none of the above, ss/na 2.4L and buy your own damn turbo more power ftw, will cost u a little more in the long run but from what i hear (havent got the turbo yet) its quick as hell

 

had a tc totaled it,now looking for another one.hope that answers your question

 

i have a T/C, drove a S/C. S/C is so slow stock to stock.

 

isnt there more maint. needed on a TC?

 

like what ^?

 

Depends what you are looking for out of the car. I haven't had any problems with my SS/SC. Never drove a SS/TC but obviously you are going to get more power out of a turbo setup.

 

well since u have oil feed involved and isnt tuning always needed periodically.?. all the piping and fact of running all the engine components harder..

 

change your fluids and check your cp for leaks, just maint like on any other car, the tuning idk about

 

i have a SC and when i went to test drive a TC i was just unimpressed my balt at the time was tuned on the stock pully basic bolt ons and a few suspension and brake upgrades yea i was about 2g into it at the time but the tc would have been a down grade for me and well another 4-5 years paying for the same car not worth it IMO and i like the recaro seats over the TC seats
Not to take away from the TC bc its a great car with a ton of potential

 

TC/SS has upgraded suspension, wheels, tires, engine, seats, knuckles, axels, rpd as option.

TC is so cheap now theres no reason not to, unless you are real horny for a SC.

 

electrical turbo fuses? haha jk Theres no more maintenance than a standard car. Change oil, coolant, sparkplugs, trans fluid....:shrug: SC can have internal issues as well as a turbo...

 

exactly just your typical maint. like i said

 

Just my take..you really can't compare em. With all respect to SC people, there's simply NO comparison if you look stock to stock..NONE. For a measly $350 or so, you can have the TC tuned to 290 WHEEL HP with NO OTHERS MODS and you now have a car that only the most heavily moded SC can measure up to....not to mention the suspension differences, limited slip ( already on most stock TCs), brakes..etc.
This isn't a put down on the SC, which can be made to be very nice indeed. The OP asked to compare em (more or less)...apples and oranges. I can't imagine why one would prefer the SC over the TC....except for cost considerations of purchase.

 

I looked at about a 150 mile radius for a SS and found the ss/sc range was $13k to $15k with a range of 24k to 70k in miles. The ss/tc starting range used was around $20k or so.k
Therefore the tc was more expensive in my area at least and was out of my league. I got lucky though and found a ss/sc for $12.9 with 31k in miles on it. Even better when i found out it was already a stage two.

With a simple stage two kit which is about $600 from a dealer my car was able to run a 13.6@103. That a pretty impressive list cars you can run with stock. This is still not touching the potential of the car yet . The supercharger has a beautiful sound to it as well. You can twincharge the sc as well and run 11's if not low 12' for the cost of what the tc was in my area.


The TC comes with 60 more hp stock and has somte really nice features to it. It suppose to run 13.9 stock and is an impressive little ride. Gains with just a tune are pretty nuts as well. Sad part is i see plenty of people running 14.0 to 14.5 in them, not sure if its a driver mod issue or what.

If i had a choice i would stick with the supercharged version. Budget was a factor in this decision though when i picked my car, i would most likely have chosen a tc if i had the money.

 

Wish my Cobalt was a TC instead of a SC.
Couldn't find a tc in my area at the time (in my price range)

 

Buy a SS/SC, and turbo swap it. Then sell the SC set up to a lame 2.2 or 2.4 owner JK.

But seriously. Buy a LSJ, and turbo it.

 

No it doesnt.

The 205hp rating for a stock SS/SC is crap (underrated from the factory). They make on avg. 210-215whp stock which puts them more around 230-235bhp. SS/TC's make around 240whp stock.

End rant.

Now for my opinion. Both are nice cars. Both can be made fast. Both can be made to handle equally as good. It all depends on what you prefer more. If I were to buy a Cobalt now I would get a SS/TC only because you can still find new 2010's. I would never buy a used SS/SC or SS/TC due to the majority of the owners being kids that abuse the **** out of them.

 

they were;
of the 3,040 2009 SS coupes built, 836 were built with the RPD.

As mentioned earlier the RPD (rpo: UAF) was not available to the sedans.

From reading here, there was a delay on RPD's being available state-side, and an even longer delay on it being available for Canadian cars - but that's it... all the 2010's came with the RPD.

@ the OP;
the SS/TC's will of course be more expensive, because aside from them being newer, most will have less mileage than the SS/SC's.

As you've read, most people are biased towards what they drive, but I think this is hte very first SC vs TC thread that is leaning towards the TC!?

I like them both, but it was the TC that brought me to buy one.

 

TC all the way, but my SC with my mods is one of the faster cars in my town, which is rather depressing, but I'm happy with it for now

 

You can *rant* all ya want
Stock for stock a TC will CREAM an SC to 100 MPH... those #s you quoted mean NOTHING.
This from GM. Look at the difference in TORQUE curves.

Ignore other cars here:




TC 0-100 12.8/ Qtr 13.9@ 104
http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezfl...6c299485d5.pdf


SC 0-100 15.9/ Qtr 14.8 @97
2005 Chevrolet Cobalt SS - 0-60mph, 0-100mph & 1/4 mile :: TorqueStats.com

 

ULWiz was just quoting GM's advertised hp numbers - and for that he was correct.

Yes the SS/SC was a little underrated from the factory, but Staged07 is (unintentionally?) playing the numbers game to make it look like the SS/TC is only 5whp different...

Don't be played - the only way you can honestly compare dynoed hp numbers, is if the cars are dynoed back to back, on the same dyno;
there are just too many variables to make dynoed numbers different.

Case & point to support more than a 5(w)hp difference;
At the local track stock for stock, I am a full second as well as 8mph faster than a SS/SC - any way that you look at it, this would indicate a little more than 5(w)hp difference between the cars...
Also I was (iirc) 3/10ths faster than a Stage 2 Cobalt SS/SC - how much of that was driver error ~ who knows... but theoretical hp numbers are useless if you can't put any practical application to it.

Here's another spin on it;

Using THIS calculator, setting vehicle weight at 3,000lbs, and the E/T's on Wikipedia, the SC is estimated to make 216.36 HP, while the TC is estimated to make 238.32 HP.

In the end, there is more than 5(w)hp...

I still like the SC, and right now you can get one at a much better price than a TC - so it's really up to you;
I just want to try to make you as informed as possible.

Aside from any performance stats, I really like both the TC exclusive wheels, and front seats over the SC...
Also small things started to be deleted (probably as cost savings measures) between the SC & TC;
SC: pained roof seams (or what ever they're called)
TC: black roof seams
SC: three "Supercharged" badges
TC: one "Turbocharged" badge
SC: all came with SS badges above the glovebox door
TC: the SS badge above the glovebox door was deleted roughly half way through the 2009 model year.
SC: optional leather/heated buckets

There are also differences between standard and optional factory decks, and even though I wouldn't have ordered it, I really like the USB Radio - I find I often use the USB more than anything else!

 

I'm not playing any numbers game.

I'm just stating the truth. Note that I like both cars. I'm not trying to make the SS/TC look like it is not that far off from a SS/SC. I wanted to get things straight for people who dont know.

Also where are you getting this 5whp from??

I said the stock SS/SC is more like 230-235bhp not whp. It is still 30bhp short of a stock SS/TC, but it is not 55bhp short like all the magazines claim. This is what I was trying to make clear.

I also know that a stock SS/TC is faster stock for stock. No need to waist your time showing me graphs, calculations, etc. I've been around the Cobalt seen for a while now.

 

my 2.2 ls/tc

 

2.4 turbo. havent lost to any lsj's at all.. although there is a turbo one in my club currently.. if i ever wreck my car and have to get another car thats in the balt price range id go with an lsj and turbo it.

 

ok, my bad.

I misread this;

apparently I didn't read your post closely enough because I saw 235 vs 240.

my bad.



ok, maybe you misread my post - or confused me with another - because I had no graphs, or calculations in my post. Ronn had some graphs, and I gave links to a horsepower calculator... but that's it.