29th Aug 2018, 16:52

The 1978 Monte Carlo and 78 Cadillac sure did. I bought one brand new!

29th Aug 2018, 19:17

C: obviously they are interested because they replied.

29th Aug 2018, 20:44

No offense, but the '05 Monte Carlo has to be one of the ugliest looking cars from that era. That and GM was still sort of transitioning themselves. I recall these when they were new, and even then the things, especially the strange bulging rear end, just looked awful. How that ever made it out of the design studio and into production is beyond me.

30th Aug 2018, 03:29

What '78 Cadillac model are you referring to? In past comments somebody mentioned that the Monte Carlo copied the Seville. Was it you? If any Chevy model copied the 78 Seville styling, it would be the 81-83 4 door Malibu.

30th Aug 2018, 11:30

It wasn’t me, but I had a new 78 for a go everywhere family car, and others got similar comments I knew then. Front end and rear deck, and the rear line of sights from the sides. Does it bother you that greatly? Honestly it’s one new car I look back upon and do not like its styling at all today. However, although not Cadillac in appearance, the first gens were absolutely beautiful. Clean lines. Especially the understated 454SS. Then 1973-1977 Monte Carlo models were ugly, really ugly. I also owned a 280zx 2+2 afterwards in the 80s as I couldn’t find one decently styled new domestic I liked. Very depressing period after 1973. The Trans Am til 78 maybe. 90s Fox Body Mustangs arrived. But nothing decent from GM. I had a 69 Camaro SS for a daily driver back then before its value shot up. I picked it up then for 3500 so it wasn’t going to break the bank if stolen. And I flipped some other pre 72 domestics. Now there are some really nice imports and domestics to pick from.

30th Aug 2018, 14:30

Thanks for the hilarious read, although the part about sending pictures of your junk and only bathing once a week was more information than anyone needed to know.

Having to eat turkey deli meat? If only you could transport yourself back to the time when you said you could get a Big Mac, fries and a drink for under a dollar. Too bad that time NEVER EXISTED.

30th Aug 2018, 21:27

Styling opinions vary, you are about the first person I've seen claim that the 73-77 Montes were ugly cars. Those cars, along with their cousins the Regal, Cutlass and Grand Prix, had radical styling ahead of its time. Even the downsized 78-87 versions have aged a lot better than the 1988 and beyond FWD W bodies that replaced them. Purchase pricing on ones in good condition are only going up.

30th Aug 2018, 22:34

Read the comment again. It said specifically "not sending pictures." Operative term there being "not."

30th Aug 2018, 22:34

"It wasn't me"

It appears that it was you. Unless of course it's a long shot coincidence that you and comment 23:05 both bought "new" Monte Carlos back in '78 and you both find the Z cars attractive looking.

31st Aug 2018, 02:44

And after posting a novel you STILL can't specify which 78 Cadillac model the 78 Monte Carlo supposedly copied.

Let's assume you are referring to a Coupe DeVille (an awesome looking car by the way) and if you are you're still way off.

The front appearance on the Cadillac is in an upright position with quad rectangular head lamps and large chrome bumper. The front of the Monte Carlo is slanted inward with single large head lamps on each side and a body colored bumper.

Side appearance, the Cadillac is longer with clean lines and more of a slanted rear roofline and kind of an oval shaped wheel openings. The Monte Carlo is shorter with sweeping fenders and rear quarters, with a formal rear roofline and round wheel openings.

The rear of the Cadillac has long vertical fin style taillights with chrome bumpers and a trunk lid that covers pretty much the whole rear face of the car. The rear of the Monte Carlo has long rectangular taillights with 4 vertical bars, body colored bumpers.

That's the way I would compare the two. Also never heard of somebody that liked a car then but hates it now.

Personally I like all mid-fullsize GM's from this era. Much better than the me too dime a dozen crossovers and generic turtle shell sedans from today.

31st Aug 2018, 07:33

This is very off topic, but here goes.

You must be very young.

McDonalds started off serving burgers costing 15 cents. And they had value meals costing $1 or less well into the 90ies. You do the math: Minimum salary back then was typically $5 which meant you could buy 5 meals. How many McDonalds meals does a typical minimum salary buy in 2018?

Progress, right?

31st Aug 2018, 13:21

I heard they were in the brand new 1973 intro year. But it’s not totally an isolated fault as manufacturers came out with 5 mph bumper laws, and most in my mind had poor styling overall. The TransAm and CanAm caught my eye. That’s about it.

31st Aug 2018, 22:25

Um, yeah. The claim was you could get a Big Mac, fries and a drink for under a dollar. It did not mention 15 cent hamburgers nor $1 value meals, which certainly did not come with Big Macs.

1st Sep 2018, 16:24

In 1969 teen jobs were plentiful for high school students. I made 1.25 an hour at a sub shop, then 1.50 an hour at a pharmacy the same summer. I still remember a sub at the sub shop ran 1.65-1.85 average. My VW held 10 gallons of gas. So fill up entirely for under 4.00. Most parents put their kids in their auto policies. Finishing college I was able to land a job 1/3 of the actual value of my first house. But we all did 30 year loans. No parental help on house down payment like many of us had to do today with our own kids. So yes the cost of living was better then. I saw on TV 26 years old is the new 21 today.

3rd Sep 2018, 06:24

Your claim is that you could never get a BigMac meal (medium fries, medium Coke) for a dollar. When I grew up in the 70ies you could when a BigMac for 50 cents, increasing to 65 cents later on in that decade. 99 cents BigMac meal deals were well into the 80ies.

3rd Sep 2018, 13:19

I remember buying high octane Super Shell or Sunoco 260 regular gas at 36.9 cents a gallon. We had money left and did our own upgrades and repairs from the easy mechanicals of time.

I had 3 used cars by the time I finished high school. Flipped 2 of them at a profit. You could buy used muscle cars anywhere from $500-2000. Stock wheels came off and Cragar SS or Keystone classics wheels were added onto large white letter tires on the rear and smaller on the front. The look of the time. Even Thrish side pipes. Not always name brand tires. Cars were lifted with shackles, Lakewood Traction Bars, Accel etc all on our wages of the time. Everybody seemed busy with jobs, sports especially, a date etc. Not laying around at home. No computers, electronics, phones etc sucking up your money. Ours went all into our cars, dates etc. Teens had many part time jobs opportunities then and could work 2 or 3 jobs. Summers we worked. The payoff was being able to buy cars without parental help. I had to keep my grades up though in high school to be allowed to own my cars. Discipline was the norm for many of us. There were usually 2 parents under the same roof. My dad said anyone willing to work hard or extra can achieve these things. And my family did.

I know today is different. You may not be able to buy a new car right away when young today. But you can build one up yourself. Just like we did. My one son started with used 5.0 Mustangs. Hot cheap bang per buck. Just like we did. One even had Nitrous. Or find and buy a regular econo car and get some help negotiating it out to the max. These tips may help more than a debating a cost of a burger. I’d be out on a date sharing a pizza instead. No one wanted to be home where our parents were. They would find something for us to do if we did. I’d rather work and make money. The past is gone, but the work ethic remained. Nothing is free in the world.