Jump to content

95-99 Lumina and Monte


Recommended Posts

Posted

I like these cars (95-99 Chevy W's) , I have heard on here though that they don't have good brakes and that they are worst than 88-93, I was wondering if this is true?

Posted

where'd you hear that from?

 

i think they are a step above the first gen cars but nothing to spectaular...a couple more options and advances but that's about it

Posted

on this board a long time ago before, one of my friends has a monte Z34 and i really like it .

Posted

Yeah the brakes suck, but you can easily remedy that by first adding some EBC Greenstuff pads on the front, and second by converting the rear drums to discs.

 

The 95-01 Loomies seem kinda cheap in their construction, but that's to be expected from Chevy's of that era. The Luminas and Montes were built more for sales volume than top-shelf quality and it shows. Not that they're bad cars by any means, actually they're quite solid and reliable, but I mean that if you compare it to a, say, Buick LeSabre, you'll definitely notice a certain "lack of substance." I can't exactly put my finger on it, other than say that they are "definitely Chevy's." Maybe the lack of "substance" is a lack of extra sound deadining, or cheaper materials used in the interior, or something of that nature...

 

I'll give those cars this, though: They're a great value for the money. They sold in such a high volume that the Blue Book values remain low compared to similar models. You get a lot of car for what you pay for them...

Posted

I personally love my '96 Monte and wouldn't change a thing about it. Well except the broken armrest... electrical problems... busted bass/treble knobs. Umm other then that she's a keeper :wink: PLus I've never had a problem with my brakes. There's an easy solution to it.. don't buy cheap brake accesories.

Posted

They were made in my hometown so i know that they are good, but i really needed to know about the brakes because I hate the brakes on my 91, they aren't bad , no pulsations, but they are sort of weird and they got bad stopping distance. I guess its because its all wheel disc and i never drove a car like that in my life. When I heard that the GP has all wheel disc I got really excited. :lol: I drove a 99 Taurus V6 3.0L and i loved it just because the brakes were better than my GP.

Posted

The stopping distances on a 96 Lumina are actually fairly average. Just don't get ceramic pads, or you'll have worse than average stopping distances. I put the EBC Greenstuffs on my Loomie and can't say enough good things about them. They most definitely improved the braking ability. Haven't done the rear disc conversion myself, and don't plan on doing it any time soon...

Posted

The brakes are not worse than those on the '88-'93 cars. I wouldn't say that the performance is much better however. They should be more reliable - the rear calipers on the '88-'93 just plain suck. Is the rear drum to disc conversion really worth it? I don't know if I'm convinced. I know the rear brakes (drum) on my '96 last a hell of a lot longer than the ones on my '89. I do realize that the rear discs were redesigned in '94, but are they much better?

Posted
i own a 1995 4door Lumina LS. breaks work GREAT aslong as you dont rally race.

Yea. They're definitely light duty brakes. On both of my W's, I've heated the brakes up enough for them to majorly fade (like when driving stupid trying to get to work on time).

Posted
Is the rear drum to disc conversion really worth it? I don't know if I'm convinced. I know the rear brakes (drum) on my '96 last a hell of a lot longer than the ones on my '89. I do realize that the rear discs were redesigned in '94, but are they much better?
Good point. The pads and drums on rear-drum equipped cars last forever. On my wife's old 93 Cavalier, we didn't need to change the rear drums or pads until the car hit 190,000 miles...
Posted

I hate the interior in the base and LS Luminas. Way too plain. The rear seats are absolutely flat. You almost have to get an LTZ or a Z34 Monte with leather.

Posted

i worked on a monte Z34 yesterday @ work...i think it was like a 99 or so...but, that car was HOTTT!!!...and that 3.4 DOHC sounds MEAN!!!...if i had to choose i think i'd rather have a Z34 over the base monte's or lumina's...cause like was said before...the base interiors are kinda poopy... :roll:

Posted
i worked on a monte Z34 yesterday @ work...i think it was like a 99 or so...but, that car was HOTTT!!!...and that 3.4 DOHC sounds MEAN!!!

3.4 was in 95-97 Z34s only, and yes they're nice. I've been in a couple base luminas (both 96s) and they are cheaper in comparison to my 95 Z34. I personally love the 95-99 Monte Z34s and Lumina LTZs...but thats just me. :lol:

 

WMZZZ

Posted
i worked on a monte Z34 yesterday @ work...i think it was like a 99 or so...but, that car was HOTTT!!!...and that 3.4 DOHC sounds MEAN!!!

3.4 was in 95-97 Z34s only, and yes they're nice. I've been in a couple base luminas (both 96s) and they are cheaper in comparison to my 95 Z34. I personally love the 95-99 Monte Z34s and Lumina LTZs...but thats just me. :lol:

 

WMZZZ

 

ok...i guess it musta been i 95-97 then... :lol: ...the 98-99's had a 3800 in them didnt they!?... :?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...