(first posted 3/9/2014) Chevy takes quite a beating over the Cavalier. Critics tell us the car was too heavy, remained unchanged over the years, and didn’t break any new ground. While I agree with these assessments, Chevy did improve the Cavalier over the years, and this second generation model may be it’s sweet spot, especially this Z-24 model.
The Cavalier was already a couple of years old in 1986 when Chevy decided to add the Citation’s 2.8 liter 60 degree V-6 to the option sheet. This engine was a step in the right direction, delivering the traditional low-end torque domestic car fans were looking for while also compensating for the Cavalier’s relatively high curb weight.
To celebrate this new found power, Chevy offered the Z-24 performance package with upgraded wheels and suspension, ground effects, and an optional rear spoiler. I test drove a couple of these back in the day, and while the specification sheet listed a pretty solid horsepower rating (for the time), this car jut didn’t seem to deliver very much get up and go. While This Chevy ad tried to equate the Cavalier Z-24 with the Camaro and Corvette, the car just didn’t deliver. To my mind, in 1986 the math was more Z-28 minus 15, not Z-28 minus 4.
However, in 1988 Chevy refreshed the Cavalier and Z-24. The coupe received updated sheet metal (including a new roofline) and underhood, the 2.8 received a new set of aluminum heads, complete with a redesigned intake manifold. While the car only gained 10 horsepower on paper, the throttle response and drivability improved across the board, now justifying Chevy’s “Z” prefix.
I’m not exactly a Chevy guy, but over the years I’ve owned a couple, including a 1988 Cavalier Z-24. I actually spent several months looking for one equipped with the features I wanted (unusual for me), and ended up with a car very similar to this one. The “3.1” badge on the front fender indicates this is a 1990 Z24, but the engine displacement and body color is the only difference between this car and my 1988 model .
Looking at the parts alignment between the left tail light, trunk lid, bumper cover and lower trim piece reminds me why I got rid the car after only a year of ownership. My own car looked much the same when I got it, and I attempted to rectify the situation. After adjusting things they fit better, but still fell short of perfection. While I liked the overall design of the car, the final product scored at about 82%. All the elements came close, but nothing earned an A rating.
Another example of Chevy missing the mark: that shift lever in the center console. It’s connected to a three speed automatic which is a gear short in my mind. In addition, Chevy programmed it to upshift as soon as possible (they were shooting for maximum fuel economy). The 2.8 could manage such high gearing at low speeds, but thanks to this design, my sporty little Chevy now delivered pathetic performance in stop and go driving. It turns out a V-6 driving through third gear performs very much like a four cylinder using second gear.
I suppose I should be critical of some of the Z-24’s styling elements as well; I’m sure some out there will find this composite hood with double power bulges a bit cartoonish. But styling is subjective, and in this case I think the choices Chevy made nicely set the Z-24 apart from lesser Cavaliers. A sporty car needs some flash, and I think the Z-24 stays on the right side of that line separating “Check me out” from “Hey you A-holes, look at ME!”
This angle shows the best and worst styling features in the same shot. While I see where Chevy was going with the new roofline on this car, the transition from the C-pillar to the rear fender misses the mark. It’s not awful, but is the most awkward line on the car. Conversely, I love the square insert in the wheel center. Tires and wheels are so absolutely round, that adding a square element right in the center would seem to be completely wrong. But something about it works. Perhaps it’s the fact that squares and circles are both such fundamental geometric shapes that they work together. I liked the 1988 insert with a tight grid pattern even more, but this bowtie cover still has panache.
As some of you may recall, I’ve often criticized seventies-era designers for sticking square headlights on existing designs. However, on eighties-era cars, I typically prefer the later aerodynamic designs over the earlier square headlight cars. In fact, I like this generation of the Cavalier best. It nicely updated the folded paper look of the original Cavalier without turning into a nineties jelly bean. With just a little more refinement, this car might have had quality and performance to match its looks. But it didn’t, so I can bid adieu to today’s Curbside Classic without any pangs of regret.
The best thing about a 3.1 V6 equipped GM vehicle is that it is not hard to put a 3.4 V6 in the same spot. That’s the problem actually, GM almost always handicaps itself and doesn’t give you the “best” that it has. I would wager that in real world driving the 3.1 and 3.4 would have provided almost identical fuel economy with the benefit of 20 extra hp.
A classmate in high school had one of the last of these a 1994 model. At least it “looked” fast.
Well, they didn’t offer the 3.4 V6 because it didn’t exist yet, the transverse 3400 wasn’t around until the mid 1990’s, by then the Cavalier wasn’t offering a V6 anymore. The only 3.4 before that was a RWD version of this engine for the F-body from 1992 or so, which was about the end of the 1st gen J-car run.
The 3.1 in these was about the best 3.1 they offered at that time besides the turbocharged 3.1 from the Turbo Grand Prix.
My apologies, I forgot how slowwwwwwwwwwwww GM was to keep increasing the displacements of their passenger car V6s. The 3.1 and non-DOHC 3400 were used for so long in so many applications I had forgotten how many years the old 2.8 V6 was built.
My Dad had a 2-door 2.8 powered S10 Blazer 4×4. When the engine was ready for a rebuild GM was pushing the 3.1 V6 as a “repowering option” (their words). It was the option that was chosen and in a small SUV it was a revelation. Hard to keep the tires from breaking loose if you were aggressive from a stop.
Well I don’t know why they talking so much 🦀 about the 2.8 engine cause I did have a 86 CAVALIER RS convertible and I just put 15 rims from a 91 Z24 upgrade ignition and a throttle body from a Beretta and my baby ran so great I beat not one but 3 mitsubishis Evo’s back in the 90’s on a Puerto Rico Highway and my Digital Dashboard said 163 mph so I considered that very awesome. I don’t know if the car still alive or on a junkyard but definitely if I have a chance I will get me one and fix it the exactly same way.
🏁👍💪👍🏁
Man, these were heavy on the ground here in Michigan. My personal favorite is the original body style, in the hatchback version. I remember that the ’88-’94s were just a little slower than my 5.0 T-Bird back in high school/college, and about as fast as my 289 Mustang (neither of which were all that fast, even back then).
This car is just gross on many levels. Cannot believe anyone would have paid more than ten dollars for a new one, let alone a used one.
I’m 5′ 11″ and the seat always required major adjustments so I could look over the rather high cowl.
What?? I’m 5’10” and it fits perfectly. No issues seeing over the cowl.
Myabe you have long legs and very short torso.
Not a bad car. I always liked Cavaliers for good cheap basic transportation and the small six woke the car up a bit. I was stationed in NY when those cars were popular and I remember a lot of girls had them. I dated one around 1995 that had an 89 (?) convertible. It was certainly not a powerhouse but it was peppy, torquey and generally fun to drive for a FWD platform. I also think the styling wasn’t over the top like the Pontiacs of the same vintage but those might be the ugliest wheels ever bolted on a car.
I remember going car shopping with my older brother in 1989 and he went to look at a Z24. He also thought it was a bit girly, and since the both of us are 6’2″/250+, it was too small. Then he looked at a Z28 but the insurance was out of sight; so he wound driving home a beautiful black on black K5 Blazer.
F-body insurance in the 80’s was super expensive, they were one of the most stolen cars in America, it started to hurt sales, so GM started offering their own insurance through its MIC(Motors Insurance Company) arm for F-bodies at a discounted rate just to bring buyers in.
My 88 z24 was a stick. Solved the acceleration issues nicely.
A 4-speed or 5-speed Z24 is a blast to drive. Generalizing a particular model car based upon one poorly-optioned vehicle is nothing more than a generalization.
The 60-degree V6 is a real honey when mated to a manual transaxle/transmission.
There used to be such a variety of sporty cars at a Chevrolet dealer around 1987-1988 from the tiny Turbo Sprint, the Z24, Beretta GT, Camaro in both V6 and V8 versions, and you could even still get an old school Monte Carlo SS too. I remember the first ad for the Z24 I ever saw was in Automobile magazine, it was for the 1986 MY, I remember the tag line: “A fox raised by wolves” with the IROC-Z Camaro and Corvette looking over the hill at their much junior stable mate.
Don’t forget the twin cam Nova
And of course, you can’t say no to a rad digital dash!
Carmine, that is the most amazing tachometer I have ever seen.
Have you ever seen the “hockey stick” ones that GM used on the small trucks? I imagine those had to be big up in Canada no?
I didn’t find saying no to digital hard at all.
Unlike the ’86 and ’87s, The ’88 offered an analog dash option (you can barely make it out in the pictures). Getting a “real” gauge cluster was a major factor in my purchase decision.
The analog dash on the ’88-’90 Z24 was pretty nice, too – regular Cavaliers still had the same dashboard that they came with in 1982 up until the 1991 refresh. Most times I’d rather have analog instruments myself, but I think that Z24 “Star Wars” piece was one of the coolest ever!
Not true; the cockpit style dash was new to the 1985 Type 10’s and continued on from there for two door models until the ultra cheap 91 redo. Mom’s 85 had it, minus a tachometer.
cjiguy – I’m not 100% sure what you’re talking about because I can’t Google image search to my heart’s content on my phone, but both the ’83 Cavalier wagon and ’89 Cavalier coupe (both base model cars) I had shared an identical dash with perhaps some minor trim differences at most.
There was a “fancy” dash available 1984-1985 or so that is essentially the Z24’s dash that was on the higher end Cavaliers, but without the gauges, it oddly, had a Nova like strip speedometer.
True — the sedans carried the same dashboard until the Playskool Version replaced it in ’91.
The Type-10 dash design was a real disappointment to me when not equipped with that awesome digital cluster. An optional clock located in the trim panel above the glove compartment on the Type 10 dash was planned…but I think GM canned the option before any were built. There are diagrams of it in the Service Manual.
My apologies, I never would have guessed my Mom’s Type-10 was upscale in any way until a little research, am/fm radio non withstanding! The link I give is to the 1985 brochure, and you get a direct view of that “cockpit” dash I remember for being different (blue up shift-light stands out to me in the moment)
http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/NA/Chevrolet/1985_Chevrolet/1985_Chevrolet_Cavalier_Brochure/1985-Chevrolet-Cavalier-08
Base models kept the old design, then?
It’s all good, I actually never saw this Type-10 strip speedometer version before. Weird! All of the J-body cars combined had a ridiculous amount of dash/instrument combinations. Base models Cavaliers all got some slight variation of the dash below between 1982-1990, as did the Cimarron and Sunbird (some years), but with different instrument panels. The Cimarron even had it’s own digital cluster in this dash and the Buick/Olds J-cars had their own entirely different dashbaord.
This looks way nicer with the full set of gauges. Later on, all they had was the speedometer, fuel gauge and a bunch of dummy lights.
I think you could always still get the gauges, but they were seldom ordered. Cadillac should have sprung for a new dash, even with the tweaks they did, it still was a Cavalier dash, Cadillac did get neat push button a/c controls. I think the Cimarron was the only other J-car to get a digital dash.
The Buick and the Oldsmobile shared the same dash, later in the run Pontiac got a “GM-10 Grand Prix” style dash with the light and wiper controls up on the sides of the dash and the small square radio that someone at Delco Electronics thought up and GM loved to stick in cars in the late 80’s.
When I was a kid in the 80’s I really liked digital dashes. And tacky or not, I have to admit, I still do. I’d love to own a car with one someday.
Between this and the little white Plymouth Sundance we saw yesterday, I would vote Sundance, though neither was the kind of car most people lust over.
The Cavalier may have been the better car between the two, at least for longevity. However, from my driving experience in these, every part of the thing just felt overly heavy, giving the entire car the feel of a smaller Caprice, rather than the nimble sporty small car that the Japanese were serving up back then.
In 1992, my mom’s ’78 Nomad van was pushing 250k and still going strong, and my dad’s ’82 V8 Berlinetta was in a similar position. Against all conventional wisdom, we had a data-driven loyalty to Chevy, and a good relationship with the local dealer.
When the owner of that dealership had a devastating house fire, he refurnished with a lot of pieces from my mom’s antique shop, likely at a good discount. He returned the favor by setting aside a low-mile ’88 Z24 that came in on trade (metallic grey, power windows, digital dash, weird GM cargo-spoiler… the works!). He figured I might be interested. While I had my eye on a neighbor’s 1st-gen Integra, the Cavalier was in better shape with lower miles for about the same money.
I have nothing but fond memories of it. Just enough performance for a young driver (despite the autobox, it could chirp the front tires), and even if it wasn’t necessarily fast, it sounded fantastic. I personally liked the styling, it was tough to confuse it with a base Cavalier, but not so outlandish as the next generation Z24 with its kandy kolors and odd angles. Surprisingly tight handling, great stereo, comfy seats, cruise control, good snow traction, decent fuel economy… it was, by all accounts, a pretty great car.
I learned the difference between RWD and FWD pretty quick, and it made its way into and out of a few ditches and curbs… but it stayed in the family and solidly soldiered on to about 180k with no major issues. It eventually died more from my brother’s neglect rather than any specific fault.
I always thought the Z24 was a great gateway car. It turned me on to a world of sleepers and just-slightly-sportier models that have been a theme in my car history. Following the Z24, I picked up an ’83 Volvo 245 Turbo, then a Suzuki Swift GTi, then a Nissan NX2000, Impreza 2.5RS… it’s a shame the “sporty versions” aren’t as prevalent these days as they used to be.
Sounds like a nice little car! I liked these although I never owned one. In those days I was driving a V6 Fiero. But I always liked the “Z” moniker it carried; and the little details like the ground effects lower cladding and the hood that for me, paid tribute to the mid to late 60’s Chevelle Super Sports.
I loved the 2.8 V6 in my Fiero, so I figure the transition to the Cavalier is the same. In my humble opinion, one of the best GM motors ever made in the modern era. Mine never gave a lick of trouble (owned 2 Fieros with the 2.8), save for a throttle position sensor and oxygen sensor. Had a very pleasing exhaust growl.
I was never impressed by the style and quality of Chevrolet interiors from this vintage. But I do like the rest of the package.
Nice write up by Dave Skinner on a car that I hope becomes a closet collectible in the future……
Those 2.8s have a such a sweet exhaust note that no 4-banger can match 🙂
The soundtrack coming out of the pipes are part of the deal that makes driving a car like the Z24 or Fiero GT so much fun. Especially when mated with the manual transmission, allowing you to downshift and catch a backfire or two. It seems the new V6 Camaro missed the boat when it came to exhaust tuning; it doesn’t have that 2.8/3.1 growl that an older Fiero, Z-24 had.
GRAAAHHHHHHHHHHHUUUUUGHHH…….
Great write up on one of my personal favorite cars of the 1980’s..these have all but vanished from the roads up here in rust country, much like the K-cars & Escorts/Tempo’s of the era. I know the 3-speed auto was a dog, but according to my dad the 5 speed stick made for a very fun car to drive. It’s a dream of mine to own a red ’87 (final year of the boxy style – complete with the fiberglass cowl hood). My parents had one new when I was a kid – it’s the car I credit with starting my automobile obsession. It was identical to this one, minus the tacky luggage rack:
That IMO is the ultimate Cavalier. I’d love to have that exact car in that blue metallic they offered. There’s a white one that’s been sitting in front of a mechanic’s shop around here for years. I’m going to have to ask them about it before some scrapper does.
I myself always thought these to be the best of the J-body cars (Just why didn’t those 2.0 Turbo Sunbirds have an intercooler, anyone?) .
You’ll have to inquire about that car before scrap prices go up, junqueboi. I see more Lamborghini’s and Dodge Vipers around here (Southwest PA) than 1st & 2nd gen Z-24′s. Sadly, its only a matter of time before the only ones left are owned by people who will never part with them (the v6z24.com type people). About six years ago, my brother found me a red ’87 in a junkyard – the guy offered it to me for $700, which was do-able..but the car had no title, no keys, and they didn’t know why it quit running. Basically would’ve been a $700 lawn ornament so I had to pass.
Indeed, that is a beautiful car, the Super Sport of the modern era. Power bulge hood, tasteful striping and graphics. Just a nice understated presentation that hints at past glory with a nod to the required economics required in today’s world.
Ya know, in the coming years, I can see restored Z-24’s at the car shows getting a lot of attention.
I think you’re spot on with the z-24’s getting attention at future car shows – they’re really one of the original “boy racer” cars. The grandfather of the modern day cobalt ss type cars. A dealership near me was basically “given” a red ’86 z-24 when a guy traded in his buick & told the dealer he could just take the z-24. I had my heart set on buying the car, but he wasn’t budging off his $5,800 asking price. In hindsight, I probably should’ve just caved and bought it – I’ll never see one of those in that condition again in The Great Rusty North. The car had only 63k miles and lived its life in a garage – a true time capsule. I’ve posted it to the cohort but I’ll share it here as well.
I thought I was the only person who considered this car a personal favorite. The 89-90 with the high back bucket seats are my favorites.
Despite whatever was always wrong with the Cavalier (many things), I always thought they were good looking cars through all three generations. Some of the Z24 stuff on the 2nd gen I love – the wheels, the digital dash, the formidable growl of the V6 in such a small car. Others I’m not too crazy about – the silver ground effects, the fact that GM put a V6 in a car that already had 66% of it’s weight distribution over the front wheels with the four cylinder…
I do actually like that they put the V6 in it, though. It gives it a kind of muscle car-y vibe. I just wish they also made one with a Quad4, or a way better version of the Quad4 that wouldn’t fall apart upon driving off the lot or shake the fillings out of your mouth. Plus, if you wanted an alternative, Pontiac still had the turbo engine up until 1990 (I think?) so it actually makes sense that Chevy would get the “low-tech” six.
My first car was an ’89 Cavalier and I hate the shit out of them, but it’s a love-hate relationship. Like if you had a really awful first girlfriend, but she still gave you a great blowjob one time.
The dealership near me happens to have a 94 wagon for sale with the 3.1 and only 100k on it. Most likely owned by an elderly person as there doesn’t seem to be much rust, which is impressive for west central MN! http://www.willmarcars.com/VehicleDetails/used-1994-Chevrolet-Cavalier-4dr_Wagon-Willmar-MN/2200120783
I love what GM did with the 3.1 V-6 that was in these, and many other GM cars. They all make that characteristic growl and have loads of low end torque. I remember driving a loaded 1989 Grand Am rental and while it had lots of punch around town, it quickly ran out of breath on the highway. This was fine for the stoplight GP but not so good in the mountains hereabouts.
When I was working at GM, we were seeing the last of these cars. They actually weren’t that bad, it was the third generation that cars cheap, disposable garbage. Well, compared to their competition, they were disposable garbage, but parts were cheap and the Cav maladies (like ABS sensors, strut mounts, radiators, starters, sensors) are well known.
I didn’t mind driving the Gen 2 Cavs, the interiors were nice and the V-6 models peppy. The Gen 3 cars were cheapened out to the point they only sold on price.
I think this was one of the first cars with an offset steering wheel. You can kind of see it in the interior shot. To me, nothing says half-assed engineering like a steering wheel that’s not centered directly in front of the driver.
And, yet, the just introduced, brand-new 2014 Silverado and its derivatives have the same offset steering wheel. After all these years and the things GM has went through, they still have trouble getting that one small, basic thing right…
The steering wheel offset is something that is a major annoyance to me also. If anything, it seems to be getting worse in recent years. For me it is most prevalent in bench seat vehicles, where offsetting it to the center (which always seems to be how it’s done, idk why as it would seem to mean less room for the engine with recirc ball steering) means that it can be almost impossible to fit 3 across on the seat. It is annoying in my ’99 Sierra (NBS), and was even more pronounced in my ’94 Caprice, in which it was so bad that my elbow wouldn’t reach the window ledge. Neither my ’95 C1500 nor my ’86 Caprice were noticeably offset. What gives?
They finally fixed it for 2019.
https://jalopnik.com/the-2019-gmc-sierra-gets-one-key-improvement-thats-hard-1823443291
A friend of my wife (then girlfriend) had a 3.1 auto-equipped Z-24 back in the mid 90’s. It was honestly the worst car anyone I know has owned.
At the time, I had a 1992 Saturn SL1 with the SOHC engine putting out a screaming 85hp through a 5-spd manual. Not the quickest thing on earth. She decided to race me on a back road one day. She couldn’t keep up. She had almost twice the horsepower, but the added weight and auto transmission evened the playing field.
Another time, my mother was driving home from work and followed a line of coolant on the road from one end of town all the way to our driveway, where this friend’s Z-24 sat puking everything. It had to be towed. Good thing it was a gravel driveway.
Honestly, I have never been a fan of the Cavalier, but I was always intrigued by the non-Z24 3.1 V6 coupe with a manual transmission. Remove the fender call out badges and you’d have a bit of a sleeper. If you could keep it together, that is.
Funny I don’t ever remember the 2.8/3.1 MFI for being slow in these light weight cars. And what in the 80’s used a 4 speed overdrive transmission except for higher end larger more expensive cars? I used to drive my friends 88 2.8 automatic Z-24 and could beat 302 and 305 carbureted Stangs and Camaros in the day and they easily left Civics and Corollas in the dust fart cans and all. The 2.8/3.1 MFI engines were also long lasting reliable motors if you cared to pay attention to scheduled maintenance. The 3 speed 125C transaxle was also bulletproof for the most part even with the easily fixed lockup torque converter solenoid issue with high mileage examples. Most of our customers that complained about problems with one of these engines never paid any attention to coolant service and rarely changed there oil etc and beat the living tar out of them. His 88 Z-24 went well over 200K without any engine/tranny work and my 1989 Olds Ciera with the exact same drivetrain went over 300K before it was totaled.
Re:
“And what in the 80′s used a 4 speed overdrive transmission except for higher end larger more expensive cars?”
I didn’t call out the 3 speed automatic as unusual in the class, I just said 3 speed automatics need another gear. To my mind, a true statement
In addiiton, my primary complaiont was that the tranmission hit top gear @ 25 MPH. If you only provide 3 gears, don’t hobble the car with bad shift programming.
“And what in the 80′s used a 4 speed overdrive transmission except for higher end larger more expensive cars?”
Lets see
1. Chevy Nova(85-88)
2. 5th Gen Toyota Corolla
3. 3rd and 4th generation Honda Civic
4. 1989 Dodge Shadow/Plymouth Sundance
5. Geo Prizm (1989)
All of these were in the subcompact/compact range just like the J cars and priced around each other.
Were those the correct center caps for that year Z24? I seem to remember a checkerboard style center cap.
You remember correctly- The checkerboard cap was on the ’88s. The ’90 used this bowtie logo cap.
I loved my 1992 VL Cav, it was the reason I bought my 2005 Cobalt, which is the reason I will buy a Toyota next.
LOL.. sad, isn’t it? I always thought GM’s “best” cars were built in the late 80’s – very early 90’s…if it was TBI, Multi-port, or Sequential FI, it would run forever.
The V6s were all very good engines, and the SFI 3.8 a truly great engine, but all of GM’s four cylinders from that era were junk in one way or another. The Iron Duke ran forever but was so unpleasant that you’d rather it didn’t, the Brazilian OHC four went through head gaskets every 50k miles (30k if it was a turbo), the OHV four was only slightly more refined than the ‘Puke and wasn’t all that sturdy until later on, and everyone knows the Quad4 story!
I do think that the one thing GM really knocked out of the park in the 80s was all the EFI work they did. All of that stuff was resilient as hell, easy to work on, highly adaptable and such a ginormous upgrade over the feedback carbs in every way. I might be wrong about this, but I believe they did onboard diagnostics, sequential injection and crank-triggered ignition before anyone else (at least in any kind of volume production). All of which worked pretty much flawlessly right out of the gate.
When I got my Cavalier, I was 15 years old and had never turned a wrench. It taught me lots of hard, painful lessons about working on cars – everything I’ve ever needed to know, practically… but the one thing that immediately made sense to me (once I got my hands on a shop manual) was how all the pieces of the EFI system worked together. It was the only thing that was really elegant and well-implemented about that car.
I bought a 1984 Type 10, hatchback new. Friends with Escorts said my car had better handling & ride quality. They should have improved the J-Body Twins, over launching Saturn, The Sunbird Turbo cluster was later used in the Syclone, Typhoon? Maybe both trucks.
Both, it was used because it fit in the S-trucks dash hole and it already had a boost gauge. I agree, GM should have spent the money on really good, kick ass J-car replacement for Chevrolet and Pontiac and probably not dicked around with Saturn.
I remember GM selling a TON of Z24s in the late 80s early 90s. For those days, the performance wasn’t bad at all. Not the best, but pretty good. Where the econoboxes couldn’t touch the J cars was in style. The Escort and all the Japanese tin at the time came off looking like cheap cracker boxes. But the 2 door iterations of the cavalier at least looked the part of a real, honest to God actual CAR. My best friend had an ’89 cav coupe (RS model with the 2.0 and 3 spd slushbox) and while that car was slower than molasses on Christmas, it at least looked the part of a sporty coupe that a guy could get behind. Personally, Id go for the older notchback coupe version of the Z24. Its a more clean simple and timeless design that better ties this car in with its true lineage. The Nova SS was also just a simple honest cleanly styled economy coupe stuffed with as much power as was available/practical. The blackout trim and 5 spoke wheels seem a simple evolution of the original muscle car look, rather than a total reinvention.
At least in those days, GM was making an effort to appeal to the crowd that really wanted performance cars. The execution left a LOT to be desired, and if they would have pushed the manual trans and had more aftermarket speed parts available things might look a bit different. That said, this Z24 vs a brand new Cruze….no contest whatsoever! Id take this car immediately. That is, IF a turbocharged Cobalt SS coupe isn’t an option…
Oh and drop my vote in favor of these wheels! They look high tech, sporty and modern without being ‘blingy’. A lot better than the chromed boring oversize crap we have now.
In my opinion this car is the best cavalier they ever came out with . My car runs better then any other car I own. The v6 delivers a great amount of power for the car . The look of it is eye catching and gets a lot of compliments. I’ll take this year over any other . The car will set anyone back in the seat in all 5 gears . With a little bit of work this car will out run camaros. Love the sound of the v6 with the stroker kit and a big cam. Every one is looking at it when driving by. My favorite car yet .
Did the stroker kit give you an y noticeable performance increase?
Did you use the 3.4 with the mild cam and no change to the computer? Thanks, Sam
I own a 1990 Z-24 that I bought new. It now has 101,000 miles on it. It has consistently been a wonderful machine. My only complaint is that some of the construction and interior design never lets you forget that you are driving an econobox. My Z-24 is white with blue interior and it has every option offered except a sunroof. I have kept it in my garage its whole life, and I live in a very mellow, dry climate, the Texas Hill Country. My Z-24 has been my most economical, reliable, fun to drive car. I may not keep it much longer simply because I am a senior citizen and I do not need four cars.
Author of DAYDREAMS IN THE WIND: Collectible Open Sports Cars of the Sixties and seven earlier books.
Do u still have ur z? Just bot one inVancouver bc. Love it. With 107k miles. I live in MA. Where no one has probably seen a 1990 z in about 15 YRZ. MY NAME IS WILL PRUNIER. EMAIL. SOPHIAPRUNIER1@Gmail.com
A 1990 Z24, black and silver was my wife’s very first car.
A beautiful South American lady driving that car around Atlanta, she made a lot of heads turn.
“I feel like I am driving a Corvette”, she used to say.
I love the lead image of this article. The staircase the n the background lends the picture an 8-bit animation feel, which seems entirely era-appropriate for the car in the photograph…
I liked the first gen Z24s but this restyle is awkward to my eyes. That C pillar is awful – the Allante had the same problem. Ugh.
I don’t think the C pillar is too bad aesthetically, but they managed to combine the functional drawbacks of the former Type 10 fastback and two-door sedan models into one model with neither a hatch nor rear headroom.
Ugh. The Chevrolet Cadavalier—no matter the variant or year—is on my list of cars I’m very glad are rapidly disappearing from the roads. Never found a single thing to like about these ugly, cynically-engineered, indifferently-thrown-together turds.
And this particular model was, incredibly, the high point of the series.
I donno that I’d be quite so charitable as to call this the high point; I might entertain the notion that all the others were worse. The one thing they seemed to do well at—assuming a steady infusion of parts and labour—was carry on being crude, nasty, halfassed-at-best, sorry excuses for penalty-boxes of cars long past when they would have died if there were justice in this universe.
(…but I don’t have a strong opinion, one way or the other…)
I don’t think these deserve to be credited as a “second-generation” Cavalier. They’re facelifted first-generation Cavaliers. (the ’65 and ’73 Mustangs are both considered “first generation” – let’s be consistent).
The one thing I liked about the 1988 refresh was that the trunk opening now extended down to the bumper, rather than the high liftover in the original design. The 4 door sedans however retained the high liftover even after the refresh. Things I didn’t like about the ’88 refresh: (a) no more hatchback, and (b) the Cavalier and Sunbird front ends were now nearly identical. Anyway, the new rounded roof clashed with the crisply-folded sheetmetal around the doors that wasn’t changed from the original 1982 models.
A minor change of shape to the rear side windows would have worked wonders. The bottom could have just stayed level, like a Vega. The upswinging curve just kills the tension. Makes it look like the cockpit is sinking in quicksand. Blah. Front end, rear end and wheels work.
But, remember I think the Matador coupe is brilliant.
The current styling zeitgeist needs less angry eyes and more googly-eyed fun. Even new round-eyed Jeeps seem to have a crystal-meth-i’ve-been-up-for-6-days-straight glare.
Great article / rerun by Dave. I am solidly in the “like” column for this era of Cavalier Z-24. These cars were new around the time I started high school, and they were everywhere where I grew up (in Michigan).
I thought the ’88 restyle was dope – that is, everything but that C-pillar seam that both Dave and others referenced. It made me wonder why GM was able to restyle these cars so heavily, but still couldn’t engineer a smoother solution for where the C-pillar meets the rear quarter panel.
Friends who drove / owned them liked them. I remember thinking they were hot. I don’t remember any specific complaints about them. I’d call them an ’80s Chevy “win”, for sure.
These cars were cool when they were new. And relatively fast and good on gas too.