I had a 76 Monte Carlo and loved it. It was a great car and I wish I never got rid of it. But the ad says it got 15 & 22 mpg with the 400 CID 4 barrel. Mine had a 350 4 barrel and it only got 10 city and 12 highway.
@IamaKinsey06 If you didn't get into the secondaries it did 18 mpg. You were young and flooring it a lot, it did good burn outs.
I had a 1970, 1973, 1974, and 1975 in the 80s, never paid more than $2000 used for one. I looked for the 454 option but couldn't find one. Swivel bucket seats. I had another in 1985 and hated it. The 1970 is worth some real money now.
i had a 76 monty carlo that car had 289k miles on it 1 rebulilt trans.no problems got it used with 60k mi. people told me to get a new car nothing but trouble.i wish i kept it
I've had so many cars, but I still miss my 77 Monte Carlo. I love the way the front end looked (I had the hood ornament) when driving. I'd like to get another, but will need to extend the garage.
@34kevinj Actually, the same suspension that was installed on this year Monte Carlo was on the Malibu Classic too. Both were nice riding cars. Soft, yet firm. It was a strange combination that was PERFECT for this car and the Malibu Classic.
When a car makes you look good, that's style. When a car makes you feels good, that's class. Monte Carlo by Chevrolet. Building a better way to see the USA.
My 76 has been in the family since 80. Was my fathers until he died in 99. Took my drivers test with it back in 80. Just hit 100K.
Still drives like a dream! Don't know where they came up with those MPG figures!
I have a 400 4brl. and the best I can get is 12 MPG.
She needs a resto. Was going to buy a semi new car but decided it would be cheaper to restore the Monte. Update it with a 4 speed O.D. and fuel injection (maybe Holly Pro-Jection)
my 1976 monte carlo my favorite auto ever. it was a heartbreaker to junk it but it had 321k mi.on it my family wanted me to get a new car, i also had a73,75,77monte.im lookin for another
Definitely not. A great example of that would be that a brand new Toyota Corolla S rear ended my 76 Monte Carlo and while the Toyota was totaled, the only damage to my Monte Carlo was the bumper got tweaked and scraped up and my tail pipe was crushed. I was stationary while the Toyota hit me traveling 30 mph.
Gearing does have a lot to do with it. The only gear ratios you could get in the 76 and 77 Monte Carlo was 2.56:1, 2.73:1 (which is what my 76 had) and 3.08:1. I dropped in a 350 horse 350 crate engine with 4-barrel Holley carb in my Monte in 2003 and before changing the 2.73:1 gear ratio, I was getting 15mpg city and 19mpg highway. Once I switched the ratio to a 3.73:1 gear ratio it dropped to 10mpg city and 13mpg highway.
@BammerD Yeah, that's how it is with higher axle ratios. You get a choice: good off the line power and lower mileage, or not so great off the line performance and better mileage. On a lot of cars, you didn't even have a choice after about 1975- you got what they gave you, and it was most likely a ratio that would improve your mileage. On the Aspen, it was 2.76:1. I think if you wanted something else you had to special order it.
@njot3 I had a 78 Caprice Landau with a 2-bbl 305 V-8 with a.i.r., Turbo Hydra-Matic 350 3-speed automatic transmission and 2.41 GEARS hahah had a tag right on the rear end cover. It was built in, and for California. I'm sure that was a factor. Still don't know how or why it made its way all the way to Maine. I've owned two vintage GMs that came from out that way. Wasnt worst performing car, but compared to a 350 with 3.73 gears...well........
The gas mileage figures sound like they are way too high for a 400 V8 with a 4 bbl carb and an automatic transmission?? Maybe if it had a V6 in it I'd believe those figures. These were still fairly heavy cars.
You would be incorrect with your assumption. I own a 1976 Monte Carlo. When it was completely stock with the factory 350 and 2-barrel carb, my car averaged 18mpg city and 22mpg highway.
@BammerD That's amazing to me. When I drove a Dodge Aspen with a slant 6 and a 1 barrel carburetor, it got about 17 city, 22 highway. It's a smaller, lighter car with a smaller engine and a small carburetor on it. I'm surprised a Monte Carlo would be as good. It must be the gearing, carburetion, cam timing, etc.
This has been flagged as spam show
the engine on the 1973-1977 Chevrolet Monte Carlo
Engine
5.7 L V8
6.6 L V8
7.4 L V8
5.0 L V8
Annihilator1111 2 weeks ago
I had a 76 Monte Carlo and loved it. It was a great car and I wish I never got rid of it. But the ad says it got 15 & 22 mpg with the 400 CID 4 barrel. Mine had a 350 4 barrel and it only got 10 city and 12 highway.
IamaKinsey06 2 months ago
@IamaKinsey06 If you didn't get into the secondaries it did 18 mpg. You were young and flooring it a lot, it did good burn outs.
I had a 1970, 1973, 1974, and 1975 in the 80s, never paid more than $2000 used for one. I looked for the 454 option but couldn't find one. Swivel bucket seats. I had another in 1985 and hated it. The 1970 is worth some real money now.
dalotel 1 week ago
i had a 76 monty carlo that car had 289k miles on it 1 rebulilt trans.no problems got it used with 60k mi. people told me to get a new car nothing but trouble.i wish i kept it
ubsme2 2 months ago
@ubsme2 what year did you get it in?
jakesaintsrow123 2 months ago
@jakesaintsrow123 i got it in 1989
ubsme2 1 month ago
That's what a car should be...a boat looking type, LOL! I love it!
screwsalliemaedebt 3 months ago
I've had so many cars, but I still miss my 77 Monte Carlo. I love the way the front end looked (I had the hood ornament) when driving. I'd like to get another, but will need to extend the garage.
skiffway 4 months ago
the transmission on the 1973-1977 Chevrolet Monte Carlo
Transmission
3-speed manual
3-speed automatic
Annihilator1111 4 months ago
Love the Big Monte Carlo. Better car than the Malibu, Olds Cultass Supreme, Buick Regal & Century & the Pontiac Grand Prix.
34kevinj 5 months ago
@34kevinj Actually, the same suspension that was installed on this year Monte Carlo was on the Malibu Classic too. Both were nice riding cars. Soft, yet firm. It was a strange combination that was PERFECT for this car and the Malibu Classic.
cadrolls 1 week ago
i had 2 76 montes & 6 police chases
tryby12 6 months ago
Handling ease? Compared to a yacht? That long boat is no match for a compact car in trying to get out of a supermarket parking lot.
Seasurf88 6 months ago
What a disaster American cars were after 1973. :/ Gimme a 71 Monte over that monstrosity any day.
socom6 7 months ago
When a car makes you look good, that's style. When a car makes you feels good, that's class. Monte Carlo by Chevrolet. Building a better way to see the USA.
IstvanN1961 7 months ago
Anyone thinking of buying one, may want to do it soon! Won't be long before the value goes way up!
MalcolmXcrement 8 months ago
My 76 has been in the family since 80. Was my fathers until he died in 99. Took my drivers test with it back in 80. Just hit 100K.
Still drives like a dream! Don't know where they came up with those MPG figures!
I have a 400 4brl. and the best I can get is 12 MPG.
She needs a resto. Was going to buy a semi new car but decided it would be cheaper to restore the Monte. Update it with a 4 speed O.D. and fuel injection (maybe Holly Pro-Jection)
With LOADS of memories, I'll NEVER sell it!
MalcolmXcrement 8 months ago
@MalcolmXcrement it rassure me that some people stil care of theses "classic ladys". in europe we love theses cars
chev2600 7 months ago
my 1976 monte carlo my favorite auto ever. it was a heartbreaker to junk it but it had 321k mi.on it my family wanted me to get a new car, i also had a73,75,77monte.im lookin for another
tryby12 8 months ago in playlist Car Commercials
the 1973-1977 Chevrolet Monte Carlo was assembled in
Flint, Michigan
Annihilator1111 10 months ago
Handling ease makes it a drivers dream?... My guess is that he drives an 18 wheeler at work!
ignatzRat 1 year ago
@ignatzRat My guess is that you drive Ford Pinto. LOL
TheLizardKing1967 10 months ago
@TheLizardKing1967 No Because I Rear ended It and Blew that POS UP. Haha :)
jakesaintsrow123 7 months ago
@jakesaintsrow123 LOL.. That was a good one. You are AWESOME MAN !!
TheLizardKing1967 7 months ago
@TheLizardKing1967 Haha...Thanks Your Pretty cool yourself :)
jakesaintsrow123 7 months ago
the only thing I don't like is the stacked head lamps.
ChevyManSS350 1 year ago
They don't make them like they use to.
adape0884frank 1 year ago
@adape0884frank
Definitely not. A great example of that would be that a brand new Toyota Corolla S rear ended my 76 Monte Carlo and while the Toyota was totaled, the only damage to my Monte Carlo was the bumper got tweaked and scraped up and my tail pipe was crushed. I was stationary while the Toyota hit me traveling 30 mph.
BammerD 1 year ago
Ive got one now,I like it better than my new "modern" cars.Seriously its a much better driving car.
afvc1980 1 year ago
Gearing does have a lot to do with it. The only gear ratios you could get in the 76 and 77 Monte Carlo was 2.56:1, 2.73:1 (which is what my 76 had) and 3.08:1. I dropped in a 350 horse 350 crate engine with 4-barrel Holley carb in my Monte in 2003 and before changing the 2.73:1 gear ratio, I was getting 15mpg city and 19mpg highway. Once I switched the ratio to a 3.73:1 gear ratio it dropped to 10mpg city and 13mpg highway.
BammerD 1 year ago
@BammerD Yeah, that's how it is with higher axle ratios. You get a choice: good off the line power and lower mileage, or not so great off the line performance and better mileage. On a lot of cars, you didn't even have a choice after about 1975- you got what they gave you, and it was most likely a ratio that would improve your mileage. On the Aspen, it was 2.76:1. I think if you wanted something else you had to special order it.
njot3 1 year ago
@njot3 I had a 78 Caprice Landau with a 2-bbl 305 V-8 with a.i.r., Turbo Hydra-Matic 350 3-speed automatic transmission and 2.41 GEARS hahah had a tag right on the rear end cover. It was built in, and for California. I'm sure that was a factor. Still don't know how or why it made its way all the way to Maine. I've owned two vintage GMs that came from out that way. Wasnt worst performing car, but compared to a 350 with 3.73 gears...well........
regalbeagleable 10 months ago
The gas mileage figures sound like they are way too high for a 400 V8 with a 4 bbl carb and an automatic transmission?? Maybe if it had a V6 in it I'd believe those figures. These were still fairly heavy cars.
njot3 1 year ago
@njot3 15 miles aint alot.its only a 305.
fuQl3snar 1 year ago
@njot3
You would be incorrect with your assumption. I own a 1976 Monte Carlo. When it was completely stock with the factory 350 and 2-barrel carb, my car averaged 18mpg city and 22mpg highway.
BammerD 1 year ago
@BammerD That's amazing to me. When I drove a Dodge Aspen with a slant 6 and a 1 barrel carburetor, it got about 17 city, 22 highway. It's a smaller, lighter car with a smaller engine and a small carburetor on it. I'm surprised a Monte Carlo would be as good. It must be the gearing, carburetion, cam timing, etc.
njot3 1 year ago
My cousin use to have one of these monte carlos with spoke wheels, it was a nice looking vehicle.
menuvision 1 year ago
But ain't it a sweet ride??? Heavy- fast- smooth and looks like it might be a little pissed.
mtfune 1 year ago
15 MPG city!!..Hell thats worse than a H1 Hummer today
StoneCold75 1 year ago
@StoneCold75 yeah but back then gas was like 40 cents a gallon :-/
lardman1 1 year ago