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

catbackcatback Posts: 8
edited March 20 in Chevrolet
The Cavalier which was featured in several types of racing as well as funny cars was retired in 2004. I've seen, now and then, references to the Cobalt being the replacement for the Cavalier. This is quite an insult when you look at the two cars and see they're absolutely different. My Cobalt SS Supercharged SS Stage 2 cost, with the custom paint job, rally striping, and decals, close to $30K, and the Cavalier was America's most affordable compact at $12,000!

It was replaced by the Aveo, also priced around $12K. The Cobalt SS actually replaced the Z28 as the performance car in that price range.

If you'd like to see what a Stage 2 Cobalt SS looks like, go to Photos and then catback's album!

Incorrect statements like this, including one writer from Chevy who I don't believe works there anymore, simply pushes sales overseas and the Stage 2 seriously competes with hopped up Lancers and SI's, and all of them compete with Mustang GTs and up!

Comments

  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,842
    This is quite an insult when you look at the two cars and see they're absolutely different.

    That is quite an inferiorty complex that Cobalt's have. :P
  • okko1okko1 Posts: 327
    your right the cobalt is a different class car than the caviler. the cobalt has an entry level level model that would be competitively priced with the caviler. and agian your right the ss/sc with stage 2 options is by no means a caviler. and as for moparbad your model has 2 to many doors for my personal taste. i have about the same in mine as do you catback and i also have 02 Z28 that cost nearly the same. so as for me your statement that the cobalt is not the replacement caviler is completely correct. :shades:
  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,842
    Cobalt is the replacement for the Cavalier. It is Chevrolet's compact car.

    Aveo is the replacement for the Metro.

    The Cobalt SS actually replaced the Z28 as the performance car

    Ridiculous. Comparing the Z28 to a Cobalt.
  • okko1okko1 Posts: 327
    what does, mopar have to do with this other than a little trade in value :)
  • bws10bws10 Posts: 4
    the cavalier dosnt even compare to the cobalt. just cuz its a compact car dosnt mean it replaces the cavalier.
  • waterdrwaterdr Posts: 307
    Oh my Lord.....the Cobolt is absolutely 100% a replacement of the Cavalier. How can you say any different? Even Chevy themselves stated this is their rollout of the vehicle.

    Here is just one of many links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Cobalt

    Take a look at the old auto show information.

    Is the Cobalt an improvement? Sure, but it is a direct replacement. They never replaced the Camaro.....yet.
  • okko1okko1 Posts: 327
    the cobalt is not a replacement for the cavalier. the cavalier was a mistake and you don't have replacements for them. this is a new model. :shades:
  • grosloupgrosloup Posts: 239
    If the Cobalt didn't replace the Cavalier, they would still produce Cavaliers. Right? The way I see it, they took the Cavalier out of the production line and "yes" replaced it by a much more dependable, better built, new look and called it The Cobalt. But still you can't compare the Cavalier with the Cobalt, although It replaces it but it's like designing a completely new vehicule.
  • waterdrwaterdr Posts: 307
    Stop being in denile. GM told Wallstreet when the car was launched "The Cobalt will replace the Cavalier". Who cares? The Cobalt is going to be dead next year anyway and GM will replace it with something else.
  • poncho167poncho167 Posts: 1,178
    The Cavaliar may not have had the best fit and finish and interior materials but it was a good long lasting economical car. It was also better looking than its foreign rivals as far as a sporty compact car. I have never owned one but have known many who have and they seem to run forever. I have driven them as well and to me it was no different than any other inexpensive car. People didn't just buy them because they were inexpensive they had a good reputation for reliability but as with all cars they had some nick picky issues. I have driven Chevy Prisms (Corolla's) as rentals and those in my opinion are some bad cars and have very noisy transmissions. The first generation Matrix (Pontiac Vibe) are among the worst interiors that I have ever experienced and the Matrix GT shifter is a piece of junk and is as smooth as 80 grit sandpaper. A lot of the Cavaliar chat that you here on the forum is from Japanese buyers and people tend to believe things based on perceptions that they hear but I have heard otherwise from owners with one owning 3 different models before switching to a Saturn Ion a couple years ago. I would buy a used Cavalier for a commuter if I was looking for an inexpensive used car.
  • poncho167poncho167 Posts: 1,178
    Is it going to be dead or just restyled like the Corolla is every few years.
  • grosloupgrosloup Posts: 239
    The Cobalt dead next year to? After only 4 years.
    Could be that the same thing is happening to the Cobalt as the Equinox and Torrent. 2008 is suppose to be their last year also but they are going to be replaced by an almost exact european model with a different name ( I can't remember the names). I wonder why G.M. is doing that.
    For the Cavaliers, I remember the first years the Cavaliers were build, what a mistake but as the years went by they improved (not a masterpiece) but improved. My wife had a 1998 and it was pretty good. My sister has a 1998 and still has it and running fine.
  • poncho167poncho167 Posts: 1,178
    It's funny on how people base their opinions off of other people's biased opinions or perceptions. The Cavalier from its introductory to its end was never a bad car. It was a good car but not a great car. Not bad but just average. I recently saw a first generation Cav on the road here in the rust bucket state of Illinois. I think the buy a Chevy and it will last a lifetime saying can almost apply to this car because if maintained they keep going and going though they will rust out like anything else. Being a car guy and doing my own maintenance on my 1992 S10 I always notice other cars on the road and it is rare, very rare to see a 1980's model Toyota still around and driveable. I guess those cars were not maintained by their owners, go figure.
  • waterdrwaterdr Posts: 307
    Perception has a lot to do with it. It seems that when someone owns a Chevy and it craps out, people say "see, you should have gotten a Toyota", but when the Toyota craps out, people think it must have been a fluke.

    I put 100k miles on a 2002 Suburban that never saw the shop besides one time in the first week for a major a/c issue (had to be replaced). 6 years and that was the only visit besides oil, tires, and brakes. First set of brakes lasted 65k miles too.

    GM is plenty capable of making quality products.

    American cars, such as the Cobalt, biggest problem is not quality, but depreciation values. American cars depreciate faster then then Japanese counter-parts, and that impacts the cost of ownership a lot. I undertsand that the US manufacturers are starting to take measures to prevent this such as curtailing production and reducing sales to rental car companies.
  • poncho167poncho167 Posts: 1,178
    Besides the rentals the biggest hit is the money put on the hood. The rebates basically come off the price at trade or resale. GM has cut back the rebates more so than Ford and Chrysler which have higher rebates overall. Toyota had to be aggressive in the rebate game with their new full sized truck so people would even consider it, and now its projected resale is lower than the others. The rentals are by far the worst thing that can happen when Avis, Hertz, and others get them at ridiculous prices and flood the market afterwards when selling them.
  • waterdrwaterdr Posts: 307
    Yeah...rebates too....I forgot that one.

    I think if the manufacturers were smart, they would just shut-off the rental companu\ies, but unfortunately, I am sure they are afraid to walk away from the volume.

    Manufacturers have themselves in an interesting paradox.
  • pjm16pjm16 Posts: 13
    In response to waterdr opinion about the Cobalts being dead in 2008. I just got off the phone with the guy who sold me the 08 Cobalt "Special Edition" and he says that they're NOT going to be DEAD, The Cobalt is the highest selling car. :D
  • waterdrwaterdr Posts: 307
    That could be true, but the sales have dropped-off. That is pretty standard with the life-cycle of any car. All the things I see indicate that 2009 will now be the last year for the current Cobalt platform. It looks like car will get a substantial re-design and the name plate may or may not stay.

    Sales people can be good sources if information, but they can also be bad, especially when trying to sell a new car to someone. The last thing they want to tell someone is that a line is getting killed.

    In all honesty, it is really hard to see for sure what GM is up to. You will know for sure by next year at the auto show.
  • I had a Nissan 300zx that caught fire and bought a Cavalier in 1993 to replace it. It was a big step down, but due to insurance costs, had to do it. I do not regret my decision. Not only did I save money on maintenance , and insurance costs, that car is still running today with just basic maintenance. I sold it to its second owner when it had 130,000 miles on it. I bought a second Cavalier in 2001 and still drive it. I have low mileage on it, and the dash is starting to crack, the paint is coming off the rear scoop, but it runs like a charm. I have never regreted my purchase of either of these cars. I also own a Ford Excursion, and my cavalier has been my
    life saver with fuel costs the way they are! : :D :D :)
  • I drove a base model 5-speed 2008 Cobalt LS sedan this morning. I had just stepped out of a 2009 Corolla base 5-speed not 15 minutes before, so I was biased toward the new redesigned Corolla walking onto the Chevy lot. The Corolla felt extremely solid and easy to drive. The salesperson was cordial and the car was very impressive compared to the used 2007 Corolla CE 5-speed that I test drove earlier in the morning. I think Toyota did a great job with the new Corolla and I expect them to sell as well as the 2003-2008 model it replaces. On my way home I decided to stop in a Chevrolet dealer to see a Cobalt since I still have not driven one since they came out to replace the Cavalier in 2005.

    That said, I liked the Cobalt better. The clutch and shifter were better placed, had better feedback, and weren't as rubbery as the Toyota's. The Cobalt felt like it had more torque and was more difficult to stall out with no throttle application from a dead stop. Shifting 1-2 and 2-3 with no clutch was much smoother in the Cobalt. The Toyota shift knob felt notchy and out of place, like an automatic shifter, whereas the Chevy shift knob was shaped properly and the travel was just right.

    I like the information center on the Cobalt which gives instantaneous MPG, compass, temperature, oil life monitor, and it even tells you the individual pressures in each tire! The temperature gauge is a digital reading, exact to the degree, whereas the Toyota uses a needle gauge with only a "C" and "H".

    I like to sit high up and put the tilt wheel as high as it goes when I drive. I'll put the seat all the way up vertically, adjust the seat bottom travel (fore/aft) so my feet comfortably reach the pedals, then recline the seat back until two things happen. First, my hair must not be touching the headliner (and I have a buzz cut), and second, I must be able to rest my wrist on top of the steering wheel with my shoulder blade touching the seatback, so I may steer 360 degrees without having to lean forward at all. In the Corolla, I was able to acheive the proper seating position but the tilt steering wheel would not go high enough to allow me to see all the gauges. I had to lower the seat to see all the gauges. With the seat lower, the shifter was higher in relation to my arm and it was not comfortable to use the armrest while shifting. In the Cobalt, I got my seating position, the tilt wheel went plenty high, but there was no armrest for my right arm. This was fine because the shifter in the Cobalt is so low on the console that I could rest my right arm on my right leg when not shifting. This was surprisingly comfortable although I might look into the center console armrest as a dealer accessory anyway.

    Of course this is all subjective to my tastes. But what is not subjective is the price. No rebates on the 2009 Corolla. Best price negotiated at 3 Toyota stores came to $15,785, down a mere $700 from MSRP. $2000 rebate on the 2008 Cobalt. Best price negotiated at 2 Chevy stores came to $11,300, down $3210 from the $14,510 MSRP. Both cars are black, have AC, ABS, CD/MP3 with aux. jack, electric power steering, tilt wheel. No cruise, power anything on either. Both had floor mats as dealer accessories. Corolla had $295 of paint sealant was the only equipment difference and this $295 is NOT included in the prices above.

    If the Corolla and Cobalt were only a few hundred dollars apart, I'd consider the Corolla for its excellent reliability record, resale value, and better visibility. But for nearly $4500 difference, give me a Cobalt.

    Now as to the Cobalt versus the Cavalier, I will admit I have not driven an Ecotec-equipped 2003-2004 Cavalier to give a true comparison. But I did extensively drive a 1999 Cavalier sedan, automatic, with 103K on it, when I worked for a car repo company. The 1999 Cavalier versus the 2008 Cobalt is like comparing a late 80s Toyota Camry to a new Lexus ES350. Hello, night, I'd like you to meet my good friend, day. BUT the Cobalt IS the replacement for the Cavalier, and they are/were both built at the Lordstown, Ohio plant.
  • 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.