Welcome to another edition of Shitbox Showdown! We’re doing one make per day this week, and since we started out with Ford, it’s only fair that we give Chevrolet its turn. We’ve got a drop-top version of a once-common everyman’s car, and a modern crossover that I actually don’t know much about.
Yesterday’s make was Honda, and it was one of those matchups where I knew going in which one would win. Sometimes, I pick a car just to feed it to the wolves, and that Civic yesterday was a prime example. I really like the Civic of that era, but that one is not a good example. I don’t think the auction paperwork in lieu of a title is a huge deal in Washington State, but it’s about double the price it ought to be.


That Accord, on the other hand, is just about an ideal cheap used car. It’s known to be reliable, it has been cared for by the same family its whole life, and its only obvious flaws are cosmetic. You could probably get another hundred thousand miles out of that car without too much trouble.
Chevrolet has been a part of the American landscape since 1911, and it’s hard to think of a more quintessentially American car brand. And whether you love Chevys, hate them, or don’t care about them one way or the other, you can’t avoid them. I imagine it would be difficult to find a parking lot anywhere in this country that didn’t have at least one Chevy in it. Have they all been brilliant cars? Well, no, of course not. Have they all been memorable? Nope, can’t say that either. But I can say with some confidence that just about everyone who pays attention to cars has a story about a Chevy. I know I have many. Let’s see what story these two have to tell.
1994 Chevrolet Cavalier Z24 Convertible – $1,500

Engine/drivetrain: 3.1-liter overhead valve V6, three-speed automatic, FWD
Location: State College, PA
Odometer reading: 127,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Yes, I’m making you look at another J-body. It’s been a while, and I thought this one was worth checking out, especially for the price. This is a post-facelift second-generation Cavalier Z24 convertible, the fanciest and most expensive Cavalier you could get in 1994. Though admittedly, that’s not unlike the fanciest and most expensive item on Taco Bell’s menu; it’s all pretty much the same stuff, just arranged differently.

To create the Z24, Chevy resorted to the tried-and-true method of factory hot-rodding: put the bigger engine in the smaller car, give it bigger wheels and a spoiler, and sell it for more money. The Z24’s drivetrain – a 3.1 liter V6 backed by a TH125C automatic – was Chevy’s version of Frank’s Red Hot sauce; they put that shit in everything. You could find the exact same engine under the hoods of everything from sporty coupes to family sedans to minivans in 1994. It’s not exciting, but it has proved pretty reliable over the years.

I always really liked the white seats available in the Cavalier and Pontiac Sunbird convertibles of this era. I imagine they’re a pain to keep clean, but they sure do look sharp, and they’re comfortable, too. This one looks well-maintained inside, especially for 127,000 miles. The convertible top needs a little attention, though; it goes up and down, but it’s a little stiff and moves slowly. Some careful application of spray lithium grease on the pivot points should put it right.

The good news is the top is nice and watertight when it’s up, so there’s no need to replace it, which is always a worry with cheap convertibles. The paint is faded, but it isn’t rusty, or at least not obviously. It’s a Pennsylvania car, though, so it’s worth a peek underneath to make sure the floors are still there.
2012 Chevrolet Captiva Sport – $2,500

Engine/drivetrain: 2.4-liter dual overhead cam inline 4, six-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Port St. Lucie, FL
Odometer reading: 170,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
We all know that as you age, you stop caring about the current pop music. You’re still aware of current hits, but they just don’t mean as much to you as the stuff that was on the radio when you were younger. As it turns out, cars are the same way. That Cavalier above is well-known to me, and I have fond memories of cars like it. The Chevy Captiva, however, I had completely forgotten existed until I saw this one for sale. I probably see them all the time, but they’re just too new to notice.

This car was better known as the second-generation Saturn Vue here in the US, and as the Opel/Vauxhall Antara in Europe and the UK. If I’m understanding it right, the Captiva was only available here to fleet customers, meaning this car was probably originally a rental. It features pretty typical GM running gear for the time: a 2.4-liter Ecotec four-cylinder engine and a six-speed automatic. The seller isn’t specific about its mechanical condition, other than to note that it has “ice cold A/C,” but they couldn’t know that if it wasn’t running and driving, right?

It sure looks like a rental car inside: straightforward and forgettable. You don’t want a fleet car of any sort to be confusing to operate; the whole point is that anyone can hop in and drive off. This Captiva has covered 170,000 miles, with who knows how many people behind the wheel, and it still looks pretty good. I guess GM stepped up its interior quality game a bit after the bankruptcy fiasco; the older ones didn’t usually hold up this well.

Outside, it’s another bland crossover, but at least it’s not gray. I can see why cars of this style have become popular; it does look very practical. I guess what it took to sell small hatchbacks in America was to just make them taller. The ad says it has “normal wear and tear,” but honestly, I don’t see anything wrong with it at all in the photos.
So those are your choices for today: a fancy Cavalier and an ex-rental crossover. They were both built for daily use, and they both could still serve that purpose, if you wanted. Granted, one makes more sense, but the other looks like a lot more fun. The choice is yours.
Isn’t Activia a yogurt that was hocked by Jamie Lee Curtis????
With the tree pollen right now, I feel like I’m hocking up yogurt….
I had an Activia as a rental one time, and even with my low expectations of a rental car (four wheels, goes down the road), it was an annoying car to drive. The handling was terrible and the curve of the A-pillar is just right to completely block your view on left turns.
Cavalier for me. I simply like it more and I think it has the potential to be an interesting period car. It could even become a quasi-classic in 20 years or so. And for $1500, why not? I would keep it completely stock and well maintained and fix whatever needs fixing including the paint. And maybe rent it out on Turo.
The Captiva by comparison, is just one of many generic CUVs… in an undesirable/non-special spec.
Sure it’s practical, but I already have a practical daily driver that is far better.
This, plus that interior! You don’t see many in that shape for that year/mileage/class of car.
Perfect for Radwood, all its flaws were possible in 1999 as they are today
Cavalier, for nostalgia’s sake. This car was new around the time I was getting my learner’s permit. It wasn’t something that I thought was cool even then, but sitting in that 90’s GM interior and popping in a Metallica cassette would really take me back.
Black Album, Master of Puppets, or And Justice For All…?
Master of Puppets was my jam at that time. I won’t lie though – the black album was my gateway drug and then I started working backwards.
I didn’t even read the whole article. When I saw the Cavalier ran and drove well, I just skipped to the vote. I would do a great many things to avoid driving a Captiva.
I wouldn’t want the Cavalier as an only car, but I already have a DD I like very much, and on the right days a convertible is the right tool. This one is more Harbor Freight than Snap-on, but on a beautiful day on a curvy, but not too curvy, road and the sunlight filtering through a canopy of interesting trees, it would be more than good enough.
Someone suggested a muffler delete. I dunno. I had a Datsun 510’s exhaust system rot out and college-budget replaced the whole length with straight pipe and a single glass-pack. It sounded great running through the gears at varying revs and levels of throttle, but the droning on the 500+ freeway drive home and back was pretty annoying.
I saw a Captiva in a parking lot near Baltimore. It was novel enough to catch my eye, and I walked around it to get its model name and Googled it. Turned out it was largely designed by GM Korea.
I am no longer reflexively offended by Korean vehicles. They’ve all been rentals. A Kia Soul I rented in Ontario turned out to be surprisingly pleasant to drive and there was some fun tech on hand as well. And a Hyundai i45 rented in Australia took us well over 1200 km/750 miles over all kinds of roads (including rough dirt ones) without a misstep. Even the Chevy Spark (another GM Korea product) I was renting when I spotted the Captiva was competent at 70 mph on the freeway and not punishing over less-than-perfect pavement.
Sorry for the digressions. TL;DR: The Cavalier sounds like more fun than the Captiva.
I don’t need a daily driver, so Cavalier all day long.
I’ll park it next to my 1992 S-10 and relive my youth.
My best friend in high school (circa ‘87) had a “sporty” red Cavalier. It was pretty neat in the day, and in a parking lot of malaise vehicles. This was also the era of GM’s that might never run run great, but would run forever. Voting Cav for nostalgia.
(FWIW, in high school I was rocking a 40-year old 1948 Plymouth P-15 Special Deluxe. I didn’t get a lot of dates, but it was a popular friend-mobile to take six kids to the movies… https://itisgood.org/auto-biography/#48Plymouth )
I usually vote for the more interesting car, but today I went with the Captiva. It may be forgettable, but it is hard to pass up a modern car in good condition for $2,500.
It is also hard to get excited about the Cavalier. It isn’t a nice looking car. The V6 is a plus, but the 3 speed automatic negates any performance benefits. Aside from it being a convertible, I don’t see much appealing about this car.
That caption for voting for the Cavalier is spot-on, as I struggle to think of another car that could get me to vote for a convertible Cavalier. If I were car shopping in real life, neither of these would get more than an a few seconds of me saying “Ewww” aloud and moving on.
Crapalier or Craptiva?
May is just around the corner. A summer of top-down motoring dawns; I live in a place where sun and warmth is at a premium 6 months of the year. I’ve never done the convertible thing, might as well give it a try. Getting jiggly with it to the sound of GM V6 exhaust note.
Throw the cassette collection into the glovebox. Let’s go for a road trip.
Cavalier.
Glad to see the majority not voting for a blobby crossover no matter what. Good work, Comrades.
This is a horses-for-courses one and I already have a daily driver, so make mine the retro ragtop.
I voted for the Captiva. It’s newer and more practical, plus it’s not a jiggly 90s GM convertible LOL
This one is pretty simple; Do you need a cheap, reliable vehicle that appears to have been very well maintained? Simple – get the Captiva. I don’t, so I’m going for the Cavalier because it seems irrationally fun in spite of its humbleness. As far as the rust goes, as a PA resident I’ll venture that you’re going to be OK here. Before the underside rots away, I’d expect to see it showing up in other places like the bottom of the doors and lips of the fenders (especially where they join the cladding). I can’t see any of that, so you’re probably good to go.
The rebadged Saturn is compelling, for actual daily use I suppose, but I have actually been wondering if any of the old square body Cavaliers survived, and bob’s your uncle, there one is. Price is good for the miles and overall state of the thing too. I would probably buy that if I was looking. The captiva probably would not have made my search window because of the miles.
Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie and Tariffs – Hey!
Yeah, I want the convertible.
They did eventually open up Captiva Sport sales to the general public, somewhere along the way they also dropped the “Sport”.
It’s entirely inoffensive but also completely unremarkable to the point of being nearly invisible. If you just needed a vehicle it would serve you fine but when you put it up against this convertible it doesn’t stand a chance.
Ragtop Z24 all day!! Just imagine muffler delete, rolling top down, listening to that good-as-gold 60deg 3.1L pushrod soundtrack. Cruising through a time warp to Taco Bell to enjoy the .59 / .79 / .99 menu.
You, along with the rest of the entire world. It’s basically that generic, no logo car the insurance companies use in their commercials. I fell asleep just looking at it.
Cavalier all the way today. It’s a ragtop, looks ok-ish in a Totally 90’s kind of way, and it’s cheap.
I don’t particularly want this Cavalier, but I know I don’t want the Captiva, even if this one looks nice enough and is cheap. The base LS ones with unpainted cladding seemed to go more to corporate fleets and the monochrome ones were rentals. Once these hit the used market it seemed to be people that didn’t want to spend on or couldn’t afford one of the bigger, more known crossover names, even an Equinox.
I only ever drove it with Saturn badges. The base 4 in the VUE was the 2.4/4AT which should be reliable but was slow, off the line and in general, and didn’t get you great mileage to compensate. The Captiva as here used the 2.4DI that brought back the reputation for munching timing chains.
The VUE did offer the 3.6L V6 which moved it reasonably well, but the Captiva switched to the 3.0DI V6 that nobody seemed to like in any application, because GM’s products got so damn heavy. A VUE V6 was 4000 lbs, even the I4 was like 3700 lbs or a couple hundred more than a CR-V. Yet smaller inside, which was the other thing, it wasn’t that comfortable. The steering wheel didn’t telescope (maybe the Chevy added it) and was too far away, the seat cushions were short; the back seat itself cushion was better than the original VUE but space was tighter.
The interior quality was decent for the time and segment. Despite the common corporate switchgear it doesn’t seem like it chipped and flaked as much as you see in other GMs of the era. Perhaps the mixed international heritage helped as it wore about as many brand names as the J-body, with Holden and Daewoo badges and even badged GMC Terrain in the Middle East. I don’t think any market seemed to really like it all that much.
This is the perfect two-car garage for $4,000: a clean, functional NPC-class crossover for daily driving, Costco runs and carpool duty; and a brash, silly convertible for weekend cars-and-coffee expeditions.
I voted Cavalier, in (fond) memory of the all-white Sunbird I drove for a few years in the 90s, but really I’d take both.
Almost. If the Cav were manual it’d be all there.
The milage on the z24 doesn’t scare me. That is about 5k per year.
A 31 y.o. coupe with the roof cut off by a 3rd-party?!? Ha!!! That will have the torsional rigidity of David’s spaghetti de doccia.
I’m not sure I ever knew the Craptiva existed, but my wife had a 1st gen Vue and it was cromulent. So I’ll take it until something better is offered tomorrow.
There’s nothing more 3rd-party about the J-car convertibles than any other car.
GM may have sourced production of top assemblies to ASC or some other supplier but they were fully production-engineered and structural components built in-house by GM, probably the way Mopar did in this old MotorWeek video – cutting off the roof and adding the convertible-only stiffeners before the body’s ever removed from the assembly jig.
https://youtu.be/DebmDk-weKs
Sorry, not true. Many convertibles, including these J’s start as coupes with roofs that are cut off by ASC or other 3-rd parties after the sub-frame reinforcement is welded on. Other convertibles, such as Mustangs starting with the SN95s, have bodies in white that begin life as a convertible and are therefore built from the ground up (by Ford, not ASC) as a convertible. Obviously, Miatas, M-B SLs and other convertible-only models are the same and this makes for a much more rigid base. No worries about rusty sub-frame welds compromising strength over time.
Your asking me to choose between an old sporty convertible with the best package it came with vs a boring higher mileage crossover that was only sold to fleets? Yeah, i’m taking the convertible.
Wait… That convertible is only 2 hours away from where I live and its super cheap.
It’s still over my budget though lol.
We expect to see both you and it in the next Readers Rides article!
Considering my budget is… *checks wallet* about 6$. I don’t think that’s likely.
But one can dream.