1971 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Review

1971 Chevrolet Monte Carlo 5.7 Stock from North America

Year of manufacture1971
First year of ownership1994
Most recent year of ownership2007
Engine and transmission 5.7 Stock Automatic
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
9.7 / 10
Distance when acquired160000 miles
Most recent distance220000 miles

Summary:

A comfortable muscle car with eye catching looks!

Faults:

Nothing major except typical wear and tear results.

The clock wasn't working when I bought it. I did however manage to rebuild the clock using a newer GM quartz clock. Took a bit of modification, but I'm very pleased with how it turned out. It was amazing to me to see how a clock made in 70 was able to be nearly directly fitted with a newer clock from the late 80's!

The fuel gauge is acting kinda funny, via the apparatus in the tank, but still works OK.

The door pull-straps need attention once in a while as the screws were not designed to stay put.

The vent slats were all rattling loose. I fixed them by prying the vent assemblies out. Then heating needles inserted the needles into where the little retainers would be and the vent slats are good now.

The headlight/interior light control unit burned/melted on me a couple years back. Got a $5 one from the wrecking yard that fit. That one came out of a mid-70's Buick.

The steering wheel is cracking. Not a biggie. Got a replacement for $15.

The shifter lever has a rubber knob at the end that started pulling off. Gotta clean it out and re-glue.

The rear-view mirror has a poor design where the screw that holds it from tilting up and down will not stay tight so the mirror has a tendency to flop down. A lock-washer should do the job. Just have to find one that is cone-shaped.

The driver mirror eventually wiggled it's way off into the ditch at some point. I'm restoring the car, so there will be different mirrors going on. The placement of the original mirrors was kinda poor. Quite close to the window and the door closing causes it to want to flop loose eventually. The remote kind, which I did not have, tend to bind up and become difficult to use over the years due to dust/moisture.

The door hinges with plastic bushings on the position lock. Bad idea. They break apart and are loose right away. I bought hinges from a mid-70's Chevelle/Malibu rear door to replace those.

The plastic inner-wells inside the fender/engine compartment. Another bad plastic idea. Those were badly damaged/cracked. I replaced those already with metal ones from an early 70's Malibu.

The hood hinges were badly worn and were replaced. The lack of good care by previous owners caused the hood to buckle some near the buckle points under the hood.

General Comments:

Well, considering this is a 36 year old car it's not too bad. There may be wear issues with older cars that are virtually non-existent with the newer cars, but, I must say it's less expense to fix!! There are things on newer cars that wear out and break that just should not.

I voted the comfort in the car a 9 because of the back-seating. The back seating was an after thought it seems. The person in front will have to move the seat forward a bit to give leg-room clearance for the rear passengers. Course, I've been in many extended and quad cab trucks with just as bad room or worse.

The ride on a 4,400 lb car is pretty good because of the weight. I just don't like the ride of these newer cars. They typically have stiff foam seats, tiff suspension, stiff arm-rests, an awkward fat steering wheel, and noisy interior.

I'm working on my car and you can see the progress on webshots! My ID/handle is alwcurlz on that site.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 2nd July, 2007

Average review marks: 9.7 / 10, based on 1 review