Agree with the above. You don't buy any motor that age and expect perfection, but the '82 - '89 Cavalier was an excellent car. Yes, rust was a problem if, like me, you never washed it, but you could repair it using anything (almost). I understand Blue Peter made a replica Cavalier out of a washing up bottle and a pair of Val's old...well, never mind. Recommend you buy a Ferrari next time and watch that last as long. Ha!

Totally agree with the comments above.

You're talking about a tiny 1.3 litre engine which has been lugging that heavy body around for 18 years, probably without an oil change since the warranty expired. No wonder it blew up!

My 1.8 mk2 never let me down.

Dan.

Every Vauxhall I've driven was built badly. Thank goodness I've never had to own one. Door handles keep breaking off, bits of trim come away etc. Why can't they build them properly? Dare I say it, you'd be better off buying a Ford...

In your review, you said about the rust problems and the low performance. What kind of performance you expect from a 1.3 engine?

Rust problems? My friend you are talking about a car made in 1983 (we are in 2003) twenty years past since, his production is very common expect this kind of problems in cars of this age, and itsn't only in Vauxhall cars, you can see this problem in many old cars (my friend for example, has a 1982 BMW 735 and the car is completely rust).

I also had an early mk2 Cav 1.3. It was totally reliable, and pretty good performance from such a small engine. My gearbox also did the coffee grinder impression, but never got any worse in 30,000 miles. Yes they did rot, and the mk3 1988 on car was just as bad in this respect. But then again, its 1980s contemporary, the Sierra, was certainly no better in the build quality stakes.