1984 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Reviews

1984 Chevrolet Monte Carlo CL 350 from North America

Model year1984
Year of manufacture1984
First year of ownership2004
Most recent year of ownership2005
Engine and transmission 350 Automatic

Summary:

The best car I've ever owned

Faults:

Blew out 3 distributer modules.

General Comments:

My car has truck tires, which are great for when I go out in the mud. I also have made it a 4x4 so it can go out with the best of them.

I mainly use the car to pull out my friends 1987 Crown Victoria, because it is a Ford piece of crap.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 24th February, 2005

1984 Chevrolet Monte Carlo 5.0 305 from North America

Year of manufacture1984
First year of ownership2004
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 5.0 305 Automatic
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Dealer Service marks 5 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 6 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.2 / 10
Distance when acquired36000 miles
Most recent distance39000 miles

Summary:

A good first car for me and I will always remember it

Faults:

The car is twenty years old. I replaced the springs, the shocks, and the bushings.

It rides a lot better now that I have completed those re-installments.

Other wear includes obvious ones: headliner is down, no a/c, etc.

General Comments:

It's a fun car. It is heavy, but it travels well when going straight.

It sounds really good with the dual exhaust it has and gets you down the road pretty quick if you want it too.

It is not good on gas, but this is what I say to that. "If it's bad on gas, it better be fast."

The tires like to move before the car does if you know what I mean.

It is definitely a car that girls that you know will want to ride in.

It is a good piece of history from Chevrolet and will be considered a classic.

Many have said it is the best era of the Monte Carlos and I have to agree with that opinion.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 23rd June, 2004

1984 Chevrolet Monte Carlo 2 door 5.0 V8 4bbl from North America

Year of manufacture1984
First year of ownership1990
Most recent year of ownership2000
Engine and transmission 5.0 V8 4bbl Automatic
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.0 / 10
Distance when acquired78000 miles
Most recent distance220000 miles
Previous carOldsmobile Starfire

Summary:

Incredible durability, Below average gas economy

Faults:

Blown head gasket (due to neglectful driver overheating the engine).

Started getting some rust, especially on the roof.

General Comments:

Engine miraculously survived after being driven a mile with coolant in the oil (looked like mud soup) around 85k miles. This was the result of a blown head gasket. No problems after new head gasket put in.

I liked the ample low end torque, was fun to drive in traffic.

Biggest complaint was front seats which leaned back too much.

Incredibly durable transmission given the fact that previous owner abused it (there was a good amount of deposits in the oil pan).

Never got more than 20 mpg.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 27th September, 2003

1984 Chevrolet Monte Carlo 5.0 from North America

Year of manufacture1984
First year of ownership1990
Most recent year of ownership1998
Engine and transmission 5.0 Automatic
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Dealer Service marks 4 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.6 / 10
Distance when acquired36000 miles
Most recent distance145000 miles
Previous carMazda 626

Summary:

Power and reliability in a classic American package

Faults:

Alternator had to be replaced twice.

Headliner had to be replaced.

Fuel gauge replaced.

General Comments:

This car is the car I'd choose to be driving if I was being pursued by the Police or Satan himself.

It was big and heavy. Like driving your living room couch. But it took all the abuse heaved upon it and asked for more.

The 5 liter engine created great get up and go. It handled great as long as you were only going in a straight line. Precise cornering was not a asset it possessed.

The split bench seat killed your back on long rides.

Other than a few minor repairs, this car performed surprisingly well. I sold it after accumulating 145,000 miles and was sad after I did. It was big and clumsy, and I still miss it.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 25th September, 2001

1984 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS 5.0L High Output V-8 from North America

Year of manufacture1984
First year of ownership2000
Most recent year of ownership2001
Engine and transmission 5.0L High Output V-8 Automatic
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 2 / 10
Comfort marks 0 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
4.8 / 10
Distance when acquired90000 miles
Most recent distance120000 miles
Previous carCadillac DeVille

Summary:

A big piece of crap that was fast

Faults:

1st problem I had was the valve covers leaking, quick fix and only $10.

Another problem were the brakes, a wheel cylinder blew out and I lost all brakes, not just the rear, made it very dangerous.

Things were always falling off the car. The stickers on the outside that said "Monte Carlo SS" were peeling off. The dashboard trim fell off, the console lid broke off, the driver's door almost fell off when a door pin broke. The headliner fell in, the seat recliner broke on the driver's side, and a tooth broke in the passenger's.

The oil pressure sending unit failed and was leaking oil all over the headers that the previous owner installed. It was tough to get to it since it was located on the bottom driver's side of the engine.

The electric choke on the Quadrajet 4 barrel carburater broke, so I had to have my foot on the gas for about 5 minutes to keep it from stalling in the winter when it was cold. Very annoying.

General Comments:

The car was very fast, but it's not as fast as everyone else says. I was drag racing a 1988 Lincoln Mark VII, and it ran circles around my Monte.

My Monte's rebuilt 305 cubic inch (5.0 Liter) V-8 was great for power. Mine had headers, upgraded camshaft, true dual non-catalytic exhaust, and no emission equipment which brought power up from 180 to 209 (tested on a G-Tech Pro), but is still no match for an 1986-newer Mustang with 225-up horsepower and less weight.

I was always burning the tires off the car, even when I wasn't trying to. It had so much power that even pressing the pedal down about an inch would spin the rear tires. It could do the coolest doughnuts (you know, spinning round and round...)

The car was not comfortable. It was always cold in the car, which is not right because it had a kick ass heater in it. The suspension was wavy over smaller bumps and very harsh over heavier bumps, which does not sound like a good handling car. It should be smooth over bumps, but not wavy, and still handle without making the rear end jump over bumps.

I would have much rather have kept my 1981 Cadillac Coupe Deville. It was much slower, but it was very comfortable. I want another Cadillac, but they are all American - which means it will break down. I'm going to buy a Japanese car next.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 3rd June, 2001

27th Sep 2001, 17:46

Yeah, the Montes could annoy the heck out of you with the little (and big) things that broke. But the power was nice and the classic American roof line and body moulding says it all. I had no major repairs at all on my 1984 so I can't complain. The Lincoln Marks are nice to be sure, but that classic Monte body... it speaks.

Average review marks: 6.4 / 10, based on 5 reviews