Hey guys! I just found out today that one of my reader letters made it into the aforementioned issue of Motor Trend. If you are a subscriber the proof's on page 28 under the title "cash cows".

They cut outprobably 75% of my actual message, but the printed portion is as follows:

GM's decision to cancel productions of the Monte Carlo, while not surprising, came as a result of lack of advertising, not anything else. (here I actually said not due to outdated design, referring to a previous readers comment"
("Trend"). I can't remember a single instance in the past three years where I saw any sort of advertisement for this car.Meanwhile, I can recall a plethora of ads for the Cobalt, Impala, and Silverado. While it makes sense to blanket the market with advertisements for the true cash cows of today's economy, I hope the majority of readers won't consider the demise of the Monte Carlo the fault of GM designers or engineers. I believe their marketing department carries more responsibility.

They never even let me know I was making it in the mag! I took my car to the dealer today to have a power steering hose that was leaking replaced, and the service manager asked me about it. I was like what? Of course I remembered writing the letter, but figgured I would have gotten notification that it was being printed.

So I guess there goes my 15 minutes of fame, lol! I wish I had a printout of what I wrote, but it included references to a previous letter about how it was time for the Monte Carlo and it's outdated design, etc. etc.... I also talked a bit about owning one of them so I consider myself well-studied on the Monte.

If Ya'll see it lemme know! I'll have to buy myself a copy of this issue, since I don't know when my recently purchased subscription will start.


Comments on the letter anyone?

 

 

So glad to hear that you got a letter published. Wish someone at GM would wake up and smell the coffee.

 

Gonna have to run out to 7-11 to get it. Hopefully we get the same version of Motor Trend in Canada, that you get.

 

Thanks for the compliment Space! I was surprised, but it's possiblethey tried to contact me and my spam filters threw out their emails? I suppose it depends on what email I gave them, since I can't quite remember. Yeah, it took me forever to send that letter, I kept revising and re-wording stuff to my liking. I'm bad at that on the forumstoo, always re-reading/writing my stuff too much. But I'd rather take a few extra minutes to edit, rather than sound like a fool.

I wouldn't want a free subscription or anything, I was just defending GM's engineers/designers. I feel that the car has a great design, much improved over even the 6th generations, and was happy to spend the time just to display my point. Only thing I regret is that they cut so much out, so depending on the reader I couldcome offlike a GM freak that knows nothing about the Monte... Even though it's the second I've owned.

I don't consider myself much of a writer, all though I have done differentthings in the past. Some of my editing habits come from being in the Customer Service world, I really have to be careful with my words as to not accidentally offend anyone.

I'm not going to say GM made the wrong choice. I mean obviously the car didn't sell compared to the sedans, but really, for being a mid sized coupe you have to market it to the proper crowd if you want it to sell. Not to mention they give all these incentives to dealerships to work with a customer when selling a sedan/econo cars, versus practically none with the Monte.

I would like to see the Monte Carlo return, but not unlikethe majority of us,I would like it to come back with a RWD/AWD setup instead of FWD. Unfortunately as we've all seen, this isn't very feasable with the new stricter MPG requirements. Even with advanced tuning, fuels, direct-injection, et all the typical mid-sizefwd or rwdcar running on gasoline isn't going to beat 35MPG without the hybrid assist making the engineering that much more complicated, and expensive.I forget the exact numbers, but something like 50 - 75% of the energy that we can extract from gasoline in the combustion process is lost to heat! Short of burning gasoline to make yesterdays steam engines work, there'snothing your typical combustion engine can do to recapture that energy.

 

Congratulations on having your letter (or part of it) printed on a car magazine. Glad they at least agree with you GM/Chevy killed off a good car without giving it a decent try before killing it.

 

Bravo for you... although I disagree with some of what you said. The exterior design is nice -- except the plain Jane hood& grill. The "Abuse" chip is a verypoor excuse for an extremelypoor design!!! The engineers responsible should have been fired, or the executive that force through the poor design -- probably under the umbrella of "Cost Savings."

Harden Axles,heavy duty harden gears & springs,and 1" drive chain should have been standard equipment. Now to fix their engineering snafu, cost us (the owners) $4,000 - $7,000 in aftermarket mods, that actually only would have cost an extra $450 per vehicle if they did it at the factory. Guess what... I think we would have paid the $450 without blinking an eye.

$500 = HD Differential
$500 = HD Input/Turbine Shafts (Rated at 550-WHP)
$900 = HD Input/Turbine Shafts (Rated at 1200-WHP)
$400 = HD Convert
$429 = HD Flex Plate
$150 = HD Pawl-Style Input 3rd Sprag
$350 = HD Drive Chain & Gears
$100 = Speedometer Recalibration Controller
$1900 = HD Transaxle
$7000 = Complete Race Quality Drive System (1200-WHP)
Plus labor and installation

Remember this is not giving you 550-1200 HP, it can just handle that type of HP.

 

Way to go Mike!

 

It nice to read someone defending the Monte Carlo. Eventhough everyone in print says they hate the design I haven't actually been told they hated the look of both my Montes. I'm always complimented on my choices of cars. Way to go! [sm=smiley20.gif]

 

Have you had a bad experiencewith the drivetrain? Myself I haven't, only problem I've had is the ps hose for the passenger side leaking some fluid. Didn't notice it until there was fluid in the pump and I could hear it. Replaced under warranty at no charge.

I can understand your thoughts about the drivetrain, but really, for what the cars are handling stock, why would they put something that's good up to 500 HP in it? I mean the ratings should be for prolonged wear and tear, not just onemoment of the full power of the engine. If an enthusiast/ownerseriously upgrades the engine to levels beyond stock then one can only expect that stuff is going to break. I would consider it unreasonable to think that my car rated at 242 HP at the crank should support 300 + HP without some drivetrain upgrades.

Goes under the same thing as when I'm building a computer for an elderly person that doesn't know much about computers, simply for email and the occasional picture, I'm not going to build them a rig that can support high end PC games! GM shouldn't be responsible for the possibility of individuals upgrading the car after-market. Now, if GM were to offer a Hi-perf. exhaust and intake, or other serious modifications stock, or as a dealer-available upgrade, then I would expect them to have the car ready for that from the factory, or just require users to purchase the upgrade parts at the same time.

I think the grille could look better, but if I was that unhappy with the looks, I probably wouldn't have purchased the car in the first place.