Putting aside my individual car and looking at it as a model...
Ill start with the worst point - pedal position is terrible - in the auto it wouldnt matter, but such is the way the pedals are mounted, the clutch is too far away to fully depress or the accelerator is too close, either option results in leg ache in town.
Im experimenting with some small mats piled underneath where my right foot rests to try and alter the angle my foot is at to see if it makes a difference. I had this problem in my Fiat Seicento aswell so Im sure ill find the balance with some fiddling.
Other negatives, well the radio is darned fiddly on the move ( I can just about find the ON button and locate two preselected radio station buttons without looking ).
Mirrors are a tad small or atleast the magnification isnt right as I cant see a darned thing thats useful sometimes in the passenger mirror.
Gearing is a little low - 70 is about 3000 rpm although its not noisey - funny enough the 1.5/1.8 versions have taller gearing - seems to be the wrong was around to me.
Onto the positives. Well I for one LOVE the looks of it. Maybe its because its in white and it shows the design better, but it has more than a hint of an 80's Citroen concept car, so its almost a bit retro :-) I do like the lack of solid metal rear pillars as its all glass on these and it removes the usual blindspot with saloons, plus it makes the back very light and airy.
The gearbox isnt slick, but it has a light throw and once you get used to it, you can be precise with it. It doesnt handle in any special way, but its perfectly acceptable even if you quite spirited - I wouldnt mind a quicker steering rack though as sometimes it needs more work at the wheel than you expect.
Space is what you would expect for a 16ft car, so its good, the boot is deep and tall, the 19cuft capacity believable.
Performance isnt what ive come to expect of a 2.0 car - theres no real surge as such, but then its only 105 bhp so you are left wishing it had the 16v GM 2.0, but even so, it will tug up quite steep hills without much effort and never feels slow.
Economy is a work in progress, Im sure down to my car having spent its life doing cold runs with both its previous owners, so Im going to wait until I have put some miles on it before the jury makes a verdict, but ive managed 38 mpg which is 7 mpg above the combined and the exhaust was blowing, so now with a new pipe on it, Im hoping for a little extra and I may throw some Redex in the next tank aswell for good measure, see if it helps.
Id say not an exceptional car by any stretch, but its not a sacrifice of basic expectations on comfort and driveability - it is competant in the main with a few good points and no very bad ones. Its better than I was expecting tbh.
|
|
Perhaps an 'Italian tune-up' may help?
|
>> Perhaps an 'Italian tune-up' may help?
Yeah, stick that shot of Redex in, then drive it like you stole it for a tank full. Then see what it does the tank after.
|
>> 105 bhp so you are left wishing it had the 16v GM 2.0
105bhp from a 2 litre?!
Are 2 cylinders just for show? ;-)
|
The 8v in the Cav was only 115 bhp although why its 10 bhp down in the Espero I know not.
The 16v is 134bhp. Its going to get new plugs for an xmas pressie, might help.
|
|
I thought there was an 105 special in the days of the Cav - something to do with taxation classes in France - should be easily tunable that engine, re-chip and a high lift cam or summat like that.
|
>> although why its 10 bhp down in the Espero I know not.<<
Probably a lower compression lump, skim the head, bung in some powermax pistons and a fast road cam,
and you should be cooking with gas in no time :)
|
|
Or even better slide in a GTE16V unit....they were good.
|
get it swinging on the big magnet and show us it on u tube
;-)
|
I suspect it's because it's an engine from pre-cat, pre emission control days being made to work with a cat and meet later emissions standards. My old 1985 Cav mk2 SRi made 115 bhp from 1.8 litres, but didn't have to meet any emissions requirement apart from the generous CO/HC MOT test.
I like pugugly's C20XE idea, and it's based on the same block, so should fit without too much trouble. Well set up, and running throttle bodies, you should see 180 bhp. That would surprise a few people! :-)
I bet it's been done!
Last edited by: DP on Fri 27 Aug 10 at 22:36
|
|
i think that figure DP was conservative because those cars were far more pokier than the later sri"s having owned both
|
>> i think that figure DP was conservative because those cars were far more pokier than
>> the later sri"s having owned both
Wouldn't surprise me, bb. I must admit, mine would make mincemeat of my mate's E30 BMW 320i in a straight line. Had naff all torque, but kept pulling all the way to just under 7k.
The later 1.8 allegedly made the same power, but I agree it didn't feel it.
|
|
The problem with the C20XE is they fetch a lot of money as the Corsa boys all want them. They buy up cheap cavs and shuv the red tops in them. I've known this engines to fetch over £400 on the forums.
|
Um, yep. With a turbo as well! :-)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3Ezqjlwfcs&feature=related
Manure off a shovel springs to mind.
Isn't that still one of the best looking four pot engines ever made?
Last edited by: DP on Fri 27 Aug 10 at 22:41
|
no
a twinky 2.0 litre fiat twincam is my beauty beholder
especially in something like a viva
|
|
When my brother got his Pug 406 Mi16, the alternative he considered at the time was the Cavalier 2.0 16v GSi which was 150bhp. Later the 2.0 16v engine when it had a catalyst dropped to 136bhp... and I think the 2.5 v6 had only about 167bhp with a catalyst. Better for the environment I suppose.
|
|
I had one of the Cavalier Mk2 SRis with the 1.8 engine. It felt very quick when it was new but having said that it had replaced a Cortina. Heavy brute though with no power steering. Probably wildly optimistic speedo but I saw 137 mph on it a couple of times in the Highlands....of ....er.....Germany.
|
|
My brother had a second hand Cavalier as a company car with a 1.7 diesel (non-turbo).... he didn't keep it long before it was sent back to the lease company. He could do that because he owned the company. It helped I suppose.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 27 Aug 10 at 23:05
|
i once borrowed one of those off a trader to go on an errand i thought it was the slowest thing i had ever driven then went and bought a sierra 2.3gld
kids of today dont know they are born...............
|
Slowest car I ever drove was a Corsa 1.5 diesel.
Heavy too - no pas.
Mind it sipped juice - you felt you might have to stop to take some out.
|
good engines them (isuzi)
cheap road tax too as it was under 1547cc
never a belter just a plodder but as you say phenomenal mpg
best colour? faded corsa flame red :-)
|
...best colour? faded corsa flame red :-)...
This one was solid white.
It was also noisy, but a good, sturdy little device as you say.
|
|
Ever tried a Maestro clubman diesel (no turbo)?
|
sorry can you say that again?
i cant hear you
|
>> Ever tried a Maestro clubman diesel (no turbo)?
>> sorry can you say that again?
>> i cant hear you
The first courier firm I worked for had two Maestro diseasel vans - slow was not the word. Well, alright, yes it was. One of them blew up at 350k miles and the other surpassed 400k before I left - not bad mileages for H registrations.
I did a trip in one to Swansea and back (480 miles in total) at 50mph all the way, to preserve a knackered wheel bearing that couldn't be fixed until after the journey. It returned a faintly astonishing 91mpg.
Last edited by: Dave_TD {P} on Sat 28 Aug 10 at 18:15
|
|
I'm not sure the Cavalier 1.7 diesel had power steering. Come to think of it I don't think it did. It was slow and a crap drive too.
|
|
the base taxi model certainly didnt have power steering
|
|
And the second hand (higher spec) version he had before it was better equipped. He should have studied the spec. I still think there's a catch (Apart from winter driving) for the new F60 BMW 5 series saloon. I cannot see why I'd not have one apart from an A5 looking nicer.
|
I love the A5 as well, but the new 5er (isn't it the F10, BTW?) is seriously making me reconsider my vow not to buy another BMW.
The 5er seems to be all the car you really ever need: Refined, spacious, great cruiser, great build quality, cheap to run, excellent interiors, good spec even in the "base" model, understated good looks.
Except...except...the A5 does look more handsome, and has a hatch to make it a great deal more practical , and it will perform better in the winter - especially with quattro.
I'm saving up for my next car, and I veer between these two models as my favourite, then get the occasional flashes of being all "grown-up", and think "What the heck - just get a Mondeo instead!"
|
|
Yes it's the F10. Not sure where the 60 came from.
|
We had a mk2 Golf 1.6 normally aspirated diesel. No PAS and a throbbing 54 bhp IIRC. It was a pig to park, and so painfully gutless that one drove it using the accelerator pedal as an on/off switch. It was incredibly frugal though. Even round the houses, it would do 50 mpg.
Always struggled with the MOT emissions check as it smoked like an old boiler. Needed caning round the block in 2nd for 10th mins before the test to clear the cack out, when it would just scrape a pass.
Good times :)
|
>> I had one of the Cavalier Mk2 SRis with the 1.8 engine. It felt very
>> quick when it was new but having said that it had replaced a Cortina. Heavy
>> brute though with no power steering. Probably wildly optimistic speedo but I saw 137 mph
>> on it a couple of times in the Highlands....of ....er.....Germany.
>>
I recall seeing 132 mph on the speedo of my mate's company 1.6 Cavalier Mk2, in 4th, with 4 up. scary. He then replaced it with a 115bhp 1.8, but in 'L' trim, quite a rare combination I think. I thought the 2 litre 8v Family series in the late mk2 GLS and CD models was a very nice combination to drive, certainly nicer than the catalysed version in the equivalent but heavier mk3 Cavalier.
|
>> I recall seeing 132 mph on the speedo of my mate's company 1.6 Cavalier Mk2, in 4th, with 4 up. scary.
Funny that, I could never get mine above 124 :-)
It would (just) do 60 in 2nd though, which made for a reasonable 0-60 time.
|
Ive now modified the clutch pedal with some squares of rubber mat and very tight cable ties, covere with some liberal amounts of duct tape to add about half an inch.
I tried a test bit and it solved the distance issue and had the same feel as the normal pedal, but I found the fixing had to be strong vertically as your foot tends to push down towards the floor, so the cable ties hold it on tight and the tape mimmicks the smooth surface of the pedal, so it feels identical. Leg ache is now gone :-) just see how long it lasts!
|
The SRI had different (lower, closer) gearing to the cooking 1.8i models which suited the revvy nature of the early 1.8 engine really well.
Mine would pull 6000 RPM in top (700 short of the redline) at an indicated 135! :-) I suspect it was nearer to 120 in truth, but still not shabby for a naturally aspirated 1.8 litre 5 seater from a quarter century ago. :-)
My mate had a 1.3 litre Belmont which would indicate 115 four up! lol
Last edited by: DP on Sun 29 Aug 10 at 11:39
|
Daewoo Espero - Initial thoughts on my new car - bathtub tom
