Welcome to another week of crappy cars! This week, I’m braving the wilds of that other online classified site, Facebook Marketplace, to see what I can find. Both of today’s choices come from my former stomping grounds of Oregon. Both are small cars with V6 engines driving the front wheels through five-speed manuals, but apart from that, they don’t have a whole hell of a lot in common.
We ended last week’s musical adventure with a pair of $7,500 classics, and a couple of Joe Jackson albums. You all seemed to be with me on the musical choice but preferred the Alfa to the Ranchero by about two to one. Fair enough; I can’t say I disagree. For the record, I do think the Ranchero is kinda cool, but given the choice, I couldn’t pass up a chance at Alfa ownership.
I do think I’m going to have to slip in more music references, though. I barely scratched the surface of my weird musical taste. We didn’t get to Iron Maiden, or Harry Chapin, or Toto, or Alan Parsons Project, or Earth, Wind, & Fire, or Black Flag, or Dire Straits, or the Bangles, or… hell, maybe I should find a music blog to write for, as well.
For today, though, let’s stick to cars. Taking the engine from a larger car and cramming it into the next size down is a time-honored way of creating a sporty car. It’s the fundamental principle of hot-rodding, really, and the basis for the whole muscle car movement. Big engine make little car go fast. And while you don’t see as much of it today, with all the tiny turbocharged engines with hybrid systems already making little cars pretty speedy, it was a really popular trick among manufacturers in the 1990s. Let’s check out a pair of their creations from that era.
1991 Chevrolet Cavalier Z24 – $1,000
Engine/drivetrain: 3.1-liter overhead valve V6, five-speed manual FWD
Location: Portland, OR
Odometer reading: 186,000 miles
Operational status: Runs great, but clutch is starting to slip
Every GM car, regardless of vehicle type, body style, or size, has one thing in common: Regular Production Order codes, RPO for short. These three-digit alphanumeric codes, listed on a sticker usually found in the glovebox or in the trunk, specify every part of that car: drivetrain, trim level, appearance package, paint color, optional equipment, everything. Most RPO codes are unknown gibberish to most owners, but a few, usually denoting a package of options or a specific engine, have become famous enough to actually warrant a badge on the outside of the car: the Z28 Camaro and Z71 Silverado, for instance. In the 1980s, Chevy cashed in on the Z28’s fame and came up with an RPO performance package for the Cavalier compact, known as the Z24.
Like the Z28, the Z24 package was mostly cosmetic, with ground effects, alloy wheels, and some other goodies – but it also included Chevy’s 60-degree V6 engine, a significant boost in power and torque over the typical Cavalier four-banger. Most Z24s I’ve seen over the years have had automatic transmissions, but a few lucky ones have a Getrag five-speed manual. This is one such car.
This car runs great, the seller says, and has been a reliable daily driver for a long time, but now the clutch is slipping, and will need to be replaced. It happens. A new clutch is usually about eight hundred bucks if you have a shop replace it, or two hundred and a weekend if you want to tackle it yourself. With the low price of this car, if that’s really all it needs, it could be a really good deal – especially if you’re the DIY type.
I don’t know what it is with red cars and bad clearcoat lately. This is the third or fourth one we’ve seen recently. I’m not a fan of red cars in general, but they seem to look especially bad when the clearcoat starts flaking off. But it’s a $1,000 car that needs an easy mechanical fix, so I guess it doesn’t have to be pretty.
1992 Mazda MX-3 GS – $2,200
Engine/drivetrain: 1.8-liter dual overhead cam V6, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Jefferson, OR
Odometer reading: 142,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives great
You have to hand it to Mazda. The Japanese automaker has never been afraid to be different, especially when it comes to drivetrains. It’s still the only make to really get serious about rotary engines. It offered turbochargers in just about everything for a while in the 80s. And in this funny-looking little hatchback coupe, the MX-3, it offered a teeny-tiny four-cam V6 that revved to the moon. The V6, known as the K8-DE in Mazda’s internal codes, displaces 1.8 liters and puts out 130 horsepower, nothing to sneeze at in a car this size in the early 1990s.
Even though the displacement is the same as most competing four-cylinders, the engine’s physical size is the same as Mazda’s other K-series V6s. It took one hell of a shoehorn to get this engine into the 323-based MX-3. But I have seen this engine stuffed into an even smaller car: the Mazda 121-based Ford Festiva. I always wanted to try driving that particular creation, but the owner wouldn’t let me.
This MX-3 is in fine mechanical shape. It runs and drives great, the seller says, and has new tires and current tags. It does need a couple of things, though: the passenger’s side window is inoperable, the driver’s seat belt needs to be replaced (though the seller doesn’t say why), and it has no radio. Overall, the interior looks good, though, certainly better than a lot of cheap cars.
Outside, it’s a little rougher, but not terrible. The plastic bumpers both front and rear look well-used, and half of the front spoiler is missing. But again, cheap car. The good news is that the sheetmetal looks straight, and cars on the I-5 corridor aren’t prone to rust.
Strictly speaking, I hate Facebook Marketplace. It’s hard to search, and even harder to browse, and the fact that it’s free to advertise makes it easy for less scrupulous types to spam. But I have to admit that there are some fantastic cars to be found if you’re willing to put up with the bullshit. I’m willing to put up with it – for a week, anyway. These both seem like good deals for the right person. Which one is right for you?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
I’ll take the Mazda I guess. Should be fun and relatively reliable. I just can’t on the Cavalier. A friend had a blue one in high school (third family car that the parents hated). It just sucked and while all of us had pretty boring crapboxes including K cars, the Cavalier just sucked. It was falling apart and it was only 2 years old. Every bump brought squeaks and rattles. While I’ve driven a lot of Mazdas, I’ve never owned one. Plus it’s a hatchback.
I remember the Z24 Cavaliers — they were an attractive upgrade to the tried-and-true Cavalier lineup,and priced nicely. The Chevy dealership eagerly handed me the brochure and pointed it out when I was car-shopping at the time.
But, if I recall from doing my research, stuffing the V-6 into the J-body required a bit of fudging the fuel mapping to ease off the torque curve just a bit due to the J-car’s older, less-stiff front structure. Especially when the engine was upped to 3.1 liters. And as for the manual, earlier 2.8 V6+manual versions had gotten a bit of a reputation for eating clutches now and then. Torquey engine = fun but annoying and expensive repairs if the car around it isn’t quite up to taking it. All that, and previous experience with J-body cars and their tendency to rattle with age wasn’t selling it for me. Fun car if you didn’t plan on keeping it long-term, though, and the upgraded interior really was a jump above the outgoing one.
In ’93 when I bought a new Chevy, the RPO code to go for was ‘Z52’ on the Corsica sedan. 3.1 V6 with more aggressive fuel mapping in the ECM, upgraded suspension and wheels on a relatively stiffer, more modern platform. Automatic only, though, due to the earlier issues with the 2.8 version of the engine and clutches. Still a fun little sleeper.
Admin at a company I used to work for ages ago had a MX-3. Remember walking past it in the parking lot and I always liked it, much different than all the other cars in the lot. Friend of mine had a Crapalier, called that for a reason. Even the better trim level engine etc can’t help those things. Hell, everyone alive around then had a friend who had a Crapalier. Those things were everywhere.
My buddy had an MX-3 and it was a hoot to drive. I voted for it, but if I wanted a Lemon’s car, or some car for track shenanigans, I would probably go for the Z24 and gut the interior.
Needing a new seatbelt is a red flag to me.
Whilst needing a new clutch is likely one of those “repair costs are catching up to me” kind of things.
The Chevy is cheaper to fix and keep running, provided it’s structurally sound and engine is ok.
I’d get the Mazda’s VIN and check to see if there’s an outstanding recall, also find out if Mazda warranties their seatbelts for life like Honda does (did?). It’s only a red flag if you’re out of pocket for the replacement.
OTOH the Cavalier’s price is well into “any running and legal car” territory.
I’m almost certain the issue is that this year of MX-3 didn’t have airbags, and used those motorized “mouse belts,” and it’s probably the motorization that’s broken.
Mazda.
I’ve always been curious about these little V6 creations.
The Z24 was a cool car in high school. Several of my friends had them. There was one jacka55 who would constantly do front wheel burnouts and would steal replacement tires from a dealership who parked their inventory too close to an old fence.
Those were the days before good surveillance cameras, but I think he was eventually caught.
I briefly owned an automatic Z24 convertible, before Rod Knock ate it, car was way more fun that it should have been, the manual would be a fun track missile with a new clutch and a little money in suspension upgrades. I’d just gut the crappy 90s GM interior in the name of weight savings.
That Cav, even with a new clutch, isn’t worth much. The interior is trashed, and that’s where you spend all of your time.
I’ve always been fascinated by the tiny Mazda V6. I’ll take it, but I’m sure I’ll “love” changing those rear-bank spark plugs.
I voted Mazda simply because it is more exciting to me (relatively speaking). That said, the Z24 isn’t bad for the money either.
The MX-3 was high on my list when I was a high schooler looking for my first car. My parents talked me into a Civic sedan. That Civic was pretty great, but I never forgot the allure of the MX-3.
I’ll take the sunflower seed. I took driver’s ed in an 80s Cavalier and even though this one is the Z24 version it would just remind me of that heap.
I’m going Mazda primarily based in the condition of the interior. I can clean this, patch up the body and get a cheap respray.
My high school driving instructor had a similar vintage Cavalier and I owned a Buick with the related 2.8 MPFI V6. This is the best ’90s Cavalier I have seen in years. Why was the interior nicer in these than the next generation, cost cutting?
I’m looking for a cheap toy and this would fit the bill. It’s also on the wrong coast.
The MX-3 wins my vote with no hesitation. Hell, it would win against a lot of things. Putting it up against a J-body is just unfair. The only way I would pick a J-body is if you put it up against a X-platform.
I like both cars but I think I like the looks of the Mazda a bit better so it got my vote also that is a tiny v6 only a 1.8L? And I cannot recall the last time I saw a MX-3. Z24’s I actually have seen a few still around.
I had to vote like 15 year old me (my age in 1991) and I gotta go with the Cavalier. The Mazda is better but my brain says “manual Z24!”. The little 2.5l V6 sounds amazing though. Better than the weird burble of the old GM 3.1L for sure.
My first car was a Cadavelier of this same vintage. (’88 base, 1.8l, auto) Absolutely no way am I doing that again.
MX-3 GS is a radwood delight and gets my vote.
I was sorely tempted by the fake trunk luggage rack on the Z 24, but the I stopped thinking like an idiot. Mazda wins.
Mazda is a better looking car, but the z24 is probably gonna be cheaper to fix and Maintain. I had a 91 z24, back in the late 90s. They sound good, they drink like a V8 and power of a 4. I still remember they all smelled of antifreeze.
The Mazda, please. That’s a really nice V6, and I remember the chassis as being pretty sweet dynamically. I got used to the jellybean body, and probably could again.
Not as enamored with the Z24. Frankly, I prefer changing a seatbelt to a clutch job.
Back when they were still selling the MX-3 new, I knew a guy with one and the chassis definitely punched above its weight when the road started to bend. He also ditched the muffler, which gave it a surprisingly sport-bike like exhaust note. It was unbearably loud inside though, thanks to the reverberation from the rear hatch glass.
Couldn’t even remember what the other car was by the time I was done reading the MX-3 description. Mazda all the way.
The Z24 will likely be the cheaper and simpler car to run long term, but my heart yearns for the teal oddball, and if it were closer to me, I might have been tempted enough to pick it up and try to fix it myself.
That MX-3 just has so much charm the Cavalier lacks. Easy win for the Mazda for me
My consciousness expanded nearly to the point of my brain exploding when I learned about the MX-3 back in the day. A V6 in that thing???? That’s insane!!!! In subsequent years I seemed to be the only one who remembered them. If only I had a spare two grand lying around.
An MX-3 with the V6?! It’s running and not on fire or filled with detritus? Hands down the winner, and I’d even pay twice as much to NOT drive a crapalier.
Z24 all day. Cousin to my first car, a 1991 Cutlass Supreme SL coupe. Pretty comfortable ride and acceptable power. Plus, how can you not love the early 90’s luggage rack/spoiler combo?
I disagree with your vote, but the luggage rack/spoiler combo is pretty sweet.
I’ll take the Z24. I would imagine finding parts for that Mazda would be nearly impossible. Were there any other cars with that engine?
IRC, this shared its platform and driveline with the Ford Probe. Does that make finding parts easier or harder? I don’t know.
not the same engine, first gen probes had the Vulcan from ford, and second had the 2.5 from mazda, but I bet some of the components are simlar
2.5 is same block as this with a bigger bore and long stoke. Could probably be swapped in.
I knew when I typed this I was prolly wrong on that lol, thx for the. correction!
I think this engine grew to about 3.0L.
The Probe was the larger MX6 I recall. The larger engine has the same footprint but bigger bore and longer stroke.
Platform with the 323/Protege, which also was very similar to the Escorts of that era. When I had my Protege I knew a guy who would swap the 1.8 and 2.5 v6s into them. Also knew a different guy would would swap Escort GT engines into Proteges.