Hi ! I found this link on the ClubRSX Forum, someone who made a video capture, an evaluation of the RSX-S, the WRX, the SRT-4, the SS/SC and the Ion Redline ...

http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread.php?t=297509

 

thanks for the vid. still d/l the vid.

 

haha, great vid.

 

Well thanks for the link, but I can't say I agree with C&D's rankings at all.

First off its called "Cheap Speed", they mention that multiple times in the vid. Then they go and pick the slowest and most expensive car as the winner

There's also no way the Cobalt SS S/C should have been ranked 4th among those vehicles. Its almost as fast as the SRT-4, yet more refined, much more attractive, and easier to live with - they obviously are taking those things into consideration in the test (which is why the RSX-S apparently won), so why is the SRT-4 ahead of the Cobalt SS?? The WRX is only quicker than the SS S/C from a dig, its not very attractive (4-door??), the interior is nothing to brag about (Cobalts is much better IMO), and they mentioned the turbo lag as being an issue. Yet it recieves 2nd place

I'm glad I don't subscribe to C&D, because it I did, I would be cancelling my subscription right now.

 

Don't worry what C&D says. As long as your happy with your ride that should be all that matters. As cliche as that sounds.

 

speed isn't everything. they are basing this on other factors. do you know how many car mags have ragged on the rsx-s? this is one of the very few i have seen actually giving the rsx-s a good word. the cobalt SS just came out so of course they will be scepticle about it. give it a few years and let GM prove to them that the cobalt is here to stay and they will respect it more. it just trips me out when i see cobalt owners lose their heads over a car mag test drive.

 

for real ppl have different thoughts about cars and in the end if you like your car thats all that matters....

 

I think in this case it should have been, considering the comparo was being called Cheap Speed. You have to admit that the outcome is rather odd.

 

I dont mind what they say, because i know that i would rather have my car over the rest of them(why i bought it) so if a magazine gets u upset, just get a motor trend, or something else that makes a cobalt look better.

 

Reviews are a matter of personal opinion, whether biased or not. This goes for cars and everything else in life. I agree that each car has positives and negatives. Everyone weighs in each issue in the decision to purchase a car and decides on the car that suits that one INDIVIDUAL the best. Everyone should be happy on the car that they decide on (or perhaps given). I believe cars in general are (and should be) a matter of personal taste and expression rather than "hey mine is better/faster/stronger than yours".

 

Good Point if you are doing an article on cheap speed then you would definately have to admit this is how it should have finished.
1. SRT-4
2. Cobalt SS
3. WRX (The WRX and the cobalt could be swapped depends on testing environment)
4. RSX-S
5. Redline (Sorry, but it is still most recyclable
Now if you want to compare fit and finish as well as engineering This is the list
1. RSX-S
2. Coblat SS
3. WRX
4. SRT-4
5. Redline
P.S. Everyone on this forum knows we would still kick the s_it out of an rsx-s in a race!!!!!!!!
To all you RSX-S owners just remember a COBALT SS will beat you any day of the week!!!

 

4th !!!!!!! thats horse ****.

My review

I know prices are diff in States, these are canadian all base MSRP.

All around Performace

1) WRX
2) Cobalt SS
3) SRT4
4) RSX-S
5) Redline

Looks (I/E)

1) Cobalt SS
2) RSX-S
3) SRT4
4) WRX
5) Redline

Price (Bang 4 $)

1) Cobalt SS - 24,995
2) SRT4 - 27,490
3) Redline - 27,140
4) WRX - 35,495
5) RSX-S - 33,000

let me know what you think Ill justicfy anything I said to anyone.

 

Has anyone ever known C&D to pick a domestic over an import in a comparo review anyway? They're all Honda fanboys over there...

 

i don't get this, the cobalt and RL are essentially the same car...

 

Nobody here is "losing their head", we're just having a discussion about the article, which most of us don't agree with.

As for speed "not being everything", maybe you should re-road the title of the article. Its called Cheap Speed!! Therefore one would assume that they are basing a significant portion of the ratings on the performance for the money

Yet the vehicle that ends up winning is the slowest and most expensive out of the group. How does that figure?? Obviously they need to take into consideration such things as quality and refinement, but that should be a small portion of the overall test. If that were the case, it would have been close call between the SRT-4 and SS S/C - and the Cobalt probably would have edged it out being that its a much nicer vehicle in terms of quality and appearance.

Based on the ratings they came up with though, you'd think the article was based on which car has the nicest ride

 

Sorry Vita, not to burst your bubble, but the only thing these cars share are the engine and the chassis. EVERYTHING else is different (i.e. ride quality, fit and finish, refined feeling).

 

drivetrain, chassis and suspension all equate to overall performance, not fit and finish and refined feeling. the RL is definitely not NEARLY as refined, but for overall performance they are essentially the same car.

in fact i seem to recall a recent test where the RL outperforms a cobalt.

i love both cars, but to put the cobalt # 2 with the RL # 5 in overall performance seems out of place.

 

the wrx is the most expensive out of the group.

as for speed, it looked like the tests they took were around some cones not a straight away. if that was the case the 05 rsx-s will be favored to win due to their independent front and rear suspension unlike the cobalt SS which only has independent front suspension and semi-independent rear suspension. the rsx-s also sits lower than the SS w/ 54.9in to the cobalt SS 55.5in and the cobalt is almost about 200lbs heavier than the rsx-s.

 

They actually gave a bad review of the interior looks of the SS. They said it was bland and boring. But, they showed the G85 packaged one, which hardly anyone owns. If they would used the colored insert version, which most have, I bet it woulda got one of the best reviews for interior looks.

 

Did you completely miss their autocross times? The SRT-4 is nearly a spec racer, and it has Konis and lightweight BBS wheels no less. The ION and Cobalt were right there...and what did the RSX and WRX do? Oh yeah, 1.5-2 seconds SLOWER!

The fancy independent rear links in the RSX are there to give it a more compliant ride while maintaining handling prowess. The ride height has almost no bearing on handling, as the COG is much less important than suspension geometry for these cars. The weight didn't have much to do either.

So, why is the RSX better again?

 

The didn't like the steering on the SS/SC and Redline or the transmission/gear shift.

They have a bit of a point on the steering as it's sometimes a little shift, but I don't understand what their problem with the transmission is. They also bitched about the rear lock out on the gear shifter too, I suppose one of the editors couldn't figure it out

They also said the engine makes lots of weird noises, which it does.

They did say the Cobalt tracked nicely down the road, but felt a little heavy on it's feet.

It's obvious that performance didn't have anything to do with the final scores and it was all about their personal prefereneces.

 

looking at stats you will see that the the SS in the performer out of the 2. I have raced a redline stock for stock and put a car length between us. So theres my justification.

 

The only reason you hear any 'wierd' noises is because the cobalt is so QUIET!
That's a good thing.

I love the SS steering. It's nice and tight which is my preference. I'd say the only thing you could nab it for is since it's electric you are removed from the actual road surface feedback. But on the other hand, it gets rid of all those vibrations. so.. it's good or bad depending on how you look at it. Transmission seems fine to me.

Ohhh.. the horrible reverse lockout feature. C'mon.. anyone who ranks a car down for something like that should not be qualified to rank cars.

I agree.. it's quite obvious performance was the LAST factor they bothered to consider.

 

well i've yet to drive a cobalt ss, but looking at stats they are essentially the same car, 205 factory rated horsepower, F35 manual transaxle with the same gear ratios and same final drive.

the fact that you put a car length on a worse driver than yourself doesn't mean one performs better than the other. it's the same drivetrain. the only difference besides look and feel is the fact that the cobalt is slightly heavier, and has more rotating mass to drive at the wheels. all in all it's a drivers race.

i love both cars, but the fact is that they perform nearly identical and putting both the SRT and the RSX between them is as bad as the reviewers themselves putting them both at the bottom of the list.

the SRT WILL outperform the RL or the Cobalt, time after time from a dig, from a roll, it won't pull TOO much, but it WILL pull, the RSX-S is about the same difference down the latter from the Cobalt/RL as they are from the SRT, and though the WRX isn't all that fast from a roll, it'll own us out of a dig (notice the "us").

if people are going to complain about the obvious bias against certain cars in a comparison which shouldn't be expected to be fair from the get go (magazine...), they should at least be unbiased about their own "personal" order.

 

Well, I'm sure I'll get shafted for being an STi owner and being here, but hey, I figured I'd comment on this as well.

Since I own a Subaru, obviously I'm happy that it placed well, but true, it was the slowest and worst handling of the bunch. However, as this guy says, there are other contributing factors to "performance," besides speed and handling. How does it ride? How is the quality? How is the reliability? Does it have good ergonomics? Etc. Out of all the cars in the test, quality-wise (at least interior quality) is probably the best in either the WRX or the STi. Quality is undoubtedly the WORST in the Redline. Their interiors are just horrible.

My first thoughts were that the Cobalt SS got raped. The test was totally unfair. The Cobalt SS was not only quick, but handled exceptionally well. It is also a significant improvement in terms of quality over the Cavalier, and I've heard from numerous sources that the interior quality of the Cobalt is very good for its class.

The SS did everything well. It handled, accelerated, and gave the impression of being pretty well put together. I thought it should've placed 1st in the test.

C&D are very partial towards Hondas/Acuras (they probably receive perks) in general, and no matter how good or how poor a Honda/Acura is, they always seem to win. It's the same story with BMWs. I would hardly base my purchasing decisions off the words of what a few assclowns have to say. From reading the article, here's how I would've placed them:

1. Cobalt SS (best overall performance, exceeds in all areas)
2. Acura RSX (best ride/quality)
3. Subaru WRX (most well-rounded- didn't do anything great, didn't do anything bad)
4. Neon SRT-4 (best straight/cornering performance, nothing else good about it)
5. Saturn Redline (good performance, but shoddy quality at best)

Plain and simple, the Cobalt got ripped.