- 40,673
No, there are plenty of other reasons that it is hideous. I outlined some of them here; and so did a few others.
Questionable modifications: pictures inside!
- Thread starter -Fred-
- 38,839 comments
- 2,836,848 views
No, there are plenty of other reasons that it is hideous. I outlined some of them here; and so did a few others.
Downhill Dino
Premium
- 11,753
- Maryland
- DownhillDinosaur
Where can I get one?
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
Granted, when they redesigned it in '95 they did actually take away one of the main reasons I like my Sunbird so much, it gets decent gas mileage without sounding like a weed whacker & it'll pull from very low RPM. Their attempt to go along with the "blob car" styling trends of the time was also less than beatiful. Some versions of the 2002 facelift could, however, look pretty nice.
As for the misaligned hood you used as an example of poor build quality on what appears to be a 2003 model judging by the window sticker, that picture was taken when the car was already several years old (the minivans are 2010 models), so it could have been the victim of a crash and subsequent half-effort repair (such things have been known to cause panel misalignment).
That said, the quality of my Sunbird has been decent, any imperfections with it have been the dealer's fault, or the result of long neglect and exposure to the elements (it's never been garaged, and it suffered about six years of almost complete disuse), or my fault entirely. All except the alternator, which stopped working the day I went to get new tires (this being just a few months ago).
I'm not saying it's perfect - the cupholders are difficult to get at and don't hold drinks that well, and the small size makes it difficult to flip up, deploy, or in some cases move the sun visors while wearing a hat. Also, the gas cap tells you to "tighten past three clicks", which resulted in it getting stuck on so tight that I cut up one of my knuckles trying to get it off recently. But for what it is, it's fine, and that V6 super epic.
The Cimarron, on the other hand, is a perfect example of what killed the Big 3. They thought they could do luxury on the cheap by taking a generic car, adding some chrome and leather and a flashy badge, and selling it for way too much. They thought people would put up with it forever. Sur-priiiiise!
And I'd still rather be seen in any of those than in the too-large, too-heavy, ~85ci engine, designer-handbag-looking Cruze. The car that's actually had a promotional tie-in with Glee. Hasbro could give somePONY a Chevy Cruze, feature it prominently in every shot of their show, and it wouldn't affect my opinion at all 'cause that car has already hit rock bottom.
- 17,865
- 509
You realize the Cavalier and its cousins are often brought as to why GM was failing? The interior quality on any of them, along with the exterior quality, was an absolute joke compared to any of the competition? That the Japanese cars out classed it in every single way, except possibly, looks and that is only if you ignore the panel gaps large enough to run my thumb through.
And the Cruze you seem to be so hell bent on bashing for all of the wrong reasons is an infinitely better car. In terms of fit and finish, refinement, and especially safety.
Take your hilarious level of insecurity else where, please.
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
Fit & finish - like I said, I haven't had any problems with mine. Any "fit & finish" issues have been the result of a horrible paint job by a dealer that apparently hates its customers (and which is somehow still in business).
Refinement - is it really that important for a cheap, entry-level car to be refined? I actually enjoy the Sunbird's noisy, unrefined nature.
Safety - fortunately I wouldn't know the answer to that one personally.
Cruze being infinitely better - well, with only 138hp from the hamster named Onepointfourtee running in his wheel where the engine is supposed to be, and significant surplus weight (no doubt due to that allegedly all-important refinement), "infinitely" might not be the right word.
I will admit, if for some reason you want your car to waft you along (slowly) on a cloud of comfort and isolation, and you also don't care how disastrously in-character it would look in a JC Penny parking garage, then yes, the Cruze might be better. If you want a cheap, quick car that doesn't look in-character at a shopping mall, then the Cruze is a disaster.
P.S. Personally, I find your profile at least slightly amusing.
- 34,949
- Indian Falls, NY
- slashfan7964
That car is a joke...I see tons of them come into the shop. The interiors blatantly just suck and the performance is horrendous, not to mention totally unreliable. The ride quality is also really bad. That's why it's dubbed a Crapalier....
Last edited:
- 5,895
- Canada
- 17,865
- 509
That is great for you, but it is widely recognized as having a terrible interior. This isn't even debatable, it is just car fact.
Buy a Corolla, get similar level of refinement and noise with an interior that is just a bit better, a better motor, and better fuel economy!
2 star side impact rating, if I recall correctly. For about the 20 years or so they used that horrible platform.
Even if you have an old Z24 Cavalier, the Cruze Eco is still faster to 60. And down the drag strip. So clearly all that extra weight and lack of torque is killing it off lights
- 3,948
- Sturgis, MI
- GTP_ty00123
Refinement sells cars nowadays. If a car maker tried to put a car to the same spec as a Cavalier nowadays, even if they sold it for almost nothing, nobody would buy it. Most car buyers expect a reasonable-looking, quiet, comfortable interior.
Let's just say that they were well known for being rolling death traps, like most small cars from the 90's (my old Escort included), and leave it at that.
1993 Pontiac Sunbird 3.1 L 60-degree V6 140 HP 0-60 mph 9.1
2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco (yeah, the one with the 138-HP "onepointfourtee") 0-60 mph 7.9
Right.
- 7,703
- Indy
- xXKingJoshXx
White & Nerdy, the Cavalier sucks, just admit it. The only reason anyone should buy one is because they need extremely cheap transportation and nothing else. And about it being quick, my dad has one, he lives in Tennessee and he drives like a blind grandma, the Cavalier is too slow for him. The transmission ended up freezing up on him a couple years ago and he recently sold it to his brother who fixed it. But it's terrible, nothing redeeming about it. The S10 he has is no better. Limited space, windows roll down but you have to take the door panel off to roll it up, water comes in during rain, the stick shift is more immaculate than a Revolutionary War-era musket, the bed is rusting out because Chevrolet never put drain holes in the underside (can't think of the correct term) and the list goes on and on.
No one here is saying that because you drive a Cavalier you are any less of a person (and if they are, shame on them) but the Cavalier was never good from the start. Sorry.
No one here is saying that because you drive a Cavalier you are any less of a person (and if they are, shame on them) but the Cavalier was never good from the start. Sorry.
- 25,037
- Somewhere.
Isn't extremely cheap transportation the only reason why the Toyota Tercel even existed? It's painfully slow, not very pretty, but it could survive a nuclear fallout, and will cost you under 20$ a week to run. And you won't get lost in the ill-fitting interior panels, as depressingly grey or beige as they are.
- 901
- United States
- MiuraSV777
- 7,703
- Indy
- xXKingJoshXx
There were lots of cars made to only be cheap transportation. I'm tired so I can't think much right now but the Volkswagen Beetle is one example. But whereas cars like the Cavalier and Tercel are just boring blobs, the Beetle at least was fun and had some personality.
... That has to be one of the funniest things I have read all day
That was autocorrect
I typed inaccurate instead of immaculate but I guess it came out wrong lol.
- 901
- United States
- MiuraSV777
That was autocorrect
I got what you were getting at, even though immaculate means clean, no problems, ect...
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
People must be highly spoiled if they think that car's interior is some hideous disgrace. It's not an S-Class, but it'll do.
Did I just hear you say a Corolla had a better motor? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *breath* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Six cylinders beat four any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Even if you have an old Z24 Cavalier, the Cruze Eco is still faster to 60. And down the drag strip. So clearly all that extra weight and lack of torque is killing it off lights
I'll address that below, in my response to the guy who tried to prove that using zeroto60times.com.
Some pretty bad logic here, given away by your simultaneous mention of sorority girls and trailer park residents. Wondering why sorority girls drive J-cars is like wondering why construction workers drive pickups. In all likelihood, the vehicles in question were chosen for their practical merits (in this case, low cost, good fuel mileage, longevity in the V6 models, and convenient size) than for any particularly masculine or feminine characteristics they may posess. As far as manliness, I could make a lot of cracks about that coming from you, but suffice it to say, with six cylinders under the hood, it gets the job done well enough.
When I say I find your profile amusing, I mean I'm actually kinda glad you don't like my car.
What's wrong with people these days? Want to be isolated from every noise their car makes and every feature of the road. Of course, I'm not sure I'd actually want to hear a tiny I4 revving into the stratosphere in a lackluster attempt to provide power.
Considering the state of airbag technology at the time, I'm not sure they could have done much better.
I'm sorry, but did you just attempt to cite Zero to 60 Times as a reliable source? I laugh in the face of your bad data! If you're going to do that, better list all the relevant material instead of just the times that make the Cruze look faster.
1985 Cavalier Z24 - 1G, 2.8L - 9.4, 16.9
1986 Cavalier Z24 - 1G, 2.8L - 8.4, 16.5
1993 Cavalier Z24 - 2G, 3.1L: - 8.2, 17.1 <<< functionally identical to my Sunbird, though I've heard of them having some kind of functional cowl induction
1990 Sunbird Turbo - 2G, 2.0L + T -7.7, 15.8 <<< known to be slower than V6 models due to peaky powerband
1993 Sunbird - 2G, 3.1L? - 9.1, 16.7
1993 Sunbird SE vert - 9.1, 16.5 <<< likely somewhat slower than a coupe
2009 Cruze VCTi Diesel - ?.?L 9.9, ??.?
2011 Cruze LTZ MT - 1.4L + T? - 8.8, ??.?
2011 Cruze LT - 1.4L + T? - 9.3, 17.0 <<< within expected range as per various magazine tests
2011 Cruze Eco MT - 1.4L + T - 7.9, 16.1 <<< significantly faster than I've ever heard of a stock Cruze going
2012 Cruze Eco AT - 1.4L + T - 9.7, ??.?
2012 Cruze hatch AT - 1.4L + T? - 9.3, 16.5
Let's see, coupes going faster than convertibles, Sunbird Turbos beating V6 'birds and Cavaliers, nearly identical cars ('85 & '86 Z24) running a second apart with much closer 1/4 mile times, and a "stock" Cruze Eco running low 16s with a 7.9 sec 0-60. Yep, this data is totally trustworthy. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Cruze is faster.
@KingJosh sounds like your dad had a 4cyl Cavalier and neither one of those cars was well taken care of.
"More cylinders = unequivocally better" is schoolyard logic, dude. Why don't you have a W93½ quad-super-turbo-mega-twin-ultracharged stroke-injected VTEC rotary engine? Obviously that's the best.
Explain how this does not apply equally to the "girly" Cruze.
- 40,673
Probably could have seen what not using the exact same platform for 20 years, half of that with so little effort that the doors were interchangable across 3 major restylings, could have accomplished.
I'm sorry, why is that again? Because I'm looking at the traditional bonuses V6s offer over 4 cylinders, and I'm not really seeing correlation.
Wasn't a particularly powerful engine like most V6 options are, since it produced only 20 more horses in your car than just getting the 4 cylinder would have (and, indeed, was replaced with a 4 cylinder in 1995 that made the car faster and made more power). Wasn't a particularly smooth engine, because I've driven a Grand Am with the thing and it was about as happy revving past 5k as you'd expect a big capacity pushrod V6 from the early 80s would be. Wasn't a particularly nice sounding engine, which any experience with the hundreds of thousands of cars GM put it in should be enough to tell you that. It wasn't a light engine, since it was an iron block V6 with tons of block space built in for later expansion. It didn't make it that fast, because regardless of if it is any faster than the Cruze (which it still probably isn't regardless of if you want to say the data shown to you is invalid despite providing none of your own), it certainly wasn't faster than the Dodge Shadow ES (and probably not the Shadow V6 either, but we'll ignore that for now) and probably not the Civic Si either. And it wasn't that reliable, since "well, it's still running" isn't the same thing as "it's still running well."
And as far as fuel economy is concerned, it was nothing compared to its contemporaries; nevermind that icky Cruze with its modern engine that pulls 40 MPG all day long.
Last edited:
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
Fair point, but saying a 4cyl with, like, 100 hp is better than the bulletproof and extremely torquey 191 ci V6 is a bit out there.
The Cruze is newer and much more expensive, so if a young person is at the wheel, there's a much greater chance that the car was purchased for them by their parents. Thus, they have more of a choice, at least if they asked for it. Whereas a college student buying their own car is just going to buy whatever's cheap and won't explode halfway down the seller's driveway. If it's a V6 J-car, all the better.
Which leads me to my original point...
Regardless of who actually drives them, the 2nd gen J-body at least looks gender-neutral, which is better than My Little Front-end Styling courtesy of the Cruze.
I've heard the new diesel Cruze might be decent though. Nearly 20 years after discontinuing the V6 J-body, GM has seen fit to reintroduce the epicness of torque. It's still gonna look like My Not-so-Little "Compact" Car, but at least it might be able to bust a move once in a while.
Fair point, but back in the early '90s the car was a bit more up-to-date, and airbags were injuring people left and right. They were more like brass knuckles to the face than the expected fluffy cloud of softness.
Makes up for it by pulling like a freight train from 1500 all the way up to 5K. Also, my not-very-well-tuned instincts and some hard acceleration runs seem to tell me it's just a better intake away from revving much higher.
I don't know, I like the sound of it. At least it doesn't sound like a souped up blender.
Newsflash: even propulsion is actually provided by a hamster running in a wheel, a FWD car is always going to be extremely nose-heavy. If you're worried about the overall weight of the car, it doesn't even break 2600lbs, which is more than I can say for the Cruze.
Fixed for ya.
I can't vouch for them all, but mine's running just fine, and I've seen several of them around so they must be decently solid.
Probably not as bad as you think, but it does well enough. I'll have to start logging my fuel usage, but my odometer might be a bit off because of slightly oversized snow tires.
Last edited:
- 34,949
- Indian Falls, NY
- slashfan7964
- 8,239
- United Kingdom
- 3,948
- Sturgis, MI
- GTP_ty00123
Yes, they do. And speaking from experience, the 1.4 in my Sonic sounds better than the 3.1 they used in the 1993 models. Seeing's how this is completely subjective, your mileage can (and obviously does) vary. Also (forgive my using Wikipedia for these two, but finding reliable data for something this old is nigh-impossible):
3.1 L 60-degree V6 140 HP
1.4 L (1,364 cc) Ecotec I4 (t/c) (138 hp)
If we back up a few years, then 2.0 L Turbo 122 I4 165 HP, but since yours is a 1993, it's irrelevant as yours was never offered with this engine.
This I'll agree with, but it wasn't just airbags. The actual way the cars were built (e.g. no "crumple zones" to direct the energy away from the passengers) had even more to do with it.
I did use a :censored:ty website, but again, finding data for a 20-year-old Pontiac is not exactly easy. If you can cite any sources that contradict mine, go ahead.
Only three that are relevant, same platform or not. The turbo one only is since I referenced it earlier.
The heaviest and most "refined" option package still is quicker than your Sunbird, using this data.
Manuals going about 8 seconds to 60, autos going about 9. Compared to the 9 seconds your Sunbird takes (if you've got any sources that contradict mine, I'd love to read them), yeah, I'd say the Cruze is as quick or quicker.
...this data is totally trustworthy. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Cruze is faster.
Let's give you some more sources of information, shall we?
In closing: I don't much like the Cruze either. But to say that a 20 year old clunker from a manufacturer with a reputation for making horrible small cars at the time is better, well, I can't say what I really think without going outside the confines of the AUP.
Joel
Premium
- 8,141
- Halifax, NS
- Noob616
I dunno, I guess some people would rather have a 4cylinder with comparable power (the 1ZZ-FE), bullet proof reliability, light weight, and hilariously better fuel economy than pretend their crappy compact car is fast because V6 TORQUE YO. That's without getting into the substantially better crash safety of the Corolla and the better interior. I know, none of that silly stuff is as important as torque though.
Can't continue this conversation though, I'm going to Bed Bath and Beyond and JC Penney after my exam tonight.
Last edited:
Similar threads
