Autoblog

This is a blog, not The New York Times.

↓↑report

boy, you really have led a sheltered life.

not by a long shot.

↓↑report

The Cavalier was not revolutionary nor was it class leading, but saying the Cavalier is the worst car ever is plain and simple...stupid. The car did it's job, was cheap to buy and maintain. Tons of people don't need anything more than that from an economy car.

↓↑report

Yes the Cavalier was a pain, but to say it was the worst is like saying President Bush won a spelling Bee- it's impossible.

↓↑report

I am currenlty driving a 2003 Cavalier 5 speed with 120,000 kms on it. This car has performed very well with only one minor repair during the warranty period. The 2.2 Ecotec provides decent fuel economy and respectable power. I average 34mpg with about 60% highway/40% city driving. Last week I replaced the front rotors and pads for the first time. I have been very happy with this car.

↓↑report

Not the worst car ever but definitely a really crappy one in comparison to the similarly priced toyotas and hondas at the time. Even its replacement the cobalt isn't that great in comparison either.

↓↑report

Maybe not the worst ever, that is a hard one to quantify. I am 30 and I have to admit that the Cavalier is definitely in my top 3 for worst car I have ever been in or driven.

The interior single handedly has given GM the bad reputation for crappy interiors. That car cut new ground for shoddy plastic, poor design, and just plain horrible execution. Exposed screws, very flimsy plastic, and just ugly ascetics. From the plain flat instrumentation, to the Radio that appeared to be from 1985 even in 2000. The back seats with the weird convex shape, the front seats that offered 0 support and had the strange padding design. The color was that weird not black and not gray - achieving a freshly poured plastic look. Everything warped when exposed to summer heat. The radio sucked, the auto shifter was weird looking with the metal shaft and square head. Every Cavi I have ever been in rattles and feels loose - even when not driving. They feel hollow or something it is weird.

The doors, oh the doors, so flimsy and in the coupe they were so freaking long! GM used to make the worst doors.

Ok now the outside. The last refresh just before the Cobalt came out was the worst. I don't know if you can make a car look worse with a refresh. Always had ugly wheels. The side mirrors were ugly not painted plastic, yuck. The trunk was light it almost closed itself under its own weight. I truly dislike the Cavalier.

On a positive note they seem very reliable and get ok gas mileage. Just ugly, poor in the materials department, and the worst interior I can remember.

The Cobalt is a vast improvement and in the rental I had I was impressed. The interior could step up in the materials but the design is much better and driving it was not that bad. Cobalt still pays the price for how bad the Cavalier was. My big gripe with Cobalt interior is the silver painted plastic. It looks ok when new but quickly scratches and then looks like crap.

↓↑report

FYI: all cars in that time period, in that price range, blew.

I can't think of a mid-90s vehicle WITHOUT exposed screws, the Ford Escort/Taurus, Honda Civic/Accord, and Nissan Altima come to mind especially.

Anything in the price range had hard, nasty plastic. Hell, back then even mid-sized vehicles has hard-touch most of the time.

Honestly, people comparing interior trim quality in the same price range REALLY piss me off. I'm pretty sure that 95% of the time, a vehicle in a given class/price range is ALWAYS going to have a similar interior level of quality.

Get over it.

↓↑report

@ Matt
You are intellectually dishonest and plain lying if you think these two pictures show equal quality interiors.

1996 Honda Civic = http://www.samarins.com/reviews/96_civic_interior.jpg

2001 Chevy Cavalier = http://internetcarselling.com/aws_premiumplus/vused/111111.jpg

Notice how much newer the Chevy picture is yet seems even less modern than the 1996 Civic.

↓↑report

@ Matt again

http://wantsellmycar.com/honda92/images/front_panel.jpg

Even this 1992 Honda interior is better than a 2001 Chevy Cavalier interior.

My poinit is not to say GM produces all crap, they made some really good vehicles but the Cavalier is/was never will be considered one of them.

↓↑report

A Toyota Hummer? Oh yeah, its called an FJ Cruiser. Label states 16/20 mpg, 2mpg more than the H3, with 2 less doors. (real doors, not those half-a** suicide doors)

↓↑report

Drake:

And half the capability.

Are you honestly comparing a Toyota to a Hummer?

The FJ Cruiser is more comparable to a Jeep Wrangler than an H3, and BOTH are non-comparable to the H3, given the TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR price difference, size difference, capability/class differences, etc.

You're a retard.

↓↑report

@Matt

Chill out dude. What I was trying to get across is that Toyota has a Hummer-type of vehicle (i.e. purposeful off-road vehicle). Like you said, it is more comparable to a Wrangler than a H3, but then Hummer doesn't have a vehicle the size of a Wrangler or an FJ. Maybe they would if they come out with the HX concept The point being, the FJ is smaller than the H3, yet only gets 2mpg better in fuel economy. The H3, for what it is and capable of, does not get that bad of fuel economy, 14/18mpg label. Toyota aint as green as people make them out to be. They got their poor fuel economy off-road vehicle just like GM has Hummer, and Chrysler has Jeep.

↓↑report

Toyota bought the car for two reasons.

1) At the time it wasn't considered a bad car.
2) There was pressure on the Japanese to open their market to American made cars...something that still hasn't happened.

↓↑report

Also remember opening the doors to American cars in Japan isn't nearly as easy as the reverse. The Japanese are very hard to land guilt on.

Here, we could be made guilty for not buying the new India produced Nanto (or whatever its called)

↓↑report