David Mau
-
Posts
266 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Articles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Posts posted by David Mau
-
-
Yeah, that IS a nice picture, isn't it?
Some of those pictures were used in Collectible Automobile magazine's excellent article that follows the Monte Carlo's history from the '70 through the '77 models, which was in the April 1987 issue.
The caption that is underneath the assembly line photograph in the article says "1970 Monte Carlos come off the line at Chevy's Flint, Michigan plant. Model year production was a smashing 130,657."
Some of those other photographs (which are included in the magazine article as well) appear to be of pre-production cars, as they don't yet have the chrome hood spear or the horizontal chrome trim at the bottom of the fender caps below the headlamps.
LLOYD - It very well could be a Shadow Grey car off to the left. I'll show you the picture in my copy of the magazine some time in the near future.
IAN - Yeah, wouldn't you just love to be able to walk into your local Chevy dealer, sit down, and while looking at the new Monte Carlo sales brochure, fill out your order form for your brand new Monte? Imagine checking off the option boxes to get it just the way you want it. Man, those were the days! All those years ago...
Dave
[This message has been edited by David Mau (edited 09-24-2002).]
-
The 15" x 8" rally wheels are also available with 4 1/2" backspacing. I believe that the backspacing used on them for Corvettes was 4", which seem to be the most common when it comes to the 15" x 8" size.
If one were to get the 15" x 8"s with the 4 1/2" backspacing, chances are that the trim rings sized for the 15" x 7"s would have to be used. I wouldn't think that any body modifications would be necessary with this size/backspacing and the 245 or 255/60-15 size tires, however.
Dave
-
Well, the owner of the smokin' blue Monte Carlo must be a member of the NMCOA (National Monte Carlo Owners Association) because those same photos are on their website in the "Photos" area in the "1970-72" section. Go to www.MonteCarloClub.com and you'll find them.
Dave
-
That's a good question, Aaron. My car had all of the black trim paint off of it when I bought it, too.
The white car that I saw at the Super Chevy Show on Saturday had its vinyl top trim apparently repainted. It was very well done. Although simply having it stripped off like our cars currently are looks fine, the black inline paint on the trim IS correct, and it does add some nice detailing.
Whatever the best kind of paint to use could also possibly be used to re-do the interior horizontal door and rear quarter trim black detail striping, too.
Thanks,
Dave
-
That's interesting that you used to live in Spokane, Mike! I don't think that I've ever been to Spokane myself, but my mom has a cousin that lives in Davenport, which isn't all that far from Spokane - and I've been there. I lived my first four years in the Kent area (about half an hour south of Seattle), and then we moved to Olympia (about an hour and ten minutes south of Seattle) in '67. I officially moved to Seattle in the mid-'80s when I was attending art school here.
I also have a cousin that lives in Fort Worth, Texas, and another in Houston. My wife and I just saw them all when we were on vacation down there in June! I would love to visit in the south again some day.
Dave
-
Good point, Carl. From what I understand, wheel backspacing is measured by placing a straight edge across the back lip of the wheel, running roughly through the center. Then measuring the distance from the backside of the center mounting flange (hub) to the straight edge.
If the factory 15" x 7" rally wheels have 4 1/2" backspacing, and the 15" x 8" Corvette rally wheels have 4" backspacing, then the Corvette rally wheels should appear to be 1 1/2" deeper on the OUTSIDE, right?
Like I mentioned, my 15" x 7" Cragar S/S wheels have 4" backspacing, so they should appear to be 1/2" deeper (when viewed from the outside of the car) than a 15" x 7" rally wheel, if the rally has 4 1/2" backspacing. I'm trying to visualize where the various rally wheels would fit in contrast to my old Cragars that are currently on the car.
Thanks,
Dave
-
Mike,
I would love to attend the Gran Sport Nationals in Bowling Green, if I'm ever down that way. Personally, I think that most of the Gran Sports are every bit as good looking as a Chevelle. I have a certain fondness for all of the GM cars from the muscle-car era (especially the mid-size A-bodied cousins), and I'm pleased that one of their products, the Buick GS, often comes out on top in the drags! I have always liked the early Rivieras, too.
My first car was a '70 Cutlass Supreme with the Rocket 350, 310hp 4bbl high-compression engine. That was the same engine that Olds used in the Sebring Yellow Rallye 350s (sort of a junior 442) and the W-31 optioned Cutlasses. It was a plenty "healthy" car for a teenager, too! I always planned on keeping my first car, but a guy broadsided me on the drivers' side with his pickup truck, which trashed the Cutlass' front end and bent the frame and body. His insurance company totalled both it and his truck, so after that incident I looked for my second car. I was keeping an open mind as to what I was looking for, but I knew that it would most likely be an example of GM muscle. That was in late '85. After I found my '70 Monte Carlo SS454 for sale, I did some research about the model. I thought that it was a great and well-balanced combination of looks, style, comfort and performance. So, in early '86 I bought it!
Sure, I no longer have my first car. But I've still got my second one! If I was a rich guy, and could have a large garage with several classic cars in it, you can bet that a Buick GS would be in there, too. You've got good taste, Mike.
Dave
-
Uh-oh, there appears to be some confusion as to the original amount of backspacing on the factory 15" x 7" rally wheels, then.
We have the 4" figure from Mr70Monte.
We have the 4 1/4" measurement from Ed.
Year One states that the OEM backspacing on these wheels was 4 1/2".
I have seen BOTH the 4 1/4" and 4 1/2" measurement listed in The Paddock catalog!
Thanks for your help, guys, but unfortunately my confusion still continues! LOL
Dave
[This message has been edited by David Mau (edited 08-22-2002).]
-
They're the same as standard 15" x 7" Cragar S/S wheels, then.
Thanks, Mr70Monte!
Dave
-
I am curious as to what the backspacing on the factory 15" x 7" rally wheel was. The ones that are available from various sources today, in both 15" x 7" and 15" x 8" sizes, are typically available in a couple of different backspacing measurements for each size.
Thanks!
Dave
-
Mike,
Is the '70 454/450hp LS-6 really only rated at 450 lbs/ft of torque? I have always seen the '70 454/360 LS-5, used in the "standard" Chevelle SS454s and Monte Carlo SS454s rated at 500 lbs/ft!
As I mentioned in what I wrote above, test drivers themselves, test conditions, rear-end gear ratios and other factors can affect the times that the cars ran. To REALLY match them up fairly they would have to be tested with the same driver, at the same track during the same weather conditions and temperature, with similar options, similar transmissions, same rear-end gear ratios, and same type of tires of a similar size. That's the thing; there are SO many variables! Sure, the Buick GS was the fastest according to the test times that are listed, but who actually tested each of them, and what rear-end gear ratio did each test car have? What transmission? What...?
I'm not saying that the Buick GS wasn't, in fact, the fastest. I'm just saying that we don't know all the variables that came into play here that led to the test results shown in the times stated above. Each of them were fast cars, and the test result times shown could easily vary depending on a lot of factors.
No matter how you slice it, though, the Monte Carlo SS454 is right there in the mix with other well-known, well-promoted muscle cars of the day, and that was my initial point with this post. Now, when you factor in the Monte's better weight distribution (due to its engine positioning in the chassis) than every other car listed and the fact that it was built to be a "premium" car, its star shines even a little brighter.
Dave
[This message has been edited by David Mau (edited 08-20-2002).]
-
Thanks, guys!
BEN - I figured that SOMEBODY would find it interesting!
MIKE - Personally, I think that the '70 Buick GS cars are really cool. You've got a really nice pair of convertibles there!
JIM - Thanks for posting those other Motor Trend test times. I remembered that the Monte was the fastest, but I just couldn't remember the times of the Grand Prix. The Grand Prix was just a little bigger than the Monte, as it had a 118" wheelbase at the time compared to the Monte Carlo's 116". I think that the '70 Thunderbird, however, would have squared off better against a '70 Riviera and a '70 Toronado.
Dave
-
Bob Hansen's post titled "Factory 0-60 times" last week in the General Forum got me to thinking as to how the Monte Carlo compared with other vehicles of similar size/engine combinations, so I did a bit of research.
Most of the times that I have quoted are listed in the June 1981 Consumer Guide publication, "Muscle Cars", which I purchased when I was still a senior in high school - over 21 years ago! They are compiled from magazines that originally tested the cars when the cars themselves were new.
Most magazines concurred that musclecars were great straight-line performers, but throwing them into a curve was a different story. By '70, however, GM had upgraded its high-performance suspensions with beefier front anti-sway bars and added rear anti-sway bars as well. Therefore, the Chevelle SS models and the Monte Carlo SS454 were considered by automotive writers of the day to be "true GT" cars.
Consumer Guide's "Muscle Cars" said the following about the Monte Carlo: "Chevrolet's personal-luxury Monte Carlo was born at its performance peak. And although you might not think so, it got into the muscle-car act... Surprisingly, Monte Carlo became an extremely popular choice for stock-car racing. Short-track racers had discovered early that its engine sat further back in the chassis relative to overall length, making for more even front/rear weight distribution than in the shorter Chevelle. Even though it left something to be desired in aerodynamics on the big tracks, Monte Carlo was nearly unbeatable on the shorter ones, and brought Chevrolet's victory total up from nowhere."
Motor Trend tested the all-new '70 Monte Carlo SS454 in their December, 1969 issue, and pitted it against the '70 Pontiac Grand Prix SJ with a 455, and a Ford Thunderbird with a 429, I believe it was. They stated that "the new Monte Carlo is an unqualified success in every respect". I can't seem to find my copy of that article at this time, so if anyone knows what the Grand Prix ran, please feel free to add to the list!
Because automotive testers, test conditions, rear-end gear ratios and other factors all varied, these results for each model could have easily varied from what is shown, too. Also keep in mind that all of these numbers were arrived at on factory equipment bias-ply 70 series tires at best! I'm sure that all of these times could be reduced further by running today's wider, stickier tires which would allow the cars better traction.
Here are some times from original 1969-70 road tests:
1970 Buick GS-455: 455/360hp. 0-60 in 5.5 sec. 1/4 mi.@13.4.
1970 Chevrolet Chevelle SS396: 402/350hp. 0-60 in 8.1 sec. 1/4 mi.@15.5.
1970 Chevrolet Chevelle SS454: 454/450hp. 0-60 in 6.0 sec. 1/4 mi.@13.8.
1970 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS454: 454/360hp. 0-60 in 7.0 sec. 1/4 mi.@14.9.
1970 Dodge Charger R/T: 440/375hp. 0-60 in 7.2 sec. 1/4 mi.@14.7.
1970 Ford Torino Cobra: 429/370hp. 0-60 in 6 sec. 1/4 mi.@14.5.
1970 Oldsmobile 442 W-30: 455/370hp. 0-60 in 5.7 sec. 1/4 mi.@14.4.
1970 Plymouth Roadrunner: 440/390hp. 0-60 in 6.6 sec. 1/4 mi.@14.1.
1970 Pontiac GTO: 455/360hp. 0-60 in 6.6 sec. 1/4 mi.@14.8.
Dave
[This message has been edited by David Mau (edited 08-15-2002).]
-
Hooter,
I believe that the black cloth interior fabric is available from Year One. They refer to it as "Prima cloth", but I think that in the 1970 sales brochure it's referred to as "knitcloth".
I have this same original nylon/cloth material on the seating surfaces of my '70 black bucket seat/console interior, and I love it! It's durable, comfortable, and has a nice, simple stitching pattern. If all you need is to re-cover the front seat, I would recommend replacing it with the same material. That way it will match what your backseat already has, which is the same pattern that is used on the '70 door panel centers, too. You can't go wrong with that!
Dave
-
I like the practical NASCAR-type looks of this one, Andreas. It seems to be more in keeping with the looks of the FGMC bodystyle. Y'all done good!
Dave
-
MONTE -
Take a look at what I had to say in reply to Heartbeat704spd's question in his post "Is it knitcloth?"
The "custom knit nylon" cloth was available for Strato-Bucket seats for '70 in black only, and I will testify that it is VERY long-wearing. My black '70 interior with this fabric is original, and there is not a single rip or tear in the nylon "cloth" material yet - just a couple places on the driver's seat where some of the sewn-in threads have come out. The only rip that I have is at a seam where the top and side of the VINYL area joins together.
These seat covers look just like the all-vinyl versions, except that the "custom knit nylon" seating areas are dull black in appearance compared to the shiny black vinyl sides.
I believe that Year One also sells these seat covers which they refer to as "Prima cloth".
Hope this helps,
Dave
P.S. I'll e-mail you the same partial interior pictures that I sent Heartbeat704spd yesterday for you to take a peek at.
[This message has been edited by David Mau (edited 03-08-2002).]
Nice picture
in Tech Archive
Posted
Yeah Bruce, those days of delivering the Detroit News and cutting grass sure DID pay off for you! I'm glad that you have great memories of ordering your car - and I'm sure that it has given you many more to go along with it.
It's funny how inexpensive a lot of those options seem to have been - when you look at the prices of cars and options today. You chose some good ones, you got your money's worth, and you've got a keeper there!
Dave