Killswitch

You're right, except the 2011 V6 can run to 60 in 5.1 and can do the 1/4 in 13.7 which would smoke a turbo and supercharged Balt

Look up ets before you talk

2011 Ford Mustang V-6 First Test - Motor Trend

Zero6LS

Ford's doing big things. i actually like the new stangs quite a bit

cmatthewb101

iTrader: (4)

Finally! Someone that's not a complete f*cking moron in this thread.

cmatthewb101

iTrader: (4)

Psh. Doesn't matter what facts you prove, the Cobalt SS is the fastest car ever made yo'.

Dart_SI

iTrader: (1)

they are on par with the 05-09 mustang GT's. ive personally beat 2 of those and im stock (both mustangs were modded). itl win in a 1/4 mile, but lose from a roll.

riko540

Truth.

rchiwawa

******* A'

zinner

I agree AWD would lower MPG buy 1-2 mpg. But the reason that evo's and sti's get 17mpg is because ppl drive them aggressively.

SuperchargedSS

OMZFGSHITMYPANTS ... AWD...

Baron7700

O and the buick regal base model starts at 26 grand, so wtf you guys talking about 36, a loaded regal gs will be about 36g's, which is about the same as an evo or sti for a bit slower / less sportier car but it has an interior and isnt boy ricer.

alleycat58

$30k econobox FTL

Could give a **** less about interior/"rep".......that's real car territory. I'd take a Stang GT at the point.

slobalt22

Chevy is going to offer a Cruze SS model in Singapore and for the love of god, let’s hope we get something better here in the US. In the island city-state, the SS model will just be a $3,500 stripe and body kit appearance package. Where is the great suspension setup and the 260-hp turbo engine the Cobalt SS had? With any luck, we get a true Cruze SS model in the US.

^ this is the 2011 model

so its already in production but just looks like hell and its still slow

Baron7700

ya and its a singapore dealer package, not a gm idea.

08SSTCRD

No, its because they are tuned aggressively from the factory, have super short gearing, are AWD, and also tend to run on the rich side.

You can drive an STi or Evo like a Grandma, and you'll still only get a best of low 20's MPG.

drewbroo

iTrader: (2)

you drive an HHR LS.....

blackbird

Perhaps some people don't recall the he outgoing Cobalt SS stickered right around $25k (not that many people paid that much or more). Inflation and prices over time are going up. There's still some cars that are better deals than others but I'd be prepared to pay $25-27k for the next generation of compact performance vehicles. And this time around with the cars improved a decent amount and selling well don't count on heavy incentives.

That's one of the reasons I'd prefer if there is a Cobalt SS hatch or coupe (or even the current sedan) that it sticks with FWD. It can be tuned to proved great handling and ride and with the stock power level the Cobalt SS Turbo was putting down was darn near perfect for what the chassis could handle. If you want AWD there are other choices and they're going to be heavier and add to the cost with worse fuel economy which whether we like it or not, as gas prices eventually stay over $4 a gallon and probably hit $5 in the next couple years matters to a lot of people who still want a compact car that is nice, doesn't cost an arm and a leg (compared to other vehicles in the segment), and has good stock performance.

If you aren't happy with "limitations" inherent in front wheel drive and are going to buy your next car to modify then a Cruze SS probably won't be for you. Personally I'm pretty excited to see what GM can upgrade as the current SS Turbo is darn near perfect in power, braking and handling dynamics and also to see what Ford does with the turbocharged Focus ST and possibly a Fiesta ST.

Spoony

If you're going to do this comparison wouldn't it make more sense to use a WRX not an STI?

Super short gearing as compared to what?

Cobalt SC Gear ratio
Manual transmission gear ratios:
first - 3.38
second - 1.76
third - 1.18
forth - 0.89
fifth - 0.7
reverse - 3.17
final - 4.05


2.5l WRX gear ratio
Manual transmission gear ratios:
1st - 3.166
2nd - 1.882
3rd - 1.296
4th - 0.972
5th - 0.780
reverse - 3.333
Final drive ratio - 3.900

I find the real world MPG difference between my old 06 SC Cobalt and my current 2011 WRX are fairly negligible. Cobalt usually sat around 10-12l/100km, WRX is currently sitting at 11L/100km. Even the EPA ratings are within 2-3 mpg of eachother.

Neither are allstars when it comes to fuel sipping...boost (especially if you're coming from a non boosted car) is really quite addictive and all it takes is a few WOT pulls to bone your MPG pretty good. If you use the Turbo/SC you're going to be going to the pumps more often, just the way she goes.

If you're really worried about MPG a Civic SI will net you better real world results (until you get tired of being slower than everyone else and go FI).

08SSTCRD

If you're going to compare a WRX, wouldn't it make more sense to compare both models in their newest model year instead of one thats been replaced by an updated version??

In other words, 2010 SS vs. 2011 WRX. Hows that suit your fancy?? They are close in price as well as performance.

Yet the WRX still has much shorter gearing and gets much worse fuel economy.

2010 Cobalt SS T/C: 22/30 MPG
2011 Subaru WRX: 19/25 MPG

My other car, which weighs 3500lbs and has a 400HP V8, is rated at 19/28.

Its pathetic that a car with half as many cylinders, less than half the displacement, less weight, and 135HP less can't even match the fuel economy of a 400HP V8.

I bought an SS T/C for a DD and good fuel economy. There is absolutely no incentive to buy a 4 cylinder that gets worse fuel economy than a muscle car with a V8.

007CobaltLS

This kind of reminds of "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Now you're getting into gas mileage...the auto makers honestly could make cars that are way more fuel efficient than they are...look at the Honda CRX from the 80's...there were a couple years in there when those things could net 50MPG's...sure they weren't fast, but they weren't horribly expensive either...now days you have to pay a lot for a hybrid or something that gets that kind of mileage.

I pride myself on saying my auto Cobalt LS gets 40+MPG's on the highway at about 70-75 MPH. If I wanted to hypermile I could easily see 50. Problem is I have a lead foot and don't usually see those kinds of numbers.

You're 400hp V8 is what engine in what car? Just curious what we're talking about (something that's newer or older?) And in your V8, do you take it easy all the time or do you use it for it's purpose...you're comparing cars, but you're not really using real world numbers...just what they're rated at...that differs with each car and driver...And the previous poster is just comparing cars he has owned...he HAD an 06 SC, now an 11 WRX...so he's comparing what he has/had...I understand you're point of comparing newest to newest, but he's comparing what he owned and owns.

BTW, I'm not trying to start arguments or bash anyone...so no offense is meant...just curious about a few things.

cranemaster

But why cant they do what ford does?

You have a 4cyl FWD model, but the same car you can get twin turbo with AWD.. LOL!

Go ford :P

I got my 2010 balt for 23k after everything, in canada.

I would have taken the AWD cobalt for $5,000 more if was an option.

riko540

The say the reason cars cars don't get gas mileage like the CRX did back in the day is due to the safety and pollution standards we have on todays vehicles not to mention how much they weigh. The CRX weighed in under 2000 lbs. (except the DX and Si models made from 88 onwards) most cars today weigh over 2500 lbs.

emiller

Everybody made cars with mileage like that in the late 80s and early 90s. They made under 100hp and weighed less than 2,000lbs. They would completely collapse in a crash too. Safety adds weight. Even the slowest crappiest cars today would destroy those cars in every thing you want to compare except mileage and maybe price (with inflation added in).

007CobaltLS

What I'm saying is that those older cars weren't computer controlled (or as computer controlled)...now, even though they're heavier, they've got more pollution control, etc., they have the technology to get more economy out of them...they choose not to.

The internal combustion engine requires oil and gas...you don't think the oil companies have anything to do with the reason cars don't get better mileage? That's why I was talking about the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car"...

You can still have a safe, more efficient (pollution wise) car and it doesn't have to be 2500 or 2800 pounds...you can also save some money by making a base model that doesn't have all the fun options...not everyone wants or needs power this and that.

And not everyone made cars like that in the 80's and 90's. There were a lot of cars that didn't get good mileage and didn't make **** for power.

emiller

They are gone because they pollute why more than a modern car, were way more unsafe, and people didn't want them. Has nothing to do with oil companies. Companies don't make what they can't sell.

Not everybody made them? Geo metro, Ford festiva, Toyota corolla, Honda civic and crx, escorts, Saturn, Nissan sentra, some vw could all get close to or above 40mpg. Yup Honda was the only 1.

Spoony

The numbers I was providing were real life numbers, and as previously stated these were cars I own/owned. The SS/SC was originally rated at 23/29 so I wouldn't expect the numbers to be all that different. Unless you're driving on a straight road at the optimal speed with cruise control engaged you're never going to hit EPA estimates anyway.

The point of my post is that for me I don't notice much difference at the pumps between the two cars.

No incentive to buy a WRX? You're right there's no incentive at all to buy an AWD turbo-4 over a FWD one, I'd wager most people on these forums would sacrifice a few MPG for a competent AWD drivetrain. FWD is simply not optimal when it comes to getting the power you're making to the ground.

I didn't mean any offense by my post it seems like it's impossible to even mention another car on these forums without someone getting up in arms about it. I was simply providing my real life experience with the two cars.

Also, which 400hp V8 are you talking about? I'm mostly just curious at this point.