1995 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Reviews - Page 6 of 14

1995 Chevrolet Monte Carlo LS 3.1 from North America

Model year1995
Year of manufacture1995
First year of ownership2002
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 3.1 Automatic
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 3 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.5 / 10
Distance when acquired64000 miles
Most recent distance109000 miles

Summary:

WAY too expensive to keep running, a money pit

Faults:

The first thing that went wrong with my Monte Carlo is a blown intake manifold gasket. I guess this is common of all Chevy 3.1 Liter engines, so I wonder why there is not a recall for it. this was noticeable at 68,000 miles, $975 job.

Since then, in no particular order, an entire range of problems have happened with my Monte

1) $275- turning signal switch had to be replaced, along with ignition and new key.

2) $150- drivers side outer tie-rod end replacement.

3) $230- drivers side strut replacement.

4) $80- alternator (did myself)

5) $50- water pump.

6) $130- rear turning signal repair.

This is in addition to all normal care and maintenance (oil change, brake change (2), etc.)

Now my car is dead in my driveway at 109,000 miles. In October I noticed a little bit of rough running in the engine and a lack of power, and got it checked out, I was told I just needed new spark plugs and wires and a transmission fluid change. I did both, still ran rough (and was averaging about 9 mpg hwy) went back to mechanic, he said it was just buildup in my catalytic converter and would blow-through in about 100 miles of steady driving, at about 70 miles the engine just stopped.

Can't afford to keep getting it checked out and repaired.

General Comments:

Quick and powerful when running, doesn't corner great, but good for a strait.

Great amount of trunk space.

Comfortable to drive.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 20th December, 2004

1995 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Z34 3.4 from North America

Year of manufacture1995
First year of ownership2002
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 3.4 Automatic
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
9.0 / 10
Distance when acquired120000 miles
Most recent distance149000 miles
Previous carChevrolet Monte Carlo

Summary:

Monte Carlos are the best!

Faults:

I had to buy a new tranny. It went at 140,000, and I had to put a new starter in it. It was a pain, because you had to lift the motor. I also had to put in an O2 sensor. Otherwise, I love this car.

General Comments:

I have a 1995 Monte Carlo Z34. This car is a good running car; it never left me stranded! I will keep this car as long as I can, even if I have to get the motor rebuilt or replaced. Monte Carlos have always been a good car!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 11th September, 2004

1995 Chevrolet Monte Carlo LS 3.1 from North America

Year of manufacture1995
First year of ownership1998
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 3.1 Automatic
Performance marks 3 / 10
Reliability marks 2 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 2 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
4.4 / 10
Distance when acquired45000 miles
Most recent distance173360 miles
Previous carChevrolet Monte Carlo

Summary:

Its too dangerous to be on the highway

Faults:

My 1995 Monte Carlo is a lemon. I've done put 3 motors in it, 1 transmission, 3 rack and pinions, 7 starters, 1 set of transmission lines, 4 alternators, 2 anti-lock speed sensors. My computer had to be reprogrammed. My turn signal switch is messed up to where its not letting my brake lights work. I have to hold the switch back to make my brake lights work. A new complete air conditioning system.

All of my interior paneling is trying to fall off. The seat belts don't want to hold car seats for children.

General Comments:

The 1995 Monte Carlo was not worth putting on the highway. I have put more money in this car, than the loan itself. I do not recommend anyone buying this car. It looks good, but its not dependable.

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

Review Date: 26th August, 2004

14th Oct 2013, 14:09

I agree that they are crap. I have put more money in this car than I have any other car that I have ever owned, and it's still not fixed.

1995 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Z34 from North America

Year of manufacture1995
First year of ownership1996
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission Automatic
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Dealer Service marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 6 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.0 / 10
Distance when acquired31000 miles
Most recent distance110000 miles
Previous carChevrolet Camaro

Summary:

Comfortable and pretty reliable car, but it shouldn't be called a Monte Carlo!

Faults:

My transmission blew at 42,000 miles.

The alternator went at 60,000 miles and the battery shortly there after.

The motor let go at 92,000 miles.

General Comments:

The car doesn't really live up to the Monte Carlo name as it's quick, but come on.

What good is it anyways if the transmission can't handle the power the engine throws to it?

With aluminum heads and an iron block leaking gaskets and a blown motor are just a couple heavy footed joy rides away!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 5th August, 2004

1995 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Z34 3.4L DOHC from North America

Year of manufacture1995
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 3.4L DOHC Automatic
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Dealer Service marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.2 / 10
Distance when acquired85000 miles
Most recent distance96000 miles
Previous carBuick Regal

Summary:

A better car than I thought it would be.

Faults:

I have had no major problems with this car at all.

General Comments:

I really like this car. I am still trying to make is faster even though it is relatively fast now. I have had no major problems with that car and have owned it for 9 months. I only paid $4500 for it and I have probably put over $1000 in it in upgrades. I have put on a Flowmaster exhaust which sounds great and improved my power. I also put American Racing wheels on it and would like to get it repainted and buy a body kit for it. This car is a lot faster than most people think. I have beaten a V6 Mustang, brand new Stratus, an Eclipse, a 02 Grand Am GT, and stay right with a 99 Mustang GT. I would like to be able to put a more powerful motor in this car. I would like to get a 4.3L for it put I can't find one for a front wheel drive. I am going to buy a Hyper tech power chip for it and hopefully that will give me the extra power I want to get out of it.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 14th June, 2004

21st Apr 2005, 17:15

I completely agree my Z34 is extremely fast just at stock... I have made no upgrades and it can keep with/beat any other V6 around and even a few V8's, but I think thats cuz they are afraid of their cars =) I'm glad there is someone else that enjoys their Monte Carlo as much as I do!

9th May 2006, 14:03

I've beaten everything in my z34. The car is a beast stock and I've had 2 (red and green) and yet to have been beaten in both except by a stingray corvette... but come on.

22nd May 2007, 20:59

My Z34 is a beast as well, Just Add a FlowMaster true dual exaust, A prom Chip, And and a K&N Air Intake and you get like 300+ HP At the wheels, I'm enjoying mine, Thinkg about the superCharger kit, give me almost 400+ HP.

Average review marks: 6.6 / 10, based on 49 reviews