Then the 2000 Cavalier LS sedan is your baby. No, it doesn't make 425 horsepower while getting 40-plus mpg like a true Roadrunner/Prius combination would, but among these nine econo cars the Cavalier was the clear performance king. It's zero-to-60 time was a neck-straining 7.9 seconds, more than ½ second ahead of the next closest competitor. That same advantage held through the quarter-mile with the Chevy posting a 16.2-second quarter mile time at 85 mph. Just to put things into perspective, we'll tell you that those numbers are better than a V8-powered Lincoln LS or Audi A6 2.8. Oh, and did we mention that our car was equipped with an automatic transmission? This thing rocked at the track.

The Cavalier also received a passing score in the features department with items like antilock brakes, air conditioning and cruise control standard on all LS models (ABS is standard even on base model Cavaliers). Unfortunately, you can't get rear disc brakes, a driver's seat height adjustment, or side airbags on a Cavalier at any price. But $880 will score you the LS' Preferred Equipment Group that includes power mirrors, power windows with a one-touch-down driver's window, power locks, remote keyless entry, a security system and an AM/FM stereo with CD player.

Our car was also equipped with the optional 2.4-liter engine that makes a healthy 150 horsepower and 155 foot-pounds of torque, no doubt contributing to the Chevy's accelerative powers. All this, plus 15-inch aluminum wheels and a $510 destination charge, for a grand total of $16,845 gave the Cavalier a mid-pack value rating and proved that going fast and having some extra-cost options doesn't have to cost a bundle.

A combination like this could have placed much better than sixth in our test, so what gives? Well, although the Chevy placed first in performance and finished mid-pack in features and value, it scored dead last in the 25-point evaluation category and, not surprisingly, this led to last-place finishes in both personal and recommended picks by the editorial team.

Going through the evaluation sheets we noticed consistent mid- to high scoring in areas like engine, transmission, braking, and even tire performance. Many drivers wished for more steering feedback and all of them felt the suspension allowed for too much body roll and wallow through corners. Still, the Cavalier had no glaring deficiencies when it came to its driving characteristics, so what kept it from placing higher in the evaluation process?

Digging deeper we discovered that front seat comfort was a sore spot (literally) with our testers, who complained about everything from a lack of thigh and lower back support to minimal side bolstering to tight legroom. A mismatched height between the brake and gas pedals made rapid transitions between them clumsy and several editors noted a clicking sounding from the instrument panel when traversing bumps. Wind and road noise at highway speeds was noticeable, though not irritating.

Analyzing the Chevy's build quality had us sarcastically humming the "great GM feeling" song. Making our list were misaligned interior and exterior panels, a crooked front fascia, exposed screw heads in the door handle pockets, and a power window switch pod in the center console (goofy location) that was far too easy to remove. One editor pulled the B-pillar molding off without even trying while another noticed a sagging rear headliner that seemed to be taunting us with a "come on, you know you want to yank on me and watch the roof collapse" attitude.

Adding to our dissatisfaction with the Cavalier's overall construction were questionable interior materials and a blocky, '80s-inspired design theme. Even for an economy sedan there was way too much cheap-looking plastic in and around the dash area. The steering wheel, gauge cluster and dash vents had the ambiance of a prison camp and the console shifter was an aberration in terms of form and function. Climate and radio controls were large and easy to use but they lacked any sort of style and grace. Two tiny pods mounted ahead of the center console tried to pass for cupholders, and a third, larger beverage receptacle could be found inside the center console...but using it would mean no center armrest.

As the oldest design in this test, we expected the Cavalier to lack the polish of the newer cars. But the Civic is only a year younger and, in terms of ergonomics (not to mention build quality), the two cars seem to be from different millennia.

In today's fast-paced world it's tough for automakers to get more than five years out of vehicle without a complete redesign. Sure enough, the Cavalier is in serious need of an update and will continue to fall behind the competition until it gets one. However, even a redesign won't address the ever-present question of GM build quality. That will take a redesign of GM itself. Until then we'll keep praising the company's drivetrains and panning its build quality standards.

Editor Comments

This thing was confused. It had some great points to it and some god-awful points to it. The good points were the responsive transmission and the powerful engine that gave it the ability to get moving quickly. The bad points were the terrible build quality in areas like the window switch pod, headliner and various misaligned panels made from cheap plastic. Finally, exterior styling was less than inspired. -- Scott Jacobs

Torque. That's the best part of the Cavalier, and there's a ton of it. If there's anything great about the Cavalier, it's the powertrain. From idle to redline, there's an incessant rush of power and growl from the exhaust that's anything but the sound of a four-banger. Coupled to a stellar four-speed automatic, the Cavalier has a lot of performance potential but, unfortunately, the rest of the vehicle is aching to catch up. For instance, the steering gives no feedback or road feel, the suspension is overly compliant with a fair amount of undulation due to weak rebound valving in the struts. Throw in the wind noise and ratty shifter, plus less than average fit-and-finish, and you have a true love/hate relationship. -- Scott Mead

Ugh -- what a chore it is to drive this thing. Literally it was a pain in the ass -- my butt and back started hurting 20 minutes into driving the car. The seat is malformed and leaves your back doing an acrobatic arch the whole time you're sitting. And with no lumbar support, it's not a pretty sight. Add to that the mismatched pedal heights, as well as the soft suspension, and you have a recipe for detest. The only thing that this car has going for it is the powerful engine. -- Liz Kim

Not bad for a six-year-old GM product. It still looks fresh on the outside, and the interior is reasonably well executed in many respects. In fact, there are signs of brilliance here and there. But then there are equal parts crappy materials, passenger discomfort, lousy build quality, and sloppy design detail to offset much of the positive commentary regarding the interior. You'd think they'd spend the money on the parts of the vehicle that the driver and passengers always see, but GM never seems to do that. Interiors get the short end of the budgetary stick. The powertrain is strong and entertaining, lacking only refinement in terms of NVH. Handling and ride are pretty good, but brake and steering feel leave plenty to be desired. Fortunately, Cavalier's 2003 replacement will be engineered in Europe. This car's Achilles' heel is its rental car persona. Nobody wants to own the same ride that thousands of business travelers and sales reps are driving every day. Hard to believe this rapidly aging Cavalier still has a shelf life dated 2002. -- Christian Wardlaw

Specifications and Performance - 2000 Chevrolet Cavalier LS
Stereo Evaluation - 2000 Chevrolet Cavalier LS
Rear Seat/Cargo Area Evaluation - 2000 Chevrolet Cavalier LS