2000 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Reviews

2000 Chevrolet Monte Carlo 3.8L V6 from North America

Model year2000
Year of manufacture2000
First year of ownership2010
Most recent year of ownership2013
Engine and transmission 3.8L V6 Automatic
Performance marks 6 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.0 / 10
Distance when acquired96000 miles
Most recent distance152000 miles
Previous carToyota Camry

Summary:

It's a good car for the market it was designed for, which wasn't me

Faults:

Transmission was starting to go when I bought it. Turns out these transmissions don't start slipping until the car is fully warmed up, so not enough homework on my part. $3,000 for a re-manufactured transmission from a company highly praised in the W-Body community, as well as labor.

Intake manifold gasket went Thanksgiving last year. About $650.

MAF sensor went. About $450, with the majority being the cost of the part itself.

Driver's side window switch didn't work well when I bought it (common issue on these cars). Part itself was $60, but wasn't an illuminated unit like the stock one. The only work I've done on the car myself.

A power steering fluid hose started leaking. About $260.

Tie rods & wheel bearings were shot for a long while. Never fixed them.

The hazard switch has been starting to go (causes abnormal blinking from turn signals, much like when a bulb burns out). Another common issue with these Montes. Never fixed it.

The car did not have a valve cover on it when I bought it (all 3800 Series engines have a black valve cover indicating the engine). Didn't seem to affect how the car performed.

The last few months I owned it, the gas mileage seemed to be dropping off. Might have needed injectors cleaned or replaced soon.

The lights for the climate control temp switch (red/blue bars) went out. One of them went out after I picked up the car after the tranny swap, and the 2nd one a few weeks later (the car has dual climate control). Not sure why the lights went out.

Battery died after about a year. No big deal; I usually upgrade my batteries anyway.

Steering wheel was really worn out and offered little grip. I wrapped it with baseball bat tape because it gave me the right "grip" I was looking for, and because it's easily removable.

Typical oil changes, tranny filter replacement, spark plugs/wires, brake rotors, pads, tires, etc.

General Comments:

I got the car primarily for the looks (NASCAR inspired styling for the redesign) and because I felt the interior was nicer than the Grand Prix (which looks dated).

It's quick for its size, but generally, it's not a quick car. Chevrolet really should have had the supercharged L67 option from the get-go, and not waited until the 2004 model year.

Parts generally are cheap, but I obviously pointed out a few exceptions. Labor work is not always cheap on this car.

Love how "informative" the car is. Full set of gauges and GM's Driver Information Center of this era showing fuel numbers, average speed, and compass. Had the same DIC on a Blazer I owned a few years ago, and I'm glad my Monte had one.

Very spacious for front passengers and decent room in the rear. Having the rear seats fold down is very useful for storage purposes.

Does a decent job in snow with snow tires equipped. Traction control is good for some instances, but there were a few occasions where it was better to turn it off.

Nice to have a Tire Pressure Monitoring system, but very basic, as it doesn't indicate which tire is low. Just tells you that one or more tires is low.

TPMS is part of the nifty, yet basic, message center next to the tachometer. Says useful messages like "low tire pressure", "low engine oil level", "traction active" and so on. Part of that "informative" thing again.

Swapped the CD/cassette receiver for a 6" Kenwood DVD monitor. Kicker DS speakers in the front powered by a 100 watt Soundstorm amp (50 watts each speaker). Pioneer TS series in the rear powered by the DVD player. 12" JL Audio in custom built sealed enclosure 3/4" MDF carpeted. Bass is hardly noticeable outside the car with little rattles, so it seems like the car is well insulated.

Great car for highway trips, where it gets its good fuel mileage at around 27-29 MPG. Poor city car at about 20-21, and these cars can get hot in city driving (especially summer).

I put this review on the positive side because it will be a good car for who it was designed for, which seems to be the more older crowd and not so much younger guys like myself. I can't really say it was a bad car, and I won't let my love-hate relationship with it ruin what should be a positive review overall.

Even with all those problems occurring, the car never let me down once and got me wherever I needed to go, whether it was the local Wal-Mart 5 miles away or Jackson Mississippi 1,300 miles away. However, I definitely would have bought one with the supercharged L67 in hindsight. Just not enough power in the L36 to warrant an SS nameplate IMO.

If you looking for a semi-luxury coupe built for highway cruising, and won't drive around in too many heavy winters, this is a good car to consider.

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

Review Date: 10th December, 2013

10th Dec 2013, 17:35

I owned a 2000 M.C. SS for about 4 years, and would have to agree that the performance didn't match the looks. I found it almost embarrassing to drive such an aggressive looking car that was so slow. Before it was totalled with 60,000 miles, it also started to use oil and develop electrical problems. This year M.C. seems to be plagued with a lot of first model year gremlins. Luckily for me the airbag wasn't one of them, or I probably wouldn't be here to type this comment today. Struck broadside by a car doing 80 mph and no serious injury. A very safe car.

The Monte's after 2000 are indeed much improved. I replaced mine with a 2007 LS 3.5 VVT V-6, and it feels like it has twice the power. Handles a lot better too due to its lower stance. Owned for about 3 years, 86,000 miles on it, and not one repair needed. It doesn't even use any oil. I would advise anybody looking for a late model to just avoid the 2000.

2000 Chevrolet Monte Carlo LS/SS 3.4L from North America

Model year2000
Year of manufacture2000
First year of ownership2008
Most recent year of ownership2008
Engine and transmission 3.4L Automatic
Performance marks 6 / 10
Reliability marks 4 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Dealer Service marks 3 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
5.4 / 10
Distance when acquired119000 miles
Most recent distance128500 miles
Previous carChevrolet Monte Carlo

Summary:

Don't let looks be deceiving... trust me.

Faults:

Haha! What hasn't?

* Needed new dash due to electrical issues.

* Had to have both half shafts replaced.

* Had to replace both rear struts.

* AC doesn't work, even with new compressor.

* Climate control speed only works on high (5).

* The overhead temp doesn't read the correct temp.

* About to need brakes and rotors.

Also, the motor gets so hot that it feels like it could melt plastic, but yet the temp guage says it's at its normal temp. Does anybody know why that is? Thanks.

General Comments:

* I love it..

* It runs pretty good, but I think my 99 Monte Carlo was better than this one. I traded it for this car.

* It attracts a lot of peoples attention.

* I love the dual exhaust, it sounds sweet.

* Also has a good stereo system.

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

Review Date: 6th August, 2008

Average review marks: 7.5 / 10, based on 18 reviews