Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Do Not Compare Cavalier with Cobalt



  • poncho167poncho167 Posts: 1,178
    Nice report but are you going to buy one? I drove the previous model Toyota Matrix GT a few years ago and didn't like it at all. The interior was one of the cheapest that I can recall and as you mentioned the shifter was pretty notchy and didn't easily go through the gears like some other cars on the market. In fact my Chevy S10 p/u 5-speed was smoother than that for the first 8-years or so. Additionally the Matrix shifter was goofy with dashboard like placement.
  • I agree with one of the posters that the Cobalt is a replacement for the Cavalier just like the Aveo replaces the Metro. The Camaro was never replaced... it just went on hiatus (unless you would like to stoop so low and say the Monte Carlo replaced it).

    I owned a 1992 Cavalier with the V6 and if it wasn't for the rust, it would've lasted forever. It had a fairly bad oil leak that I couldn't afford to repair (I was in high school) and I ran it so low that there was none on the dipstick and it still ran without complaint. My family has had a 1990 and they now have a 2002 and 2003 all three of which have great reliability. From these four cars I don't see why people would think that American cars have inferior reliability. The one exception was the 2001 Z24 I had... it went through 2 motors in less than 2 years. I learned that the 2.4 LD9 was always an unreliable motor... so that's the version I would stay away from.

    I just purchased a 2007 Cobalt LS coupe brand new for $10,300. I would love to see a new Corolla or Civic for that price. I'm expecting good reliability since it has the same motor as the 2003 Cavalier. If so, I will be back for another in another 4-5 years.
  • poncho167poncho167 Posts: 1,178
    Most people don't understand what reliability is. They here that the Corolla is rated the most reliable car in its class and think it is engine related but its not. Reliability mostly has to do with the little things such as power windows, power seats, power trunk releases, sunroofs, etc., needing service. Because a car like the Corolla may have had better luck with some of the features mentioned above people equate that with driveability and the car running. The Ecotec engines are arguably the best engines on the market and Car & Driver recently said that the Malibu's 2.4 EcoTec seemed more refined, quiet, and smoother than the Accords four banger which is supposedly the class leader for many years.

    As far as that previous Quad Four engine that you mentioned those were actually not to bad but a lot had bad head gaskets causing leakage of anti-freeze or warped heads. Internally they were good otherwise and did pretty well in racing. The new EcoTec's are dominating racing since they came out and broke all of the speed/performance records in the Guiness Book of World Records that Honda used to have.
  • I'm a GM guy and will stick by them but I will never buy another Quad 4. I payed almost $6000 for that car and should have gotten alot longer use. The Ecotec is a superior replacement with tons of aftermarket parts. The Cavalier was a good design but the Cobalt (especially in interior quality) is even better.
  • poncho167poncho167 Posts: 1,178
    They did surprisingly good in road racing in the Grand Am, but those engines were pretty trick. The Quad 4's issue was the head gaskets. Only in the later years did they have the problem corrected. I think the engine started as a 2.3 and then went to 2.4.
  • Right... the engine has been around since 1987 as a 2.3 liter. There was a variety of versions. They all were replaced with the LD9 (2.4 liter) in 1996. That motor was used through 2002 when it was phased out by the Ecotec. My Cavalier was quick and acceleration was never a complaint. Since my car was a 2001 I would consider that a later model. I never had a head gasket problem. When the first motor went, it was a problem in the lower end. The second motor was from a 2001 Grand Am. It started knocking horribly. Instead investing more money, I said the heck with it and bought a new car.
  • The car I had before my Cobalt LS, was a 1994 Chevy Cavalier and had alot better gas mileage than the Colbalt. My Cavalier did get 35 city/39 hwy. It was great, until the head gasket or water pump was going. My Cobalt LS gets 27 city/ 34 hwy. So, there's a BIG difference on gas mileage, Cavaliers are alot cheaper, Cobalt (you might as well just wait 2 years for prices to drop and buy it used,) Of course, Cobalt's are smaller but, with more cargo room, Cavaliers are longer but, the trunk's are too small. Cobalt's are more reliable and dependable but, not fuel efficient but guess it's better than SUV's and trucks. Take a look on styles, there is definitely a BIG difference. Some people like's style (I'm one of them) and some people like's fuel efficient. Some like's more cargo room, and some like to have something cheaper and alot easier to fix repairs.

    Why do we think Cobalt's replaced Cavaliers? It's just like people being replace, as no one can never ever be replace. Although, technology these days, are now replacing all of us and losing our jobs. But all things consider and set aside, Take a look at every vehicle on the streets and roads, tell me what you see and what it;s telling us. Every vehicle are different and has all different names. Just like Cavalier and Cobalt, there is no comparison. You get the point. Everyone want's to compete with one another to start WARS. Pontiac's are taking Cobalt style, and taking Chevy models to compete. It is insane, Either way, Cavalier is NOT a Cobalt, and Cobalt DID NOT replaced Cavaliers. That's just my opinon..
This discussion has been closed.