07 monte

[loki]

did we have a pre website update for the montecarlo? cause on the web site, there is no 3.9L option anymore... is that going to be something later when they can make enough of the afm version to put in it?

did i miss something... or is chevy just not going to offer it for 07?

did it not sell well at all ( the ltz option ) ?

[Flybrian]

It seems we completely neglected the Monte Carlo updates!

Deletions

(22U) Superior Blue Metallic exterior color

(63U) Sport Red Metallic exterior color

(74U) Victory Red exterior color

2LT and 3LT equipment groups

LTZ model

(LZ9) 3.9L 3900 V6 engine

New Features

(27U) Precision Red exterior color

(37U) Imperial Blue Metallic exterior color

(71U) Black Amethyst exterior color

(80U) Red Jewel Tintcoat exterior color

(LZ4) 3.5L 3500 V6SFI gasoline engine (non-E85 compatible)

Changes

1LT equipment group has been re-contented

[loki]

do "we" have any idea or real knowledge why they deleted the lt2,3,z models?

[NOS2006]

Someone, quick! ha I don't feel like researching.. What's the power and MPG differences in the 3.5 and 3.9?

[DetroitNut90]

Hmm...what made them drop the 3.9L V6?

Wouldn't 1LT just become LT since 2&3LT are gone?

And NOS:

3.5L V6=211hp/224 lb-ft torque, 21/31 mpg

3.9L V6 used to=242hp/242 lb-ft torque, 19/29 mpg

Edited July 22, 2006 by DetroitNut90

[loki]

as previosly stated, i hope afm makes it in there.. more like 20 / 30 mpg and drop the 3.5L ! eh, just an idea

[76ChevyTrucker]

No 3.9L in the Monte, that's a bit strange, although it could be the phasing out of the current Monte Carlo for something newer, better, and dare I say: Rear Wheel Drive?

[ocnblu]

I thought I heard somewhere that the 3.9L was being slightly reworked and will be reintroduced later in '07? Or was I dreaming once more? Isn't it getting AFM?

[trinacriabob]

If there's no option groupings, then the LT should just be the LT, not the LT 1.

Leave the 3.5 in there....some of us are cheap. You know how great it feels to cross 30 mpg?

Comment: Will they be leaving the mechanics behind VVT untouched? Do you know how it works? Is it electronic (solid state, bolts on) or mechanical?

EDIT after visiting ordering guide:

There is no 3.9 to be found. Unbelievable.

This is now too simple of a car to order...there are NO option groups. They've just bumped up the content on the LT to sort of capture the critical options. Negatives: they went up to 17" tires (which I don't like, I like the simpler 5 spoke aluminum wheels) and they force you to take the ABS...on the plus side, the spoiler is the race inspired one that flares upward.

Edited July 22, 2006 by trinacriabob

[Sixty8panther]

The Monte Carlo at this point is a huge dissapointment.

Between the aged styling, transverse mounted motor,

FWD & lackluster performance it does noting very well

but tries to be a jack of all trades in a lame way.

I think the current Monte is a disgrace to the cars that

came before it. Park a 1970, 1973 & a 1987 next to each

other and you tell me if the 07 Monte deserves to wear

that emblem?

Let's hope the Monte Carlo name is resurected in Zeta

form, otherwise stop dragging the name through the mud

and just let it RIP. Considering how it's the winingest

nameplate in NASCAR history though they really should

make a ZETA Camaro... just make it bigger than the

Camaro with more luxury and tons more room with

different styling.

Edited July 22, 2006 by Sixty8panther

[Guest YellowJacket894]

The Monte Carlo at this point is a huge dissapointment. Between the aged styling, transverse mounted motor, FWD & lackluster performance it does noting very well

but tries to be a jack of all trades in a lame way.

Like Hardee's (Carl's Jr. for you folks on the West Coast) says about the way they used to be before they started making Thickburgers, "We were a jack of all trades and a master of none."

I think the current Monte is a disgrace to the cars that came before it. Park a 1970, 1973 & a 1987 next to each other and you tell me if the 07 Monte deserves to wear that emblem?

I thought Chevy removed the Shield logo for '06, S8P.

Let's hope the Monte Carlo name is resurected in Zeta form, otherwise stop dragging the name through the mud and just let it RIP. Considering how it's the winingest nameplate in NASCAR history though they really should make a ZETA Camaro... just make it bigger than the Camaro with more luxury and tons more room with different styling.

169939[/snapback]

No arguement there. As soon as we can ditch the W-Body, the better.

[mrmonte]

I read in Motor Trend that the Monte was going to have e85 capability

(its in the special advertising section) . Maybe thats why the 3.9 was deleted so that it can be brought back with some changes. In any case I wish that someday I will open this site and find a new beautiful 09 or 10 Monte on the first page. A car I would be happy to park next to either of my 2nd gen Montes.

[loki]

The Monte Carlo at this point is a huge dissapointment.

Between the aged styling, transverse mounted motor,

FWD & lackluster performance it does noting very well

but tries to be a jack of all trades in a lame way.

169939[/snapback]

not mad at what you're saying or that you said it, but you are avoiding the topic that was started. Do you have any guesses / good ideas why the 3.9L isn't offered, yet...

don't take this too personally

and to respond to your response, sure, i bet more than 80% of people that liked the rwd s of yore would say the one on the w body should not have that history in its name and so on and so on... but you can't do much about it now till zeta is here, and gm moves a chevy coupe onto it... so please stop making every other thread a slap in the face to the cars you have to live with untill they show the new cars, and then you can complain about them before they start getting built if you don't like it. oh, and the whole fwd/rwd thread comments summed up from your POV.

ocnblu---> that would be very nice, if they released it as a 1/2 model and used the help of the aftermarket to really differentiate from the rest of the 3.9L s ... like closer to the output of the G6 GXP concept

[ocnblu]

I see the Monte Carlo is available with a Rally Stripe option for '07, either black or silver. (Dual racing stripes up-and-over, and down over the trunk lid.) It is shown in the picture of the various colors available for the new year.

[FAPTurbo]

I see the Monte Carlo is available with a Rally Stripe option for '07, either black or silver.  (Dual racing stripes up-and-over, and down over the trunk lid.)  It is shown in the picture of the various colors available for the new year.

169981[/snapback]

Oh I see. So those racing stripes will make your 3.5 as fast as the 3.9! That explains the deletion! Why bother with an extra engine when you can have Racing Stripes!!!!!!!

Brilliant.

[ocnblu]

Ew, serious? You can get them on the six cylinder? If they had to offer such a thing (this is still a luxury sport coupe, not a Cobalt or Camaro, sheesh), they at least ought to have enough respect to only put it on the V8 model.

[Guest YellowJacket894]

I see the Monte Carlo is available with a Rally Stripe option for '07, either black or silver.  (Dual racing stripes up-and-over, and down over the trunk lid.)  It is shown in the picture of the various colors available for the new year.

169981[/snapback]

Photos? I bet it looks something like a cartoon Chevelle SS.

[Camino LS6]

Is it just me, or do you folks hear a swan song? :AH-HA_wink:

[ocnblu]

YES, Camino. The current Monte Carlo has strayed too far from the original concept. The stripes are another totally incongruous element. They are doing their best to morph this current car into what will come next, even as they destroy every last vestige of what it means to be a Monte Carlo. Can you say... Chevelle?

[Guest YellowJacket894]

YES, Camino.  The current Monte Carlo has strayed too far from the original concept.  The stripes are another totally incongruous element.  They are doing their best to morph this current car into what will come next, even as they destroy every last vestige of what it means to be a Monte Carlo.  Can you say... Chevelle?

170127[/snapback]

I hear that sentiment loud and clear. You know, I was at a local Chevy dealer and they had a used '03 MC SS in red setting on the lot. Looking up close at the design I couldn't help but think "Chevelle, this looks like a Chevelle." The front fenders flare in a similar manner to the '70 thru '72 model, the lines just curve in a half-assed manner to make someone think of a MC of the same years.

[Flybrian]

A Chevelle doesn't make sense in a modern Chevrolet lineup. I'd rather see a simple two-door Impala if not a better Monte Carlo.

[ocnblu]

I'd like to see a Monte Carlo on Zeta, but it has to be its own car, it cannot be diluted to try to "fill in" for a hole in the lineup. Camaro is the sports car, Monte Carlo is the luxury sport coupe... two different markets, allowing room for both.

[Flybrian]

I'd like to see a Monte Carlo on Zeta, but it has to be its own car, it cannot be diluted to try to "fill in" for a hole in the lineup.  Camaro is the sports car, Monte Carlo is the luxury sport coupe... two different markets, allowing room for both.

170147[/snapback]

No argument there - beyond that Chevrolet no way constitutes luxury - which is why I'm fine with a Monte Carlo, but not a Chevelle.

[knightfan26917]

Park a 1970, 1973 & a 1987 next to each

other and you tell me if the 07 Monte deserves to wear

that emblem?

I think GM/Chevrolet has answered that question for you ... since the '06 version doesn't even feature the emblem at all......

Cort, "Mr MC" / "Mr Road Trip", 32swm/pig valve/pacemaker

MC:family.IL.guide.future = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort/

What's it like to buy your favorite car brand new? Wish I knew...

"You've made a fool of everyone" ... Jet ... 'Look What You've Done'

[NOS2006]

You can now get Racing Stripes as an option from Chevy? That's sweet. Wonder if they'll offer that on, say, upcoming sportscars?

[ShadowDog]

With the latest restyle, I don't see the name 'Monte Carlo' being represented what-so-ever. I simply view it as a Impala Coupe.

Monte Carlo of old, weren't too pretty to look at.

Monte Carlo of 80's, were nice too look at, but had pathetic output in the attempt on fuel-efficiency.

Monte Carlo of 90's, the Lumina Coupe

Monte Carlo of year 2000 and beyond, the Impala Coupe

There's nothing left to work on. As far as I'm concerned, just get rid of it for a while and start from scratch.

[trinacriabob]

I'd like to see a Monte Carlo on Zeta, but it has to be its own

170147[/snapback]

Is there a definite date as to when Zeta will be out? 09 or 10? And it will, for sure, be RWD, correct?

[Guest YellowJacket894]

With the latest restyle, I don't see the name 'Monte Carlo' being represented what-so-ever.  I simply view it as a Impala Coupe.

The badge is poorly represented, in my opinion. I also can't see the car as an Impala Coupe, either. I guess the current MC is nothing but a mixed, matched, and patched up side show with no real reason to be.

Monte Carlo of old, weren't too pretty to look at.

I beg to differ. I think the following cars were real standouts, bold in design yet elegant. They are somewhat over the edge in some respects, though, but not offensive.

1972 Monte Carlo:

1977 Monte Carlo:

Monte Carlo of 80's, were nice too look at, but had pathetic output in the attempt on fuel-efficiency.

Well I agree with that statement. (I have no idea about fuel economy, though because I haven't driven a '80s MC.)

1987 Monte Carlo:

Monte Carlo of 90's, the Lumina Coupe.

Once again, I find myself in agreement. GM should've just stuck with the Lumina name on that car. The car, in no way, was a Monte.

1995 Monte Carlo/Lumina Coupe:

Monte Carlo of year 2000 and beyond, the Impala Coupe

See the beginning of the post to read what I think about that comment.

2000 Monte Carlo:

There's nothing left to work on.  As far as I'm concerned, just get rid of it for a while and start from scratch.

170271[/snapback]

The Monte should take a hiatus, true, but what stands in its place? It's most certainly not the Camaro -- wrong market, wrong niche. Fly does have a point about the Chevelle now not having a spot in the line, but if one shows up around '08 or '09 then I guess it most certainly does.

The Monte has always been something of a confusing car -- the original Monte was an A-Body car, basically a re-bodied Chevelle. An uplevel trimmed Chevelle with a few cosmetic additions could've done the Monte's mission almost a well as the Monte itself.

[NOS2006]

And it will, for sure, be RWD, correct?

170292[/snapback]

Drugs are bad.

Edited July 23, 2006 by NOS2006

[ShadowDog]

I beg to differ. I think the following cars were real standouts, bold in design yet elegant. They are somewhat over the edge in some respects, though, but not offensive.

Understood. My comments are, for the most part, personal opinions. I have little interest in the classics, being a forward thinker who possibly should focus more on some heritage cues. Still, the latest cues in the profile just don't really cut it with the mix of the reasonably attractive rear end treatment...again, my personal opinion, of course. I should have looked more carefully at my original post regarding the 2000+ model year being an Impala coupe...I should have placed my MY figure closer to the '06 design.

The Monte should take a hiatus, true, but what stands in its place? It's most certainly not the Camaro -- wrong market, wrong niche. Fly does have a point about the Chevelle now not having a spot in the line, but if one shows up around '08 or '09 then I guess it most certainly does.

That would have been something I should have added on. The Monte Carlo could take time-off with GM improving its image with a name-change. The Chevelle would be a nice switch; unfortunately, I see GM simply flipping on a new skin to the existing frame with an redone interior...not the best idea. I suppose a wait on cashflow for a newly engineered midsize-coupe/sedan would be more interesting.

The Monte has always been something of a confusing car -- the original Monte was an A-Body car, basically a re-bodied Chevelle. An uplevel trimmed Chevelle with a few cosmetic additions could've done the Monte's mission almost a well as the Monte itself.

170296[/snapback]

My fuel efficiency comment was more in regards to the image the Monte Carlo portrayed. It was a blanket-covered comment regarding all of GM's 305 equipped vehicles, such as the Monte Carlo...heck, even the Camaro. Odd that, on a Monte Carlo website, I read that the 305 engine in this era was even being called a H.O. variant...with a whopping 185 HP. 'Fuel-efficiency' wasn't exactly answered by having simply a reduced-output V8 as a band-aid.

What ever the answer, I suppose GM first has to acknowledge that a question even exists.

Edited July 23, 2006 by ShadowDog

[Guest YellowJacket894]

Understood.  My comments are, for the most part, personal opinions.  I have little interest in the classics, being a forward thinker who possibly should focus more on some heritage cues.  Still, the latest cues in the profile just don't really cut it with the mix of the reasonably attractive rear end treatment...again, my personal opinion, of course.  I should have looked more carefully at my original post regarding the 2000+ model year being an Impala coupe...I should have placed my MY figure closer to the '06 design.

The '06 as an Impala Coupe? That makes more sense. GM's really diluting just what the Monte should be even further than before.

When it comes to classics, I love them. They have such a charm that modern cars lack: they're simple, a treat to look at, pack a decent wallop of power, can usually be had for the same price as a new Cobalt, and appriciate in value year after year.

But I do agree on the "forward thinking with heritage cues" concept. But, it can be overdone, as with the case with the Challenger.

That would have been something I should have added on.  The Monte Carlo could take time-off with GM improving its image with a name-change.  The Chevelle would be a nice switch; unfortunately, I see GM simply flipping on a new skin to the existing frame with an redone interior...not the best idea.  I suppose a wait on cashflow for a newly engineered midsize-coupe/sedan would be more interesting.

Waiting usually brings the best result. GM marred what coherant image the Monte had back in 1995. I'd hate to see the same thing happen with the Chevelle; it has more of a mission than the Monte does. (Thinking about it, a new Chevelle is making more sense. The Monte is a mainstream car, although a coupe, just like the Chevelle was. Yeah, thinking about it, a new Chevelle coupe makes sense.)

My fuel efficiency comment was more in regards to the image the Monte Carlo portrayed. It was a blanket-covered comment regarding all of GM's 305 equipped vehicles, such as the Monte Carlo...heck, even the Camaro. Odd that, on a Monte Carlo website, I read that the 305 engine in this era was even being called a H.O. variant...with a whopping 185 HP. 'Fuel-efficiency' wasn't exactly answered by having simply a reduced-output V8 as a band-aid.

The 305 was a lame duck, I'll agree with that. But you can blame that on Detroit at the time not knowing how to wring horsepower out of an engine with emission's equipment, etc. It was probably those low power engines that convinced Detroit to go to front-drive across the board -- upper management thought they could probably coax no more than 200 horses out of an engine with eight-cylinders, which a front-drive car could more than cope with.

What ever the answer, I suppose GM first has to acknowledge a question even exists

Which they've done in a poor and rather odd way; GM knows there's a question to what the Monte really is. And, like the Impala, enthusiasts complain that the car is nothing like it used to be.

Setting here musing over the Monte makes my head hurt. What is it supposed to be? A "personal luxury coupe" like the original A-Body car? It can't be -- the Thunderbird of the Seventies thru early and mid Nineties is long gone with no chance of returning. Or a "bread 'n butter" coupe like a Chevelle?

Like I said before, the Monte is a jack of all trades and a master of none.

Edited July 23, 2006 by YellowJacket894

[knightfan26917]

(Thinking about it, a new Chevelle is making more sense. The Monte is a mainstream car, although a coupe, just like the Chevelle was. Yeah, thinking about it, a new Chevelle coupe makes sense.)

Unless, of course, it did not come out as RWD. I suspect Chevrolet will have a whole nother legion of fans upset if they do that. They already have mucked up the MC, Impala, Nova and Malibu....

Setting here musing over the Monte makes my head hurt.

*chuckles*

It doesn't make my head hurt ... most of the time, anyway .

Cort, "Mr MC" / "Mr Road Trip", 32swm/pig valve/pacemaker

MC:family.IL.guide.future = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort/

Models.HO = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort/trainroom.html

"I can’t take anymore" ... 3rd Eye Blind ... 'How's It Going To Be'

[ponchoman49]

I'm venturing a guess that the AFM 3900 will be in larger demand for the 07 Impala and Chevy sells far fewer Montes so it's letting that model make due. A few things confuse me on these new 07's. I have seen several LS and LT Impalas with the E85 badge on the trunks and the normal 21/31 mpg ratings. The other day I saw a few more 07's that did not have E85 badges and were the new LZ4 3500. It's mileage was only 20/29! So a 3500 non E85 gets the same mileage as the AFM 3900! Why offer it at all? Why the big drop in mileage? Does the LZ4 have 224 hp like in the Aura/G6? Does the LZ4 have better gears than 2.86:1 to lower mileage? The 07 engine lineup in as confusing as ever. It is also interesting to note that the 06 Monte Carlos with 3900 were rated at 20/28 instead of the Impalas 19/27 figure. So if the AFM made it in the 07 Monte would that have been rated at 21/30?