AutoWeek's 2008 Cobalt SS test drive
Thread Starter
Site Founder
Joined: 03-17-04
Posts: 7,650
Likes: 2
From: NE OH Near Cleveland
AutoWeek's 2008 Cobalt SS test drive
Autoweek was at the same event I posted about yesterday. Read the full article and hear what Mark Vaughn from AutoWeek had to say:
FULL ARTICLE:
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...023/LATESTNEWS
While the car does have torque steer, from this article, it sounds worse than what I have experienced. It really didn’t bother me that much but that could be because I got used to it in my 06 Supercharged SS.
I have to agree 
The starting price is $22,995. The cars at the event were actually fully loaded with G85, sunroofs, OnStar, etc.
I have no feelings about the Launch Control option. It’s something new to me and I would need to drive the car for more than one day to make comments on this. I’m sure it does the job GM intended it to do, it’s just odd to be limited at that RPM. We'll see
2008 Chevy Cobalt SS: Building a better budget bullet
Turbocharged Cobalt SS is surprisingly refined
The Cobalt SS was pretty good when it came out three years ago, but it's even better now.
"Better?" you say. "Impossible! The original Cobalt SS was supercharged and intercooled and had a big silly wing on the back. How could anyone, even GM Performance Division, improve on that?"
Well, they did and we just drove it, with (for all we know) the biggest, silliest wing in GM history blocking the view out the back window. So we now agree with Chevrolet general manager Ed Peper who said, "The horsepower will put a permanent smile on your face, and you'll find yourself wanting to turn around and zip through your favorite stretch of twisty roads again."
Turbocharged Cobalt SS is surprisingly refined
The Cobalt SS was pretty good when it came out three years ago, but it's even better now.
"Better?" you say. "Impossible! The original Cobalt SS was supercharged and intercooled and had a big silly wing on the back. How could anyone, even GM Performance Division, improve on that?"
Well, they did and we just drove it, with (for all we know) the biggest, silliest wing in GM history blocking the view out the back window. So we now agree with Chevrolet general manager Ed Peper who said, "The horsepower will put a permanent smile on your face, and you'll find yourself wanting to turn around and zip through your favorite stretch of twisty roads again."
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...023/LATESTNEWS
Sure, it's only refined by the standards of front-wheel-drive performance subcompacts. When you really tromp on the throttle exiting a corner or doing a boy-racer drag-strip start, it'll still pull to one side or the other with mighty, spine-splitting torque steer
There doesn't seem to be much in the way of turbo lag with this unit, either. Engineers manage the boost so well with a variable wastegate that it comes across as a smooth slathering of power and torque all across the top of the band
The sticker is $22,995, and almost everything you need to have fun is standard,
It also switches on "Launch Control," which sounds like something from NASA but is really a 5100-rpm redline engagement (below the 6300-rpm standard redline) that is supposed to mean quicker, more consistent launches. In reality, the rpm seem to waver up and down while in this mode, and the engine darn-near bogged almost every time we did it or saw anyone else do it. We'd try launches without launch control, ourselves
Last edited by JonyyB; Mar 7, 2008 at 01:37 PM.
Looks like I'll definetly be able to get into the current body style cobalt, with an LNF, in May 09'. Since they said the new one doesn't start production til June of 2010.
So this bodystyle with LNF may run three years like the LSJ, 2008-2010.
So this bodystyle with LNF may run three years like the LSJ, 2008-2010.
Banned
Joined: 09-13-06
Posts: 1,696
Likes: 0
From: USA
x2^^^^^^^^
i officially dont like autoweek anymore. then again, i never did like them, very biased opinions.
and again, the launch control is useless to me. i dont see a point in a 5000 rpm rev limiter to launch, its just not logical
i officially dont like autoweek anymore. then again, i never did like them, very biased opinions.
and again, the launch control is useless to me. i dont see a point in a 5000 rpm rev limiter to launch, its just not logical
Maybe the point of the 5000rpm limit, is to shorten the gear. Instead of running first gear all the way out, resulting in useless tirespin and hop. They must have figured 5000 was a perfect shift point for the 1-2 shift, resulting in a better take off?
I always wondered myself at the track, should I short shift first, or run it all the way out. I'd always go all the way, resulting in bad wheelhop and no better than high 2.2 60fts.
I always wondered myself at the track, should I short shift first, or run it all the way out. I'd always go all the way, resulting in bad wheelhop and no better than high 2.2 60fts.
New Member
Joined: 08-04-06
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
From: Pennsylvania
autoweek test drive of ss/tc
Senior Member
Joined: 05-27-07
Posts: 1,547
Likes: 0
From: USA
"The optional, massive wing on the car actually does something, providing 23 pounds of downforce at 70 mph and 115 pounds at 155 mph.
Top speed of this car (with the standard, smaller wing) is 160 mph!"
Top speed of this car (with the standard, smaller wing) is 160 mph!"
To some, the wing is just too ugly and vision-blocking; the downforce isn't enough to warrant keeping it on.
Senior Member
Joined: 05-27-07
Posts: 1,547
Likes: 0
From: USA
Never saw anything about any actual downforce numbers.
And how often are you doing 155 mph to get that 115 pounds.
I've never even gone over 100mph. Just too much traffic around where I live.
Oh yeah, and FWD.....
At that speed, we want the WHOLE car planted!
To some, the wing is just too ugly and vision-blocking; the downforce isn't enough to warrant keeping it on.
Ugly? Not a chance.
When I was looking to get my SS/SC last year, if the car on the lot didn't have the Hi Pro spoiler I didn't even bother looking at it.
That's me ...
New Member
Joined: 03-18-07
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
From: munster ind.
When I first got my 06 SC (RIP 10/08) I didn't really like the high wing but it kind of grew on me. The mid life comments from the family and my wife hating the thing really sealed the deal. It's also fun having cops pull up next to me at a light hoping to give some kid ****,only to find a greying 51 yr. at the wheel. My new TC will absolutely have the high wing!
Junior Member
Joined: 05-31-05
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
From: Brick City, NJ
When I first got my 06 SC (RIP 10/08) I didn't really like the high wing but it kind of grew on me. The mid life comments from the family and my wife hating the thing really sealed the deal. It's also fun having cops pull up next to me at a light hoping to give some kid ****,only to find a greying 51 yr. at the wheel. My new TC will absolutely have the high wing!
nice!!
Senior Member
Joined: 05-27-07
Posts: 1,547
Likes: 0
From: USA
When I first got my 06 SC (RIP 10/08) I didn't really like the high wing but it kind of grew on me. The mid life comments from the family and my wife hating the thing really sealed the deal. It's also fun having cops pull up next to me at a light hoping to give some kid ****,only to find a greying 51 yr. at the wheel. My new TC will absolutely have the high wing!
A guy down the street from me has an SS/SC, and he's 55!
I remember an article I read that said the market for this car is low-mid 20's.
Senior Member
Joined: 12-22-05
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
From: newport news.VA
this is what ever one said about a turbocharged cobalt!
im 35 and i pulled up to another orange supercharged cobalt with a 50+ year old( might have been older) at a red light. we took off and he started to race me. i wasnt going to go the speeds he was willing to go. i ve seen him around driving the car, so i pretty sure its his car. still funny so he this man driving it with the high profile spoiler!
Last edited by artawesome; Mar 8, 2008 at 12:48 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Yes......me, I'm 45. I am on my second SS/SC. I gave the first to my son for take-over payments which has the G85 with high spoiler. The 07 I bought had everything I wanted (G85 package) but not the high spoiler. I've since taken off the low spoiler and put on the high. I tried to get used to the low spoiler but the car just doesn't have the same appeal.
It does seem to make a difference in stability especially when pulling up on tractor/trailers.
It does seem to make a difference in stability especially when pulling up on tractor/trailers.
Senior Member
Joined: 05-27-07
Posts: 1,547
Likes: 0
From: USA
this is what ever one said about a turbocharged cobalt!
im 35 and i pulled up to another orange supercharged cobalt with a 50+ year old( might have been older) at a red light. we took off and he started to race me. i wasnt going to go the speeds he was willing to go. i ve seen him around driving the car, so i pretty sure its his car. still funny so he this man driving it with the high profile spoiler!
im 35 and i pulled up to another orange supercharged cobalt with a 50+ year old( might have been older) at a red light. we took off and he started to race me. i wasnt going to go the speeds he was willing to go. i ve seen him around driving the car, so i pretty sure its his car. still funny so he this man driving it with the high profile spoiler!
I pay $61 month for full coverage.
LOL
New Member
Joined: 07-26-06
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
From: Raleigh
Maybe the point of the 5000rpm limit, is to shorten the gear. Instead of running first gear all the way out, resulting in useless tirespin and hop. They must have figured 5000 was a perfect shift point for the 1-2 shift, resulting in a better take off?
I always wondered myself at the track, should I short shift first, or run it all the way out. I'd always go all the way, resulting in bad wheelhop and no better than high 2.2 60fts.
I always wondered myself at the track, should I short shift first, or run it all the way out. I'd always go all the way, resulting in bad wheelhop and no better than high 2.2 60fts.
It isnt a 5000 rpm rev limiter like the 6300 rpm rev limiter is. Its a two step. You clutch down and stomp on the gas, and the engine will rev up to 5100 rpm. At that point the PCM retards timing to prevent it from going higher. The retarded timing means that fuel is still burning when the exhaust valve opens. that burning fuel expands in the exhaust manifold and spools up the turbo. The result is that you leave the line at 5100rpms with some boost added in the mix. In other words, no turbo lag. Once the clutch is released first gear will rev out to the standard red line. Similar in approach to the stutter box you hear on a WRC car, just likely less abusive on the turbo and manifold.
It sounds like they were just sidestepping the clutch at this event, figuring that at 5100 rpms the engine had enough juice to take the instant shock of dumping the clutch. IMO a slower release of the clutch will keep the RPMs up and keep the car from bogging down.
It had long been determined that yeah it provides about 25 pounds of downforce at highway speed, but that's negligible... just throw your golf bag in the trunk if you want that. And how often are you doing 155 mph to get that 115 pounds. Oh yeah, and FWD.....
To some, the wing is just too ugly and vision-blocking; the downforce isn't enough to warrant keeping it on.
To some, the wing is just too ugly and vision-blocking; the downforce isn't enough to warrant keeping it on.
To each his own on the styling, but its not like throwing a golf bag in the back. A golf bag is mass, downforce isnt.
You have to accelerate the mass of a golf bag. You dont have to accelerate downforce.
You have to stop the mass of a golf bag. You dont have to stop downforce.
You have to change the direction of the mass of a golf bag. You dont have to change the direction of downforce.
There is a reason why F1 cars use wings instead of lead to increase weight on the wheels of their cars. You have to deal witht he mass, and its physical effect on the performance of the car, where as with downforce all it does is induce drag and weight on the wheels, but it isnt mass that has to be contended with.
Yes, when you speed up the weight on the wheels increases and has an effect on acceleration, but below that speed the effect is less than it is with a constant mass. As you brake that weight disappears, theoretically reducing grip, whereas with mass it doesnt, but you dont have to contend with the weight shift and CG change that occurs with mass.
In summary, downforce is not the same as throwing a golf bag in the back seat. the only similarity they have is, at speed, you can measure the increase in pressure on the suspension/tires. Thats it.
BC
Last edited by A New Convert; Mar 8, 2008 at 11:23 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Senior Member
Joined: 07-09-07
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
From: Cleveland
You completely misunderstand what is being done here.
It isnt a 5000 rpm rev limiter like the 6300 rpm rev limiter is. Its a two step. You clutch down and stomp on the gas, and the engine will rev up to 5100 rpm. At that point the PCM retards timing to prevent it from going higher. The retarded timing means that fuel is still burning when the exhaust valve opens. that burning fuel expands in the exhaust manifold and spools up the turbo. The result is that you leave the line at 5100rpms with some boost added in the mix. In other words, no turbo lag. Once the clutch is released first gear will rev out to the standard red line. Similar in approach to the stutter box you hear on a WRC car, just likely less abusive on the turbo and manifold.
It sounds like they were just sidestepping the clutch at this event, figuring that at 5100 rpms the engine had enough juice to take the instant shock of dumping the clutch. IMO a slower release of the clutch will keep the RPMs up and keep the car from bogging down.
To each his own on the styling, but its not like throwing a golf bag in the back. A golf bag is mass, downforce isnt.
You have to accelerate the mass of a golf bag. You dont have to accelerate downforce.
You have to stop the mass of a golf bag. You dont have to stop downforce.
You have to change the direction of the mass of a golf bag. You dont have to change the direction of downforce.
There is a reason why F1 cars use wings instead of lead to increase weight on the wheels of their cars. You have to deal witht he mass, and its physical effect on the performance of the car, where as with downforce all it does is induce drag and weight on the wheels, but it isnt mass that has to be contended with.
Yes, when you speed up the weight on the wheels increases and has an effect on acceleration, but below that speed the effect is less than it is with a constant mass. As you brake that weight disappears, theoretically reducing grip, whereas with mass it doesnt, but you dont have to contend with the weight shift and CG change that occurs with mass.
In summary, downforce is not the same as throwing a golf bag in the back seat. the only similarity they have is, at speed, you can measure the increase in pressure on the suspension/tires. Thats it.
BC
It isnt a 5000 rpm rev limiter like the 6300 rpm rev limiter is. Its a two step. You clutch down and stomp on the gas, and the engine will rev up to 5100 rpm. At that point the PCM retards timing to prevent it from going higher. The retarded timing means that fuel is still burning when the exhaust valve opens. that burning fuel expands in the exhaust manifold and spools up the turbo. The result is that you leave the line at 5100rpms with some boost added in the mix. In other words, no turbo lag. Once the clutch is released first gear will rev out to the standard red line. Similar in approach to the stutter box you hear on a WRC car, just likely less abusive on the turbo and manifold.
It sounds like they were just sidestepping the clutch at this event, figuring that at 5100 rpms the engine had enough juice to take the instant shock of dumping the clutch. IMO a slower release of the clutch will keep the RPMs up and keep the car from bogging down.
To each his own on the styling, but its not like throwing a golf bag in the back. A golf bag is mass, downforce isnt.
You have to accelerate the mass of a golf bag. You dont have to accelerate downforce.
You have to stop the mass of a golf bag. You dont have to stop downforce.
You have to change the direction of the mass of a golf bag. You dont have to change the direction of downforce.
There is a reason why F1 cars use wings instead of lead to increase weight on the wheels of their cars. You have to deal witht he mass, and its physical effect on the performance of the car, where as with downforce all it does is induce drag and weight on the wheels, but it isnt mass that has to be contended with.
Yes, when you speed up the weight on the wheels increases and has an effect on acceleration, but below that speed the effect is less than it is with a constant mass. As you brake that weight disappears, theoretically reducing grip, whereas with mass it doesnt, but you dont have to contend with the weight shift and CG change that occurs with mass.
In summary, downforce is not the same as throwing a golf bag in the back seat. the only similarity they have is, at speed, you can measure the increase in pressure on the suspension/tires. Thats it.
BC
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
09BlkCrusader
Parts
30
Sep 9, 2015 04:47 PM