struggled to sell what they did.

It certainly could be argued they pushed it too far (especially on the bubble caprice), but with any new style trend, its hard to know for sure what'll stick / how far it'll go.

I'll admit that I don't follow NASCAR at all - but the NASCAR on the 5th gen and 6th gen monte style both look like they share about the same amount of body shape between the street and race cars. They both look heavily modified down around the ground and closer to stock up top. But I honestly can't tell that the 6th gen uses more actual body lines than the 5th gen did (not that it really matters much as those vague body lines are the only similarities to the street car anyways).

I'll always disagree with people saying a 200ish hp v6 wasnt appropriate for 5th/6th gen montes. The 95 mustang gt only made like 215 hp, and even by 2002 was only up to like 260. Its easy to bash those low hp numbers today when we've got 4 cylinders making that kind of power, but 200 hp wasn't total garbage back in that era. It's also a huge step up from the 4th gen montes that are so idolized from the 80s for being rwd. The top of the line monte ss was only 180hp, and they offered engine options in lower trims that barely made over 100.

I do agree though that they should've brought the L67 over sooner, but frankly the L67 montes didn't sell in massive numbers either which seems to back up the fact that the average buyer of these cars was just fine with the base hp. Even adding substanital power with the 3500/3900/5.3 right at the end couldn't save it from being discontinued.

If people wanted a RWD v8 coupe with 300+hp so bad, they sure weren't showing it in Camaro or GTO sales...

Those kind of comparisons always bug me. They try to glorify 4th gens as being some kind of rocket ship "because RWD", but the actual performance really isn't any better than the newer stuff in the published metrics. Even the top level SS trims were ~16 second 1/4 mile and the lower trims were much slower in many cases. I don't know the exact figures for that older stuff, but I dont think any 4th gen SS was faster than a LS4 FWD SS in the 1/4.

To be fair, I've never driven a 4th gen SS. But we did own multiple G bodies growing up- both v6 and v8s. I really dont see that platform as some kind of pinnacle of modern performance in stock form. Id be really interested to see a lap time on a road course of a stock 4th gen monte vs a 5th+ as I really dont think the performance gap is anywhere near as big as these magazines seem to make it out to be.

 

This is the kind of thing I mean. The link below shows the 0-60 for 4th+ gen from magazine tests for the highest performance trims:

https://www.0-60specs.com/chevrolet/...lo-0-60-times/

• 83 SS - 7.97 sec
• 85 SS - 7.8 sec
• 87 SS Aerocoupe - 9.4 sec
• 95 + 96 Z34 - 7.8 sec
• 98 Z34 - 7.5 sec
• 00 SS - 7.3 sec
• 04 SS SC - 6.5 sec
• 06 SS LS4 - 6.0 sec

So that's where I struggle with places bashing the 5th+ gens for being so awful on performance and not being "worthy" of SS badging relative to their predecessors. Not at all trying to say they're fast, but I think many people have rose colored glasses for their view of the older cars - especially in the meat of the 70s and 80s.

 

The other item, is when looking at those 0-60mph numbers, are they "marketing magic" or legit numbers? Kinda like some HP specs don't totally live up to the hype.
But, still I agree with your point. A lot of old school guys "those 6th gen Montes look great, but they aren't real Montes because <they are rwd; not a v8>". Sure, they don't look as cool when doing a burn out as a RWD car, but, does not mean there is not cool stuff going on with them. Not just the Monte, but the W-Body (probably the Grand Prix more than any) was very popular!
I have had people tell me my Monte doesn't deserve a SS badge. I tell them "well, GM put it there, file your complaint with them". Heck, I had a friend accuse me of fake badging my car. I had to tell him to check his facts....

 

The website claims they're each pulled from major auto magazine tests and cites the source on the page - but of course there are flaws / hidden bias within that whole magazine test process as well.

I've heard that kind of thing enough at car shows that I now enjoy poking at those people a bit when I hear it as there's a lot of ignorance surrounding it.

One of the first examples of the SS badge was the 63 Nova SS. The engine it came with - a lowly inline 6. The SS package wasn't even some kind of major performance package - it was some badging, a few minor exterior trim changes, some gauges, and bucket seats. That seems to debunk that a true SS must be a v8 as purists will never denounce the origins of the badge.

That discussion then usually goes to Chevy "refining what SS should be" in the late 60s to define performance. But its always interesting to point out that Chevy continued to hold onto the SS badge well after emissions had absolutely destroyed power output and performance. The Nova held onto the SS badging into the mid 70s and the El Camino into the 80s - both of which where the SS sported a v8 making barely over 150 horsepower...

The RWD thing is a tougher point to argue, but its somewhat of a given that they would all be since practically all of Chevy's lineup back in the 60s and 70s was RWD. For that argument, I ask if the 90s SS pickup was a true SS (virtually all SS purists seem to accept it and it makes for a good stepping stone to my next point since it affirms it doesn't have to be a car), then follow that up with the TBSS (if a pickup is ok, then most will agree a SUV is also). But the TBSS was offered with AWD - so why is expanding the definition of SS over time from RWD to AWD ok, but not FWD?


So if you get them to agree that:
-it doesn't have to be a v8
-it doesn't have to meet some arbitrary performance threshold
-it doesn't have to be rwd

then it pokes holes in pretty much their whole argument that modern fwd stuff can't be worthy of a SS badge. If nothing else, at least it opens their eyes that SS wasn't historically all BBCs with 400+ hp - that Chevy has used a pretty wide brush with that badge through the years.

 

I like the break down of data you did about the SS topic. That is some interesting background AND fun observation.

I will add to some of this.... I know a LOT of people will say "I don't care what you drive, as long as you drive American". I will ask them "Do you mean a car built by Americans or a car where the company corporate headquarters is based in the United States". They look confused and have no answer. With such a global presence you have import brands built/assembled here in the United States. But you have long-time domestic brands built/assembled outside the United States.

 

I'm really surprised how many consumers don't realize that its public info for vehicle assy, engine assy, transmission assy locations and % US/CAN parts. Its really surprising to see how high some foreign owned brands are and how low others are. Certainly good information to digest by brand and even by model when trying to "buy American".