Monte Carlo boasts loyal following
Some of smaller V6s proved to be trouble.

MARK TOLJAGIC

It's a bit surprising that there aren't more cars like the Monte Carlo around.

With North American society getting older demographically, you'd think empty-nesters would be demanding more big,
comfy two-doors that don't require yoga training to fold into.

Instead, the market offerings have been shrinking. The Ford Thunderbird went out of production in 2005, the two-door
Pontiac Grand Prix in 2003, the Firebird, Camaro and Mercury Cougar in 2002.

The Monte Carlo soldiers on, if only to cash in on the most victorious nameplate in NASCAR racing.
It's also fondly remembered for the old rear-drive version of the 1970s and `80s — a fixture in Detroit's annual
Woodward Avenue cruises.

The last rear-drive Monte Carlo left the factory at the end of the 1988 model year.
Chevrolet resurrected the nameplate in 1995, affixing it to the coupe version of its front-drive Lumina sedan.

CONFIGURATION

The 1995 Monte Carlo rode on the same front-drive platform as the Buick Regal and Pontiac Grand Prix. Given that the
Lumina could seat six (in a pinch), the Monte Carlo was a big coupe.

It followed the Lumina template pretty closely, although progressive-rate coil springs replaced the fibreglass transverse
leaf spring in back.

An updated 3.1-litre pushrod V6 making 160 hp was the base engine. One of the more raunchy V6s in the past, its noisy
disposition was quelled with a stiffer block, oil pan and composite valve covers.

The performance-oriented Z34 was powered by GM's DOHC 3.4-litre V6 carried over from the first-generation Lumina,
putting out 210 hp. Both engines were coupled to a four-speed automatic transmission exclusively.
Antilock brakes were standard.

The Z34 received disc brakes all around for 1996, along with five additional horses. For 1998, the tried-and-true 200 hp
3.8-litre overhead-valve V6 replaced the 3.4-litre in the Z34.

Completely redesigned for 2000, the Monte Carlo migrated from the Lumina platform to that of the new, larger Impala sedan.
While 5 cm shorter overall than the outgoing Monte, the wheelbase grew by almost 8 cm, awarding back-seat passengers
more legroom.

This time designers consciously styled the coupe to differentiate it from the sedan, incorporating some cues from the original
Monte Carlos of the 1970s.

While Car and Driver pronounced the styling "Martian," many fans thought differently.

"When a four-year-old stops you at a gas station and tells you your car is cool and you aren't driving a fire truck, you know
you are sporting a good-looking ride," blogged one owner.

Acknowledged as one of the best front-drive platforms in GM's lineup, the newest-generation Monte Carlo had even better
chassis rigidity. The fit and finish were very good — no surprise, since the Monte was assembled at Oshawa's award-winning
Autoplex.

A 180-horsepower 3.4-litre V6 powered the LS coupe, while the sporty SS carried over the 200 hp 3.8-litre V6,
along with firmer suspension settings and standard alloy wheels.

Responding to fans' bleats for a hotter version of the big V6, GM finally made its supercharged 3.8-litre engine available
in the Monte Carlo for 2004. It made an extra 40 hp and 55 lb.-ft. of torque by force-feeding more air into the pushrod engine.

ON THE ROAD

For all its NASCAR glory, the Monte Carlo did not offer much of a sporting ride.

Despite its vault-like structure, the Monte's all-strut suspension was tuned to deliver a smooth ride on most surfaces with
considerable understeer dialed in. The car was big and heavy and felt like it behind the uncommunicative steering wheel.

The old Lumina-based Monte Carlo could scoot to 96 km/h in 7.7 seconds; the 2000-generation could only do it in 8.6 seconds
— and that's with the larger 3.8-litre engine.

"You must choose your stoplight drag races carefully, otherwise you will get burned.
Worst insult was at the hands of a Chrysler 300 — ugh!" wrote the owner of an '02 SS.

The supercharged model was definitely quicker, taking just 6.5 seconds to reach highway velocity.

Road-holding was decent, generating 0.79 g of grip on a circular skidpad. Braking from a speed of 112 km/h was not so great,
requiring 61 metres to come to a standstill.

Owners were content with the Monte's fuel consumption, which averaged 12 litres/100 km (14 mpg) in mixed driving.

WHAT OWNERS REPORTED

The Monte Carlo has a loyal following of owners who, while lamenting the late, great rear-drive Montes, recognize the
spiritual goodness of the latest iteration.

"Handles well in snowy conditions. Great gas mileage. Smooth, responsive acceleration. Handles good for a larger car.
Good standard options. A sports car for a tall man," concluded the owner of a 2000 model.

Many have been very pleased with their Monte's durability. One owner of a '98 model has 360,000 km on his, with nothing
more than a couple of minor oil leaks to complain about from his 3.1-litre V6.

Others nominated the 3800 (3.8-litre) Series II V6 as one of the best GM powertrains ever.

However, not everyone's been whistling Dixie. The now infamous faulty intake manifolds on the 3.1- and 3.4-litre V6s
affected plenty of Monte Carlo owners up until 2003 when GM specified a new gasket.

Some owners also reported transmission problems, such as hard shifting, which may lead to a complete rebuild.

Other less heart-stopping repair bills include short-lived batteries and alternators (especially in the 1990s models),
broken window regulators, bad fuel injectors, faulty headlight sockets and prematurely worn front-end suspension parts.

Despite the gloomy list of complaints, the majority of Monte Carlo owners are a happy lot.

And why not? With a long list of standard features, you could say they're getting the full Monte.