Finally, a car that GRMers WON'T be enabling you to get.
And we will tell you to buy a Porsche with a 10% chance of the $6k engine grenading.
Finally, a car that GRMers WON'T be enabling you to get.
And we will tell you to buy a Porsche with a 10% chance of the $6k engine grenading.
the rest of the car sucked a 55 gallon trash can of dicks
I almost fell out of my chair at work reading this.
I used to own a 97 Z24 5spd. The quad4 in that wasn't bad and I could get 31mpg highway. As had been said parts were dirt cheap. I liked it, and would own another. However, that being said, I've been behind J-body convertibles on bumpy pavement and you could see the whole car flex and shimmy. So, I would not recommend a convertible one.
Zomby Woof wrote: A lot of BS from people who have never owned one and know little to nothing about them.
I owned 3 Cavaliers, none with the 2.4, though. I am very familiar with them. I had them because they were what I could afford, not because they were what I wanted.
Brett_Murphy wrote:Zomby Woof wrote: A lot of BS from people who have never owned one and know little to nothing about them.I owned 3 Cavaliers, none with the 2.4, though. I am very familiar with them. I had them because they were what I could afford, not because they were what I wanted.
Also had a '99 Cavalier coupe. It was a bland, soulless, unfun vehicle. It never broke down or stranded me, but that doesn't mean I'd buy another. The 2.2L/3-speed combo was horribly sluggish, the chassis was floppy, the interior came apart just looking at it. The only real fun I had was the time me and a friend gutted it and his '95 Sunfire (also a 2.2L/3-speed) and went 1/8th-mile drag racing, and that was more because the concept was so stupid, not that the car was actually fun.
Zomby Woof wrote: A lot of BS from people who have never owned one and know little to nothing about them.
In defense of my own point:
The third-generation Cavalier earned several low scores in crash tests by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Also, IIHS fatality risks statistics rated the Cavalier among the "Highest rates of driver deaths," with 150 (4 door) to 171 (2 door) driver deaths per million registered vehicle years. Average for the Cavalier class (small) was 103 (4 door) to 134 (2 door) driver deaths per million registered vehicle years. The IIHS gave the 1995-2005 Cavalier a "Poor" overall score in their frontal offset collision test.
NickD wrote:Brett_Murphy wrote:Also had a '99 Cavalier coupe. It was a bland, soulless, unfun vehicle. It never broke down or stranded me, but that doesn't mean I'd buy another. The 2.2L/3-speed combo was horribly sluggish, the chassis was floppy, the interior came apart just looking at it. The only real fun I had was the time me and a friend gutted it and his '95 Sunfire (also a 2.2L/3-speed) and went 1/8th-mile drag racing, and that was more because the concept was so stupid, not that the car was actually fun.Zomby Woof wrote: A lot of BS from people who have never owned one and know little to nothing about them.I owned 3 Cavaliers, none with the 2.4, though. I am very familiar with them. I had them because they were what I could afford, not because they were what I wanted.
While never owning one i do keep my brother in laws 99 z24 cavalier on the road. Even he cant stand the car but he has so much money in it at this point that hes stuck driving it or taking a huge loss.
Its a worse place to be then my wifes 04 ion and that car isnt exactly fun.
I don't think I have ever seen this much almost unanimous non-enabling for any car... 
Again, thanks everyone for the advice. I appreciate it.
pointofdeparture wrote:Zomby Woof wrote: A lot of BS from people who have never owned one and know little to nothing about them.In defense of my own point:The third-generation Cavalier earned several low scores in crash tests by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Also, IIHS fatality risks statistics rated the Cavalier among the "Highest rates of driver deaths," with 150 (4 door) to 171 (2 door) driver deaths per million registered vehicle years. Average for the Cavalier class (small) was 103 (4 door) to 134 (2 door) driver deaths per million registered vehicle years. The IIHS gave the 1995-2005 Cavalier a "Poor" overall score in their frontal offset collision test.
Oh wonderful. Glad I got rid of that car. I was in 3 accidents (none my fault) while I owned it, it had been in a few before I got it and my sister totalled it out.
pointofdeparture wrote:Zomby Woof wrote: A lot of BS from people who have never owned one and know little to nothing about them.In defense of my own point:The third-generation Cavalier earned several low scores in crash tests by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Also, IIHS fatality risks statistics rated the Cavalier among the "Highest rates of driver deaths," with 150 (4 door) to 171 (2 door) driver deaths per million registered vehicle years. Average for the Cavalier class (small) was 103 (4 door) to 134 (2 door) driver deaths per million registered vehicle years. The IIHS gave the 1995-2005 Cavalier a "Poor" overall score in their frontal offset collision test.
Having seen dozens upon dozens of Cavaliers/Sunfire/Sunbirds, etc...wrecked, I can say they were horribly scary. One compromised by rust...
You'll need to log in to post.
