mid 90's Cavalier

[CanaMark]

Been looking at the Cavalier lately. I bought a 1999 4 door back in 2001, that I totalled. It was a good ride, I sat well in it for being 6'4". I never had a problem with it. But now I gotta go a few years earlier. I know they came in 2 engines of 4cyl, which one is the better one. cant remember if its the 2.2L or 2.4L. Also what is the major problem with these cars. Are the head gaskets good? any issues. I want to buy a 1994 to 1997 for around $4000. There are plenty around. What should I look for when buying one. Should I do a compression test?

Thanks any information would be appreciated.

[4dr92cavi4cyl]

Hmm, I can't believe no one's jumped on this one yet.
In my opinion, from what I have seen here, the 2.4 is better. It's DOHC and the 2.2's are either SOHC or OHV, depending on the year. The engine designs are totally different, it's not just a difference of displacement and cam location. You will see many people here say different things about each motor, it's up to you to filter out the BS from the facts, or factually based opinions, lol.

I think the 2.4 was first used in 97, not sure. NE1 here know for sure?

[Thor06]

I'd have to agree with the 2.4, I think its the best engine in a cavalier. Also, I would get a 2000+ z24 like -Jayson- said in another thread.

[OverAllComa]

You're looking at 94-97, eh?

Okay, then you have several options. 94 was still second generation second phase, so you get the lovely joy of opting for the torque-monster we call the 3.1. 185lb/ft is quite enjoyable, let me tell you. Of course that would only be in the Z24 or the RS. Otherwise you're looking at the 2.2 OHV...not a bad motor, but its a dog. Built like a tank, though.

Then we come to 95 and we have the lovely 2.3Quad4. Aside from the shift to the 3rd gen body style, you get new options all around. The motors are only 4 bangers starting in 95. I'd go for a Z24 with a Quad4 if you were looking for a 95.

Then 96 rolls around and you get the 2.4 Twin Cam. Basically your Quad4 with some lovely goodies thrown in, but lacking in the power (not in comparison to the 2.3Quad4, but to the other Quad4's that were made. The Twin Cam has the same horepower and more torque). This is where I'd start looking if I were you.

97 was just a repeat of 96. Okay, so they changed a digit, big whoop.

Happy shopping.

[4dr92cavi4cyl]

Originally Posted by OverAllComa

...Otherwise you're looking at the 2.2 OHV...not a bad motor, but its a dog. Built like a tank, though.

I'll second that!

[cousincletus]

I have owned 3 j-bodies with the OHV engine and can tell you by personal experience it is easier to work on. Head gasket is a possible problem area but water pump on the other engine is just as much of a PITA. When you check the 2.2 OHV look around the corner of the head at the #4 cylinder and check for green stains or any signs of leakage. All the blown head gaskets seem to start there. Personally I would go with the 2.2 OHV but it does have less power. Have seen many of these with well over 200K miles and one with over 300K. Keep up with the maintenance and you should be ok.

[CanaMark]

I like the new look of the cavaliers of 1995 and onward. This is what I am leaning towards if I can get a decent price on one. I do not care if its a 2 or 4 door. I know the Z models are sportier but pricier.

I want an engine that I can easily replace the cylinder head/gasket on by myself. Maybe even rebuild. And replace things like timing chain or belt, water pump and alternator easily. I have heard the quad engines suck, just from my research from the Grand Am line up, but I could be wrong on that.

What do you mean by a dog of a motor? just weak performance wise? or crappy mileage.

I will probably go 2.4L automatic

What does J body mean anyway?

[94VL]

J body is just GMs internal way of identifying that platform.Like the "K" car was a Dodge Aries and Plymouth Reliant.An A body is a GM midsize,an X body is a Nova RWD and a Citation FWD platform.etc.
A 2.2 for 1994 was up by 10hp over 1993.Surely not a slug with manual transmission (ever had torque steer with a Cav? the 94 2.2/man can do it).Gas mileage should be high 20s,low 30s without too much agressive driving.Watch for exhaust manifold studs pulling out of the cylinder head and making big leaks (the studs go thru the water jacket)GM had a bulletin on that one.The 2.2s are rather rough idling engines and very coarse on acceleration.Certainly not a refined engine (car magazines in 82 called it...the 1.8 OHV....the "junkyard engine" for using an OHV design instead of OHC).I know of a number of 2.0/2.2 engines with rods thru the block,so they dont like high revs either.Not a bad engine,but not overly exciting either.From all I hear of the Quad-4 problems,I wouldnt want one of those.An old 2.8 or 3.1 wouldnt be bad,if you could find one with less than 100,000 miles....lol..and try changing rear plugs and rear valve cover gaskets......

[OverAllComa]

Originally Posted by 94VL

....lol..and try changing rear plugs and rear valve cover gaskets......

Oh...that IS A BITCH! That middle plug is crazy, no good way to get to it. I feel bad for the guys who never figure out to remove the strut tower bar, b/c I tore the hell out of my fat hands swapping plugs when it was out.

That 3.1 can pull its own, but its a nasty little thing to work on b/c of space constraints.

[4dr92cavi4cyl]

I like the old dogs, of course I had to replace my original 2.2 at 181,000MI due to a spun rod bearing, damn passing gear! I hate auto's. Anyway, I don't want to say I don't run the hell out of it, 'cause I do, occasionally. It's a good motor, not for the performance oriented, but it's easier to work on than any of the others, due to the OHV design, which I believe to be a more refined design than OHC. Economy is great, provided all the emissions crap is working correctly. I think a little custom head work, P&P, and a larger TB and bigger Injectors would make a big difference.

[_Shorty]

you don't want a 2.8, they had oil delivery problems, and I remember hearing a while back that for a long time those 2.8's were the most popular rebuild jobs because of the failures due to the oil delivery problems. The journals were too small, and they fixed that in the 3.1 engines. I have over 370,000km on my 3.1 and it is still going strong. Still getting roughly 35 miles per US gallon with it (28-32 miles per imperial gallon, I'm in Canada...multiply by 1.2 to get US figures), doesn't burn any oil, runs great. It's in a 1990 Cavalier 2dr w/ a 5spd. That's about 230,000 miles on it, so I wouldn't be too concerned about finding one with less than 100,000 on it. They're tanks. They also didn't come in only the Z24s and RS models. I've got neither, the 3.1 was available as some kind of option unrelated to those two specific models too. Mine's got GM's wussy attempt at a cold-air intake that they put in the station wagons with this engine, which appears to be a bit better than the other intake I've seen with these engines. (I'm sure it doesn't compare to a decent aftermarket cold-air intake kit though.)

Originally Posted by 94VL

An old 2.8 or 3.1 wouldnt be bad,if you could find one with less than 100,000 miles....lol

[_Shorty]

haha, yeah, I hate just changing the plugs on mine with that bank that's against the firewall.

Originally Posted by OverAllComa

That 3.1 can pull its own, but its a nasty little thing to work on b/c of space constraints.

[angel_iz378]

Originally Posted by 4dr92cavi4cyl

I'll second that!

Third! My 2.2L DOHC (which I believe someones said didn't exist in 94s) had almost 200k before I had to replace the engine. The tranny's still kickin tho', but don't know for how much longer. Anyhoo, if you're wanting to mod your Cavy, then I don't suggest getting anything before the 3rd gen (95 and up), unless you want to go completely custom- literally. I've heard however that the 95s tend to give more problems than any of them. Don't remember why.

[4dr92cavi4cyl]

Originally Posted by angel_iz378

Third! My 2.2L DOHC (which I believe someones said didn't exist in 94s) had almost 200k before I had to replace the engine.

Umm..., are you SURE your second gen had a DOHC?

[angel_iz378]

Not 100% but still pretty sure. Unless someone can prove me wrong.