Last post on Oct 01, 2009 at 1:32 AM
You are in the Chevrolet Cobalt
What is this discussion about?
Chevrolet Cobalt, Coupe, Sedan
#20 of 28 cavalier reliable car
Jan 27, 2008 (7:31 am)
I had a Nissan 300zx that caught fire and bought a Cavalier in 1993 to replace it. It was a big step down, but due to insurance costs, had to do it. I do not regret my decision. Not only did I save money on maintenance , and insurance costs, that car is still running today with just basic maintenance. I sold it to its second owner when it had 130,000 miles on it. I bought a second Cavalier in 2001 and still drive it. I have low mileage on it, and the dash is starting to crack, the paint is coming off the rear scoop, but it runs like a charm. I have never regreted my purchase of either of these cars. I also own a Ford Excursion, and my cavalier has been my
life saver with fuel costs the way they are! :
#21 of 28 My first Cobalt impression *warning: LONG*
Feb 20, 2008 (4:54 pm)
I drove a base model 5-speed 2008 Cobalt LS sedan this morning. I had just stepped out of a 2009 Corolla base 5-speed not 15 minutes before, so I was biased toward the new redesigned Corolla walking onto the Chevy lot. The Corolla felt extremely solid and easy to drive. The salesperson was cordial and the car was very impressive compared to the used 2007 Corolla CE 5-speed that I test drove earlier in the morning. I think Toyota did a great job with the new Corolla and I expect them to sell as well as the 2003-2008 model it replaces. On my way home I decided to stop in a Chevrolet dealer to see a Cobalt since I still have not driven one since they came out to replace the Cavalier in 2005.
That said, I liked the Cobalt better. The clutch and shifter were better placed, had better feedback, and weren't as rubbery as the Toyota's. The Cobalt felt like it had more torque and was more difficult to stall out with no throttle application from a dead stop. Shifting 1-2 and 2-3 with no clutch was much smoother in the Cobalt. The Toyota shift knob felt notchy and out of place, like an automatic shifter, whereas the Chevy shift knob was shaped properly and the travel was just right.
I like the information center on the Cobalt which gives instantaneous MPG, compass, temperature, oil life monitor, and it even tells you the individual pressures in each tire! The temperature gauge is a digital reading, exact to the degree, whereas the Toyota uses a needle gauge with only a "C" and "H".
I like to sit high up and put the tilt wheel as high as it goes when I drive. I'll put the seat all the way up vertically, adjust the seat bottom travel (fore/aft) so my feet comfortably reach the pedals, then recline the seat back until two things happen. First, my hair must not be touching the headliner (and I have a buzz cut), and second, I must be able to rest my wrist on top of the steering wheel with my shoulder blade touching the seatback, so I may steer 360 degrees without having to lean forward at all. In the Corolla, I was able to acheive the proper seating position but the tilt steering wheel would not go high enough to allow me to see all the gauges. I had to lower the seat to see all the gauges. With the seat lower, the shifter was higher in relation to my arm and it was not comfortable to use the armrest while shifting. In the Cobalt, I got my seating position, the tilt wheel went plenty high, but there was no armrest for my right arm. This was fine because the shifter in the Cobalt is so low on the console that I could rest my right arm on my right leg when not shifting. This was surprisingly comfortable although I might look into the center console armrest as a dealer accessory anyway.
Of course this is all subjective to my tastes. But what is not subjective is the price. No rebates on the 2009 Corolla. Best price negotiated at 3 Toyota stores came to $15,785, down a mere $700 from MSRP. $2000 rebate on the 2008 Cobalt. Best price negotiated at 2 Chevy stores came to $11,300, down $3210 from the $14,510 MSRP. Both cars are black, have AC, ABS, CD/MP3 with aux. jack, electric power steering, tilt wheel. No cruise, power anything on either. Both had floor mats as dealer accessories. Corolla had $295 of paint sealant was the only equipment difference and this $295 is NOT included in the prices above.
If the Corolla and Cobalt were only a few hundred dollars apart, I'd consider the Corolla for its excellent reliability record, resale value, and better visibility. But for nearly $4500 difference, give me a Cobalt.
Now as to the Cobalt versus the Cavalier, I will admit I have not driven an Ecotec-equipped 2003-2004 Cavalier to give a true comparison. But I did extensively drive a 1999 Cavalier sedan, automatic, with 103K on it, when I worked for a car repo company. The 1999 Cavalier versus the 2008 Cobalt is like comparing a late 80s Toyota Camry to a new Lexus ES350. Hello, night, I'd like you to meet my good friend, day. BUT the Cobalt IS the replacement for the Cavalier, and they are/were both built at the Lordstown, Ohio plant.
#22 of 28 Re: My first Cobalt impression *warning: LONG* [occupant1]
Feb 23, 2008 (6:06 am)
Nice report but are you going to buy one? I drove the previous model Toyota Matrix GT a few years ago and didn't like it at all. The interior was one of the cheapest that I can recall and as you mentioned the shifter was pretty notchy and didn't easily go through the gears like some other cars on the market. In fact my Chevy S10 p/u 5-speed was smoother than that for the first 8-years or so. Additionally the Matrix shifter was goofy with dashboard like placement.
#23 of 28 3 small Chevys... will buy another.
Mar 08, 2008 (6:02 pm)
I agree with one of the posters that the Cobalt is a replacement for the Cavalier just like the Aveo replaces the Metro. The Camaro was never replaced... it just went on hiatus (unless you would like to stoop so low and say the Monte Carlo replaced it).
I owned a 1992 Cavalier with the V6 and if it wasn't for the rust, it would've lasted forever. It had a fairly bad oil leak that I couldn't afford to repair (I was in high school) and I ran it so low that there was none on the dipstick and it still ran without complaint. My family has had a 1990 and they now have a 2002 and 2003 all three of which have great reliability. From these four cars I don't see why people would think that American cars have inferior reliability. The one exception was the 2001 Z24 I had... it went through 2 motors in less than 2 years. I learned that the 2.4 LD9 was always an unreliable motor... so that's the version I would stay away from.
I just purchased a 2007 Cobalt LS coupe brand new for $10,300. I would love to see a new Corolla or Civic for that price. I'm expecting good reliability since it has the same motor as the 2003 Cavalier. If so, I will be back for another in another 4-5 years.
#24 of 28 Re: 3 small Chevys... will buy another. [georgecavalier]
Mar 09, 2008 (5:55 am)
Most people don't understand what reliability is. They here that the Corolla is rated the most reliable car in its class and think it is engine related but its not. Reliability mostly has to do with the little things such as power windows, power seats, power trunk releases, sunroofs, etc., needing service. Because a car like the Corolla may have had better luck with some of the features mentioned above people equate that with driveability and the car running. The Ecotec engines are arguably the best engines on the market and Car & Driver recently said that the Malibu's 2.4 EcoTec seemed more refined, quiet, and smoother than the Accords four banger which is supposedly the class leader for many years.
As far as that previous Quad Four engine that you mentioned those were actually not to bad but a lot had bad head gaskets causing leakage of anti-freeze or warped heads. Internally they were good otherwise and did pretty well in racing. The new EcoTec's are dominating racing since they came out and broke all of the speed/performance records in the Guiness Book of World Records that Honda used to have.
#25 of 28 Re: 3 small Chevys... will buy another. [poncho167]
May 27, 2008 (12:28 am)
I'm a GM guy and will stick by them but I will never buy another Quad 4. I payed almost $6000 for that car and should have gotten alot longer use. The Ecotec is a superior replacement with tons of aftermarket parts. The Cavalier was a good design but the Cobalt (especially in interior quality) is even better.
#26 of 28 Re: 3 small Chevys... will buy another. [georgecavalier]
May 31, 2008 (11:06 am)
They did surprisingly good in road racing in the Grand Am, but those engines were pretty trick. The Quad 4's issue was the head gaskets. Only in the later years did they have the problem corrected. I think the engine started as a 2.3 and then went to 2.4.
#27 of 28 Re: 3 small Chevys... will buy another. [poncho167]
Jun 01, 2008 (8:05 am)
Right... the engine has been around since 1987 as a 2.3 liter. There was a variety of versions. They all were replaced with the LD9 (2.4 liter) in 1996. That motor was used through 2002 when it was phased out by the Ecotec. My Cavalier was quick and acceleration was never a complaint. Since my car was a 2001 I would consider that a later model. I never had a head gasket problem. When the first motor went, it was a problem in the lower end. The second motor was from a 2001 Grand Am. It started knocking horribly. Instead investing more money, I said the heck with it and bought a new car.
#28 of 28 There's a big difference...
Oct 01, 2009 (1:32 am)
The car I had before my Cobalt LS, was a 1994 Chevy Cavalier and had alot better gas mileage than the Colbalt. My Cavalier did get 35 city/39 hwy. It was great, until the head gasket or water pump was going. My Cobalt LS gets 27 city/ 34 hwy. So, there's a BIG difference on gas mileage, Cavaliers are alot cheaper, Cobalt (you might as well just wait 2 years for prices to drop and buy it used,) Of course, Cobalt's are smaller but, with more cargo room, Cavaliers are longer but, the trunk's are too small. Cobalt's are more reliable and dependable but, not fuel efficient but guess it's better than SUV's and trucks. Take a look on styles, there is definitely a BIG difference. Some people like's style (I'm one of them) and some people like's fuel efficient. Some like's more cargo room, and some like to have something cheaper and alot easier to fix repairs.
Why do we think Cobalt's replaced Cavaliers? It's just like people being replace, as no one can never ever be replace. Although, technology these days, are now replacing all of us and losing our jobs. But all things consider and set aside, Take a look at every vehicle on the streets and roads, tell me what you see and what it;s telling us. Every vehicle are different and has all different names. Just like Cavalier and Cobalt, there is no comparison. You get the point. Everyone want's to compete with one another to start WARS. Pontiac's are taking Cobalt style, and taking Chevy models to compete. It is insane, Either way, Cavalier is NOT a Cobalt, and Cobalt DID NOT replaced Cavaliers. That's just my opinon..