Bob Lutz Responds To Wall Street Journal Cobalt Review
03-16-2005, 11:32 PM
#1
Site Founder
Thread Starter
Join Date: 03-17-04
Location: NE OH Near Cleveland
Posts: 7,650
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Bob Lutz Responds To Wall Street Journal Cobalt Review
<img src="https://www.cobaltss.net/articles/jan30th.jpg" align="left" border="0" hspace="5" vspace="2">By Bob Lutz
GM Vice Chairman
I thought The Wall Street Journal might feel a little bit left out after I singled out The New York Times in recent posts. So just to show that I’m an equal opportunity enjoyer of all the major dailies, let’s have a look at the WSJ review of the Chevy Cobalt from Friday, March 11.
The article starts off, “How hard could it be to replace the Chevrolet Cavalier… for Chevrolet, the answer seems to be ‘pretty hard’…” and from there it gets even better!
Now, I am not one to quarrel with any writer’s subjective interpretations or opinions. On the other hand, we can’t always sit idly by and let the press say things like, “There are places where Chevy took obvious shortcuts, like with its rear drum brakes. Are we technology snobs for believing, more than 40 years after four-wheel disc brakes first appeared on passenger cars, that every car should have more-efficient discs on all four wheels?”
Here’s a partial list of cars in the segment (and others) that also have rear drum brakes: Toyota Corolla CE, S, and LE; Toyota Camry; Honda Civic DX, VP, HX, LX, EX and Hybrid; Honda Accord; Ford Focus S, SE, and SES; and the Chrysler PT Cruiser.
Somebody with the time and the stacks of old Wall Street Journals should really take a look, but I would bet their reviews of most of these other vehicles don’t complain much about rear drums.
The WSJ adds, “The Cobalt's 2.2-liter, four-cylinder engine puts out 145 horsepower -- more than the Civic and Corolla, but those lighter cars manage to come across as more peppy … The Cobalt was brisk enough for merging with highway traffic, but the overall feeling from the engine is one of laziness.”
Strangely enough, the April Car and Driver includes a review of an almost identical test car. They call it “Plainly Good,” a reference to Cobalt’s exterior styling. The C&D article begins thusly, “Those who pray to a higher power for the revival of General Motors should note that in many religions the savior prefers to arrive in plain dress.”
What’s very interesting is that, as I waded through Car and Driver’s subjective praise, I discovered that their performance numbers put the Cobalt’s braking at the head of its class. Imagine! Drum brakes and all! Also, their clocked zero-to-60 time was 8.4 seconds with that “lazy” 145-hp, 2.2-liter four, which placed it second (to the Neon) out of a group of 10 segment vehicles tested.
Full Response Here: http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archive...eme_1.html#more
GM Vice Chairman
I thought The Wall Street Journal might feel a little bit left out after I singled out The New York Times in recent posts. So just to show that I’m an equal opportunity enjoyer of all the major dailies, let’s have a look at the WSJ review of the Chevy Cobalt from Friday, March 11.
The article starts off, “How hard could it be to replace the Chevrolet Cavalier… for Chevrolet, the answer seems to be ‘pretty hard’…” and from there it gets even better!
Now, I am not one to quarrel with any writer’s subjective interpretations or opinions. On the other hand, we can’t always sit idly by and let the press say things like, “There are places where Chevy took obvious shortcuts, like with its rear drum brakes. Are we technology snobs for believing, more than 40 years after four-wheel disc brakes first appeared on passenger cars, that every car should have more-efficient discs on all four wheels?”
Here’s a partial list of cars in the segment (and others) that also have rear drum brakes: Toyota Corolla CE, S, and LE; Toyota Camry; Honda Civic DX, VP, HX, LX, EX and Hybrid; Honda Accord; Ford Focus S, SE, and SES; and the Chrysler PT Cruiser.
Somebody with the time and the stacks of old Wall Street Journals should really take a look, but I would bet their reviews of most of these other vehicles don’t complain much about rear drums.
The WSJ adds, “The Cobalt's 2.2-liter, four-cylinder engine puts out 145 horsepower -- more than the Civic and Corolla, but those lighter cars manage to come across as more peppy … The Cobalt was brisk enough for merging with highway traffic, but the overall feeling from the engine is one of laziness.”
Strangely enough, the April Car and Driver includes a review of an almost identical test car. They call it “Plainly Good,” a reference to Cobalt’s exterior styling. The C&D article begins thusly, “Those who pray to a higher power for the revival of General Motors should note that in many religions the savior prefers to arrive in plain dress.”
What’s very interesting is that, as I waded through Car and Driver’s subjective praise, I discovered that their performance numbers put the Cobalt’s braking at the head of its class. Imagine! Drum brakes and all! Also, their clocked zero-to-60 time was 8.4 seconds with that “lazy” 145-hp, 2.2-liter four, which placed it second (to the Neon) out of a group of 10 segment vehicles tested.
Full Response Here: http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archive...eme_1.html#more
Originally Posted by WSJ
By JONATHAN WELSH
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
March 11, 2005; Page W11C
How hard could it be to replace the Chevrolet Cavalier -- a clunky, 23-year-old design some regard as one of the worst cars on the market?
For Chevrolet, the answer seems to be "pretty hard." The Cavalier's compact-sedan replacement is the Cobalt, the car maker's latest compact aimed at the now-decades-old goal of recapturing some of the legions of entry-level buyers who have steadily migrated to Japanese and European models. But in its first few months in showrooms, the Cobalt's sales haven't met expectations.
It's no surprise because there's little about the Cobalt that makes one look twice -- or even once. While it is better than the Cavalier in just about every way, that isn't really saying much. More importantly, the Cobalt doesn't raise the competitive bar among rivals such as the Ford Focus, Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla. Its styling isn't distinctive (it isn't slick like a Mazda 3 or cute like a Mini Cooper), and some of the components the Cobalt uses should have been put out to pasture 30 years ago.
So, is there anything redeeming about the Cobalt? The test car we drove for a week was indeed nicer than the Cavalier. Our test car was better looking, with body panels that fit tightly together. Inside were the plastic dashboard and door panels expected in a car that starts at about $16,000, but again, the parts looked good and were neatly assembled. Loaded with options including heated leather seats, automatic transmission, side-curtain airbags, satellite radio and a chrome exhaust-pipe tip, our tester cost $19,625.
Securely Planted, if Hefty
On the road, the Cobalt felt securely planted, like a much larger car. We attribute that to its 3,200-pound weight -- several hundred pounds more than the competition. But that heft took away the nimbleness that makes cars such as the Mazda 3 and Mini Cooper fun to drive.
There also are places where Chevy took obvious shortcuts, like with its rear drum brakes. Are we technology snobs for believing, more than 40 years after four-wheel disc brakes first appeared on passenger cars, that every car should have more-efficient discs on all four wheels? For its part, Chevrolet says that rear drum brakes perform fine (and they do, but discs maintain more even stopping power under heavy braking), and help keep the cost of the car down.
The Cobalt's 2.2-liter, four-cylinder engine puts out 145 horsepower -- more than the Civic and Toyota Corolla, but those lighter cars manage to come across as more peppy in spite of their lower power. The Cobalt was brisk enough for merging with highway traffic, but the overall feeling from the engine is one of laziness. If attempting to pass while going uphill, the pedal can be to the metal long before the groaning engine really digs in.
Rent to Own
The Cobalt seems like a good buy -- until it's compared with similarly priced models. Just about every other compact car has something the Cobalt lacks, whether it's Toyota's reliability records, Mazda's sporty feel or Volkswagen's solidly built interiors.
The Cobalt comes across a bit like a rental -- the kind of car one doesn't mind using but wouldn't buy. Chevy officials say the car won't become the rental-fleet staple the Cavalier became, but we wouldn't be surprised if, next time we step off the Avis airport shuttle, it will be to step into a refrigerator-white Cobalt four-door.
Chevrolet says it plans to sell at least 10,000 Cobalts a month. A two-door model, including a more-powerful supercharged version, is expected to join the sedan later this year. Only about 7,300 Cobalts found buyers in January, and 4,500 were sold in December. Even at Chevy's projections, the Cobalt won't come close to matching the Cavalier's sales of 195,275 in 2004. General Motors, Chevrolet's parent company, saw U.S. sales fall 12% last month. If GM is trying to attract new buyers, it's going to have to do better than offer just the basics.
----------------------
Here's what we liked -- and didn't -- about the Chevrolet Cobalt.
The Outside
+ Large, attractive headlights punctuate a clean, gently wedge-shaped body.
- In profile the rear deck looks too short and the nose too long—an odd cab-rearward style statement.
The Inside
+ Simple, uncluttered dashboard and door panels flow together well and complement clean exterior.
- Still not as spiffy and stylish as interiors from rivals like Volkswagen and Mazda.
Under the Hood
+ Four-cylinder "Ecotec" engine is related to the one found in upmarket Saab 9-3.
- At 145 horsepower, the engine is too weak to pull the 3,000-plus pounds Cobalt with any real pep.
Behind the Wheel
+ The car responded crisply to steering and was surprisingly maneuverable in tight parking lots.
- Range of steering wheel adjustment never allowed us a clear view of the dashboard gauges.
Over the Top
+ A supercharged hot-rod version called the Super Sport is coming later this year.
- It will still be 25 horses short of the Dodge Neon SRT-4 that has been around for two years.
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB...l?mod=autos%5F3 (Sub. Req'd)
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
March 11, 2005; Page W11C
How hard could it be to replace the Chevrolet Cavalier -- a clunky, 23-year-old design some regard as one of the worst cars on the market?
For Chevrolet, the answer seems to be "pretty hard." The Cavalier's compact-sedan replacement is the Cobalt, the car maker's latest compact aimed at the now-decades-old goal of recapturing some of the legions of entry-level buyers who have steadily migrated to Japanese and European models. But in its first few months in showrooms, the Cobalt's sales haven't met expectations.
It's no surprise because there's little about the Cobalt that makes one look twice -- or even once. While it is better than the Cavalier in just about every way, that isn't really saying much. More importantly, the Cobalt doesn't raise the competitive bar among rivals such as the Ford Focus, Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla. Its styling isn't distinctive (it isn't slick like a Mazda 3 or cute like a Mini Cooper), and some of the components the Cobalt uses should have been put out to pasture 30 years ago.
So, is there anything redeeming about the Cobalt? The test car we drove for a week was indeed nicer than the Cavalier. Our test car was better looking, with body panels that fit tightly together. Inside were the plastic dashboard and door panels expected in a car that starts at about $16,000, but again, the parts looked good and were neatly assembled. Loaded with options including heated leather seats, automatic transmission, side-curtain airbags, satellite radio and a chrome exhaust-pipe tip, our tester cost $19,625.
Securely Planted, if Hefty
On the road, the Cobalt felt securely planted, like a much larger car. We attribute that to its 3,200-pound weight -- several hundred pounds more than the competition. But that heft took away the nimbleness that makes cars such as the Mazda 3 and Mini Cooper fun to drive.
There also are places where Chevy took obvious shortcuts, like with its rear drum brakes. Are we technology snobs for believing, more than 40 years after four-wheel disc brakes first appeared on passenger cars, that every car should have more-efficient discs on all four wheels? For its part, Chevrolet says that rear drum brakes perform fine (and they do, but discs maintain more even stopping power under heavy braking), and help keep the cost of the car down.
The Cobalt's 2.2-liter, four-cylinder engine puts out 145 horsepower -- more than the Civic and Toyota Corolla, but those lighter cars manage to come across as more peppy in spite of their lower power. The Cobalt was brisk enough for merging with highway traffic, but the overall feeling from the engine is one of laziness. If attempting to pass while going uphill, the pedal can be to the metal long before the groaning engine really digs in.
Rent to Own
The Cobalt seems like a good buy -- until it's compared with similarly priced models. Just about every other compact car has something the Cobalt lacks, whether it's Toyota's reliability records, Mazda's sporty feel or Volkswagen's solidly built interiors.
The Cobalt comes across a bit like a rental -- the kind of car one doesn't mind using but wouldn't buy. Chevy officials say the car won't become the rental-fleet staple the Cavalier became, but we wouldn't be surprised if, next time we step off the Avis airport shuttle, it will be to step into a refrigerator-white Cobalt four-door.
Chevrolet says it plans to sell at least 10,000 Cobalts a month. A two-door model, including a more-powerful supercharged version, is expected to join the sedan later this year. Only about 7,300 Cobalts found buyers in January, and 4,500 were sold in December. Even at Chevy's projections, the Cobalt won't come close to matching the Cavalier's sales of 195,275 in 2004. General Motors, Chevrolet's parent company, saw U.S. sales fall 12% last month. If GM is trying to attract new buyers, it's going to have to do better than offer just the basics.
----------------------
Here's what we liked -- and didn't -- about the Chevrolet Cobalt.
The Outside
+ Large, attractive headlights punctuate a clean, gently wedge-shaped body.
- In profile the rear deck looks too short and the nose too long—an odd cab-rearward style statement.
The Inside
+ Simple, uncluttered dashboard and door panels flow together well and complement clean exterior.
- Still not as spiffy and stylish as interiors from rivals like Volkswagen and Mazda.
Under the Hood
+ Four-cylinder "Ecotec" engine is related to the one found in upmarket Saab 9-3.
- At 145 horsepower, the engine is too weak to pull the 3,000-plus pounds Cobalt with any real pep.
Behind the Wheel
+ The car responded crisply to steering and was surprisingly maneuverable in tight parking lots.
- Range of steering wheel adjustment never allowed us a clear view of the dashboard gauges.
Over the Top
+ A supercharged hot-rod version called the Super Sport is coming later this year.
- It will still be 25 horses short of the Dodge Neon SRT-4 that has been around for two years.
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB...l?mod=autos%5F3 (Sub. Req'd)
03-17-2005, 08:18 AM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: 02-09-05
Location: Toronto Canada
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But in its first few months in showrooms, the Cobalt's sales haven't met expectations.
The writer probably drives a civic. "I have V-TEC, its state of the art technology, therefore my car has to be the fastest"
03-17-2005, 09:32 AM
#4
Member
Join Date: 01-18-05
Location: Piedmont Triad, NC
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post JonelZ.
What can I say, opinions are like a certain part of the physical anatomy, everybody has them, some smell worse than others.
Kreskin has gone home for the day so I think time will tell the true story of how well the Cobalt stacks up.
Villain
What can I say, opinions are like a certain part of the physical anatomy, everybody has them, some smell worse than others.
Kreskin has gone home for the day so I think time will tell the true story of how well the Cobalt stacks up.
Villain
03-17-2005, 10:22 AM
#5
New Member
Join Date: 03-02-05
Location: PA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I drive a base model Cobalt in a very nice Blue Granite. I drive it every day 95 miles round trip for work and back. The 5 speed makes it a great car for highway and on-ramps alike. I dunno what that joker drove, but I got more than enough pep in MY pedal. After all, what good is too much pep with all those pesky speed limit signs around (I take the official stance that yes, I do read those signs 
) And for city driving, just how fast DO you need to get to the next red light? As for those comments about stylish interior.....I'll take a lower car payment over glitzy and useless 'styling' anyday. The interior hasnt been beaten with an ugly stick like WSJ makes it out to be. It very nice, clean, and simple....which some people appreciate....
) And for city driving, just how fast DO you need to get to the next red light? As for those comments about stylish interior.....I'll take a lower car payment over glitzy and useless 'styling' anyday. The interior hasnt been beaten with an ugly stick like WSJ makes it out to be. It very nice, clean, and simple....which some people appreciate....
03-17-2005, 02:40 PM
#7
New Member
Join Date: 02-15-05
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Funky Cricket
he couln't see the guages becuase of the steering wheel? whas he even driving a cobalt?
I don't know what that dude was on.. but i think i might like to try it...
I don't know what that dude was on.. but i think i might like to try it...
If you find out, share the love!
03-19-2005, 02:34 AM
#9
yeah when i test drove the cobalt I thought something was wrong with the view. I couldnt see that digital display and the rest of the lower guages. I dont think it had tilt steering, but usually the ones that dont, (like the cavalier I drive) are in the perfect position. weird. I think the engine is excellent though. definitly a huge improvement on their older 2200 engine. i think my cavalier puts out a whooping 110 hp. this is a huge increase for a small car.
03-19-2005, 07:01 AM
#11
New Member
Join Date: 12-20-04
Location: Kansas, USA
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by stlurbanpunk
I dont think it had tilt steering
Tilt steering wheel is standard on all Cobalts, but I believe the lever is lower and designed differently than the Cavalier's.
03-20-2005, 06:49 PM
#12
Premium Member
Join Date: 02-23-05
Location: Florida
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Range of steering wheel adjustment never allowed us a clear view of the dashboard gauges
03-20-2005, 07:36 PM
#13
Banned
Join Date: 12-13-04
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The guy who wrote that review is obviously a complete moron. If you don't know **** about cars, don't try to write about them - simple as that - no need to go and make things up 
The comments about the disc brakes and "sales expectations" should put up the BS flag for most people right away. Of course the article goes on to talk about "outdated components" (WTF) and a 3200lb curb weight. That weight was obviously pulled out of this guy's ass, along with the rest of this article, because none of it is even remotely accurate.
I think we should all e-mail this moron from WSJ an let him know our opinions of his "reviews". The article is obviously just trying to tarnish the Cobalt, it serves no other purpose than to make the car intentionally look bad.
And of course in the end of the article they have to add in the part about the Cobalt SS being "25 Horses short of the SRT-4". Its like a little dig to sum everything up - but of course they don't take into account that the Cobalt SS has a much nicer interior, or that it handles better, or that its a much more well-rounded car than the SRT-4 could ever be
Heres his e-mail address if anyone wants to drop him a line
jonathan.welsh@wsj.com
The comments about the disc brakes and "sales expectations" should put up the BS flag for most people right away. Of course the article goes on to talk about "outdated components" (WTF) and a 3200lb curb weight. That weight was obviously pulled out of this guy's ass, along with the rest of this article, because none of it is even remotely accurate.
I think we should all e-mail this moron from WSJ an let him know our opinions of his "reviews". The article is obviously just trying to tarnish the Cobalt, it serves no other purpose than to make the car intentionally look bad.
And of course in the end of the article they have to add in the part about the Cobalt SS being "25 Horses short of the SRT-4". Its like a little dig to sum everything up - but of course they don't take into account that the Cobalt SS has a much nicer interior, or that it handles better, or that its a much more well-rounded car than the SRT-4 could ever be
Heres his e-mail address if anyone wants to drop him a line
jonathan.welsh@wsj.com
03-21-2005, 09:59 PM
#14
yeah wtf is up with the rear brake "problem"? I think if they do what they are supposed to do then their great brakes. besides, how much shorter are you going to stop with disks in the back? maybe 6 feet comming from 60?!
03-25-2005, 01:37 AM
#15
Member
Join Date: 07-18-04
Location: Dupo, Ill
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
drum brakes
Drum brake parking brakes are much better than disc brakes. They have more holding power due to more contact area. Disc are better at losing heat, therefore better at repeated stops.
03-25-2005, 02:43 AM
#16
Junior Member
Join Date: 01-13-05
Location: Rockland, NY
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Two Cents!
I think the braking system is great.... Now I say this, having an LS Coupe with the 16's on there.....
Front Disks Rear Drums, ABS..... Wow... didn't think they would feel so good!...
I can imagine with all you guys and girls that are getting the SS/Sc....!!
Front Disks Rear Drums, ABS..... Wow... didn't think they would feel so good!...
I can imagine with all you guys and girls that are getting the SS/Sc....!!
03-27-2005, 04:09 AM
#17
New Member
Join Date: 02-18-05
Location: Hagerstown, MD
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have to say 8.4 seconds is really quick for the 2.2L. I will have to say though that after owning my Cobalt though, it doesnt have the brisk off the line power like the Nissan Sentra I used to own, but once I hit the higher RPM's, you can feel it come alive. I raced an 03 Civic EX and a 00 Ford ZX2 and my automatic base Cobalt made them think twice about my car 
10-30-2005, 05:33 PM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-09-05
Location: Grayslake, IL
Posts: 1,601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PremioJoe
I would have to say 8.4 seconds is really quick for the 2.2L. I will have to say though that after owning my Cobalt though, it doesnt have the brisk off the line power like the Nissan Sentra I used to own, but once I hit the higher RPM's, you can feel it come alive. I raced an 03 Civic EX and a 00 Ford ZX2 and my automatic base Cobalt made them think twice about my car
10-30-2005, 05:53 PM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: 10-08-05
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do agree about the gauges though. I can only read from 0 to 20 and 120 to 140 because of the steering wheel. I also can't see the needle on the gas gauge unless it's on the E or the F. Unless of course I duck to see through the wheel.
11-03-2005, 01:41 AM
#23
Premium Member
WOT
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post