Talk:Chevrolet Monte Carlo

Seventh Generation?

I find the claims that the '06-up Monte and Impala justify a new generation a bit dubious. What changes in generation for other GM models (or any car, for that matter) have actually shared any sheetmetal whatsoever? GM has freshened many vehicles in similar ways that were not a new generation; the fourth-generation F-Body comes to mind, with some remarkable changes between the 1993-1997 cars and the 1998-2002 cars (beyond simply the change from LT1 to LS1). GM's GMT400 trucks also went through revised front sheetmetal and a heavily redesigned interior through the '90s. Ayocee 14:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

GM has stated that the 06+ is simpily a refreshening and reviews from many automotive publications agree. If this was a new generation GM would explicity state it as such as it has in the past with all of its new generations.

http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/los_angeles_2005/0501_chevrolet_impala_monte_carlo/

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0507_2006_chevrolet_monte_carlo_ss_coupe

http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z8616/default.aspx

http://research.cars.com/go/crp/research.jsp?makeid=9&mode=&revid=47258&year=2006&acode=&modelid=93&revlogtype=21&crpPage=summary.jsp&myid=&section=reviews&mode=&aff=national

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.233.2.79 (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Agree. I'm making the change. roguegeek (talk·cont) 00:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Third gen pic

...i dont think that paint was OEM. could we get a slightly more stock looking monte carlo? Skiendog 00:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

NASCAR statement

I recommend this statement stay off the main page, especially off the top summary section, unless someone can prove why contemporary NASCAR vehicles have even the slightest relevance to the production vehicle.

From its inception, the Monte Carlo also has been one of GM's biggest successes on the NASCAR stock car racing circuit. However, in 2007, GM will phase the Monte Carlo out in favor of the next-generation Impala.

The best correlation may be that, for many years now, this NASCAR vehicle is part of GM's marketing of the car. That may deserve mention towards the bottom of the page, but it has no place in the summary.

Nova SS 02:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with that statement. It's not implying that the modern NASCAR and modern Monte have anything in common other than name and vague appearance, and downplaying the Monte-NASCAR connection would be overlooking a fairly large part of the Monte Carlo's history. Ayocee 15:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I might be OK with it if it wasn't in the top summary section. I don't think this marketing shtick is so noteworthy as to define the vehicle. The vehicle is what it is regardless of how it is marketed. Nova SS 21:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Statement lacks verification. Regardless of if it is true, it is questionable if it belongs on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.161.240 (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Fourth Generation?

I'm confused as to why the "4th Generation Monte Carlo" is listed as such. The car rode the same G platform carried over from 1980, with simply an update of its exterior body panels. The wheelbase was even the same.

And while the 2000 Monte Carlo rode the same platform as the 1995-99 model, at least its wheelbase was extended, its interior totally redesigned, and it looked worlds different than its predecessor.

Clean-up pictures

I've added some br/clears and rearranged some pictures so the article doesn't have so much white space anymore (and the pictures are where they make sense, rather than below the infoboxes. (I also added back in half a sentence that got chopped accidently some time ago and never replaced.) 121.208.181.37 03:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Acecarlo.jpg

Image:Acecarlo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

4th Generation inaccuracies to be cleaned up

Several severe inaccuracies have been added to the 4th Gen section over the past several months. We will be making an effort to correct these over the coming weeks. People.. before you go making changes, please check your facts.. and if you're not sure.. please ask over at MonteCarloSS.com (4th Generation specific).

Z65_Paul MonteCarloSS.com Admin Z65 Paul (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I just have to say that, as to the stated power output of the 350 V8 available in the Mexican SS equipped with the 350 - that number WAY too optimistic given the technology of the time. Either that 265 HP number is gross horsepower rather than SAE Net, or someone's daydreaming. I'd imagine that the guesstimate of 190 HP as stated in the second link "Additional Information about the Mexican SS" is closer to reality.

--King V (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Check the power rating for the 1988 SS. It was listed as "480 HP". It's off by about 300. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.97.24 (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

"personal luxury coupes"

Regarding a phrase in the first paragraph: Is there a difference between a "personal luxury coupe" and "luxury coupe"? Sounds like marketing-speak to me, however I suppose it's possibly a term in use by people who are not in the business of selling junk to people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.64.41 (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

6 cyl 3800 engine

±

SAE net vs Gross Hp - 1971-72

I corrected the hp figure for the 1971 and 1972 Monte Carlo. 1971 is the only year that Chevrolet listed both gross and net figures. There were never any gross figures listed in 1972. Additionally, the article stated that the 1972 engines were unchanged from 1971 (in terms of power) and only the rating changed. This is true for the 350 engines, but not the 402 or the 454 engines. The 402 was rated at 260 net hp in 1971 vs 240 in 1972. The 454 was rated at 285 net hp in 1971 vs 270 in 1972. All this figures are listed in both the 1971 and 1972 Monte Carlo brochures as well as other reputable auto publications.

Caprice 96 (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"Raised Eyebrows"

This phrase strikes me as being slightly unprofessional and has no citation as being a reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.163.248 (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The monte carlo was around well before the 70's they had monte carlo models dating back to the 50's

you're all mistaken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.55.202 (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This statment is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.238.139.239 (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

File:2002-chevrolet-monte-carlo-2dr-cpe-brown 100055005 m.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2002-chevrolet-monte-carlo-2dr-cpe-brown 100055005 m.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Convertibles category

Why is this in the convertibles category when there are no Monte Carlo convertibles? Lukeno94 (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

After 10 months without a reply to this, I've removed it from the convertibles category. Just because there was a plan to release a Monte Carlo convertible does not mean that it should be in this category, seeing as there wasn't a production convertible - or even a prototype beyond the drawing board. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

7th Gen

As discussed earlier - there was NO 7th generation Monte Carlo - it was simply a "Refreshed 6th Gen." I made the change in the article and noted it as a "refreshed version." Chevy has done this before with the Camaro if I recall correctly (2nd gen).

Perhaps it should be added to the article that on several forums they commonly refer to the 06-07 years as a 7th gen (or 6.5 on others) to avoid confusion because most parts cannot be swapped between the 2 different 6th styles. Just to avoid this confusion.

Mogwog (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing Camaro as Successor

I removed the Camaro as the successor, considering the Monte Carlo was a personal coupe and the Camaro is a muscle car.--Bookster451 (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)