cdlumb

Here are the stats on each car i have been researching
hp tq 0-60 qmile Gs

2012 Buick regal GS 270 295 6.2 14.4 .90
2013 Cadillac ats v6 321 274 5.4 14.0 .90
2013 Cadillac ats turbo 270 260 6.0 14.5 .90
2012 Camaro v6 304 275 5.9 14.5 .88
2013 Ford Focus st 252 270 5.9 14.6 .96
2013 Mazda Speed 3 263 280 6.5 14.7 .90
2013 Buick Verano turbo 250 260 6.0 14.4 .86
and the
2009 Cobalt SS sedan 260 260 5.4 13.9 .92
with gms1 stage kit 290 320 5.2 13.5 .92

What has Gm done Cobalts still hold the title after 4+ years none of the new cars can hold up to the torque rich SS! Just dont understand why the Cruze has not followed the Cobalt SS!
The big problem with all the new cars now is the there weight! The Regal weighs in at 3700lbs, caddy 3450lbs, Mazda 3250lbs,Ford Focus st 3245, and the Cobalt is 3005lbs.

The Caddy with the Turbo 2.0l is a let down for me thought the stats would have been better, the issue is the 6 speed manual, to reach 60 mph you have to throw into 3rd gear to get there, come Gm wake up!
I will keep my Cobalt SS until there is a new dog that out perform my Torque beast, maybe the Dodge Dart srt4 will do that!

Crav3

iTrader: (1)

What a failed thread lol sorry had too after 2 months and no reply

07MetallicSC

iTrader: (16)

He has a point though. I think newer cars are aimed more for comfort over speed thus resulting in the times you posted. They're all right there for the most part.

bluebalt69

The newer cars are far better than a cobalt.

LS6Rally

iTrader: (14)

ATS, Regal, Camaro. yah they all weigh 2800 lbs too.....

riceburner

iTrader: (66)

so true. all too heavy and comfort based. no budget rigid racers being thrown out there. the focus st costs almost 30 grand!

Sox-Fan

iTrader: (7)

Fixed that for you, Kev. You're welcome.

jonathan923

iTrader: (2)

nevermind..

EXsoccer1921

iTrader: (14)

and yet all of those cars > cobalt.

nhanson

iTrader: (1)

Yup!

Gobolt210

they all ... > cobalt but once i'd put my foot down i want back in the cobalt lol

vinalhaven15

iTrader: (1)

Test drove one of the 1.4 multiair darts and wow that thing was slow, and 1st gear was so incredibly short, but damn it had a nice exhaust note.

Sox-Fan

iTrader: (7)

So it sounds mean while it's rollin slow?

Sounds like a certain yellow sedan I know.

nobody2u

Yeah, a lot of modern cars are porkers these days. I'm surprised the balt is as light as it is. Then again, I guess that's the benefit of a shitty interior haha.

Gobolt210

on other car forums discussing lap times its

1. Cobalt ss +08
2. mazd... blah
3. ford blah..
4. subaru blahh

** No.1 had shitty interior disregard **
lnf ftw

rchiwawa

although a fully equipped ATS is comfortably affordable to me I don't see myself getting out of my 'balt until parts become unobtanium (at about 80k miles i have had a wheel bearing, set of brakes all the way around, and GM was nice enough to revise my shift linkage... considering how hard i am on the car i am surprised it hasn't been a lot more) or someone wrecks it out. i will NOT downgrade handling wise and especially won't where acceleration is concerned, as i consider the stock TC to be acceptable on the verge of ho-hum. In addition to the great driving experience of the Cobalt, I have averaged just over 30mpg lifetime. As it stands, it is irreplaceable in the new car market in my eyes. Both an evo viii and bugeyed sti owner friends of mine have remarked how quiet and ready to drop the hammer it is (amazingly enough, we're all stock) .

I constantly tell anyone who wants to talk that it is the best daily driver ever produced and for what i want in a car, it is.

What really torches my taco when considering new car models is that i paid under $23k for mine brand new having put all but the first 5 miles on it.

vinalhaven15

iTrader: (1)

I think in the coming years we will see sports oriented economy cars like the cobalt ss vanish altogether because of new epa requirements and the general lack of new drivers learning to drive stick.

Macgyver2484

iTrader: (3)

It’s the weight. The Cobalt is surprisingly light. Look at the Cruze. They advertise 10 airbags with a number of other safety features. That stuff weighs the car down. Same goes with all the NAV systems the newer cars have. That poor turbo engine is working hard to move the car forward.

Aleksey

iTrader: (6)

I wouldn't agree with all of those > cobalt if we compare same years, obviously 3-4 year newer car is going to be better. Cobalt is no where near the best build but for price/power ratio, I'll take it over any other cars listed on there.

CobaltFan06

Well the subaru BRZ and scion FRS are budget friendly... kinda. They are light, and all about the handling and drive. I too am disappointed in the cruze... no two door option and tiny 1.4L engines... I like the styling of the regal GS, but even with 270hp 295 it weighs 3600lbs and is wayyyy too slow. GM is failing with this current gen. The camaro and new vette are nice I guess... different market though.

TommyP

iTrader: (2)

Cobalt owners bitch about quality and comfort. They make the car more comfortable. Costs more in return, weighs more, not as fast due to weight. You can't have both, pick one! Fast, cheap, comfortable don't all go together. You want all of the above? Buy a used car.

Mr Mall Cop

iTrader: (1)

Wheres the Mustang?

Mr Mall Cop

iTrader: (1)

Ok
2013 Ford Mustang V 6 305 280 5.2 13.9 102

emiller

Why waste all the time and money building a car that almost nobody wanted? The ss/tc is a great car why was it outsold by at least 10x by the 2.2 cobalts? Most people don't care about speed.

CobaltFan06

Well GM didn't offer the TC in an auto format either. That hurt. I know a few people that loved the SC and TC in and out but wouldn't bite because the stick sucks in city driving. Also the 2.2 was cheap.

The FRS and BRZ aren't straight line fast with their 2.0L NA 200hp 150tq boxers, but they are light, got just enough for interior and only stay on the lot an average of four days right now. GM could learn something from this.