Thought exercise - what was wrong with my old Chevy?

wavinwayne

wavinwayne

Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
8,230
Location
North Alabama
Sitting here on my lunch break and came across some pictures online of a beautiful restored 80s Monte Carlo. It was very similar to my first car, a 1983 Monte Carlo with the 3.8L V6. It sent me down memory lane, and got me wondering about all the problems mine had. I bought the car in 1989 (with money from a part time teenager job) with a little over 100k miles on it. It wasn't in great shape but it was all I could afford; I didn't have parents that could buy me a car.

My Monte Carlo smoked extremely bad on startup but not too much after. It also leaked and burned oil to the tune of about a quart a week. I drove it for 3 years until I could afford something a little better, and I never did anything to try and fix the smoking or the oil leaking/burning. Given the 3.8L engine and >100k mileage, what do you all think was wrong with it?
 
TomYoung said:
Valve seals, burnt valves, cracked head from overheating, piston rings, dead cylinders, pcv, oil leaks... probably 20 more things. You must accept that the car is long gone, and you'll never know.
Click to expand...
🙂 Honestly I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did. I put about 60k miles on it with very minimal maintenance.
 
My maternal grandmother might say to you, "Turn around and face front".

As one BITOGer to another, I'd guess that poor car endured every possible avenue of neglect on the part of previous owners.

How much did you pay for it and from whom did you buy it?
 
Unless it was a California-market car, your ‘83 would have the Chevy small block V8-derived 229 cubic inch V6. California-bound V6 cars got the Buick V8-derived 231 (because better emissions I suppose). SBC V8s and their V6 derivatives often had bad valve stem seals, and would smoke upon startup. Even well-maintained examples would do this. My ‘85 GMC smoked spectacularly at startup, but still only used maybe a quart between oil changes (at 35 years old/100k+). The 1987 engine design changes greatly reduced this issue, as well as rear seal oil leaks. It took GM over 30 years to remedy the issue.

The other issues like excessive oil consumption sound more like neglect under previous owners. It probably needed a new PCV valve and perhaps a piston soak if the rings were sticking… of course if the cylinder bores were just worn, only a rebuild/replacement would fix that.

The leaks… that’s just a common old Chevy thing, greatly improved for ‘87.
 
wavinwayne said:
Sitting here on my lunch break and came across some pictures online of a beautiful restored 80s Monte Carlo. It was very similar to my first car, a 1983 Monte Carlo with the 3.8L V6. It sent me down memory lane, and got me wondering about all the problems mine had. I bought the car in 1989 (with money from a part time teenager job) with a little over 100k miles on it. It wasn't in great shape but it was all I could afford; I didn't have parents that could buy me a car.

My Monte Carlo smoked extremely bad on startup but not too much after. It also leaked and burned oil to the tune of about a quart a week. I drove it for 3 years until I could afford something a little better, and I never did anything to try and fix the smoking or the oil leaking/burning. Given the 3.8L engine and >100k mileage, what do you all think was wrong with it?
Click to expand...
I'll play the devels advocate: There wasn't anything wrong with a 1987 chevy with 100k on the clock that burns a quart of oil a week, smokes some and got you where you needed to be for three years. It performed as expected for that vintage auto.
 
SeaJay said:
I'll play the devels advocate: There wasn't anything wrong with a 1987 chevy with 100k on the clock that burns a quart of oil a week, smokes some and got you where you needed to be for three years. It performed as expected for that vintage auto.
Click to expand...
+2

At least it was driveable. I had to push my first car everywhere I wanted to go!
 
The basic issue was they were just plain horrible cars with horrible quality control, out of the box.
We had a brand new '82 with the Buick 231 in it.
Two days out of the dealership it was on a truck back when it wouldn't start (New battery and alternator.)
At about 3K miles, I'm driving it down the road @25 MPH, and the crank snaps (batch that were defective due to casting issues.)
Sold it at 13K to a family friend that absolutely hounded us until we sold it to her.
She bought it eyes wide open. Nothing was hidden from her.
By 21K, it had another engine and transmission in it.
This vehicle was the poster child for the Lemon Law.
If the rest of the car worked as well as the "Check Engine" light did (seriously, it was quality-it never failed to work) we'd still be driving it.
 
PF52 said:
+2

At least it was driveable. I had to push my first car everywhere I wanted to go!
Click to expand...
It was driveable, and only left me stranded once. The magic smoke came out of the transmission a few months before I got rid of it.

The most important thing, though....it was so clean you could have eaten off the floorboards and it looked GOOD! It was nearly identical to the one pictured below, but mine was white. No pictures of mine survive.

Monte Carlo.jpg
 
My folks had a white '83 Monte with the Bu 231. Beautiful car, classy as heck! It ran hot from day 1. I put 7 blade fan in it, but it still ran hot. Replaced the skinny radiator out of desperation in this new car! Solved the problem.

Plug changes were fun with all that plumbing, etc. After a number of years, my brother had it in his shop and dialed in the carb on his scope. I drove it home over the Santa Cruz Mountains and it ran like the 1st day we brought it home.

I don't remember it going through any oil; I did 3K services. In fact, I don't think it ever went into a shop for a problem. Very dependable; my folks gave it to my sister and BIL at about 80K I believe.

The local low riders would leave notes on the car offering to purchase it.
 
Last edited:
I was always more of a Malibu guy, probably because my dad had a '79 as a company car for a few years. The new styling on the dashboard seemed almost futuristic compared to older cars at the time and although I realize the usual "mouse fur" GM fabric is looked down upon nowadays it sure was comfortable. I couldn't tell you what engine it had though.
 
wavinwayne said:
It was driveable, and only left me stranded once. The magic smoke came out of the transmission a few months before I got rid of it.

The most important thing, though....it was so clean you could have eaten off the floorboards and it looked GOOD! It was nearly identical to the one pictured below, but mine was white. No pictures of mine survive.

View attachment 184959
Click to expand...
I always liked this body style.
 
Jack up the fuel cap, remove Chevy, install Toyota, reinstall gas cap. Problem solved...
 
grampi said:
Jack up the fuel cap, remove Chevy, install Toyota, reinstall gas cap. Problem solved...
Click to expand...
Seriously? He wasn’t asking for you to bash his old car, he was asking what might have been wrong with it. You whine about off topic responses in your threads, so, what, just jump in and do the same to others? C’mon man.
 
Astro14 said:
Seriously? He wasn’t asking for you to bash his old car, he was asking what might have been wrong with it. You whine about off topic responses in your threads, so, what, just jump in and do the same to others? C’mon man.
Click to expand...
You have absolutely no sense of humor, do you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Thoughts and opinions on 2012 beetle 2.0tsi
2
Replies
27
Views
819
edyvw
C
What's considered an old car?
4 5 6
Replies
102
Views
4K
sarity945
B
2018 Durango will be getting a new radiator this week
Replies
12
Views
647
Exhaustgases
D
Wrongly Blamed at Work for a Mistake?
2 3
Replies
55
Views
4K
Pablo
M
Jumpstart with wrong terminals
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
Delta
Back
Top