You did a "Rob" on it?
Always fancied a shuvvit hatch, with a Blydenstein 2.3 twincam conversion. So much cheaper than a proper HS/R. Even when HS and HSR models were new, I always wanted a Blydenstein, or even a DIY single cam
2.3 conversion. Still do as it happens.
OK, I'll conceed that :)
'95 N-plate Cavs exist, because I know someone who owns one !
Mondeos started on a '92 K-plate, IIRC ?
Except that they were :) 405 and Cavalier were in exactly the same large-family class.
Poppycock. The 405 is an order of magnitude better than either the Mk2 or Mk3 Cavalier. It has ride and handling to rival and modern car. Much higher levels of standard-equipment, at least from '92 onwards (dunno what the earlier Mk1s had - my GTX had everything ever, but that's cos it was a GTX :) It's more comfortable, and the Diesel versions have quite good engines (The Cav diesels are, erm). Pininfarina styling, and in the Mk2s at least, a rather nice dashboard/interior.
I can't think of anything that the Cav does better ?
I've been in one lots of times - my mate's got an N-plater as above. I think it's a CDX ? Can't remember though. I also think it's got a 16v Ecotec ?
It's *s**te*.
:)
Yep, I don't dispute that. Fords of that era were a joke ! My point was that there were much better cars available back then. XR2 vs 205 GTi. Cav * vs
405 *. etc. etc.
Rusts.
The radius arms on your 405 might go, but at least there's still something to bolt the rear subframe onto when you replace them.
And I think the 405 GLx4/Mi16x4 actually have more reliable 4wd (and better in my limited experience of them) systems, with locking centre diffs. Though the GLx4 was painfully slow.
Plus, the Cavalier diesels are amongst the worst in their contemporary class; the 405 (and BX) were widely regarded as the best.
Aesthetically, the original 405 interior might be more pleasing to the eye, but wasn't as well put together as the Cavalier (there's an insult). The facelift models, however, are very well screwed together, especially for a 1990s Pug.
Also... I'm racking my brain here... but am I right in thinking that there was no Cavalier estate for the Mk 3? I can only picture hatchback and saloon versions.
Richard
yup no estate cav's my MK3 was a hatchback and the only thing good about it was a) the excelent condition it was in b) the interior was quite nice, seats were good and c) the standard speaker set up was ace once you ditched the shit grundig bollocks in the dash.
it was all ruined once you started the engine and took it for a drive :)
Yup, you're right there. Good way to sell lots of Carlton estates, I suppose. Ages ago I was in one of the Carltons, and asked my mate if he knew if there was a reason why they never did a Mk3 Cav Estate, and he said "you're sitting in it".
In news: snipped-for-privacy@news.individual.net, Sleeker GT Phwoar decided to enlighten our sheltered souls with a rant as follows
Bill Blydenstein did the head on one of my Mk2 RS2000s.
Nice fella, knew his cylinder heads an all.
Thing that got me was he used to send handwritten estimates, with their own little personal letter.
Agreed, the Mk2 405 interiors were worryingly well made for 1993 french cars :)
No. This actually happened :)
As a 17 year old, I don't think my insurance premiums would have been too reasonable tho...
'93K, and late at that. Most were '94L plates. That's nigh on six years with the Cavalier less than one year of its lifespan left.
Ride and handling are irrelevant to most people buying these kinds of cars and in the eye of the beholder for a large majority of the rest.
Yeah, I know. That would have been when I was thinking about it too. And I didn't even have a license then. Just the thought of a Blydenstein Shuvvit or droopsnoot Firenza was enough for then.
He is still about I think. retro cars had him as their Retrobloke in the DEC 03 issue.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.