-Horrible brakes that no amount of servicing could fix
-Lousy electrical systems. Imagine driving and your Chevette/Acadian gets sprayed with snow/slush/rain. After a minute or two, you may notice your windshield wipers going slower and slower and your lights getting dimmer and dimmer and the engine has less and less power until everything stops. Then you get to wait for 15 minutes until the heat from the engine dries out the wiring and then you can start her up and continue driving until the next time it happens.
-Oil leaks. And after you fix it, you can be sure that you'll have another one in a while
-Same goes for coolant leaks
-Same goes for brake fluid
-Lousy heaters... but there is a fix where you can have an adjustment done that makes the heat HOT all of the time. Just that when summer comes, you have to adjust it back or you will BAKE.
-Cable that controls the clutch breaks
-turns signal stalks break off in your hand
-Slow windshield wipers.
I decided to write this review due to 'they weren't so bad' comments I read about Chevrolet Chevettes and Pontiac Acadians (a Canadian model)
I hate Chevettes. I never owned one, but we had 4 of them at different times in my family that I occasionally drove and also helped out on the repairs with. Nobody listened to me when I told them not to buy them... but then again, these cars were really cheap and the family members in question were on tight budgets at the time. My older brother had one and my sister had three (one after another). The model years of the Chevettes/Acadians in question were 1978, 1980, 1984, 1987. One of these was a 2 door with a 4 speed manual, the other three were 4 door hatchbacks with 3 speed automatics. All had the 1.6L 4 cylinder engine. The amounts paid for these cars (in Canadian funds) ranged from $500 to $3000.
Yes, even the 1987 model sucked. I saw someone write that the 1987 models (their last year) were the best of the bunch. This is like saying that you own the best pile of poo out of all the piles of poo.
The 1.6 L engine in these cars was gutless and gave lousy fuel economy considering that they only made 60-74HP (depending on the year). This is especially true of models that were equipped with automatic. The 1978 automatic model was especially bad - either it has slightly taller gearing or less power. And the 1.4L 4 cylinder engine was even worse.
And if the temperature got below -15C, these car simply wouldn't start.
These cars were noisy... not so much because of the engine, but because of the lack of sound deadening material -
In snow belt areas, the body held up pretty well and didn't rust too badly.
Because they are light and rear wheel drive, they are an absolute nightmare in snow.
The bodies on these cars were weak tin cans. I know that because my brother hit black ice in the middle of a curve, spun out and slid sideways into a mail box. Now in relation to a car, mail boxes aren't that big and heavy. But doing that didn't just bend the door and break the window, it also BENT THE FRAME. I can only imagine how the frame of this car would collapse if it hit something solid.
Handling isn't bad, but the ride is hard and bouncy.
The exterior styling looked okay to my eyes. I think the original model with the round headlights looked best.
The interior looked like a cheap version of a typical car interior from the 1970s. Lots of cheap plastic and there is exposed metal on the door.
The seats are narrow, cramped and uncomfortable. This is partly due to the big tunnel in the middle that seemed to be bigger on the 1987 model than it was on the earlier models.
On the 1987 model, if you are wearing big winter boots, your foot can get a little stuck between the brake pedal and the middle hump as you lift off the gas.
The rear seats were very uncomfortable to sit in. Rear headroom is lacking and leg room wasn't great. When I sat in the back, I found that it was most comfortable to sit sideways in a hunched position.
The 1987 model we had had power steering that was so overboosed that you could steer with your pinky while parking. I preferred the manual steering over the power steering.
Both the gas gauge and speedometer behaved erratically. With the speedometer, you had to guess your speed by averaging the high and low of what was indicated. With the gas gauge, you could go from a half a tank to a quarter, up to three quarters and back to a half of a tank simply by driving up and over down a steep hill. Okay, I'm exaggerating with the gas gauge, but not by much.
The illumination of the gauges was very poor. Heater controls were not illuminated at all.
The switch for the lights is an old fashioned pull-and-twist type.
Since the car was so narrow and light, simply getting in the car and getting comfortable can make the whole car shake... and with little effort, you can make it shake a lot. Did that for fun to bug my sister (I was pretty annoyed that she bought a THIRD Chevette). Note that I'm not a huge person... I'm a 170 pound, 5'8" male.
One last thing I'd like to mention... the Chevette had its gas tank dangerously located behind the rear axle, right below the trunk floor. To give you an idea of how exposed it was, my sister dented it on a curbstone when backing up.
The only car that is more dangerous in this respect is probably a Ford Pinto.
Agreed. All of the above arguments can be intelligently refuted. First off, the guages. Yeah, these were not vacuum-flourescent, read-them-across-the-street style guages. Just a lightbulb behind plastic. The gas gauge sender is in the side of the tank, so of course going around corners and things and hills would make the gauge move. Lots of cars with mechanical guages had this issue. The speedometer was a weak (or weakening) speedo cable. 10 bucks for a replacement.
Timing belts do go on 15 year old cars. You don't think rubber lasts forever, do you? Don't wear snowboots while driving, anybody could tell you that. On any car it's a bad idea. The brakes are manual, not power assist, so they take a strong foot (or repeated application) to work up pressure to stop.
I could go on and on. But anyways. Your review, I felt, was very subjective. And by the way, whoever drives a car, any car, and can dent the gas tank while parking, needs lessons.
I rest my case.
The reviewer does not appear to have ever owned the model he is claiming to review.
Apparently he has only made a nuisance of himself while riding in other's cars.
I had 2 of these cars. a 78 auto and an 81 4 speed. Both cars were put through constant abuse and kept coming back for more, like going places only a 4x4 would normally go and being airborne. Any car that can go through that on a constant basis can't be all bad.
I had a 1981 Chevette. This was an absolute joy to drive – even in the snow! It always started (I was very well liked in my neighborhood in the winter for boosting newer cars). It was cheap on gas and as far as repairs…not an issue. I changed the water pump myself and it cost me $40 bucks! Sure, some of the gauges and materials were crude, but this car was a tank! Plus, wasn’t the VW Beetle crude... I sold the Chevette for $600 when it had 140 000km. The owner kept it until it died at 314 000km!! I really miss that car because it was cheap to own and fix due to the lack of electronic systems (read none). As a first car or winter car (my Mustang was stored in the winter), this car was the best.
I can really agree with all of you with the exception of the thread starter..
I have a 1987 Chevette and It IS THE BEST SMALL CAR IN THE WORLD!
MINIMAL Problems. All are small and Cheap to fix.
ALWAYS starts, even in -30'C.
Gutless, yet manages Fine in Traffic
40MPG.
If you take care of your car it will take care of you.
THE CHEVETTE IS A FINE AUTOMOBILE AND PERFECTLY WORTHY OF THE LEGACY OF A CHEVROLET BOW-TIE ON THE GRILL.
Regarding the Feb 28th comment... all 4 Chevettes had power brakes, not manual as you believe. On the issue of snow boots, my point is, the Chevette is the only car that I've had a problem with snow boots in. Other cars like Ford Escorts and Honda Civics don't have this problem. And I did roll my eyes when my sister dented the gas tank (she backed up waaaay too far). But you're missing the point. My point is, on other cars (like the Ford Escort and Honda Civic), the gas tank would not get damaged in the same situation because the tanks are mounted in less exposed locations on those cars.
Regarding the March 28th comment... a quote from the review "I never owned one, but we had 4 of them at different times in my family that I occasionally drove and also helped out on the repairs with."
Regarding the comment from April 20th... compared to a 1982 Mercury Grand Marquis, 1987 Honda Civic, 1986 Pontiac 6000 and 1991 Ford Escort, the Chevette/Acadian is greatly inferior in snow. However, it probably is better than a Mustang in snow.
Chevettes are NOT tanks. I've seen how well they don't hold up in colisions. Cars like the Mercedes 190E and Volvo 240 on the other hand are tanks.
And to the previous comment... If you think a Chevette is the best car in the world, you really need to try out some other cars like the Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla or even the Ford Escort (as long as the Escort in question is from 1991 or newer).
Maybe the one you had did start in -30C, but the 4 that went through my family would only start in those conditions if a block heater was installed and plugged in.
I know you didn't bend the frame - it doesn't have one.
Regarding 3-Aug and 22-Feb comments. There was a factory option for Power Brakes I owned four Chevettes, two used 1978s one used 1979, and one new 1981. The 1979 had power brakes while the other three had manual brakes. Changing the starter on the 79 with its enormous vacuum brake booster was a bit of a challenge, but I always found working on the Chevette fairly simple and inexpensive compared to most cars. My 81, the only one I had with a manual trans, had plenty of power for city driving and got a steady 30 MPG in the city. Today it takes a hybrid to do that!
Chevettes DO have frames, ALL cars do, including uni-bodys, it's just that it's itegrated with the body, which is were we get the term Uni-body...and guess what... They CAN bend, I've bent, twisted and cracked them before. :) Just thought I ought to correct you before you go and spreed a false truth. No offence to you though.
I can vouch that chevettes are tanks, maybe not Volvo tough, but we have a 1986 chevette that has been rolled, hit the ditch many times, got rear ended by a dodge ram 2500 at 70 km/h at a stoplight (for the rollover just had to kick the roof back up, and for the dodge ram had to bang the hatch holder back into place and put on a new hatch), It doesnt have much power, but that is partly due to 2300000 on a small 4 cyl, it gets awesome fuel economy considering its carbureted ours gets 40 mpg with the 3 speed auto, sure it's a piece of crap, but its lovable and with our chevettes (we have 4) I have made more memories and driven it harder than any other car, truck, possibly even dirtbike I have ever drove and that's why I like chevettes.
My first car was a 1981 Chevette and it was the worst car I ever owned. It was like driving a soup tin on wheels, especially in snow or ice, and I had to have a block heater installed if I wanted to go anywhere on a cold Canadian winter morning. It gave me no confidence as my first car ever and I hardly went anywhere in it, even back and forth to work and shops. I was really glad to see the back of that one. Foul colour, too... like tomato soup.
I've had two Chevrolet Cavaliers since then, one that I liked a lot and another that I hated because the body rusted out big-time and I was almost ashamed to be seen in it before I traded it in. I now drive a Mazda and have to say that I don't think I will ever go back to a Chevrolet.