High-performance Monte Carlo

High-performance Monte Carlo

The Pick of the Day is Chevrolet’s popular coupe factory equipped with a 402cid V8

The Chevrolet Monte Carlo was enormously popular going into the 1970s, a so-called “personal luxury car” that hit the right spot during the early days of the disco era. 

While most Monte Carlos were equipped with the standard 350cid V8, there were a few performance options that turned these boulevard cruisers into bona fide sleeper muscle cars.  One of the top models came equipped with the Turbo Jet 400 engine, a 402cid (6.6 liters) V8 with a four-barrel carburetor that cranked out 330 horsepower and 410 pound-feet of torque. 

Monte Carlo

The Monte Carlo was a stylistic standout

The Pick of the Day is a 1970 Chevrolet Monte Carlo factory equipped with the beefy 402, TH400 automatic transmission, Edelbrock carb and intake, dual exhaust and 12-bolt rear end.  Although there were 454 SS versions of the 1970 Monte Carlo, rated at 360 horsepower, these were not great sellers and rarely seen today.

This Monte Carlo in its original Shadow Gray metallic paint, has a black vinyl roof, chrome sport mirrors and 15-inch Rally wheels. The “highly detailed” engine bay is fitted with a chrome dress-up kit, according to the Clearwater, Florida, dealer advertising the Chevy on ClassicCars.com.

Monte Carlo

The premium interior includes an aftermarket steering wheel

As befitting a premium craft, the interior is fully accessorized with power and convenience goodies, with a woodgrain-trimmed dash, AM/FM cassette radio and an aftermarket Grant steering wheel. 

The mileage shown is a very low 44,445, and the car is largely original.  And the numbers match, the seller notes.

The asking price for this enjoyable and attractive coupe is just $29,900.

To view this listing on ClassicCars.com, see Pick of the Day.

12 comments

Related Posts

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply

12 Comments

  • Chuck Parker
    August 17, 2018, 3:10 AM

    Believe you have the 400 vs 402 backwards
    400=small block
    402=big block

    REPLY
  • Don Manning
    August 17, 2018, 3:30 AM

    You should research your post before making statement that are absolutely incorrect!!!! The 400/402 was a big block the 400 was a small block they two completely different engines and way different in hp

    REPLY
  • Patrick Kissane
    August 17, 2018, 4:42 AM

    I like that truck I just have a few questions. 1 is it running 2.how much. 3. What’s the body like, does it have a serious rust problem, and 4.where is it?
    Thanks for your time
    Patrick Kissane

    REPLY
  • Chuck E. Cheese
    August 17, 2018, 6:57 AM

    I believe the 400ci Chevy was the “SMALL BLOCK” with the Siamesed cylinders. They had to have special head gaskets or you had problems with heat dissipation.

    REPLY
  • Bob Golfen
    August 17, 2018, 8:58 AM

    Sorry, got the numbers backwards 402 was indeed the big block and 400 was small block. I removed that reference

    REPLY
    • John Ladd@Bob Golfen
      August 17, 2018, 9:47 AM

      6.6 liters? Really?

      REPLY
      • Bob Golfen@John Ladd
        August 17, 2018, 12:08 PM

        Yes

        REPLY
        • Tim Teegarden@Bob Golfen
          August 17, 2018, 1:05 PM

          I’m curious what formula you used for converting cubic inches to liters. I always used one liter equals 61 cubic inches. The GM 5.0 liter was 305 c.i., the 6.0 liter was 366 c.i., my Pinto that was my first new car 46 years ago was a 2.0 liter(122 c.i.) Ford had a straight 6 engine 300 c.i.-4.9 c.i., and their 302 was listed as a 5.0 liter. Was that to avoid confusion or was that rounding the numbers close to what thy should be? If it was rounding the numbers that would make the 400/402 both 6.6 liters. I enjoy this site. Thank you

          REPLY
          • Jett Crash@Tim Teegarden
            August 18, 2018, 2:31 PM

            Ford basically rounded the 4986 cubic centimetres of the engine up to give us the renowned 5.0L. The 4.9L in-line 6 was just a truck or van engine, and came in at 4918 cc, so they must have figured there was no point.

            REPLY

Search the Journal

Latest Articles