1989 Chevrolet Cavalier Z24 3.1 FI Multi Port from North America


Unreliable, but good for a few months of fun


Transmission totally blown out. Had it fixed twice at a cost of $2000.

Original 2.8 Liter engine replaced with a 3.1 Liter after two weeks of driving.

Power Locks very faulty.

Keyless entry basically useless.

Faulty alarm woke up neighbors 3 times.

Electrical System totally fried twice.

Oil gauge and Temperature gauge malfunction.

An internal wire was crushed and is connected to the body causing the battery to lose power very quickly.

On an average I needed a jump start once every week.

General Comments:

When this car ran it could beat anything. I raced a 2001 Mitsubishi Eclipse and a 2000 Camaro and they both ate my dust.

Great acceleration.

Very hot interior.

Took long for A/C to kick in.

Torque was high enough to spin tires.

Horsepower was immense. Although the exact amount is not known to me (due to the 3.1 liter engine) I can estimate it is in the mid 200's.

The trouble was just making sure it started. If it did then you had no problems until the transmission blew and had to use the 2 gear manual transmission.

Not reliable at all, but a blast to drive.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 5th May, 2002

13th May 2002, 23:25

I have a Cavalier Z24 myself, and yes they have lots of power, but mid 200's? I don't know where you got your car my friend, but there's no way it has over 200 HP or that it could take a Camaro without being worked on, someone tuned your car mad, and that's why your transmission broke couldn't handle the extra strength. You are still right about the torque, I burn out by accident all the time.

1989 Chevrolet Cavalier Z24 2.8 V6 HO from North America


A must have for all young guys


I hydro-planed into a curb, and I'm now replacing pretty much all of the the left front suspension and steering equipment. However the car is so very worth it! Other than that, no problems, though it did need a tune up when I got it.

General Comments:

I just downgraded from a super charged 5.0 Thunderbird, all because I liked the styling of the Cavalier Z 24 (I also got beat by one after a long day of dragging once, but I don't tell anybody about that), and the power that I found in this car awed me. I would have never believed that you could pack so much punch in such a small engine if I hadn't experienced it firsthand. And the intakes are actually functional, unlike the intakes on the mustangs!!! Everyone that doesn't own one is truly missing out.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 27th November, 2001

5th Jul 2004, 23:31

Well, she met an untimely death in the summer of '02... to that day (august 25th) I loved that car to death, the only somewhat major problem we ever faced together was the heater core @ $440. and wouldn't you know it she was totaled 10 days later. now every time I see a beautiful cherry red Z24 I get all choked up. sometimes I kick myself for not trying to bring her back to life, $3600 in body damage alone, not counting the suspension (rear left tire was horizontal, but still on the car, front tires both faced separate directions) and I only got half that from the insurance. ended up buying a 300ZX because I was out of state traveling when it happened and I needed something immediately. I still have it, and I still don't love it like I loved my first Z...

1989 Chevrolet Cavalier Z-24 2.9 litre multi-port from North America


Gods gift to teenage boys!!!


Nothing so far, still works great.

General Comments:

I love this car!!! It always gets a second glance at red lights or while driving down the street.

Tons of power.

Buy one and be the envy of all your friends (you just have to get used to people asking to drive it all the time!)

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 20th June, 2001

11th Jun 2002, 08:27

I'm pretty sure you mean 2.8L multi-port fuel injected. And yes it is a great car.

2nd Jul 2002, 17:41

The 3.2L v6 is a truly awesome machine!!!...cavalier that is!!!

19th Aug 2002, 20:24

You must mean 2.8 not 2.9.

17th Feb 2004, 10:24

I've heard of a 3.1 L, but not a 3.2.