Sometimes having constraints forces designers and engineers to think outside the box, to do things that they would have normally just let slide in order to keep doing the same thing over and over again. Taking the easy way out is certainly more profitable but it doesn’t always give the best product. This 1985 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS is posted here on craigslist in Seymour, Connecticut and they’re asking $4,000. Here is the original listing.
The seller says this fourth-generation Monte Carlo SS is original and stock, and it has 87,716 miles – an average of 2,250 miles a year over the last 39 years. Said to be wearing its original paint, the seller has owned it since 2017 and it hasn’t been driven regularly since 2019. Since then, it’s been parked under a cover in their shop and they drive it once a year. I’d want to drive it at least once a month, but I get it, life gets in the way a lot of the time. Hagerty is at $11,700 for a #4 fair-condition car so this one is a no-brainer at $4,000.
The fourth-gen Monte Carlo was made from 1980 for the 1981 model year until the end of the 1988 model year and along with the redesigned and shrunken (at least on the outside) third-generation Monte Carlos, they were almost 800 pounds lighter than the 1977 models and about a foot shorter. That seems like a recipe for disaster as far as passenger comfort goes, but not in this case. The interior and trunk space were actually bigger than in the previous “bigger” Monte Carlos. That’s where my bit about having constraints sometimes makes designers come up with better ideas. As a former architect, I lived that mantra every day for years.
I expected to see a dark maroon velour interior here and this one doesn’t disappoint. We don’t get to see the back seat but I have to imagine it looks as nice or nicer than the front seats do. The seller provides a few underside photos showing what appears to be normal to somewhat heavy surface rust after almost four decades, and they also have a full trunk photo in the mix. There were only 16,204 Monte Carlo SS models made for the 1988 model year.
The dusty engine is Chevrolet’s 305-cu.in. OHV V8 with 180 horsepower and 235 lb-ft of torque when new. Backed by a four-speed automatic sending power to the rear wheels, this one hasn’t been started in a while but the seller is confident it’ll fire right up and I bet they’re right. At $4,000 this is a no-brainer, have any of you owned a Monte Carlo from this era?
It’s weird now how dated this car looks because I remember when they were new. This one looks really tired though. It would take quite a few bucks to get it freshened up so I think 4 grand is about all it’s worth.
How slow it was compared to a grand national
Nice cars, 3.73 std gear helped their underpowered drivetrain. Ken in 85 … the pre intercooled Buicks, the race may have been closer.
I know, I have an 86 I bought in 88 and put a grand national drivetrain in it in 1990, how much fun it is now!
I had an 87 with T-tops. Fun car to drive. Not the fastest but handled great. Chose it over the Grand National because I heard the V-6 in the Buicks were having issues with leaking heads. Wish I picked the Grand National. This one looks like it will clean up nice, worth 4K
I agree, it would clean up nicely, it’s never going to be perfect without money involved so you might as well spend that money making it spicier with a decent crate 350 and a performance build on the 2004R. That would get you a very respectable weekend cruiser.
I had a silver 87 with the same interior. Great car. Rode nice, handled well, reasonable fuel economy, spacious trunk, easy to work on and parts were cheap. Had plans to build and install a 4 bolt main 400 CI small block I had but sold the car to raise money to finish my 68 442 convertible. Still, that Monte, my 95 Impala Ss are two cars I wish I still had today.
Is there ever one of these posts where someone doesn’t comment that the car needs a bigger engine? Ever?
There’s nothing fun about driving an underpowered car.
It is better to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow.
There is a large G-body enthusiast community that builds cars with more power and bigger engines. You know, what hot-rodders have been doing since bootleggers started doing it a century ago. I’m not sure why you would find this a crazy idea on an enthusiast website.
180 hp isn’t much these days. I have an “economy car” in the garage with more horsepower.
At least I didn’t suggest a full-out twin turbo LS build. A 350 is what these cars needed when new (I know, I owned one) and keeps it in the spirit of the model…how long did Monte Carlos come with a 350? The 1984 Mexican SS had a 350…and a four speed from the factory!
Wow JDC, up early. I think I looked on the web for performance parts for these 307 ci engines once, for giggles. And it just wasn’t worth it for the cost. The performance bump was negligible. This was the malaise era remember and engines were detuned for mileage gains. Now we have technology in new cars to maximize power and gas mileage but back then… The problem is if you want to stay Chevy they’re all either turbo fours or V8 crate engines. Or I guess you could enjoy as is. It is a cruiser.
I take it back. I must have been looking in the wrong place. Motor Trend reported a build that made 315 hp. No matter the listing has been removed by poster.
Easy to make a 305 make 230-250, with just the RIGHT exhaust and intake upgrades. A cam will also work well here with the 3.73s in the rear, so that is a bonus and you can probably get 275-300 without upgrading the heads. You can still make bigger power still with the right heads. Nothing wrong with these engines. The meat heads that think they’re 350s and try to build them the same way and get then get bad results are quick to blame the engine, however the issue is their unscientific approach to the build. Plenty of dyno tests out there that demonstrate if you build a 305 the same way you build a Ford 302, you get the same results within a margin of error. This includes not only HP, but torque and even the torque curve.
I had a 84 Blue bran new ,was a great car, looked great and ran great for what it was .blue was a rear color wasnt many of them .still think its an eye catcher and with the turbo 350 tranny in it no over drive in 84,I thought it ran better then the with ones with overdrive.
The 200R4 has a lower 1st gear ratio than the turbo 350, 400 and the 700R4, and should have run substantially better than the Turbo 350. The early TH350 cars came with 3:42 rear gear, while the later with the 200R4 OD transmissions came with a 3:73 rear gear. I had an 87, it was far from a “performance car” even with the “high Output” 305. I will say for a little 305, they had decent acceleration.
Pops bought mom one of these brand new in ’85 and it was a real looker. Burgundy over burgundy with T-tops that leaked like a sieve. Pop wasn’t about to put up with that so after taking it back to the dealership a half dozen times and coming out worse for wear, (belt buckle scratches on the door, goobered up silicon on the T-top gaskets & now leaking worse than before) he was finally able to do a direct swap for another one this time without the T-tops.
It was a good looking car but with all its 180 hairy-chested horse power it was the very definition of a sheep in wolves clothing. It would be a great platform to hotrod.