Chevy Beretta or Cavalier?
 

Ok, I know both are cheap chevys, but was wondering if either was
reasonably decent and reliable cars.

> Ok, I know both are cheap chevys, but was wondering if either was
> reasonably decent and reliable cars.

they both = a POS

IMHO a nice and reliable vehicle with no major head aches -- Honda, Nissan or a
Toyota!

BBA

My Beretta with 140,000 miles looks like a piece of junk because half of the paint has pealed off, the seats are worn out, and the top of the dashboard is disintegrating because of the sun, but it runs well.

Masospaghetti wrote:
>
> Ok, I know both are cheap chevys, but was wondering if either was
> reasonably decent and reliable cars.

--
Mike Walsh
West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A.

Masospaghetti wrote:
> Ok, I know both are cheap chevys, but was wondering if either was
> reasonably decent and reliable cars.

IMHO none of them are decent, but for reliability a 4-cyl. Cavalier is
probably the best of the lot. I don't have a whole lot of respect for
the 2.8/3.1 family of V-6 engines. If you have a high threshold of
pain WRT cheap economy cars a Cavalier might fill your needs.

nate

They are both OK as long as you don't pay much for them.

Masospaghetti > writes in article > dated Tue, 01 Feb 2005 19:31:02 -0500:
>Ok, I know both are cheap chevys, but was wondering if either was
>reasonably decent and reliable cars.

Beretta is much more crash-safe.

-- spud_demon -at- thundermaker.net
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.

Masospaghetti wrote:
> Ok, I know both are cheap chevys, but was wondering if either was
> reasonably decent and reliable cars.

They're similar cars under the skin.
Mostly same engine/tranny combos.
Very similar looking suspensions.

Wife's Beretta has been pretty durable, but the factory paint peeled
off, the door panels were crap, the lock up torque converter solenoids
die on a regular basis, the brakes are junk, and it's gutless*.

That said, it's never left us stranded. It's now a "backup car."

Still no rust.

More room than a Cavalier.

*gutless: 140hp and 0-60 in 9 seconds doesn't impress me much. My
other car is a lot faster.

Ray

ray wrote:
> Masospaghetti wrote:
>
>> Ok, I know both are cheap chevys, but was wondering if either was
>> reasonably decent and reliable cars.
>
>
> They're similar cars under the skin.
> Mostly same engine/tranny combos.
> Very similar looking suspensions.
>
> Wife's Beretta has been pretty durable, but the factory paint peeled
> off, the door panels were crap, the lock up torque converter solenoids
> die on a regular basis, the brakes are junk, and it's gutless*.
>
> That said, it's never left us stranded. It's now a "backup car."
>
> Still no rust.
>
> More room than a Cavalier.
>
> *gutless: 140hp and 0-60 in 9 seconds doesn't impress me much. My
> other car is a lot faster.
>
> Ray

What tranny do you have? 9 seconds doesn't seem that bad for me...my
current car does 0-60 in about 12.5.

Btw, thanks everyone for opinions.

Masospaghetti wrote:
>>
>> *gutless: 140hp and 0-60 in 9 seconds doesn't impress me much. My
>> other car is a lot faster.
>>
>> Ray
>
>
> What tranny do you have? 9 seconds doesn't seem that bad for me...my
> current car does 0-60 in about 12.5.
>
> Btw, thanks everyone for opinions.

It's the three speed auto.

Maybe I should clarify. My other car is a Trans Am. With sticky tires
it does 0-60 in low 5's (quarter in 13.11.) With Nitrous it does 0-60
probably mid 4's. (quarter in 12.18) I'm a bit of a speed addict. :)

With the average sedan today coming with 180-200hp or more and 0-60 in
the 7 second range, I say the Beretta is gutless. The 3.1's are bad for
intake gasket leaks and are noisy and not very powerful, but will run
forever otherwise. (My buddy's Celebrity made it 305,000km before it
started to knock...)