RE: Vauxhall Cavalier time capsule for sale
Discussion
popeyewhite said:
I also recall how light the back ends were in the Cavaliers. Had a few 'interesting'moments on wet bends. I remember some used to advocate a bag of cement in the boot to keep them true.
Did anyone have a 130? How did it compare to the bog 1.6?
As standard, the SRi didn't feel quite as soft and had 14" wheels minimum... though not really a night and day difference. Even the GSi was very floaty. But again, compared to what... probably on par with most of the competition of that era. As with most quick Vauxhalls, it really wasn't difficult nor expensive to make rather dramatic improvements to their handling. Did anyone have a 130? How did it compare to the bog 1.6?
Davie said:
Rob 131 Sport said:
Unless you got the 2.0 16v or 2.5 V6, they were all a bit slow. Even with a decent power unit, the handling was ponderous, the seats not terribly comfortable and refinement was somewhat lacking.
The below GL trim level were really miserable.
Compared to what though? It could be argued everything of this era, at this price point and this spec was miserable by whatever measure... so is an entry level Dacia Duster miserable or any other cheap, basic car from any era, that isn't trying to be anything more... also miserable? The below GL trim level were really miserable.
Again I fear a lot of people pass comment on cars of this era and seems to be viewing them through slightly misaligned eyes and it's always a tad pointless... the "You could have a used Range Rover Vogue for £6k" or "It's miserable, my Bentley Arnage is infinitely better" or just the generic "it's crap" sort of statements just seem so pointless, I genuinely don't understand the thought process behind such?
I'm not advocating we should only post rose tinted stuff, but I think some of the less favourable comments on such threads seem to be people just looking for a reaction or blindly quoting the old crap they heard in a pub. Bit like those guys that shout the same crap at a football match or heckle at a gig... most the time it's just a bit cringey.
A bit weight behind a discussion would be good, but if posting anything more than "It's just crap" is a challenge for some...
The MK2 for context was a great car in comparison with the competition.
The MK3 was competing against the Ford Mondeo and Peugeot 405 that I also drove and model for model was much better than the Cavalier.
popeyewhite said:
njw1 said:
popeyewhite said:
njw1 said:
I wonder if all the people posting with the one line 'load of crap' replies have actually driven a Cavalier or are just spouting the 'it's a Vauxhall so it must be crap' drivel?
To be fair, the 1.6 was ...
LOL, the irony is strong with this one.To be fair, the 1.6 was ...
Have you ever owned or even driven a Cavalier or is that not relevant on a thread about a Cavalier?
Davie said:
Even the GSi was very floaty. But again, compared to what...
I thought the looks of the GSi was terrific, only wished I'd got the turbo instead of the 4x4 2. I don't think there's any merit in the 'compared to what' argument - most saloon cars were pretty poor back then and setting a low baseline as acceptable just makes the decent cars of the day, say 205 GTI or Golf equivalent into supercars, which they're not. Peugeot 405 Mi6 was supposed to be very good.Rob 131 Sport said:
Having owned and done considerable miles in a late Mk3 2.0 GLS, I can comment a great deal of knowledge. The press raved about the MK3 that in reality was little better than the MK2.
The MK2 for context was a great car in comparison with the competition.
The MK3 was competing against the Ford Mondeo and Peugeot 405 that I also drove and model for model was much better than the Cavalier.
The Cavalier was launched in '88 and the Mondeo '93, when the Vauxhall was near end of life. The Mondeo was the better car, it should have been, it was a generation newer.The MK2 for context was a great car in comparison with the competition.
The MK3 was competing against the Ford Mondeo and Peugeot 405 that I also drove and model for model was much better than the Cavalier.
The 405 handled well but it was swings and roundabouts with the competition. It too was eclipsed by the Mondeo and later generation cars in the segment.
popeyewhite said:
Actually the ride wasn't too bad, and I thought the steering was passable (at the time - nowadays it would seem prehistoric). I remember the gearstick floated around like a ping pong ball on water in a glass. 
My Dad's car was quite stiff to change into first gear when cold, even when low mileage. The gearshift was much better than the loose, wobbly shift on his MK2.Rob 131 Sport said:
The press raved about the MK3 that in reality was little better than the MK2.
The MK2 for context was a great car in comparison with the competition.
The MK3 was competing against the Ford Mondeo and Peugeot 405 that I also drove and model for model was much better than the Cavalier.
There is / was an element of leap frogging around the era of these cars listed. The MK2 for context was a great car in comparison with the competition.
The MK3 was competing against the Ford Mondeo and Peugeot 405 that I also drove and model for model was much better than the Cavalier.
The Mk2 cavalier was a completely new model compared to the Mk1 Cavalier it replaced, the latter being RWD for starters. However, the Mk2 moving to the Mk3, it was fundamentally the same car mechanically and thus I never viewed the Mk3 as being a game changer compared to the Mk2, whereas the Mk2 compared to the Mk1...
The Mk3 Cavalier arrived in 1988 which was still the realm of the Sierra and it was a far older design, however the Mk3 Cavalier ran on until 1997 when the Vectra was launched, again a completely new model with very little coming over bar a couple of engines. However, in 1993 (?) the Mondeo was launched and was a completely new model compared to the Sierra it replaced.
So given that, it 's never quite as clear cut when debabting which was "best" of the class... an earlier pre-facelifted Mk3 Cavalier vs a Ford Sierra is a very different proposition to a later spec, facelifted Mk3 Cavalier compared to a Ford Mondeo, hence there was quite a lot of overlap going on... though when it comes to what Peugeot were doing or VW or BMW around that era, I'm not so sure.
In short I'd agree with you, the Mk3 really wasn't a breath of fresh air compared to the Mk2... the latter of which was very well regarded, more so as it was streets ahead of the Mk1 Cavalier it had replaced. It could be argued that the Vectra was the Mondeo competitor, though it arrived quite some time after the Mondeo was launched.
Davie said:
Rob 131 Sport said:
The press raved about the MK3 that in reality was little better than the MK2.
The MK2 for context was a great car in comparison with the competition.
The MK3 was competing against the Ford Mondeo and Peugeot 405 that I also drove and model for model was much better than the Cavalier.
There is / was an element of leap frogging around the era of these cars listed. The MK2 for context was a great car in comparison with the competition.
The MK3 was competing against the Ford Mondeo and Peugeot 405 that I also drove and model for model was much better than the Cavalier.
The Mk2 cavalier was a completely new model compared to the Mk1 Cavalier it replaced, the latter being RWD for starters. However, the Mk2 moving to the Mk3, it was fundamentally the same car mechanically and thus I never viewed the Mk3 as being a game changer compared to the Mk2, whereas the Mk2 compared to the Mk1...
The Mk3 Cavalier arrived in 1988 which was still the realm of the Sierra and it was a far older design, however the Mk3 Cavalier ran on until 1997 when the Vectra was launched, again a completely new model with very little coming over bar a couple of engines. However, in 1993 (?) the Mondeo was launched and was a completely new model compared to the Sierra it replaced.
So given that, it 's never quite as clear cut when debabting which was "best" of the class... an earlier pre-facelifted Mk3 Cavalier vs a Ford Sierra is a very different proposition to a later spec, facelifted Mk3 Cavalier compared to a Ford Mondeo, hence there was quite a lot of overlap going on... though when it comes to what Peugeot were doing or VW or BMW around that era, I'm not so sure.
In short I'd agree with you, the Mk3 really wasn't a breath of fresh air compared to the Mk2... the latter of which was very well regarded, more so as it was streets ahead of the Mk1 Cavalier it had replaced. It could be argued that the Vectra was the Mondeo competitor, though it arrived quite some time after the Mondeo was launched.
MC Bodge said:
It is, however it doesn't look as tidy (though images never pain the full picture) and it's got a lot more miles... but that's the issue with this sort of thing, how do you price it? In some ways part of me thinks £3000 for an average GLS with 72k and an auto box is a bit keen, but if the blue saloon featured here is genuinely immaculate, then £6000 for it almost makes more sense? Or do you buy a restoration case GSi2000 for £5000 because, it's a GSi thus commands a premium? KGF have another LS model up for nigh on £7000 and there's a car locally to me, bit tired but usable and it's £1250. So as with all this era of stuff, they are all so few and far between and massively varied when it comes to spec, condition, mileage, age... that getting a feel for their values is quite difficult and hence one mans bargain is another man's complete rip off.
Good Turbo models have pushed towards £20k... and even as a self confessed fan boy, part of me thinks that's absolutely nuts but then part of me thinks it's still cheap in a world of £250,000 Sierra Cosworths or £30,000 205 GTi's.
Difficult market
Forester1965 said:
The Cavalier ceased in '95 (M reg). The first Vectras were produced autumn '95 (N reg). I had one in '96 (P reg).
My typo, though there were a handful of P plated Cavaliers about at one stage... granted very very late registered cars and yes, the production ceased in July 1995. N plated cars were out there though. I can't ever recollect seeing an N registered Vectra B, P plates were my fist memory of them. As in yes they existed on an N, but I don't think I've ever seen one. Edited by Davie on Saturday 30th November 11:16
Davie said:
It is, however it doesn't look as tidy (though images never pain the full picture) and it's got a lot more miles... but that's the issue with this sort of thing, how do you price it? In some ways part of me thinks £3000 for an average GLS with 72k and an auto box is a bit keen, but if the blue saloon featured here is genuinely immaculate, then £6000 for it almost makes more sense? Or do you buy a restoration case GSi2000 for £5000 because, it's a GSi thus commands a premium? KGF have another LS model up for nigh on £7000 and there's a car locally to me, bit tired but usable and it's £1250.
So as with all this era of stuff, they are all so few and far between and massively varied when it comes to spec, condition, mileage, age... that getting a feel for their values is quite difficult and hence one mans bargain is another man's complete rip off.
Good Turbo models have pushed towards £20k... and even as a self confessed fan boy, part of me thinks that's absolutely nuts but then part of me thinks it's still cheap in a world of £250,000 Sierra Cosworths or £30,000 205 GTi's.
Difficult market
Of course, things are only worth what somebody will pay for them.So as with all this era of stuff, they are all so few and far between and massively varied when it comes to spec, condition, mileage, age... that getting a feel for their values is quite difficult and hence one mans bargain is another man's complete rip off.
Good Turbo models have pushed towards £20k... and even as a self confessed fan boy, part of me thinks that's absolutely nuts but then part of me thinks it's still cheap in a world of £250,000 Sierra Cosworths or £30,000 205 GTi's.
Difficult market
I won't be going for a look at a £3K or £6K asking price 1.6/1.8 Cavalier. In the unlikely event that I was ever to look out for a Cavalier it would be a GSI or a Turbo as a project.
I just don't think that the standard torsion beam cars would be inherently enjoyable to drive.
Rob 131 Sport said:
Davie said:
Rob 131 Sport said:
Unless you got the 2.0 16v or 2.5 V6, they were all a bit slow. Even with a decent power unit, the handling was ponderous, the seats not terribly comfortable and refinement was somewhat lacking.
The below GL trim level were really miserable.
Compared to what though? It could be argued everything of this era, at this price point and this spec was miserable by whatever measure... so is an entry level Dacia Duster miserable or any other cheap, basic car from any era, that isn't trying to be anything more... also miserable? The below GL trim level were really miserable.
Again I fear a lot of people pass comment on cars of this era and seems to be viewing them through slightly misaligned eyes and it's always a tad pointless... the "You could have a used Range Rover Vogue for £6k" or "It's miserable, my Bentley Arnage is infinitely better" or just the generic "it's crap" sort of statements just seem so pointless, I genuinely don't understand the thought process behind such?
I'm not advocating we should only post rose tinted stuff, but I think some of the less favourable comments on such threads seem to be people just looking for a reaction or blindly quoting the old crap they heard in a pub. Bit like those guys that shout the same crap at a football match or heckle at a gig... most the time it's just a bit cringey.
A bit weight behind a discussion would be good, but if posting anything more than "It's just crap" is a challenge for some...
The MK2 for context was a great car in comparison with the competition.
The MK3 was competing against the Ford Mondeo and Peugeot 405 that I also drove and model for model was much better than the Cavalier.
Davie said:
Forester1965 said:
The Cavalier ceased in '95 (M reg). The first Vectras were produced autumn '95 (N reg). I had one in '96 (P reg).
My typo, though there were a handful of P plated Cavaliers about at one stage... granted very very late registered cars and yes, the production ceased in July 1995. N plated cars were out there though. I can't ever recollect seeing an N registered Vectra B, P plates were my fist memory of them. As in yes they existed on an N, but I don't think I've ever seen one. Edited by Davie on Saturday 30th November 11:16
Last Cavalier's were registered on 96N in March 1996 when we had a large batch
They were dripped into service over the next year or so
The first handful of Vectra's arrived as 2.0's on a P but didn't start arriving in numbers until 97R plate V6 models
MC Bodge said:
Of course, things are only worth what somebody will pay for them.
No, that's personal value. 'Worth', used globally, takes in many more factors than just what one person is willing to pay. A Sierra Cosworth is not 'worth' £300,0000, however a serious collector might apportion that value to it, conflated with emotional attachment, nostalgic longing etc etcpopeyewhite said:
MC Bodge said:
Of course, things are only worth what somebody will pay for them.
No, that's personal value. 'Worth', used globally, takes in many more factors than just what one person is willing to pay. A Sierra Cosworth is not 'worth' £300,0000, however a serious collector might apportion that value to it, conflated with emotional attachment, nostalgic longing etc etcGassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff