GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The reason I made this thread is because both of these cars looks good. The Cavy has been around since 82 while the Prizy been around since 89 (a 7 year difference from the Cavalier's introduction to Chevy). This was when Geo was introduce to GM as an import brand of small cars and a light SUV. The Chevy/Geo Prizm was the fraternal twin to the Toyota Corolla with a very good gas mileage and resale value. Chevrolet Cavalier were good cars from the late 80's to the early 90's. From 1995 to 2005, the Cavy had ups and downs between reputation and reliability, but they are nice compact cars to drive. Now back to the Prizms, they were the top notch gas savers in the compact car class. These cars last long without the possibility of major problems like the Cavalier. Just to notice that The Prizm was competing with the Cavalier since they both are compact cars in Chevy's line up. Today, both are discontinued, but the Cavalier has a successor of the Cobalt. The Cobalt is a first class compact car that has good reputation for gas mileage and reliability. I think both Cavalier and Prizm would make sense in GM's line up because we do need more fuel efficient vehicles that could save consumers hundreds of dollars at the gas pump annually. According to EPA, the estimate of mpg of the Prizm are 36 on highway and 32 in city while the mpg for the Cavalier are from 29 in city and 34 on highway. These cars can fill the niche to make driving more stable and reliable for the GM brand. What do you think?

P.S. Here are some past pics of the Cavalier and Prizm.

Chevrolet Cavalier (1982-2005)











Chevrolet/Geo Prizm aka Toyota Corolla (1989-2002)





 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,621 Posts
I don't really see the need... while they have different names, Chevrolet currently has the Aveo sedan and wagon and the Cobalt coupe and sedan, with the Cruze arriving eventually. Many would rather see an American designed and built Aveo replacement, and the current Aveo might not be all that competitive, but for the time being Chevrolet has the compact market covered, and I don't see room for an additional two small cars sandwiched in between the exisiting ones.

Also, while I'm like you and would be perfectly happy with a Cavalier today, most new car buyers demand a whole lot more in a car than the Cavalier offered, including safety, options, and driving dynamics... three pretty important points!
 

·
Editor
Joined
·
26,951 Posts
I don't think the world is ready for another Cavalier or Prizsm. Both were so far behind the times that I would say they established a reputation that cannot be easily reversed. I'm not convinced their reputation is so bad that people would not buy them, but they always seemed to hav this stigma with them that they were cars people bought to because they were cheap and just served the purpose. Today it is about having nice small cars...not cheap transportation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,071 Posts
Today it is about having nice small cars...not cheap transportation.
It's always been about nice small cars. Well Mazda, Subaru, VW, Suzuki, Honda, et.al. felt so. Even Ford gave it a shot with the first Focus.

Only GM doggedly insisted that small cars were only fit for cheap wheels. And while they probably captured the lion's share of the bargain buyer market, that move also cemented GM's image as a "Truck" company, despite the fact that even Toyota and Nissan offered nearly as many trucks and just as few small car choices as GM.

I've always been fond of the Cavalier name, and I believe the Cobalt could have perhaps helped boost the Cavvy name up from its bargain status. I also think many Cav owners tolerated some of the car's rougher points simply because it was such an inexpensive car. When you're driving off the lot paying only $9000 for a brand new car, your expectations are lower! I've heard Cav owners mutter "darn, my xxxxx just went out, but what the hell, my note's only $169 a month, so the repairs won't kill me..."

I think Cavaliers were known more for being just cheap, soggy cars rather than reliability nightmares.

I could be wrong, but that's how it always seemed to me...

The Prizm made even less sense by '98, when it was an outright identical copy of the Corolla. At least the first two generations had unique styling from the JDM Sprinter, and always looked better than a Corolla. I'd never want to see a modern iteration of it, or even the dreadful name, return.

"Cruze" may work in North America, but I'm praying to G-d that GM doesn't try to fob this name off anywhere else on Earth, especially Europe. But they're insistent on clinging to the horrid "LaCrosse" moniker, so I have doubts...

But as far as the market position the Cavvy and Prizm occupied... that's now the Aveo's job, which I think it performs fairly well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
866 Posts
Okay ... so they should take the current Cobalt and Aveo and rename them Cavalier and Prism? What are you suggesting? Should they take the last Cavalier and modernize it ... how would that differ from the Cobalt?

By the way, those mileage figures where using old measurement techniques. If those same cars would rated using todays techniques they would be rated much lower. Plus, both cars would fall way below current expectations of safety equipment, so if you were to load them with todays air bags and other equipment they would weigh more which would also drive down MPG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,119 Posts
A good friend of mine had an 84 Cavalier 4-door sedan for years. It had like 160k on it, had to be put in neutral at stoplights, most of the interior bits were broken off, the heat always had to be cranked up to keep the engine from overheating, and it sounded like a garbage disposal at idle. Also, the paint was faded over the entire car.

No. A million times, no.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
A good friend of mine had an 84 Cavalier 4-door sedan for years. It had like 160k on it, had to be put in neutral at stoplights, most of the interior bits were broken off, the heat always had to be cranked up to keep the engine from overheating, and it sounded like a garbage disposal at idle. Also, the paint was faded over the entire car.

No. A million times, no.
I don't know what it is about old GMs. But I had that same problem in my 1990 Corsica. Damn thing would overheat so easily. I kept the cooling system flushed and changed the coolant every 30k, but it still couldn't overcome the heat it produced. The cooling systems in those old cars were just horribly inadequate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,424 Posts
Drag either of those two cheap rust buckets back from the dead and you'll be dragging Chevrolet's (and GM's) reputation back down into the gutters where it dwelled for so long.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts
being a previous owner of a 94 cavi, I can be one to say that it was a pos. replaced the timing chain twice, head gasket twice too. the last time the chain broke hosed the engine. I was skeptical about buying the wife's new 08 cobalt because of the cavi. But i must say that the cobal is leaps and bounds above the cavalier ever was. great job GM on the cobalt. hate to see it go in 2011.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
The Cavalier was a good car, I think the name served well and it is as American as apple pie lol... I have one right now and its very reliable! 1982-2005 RIP CAVALIER

I would agree. And yes the Cavalier didn't have a nice interior but whats more important a car that runs good or quality of the interior? I mean quality interiors are nice but they don't make the car run any better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,071 Posts
I would agree. And yes the Cavalier didn't have a nice interior but whats more important a car that runs good or quality of the interior? I mean quality interiors are nice but they don't make the car run any better.
True, but a cheapo interior will send shoppers elsewhere. We're now a "commuter" nation, spending absurd amounts of our time inside our cars. Thus, interior amenities, as well as quality, have become tantamount for a large portion of the car-buying public.

There's simply not a question of trading off reliability for a decent interior. Today's customers demand BOTH.

But again I believe the Cavalier name still had a lot of life left in it. To most people out there the name suggested "cheap" more than it suggested "crappy". GM could have very well built up the name's reputation by bumping up quality with each redesign. So now they're stuck with "Cruze", a name that'll appeal to Americans, but will sound very awkward elsewhere on Earth, while "Cavalier" rolls off almost anyone's tongue with aplomb!
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top