Going to check out a 2.4 SS Coupe tomorrow. I am not saying I am going to buy it, just going to check it out. It will be an auto because I have to drive 35 miles to DC everyday and for anyone who has been to Washington, DC, you know how bad the traffic is here.

The person I have been emailing just called me (the General Manager, whom I verified via their website), is putting me with the best salesman they have, I am meeting up with both of them, and also the finance director. I dont mess around when I go car shopping, I cover all my bases.

I will update everyone tomorrow, my appointment is at 4pm.

 

Good luck bro

 

Good luck with that... usually before going to a car lot I watch the Seinfeld episode "The Dealer" (and pay specific attention to George's tactics).

 

good luck

 

thanks guys!

 

Hmmph. Well, here is the update. And its not a good one.

*actually, I dont feel like typing much, so I will give highlights*

1) they had -0- SS in stock for me to drive
2) they asked me to drive a 2.2 auto base model, said it was the same thing
3) I didnt drive a thing, walked out, not going back.
4) went to another dealer, found an SS without leather, drove that one instead
5) took it to a road I had JUST tested my car on. from the light to the next intersection, my 2.2 cavy would hit 65, doing my best driving. In the SS, a 2.4 with 30 more hp, but an auto, did its best to muster 55 in the same distance.
6) disappointed, took the car back, drove a 2002 C5 corvette. Yep, thats the car I was meant to own. Screw gas mileage!!

7) didnt buy the vette, they wanted 44k when its only worth 30k.

8) back home, bummed out, catching up on posts.

 

Well, if you go with an auto, that's just the way it's going to be. Manual transmissions are more precise and "fun" to drive. But Automatic saves the left foot from cramping in all of that heavy traffic.

If you don't care about gas mileage an '04 impala SS V6 Supercharged might be the ticket, or if you do, one of the new ones with the V8 and fuel management systems might also be the way to go. (though I've heard the V6 Supercharged actually performs better). I can personally attest to the fact that the '04 Impala will feel like an E-ticket ride at disney when you stomp on the pedal. hehe. And it'll also guzzle the gas too and cost about 50-60 bucks to fill up every week. hehe

In quick stop and go situations, it's Torque that rules the day. Torque will determine how fast you get up to speed. Horsepower only plays out at the top end of the speedometer. The 2.4Litre SS only has like 13 ft. lbs more torque over the 2.2 Litre.

 

if you goto chevy.com you can locate the car you want. thats what i did and i ended up buying it. good luck!

 

This is my first 4 cylinder car and I am used to V8 sports cars. For example, in the camaro's, the auto was actually quicker in the 1/4 than the manual, but at a slower mph. Its the same with the corvette. So I was thinking, hey, 30 more hp, more torque, higher overall gearing, should make for a pretty quick car. WRONG! Although not as sluggish as the Civic I drove, it wouldnt even chirp a tire when I floored it.

WHERE HAS ALL THE TORQUE GONE GM ????????

Although, that vette I drove, now THAT was fun! It was an auto, drove great, handled like a dream, easiest car in the world to drive, ever! MILES above my 95 vette. But there was no way I was paying that much!

Maybe I will go drive one of those 303hp Impala's like was suggested....

 

If you're used to the V8's, then you'll be disappointed in anything else. The Cobalt's about the best in the class as far as torque goes, and it's still a disappointment, there's just no way around the fact that you've only got half the cylinders to play with in a cobalt. Also remember that a Vette's transmission has undergone a lot of extra testing and is extremely precise. The cobalt, when it comes down to it, is still more economy than it is sporty.

 

dont get me wrong, my 2.2 is right spicy, but with these new cars, im just not impressed. The neon srt-4 was fun, and impressive, but not FUN, ya know?

 

Yeah I know. It's why I always make it a point to drive the in-laws car when we go up there to visit. hehe.


Something else though that I forgot to mention, on the Automatics the computer spends some time "learning" shift points according to your style of driving, that could account for a small bit of the loss you're seeing, but I don't think it'd be a 10mph loss like you experienced.

 

It just seems that as new technology comes out and cars get faster, they just arent as "brutal" like the older ones. Like, a stock 90 mustang would boil its tires off for almost 100 feet, but yet the new one can only muster 20-30??? And it has almost 100 more hp ??? Even the dodge line of SRT vehicles, just are not as powerful.

I hear all you guys talking about adding hp, and running these good times, but not one person talks about being traction deprived or the vehicle being hard to control, even with almost 300 at the tires in a FWD platform....

Maybe I am just too old school?

 

Why not Test the SS/SC?

 

dont want another manual. Thats the only reason. I even wanted to test drive the Solstice/Sky with the 2.4 (even more so with the 260hp turbo, when it comes out) but when I tried to even SIT in the thing, it felt like child birth in reverse. I am WAY too tall for that car.

 

Gotcha!

 

A lot of the new cars come with traction control, but yeah I know what you're saying. The new mustangs have a lot of extra weight on them, which is kinda funny because it's supposed to be really retro but the old 65-69 mustangs were light as a feather in comparison. Then you've got all the smog crap and safety devices that add a lot of weight to the vehicle, and the new computers monitor everything and are designed for fuel economy, and not really so much for performance. The only thing the newer cars have over the old ones is that they can break out of the teens in gas mileage, and maybe protect you better in an accident... And I say maybe because the old cars were build really strong. Over Engineered, as they say.


Really as far as speed and track times go, there haven't been any advances in the last 40 years or so. I just watched a show on the old Buick GS and GSX, and it was laying down 13 second times.. Stock. And it had a whopping 515 Ft Lbs of torque. That's some serious torque there. hehe. Those are better track times than some of the new muscle cars put out, and as good as a great many of them.

Although with fuel prices going the way they are, I'm willing to trade down for better fuel mileage. 3 bucks a gallon won't be the end of it. In the next few years I'm guessing gas prices are going to head upwards of 5 dollars a gallon, maybe more thanks to China and it's population of 1,000,000,000 who have just discovered the automobile. heh. Even that new refinery that's being set up off the coast of russia, with supposedly enough oil and natural gas to fuel the world for the next 40 years straight, is not going to be enough to keep prices down. When I fill up our little 2.2LS for 25-30 bucks every 7-10 days, I cringe. I can't imagine people who pay 50-120 a week in gas depending on what they're driving. It almost makes me want to buy a civic. hehe

I was alive just barely long enough to remember the gas lines in the 70's and the death of the station wagon. I'm guessing the SUV's are going to suffer a similar fate in coming years.