Talk:Chevrolet Cavalier

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Automobiles Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Brands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article contains a translation of トヨタ・キャバリエ from ja.wikipedia.

"Designed straight off the drawing board"? As opposed to some other way? I changed it to "produced", what the original writer obviously intended. Trekphiler 04:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made a big change by adding "for over a decade they went, but were then discontinued" :) Whopper 02:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the User-Manual link. It's a nice thing to be able to look at, and also, if anybody has attempted a Google search for one, they're near-impossible to find. --Shadic 31 July, 2006

One: (Note article lists Vega / Monza, Chevette then Cavalier which means this article establishes a lineage) http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=109161 The old Vega bodies remained unchanged through 1979 and dribbled out a few more sales before leaving the Monza and Chevette to continue on with negligible effect in the small-car market through 1980 and 1981 until the arrival of the Cavalier (note placement of Monza and Chevette in small-car market, showing Cavalier replaced both in terms of stronger sales)

First-Generation Cavalier: 1982-1994 After introducing the front-drive Citation as replacement for the Nova during the 1980 model year, it was no surprise that Chevrolet would introduce a front-drive machine in the empty spot in its lineup left when the Vega and Monza disappeared, just above the decrepit Chevette. The 1982 Cavalier would be that car

It says "above the decrepit Chevette". This proves my point quite well, thank you. --93JC 22:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Granada did the same thing to the Maverick. Go upmarket in size and price, but get the bulk of the market. Fact is that the Cavalier sold like crazy and completely sucked out whatever cars the Chevette sold, and then some. The Spectrum and Sprint sold in very, very limited numbers, in no way replacing the Vega or Chevette for all intents and purposes, They were also imports, the Cavalier was sold and marketed as American for American tastes, and it sold that way as much as import-biased editors turned their noses up at it. The thesis of this article is that it establishes the lineaage of Chevy domestic import fighters very clearly though you can't see either the forest or the trees. --matador300 01:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two: (This fellow also recognizes obvious Cavalier as successor to Chevette) http://sev2maryann.severnschool.com/student_life/ms_classes/gyost/hobbies/yostcars.htm

Depending on the model it was roomier, bigger, more comfortable, safer, sportier, and in some versions more economical than its' competitors including the Rabbit/Golf, Fiesta and Pinto (and their successor Escort), and the Chevette (and its successor the Cavalier).

Written by an amateur. --93JC 22:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you would be an ... amateur?? At least he's got a credible web site, evidently you don't. I wonder why I couldn't find an amatuer who cited the Spectrum and Sprint as chevette replacements?? Maybe .. .he's right and you're wrong??? Naaaa. --matador300 01:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three: (Establishes lineage starting with chevette, which was preceded by Vega, then Cavalier as the next car from GM) http://www.carguidemagazine.com/archive/apr2005/roadTests/chev_cobalt.php GM's small car blues are over Story & photos by Michael Bettencourt GM promised more than a few times a compact car that could compete with the best the Japanese had to offer. First with the Chevrolet Chevette, then the Cavalier, then it found a radically larger pail of money to put behind the effort in 1990 with the introduction of the Saturn brand.

This recognizes Chevette, Cavalier and the original Saturns as attempts to combat Japanese compacts and subcompacts. It doesn't say "Cavalier succeeded Chevette as Chevrolet's subcompact hatchback". By your logic this article infers the Saturn SL, SC and SW "replaced" the Cavalier... --93JC 22:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, the idea was pretty much the same, but GM policy was to make saturn distinct, probably a mistake. It's a lot better than your citation, which is blank space. --matador300 01:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four: (And the wagon which replaced the chevette / vega was.. Not the Cavalier??) Chevy Vega Station Wagon - Jul 24... Chevette which essentially replaced the Vega as Chevy's Chevy Station Wagon ... Chevy Car Cover-Chevy Corvette Camaro Cavalier Malibu Silverado Tahoe . ... findit1.info/station-wagon/chevy-vega-station-wagon.php

I can't believe you're even trying to pass this off as a reference... --93JC 22:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalier wagon is first true replacement for Vega wagon, also replaces Chevette. How come you can't find even a random person on the web to at least agree with your position, at least this person agrees with my position --matador300 01:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Five: (also establishes lineage violated by previous WP successor listing, though Apolloboy would object to Corvair connection as much as matador / premier connection, but connection is there, though debatable whether Corvair / Chevy II is a sub/compact relationship, Chevy II was an alternative engine compact) http://www.internetautoguide.com/reviews/45-int/compact-cars/chevrolet/cobalt/2005/index.html a transportation appliance in the longtime Chevrolet mold of the Corvair, the Vega, the Chevette, the Monza, and most recently the Cavalier.

"Transportation appliance" the operative words. It doesn't establish a direct lineage whatsoever, just that they were cheap. --93JC 22:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vega did same function as Covair (VW fighter). Chevette and monza replaced Vega. Agreed. Then Cavalier replaced, Chevette, not the Spectrum or Suzuki, as neither appears in this list. --matador300 01:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Six: (another misinformed editor? ) http://www.autobytel.com/content/research/index.cfm?id=4;ABTL&action=ShowArticle&aid=139128 "Go through the list: the controversial Corvair, the troubled Vega, the behind-the-times Chevette and the Cavalier, which actually sells well but only with a $3,000 rebate. "

Does not establish lineage. All it says is the Chevette and Cavalier were behind-the-times, not predecessor-successor. --93JC 22:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silly. One comes after another, agreed? Chevette replaced Vega, agreed? They all serve the same niche, agreed? Then one replaced the other. --matador300 01:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this proper succession of Chevrolet small cars exists anywhere on WP outside of this talk page. I believe it should (and guess who would jump all over me if I tried??)

I have six directly supporting citatios, and the number of conflicting citations you have versus six is ... zero?? I did notice your list of other successor cars, but just becuase an old design is allowed to sell until it dies does not mean that the Granada did not replace the Maverick, or that the Shadow did not replace the Omni. Clearly the compact car with the largest sales that covered the Chevette's mission was the Cavalier, though they also sold rebadged Izuzus and Suzukis which also served a crappy entry level cars. There was no other 4 or 5 door car in Chevy besides the chevette, the Cavalier could not replace only the Monza because it was only fastback and notchback coupes. --matador300 20:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This does not establish a Chevette -> Cavalier lineage whatsoever. Is your native language English? You seem to have reading comprehension difficulties. --93JC 20:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I re-iterate once again that none of this establishes a lineage between Cavalier and Chevette. Find a qualitatively good source that says Cavalier succeeded Chevette directly. So far you have six crap sources that don't say much at all. --93JC 22:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP does not say you can simply dismiss citations as biased or unreliable, especially when you have no contradicting citattions which demonstrate that any of these are actually factually false. Fact is, I have several references, and you my friend have none. This is precisely how the F-14 guy got his ridiculous POV into the WP, he was able to erase all of my corrections by claiming none of the references, even from books or videos, was good. He lost in the mediation. Again, I challenge you to find one reference, other than WP, which constructed this viewpoint as original research, that claims that the Cavalier did not replace the Chevette, or is not the heir to the Chevette as Cheverolet's import fighter

I must ask you to cease removing cited edits, and to quit replacing it with unverifiable original research colored by POV. I see no evidence that you beliefs come from, or are backed by any article published on paper or the internet, or broadcast, and you seem to certainly be incapable of providing any supporting or concurring statements of fact or even opinion, or finding it even it it was out there. The WP is the only place that makes this assertion, and does not recognize the validity of at least 6 articles that openly conflict with the unverifiable assertion, which makes it at LEAST IN DISPUTE, certainly impossible to state "chevette was not replaced by Cavalier". and you and a couple of other editors appear to be the problem that needs to be rectified. I must ask again why this issue is of such importance that you must toss verified research, and impose your constructed opinion? --matador300 01:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"General Motors has never achieved much success at the subcompact level, perhaps due to a lack of continuity in its product offerings. Since the demise of the Chevette in the mid-80's, that market slot has been filled at different times by such nameplates as Sprint, Metro, Optima, LeMans, Firefly, and the never-to-be-forgotten Asüna."

Source: http://caen.shipping.autos.moonport.com/vip/jedlicka.aspx?modelid=10721&src=vip

Happy? --93JC 14:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've copy/pasted most of this from the Chevette talk page, as most of the problems there are also over here.

• Citation 1 ~ "Chevrolet Vega states that the Vega was replaced by the Chevette and Monza"Errr, no it doesn't (at least, not as of this moment).
• Citation 2 ~ The link to the edmunds.com article clearly states "...it was no surprise that Chevrolet would introduce a front-drive machine in the empty spot in its lineup left when the Vega and Monza disappeared, just above the decrepit Chevette."
• You stuck two references in a single citation. Please read WP:FOOT for instructions on how to properly format your references.
• The {{neutrality}} tag has been removed because no-one is biased for or against either the Cavalier or Chevette. The appropriate tag would be {{Disputed}}
• Please stop using your edit summaries to attack other users. As per WP:ES#Use of edit summaries in disputes, "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved."

I'll revert this article as well once I can find the last good edit. -- DeLarge 14:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, please STOP embedding messages within the article using the <!-- <comment> ---> tags unless you have a very valid reason for doing so. Your comment that "Edmunds does _not_ say it did _not_ replace chevette" is a

logical fallacy; it is not up to everyone else to prove what Edmunds did not say, it is up to you to cite a source which does say what you're claiming, and you have failed to do so. -- DeLarge 14:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The Chevette was not the predecessor of the Cavalier. In fact, the Chevette was sold for another five model years after the Cavalier was introduced. Cavalier started in 1982 and Chevette ended in 1987. But if you mean to say the Cavalier eventually replaced both the Monza and the Chevette then you may be correct to say the Chevette was a predecessor of the Cavalier.

75.33.81.8 09:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Vega was the direct predecessor of the Monza (although both the Vega and the Vega-derived Monza were sold together for a time) and the Monza was the direct predecessor of the Cavalier. 75.33.81.8 09:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the Cavalier was the direct predecessor of the Cobalt.

Also note that the GM Lordstown Assembly Plant produced the Vega, Monza, Cavalier and Cobalt in succession. 75.33.81.8 10:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know that, I know that, anyone with half a brain cell's worth of common sense knows that. But believe it or not we had to argue about this with "matador300", née Wiarthurhu. Not surprisingly this user was banned indefinitely from editing. --93JC 03:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to User:Wiarthurhu's claim in his edit summary, User:ApolloBoy did not remove "sourced edits"; as can be seen from the diff of the revert, the only things that were restored were a questionable paragraph and two nondescript external links. ApolloBoy's edits seem to have been a sucessful attempt to tidy the content which User:Jnelson09 thought was worthy of a {{NPOV}} tag.

Comparing the two, I see less POV in ApolloBoy's edit. I'd favour keeping his tidied version, rather than Wiarthurhu's. --DeLarge 23:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were only two generations of Cavalier, this "Second Generation Phase One and Two" are exactly the same as the "First Generation", They were given a whole new design in '94

Only someone who has never owned/worked on/seen in person both a 1st (82-87) AND 2nd Gen (88-94) J body would make an ignorant statement like that. There are so many things wrong with it, I don't know where to begin.

While there are some similarities with cosmetic interior parts between 1st Gen & 2nd Gen (P1), there are many differences. Once 2nd gen reached P2, even the interior parts are completely different. AFAIK, there isn't a single exterior body part on a 2nd gen that will work (without modification) on a 1st gen without transferring say, the entire front clip (it's been done in both directions) creating a 1st/2nd gen hybrid.

Regarding the "whole new design" in '94 -- it's actually '95. 1994 was the last year of the 2nd gen J body. Other than mostly cosmetic changes, there are *many* mechanical parts completely interchangeable from 88-05, and some even from 82-05. If you use entire assemblies instead of individual parts many more of those same parts are compatible with all years & makes of the J body. That doesn't mean that there are only 2 or 1 generations of the J platform, that's just GM recycling parts to reduce developmental & manufacturing costs.

I could really go on with this for a while, but it's not worth my time. Just stick to cars you know friend, the less guessing when it comes to wikipedia the better. ;) Toastysoul 02:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couple issues:

1. The article does not need so many pictures, the modified cavalier and the last picture with the time stamp in the lower right hand corner can both go.

2. Does anyone know the horsepower and torque ratings for the engines? I tried to look through all the tables relating to the engines and years of engine production and the info seemed incomplete. I dont see why we can't put all this info into one easy to read chart with all relevant info included. --Nytemunkey 20:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least there was also a 2.4L engine available in the LS model as well as the Z24 (thus the nomenclature) which isn't in the article. --MtB (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to rewrite this article completely from scratch again. Karrmann 22:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

151.213.106.167 01:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Guys, looking at the article, I can see there are a few flaws. For instance, there was never a Chevrolet Cavalier SS. Yes there was a concept SS that supposedly got 263 horsepower at the flywheel but there was never a production version of the Cavalier SS produced by GM and Chevrolet. Dealers created their own Cavalier SS's which was nothing more than appearence modifications and was not officially produced, licensed or endorsed by Chevrolet or General Motors. In addition if one is going to list the Canadian trim levels of the Cavalier, it should also be listed in the section about models and trim levels that while the Z24 model was renamed "LS Sport" in the United States when the Cavalier underwent a face lift in 2003, that it continued on in Canada as the Z24 for the top trim level. I agree this article needs to be rewritten and it needs to be consistent.[reply]

"Both platforms had conventional rear-drive layouts which suffered in comparison with more efficient front wheel drive offerings such as the Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic"

The Toyota Corolla was rear wheel drive, carburettered and break-point ignition (base models) until 1985. So how was it 'more efficient' ?203.39.81.92 (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that stating front wheel drive cars are more effficiant is a matter of opinion, and has no place in an encyclopedia!! --24.118.44.45 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese have long held off on the kind of unreasonable emissions laws that originated in the US. Did the Toyota Cavalier gain from any removal of unnecessary emissions gear? Nevard (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a source on who and where it is called that? I have NEVER heard it referred to as that. However, I do call my car my "Cavy", so that part I can understand. KnightCrusader (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working to try and get the Cavalier page back and organized. Someone screwed this page up months ago and now there is very little general info on it. Last night I revamped the second gen page with random facts arranged in a timeline. I plan to do this with the first and third gens too once I get a better hang of editing wiki pages. ScoobyDoo82 —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

i have two engines , one block has 4 sensors and the other has 2, will it run without these senors attached

"In 1989, the steering column was redesigned to be collapsible"

What ?!! Collapsible steering columns became mandatory in 1968 :

(Ref :http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/pdf/809834Part2.pdf, p. 11 :

"FMVSS 203/204 became effective on January 1, 1968 (passenger cars) and September 1, 1981 (multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses)",

"FMVSS 203 requires that the impact force developed on the chest not to exceed a safe level of 2500 pounds from the steering column during an impact of 15 mph. This is accomplished by designing the column to collapse at a controlled rate upon impact")

Could the author of this statement please rephrase this ? 203.26.122.12 (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. This paragraph will self destruct.123.3.24.16 (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just putting these links here before they get lost, still need to verify if info in article matches info in links.

• media.gm.com/dam/Media/documents/CA/Archives/EN/Vehicles/chevrolet/1996Cavalier.html
• media.gm.com/dam/Media/documents/CA/Archives/EN/Vehicles/chevrolet/1997Cavalier.html
• media.gm.com/dam/Media/documents/CA/Archives/EN/Vehicles/chevrolet/1998Cavalier.html
• media.gm.com/dam/Media/documents/CA/Archives/EN/Vehicles/chevrolet/1999Cavalier.html
• media.gm.com/dam/Media/documents/CA/Archives/EN/Vehicles/chevrolet/2000Cavalier.html
• media.gm.com/dam/Media/documents/CA/Archives/EN/Vehicles/chevrolet/2001Cavalier.html
• media.gm.com/dam/Media/documents/CA/Archives/EN/Vehicles/chevrolet/2002Cavalier.html
• media.gm.com/dam/Media/documents/CA/Archives/EN/Vehicles/chevrolet/2003Cavalier.html
• media.gm.com/dam/Media/documents/CA/Archives/EN/Vehicles/chevrolet/2004Cavalier.html
• media.gm.com/dam/Media/documents/CA/Archives/EN/Vehicles/chevrolet/2005Cavalier.html

VX1NG (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060214101553/http://www.autoworld.com:80/apps/news/FullStory.asp?id=335 to http://www.autoworld.com/apps/news/FullStory.asp?id=335

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

I have just modified one external link on Chevrolet Cavalier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081127162428/http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4204.pdf to http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4204.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For those who can't get this article, here's the typed version of it:

The Chevy Cavalier must be one whale of a car; it's taking two cars to replace it. The 2004 Chevy Aveo will arrive in January to court the old Cav's budget-conscious buyers, while the 2005 Chevy Cobalt debuts later next year to woo "premium small car" buers. The double dip was necessitated, said Timothy Techlin, performance manager for Aveo, by a dilemma General Motors has faced for yearsl battling entry-level econo-cars like the Kia Rio and Hyundai Accent with highly incentivized, deeply discounted, low-trim-level Cavaliers while, at the same time, facing such champagne econo-rides as the Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla with tricked out versions of that same Cavalier. That's too much to ask of one car, Techlin said. "Cavalier was doing double duty, trying to appeal to the premium small car buyer and the entry-level car buyer." he said. "Now, Aveo will come in to appeal to the value shoppers, and Cobalt will appeal to the permium small car buyer."

Source: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/95868764/cavalier-replacement-cars/

I am changing this to add Aveo to the list, per the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3AE0:4760:B820:6D13:17E9:270 (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first 3 generation infoboxes have the name "1J". Regushee said in edit summary that this is the platform code. I'm comfortable with 1J being the platform code. However, it is not a generational code, so it is not helpful to name each of 3 separate generations as the same "1J". Nor is it explained in the text why 3 separate generations have the same name. The "1J" should be in the platform field and the name field should be either "First generation", "Second generation", "Third generation" or some (verified) code that is unique to each generation. It would also be helpful if the "1J" platform code was explained in the text and/or linked to some article explaining Chevy platform codes (eg some web searching found the presumably related 2J code for the Pontiac Sunbird).  Stepho  talk  22:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regushee, thank you for the work you have put into improving this article.

I can see where the "J" platform comes from. Where does the "series" and "1" come from? Are these what they are commonly known as? I have seen terminology like J-body in common use to describe the platform but not "series 1J".

In the third gen the engine sizes are: 2,189 cc (133.6 cu in), 2,198 cc (134.1 cu in), 2,260.5 cc (137.9 cu in), 2,392.3 cc (146.0 cu in). It's unusual to go to a decimal place for either cc or cuin. I suspect that there is double conversion happening somewhere (possibly in the source). We might have to go to the engine pages and calculate the engine sizes from the bore and stroke to see which one is the original and which is the metric-imperial conversion.

Life is much easier for those of us double checking your work if you provide edit summaries. Eg, for the fourth gen you correctly removed the J-body link I had wrongly added. Out of the 20 edits you did I don't know which ones to thank and which ones (potentially) I should revert without tediously doing a compare on each and every one of them.

It was decided on the automobile project that section headers should only contain start dates and that end dates are deprecated. (That was the edit that I wanted to revert.)  Stepho  talk  00:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For Quad_4_engine#LD9:

Metric 90x94 mm gives 2392.009cc

Imperial 3.54x3.70 inch gives 146 cuin

Gut feeling is that the metric values are the real ones but I'm unsure which is the actual dimension and which is the converted (hence rounded) dimension.  Stepho  talk  05:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]