This is a decently old Car and Driver article. A lot fo people know about it already, but I had no idea there was a vid on it. Pretty cool vid IMO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk8-znQYC1s

 

eeewww nice post

 

Holy quick reply, lol. FIXED.

 

repost old skool

I remember reading a thread on the RSX-S forum with the gist of "how the hell did we win?"

 

The vid was already posted as well?? I thought there was only a link to the artcle.

 

The article had a link to the vid, no big man, its a good video of 5 good cars.

 

Yeah I love all 5 cars as well.

 

in my opinion

1 rsx-s
2 cobalt
3 wrx

 

article is entitled "Cheap speed"

Wow, finally a review that isnt based on granola crunching tree hugging points of view.
AWESOME!!! except....wait a minute....its the same old boring ****.

throughout the entire article they contradict their own criteria.

Even going so far as to say things like "if you want cheap speed....this is the car for you"
and then give the car **** ratings based on styling, interior, and noise level?

what the **** is that?



Big thumbs down for me.

(keep in mind im biased....as most people are to their car....but the simple fact is, reviewers care about mod/cons. not performance. And i really dont like it when they pretend they do)

editing for my list:

they called it "cheap speed"
so this is where it should be
1. SRT
2. WRX
3. Cobalt/Ion (order doesnt matter because STYLING DOESNT = SPEED)
4. Cobalt/ion
5. RSX (cheap speed and the most expensive car that didnt win ANY speed comp wins......GG's idiots)

 

ya im really surprised at those results when i 1st saw that video. my opinion.


1. cobalt
2. neon
3. ion
4. wrx
5. rsx

 

overall ....everything

Cobalt SS
Srt4
WRX
RSX-S
RL

the exact same order i put them in when buying the SS

 

so basically the acura won because of its interior?

hmm i thought it was the cheap SPEED challenge.

so why didnt the FAST cars come out on top? (ie. the cobalt and the SRT)

 

how the hell did the acura get 1st, not the cheapest and not the fastest. If they wanted a nice car they should have gotten a 350z. the acura will cost you about 26k.

 

the article was f-ed even the RSX-S guys admitted it

 

Y is the RL so far behind???

 

No offense man, just IMO the RL while tied for 2nd for speed it is the ugliest car inside and out of the group. Center guages IMO is thee dumbest thing I've ever seen.

 

I like the outside styling of the RL over the Cobalt SS, Thats just a matter of opinion. As far as the center mounted guages I thought they were crazy too but after u drive the car for a lil bit u tend to like them more than the traditional guages. I don't understand how the RL's exterior is bland and boring. but then again I have never liked C&D's opinions on cars no matter what car it was. I always preferred Road and Track

 

Thats what pisses me off about car comps, the outcome of the tests rarely reflects where the car is ranked. Its a performance test, not luxury. Why bother even driving the f-ing cars?

99% of automotive journalists=IDIOTS. I read the mags for the stats, not their opinion

 

if the artical is about speed shouldnt it be

SRT-4
WRX
CobaltSS/Redline
drop 5 seconds
RXS-S

 

ROFL


I disagree...

SRT-4
Cobalt SS/SC
WRX (think you may be thinking about an Sti and not a regular WRX.
Redline
RSX-S

 

ok ok the cobalt, wrx, redline would come down to driver

 

srt-4 ftw!!! hahah

 

Thanks ARGN for giving us poor Saturn some credit. LoL

are you Military?? (sorry for the jack)

 

last time i checked the best 0-60 was done in a redline in 6 flat stock. the best ss was 6.1 so redline > ss/sc

so dont think the cobalts superiour in that notion. even though they got the same dang engine.

 

thats strange, since the RL is heavier.