1970 Monte Carlo: Better Late Than Never

1970 Monte Carlo: Better Late Than Never - Shannons Club
Insurance
Events
Club
Get a Quote
1970 Monte Carlo: Better Late Than Never
Vehicles
Enthusiasts
News
Videos
Events
Forum
Directory
Clubs
View All Vehicles
View All Enthusiasts
View All News
View All Videos
View All Events
View All Forum
View All Businesses
View All Clubs
Join the Club
Login
Home
Vehicles
Enthusiasts
News
Videos
Events
Forum
Directory
Clubs
Win
Login
Join the Club
FAQs
Terms and Conditions
Privacy Statement
Cookie and Data Policy
Contact
© 2018 Shannons
Return to News
1970 Monte Carlo: Better Late Than Never
69.2K Views
20 Comments
Share
Retroautos
By DavidBurrell - 14 October 2025
In its first year, Chevrolets 1970 Monte Carlo outsold its main rival, Fords Thunderbird, almost three to one. It was hailed as an automotive success and continued to lead the sales charts for over 20 years.
Monte Carlos advertising was pitched at aspiring and increasingly affluent baby boomers.
Chevrolets belated success in the personal car category has overshadowed another issue. Why did Chevrolet wait 12 years to create the Monte Carlo after the release of the four-seater 1958 Thunderbird?
The reason is simple. They were caught off guard by a fast moving and much less risk averse Ford, with, from 1960, Lee Iacocca at its helm supported by a cadre of smart, future focused young executives wanting to beat Chevrolet and GM.
GMs design boss, Bill Mitchell, recalled the impact of the 1958 four-seater Thunderbird had at GM in a 1984 interview with the Benson Ford Research Centre:
Out comes the Thunderbird. Oh, (they) caught us, and we didn't have a four passenger (car like it).
And it was not just the 58 T-Bird that caught Chevrolet and GM asleep. You can add the 1960 Falcon, 1962 Fairlane and 1964 Mustang to the list. Essentially, Ford, the number two in the market, was pioneering new segments with appealing cars, relegating market leader GM to the status of a mere follower
The 1958 personal car battle: Thunderbird versus Impala. Not sure if the Model T was relevant.
In his interview, Mitchell went on to describe the immediate reaction of GMs dealers to the T-Bird and their disappointment with GMs president, John Gordon for not having an equivalent.
The dealers got after him and letters came in. So, Gordon told me to see what we could do.
Back then, all Mitchell could do to placate GMs dealers was to instigate a project which ultimately ended up as the 1963 Buick Riviera.
Two proposals for GMs Thunderbird competitor, photographed in late 1958 and 1959.
In the meantime, Chevrolet portrayed its full sized 58 Impala as a Thunderbird competitor and Pontiac did similar with its Bonneville. In 1961 Oldsmobile touted its new Starfire as a T-Bird alternative and in 1962 Pontiac switched its focus from the limo-like Bonneville to the slightly smaller Grand Prix. Please see my April 2021 Retroautos® story about the 1963 Riviera for a longer discussion. Theres a link at the end
Oldsmobiles Starfire and Pontiacs Grand Prix.
The 1960 Falcon was another example of Ford leading GM. Rather than create a simple and economical compact car, GM invested billions of dollars (in todays money) in the rear engine Corvair. And we all know what happen there. GM realised its error, and 14 months later the 1962 Chevy II/Nova appeared. A Falcon clone if ever the was one.
Ford sold 456,000 Falcons in its first year. The Chevy II/Novas styling was finalised by September 1960.
Ford again set the benchmark in 1962 with the release of the mid-sized Fairlane. GMs product planners initially considered the segment to be unviable. When they realised the potential, GM had to fast track the development of its own mid-sizers. By the time GMs cars appeared in 1964, Ford had sold 544,000 Fairlanes.
The Fairlane popularise the intermediate size market. The Chevelle was another of GMs rushed projects to catch Ford.
Ford moved the goal posts again with the Mustang, creating the pony car craze. Once again, GM was initially sceptical of the new car. Once again, they had to quickly develop the 1967 Camaro/Firebird twins. You can read my story about how GM lost the opportunity to have a Camaro in 1965 in the February 2023 Retroautos® . There is a link at the end.
It was not until early 1967 that Chevrolets product planners finally admitted the division needed to a T-Bird equivalent. No doubt they were also anxious at Pontiacs plans to downsize its Grand Prix for a 1969 release and take the fight to the T-Bird. They did not want to be left behind, again.
Pontiacs downsized 69 Grand Prix featured the longest bonnet on a post-war American car.
In an interview with Car and Driver in 1970, Chevrolets chief engineer, Alec Mair and chief designer David Holls, gave their version of why Chevrolet was so slow to respond to the T-Bird:
(Chevrolet) already had a full line of Chevelles and Impalas that overlapped in price and function, so there was not much sense in building another model to nip away at sales of those it already had. To be a success the Monte Carlo had to be a conquest car.
By a conquest car, Mair and Holls meant a model that took sales from the opposition or created a new market segment. Mair and Holls were confident about how that had to be achieved:
The way to do that was with styling…a distinct appearance…a car that looked expensive and traditional.
An October 1967 rendering of a Monte Carlo proposal. The formal lines were evident right from the start.
Holls believed a key component of that distinctive appearance was a seriously long bonnet and short boot, if only to match what Pontiac were doing with their Grand Prix.
The design packaged stipulated a 116 inch/2946mm wheelbase. To keep costs down, it was mandated that the Monte Carlo be underpinned by an existing Chevrolet platform.
The full-sized Chevrolet was considered too wide and too long to shrink. The Holden Kingswood-sized Nova proved too costly to stretch and widen. Plus, its coupe was pillared. Holls wanted a hardtop for the Monte Carlo. That left the 1968 Chevelle. Its hardtop coupe sat on a 112 inch /2845mm wheelbase and the sedan on 116 inches/2946mm.
The 1968 Chevelle coupe and four door.
Now, you might think that the Chevelle sedan chassis was the perfect solution to support the Monte Carlo. Not so. The problem was that all the sedans extra inches were devoted to the passenger area aft of the firewall. For the Monte Carlo, a car that was all about a distinctive shape and a very long bonnet, those additional sedan inches were in the absolute wrong place.
To get the vast bonnet the Chevelle coupe was chosen, and the extra wheelbase inches/mm were added ahead of the firewall. Then just to make sure, another four inches/100mm were added to the front overhan
The Monte Carlos bonnet almost equalled the Grand Prixs.
Stretching the front of the car delivered engineering cost savings and other benefits. The engine did not have to be moved in the Chevelle chassis. This created better weight distribution. Further, the Chevelles existing engine linkages, driveshaft, transmission location, air-conditioning conduits, wipers and most of its wiring loom could be used. More costs were saved by carrying over the Chevelles rear window, boot lid, roof, pillars, suspension and much of the cars inner structure including its cowl and firewall
Initial sketches set the styling theme. This bold front end was considered too extreme.
The upside for Holls was that the engineering savings were redeployed to fund the Monte Carlos exclusive sheet metal and luxurious interior.
The styling of the Monte Carlo was not a complicated process. Because the basic shape was derived from Chevelle, the main styling theme was in place by late 1967. From then on it was a matter of refinement
The first clay model featured a vinyl roof. The smaller limousine-like rear window was rejected for production. Razor sharp fenders resemble those of the 1967 Cadillac Eldorado.
Designers experimented with headlights in the bumper bar.…

Text scraped from the landing page for research purposes. © respective owners. This text is sourced from the advertiser's public landing page; for removal, contact dmca@luba.media.