1986 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Reviews - Page 4 of 7

1986 Chevrolet Monte Carlo LS 305 from North America

Year of manufacture1986
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 305 Automatic
Performance marks 4 / 10
Reliability marks 5 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 4 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
5.3 / 10
Distance when acquired127000 miles
Most recent distance129000 miles

Summary:

Semi-Lemon, Non Performance, Point A-B Type Car, wouldn't buy another

Faults:

Good Car, Horrible Motor 305 junk, piston skirts broke, blew out spark plug because of block rust, bad gas mileage, like any other Chevy it is a slug.

General Comments:

Decent Car for the money, but would trust the 4.3 over a 5.0.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 14th January, 2004

15th Jan 2004, 07:35

Hard to believe how many people, like this person, buy an old car with high mileage, and then when the car requires mechanical work, brand the car a lemon because something was worn out on it.

Buy a new car, or at least something with less than 50K on it, if you don't want to have to deal with mechanical repairs after purchase!

20th Nov 2004, 10:09

The Chevy 5.0 liter 305 engine is one of the most reliable and easiest to work on. Also a dream to bolt on aftermarket products. I have to disagree with the original comment on this page. I wish I still had my monte.

1986 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Luxury Sport 3.8 Litre from North America

Year of manufacture1986
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 3.8 Litre Automatic
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.5 / 10
Distance when acquired122350 kilometres
Most recent distance128863 kilometres
Previous carBuick LeSabre

Summary:

Why did General Motors stop making these cars?

Faults:

The car needed replacement front brake pads and calipers to pass the safety inspection.

Carburetor adjustment and replace EGR valve to pass emissions test.

Some surface rust.

The headlights do not throw off very much light ahead of the car. Should have stayed with the sealed beam units on older models.

General Comments:

The car was recently purchased for everyday work and personal use. The car has proved to be 100 percent reliable with minimal trouble for its age and routinely is driven 1000 Km per week. Comfortable, quite, vibration free ride, adequate room for front passengers. Excellent handling for a regular U.S. production vehicle of its time. Performance of the engine is adequate on the highway, car can hold 85 plus m.p.h. without much effort, but acceleration from a dead stop is somewhat lacking. Runs on regular pump gasoline without any knocking. Insurance is reasonable, and usually gets 22 miles per gallon mixed highway and city driving. Factory stereo has excellent sound quality Most major components under the hood appear to be original. Interior components do not rattle there are no leaks or noises and the seats have not faded. Excellent value for a used car, would purchase one brand new if they still were in production.

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

Review Date: 15th July, 2003

1986 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Sport Coupe 5.0L LG4 from North America

Year of manufacture1986
First year of ownership2000
Most recent year of ownership2001
Engine and transmission 5.0L LG4 Automatic
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.3 / 10
Distance when acquired104000 miles
Most recent distance112000 miles

Summary:

A beautiful car with potential, for the first time drivers, or the car enthusiast

Faults:

Sagging headliner from the get go.

Had a smoked transmission when I first got it.

Rebuilt carb because someone had used a Zip tie to hold the failed electric choke open, and that let unfiltered air into the carb.

Trans failed again (my fault for buying a bone yard trans, running it low on fluid and putting a shift kit in).

Rear frame rails non-existent, due to the class 4 receiver that was bolted to the rear of the car when I first got it, this car saw salt water!

All the usual other "Rotty Carlo" rust/rot spots.

Needed tuneup.

Rear brake line broke, no rear brakes.

General Comments:

I loved this car, it was my first set of wheels. It was in the Wanted listed for 250 bucks with a blown transmission. The guy I got it from dropped it down to 200 bucks to offset the 50 dollar tow to my school.

Even with all the stuff listed above, when it was all fixed it was a very reliable car. Pump the gas twice, and it would spark up no matter what, on hot or very cold days. Just touch the key and it would start faster than some of the newest cars out there.

I did all the work to the car myself. I rebuilt the carb myself. It was very responsive after that. Someone who calls a Quadrajet a "Quadrabog" is someone that has no clue how to tune a carb unless the name of it begins with H.

I put a hooker cat-back 21/2" dual exhaust for a Monte SS or a Grand National on it, it sounded very nice! I also installed a Monte SS computer, it has a better fuel/spark strategy. When the first trans failed I installed a 2004R with a Gil Younger shift kit, from a Monte SS in. It had a nice popping shift after that! In the end when I floored it even with the 2.29 highway gears in the rear it still did a one legged peelout for about 10 feet.

I like the body style of the 4th generation Monte the best; 81-88 they are much lighter looking than the 73-80 style, the 70-72 style is also a nice looking car.

I liked this car so much I bought a '83 monte that's pretty close to mint. I am doing a frame off restoration, its getting a 450+ HP 355, a TH350, and a Ford 9" with 3.55's and a Detroit locker. In honor of my original ride, it will be painted the same Metallic deep blue, and sport all SS goodies, with a SS nose, spoiler a F41 suspension package, a 12:1 ratio steering box, and a floor shift (ratcheting)

I got rid of my first ride in early 2001. I had put close to 8K on the clock (not quite sure, the speedo didn't work right when the transmissions where changed). I took off all the good stuff I had put on it, and sent it to the junkyard to eventually be made into razor blades and Hyundais. It was like saying good-bye to a good friend, my first car I had lots of fun in.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 30th November, 2002

Average review marks: 7.7 / 10, based on 19 reviews