Dodge Neon vs Chevrolet Cavalier?

I'd much rather take the Cavalier. Better quality car, looks better, and I'm a Chevy guy anyway.

Well, I've been in accidents in both, so my opinion is colored. I was in a rented Cavalier in 1986 and we were hit by a car that ran a stop sign. Everyone involved survived, so I guess I can credit the Cavalier for that.

The Dodge Neon, I owned a Neon that was sold to me used, purported to have never been in an accident by the lot I bought it from. Later we were in an accident, and the body shop revealed the car had previously been in an accident and improperly repaired, so they had to fudge a bit to repair before they could repair. While we originally paid 7k for that car, the insurance company paid 9k to have it repaired because of this.

It just didn't drive right after that, so we immediately replaced it. At the Saturn dealership, they ran a carfax on it, revealing that the car had actually been part of a rental fleet in Pennsylvania. While there it was in an accident and had significant undercarriage damage. Probably should have been totaled, but it was repaired and sold to someone in Ohio, who eventually sold it to my sister's used car lot. None of the owners in Ohio knew about the accident.

Anyway, the Neon is a piece of crap. It's a car cobbled together by a bunch of different models in an effort to compete with cheap japanese models.

If safety is your concern, both the cavalier and neon rank poor. The Cavalier ranked 150 (4-door) to 171 (2-door) driver deaths per million. The Neon had 161 deaths per million registered owners, and the average for vehicles in the same class (4-door small) was 103 deaths per million.

Neither car is still being manufactured. Chevy has sold the Chevrolet Cruze since 2008 to fill the small-medium car market. The Cruze rates "good" in safety evaluations.

I would buy neither. I have never been in or owned either, no one I know has ever had either car. However I have heard better things about Chevy than Dodge.

The Cavalier could be a terrible car. My mother had a 2003 Cavalier, auto, 4 door. It was slow, the transmission just sapped any performance from the car. The Cavalier could also be a great car. When I wrecked my Firebird, I spent a week with a 2002 Cavalier. 2 door, manual transmission, LS edition (mom's was the lower end ES Cavalier). Night and day difference - especially since the previous owner had replaced the factory swaybars and shocks, and installed a cold air intake. When I did my job with shifting and clutching, I could beat mom's auto to 60mph by about 4 seconds, with the exact same engine. I could catch rubber coming off the clutch in 3rd gear if I was in the torque band, but the Pirelli tires on the thing simply would not loose grip, no matter how loud they screamed as I threw it into a bend. I still miss that car, to this day.

My buddy had a Neon SRT. While the Cavalier could be a great car, the Neon SRT was absolutely phenomenal. Scary fast, for a tiny econobox. The square stance doesn't agree with my driving style in the corners, but in every other way, that car was incredible.

If you are buying a premium example of either car, it'll probably be worth the investment. In both car's widely popular "econobox" trim, they were both pretty bad. With the SRT pack, you can get a really hot Neon with factory parts - even with an LS Cavalier, you still had some upgrading to do before it could be a real rocket. The manual transmission still went a long way toward making both cars phenomenal. Auto transmissions/torque converters suck.

To answer your question, when I get the cash to build myself a fun little commuter car, I'll be going for another one of these. Toss in a cold air intake, tighten up the suspension and the steering with aftermarket swaybars, and open up the exhaust a bit (say no to fart pipes - real cars don't make that noise) and I'll be happy blasting up US202/422 to work every day. I picked a photo with hideous yellow simply because the one I had......was precisely that. In black or red, though, I might dry heave just a bit less when looking at it. :D

There will always be a Chevy vs Dodge vs Ford or Import vs Domestic debate. What one must go by is experience. Chevy guys note that Bob Lutz was in charge of Chrysler at the time the Neon was made and raced them in the Neon Challenge. For those of you who do not know who Mr Lutz is, google him. He's one bad ass CEO and responsible for the Viper as well as many other notable beasts. The Neon actually packs quite a lot of potential and is known to embarrass "superior" cars for little money in mods. It is difficult to swallow but true! Yes, they are death traps and scored poorly in crash tests however they are easy to work on, great on fuel, reliable (there were some minor issues but once taken care of and with regular maintenance the car is just as reliable as a HONDA - that's a fact), and fun to drive. The interior is definitely not of the finest quality but it isn't far behind the Cavalier which boasts the same sea of battleship grey plastic panels. Both cars look their best in coupe form with a black coat, although that is entirely personal preference.

I've driven both extensively and find the Neon to be the better handling and peppier of the two although they are quite close in many aspects. The Cavy seems to have a heavier steering feel, like its being handicapped by the 20+ year old platform it rides on whereas the Neon is toss-able and light having a fully independent suspension.

As a grip whore on a budget I'd definitely choose the Neon over most cars in this category. They are very hard to beat for the money.

I'd have to say the Neon if I had to choose. The Cavaliers are very unsafe in accidents. They have too many problems.