Another in a series of my reviews that appeared in the online version of African Americans On Wheels, a now defunct automotive magazine that was included as an insert in the Sunday newspapers of major cities.
I stand by the statement that I make in the first paragraph, that the Chevy Cavalier was “one of the best economy car values in the U.S.” By 1999, the Cavalier was older than Methuselah, and the novelty of the 1995 “redesign” had pretty much worn off (Does throwing new body panels onto the Corsica/Beretta J-body-cousin-L-body platform and replacing the optional V6 with the latest version of the Quad-4 really count as a redesign?). GM had long since given up the comical delusion that the Cavalier was the up-market Accord competitor it had intended at its 1981 introduction. What that meant was a perfectly reasonable MSRP which was enhanced by literally thousands and thousands of dollars in discounts and rebates all year long. It wasn’t unusual with a little haggling to drive away in a decently-equipped new Cavalier for about the price of a Tercel. With the 2.2-liter OHV engine and 3-speed automatic, the powertrain was guaranteed to outlast the rest of the car.
In my first big-boy job with a national accrediting agency, I traveled around the country and had spent time in both previous and this generation Cavalier rentals, and was always impressed. For basic, somewhat comfortable transportation, it was hard to beat the Cavalier for value.
Unfortunately, all of that honest goodness was lost trying to turn the Cavalier into a sporty convertible. I would like to say that I at least enjoyed putting the top down, but they gave me this car in December, so it was much too cold for that. My wife and I drove it from our Arlington, VA home to Winchester to visit some friends, and the 90-minute trip was less than pleasant. I was happier to see this car go the following Monday than any other car I drove during my stint.
For some reason, I stopped printing my reviews for several months, so I’m not sure exactly when, or even if, this and most of the following reviews were posted.
The Chevy Cavalier is one of the best economy car values in the U.S., and has been for some time. What makes a great economy car, however, doesn’t necessarily make a great sporty convertible.
Our Z24, which is the only convertible trim available, had the classic bright red paint with arctic white top color scheme. However, Chevy carried the white inside, creating a strange white, grey, and charcoal tri-color interior which is tacky at best. The high back bucket seats in the base Cavalier are quite comfortable, but this one had optional vinyl bucket seats with driver side adjustable lumbar support that are by far the most uncomfortable seats I’ve experienced in my career. The driver’s seat pokes you in the back with the lumbar off, and engaging the lumbar support feels like someone stuck a 2×4 between your back and the seat. The gauges are clear, the controls are logical, and the fat, padded steering wheel was a pleasure to grip. Like most convertibles, the thick C-pillars and tiny glass rear window create bad blind spots, which standard dual power mirrors fortunately help overcome. The rear seat is understandably tight, but trunk room is larger than you would guess, and an unexpected pleasure was the fold-down rear seat.
“Z24″ means that this model is powered by GM’s 150-horsepower, 2.4 liter DOHC four-cylinder engine – the latest iteration of the old “Quad 4.” While numerous improvements have helped tame this engine over the last 10 years, it’s still loud and rough compared to the majority of the competition. As acceleration is quite strong with either transmission, most buyers will be happiest with the optional automatic over the notchy manual. The ride is active, and less-than-smooth roads ignite a cacophony of cowl shake, squeaks, and rattles.
But grab the handle that automatically lowers the top and windows in less than a minute, and the world changes. The flush top accentuates the Cavalier’s sleek shape, and you just can’t help but look good in this car. Just be sure to check out the comparatively priced V6 Mustang before you buy.
For more information contact 1-800-CHEVY-70
SPECIFICATIONS
Type: Two-door Convertible
Engine: 150-horsepower, 2.4 liter inline-4
Transmission: Five-speed Manual
EPA Mileage: 23 city/33 highway
Tested Price: $20,286
P.S. Thanks to AutoEvolution for the manufacturer photo of my color scheme in the appropriate size!
I rode in a coupe once, probably the worst car I’ve ever been in. The cowl shake was unbelievable and the entire top of the dash wobbled and flexed just going down a slightly bumpy road. Just complete shit.
From about that time, I remember reading a small-car comparo online, maybe Edmunds.
To paraphrase, “The Cav is bigger, more powerful, and accelerates faster than basically anything in this price segment, but driving it and riding in it are unpleasant things to do next to the competition.”
By this point in its life they learned to make it dependable enough and the tooling costs were absorbed, leading to lower pricing, and that was it. I have been in two of these cars, for short distances only, so I will take others’ words for it.
This was pretty much the case with the Camaro Z/28 at the time, they were fast cars with the LS1, they still are, but compared to the Mustang GT they were crude, awkward and of questionable quality, that made them an overall less appealing product. The Cavalier Z/24 was was really the perfect junior companion in that regard
(Yeah, this thread’s a bit done, but:)
I’m not in it, however, the Camaro still had a fanbase. The Cavalier does not, even among people who like cheap smallish cars (like me).
There are the Bowtie v Blue Oval Wars, and I don’t know that anyone got into it over the merits of the Cavalier v., say, the Tempo.
I didn’t intend it to be a Ford vs. Chevy thing, the Civic SI was the comparable choice for sport compact coupes in 99 after all, you just couldn’t get a ragtop Like the Cav. I just draw a similar parallel with the LS powered F bodies being preceded by their acceleration, just as you mentioned in the paraphrased quote about the Cavalier for its segment. Both are examples of GM selling the sizzle, but not the steak.
Yep. Good use of “sizzle v. steak”.
There must have been something wrong with that vehicle, I have drive a 1991 cavalier convertible drives as good now in 2022 as it did in the past. Love my #pearl
Cute little rig but a real turd. Had one as a rental back in the day when my Achieva was in the shop. Made the Olds look like a Caddy. Cheap interior, more rattles and shakes than a basket of snakes.
Cavalier was always a J-body. It shared some parts and sub-assemblies with the L-bodies, but never changed it’s designation.
Interesting. I distinctly remember reading that these leveraged the platform of the Corsica & Beretta, to provide additional interior space over the first generation, even if they were still known internally as “J-Bodies.” Of course, I cannot find any evidence of that anywhere on the net. Maybe I’m remembering what you said above, that it used L-body parts and sub-assemblies as a difference over the first generation.
Otherwise, with the exact same platform, base engine and parts-bin optional engine, calling it a redesign is even more of a stretch.
I don’t think so, but it’s possible. However, the L/N-body was itself based on the J-body architecture. Depending on how related they are, that suggests some potential compatibility with subassemblies.
For the second-generation, the, A-body, L-body and N-body got consolidated into the new N-body, and that was a complete re-engineering of the platform.
In 2000ish we had a rental Sunfire in Mexico. It was truly wretched. The wipers needed new blades, it wasn’t damaged anywhere but felt tired. It had that grim charcoal monochrome interior, and that ubiquitous Sunfire Green that they all seemed to be painted. The worst feature was that it droned up the hills, and droned down the hills. The engine noise was really, really bad, both loud and unpleasant in quality. We bought a portable cassette player and played the Fantasia Soundtrack over and over and over to try to drown out the horrible engine noise.
Then we hit a bump in the middle of nowhere on the highway and blew out two tyres. Luckily, a nice man in an Alliance took pity on us (as Mexicans do) and helped us go get the tyres replaced. Alamo refused to reimburse us for the tyres.
The Cavalier/Sunfire may be durable, and if someone is looking for a dead cheap car, I’d recommend it. Everyone I know who had one of the post 95 refresh models managed to get astronomical miles out of them, 300K plus, and cheaply, but I wouldn’t want to drive one that far.
The LeBaron would have been infinitely better than this car and had a reasonable back seat unlike the Mustang.
I test drove a 2001 cavalier after my 95 Achieva died. The achieva was a horrible car with a crashy ride and horribly cheap interior but the cavalier was even worse. The cheapness was beyond mind blowing. The uncomfortable seats were so short it felt like it was just your ass in the seat and they were made from some styrofoam material that you can see through the tiny threadcount fabric. The whole dash shook while driving. Everything you touched felt like it would break off if you used a little too much force while operating it, especially the door handles. I didn’t buy of course but it still blows my mind that GM kept building these till 2005, five years after ford brought the Focus to the US.
Not surprising, though. I remember when the 1995 Lumina was introduced I thought, “Great. Chevrolet finally has a competitor to the 1986 Ford Taurus.”
While the Cavalier was certainly craptacular, for cheap open-air motoring, the convertible couldn’t be beat. For starters, the convertibles weren’t built in-house by GM but farmed out to ASC for conversion, so the quality of the top and related mechanicals was first-rate. Most notable was the control for lowering/raising the top. As stated in the article, it was a simple lever in the middle of the headliner. After you unsnapped it and pulled it down (which released the catches), you pulled the lever back to lower, then pushed forward to raise. It was such a simple and, dare I say, elegant, solution which not only worked well, was possible to do at any speed (unlike all of the nanny-controlled convertible tops of today) so you could lower/raise the top on-the-fly in the event of, say, a sudden shower coming to a stop at a light. By the time the light changed, your top would be raised and secured.
The only car I’ve ever driven whose lumbar was as bad–even in its least-aggressive state–as what you describe was a 2010 Honda Accord EX-L, belonging to a family friend. In which case, yikes, and I feel your pain.
The problem with the Accord was that it wasn’t an issue that revealed itself until I was about 30 minutes into a long highway drive. It would not have been uncovered during a test drive, and I could just see myself buying a car like that and then finding out it has this glaring flaw after it’s too late. The owner of the car, fortunately, had no such complaints…but then, she was much shorter than I.
As to the Cavalier Convertible itself, the British term “Cheap and Cheerful” applies. Then again, if a Mustang Convertible was available for a similar price, I’d wager that that was the better buy. How much cheaper was the Cavalier Convertible than GM’s own Camaro Convertible?
One final thing: the Cavalier Convertible was the last of its kind, at least from GM. While there was an eventual Cruze Convertible–of sorts–in the Buick Cascada, it was more of a semi-premium/upscale product, and was not cheap. But there was never a Cobalt Convertible. Can you imagine how under-engineered it one would have been? The thought gives me goosebumps. As a matter of fact, I don’t believe there was a convertible on the Delta I platform at all. It’s almost as if GM knew better.
Or would you say the Cavalier Convertible simply grew and became the Pontiac G6 Convertible?
That issue with the Accord seats would have definitely been uncovered during one of my test drives, since I tell the salesman to stay behind and generally take the car out for about an hour. Most people don’t know you can do that.
In 1999, the V6 Mustang convertible started at $21,165, so less than $1,000 more than the as-tested price for the Cavalier. The Camaro was an additional $1,000 over the Mustang, so about a $2,000 spread between the Cavalier and Camaro.
I do miss the “cheap-and-cheerful” convertibles, but the demand just wasn’t there. The G6, at just under $30k, wasn’t cheap even in adjusted dollars, and there was about as much demand for that as there was for the Cascada. At least we still have the Mustang and Camaro convertibles.
To pile on this poor little turd some more, we rented a 2000 Cavalier convertible when visiting Maui, where just about all the rental cars at the airport were base model convertibles, whether Cavaliers, Mustangs, or Chrysler Sebrings. And, you’re right about the uncomfortable seats, as they made the long drive on the Road to Hana on the island’s east end especially memorable, and not in a good way.
As for the craptitude of the Cavalier, I had a work colleague who owned two of this generation and kept both for 10-12 years, so they were apparently durable, if not always reliable. Apparently, he and his wife fought bitterly over who would get to drive the “good” car (not the Cavalier), so they bought two of the same thing to end the constant bickering. Seems to me that this was the hair shirt solution to long-running marital strife.
When we were in Hawaii in 1989. the only rental vehicles you could take on the Road to Hana were Jeeps. It was a rough road. I assume it was improved by 2000, as I wouldn’t want to have taken any regular car on it, eleven years earlier.
I guess I will pile on to the Caviler hate. I got a Caviler sedan as a rental when I interviewed for my first real lob after college, in 2004. I think by then it might have been a fleet-only model. I generally like driving rental cars; it’s fun to get to drive something that’s not your own car for a couple of days. But the Caviler was by far the worst rental car I ever drove. I remember it being noisy, and the whole car shook and vibrated when I turned the wheel all the way to one side as when parallel parking.
Bought a 2002 Cavalier sedan brand new out of desperation when my ‘96 Contour crapped the bed and I needed a dependable work car. Had an automatic, a/c, & a CD player. Best car I ever owned. Took it on numerous road trips across WI, IL, MI & MN (despite not having cruise). In the 12 years I had it, it only left me stranded once when the original battery died in 2008. Changed oil, fluids, brakes and tires and that was it. Sold it in 2014 at 200,000 miles to a college kid. Just ran the CarFax on it and it’s registration was just renewed in a town in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan; one of the more harsh conditions for cars considering the weather and road conditions.
I hate everything about these cars. Little else to be said besides that my extensive exposure to them and familial similarities to other GM cars turned me off of modern Chevy and GM. Yeah, they inexplicably stay running, but the quality of life is miserable.
However, Chevy carried the white inside, creating a strange white, grey, and charcoal tri-color interior which is tacky at best.
Yep. I remember this, Chevy could have called this interior harlequin, only that would imply cheery, which this combination was the opposite of.
I had a ’96 Cavalier bought new. At 54,000 kilometers, the head gasket blew and it needed a new transmission. I think it was a 2.2 Litre engine.
Once these were fixed (a big failure for a two year old car), we kept it until 2004, when a red light runner crashed into the Cavalier head on. The crumple zone and the air bags saved my son that day, but the little Chevy was done.
I have not stepped inside a General Motors dealer since.
My mother’s new ’95 Cavalier had similar problems to Moparlee’s car. It should have been so much better. Also, I rented a Cavaler in 2000, drove it 2 miles, and promptly returned it (I’m usually pretty easy to please with a rental car – they’re so much newer than my own ride). I think these were attractive little cars, but I can’t come up with anything else positive to say, They rattled like my ’95 Grand Am, and combined with my S10, have convinced me that my auto dollars are better spent somewhere else.
I guess these worked for some people, just not nearly enough of us.
The 1995 and up generation of the Cavalier may have been cheap and reliable, but in my opinion they were UGLY both inside and out – another blob body style and cheap plastic interior. I thought the 1st generation 1982 – 1987 were the most attractive inside and out especially in 2 door coupe form. The 1988 – 1994 were also very nice as well. My Mom had a 2 door 1994 Pontiac Sunbird SE with V6 and automatic, sunroof, cassette & CD player. Other than a minor water leak and the fuel gauge stopped working around 2006, that car was super reliable, decent fuel economy and a nice amount of pep.