Chevrolet Cavalier Z24
I fully expect to get hammered for this choice, but I sincerely can't help it--I loved these when I was a kid, recommended them to friends when I was older, and still think owning one of these would be a lot of fun. One friend who bought one on my recommendation loved it and still remembers it fondly.
It's a Cavalier. Yes, a Cavalier--the lowliest Chevy around for most of the last 20+ years. I'm not talking about just any Cavalier, though--I'm talking about the Z24 hot-rod edition. Feel free to pause for a moment to let the significance of that statement wash over you.
Admittedly, the Z24 didn't add a lot in terms of speed, but the Z24 at least guaranteed you'd get the more powerful 2.8-liter (later, 3.1-liter) V-6 and a tightened suspension that helped eliminate the base car's spongy feel. The Z24 package also added the visual horsepower of special wheels, silver accents across the bottom of the rocker panels, a lower stance, and Z24 badges. Yeah, it's cheesy, but at the time that stuff was pretty cool.
While the bone-stock, antiquated GM pushrod V-6 won't help the Z24 win many drag races these days, for the time its performance was suitably sporty. Most of its competition had high-winding 16-valve four-cylinder engines, and while those engines had a big edge in terms of sophistication, smoothness, and high-RPM performance, the relatively large V-6 had them all beat in terms of off-the-line torque and rorty exhaust note. Meanwhile, the
Z24's unsophisticated but stiff suspension and wide tires allowed it to grip tenaciously on smooth pavement--albeit at the expense of a smooth ride.
The extroverted looks, the purposeful exhaust note, the strong torque, and the good handling made the Z24 a bit of a poor man's muscle car. Well, make that a very destitute man's muscle car. Unfortunately, the Z24 couldn't improve on the woeful build quality and reliability typical of GM cars of the day.
The original bodystyle, with its right-angle styling, was pretty cool, but the smoother, more purposeful second-generation is my personal favorite. It was even available as a convertible!
I love the commercial below--not only does it resurrect the long-forgotten "Type 10" sub-Z24 sporty package, but it features the line "... with an interior that will comfort your very soul."
That's fantastic copy-writing right there.
The photos all come from V6Z24.com, which as one might guess is a fan site for Z24s and other GM J-bodies, such as the almost identical Pontiac Sunbird (which also came as a turbo!). The first photo comes from user chev_88z24_fan; the second of a rare first-gen comes from user zbart; the third from user blue88z; and the fourth from user 88redz.
--Chris H.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on February 27, 2008 at 01:36 PM
Chris, I'm more than a little surprised this wasn't a "Car Disgust" in the sub-category of "Poseur Muscle Cars."
The CRX I was driving in the 1980s didn't have the rorty exhaust note or the extroverted rocker panels. On the other hand, it didn't have that (infamous) Lordstown build quality or that legendary Chevy mechanical (un)reliability, either. When it came time for a little late-night rat-racing through the local metropark (the world's greatest public autocross course), the Type 10s didn't stand a chance.
Chris Hafner on February 27, 2008 at 01:42 PM
Cookie the Dog's Owner: "Chris, I'm more than a little surprised this wasn't a "Car Disgust" in the sub-category of "Poseur Muscle Cars."
If I was at all consistent or rational, it would be. But I do have a few little guilty pleasures--perhaps more than a few--and the Z24 is one of them. When it comes to the Z24, the 13-year-old in me overrides my higher functions.
Hands down, though, your (and Mochi Mochi's) CRX was a better car. No question.
on February 27, 2008 at 03:28 PM
I can remember them fondly...as they desperately attempted to keep up with my 455 powered 72 Olds Cutlass. Sorry, I meant Civic CRX.....All those wrong-wheel drive cars look alike to me.There was one Cavilier worth seeing; it was orange and had a blown small block and corrected to REAR wheel drive. happy trails!
Mochi Mochi on February 27, 2008 at 06:02 PM
I think "Cookie the Dog's Owner" and I would be quite certain of many war trophies - especially at the first turn. I have fond memories of several vintage american flintstone's mobiles ( think they were called "Oldsmobiles" or something like that) disappearing into a frothing cloud of dust as it wallowed in the weeds at the side of the road.
Recently fossilized remains of similar dinosaur and other primitive vehicles were unearthed at sites around the US. The archeological dig sites are easily identified as they are consistently located next to sharp curves. Other tell tales include significant concentrations of burned rubber compounds which match tread wear marks in the fossils.
One other interesting archeological note. Several of the large rear wheel drive fossils had pieces missing, gnaw marks, and impressions that match the logos of japanese auto manufacturers. Researchers now believe that some japanese cars - notably Civics and CRXs - may have lured these larger prehistoric vehicles to their untimely deaths then returned to feed on them as prey. Markings also hint at pack behavior indicating that these smaller, lighter, more agile vehicles actually evolved advanced intelligence and communications. These same vehicles were ultimately "domesticated" as hunter vehicles working in unison with their masters taking down the lumbering Dino and Flytemobiles.
All in good fun we love those big lumbering hulks. Besides everyone knows the engine should go in the middle. If only I could get a mid-engine Si hatchback or CRX. Now that would be sweet.
I once rented a cavalier and found that if you ran it pretty fast in reverse then dropped it in drive while flooring the accelerator it would do pretty nice burn-outs in a parking garage with clean floors. I personally think this is a pretty decent looking car and share Chris' preference for the 2nd gen styling. I think it's a nice looking car especially considering the time and the origins.
on February 27, 2008 at 06:50 PM
OK..your right, most of those cars were not meant to turn. Obviously I grew up in a different time. "Hot Rods" were based on horse power per cubic inch , not watts per channel and a "fart"can. there was however this little red car, it was biult to handle as many curves as it did straight lines. It was a GREMLIN(not kidding).It sported a 390 v8 and 50's series rubber on all four corners. I'm told the car still exists but has been put away in a garage somewhere here in Ct. My brother had a cavalier,it was alright when saving money for gas. The only front wheel drive that sort of impessed me was when that same brother traded his cavalier for a 1st generation Integra. I'd still rather be pushed than pulled,but I'm working on my 'tude about it !
ct
Oatworm on February 27, 2008 at 09:27 PM
Chris, I feel your pain. I have many a fond childhood memory of Dodge throwing turbos on any engine they could bolt one on to, then adding a Shelby nameplate to them. Of course, those memories don't make it right or good, but, hey, it does mean that I can dream about bolting a Turbo III in a Plymouth Reliant and having the ultimate sleeper...
God, I need help.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on February 28, 2008 at 07:41 AM
Mochi: If I'm remembering correctly, about 1985 or 86 Car and Driver took a 1st gen CRX Si and put a second motor and transaxle in the hatchback area, making it a twin-engined, 3.0L, 8-cylinder all-wheel drive "C-R-X-squared."
Now that would be wicked.
Frank Black on February 28, 2008 at 09:28 AM
I like the look of this car, at least the front end. My only experience with Cavaliers is that my mom had one for a while, the RS ("Real Slow") version. It was okay, I thought, but the clutch went out almost every year.
Oh, and this killed me, BTW: "Obviously I grew up in a different time. "Hot Rods" were based on horse power per cubic inch , not watts per channel and a "fart"can."
*snerk*
Joseph Condon on February 28, 2008 at 12:30 PM
I actually had a friend that had one of these cars.. he loved it, and from what I could see it was a really neat car.
Fred on February 28, 2008 at 12:49 PM
I prefer my Chevy Monza with the V8 to any Cavalier.
Chris Hafner on February 28, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Fred: "I prefer my Chevy Monza with the V8 to any Cavalier."
I wouldn't disagree with you.
http://www.carlustblog.com/2007/10/chevrolet-monza.html
Chris Hafner on February 28, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Mochi Mochi - cute and well-done!
:-)
Chris Hafner on February 28, 2008 at 01:01 PM
Oatworm: "Chris, I feel your pain. I have many a fond childhood memory of Dodge throwing turbos on any engine they could bolt one on to, then adding a Shelby nameplate to them. Of course, those memories don't make it right or good, but, hey, it does mean that I can dream about bolting a Turbo III in a Plymouth Reliant and having the ultimate sleeper...
God, I need help."
Oatworm, comments like these are why I write this blog. Keep the faith, and let me know if you ever build your Reliant sleeper.
Chris Hafner on February 28, 2008 at 01:06 PM
Mochi: If I'm remembering correctly, about 1985 or 86 Car and Driver took a 1st gen CRX Si and put a second motor and transaxle in the hatchback area, making it a twin-engined, 3.0L, 8-cylinder all-wheel drive "C-R-X-squared."
Yep, I have that issue. It was a pretty awesome story, too - I'll have to dig it out and re-read it.
While I remember thinking the concept was really neat, for some reason the part of the article I remember best is the fact that they couldn't get the two engines to turn at exactly the same RPM at a given speed, and so the uneven drone of the twin fours on the freeway drove them completely batty.
I always wondered - if the engines weren't synced just right, wouldn't you have a situation where the two engines might fight? Where one engine and set of driven wheels is trying to go faster than the other engine and set of driven wheels?
Maybe if they're both hooked up to automatics - I'm not sure how you'd manually shift both transaxles anyway - a sufficiently loose torque converter could absorb that. I don't know.
Chris Dodds on February 28, 2008 at 01:20 PM
Ah, this brings back memories. This was my first new car. Mine was red like the last photo and it did have a cool mid-80s look. Many of my Army buddies liked it at the time and for what I paid for it I got my moneys worth out of it.
I sold it with 120K miles on it when it started giving me problems.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on February 28, 2008 at 01:46 PM
Chris: If I remember correctly, the CRX-squared used automatic transmissions, and they said that having both engines and transaxles in the same car on the same road synced them well enough.
On the other hand, you have your copy right to hand, so you read it and tell me!
Elliott on February 28, 2008 at 02:19 PM
I had friend in high school whose parents bought him one of these off of the dealer lot brand new. I was jealous that he was getting brand new car but, being of the Road and Track, Car & Driver school of things at the time, I was pretty snobbed out at the idea of a whored up Cavalier. My dad was driving a 1st Gen GTI (replica port-o-let) at the time and my mom was in a CRX so I'd gotten plenty of wheel time behind "real" pocket rockets at the time he scored the Z24.
I was ready to hate the thing but much to my surprise it was pretty damn fun. The exhuast note was as rorty as reported and it actually would get out of it's own way. He never had any trouble with it either. Wasn't too rattly and never felt like it was going to start tossing parts as we zipped around town.
I think that may have been the point when I realized that the car mag guys might not be working from the same frame of reference as me.
sam on February 28, 2008 at 02:24 PM
Rorty exhaust? Have you been reading Car and Driver again?
jmo on February 28, 2008 at 03:01 PM
Oh, and let us not forget the Cavalier crash test results.
I do recall them getting one star: "sever or fatal injury certain".
Richard Fagin on February 28, 2008 at 03:29 PM
Makes me want to retrieve my '98 forest green Cav 4 door and drop in a GM Performance Parts 2.2 Ecotec with Eaton supercharger. Bwahahahhaa! And NO fart cans. I like nice, quite exhaust so you can sneak up on the rice boys and leave 'em scratching their heads after you sliently whoosh past 'em.
Oldcrow on February 28, 2008 at 03:35 PM
Whats wrong with the base Cavalier? I own a 1993 two door it is the most reliable car I have ever owned, three belts, two batteries, three alternators a clutch cable and it is still running like the day I bought it, I just drove it from San Diego to Pensacola it had 113,000 miles on it when I started and no problems, I love my Cavalier!
Owen on February 28, 2008 at 04:03 PM
I had a '91 Z24. It was my first car, and I loved it.
Alas, I wrecked it in a pile up, and replaced it with a Subaru.
Never did get those back seats clean...
Chris Hafner on February 28, 2008 at 04:12 PM
sam: "Rorty exhaust? Have you been reading Car and Driver again?"
Actually, I never stop reading Car & Driver.
Chris Hafner on February 28, 2008 at 04:14 PM
Cookie The Dog's Owner: "On the other hand, you have your copy right to hand, so you read it and tell me!"
When I get home, I'll make sure to check.
Stephen on February 28, 2008 at 04:29 PM
I had one of the first Z-24s. It was a great car for its time, and fairly fast. I won a lot of drag races with against Toyotas and CRX's, but I lost to those damn Dodge turbos. GM in their infinite wisdom only put a 4 speed manual, so I never had overdrive. It was cheap to own, in 180k miles I did one clutch, 1 waterpump, 3 starters, and several serp belts. I learned to work on cars on it, and it was easy to work on