• The site migration is complete! Hopefully everything transferred properly from the multiple decades old software we were using before. If you notice any issues please let me know, thanks! Also, I'm still working on things like chatbox, etc so hopefully those will be working in the next week or two.

Sad to see it go

Lil larry

Lil larry

New member
I'm trading my gp off for a j body I just can't afford to put no more money in it plus it's a good way to get some off my old parts out of my way
 


Cavalier it's a 97 z24 5spd can't sell my cavy stuff so I'm getting put all the stuff on it to sell it and hopfully be back in a gp within a year
 
never really cared for the post 1994 cavalier, the old 2nd gens i have had two of them and love them. simple, reliable, fuel efficient little gems. the 2.2 in the post 1994's is a good engine if a little underpowered, with a head gasket repair they can run for a long time. the quad based engine YUK i would stay far away from any post 1994 Z24's. the quad is kinda of a dumb design in my opinion, i do not want an engine that has a timing chain driven water pump. i remember i had a good friend that used to own a shop. replacing the water pump on an olds achevia took an entire day..... NO THANKS. i still have my very clean, rare 1991 chevy cavalier convertible RS 3.1, and i dont plan on parting with that one. she hasnt seen any winters and has a brand new top. i love that little car on a 70 degree day well worth the $2,500 i have into her. that included the price of the car and of the new top that was installed by a place that specializes in tops. awesome little car.

i liked the older cavaliers and the V6 J-bodies. GM kind of lost it when they stopped putting V6's in those cars. the 2.8's and 3.1's were actually pretty decent little engines. they should have continued and put the 3400 in the later cavaliers, they would have been pretty quick
 


i had 2 quad powered j-bodies and never had an issue with either of them. Other than the fact I wrecked my 99z. I have a 2.2 eco and its a nive little engine. Quiet and fuel efficent for sure. Sometimes i forget it is running. I do however miss the 3.1 cavaliers too. Buddy had a cavalier wagon with the 3.1 and it was great.
 
ad356 said:
never really cared for the post 1994 cavalier, the old 2nd gens i have had two of them and love them. simple, reliable, fuel efficient little gems. the 2.2 in the post 1994's is a good engine if a little underpowered, with a head gasket repair they can run for a long time. the quad based engine YUK i would stay far away from any post 1994 Z24's. the quad is kinda of a dumb design in my opinion, i do not want an engine that has a timing chain driven water pump. i remember i had a good friend that used to own a shop. replacing the water pump on an olds achevia took an entire day..... NO THANKS. i still have my very clean, rare 1991 chevy cavalier convertible RS 3.1, and i dont plan on parting with that one. she hasnt seen any winters and has a brand new top. i love that little car on a 70 degree day well worth the $2,500 i have into her. that included the price of the car and of the new top that was installed by a place that specializes in tops. awesome little car.

i liked the older cavaliers and the V6 J-bodies. GM kind of lost it when they stopped putting V6's in those cars. the 2.8's and 3.1's were actually pretty decent little engines. they should have continued and put the 3400 in the later cavaliers, they would have been pretty quick
Click to expand...
Yeh I know all about the 2.4 issues they don't really hold up under a lot of pressure but I don't plan on keeping it very long I just need a way to get rid of my old parts sitting around my house
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top