The seller describes this 1977 Chevrolet Monte Carlo as an “American muscle car,” but that’s seemingly high praise for a personal luxury coupe that was about to enter the dark period known as the Malaise era. The car seen here comes with one respray in its original colors, and while it does present quite well, no details are offered on whether the listed mileage of 15,747 is accurate. Still, it looks sharp on period-correct cross-lace wheels and the contrasting white landau roof, a staple of the obviously-named “Landau” package. The Monte Carlo is listed here on eBay with a Buy-It-Now of $11,880 and the option to submit a best offer.
The interior of these big-bodied coupes always looks like a pleasant space to spend time, especially if you like driving but don’t want to get too involved. The isolation you’ll experience in this cockpit is second to none, a quality the personal luxury coupe market strove to bake into every one of these huge coupe-bodied conveyances. The interior of the Monte Carlo does look like that of a low mileage car, with untorn upholstery revealing no stains of any kind; spotless carpets; door panels that haven’t been hacked up; and a crack-free dashboard that retains all of its factory controls and gauges. Swivel seats were an option, but obviously not selected here. The Monte Carlo retains its OEM radio and comes with a CB as well.
The landau roof option should probably go down in the automotive history as one of the more curious of automotive styles and factory options. Diving into the results of a focus group that explained why consumers wanted this option in their faux luxury coupes would be worth of a read; I’m guessing it ties into car shoppers wanting to do anything possible to create the illusion of prestige, even at the risk of trapping moisture against the body in a fairly catastrophic fashion. Fortunately, this Monte Carlo doesn’t appear to suffer from these issues, and hopefully any issues would have been corrected when it was repainted.
I really dig the wheels on a car like this, which can look positively dowdy on the stock steel wheels and hubcaps. These mesh-look wheels have been bolted onto everything from shag carpeting-laden conversion vans to Mustang Cobra IIs, and they seemingly work well on almost any model from the 1970s. The chrome trim, lenses, bumpers, and glass all look to be in fine condition, and while the paint quality is impossible to assess from afar, it looks great in photos. The asking price seems a touch high to me, especially with the low miles not being verified, so hopefully the seller is serious about accepting reasonable offers.
This appears to be a really nice Monte; the wheel/tire combination suits the car perfectly. Without verification, low mileage is suspect. To me, this one would be perfect with full “gages”, swivel buckets and console, but I wouldn’t turn it down! GLWTA!! :-)
15k all right, if those miles were all below 25 mph stop and go. Look at the brake pedal. I’m suspecting 115k well-maintained miles.
Nice try, seller, but no vehicle with a 305 cid 2bbl is a “muscle car”…
Very Charlie’s Angels. The long hoods on these seem like they’d create some visibility problems in certain driving situations, but people seemed to like them. I think this is the last really stylish GM body of the 70s before the duller downsized versions took over.
I’m not a fan of the ’78-80 Monte Carlo at all, but the Malibu coupe was really attractive, particularly with no vinyl top to blunt the razor-edge look.
But if Charlie’s Angels had Chevys they’d be a Monza Towne Coupe, a Monza Spyder and a loaded Chevette (maybe a Sandpiper?)
Many dealers opted to do the landau installation in house back then. Had a 77 new in silver with a red landau. I recall the factory landaus had finishing edges that were an exact color match to the vinyl color. Correct me if I’m wrong but, this one looks like a dealer install. Nice looking unit, though the 305 had a tough time getting out of it’s own way.
I had a 1977 Monte Carlo Landau that was light blue metallic flake and a blue interior that had all the toys, but had the castrated 305. But still, the car was beautiful to see and a dream to drive.Wish I would have kept her now!
Housemate of mine back in the ’80s had the Buick stablemate of this car, the Regal. It had the 231 V6 in it. Wasn’t winning any speed contests but was a damn comfortable car on long drives. Not a bad car for the Malaise Era.
My best friend had a red and white landau with swivel bucket seats
My friend Dave had a 1977 in the early 1980s. Burnt orange w a white vinyl top; full power w the bench seat w center armrest. Nice ride and comfortable on the highway. Sharp cars but always thought they looked much better in NASCAR trim.
It certainly look like 15k miles based on the seats and interior trim. If 115k, it would appear to be very easy miles and otherwise babied. The price doesn’t seem crazy either way if it presents as well in person.
Nice looking car. I have an aunt who drove a Monte Carlo back in the day. I cannot remember what year hers was.
I had a 77 with the 305. It is not as bad as everybody says. My car was a very nice cruiser. My wife loved it. Sold it when she passed.
I do not know if it is the angle of the rear picture, but the bumper looks out of alignment, an easy fix, that should of been done. Too much red interior for my tastes. Overpriced with the 305, wait for a 350.
I had one of these in High School.
Really nice back seat. 😆
I am the original owner of a 1977 Monte Carlo. It has 61,000 miles, is mostly original and the interior of mine is also red and looks just as fine as this one does. Fun to drive – you just float down the road. It only goes to car shows where I have won many awards for it. Not selling it!!
I had a 73 w/factory 454, swivel buckets. Loved that car, except I had to replace 3 cams that went flat. Great cruiser and very thirsty…
I saw an episode of Hot Rod TV and the 305 was the topic. In the show,
they showed how to get some quick and decent horsepower out of a 305. That being said, it’s a pretty car and it has potential. Or just drive it.
Very good-looking car, this version of the Monte. Lots of show. But muscle in 1977 was purely a “no-go” on just about every car , thanks to heavily smogged-out engines. If I had this unit I would say to hell with stock, swap in an LS crate motor and beef up the tranny.
It’s examples like this why I just can’t bring myself to buy a car sight unseen off the internet. I wouldn’t be a buyer for a Monte Carlo, but there are often ads offering cars claiming ‘low original miles’. It’s just almost impossible to tell from on-line photos – anything can be made to look good. I keep thinking back to all the cars I’ve seen where there were such significant differences between what the seller was claiming, and then what I saw with my own eyes in person.
Years ago I looked at a Dodge Challenger that the seller swore had 35k original miles. I repeatedly pressed him on the phone and he kept promising it really was only 35k actual miles. When I traveled and got there in person, from down the driveway the car looked good. At 20 ft it was obvious that a few gallons of Armor-All had been slathered with a paintbrush on every surface. Though, the paint did look convincingly original.
The first hint of suspicion was when I opened the doors. They sagged, and the hinges were much looser than I’d expect for supposedly 35k miles. Second hint was the pedal covers were all new (and also dripping with Armor-All). The final proof was the oil change stickers I found in the driver’s door jamb (that the seller apparently overlooked): there were several over the past years, noting mileages of around 80k, 90k, 105k. Gotcha.
As I walked away, I looked back and saw the seller furiously scraping the stickers out of the door jamb, apparently getting the car ready for the next buyer to see.
Buyer beware. Always. There’s just nothing like seeing a car for yourself, in person. Especially a car that’s several decades old.
Any time I see blurry photos it sets off alarm bells. Soft focus can make things look much better than they are, as anyone who’s spent five minutes on a dating app can tell you. With the kind of cell phone cameras that are commonly available in 2020 we shouldn’t see ad photos that look like they were taken with a potato.
When it comes to any car with exceptionally low mileage I want to know why. What’s the story. Why does it have such low mileage?
Pedal pads in particular, especially the lower right corner of the brake pedal, are a good indication of mileage and we don’t get a clear view of the ones on this car thanks to the blurry photos. A car with 15,000 genuine miles, those should look almost completely new.
I had a 77 Monte Carlo, dark green with black Landau roof, and a 305 engine. My engine blew at 12,800 miles! The warranty expired at 12,000 miles so I was out of luck. Liked the car but a blown engine was too much. GM wouldn’t help one lick…
Repaint at 15K miles? Potential buyer….RUN THE OTHER WAY!!!!
The comment on the fact this car had a dealer installed Landau roof is correct. I was the assistant service manager at a busy Chevy Olds dealer in 1977. All moldings were color keyed to the roof. Painted metal. And they rusted badly. I had a 76 Mahogany colored MC with 305 and swivel buckets. One of the most reliable engines I ever owned. But rust. Oh man did it rust. Put 200,000 miles on that car before giving it away to my brother.
Dealer/aftermarket tops had ‘chrome’ edge moldings. They had to make them for the various tops that were installed on all kinds of cars. Only the factory tops had the color keyed moldings, and it’s a Landau, which means a rear VT was part of the package.
Have to make a clarification. The plastic chrome moldings on the wusrtet glass are correct. They are finally being reproduced. They dried up from excessive sun exposure. The painted white moldings on this white top are correct.
reason for the repaint ?