some idiots hating on aveo

[paulsaveo]

I guess it depends on how you look at them. Automatic Neons = crap, especially in an accident. Manual Neons are somewhat sporty and fun to drive but just as much a death trap. Also the Neon came out when most of it's competitors were struggling to make 110 HP (exceptions include the Chevrolet Cavalier, Pontiac Sunfire, Oldsmobile Achieva, Buick Skylark, and Pontiac Grand Am, which were available with either a V6 or Oldsmobile's Quad 4), while the Neon came standard with 130 and not long after that a twin cam 150 HP version.
I'm not defending Neons, just saying they have their place.

Quite a few years back, I had a 96 grand am se it was a 2dr 5spd with what was called the revised quad4 (2.4l dohc), 140hp at the wheels (i was big into bracket racing so I had it dyno tuned), sometimes I miss that car, but it had major issues with the cooling system. i replaced the engine 3 times in less than a year due to cooling system issues and at the time, my lack of knowledge.

[xintersecty]

It was 1995 and Dodge was still using 3 speed automatics when everyone else had already switched to 4 speeds. The Neon should've been manual only in my opinion.... but then again, I think almost all cars should be manual.

You mean there are other transmissions than manual? I have owned two beetles, a ford ranger, and my aveo all manual. The only time I ever complain about manual is holding my girl friends hand when driving and maybe some highway parking lots.

[Z34guy]

You mean there are other transmissions than manual? I have owned two beetles, a ford ranger, and my aveo all manual. The only time I ever complain about manual is holding my girl friends hand when driving and maybe some highway parking lots.

My Monte Carlo wasn't even offered with a manual. Automatic only. I plan on a 5 speed conversion using the getrag 284 transmission though.

[petrified.rabbit]

well cars that have lazyboy manufacture the front seats probably dont figure the owner will want to shift by themselves.

:P

[Z34guy]

well cars that have lazyboy manufacture the front seats probably dont figure the owner will want to shift by themselves.

:P

>implying the Chevrolet Monte Carlo is a land yacht

[petrified.rabbit]

land yacht? no, maybe a land submarine, because all the do is rust into the ground.

[Z34guy]

land yacht? no, maybe a land submarine, because all the do is rust into the ground.

>implying my Monte Carlo has a major rust problem.
you're thinking of Italian 1970's Lancia's

[xintersecty]

My mom (she has influenced a lot bad car choices, but I do give her credit for the Z26 Model Brietta) and dad bought a 79 Monte Carlo. Not a bad car, not a great car. I did a quick read on the model on Wikipedia and this is what I found.

The same transmissions were carried over from 1978, including a standard three-speed manual and optional four-speed manual, or an optional three-speed Turbo Hydramatic automatic. This would be the last year that Chevrolet would offer manual transmissions on the Monte Carlo due to extremely low buyer interest.

Personally, with the redesigned body being smaller and two door, it was a crappy family car. We all had to "shrink" to get into the rear seats. My mom had a VW Fastback. I think the money spent on the Monte Carlo would have done the family better fixing up the Fastback. I could start a thread on the cars...on the cars my mom has bought.

[Z34guy]

Fifth and Sixth generation Monte Carlo's had no manual option. And the American market 4th generation didn't either (Mexican market Monte's were available with a 350 V8 and a 5 speed manual which weren't available in the US)

[thehunterooo]

because no one likes them, no interest...