MX-3.com

whats wrong with cavy why do ppl hate them? give an HONEST opinion and whats so bad about them? dont say like its gm, or there is to many no crap like that be realistic i just wanna know why so many hate them and not just u mx-3ers

like what do u guys think of gm in general? whats bad about them except for the thousands of jobs being lost. but i know one of u guys will point out the crappy interior which yea i know is cheap quality also say stuff like their engines which are good except the quad 4 which is powerful but unreliable.

just give a honest but REALISTIC opinion
dont flame me for makin this post!

well I've just grown up thinking "Imports are made to last, american cars are made to break"

Now this is slightly true. GM vehicles never hold they're value, and imports due. Parts for imports are alittle more expensive because they are made with utmost care and quality.

It could also be that GM had the idea that if they made things so they woudl evnetually break that they would make more buisness, but I'm not sure if this is true or not. Just a theory of why gm's suck a huge wang.

TK <---- OUT

Nothing wrong with the cavalier except i think they are ugly and are not meant to be a performance machine...
Ever seen the rods to a 2.2 or a 2.4?
Farking puny

i dont have much against them... my bro has a sunfire and well its a pretty fun car to drive at times. and well no cars are perfect they all have bad points to them and well not all import parts are made great. some are made poorly. i think its all in prefrence for what you look for in a car. Im seriously thinking of getting rid of my mx3 in the spring time due to the amount of money i have put into it over the past 2 and a half years($8000 cdn) in repairs. my brother works at the gm dealership here and i work at the ford one and well theres nothing special at ford that i like that i can afford. so im thinking of an 06 cobalt ss supercharged. I priced one out and it came to $31,000 cdn and the guy said that he would drop it to about $26 000 cdn because my brother works there. so i am really considering it due to the fact i am not getting ahead with my car im only getting farther behind. and well the import parts where i am are very hard to find and most of the time you have to wait a week and where as domestic parts are pretty much in stock. thats the big kicker for me since i need my car to get to work everyday. so yah there are pro and cons to everything. thats my .02 tho.

get the cobalt ss they r quick! the n/a cobalt automatic beat 3 of us ze mx-3's and i raced a ss and it is fast with alot of potential. if u get it u gotta get the ss bodykit otherwise looks like s---

im getting an ss supercharged sine its not much more then a base cobalt

My beef lies with the cavy more then it does with GM...I rented a caviler right after i totaled my old honda (before my mx came around)

It was by far the poorest quality car i've driven. That was all around...interior felt cheap, car was slow, poor gas milage

Keep in mind this WAS a rental, so was most likely beat upon, but nevertheless has shaped my opinion of the cavy forever



...and they are ugly...

Vanished wrote: It could also be that GM had the idea that if they made things so they woudl evnetually break that they would make more buisness, but I'm not sure if this is true or not. Just a theory of why gm's suck a huge wang.

TK <---- OUT

this is or at least i do know for a fact was true. a mechanic i work with used to work for GM. he designed a part for one of their vehicles and presented it to them, they told him to make it break within 150,000km's and then they'll use it.
personally ive grown up not liking anything made by GM, unless its a truck. they're styling just isnt my taste, the interiors are cheap looking, they tend to cut alot of corners on some of their vehicles, but thats just my opinion...

fieromx3 wrote:get the cobalt ss they r quick! the n/a cobalt automatic beat 3 of us ze mx-3's and i raced a ss and it is fast with alot of potential. if u get it u gotta get the ss bodykit otherwise looks like shat

id like to know who the hell lost to a non SS cobalt with a ZE???

i dunno ask mike krish or ian urself they will tell ya how quick they r and also it beat them becuz its ecotec

fry_81 wrote:

Vanished wrote: It could also be that GM had the idea that if they made things so they woudl evnetually break that they would make more buisness, but I'm not sure if this is true or not. Just a theory of why gm's suck a huge wang.

TK <---- OUT

this is or at least i do know for a fact was true. a mechanic i work with used to work for GM. he designed a part for one of their vehicles and presented it to them, they told him to make it break within 150,000km's and then they'll use it.
personally ive grown up not liking anything made by GM, unless its a truck. they're styling just isnt my taste, the interiors are cheap looking, they tend to cut alot of corners on some of their vehicles, but thats just my opinion...

yup, take a business course in school and you'll learn alot about GM.

GM, like any of big 3 corporations, produces vehicles for quantity not quality. The way they solve this is by having 'recalls'. They see no need to spend extra money on quality control....that would take to long for production...just make it quick, ship it out, and have a recall when problems arise.

I dont think I would go for a new 'lower end' domestic car for the quality and relibility reason. We used to have an old '93 cultass ciera and it was teh win!! very reliable car.
and I hate cavilers because too many people have them and they are terriably ugly.

fieromx3 wrote:i dunno ask mike krish or ian urself they will tell ya how quick they r and also it beat them becuz its ecotec

they must have some tired ze's then....

the non supercharged SS has 171hp and 163tq...and runs 15.9 in the 1/4 mile


http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_ ... &trimid=-1

ok these r actually good points but do u think that when gm actually tries to make a quality car they do good? somethin like the corvette(not a big fan but starting to like em)?
to me at least the one thing they did do in the earlier years was experiment like the pontiac fiero (which is a very fun car to drive and reliable btw) delorean and other cars i cant think of rite now they werent successful cars but they were tryin new things unlike other manufacturers. in the race world they r doin amazing especially in drag racing dont say anythin bout that how its not even their engine no more or crap like that. but i think they r the top selling car in north america right now next to like toyota and honda.

they r makin so much money rite now that its surprising in a way thet r not doin anythin to there quality, they r of good quality and usually r relible but dam thos interiors or so dam cheap and cheap lookin its not funny but even aside all this i still like GM next to nissan i guess u gotta look at the ups there cars have and what theyve been accomplishing in the race world which is where i pay attention.

relisys_3200 wrote:

fieromx3 wrote:i dunno ask mike krish or ian urself they will tell ya how quick they r and also it beat them becuz its ecotec

they must have some tired ze's then....

the non supercharged SS has 171hp and 163tq...and runs 15.9 in the 1/4 mile

i dunno mike still does a consistent 15.4 and that cobalt would have done like 15 even quoted by mike himself i would not go by those stats u see on the internet they r not always rite some cars do better or worse than the advertised 1/4 mile like my bros fiero 17.5 advertised but did 17.2........slow but good for 95hp! all i know is we all seen it with our own eyes what the cobalt could do

o and btw the cobalt had the 2.2 ectec not the 2.4 the 2.2 has 140hp and 150lbft i believe.

i think we have had a similar discussion about this ecotec bullsheet before.

all i gotta say is North American Products suck balls on a global stage and cant compete anymore.
they have no style