AutoWeek review - Cobalt SS
01-13-2005, 03:49 AM
#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
AutoWeek review - 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt SS
<img src="https://www.cobaltss.net/articles/autoweek.jpg" align="left" border="0" hspace="5" vspace="2"><b>Cobalt Is Just The Element Chevy Needs</b>
So there we were,driving along in a Chevy Cobalt SS with road racer John Heinricy sitting in the passenger seat, when it occurred to us, “Why is road racer John Heinricy sitting over there and an amateur, apex-missing schlub driving?” We were, after all, snaking along some very interesting, twisting mountain roads. So we asked Heinricy if he would like to drive.
“Sure,” he said.
Heinricy was up to the task and would, in fact, be driving in the Grand-Am finale only a few days hence. In addition to race victories too numerous to list, Heinricy is a career engineer at General Motors, spending most of his time with Corvettes and Camaros, and now wears the moniker, “Director of High Performance Vehicle Operations.” That may be the most fun you can have at GM without embezzling from the pension fund.
<img src="http://www.autoweek.com/files/weekart/2005/0117/0117-cobalt3_side.jpg">
Heinricy went right to it. He was obviously much more comfortable seeking the handling limits of this front-driver than we had been, probably because he had helped set those limits. Our Cobalt SS was the supercharged, top-of-the-line Cobalt, aimed at the fast-growing sport compact segment formerly owned by Honda/Acura. Chevy is attacking that segment with formidable hardware on this model, throwing the parts catalog at the Cobalt in much the same way Dodge is with its SRT-4 and Ford did with its splendid SVT Focus.
The Cobalt SS uses the same Ecotec powerplant as the Saturn Ion Red Line, a 2.0-liter supercharged four-cylinder that makes 205 hp and 200 lb-ft of torque and drives the front wheels through a five-speed manual. Normally that much power going through the fronts means torque steer, but in addition to equal-length halfshafts, our car came with the optional limited-slip differential, a rarity among small front-drivers and worth its weight on the option box. All SS models get 18-inch wheels (we remember when the Corvette got 16-inch wheels just about 15 years ago!), 215/45 tires and Recaro seats so grippy we felt like a hardball socked into a baseball glove. The SS stickers for just $21,995.
For several miles on the twisty road Heinricy let the tires slip into a little understeer here, a little oversteer there (more under than over). Nailing the throttle out of each corner, he described an arc through the corners that seemed obvious to us only when he expertly threaded it. The SS has a high entertainment value.
When Heinricy handed the car back to us, there was brake dust coating the brakes and heat waves pouring from underhood. Our ride had been instructive, and we now felt more comfortable tossing the SS through turns. We wound up having a much better time with it than we might otherwise have had.
How does the Cobalt SS stack up against the competition? It will easily be the closest the former maker of the Cavalier has ever come to acceptance in this highly competitive, highly style-conscious slot. The SS is fun, tossable, safe, and with a nicely done aero kit, even racy looking. We would have no problem cruising the NOPI Nationals parking lot in this, maybe even drag racing a few punks at red lights in Atlanta.
But the Focus, while lacking any significant power since the SVT model died, still has a suspension that is more sophis*ti*cated and responsive than the Cobalt’s front-strut, twist-beam-rear setup; the Dodge SRT-4 still has 25 more horsepower stock, even more when you add Stages I, II and III parts; and competitors from the 175-hp Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec-V, which also has a limited-slip, to the 200-hp Acura RSX aren’t going to roll over and die just because the Cavalier replacement decided to pay attention to performance this time. And there will certainly be kids who ask their parents to add 10 grand to get the mighty and fearless Mitsubishi Evo, Subaru WRX STi and Volkswagen Golf R32, all three of which outpower and outperform this entry.
Getting “respect on the scene” isn’t easy for anyone, but Chevy is ready to have at it with the Cobalt SS.
That’s not all Cobalt has to do, of course. While it no longer has to sell to the very bottom of the market, thanks to the miserable Chevy (Daewoo) Aveo, the Cobalt must still please a huge swath of subcompact buyers, the vast majority of whom don’t know or care what a limited-slip diff limits. So there are more econocar-conscious coupe and sedan versions of the Cobalt as well.
The base Cobalt coupe and sedan each costs just $14,190, including destination. With those models you get the same all-new Delta platform shared with the rest of the Cobalt line, the Saturn Ion, and in a slightly altered form, the Euro-market Opel Astra. All Cobalts are built with loads of sound-deadening for the passengers. Thus, money that would normally have been “saved” went into special acoustic-absorbent steel, quiet engine mounts and hydraulic bushings. Even the base Cobalt gets antiroll bars front and rear.
The base model also shares the 2.2-liter, 145-hp, 155-lb-ft Ecotec four with the LS coupe and sedan as well as the LT sedan. The LS and LT models come with four-wheel discs with ABS and a progressively more grand list of features. You can even get XM satellite radio in a Cobalt, which is just as entertaining here as it is in a Cadillac.
Will Chevy now make a profit in the small car business? We bet yes. The problem is, even the small car business isn’t so small anymore.
MARK VAUGHN
Published Date: 1/10/05
2005 CHEVROLET COBALT SS
ON SALE: Now
BASE PRICE: $21,995
POWERTRAIN: 2.0-liter, 205-hp, 200-lb-ft supercharged I4; fwd, five-speed manual
CURB WEIGHT: 2806 pounds
0 TO 60 MPH: 6.5 seconds (est.)
http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=101559
So there we were,driving along in a Chevy Cobalt SS with road racer John Heinricy sitting in the passenger seat, when it occurred to us, “Why is road racer John Heinricy sitting over there and an amateur, apex-missing schlub driving?” We were, after all, snaking along some very interesting, twisting mountain roads. So we asked Heinricy if he would like to drive.
“Sure,” he said.
Heinricy was up to the task and would, in fact, be driving in the Grand-Am finale only a few days hence. In addition to race victories too numerous to list, Heinricy is a career engineer at General Motors, spending most of his time with Corvettes and Camaros, and now wears the moniker, “Director of High Performance Vehicle Operations.” That may be the most fun you can have at GM without embezzling from the pension fund.
<img src="http://www.autoweek.com/files/weekart/2005/0117/0117-cobalt3_side.jpg">
Heinricy went right to it. He was obviously much more comfortable seeking the handling limits of this front-driver than we had been, probably because he had helped set those limits. Our Cobalt SS was the supercharged, top-of-the-line Cobalt, aimed at the fast-growing sport compact segment formerly owned by Honda/Acura. Chevy is attacking that segment with formidable hardware on this model, throwing the parts catalog at the Cobalt in much the same way Dodge is with its SRT-4 and Ford did with its splendid SVT Focus.
The Cobalt SS uses the same Ecotec powerplant as the Saturn Ion Red Line, a 2.0-liter supercharged four-cylinder that makes 205 hp and 200 lb-ft of torque and drives the front wheels through a five-speed manual. Normally that much power going through the fronts means torque steer, but in addition to equal-length halfshafts, our car came with the optional limited-slip differential, a rarity among small front-drivers and worth its weight on the option box. All SS models get 18-inch wheels (we remember when the Corvette got 16-inch wheels just about 15 years ago!), 215/45 tires and Recaro seats so grippy we felt like a hardball socked into a baseball glove. The SS stickers for just $21,995.
For several miles on the twisty road Heinricy let the tires slip into a little understeer here, a little oversteer there (more under than over). Nailing the throttle out of each corner, he described an arc through the corners that seemed obvious to us only when he expertly threaded it. The SS has a high entertainment value.
When Heinricy handed the car back to us, there was brake dust coating the brakes and heat waves pouring from underhood. Our ride had been instructive, and we now felt more comfortable tossing the SS through turns. We wound up having a much better time with it than we might otherwise have had.
How does the Cobalt SS stack up against the competition? It will easily be the closest the former maker of the Cavalier has ever come to acceptance in this highly competitive, highly style-conscious slot. The SS is fun, tossable, safe, and with a nicely done aero kit, even racy looking. We would have no problem cruising the NOPI Nationals parking lot in this, maybe even drag racing a few punks at red lights in Atlanta.
But the Focus, while lacking any significant power since the SVT model died, still has a suspension that is more sophis*ti*cated and responsive than the Cobalt’s front-strut, twist-beam-rear setup; the Dodge SRT-4 still has 25 more horsepower stock, even more when you add Stages I, II and III parts; and competitors from the 175-hp Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec-V, which also has a limited-slip, to the 200-hp Acura RSX aren’t going to roll over and die just because the Cavalier replacement decided to pay attention to performance this time. And there will certainly be kids who ask their parents to add 10 grand to get the mighty and fearless Mitsubishi Evo, Subaru WRX STi and Volkswagen Golf R32, all three of which outpower and outperform this entry.
Getting “respect on the scene” isn’t easy for anyone, but Chevy is ready to have at it with the Cobalt SS.
That’s not all Cobalt has to do, of course. While it no longer has to sell to the very bottom of the market, thanks to the miserable Chevy (Daewoo) Aveo, the Cobalt must still please a huge swath of subcompact buyers, the vast majority of whom don’t know or care what a limited-slip diff limits. So there are more econocar-conscious coupe and sedan versions of the Cobalt as well.
The base Cobalt coupe and sedan each costs just $14,190, including destination. With those models you get the same all-new Delta platform shared with the rest of the Cobalt line, the Saturn Ion, and in a slightly altered form, the Euro-market Opel Astra. All Cobalts are built with loads of sound-deadening for the passengers. Thus, money that would normally have been “saved” went into special acoustic-absorbent steel, quiet engine mounts and hydraulic bushings. Even the base Cobalt gets antiroll bars front and rear.
The base model also shares the 2.2-liter, 145-hp, 155-lb-ft Ecotec four with the LS coupe and sedan as well as the LT sedan. The LS and LT models come with four-wheel discs with ABS and a progressively more grand list of features. You can even get XM satellite radio in a Cobalt, which is just as entertaining here as it is in a Cadillac.
Will Chevy now make a profit in the small car business? We bet yes. The problem is, even the small car business isn’t so small anymore.
MARK VAUGHN
Published Date: 1/10/05
2005 CHEVROLET COBALT SS
ON SALE: Now
BASE PRICE: $21,995
POWERTRAIN: 2.0-liter, 205-hp, 200-lb-ft supercharged I4; fwd, five-speed manual
CURB WEIGHT: 2806 pounds
0 TO 60 MPH: 6.5 seconds (est.)
http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=101559
01-13-2005, 01:26 PM
#4
Premium Member
Join Date: 04-17-04
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whats the use in comparing the Cobalt to cars that cost 50% more then the cobalt? (Evo, R32, STi) It's quite obvious that those cars are in a completely different class, one that caters to an older and richer demographic.
I found the article very uninformative and incomplete, especially the info on the base models.
I found the article very uninformative and incomplete, especially the info on the base models.
01-13-2005, 01:48 PM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: 04-11-04
Location: patterson, ca
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
honestly the car is roughly in the same class fully equiped cobalt ss s/c w/ performance package sunroof and everything will cost around 24-25k and you can get evo's and sti's for around 28-30k so kind of in the same ball park. definatly in rsx ball park and wrx ball park. i'm pissed is that the compare it to cars that dont come close in price/quality/performance, ie. civic's hundai tiburan, toyota celica's all those are considerably cheaper and dont have nearly as good performance. they should compare against, srt-4, wrx, s2000, rsx -s, possibly, sure s2000 is more money but performance wise its in the same category. it seems every one gets mad about magazines comparing against evo's r32 and all that becaue theyre more expensive by around 3k which isnt much, but they like it when they compare with a car that isnt even close to performance/cost. like civic's, hundais, toyota corolla. everyone likes that. quality wise those are all better possibly and for around 5k+ less than a standard cobalt ss. come on people dont get mad that theyre comparing it to a car thats more expensive, for the price that gm is making it it should damn well have competed performance wise with those cars or atleast beat a standard wrx and match srt-4 times in the 1/4 not just handling.
01-13-2005, 02:08 PM
#6
Member
Join Date: 12-13-04
Location: SoCal
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it does compete to a degree, the stock SRT's times 0-60 are around 5.8 or so, the cobalt in the low 6's. Basically I think that the supercharger was a different approach, instead of copying dodge they ousted them with Low end power instead of turbo lag.
Now as to what it can be compared to, I mean you have to look at figures, price ranges. Also people are getting pretty good rebates on these cobalts, making them cheaper than SRT's, WRX's, and the whole like. As much as maybe they should of upped the performance, I think its good enough for its price range, and plus this is Chevy's first step into having REAL compact car performance come from the factory. As to the others, sure they all have their strengths, weaknesses, but all in all the Cobalt appeals to me more than all these run down, older models (lol cmon SRT's are two years old now!) so we can all be part of the next best thing guys! That review wasnt the best because it did cover cars that were in a different price range (they base everything on NEW cars, sure you can get an EVO for 28,000, but its a 2003!) and different performance ranges. All in a all I think the Cobalt IS a competitor to many of the models in which it precedes, and with all the prospects for tuning coming out every day, I wouldn't doubt we start beating them!
We don't beat 1/4 times for WRX's (AWD...) and we don't match power from SRT's, but we can sure make some more.
Now as to what it can be compared to, I mean you have to look at figures, price ranges. Also people are getting pretty good rebates on these cobalts, making them cheaper than SRT's, WRX's, and the whole like. As much as maybe they should of upped the performance, I think its good enough for its price range, and plus this is Chevy's first step into having REAL compact car performance come from the factory. As to the others, sure they all have their strengths, weaknesses, but all in all the Cobalt appeals to me more than all these run down, older models (lol cmon SRT's are two years old now!) so we can all be part of the next best thing guys! That review wasnt the best because it did cover cars that were in a different price range (they base everything on NEW cars, sure you can get an EVO for 28,000, but its a 2003!) and different performance ranges. All in a all I think the Cobalt IS a competitor to many of the models in which it precedes, and with all the prospects for tuning coming out every day, I wouldn't doubt we start beating them!
We don't beat 1/4 times for WRX's (AWD...) and we don't match power from SRT's, but we can sure make some more.
01-13-2005, 02:13 PM
#7
Member
Join Date: 12-19-04
Location: Halifax
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in response to Eddie;
^ ^ ^ hummm the Cobalt is Chevy's intro compact car (lets not count the aveo etc since they are not GM designed and Chevy has (too)many more small car models than other manufatures).
having said that;
The cobalt is in direct competition with the Civic, Corolla, Neon and Focus. Notice all are in the same starting and ending price (the 14-23K marks, i live in CAN so my prices are a little different). Notice all of these cars are economy cars with a higher performance model (Si, XRS, SRT and SVT). So... these are the cars that should be compared to the Cobalt.
^ ^ ^ hummm the Cobalt is Chevy's intro compact car (lets not count the aveo etc since they are not GM designed and Chevy has (too)many more small car models than other manufatures).
having said that;
The cobalt is in direct competition with the Civic, Corolla, Neon and Focus. Notice all are in the same starting and ending price (the 14-23K marks, i live in CAN so my prices are a little different). Notice all of these cars are economy cars with a higher performance model (Si, XRS, SRT and SVT). So... these are the cars that should be compared to the Cobalt.
Last edited by osmose; 01-13-2005 at 02:17 PM. Reason: to address the right comment
01-13-2005, 02:34 PM
#8
Moderator Alumni
Originally Posted by zstyle
Whats the use in comparing the Cobalt to cars that cost 50% more then the cobalt? (Evo, R32, STi) It's quite obvious that those cars are in a completely different class, one that caters to an older and richer demographic.
I found the article very uninformative and incomplete, especially the info on the base models.
I found the article very uninformative and incomplete, especially the info on the base models.
01-13-2005, 03:26 PM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: 04-11-04
Location: patterson, ca
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the cobalt that will compare to the performance version of corolla, focus, civic, tiburon, possibly celica would be 2.4 vvt version not the s/c.
i do agree the other version cobalts are competitive in other aspects, but if u read, what i understand is that some people on this forum and redline forums alike, is that they want to compare their lsj supercharged equiped delta to civic's and other lower models not its direct competitor ie rsx and srt-4, if you read through redline forums you see redline owners going after alot of smaller cars that should be in the class of the 2.4 vvt cobalt, ie civic si. and when an article comes out posting that the ss is being compared to srt-4 is respectable but people get pissed, cuz it has less hp than the srt, then they compare it to the evo and sti they get pissed cuz they cost more so different comparison. when the direct competitors in my opinion are the srt and wrx non sti, and rsx -s not even sure about the rsx s even the new ones are barily achieving 15.0 in the 1/4. in overall comparison yes it should be in that group as in it can handle very well.
so here is what i think of it comparison
cobalt ss s/c should be compared to: (this is w/ the performance lsd and recarros price around 24k - 25k)
srt-4 as far as performance all around (costs less than a cobalt)
WRX all around performance and same price range
rsx -s all around performance same price range
STI slightly higher price range over all fit and finish and feel of the car
evo, " "
R32 all around performance and price range
s2000 much higher pricerange but overall performance
even if the cobalt ss s/c would finish last in a comparison i would still be proud cuz it would do good in some aspects others not as every car would. i just get pissed with redline owners try to compare w/ the cars listed below, you are much faster, cost around 4-5 k more, and possibly the same fit and finish. so dont compare with those compare w/ the ones above.
Cobalt w/ 2.4vvt should compete w/ in every way, price, performance, fit and finish
civic si
tiburon
eclipse gt, gts (V6)
celica gts
rsx
corolla xrs
focus svt
cobalt 2.2
civic ex models
gs model eclips
gt celica's
and all other mediocre performance cars
focus
neon
aveo should compete w/
economy cars for the value like what cavalier was engineered for
i do agree the other version cobalts are competitive in other aspects, but if u read, what i understand is that some people on this forum and redline forums alike, is that they want to compare their lsj supercharged equiped delta to civic's and other lower models not its direct competitor ie rsx and srt-4, if you read through redline forums you see redline owners going after alot of smaller cars that should be in the class of the 2.4 vvt cobalt, ie civic si. and when an article comes out posting that the ss is being compared to srt-4 is respectable but people get pissed, cuz it has less hp than the srt, then they compare it to the evo and sti they get pissed cuz they cost more so different comparison. when the direct competitors in my opinion are the srt and wrx non sti, and rsx -s not even sure about the rsx s even the new ones are barily achieving 15.0 in the 1/4. in overall comparison yes it should be in that group as in it can handle very well.
so here is what i think of it comparison
cobalt ss s/c should be compared to: (this is w/ the performance lsd and recarros price around 24k - 25k)
srt-4 as far as performance all around (costs less than a cobalt)
WRX all around performance and same price range
rsx -s all around performance same price range
STI slightly higher price range over all fit and finish and feel of the car
evo, " "
R32 all around performance and price range
s2000 much higher pricerange but overall performance
even if the cobalt ss s/c would finish last in a comparison i would still be proud cuz it would do good in some aspects others not as every car would. i just get pissed with redline owners try to compare w/ the cars listed below, you are much faster, cost around 4-5 k more, and possibly the same fit and finish. so dont compare with those compare w/ the ones above.
Cobalt w/ 2.4vvt should compete w/ in every way, price, performance, fit and finish
civic si
tiburon
eclipse gt, gts (V6)
celica gts
rsx
corolla xrs
focus svt
cobalt 2.2
civic ex models
gs model eclips
gt celica's
and all other mediocre performance cars
focus
neon
aveo should compete w/
economy cars for the value like what cavalier was engineered for
01-13-2005, 10:08 PM
#10
Premium Member
Join Date: 04-17-04
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eddie:
I went ahead and reconfirmed my suspisions about prices in Canada.
Cobalt SS SC base price: $24,995
Neon SRT-4: $27,500
WRX: $35,495
WRX STi: $46,995
We can't get evo or R32, but even the GTI is $34,900.
That is a biiiiig damn difference in price to the STi. As for your "2.4 SS list", good luck finding one on that list that is more then $1000 cheaper then the SS SC, and most are more expensive.
You may say that we should compare cars by performance. I'm fine with saying, "the cobalt outperforms most cars in it's price range, and is in the running with those in a higher range" but if you are going to class the cobalt, class it by price as well. Obviously I know the EVO and STi are better cars... but I won't even consider paying that amount of money for them, they are well out of my price range. Thats why I think it's stupid to compare them.
I went ahead and reconfirmed my suspisions about prices in Canada.
Cobalt SS SC base price: $24,995
Neon SRT-4: $27,500
WRX: $35,495
WRX STi: $46,995
We can't get evo or R32, but even the GTI is $34,900.
That is a biiiiig damn difference in price to the STi. As for your "2.4 SS list", good luck finding one on that list that is more then $1000 cheaper then the SS SC, and most are more expensive.
You may say that we should compare cars by performance. I'm fine with saying, "the cobalt outperforms most cars in it's price range, and is in the running with those in a higher range" but if you are going to class the cobalt, class it by price as well. Obviously I know the EVO and STi are better cars... but I won't even consider paying that amount of money for them, they are well out of my price range. Thats why I think it's stupid to compare them.
01-13-2005, 10:11 PM
#11
Member
Join Date: 12-19-04
Location: Halifax
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by zstyle
Eddie:
I went ahead and reconfirmed my suspisions about prices in Canada.
Cobalt SS SC base price: $24,995
Neon SRT-4: $27,500
WRX: $35,495
WRX STi: $46,995
We can't get evo or R32, but even the GTI is $34,900.
That is a biiiiig damn difference in price to the STi. As for your "2.4 SS list", good luck finding one on that list that is more then $1000 cheaper then the SS SC, and most are more expensive.
You may say that we should compare cars by performance. I'm fine with saying, "the cobalt outperforms most cars in it's price range, and is in the running with those in a higher range" but if you are going to class the cobalt, class it by price as well. Obviously I know the EVO and STi are better cars... but I won't even consider paying that amount of money for them, they are well out of my price range. Thats why I think it's stupid to compare them.
I went ahead and reconfirmed my suspisions about prices in Canada.
Cobalt SS SC base price: $24,995
Neon SRT-4: $27,500
WRX: $35,495
WRX STi: $46,995
We can't get evo or R32, but even the GTI is $34,900.
That is a biiiiig damn difference in price to the STi. As for your "2.4 SS list", good luck finding one on that list that is more then $1000 cheaper then the SS SC, and most are more expensive.
You may say that we should compare cars by performance. I'm fine with saying, "the cobalt outperforms most cars in it's price range, and is in the running with those in a higher range" but if you are going to class the cobalt, class it by price as well. Obviously I know the EVO and STi are better cars... but I won't even consider paying that amount of money for them, they are well out of my price range. Thats why I think it's stupid to compare them.
01-13-2005, 11:29 PM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: 01-12-05
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok Ok OK..... here is the actual price for the Cobalt SS with everything on it minus the Onstar: $22,373.85 (usd) This is my final price for mine. This will not change, no haggaling, no fuss, no rebates, nothing just straight forward pricing. this is from Andes Chevy, Ponti, Buick, GMC in Lawrenceburg IN. You can get a hold of them also and get the same price at any time.
01-14-2005, 02:28 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: 04-11-04
Location: patterson, ca
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
damn didnt realize the canadian prices were so different, i figured that yess they would be higher but still thought that the cobalt ss s/c would be more expensive than the srt-4 like it is here, and about the same price for the rsx -s, wrx. and prices for the sti are out there thats insane. damn talk about dollar value differences and profit margins. gees even with with everything costing more cuz the dollar is more expensive? sorry flunked economics he he. there is alot of profit being made from the cars imo. geez
01-20-2005, 06:33 AM
#14
New Member
Join Date: 01-12-05
Location: Hixson,Tennessee
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When will the SS be out?
undefinedDo any of y'all know when the SS Supercharged model comes out? I'm supposed to be getting one on a certain day BUT how am I supposed to get it when I don't know when it'll be out?!?
01-20-2005, 10:02 AM
#15
Premium Member
Join Date: 04-13-04
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know about you guys i enjoyed reading th article. All he's doing is hyping up the Cobalt. Take is easy I'm sure the numbers for the will come out soon or are already out and nobody has found them yet.
02-21-2006, 04:59 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-01-05
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,589
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How is it that the R32 beats the Cobalt? From the numbers I have seen, the cars are pretty even. The R32's only advantag is AWD, which doen't do much considering the car is a 3400 lb slug!
Cobalt SS Supercharged:
Volkswagon R32:
and,
So, could someone explain how the R32 is so much better of a performer than the Cobalt SS/SC??? The SS/SC posts a quicker 0-60 time (5.9 sec vs. 6.0 sec), only a .1 second slower quarter 3 MPH faster through the trap. It also has a virtually identical skidpag figure (0.88g vs. 0.89g), and has a higher top speed (145 MPH vs. 130 MPH, albeit governed).
So, for six thousand less, you get a car with the identical performance!
Cobalt SS Supercharged:
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....rticle_id=9753
Chevrolet Cobalt SS Supercharged
Vehicle type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 2-door coupe
Price as tested: $24,560 (base price: $21,995)
Engine type: supercharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injection
Displacement: 122 cu in, 1998cc
Power (SAE net): 205 bhp @ 5600 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 200 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmission: 5-speed manual
Wheelbase: 103.3 in
Length/width/height: 180.3/67.9/55.7 in
Curb weight: 2911 lb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero to 60 mph: 5.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 14.4 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 29.8 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 6.2 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 14.4 sec @ 100 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 145 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 160 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.88 g
EPA fuel economy, city driving: 23 mpg
C/D-observed fuel economy: 20 mpg
Chevrolet Cobalt SS Supercharged
Vehicle type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 2-door coupe
Price as tested: $24,560 (base price: $21,995)
Engine type: supercharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injection
Displacement: 122 cu in, 1998cc
Power (SAE net): 205 bhp @ 5600 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 200 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmission: 5-speed manual
Wheelbase: 103.3 in
Length/width/height: 180.3/67.9/55.7 in
Curb weight: 2911 lb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero to 60 mph: 5.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 14.4 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 29.8 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 6.2 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 14.4 sec @ 100 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 145 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 160 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.88 g
EPA fuel economy, city driving: 23 mpg
C/D-observed fuel economy: 20 mpg
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....rticle_id=8413
Vehicle type: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 3-door coupe
Price as tested: $30,625 (base price: $29,675)
Engine type: DOHC 24-valve V-6, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injection Displacement: 195 cu in, 3189cc
Power (SAE net): 240 bhp @ 6250 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 236 lb-ft @ 2800 rpm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmission: 6-speed manual
Wheelbase: 99.1 in
Length/width/height: 164.4/68.3/56.1 in
Curb weight: 3397 lb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero to 60 mph: 6.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 15.2 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 6.8 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 14.3 sec @ 97 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 128 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 158 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.89 g
EPA fuel economy, city driving: 19 mpg
Vehicle type: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 3-door coupe
Price as tested: $30,625 (base price: $29,675)
Engine type: DOHC 24-valve V-6, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injection Displacement: 195 cu in, 3189cc
Power (SAE net): 240 bhp @ 6250 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 236 lb-ft @ 2800 rpm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmission: 6-speed manual
Wheelbase: 99.1 in
Length/width/height: 164.4/68.3/56.1 in
Curb weight: 3397 lb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero to 60 mph: 6.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 15.2 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 6.8 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 14.3 sec @ 97 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 128 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 158 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.89 g
EPA fuel economy, city driving: 19 mpg
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....rticle_id=8006
VOLKSWAGEN R32
Vehicle type: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 3-door coupe
Base price: $29,675
Engine type: DOHC 24-valve V-6, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injection
Displacement: 195 cu in, 3189cc
Power (SAE net): 240 bhp @ 6250 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 236 lb-ft @ 2800 rpm
Transmission: 6-speed manual
Wheelbase: 99.1 in
Length/width/height: 164.4/68.3/56.1 in
Curb weight: 3400 lb
Manufacturer's performance ratings:
Zero to 60 mph: 6.4 sec
Top speed (governor limited): 130 mph
Estimated fuel economy:
EPA city driving: 19 mpg
EPA highway driving: 26 mpg
VOLKSWAGEN R32
Vehicle type: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 3-door coupe
Base price: $29,675
Engine type: DOHC 24-valve V-6, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injection
Displacement: 195 cu in, 3189cc
Power (SAE net): 240 bhp @ 6250 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 236 lb-ft @ 2800 rpm
Transmission: 6-speed manual
Wheelbase: 99.1 in
Length/width/height: 164.4/68.3/56.1 in
Curb weight: 3400 lb
Manufacturer's performance ratings:
Zero to 60 mph: 6.4 sec
Top speed (governor limited): 130 mph
Estimated fuel economy:
EPA city driving: 19 mpg
EPA highway driving: 26 mpg
So, for six thousand less, you get a car with the identical performance!
03-27-2006, 12:07 PM
#19
New Member
Join Date: 03-27-06
Location: USA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just test drove sssc. I like the use of the supercharger rather than the turbo. As far as competition to other cars, at original price it should have been able to compete with wrx tr. I was aghast at the sssc handling. It was bumpy and rolliciking on turns. On my way home I drove the same route as my test drive. My 10 tear old saab handled the turns better and smoother. Extremely disappointed in handling. Visibility is hazardous. Also entry to back seat is ardous. The front passenger seat doesn't slide forward. I think for a modern "state of the art" compact sport the handling was horrible.
03-27-2006, 12:56 PM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: 02-25-06
Location: El Paso
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
same numbers as SRT4......
The '03 car ran to 60 mph in 5.6 seconds and cleared the quarter in 14.1 seconds at 102 mph. The '04 model nipped 0.3 second off the 60-mph sprint (5.3 seconds) and ran the quarter in 13.9 at 103 mph. Braking from 70 mph (169 feet), roadholding (0.86 g), and top speed (153 mph) were all about the same for both models.
quoted Car and Driver 04 review
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....rticle_id=7871
The '03 car ran to 60 mph in 5.6 seconds and cleared the quarter in 14.1 seconds at 102 mph. The '04 model nipped 0.3 second off the 60-mph sprint (5.3 seconds) and ran the quarter in 13.9 at 103 mph. Braking from 70 mph (169 feet), roadholding (0.86 g), and top speed (153 mph) were all about the same for both models.
quoted Car and Driver 04 review
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....rticle_id=7871
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post