cody ss Where'd you go?
I miss you so,
Seems like it's been forever,
That you've been gone.

HAHA,

I have no idea why you guys pick on mustangs the most. If you want one go get one...if you think your cobalt is faster.......test drive a mustang and see for ur self, i am not sayin we are fast....but at least we face defeat...I am talking about the edge mustang not the 05-07...

Alot of the people on this forum are cool people....but you got the ********, that make up those bull **** stories like "Oh i Beat a edge mustang 5 speed"...."And i **** on those autos daily"

Our auto tranny is not that slow to lose to a cobalt. ******* cobalt owners you are not in our leauge ok...

You guys ever gave thought on how a naturally asperated rsx type s can make the same hp without the supercharger?

Oh ya I want to race a stock or near stock cobalt ss in orlando florida....I am stock only with flowmaster mufflers

 

careful what you wish for.......better go from a dig. If you insist on doing that sissy roll crap, it better be a low starting speed.

This is coming from a fellow Mustang owner. 02 GT.

I know there are a lot of mustang haters around here, afterall it is a GM site. On top of that there is a large young crowd, so a lot of E-muscle comes with that. But hey, its their car and they take pride in it, we all do. Some just let their enthusiasm blur reality; that happens with every make/model fan base, including mustangs.

However, not all of them are like that. In fact most are pretty cool once you realize they would take a Geo Metro over any Ford, any day and thats not ever going to change. Dont let the words of a few on the intwerweb get to you.

Please post results of this race if you find anyone up to it. These cars arent the 2nd coming of the LS1 in 4-cylinder form, but one might just surprise you

 

Yeah, Cody's got a pretty low opinion of the New Edge GT's, and a pretty high opinion of Cobalt SS/SC's, but I wouldn't get too cocky if you're driving a stock New Edge Auto GT. Even if you're running relatively well in that car (low 14's), an SS/SC with a good driver is gonna give you one heck of a run for your money... and if you aren't running that great (mid-14's), you could be in trouble.

 

I'm only concerned with your statement which I have left in bold. Since I am a Honda expert, I will tell you why the Honda RSX Type S can deliver 300whp, and also how much it will cost you. 1st- Honda has been in the tuner world here in the states for over 15 years, R & D is done, and Honda now claims the largest aftermarket in the history of autos alongside with the Chevy 350.
2nd- Honda company had expertise in NA horsepower, since this is what makes Honda cars so well at autocross and road courses. Honda does not care to supercharger an already aggressive machine.
3rd- Producing 300whp NA WHP in a K20a will cost you in excess of $5000, and that is assuming you already have the motor. (Swaps cost about $7000 total). So we're looking in between 5-12k dollars for the 300 WHP. You'd have to sleeve and bore the block to huge bore sizes, put $600 set of pistons in, along with $500 dollar rods with EVERYTHING carefully balanced w/ very, very tight clearances and an amazing tuner so you don't blow up your car in 2 days. You would have to have a $2000 dollar head in order to flow enough CFM. The car would also run atleast 12/1 compression, which is doable on 93 octane, but not the most reliable. I couldn't see that motor lasting more than 50,000 miles before a piston fries, or a rod snaps, or the driver mis-shifts at 9000RPM's and bends the valves and throws time. It makes more since to buy a Cobalt SS/SC, which is about $6000 less invoice price, and spend $3000 to have atleast 300whp and running high 12's all day with a very reliable setup. And lets also not forget that the LSJ and the Cobalt are in their infant stage in the tuner world. 3 years from now there will be 350+whp Cobalt's runnin solid 12's crawling all over the place.

All in all it's not fair to compare a Honda performance vehicle of any type to the Cobalt, YET. Honda's are great, and I think a Honda (with enough money dumped into it) will always remain on top, whether it be quarter mile or through the curves. They are superior in design, especially the wishbone setups, like mine. And especially those Honda's that are sub 2400lbs, like hatchbacks and CRX's of the type...when it comes to performance. However, I'm referring to street cars, not racing.

 

This argument seems to be going on forever!

I am by far not a Ford hater. What I do hate is cocky drivers, like most "kids" in their honda's with the big fart cans and 17 different colored body kits. Unfortunately, I've run into a lot of Mustang guys like that also. I will be the first to admit that it seems there are a lot of big heads on this site, but there really aren't any fewer on the mustang sites.

It has been my personal experience that although the mustangs aren't slow, they aren't fast. I have never seen one at the strip running anything less than a 14.2 stock. As a point of comparison, I used to see 1.8t VW GTI's run on them all day, cars that usually pull a 14.0-14.1 at the track. With that being said, my SS/SC can hang with one of those GTI's, which means to me it can definately hang with a Mustang GT. It looks like what it comes down to is the driver.

Again, I am not a Ford hater and quite frankly, I really dislike most Chevy's, especially newer ones. I would just like to point out that Ford has done a lowsy job with the 4.6 modular V8 and its stock ouput. They produce a 3.9l v8 in the Lincolns that make more power, so before you start saying things like "The rsx makes 200 hp without a supercharger", look at your own engine, is it really making what it should be stock?

Just to add some fuel to the fire, I have seen many mid 80's Volvos beat the crap out of Mustangs, INCLUDING COBRAS!!! Just food for thought.

 

So, you've never seen a well-driven 99-04 GT, a Mach 1, or a Cobra run at the track, I guess. This doesn't really tell us anything significant.


OK, so now we're comparing stock to modded?


That was established long ago by better methods than, "this car ran this, and this car ran close to that, and I ran close to the second car, so I am as fast as the first car."


The 3-valve SOHC 4.6 makes 300hp, the Mach 1 makes 305hp, and the N/A Cobras made 320hp. The most powerful 3.9L V8 makes 280hp in the Lincoln LS.


What "should" it be making? Enough to totally STOMP the similarly-priced RSX-S? In that case, yes. Enough that the Mustang is a financially profitable car? Yep. Enough to be at least a driver's race with anything in it's price range? Yep.


Just to add some fuel to the fire, I have seen many mid 80's Volvos beat the crap out of Mustangs, INCLUDING COBRAS!!! Just food for thought.[/QUOTE]

Holy *****!!! I can't believe a modded car could be faster than a Mustang!!! This means absolutely nothing... I've seen a Semi with a Jet engine run the 1/4 in ~10 seconds, too. Meaningless.


Basically, the only thing that was useful in here is the fact that a 99-04 GT and a SS/SC is a drivers' race... which has been said 1,000,000 times. Arguing about specific output is for ricers. Run what you brung. And I know that the fiad06 guy brought it up, not scott, so I'm not bashing you for reminding him that Mustangs aren't exactly technological marvels, either... because they're not. They are, however, good at making money for Ford, their ultimate goal, and providing good bang for the buck. I'll take a cheaper engine that makes 260hp over a more expensive engine that makes 200hp all day... even if it the 260hp engine has twice the displacement... and I'll take the cheaper 220whp engine over the more expensive 170whp engine anyday, even if it's already supercharged.

Obviously, I detest the ricer specific output argument. It's a red herring for the fact that they have no torque, and less power than similarly priced vehicles. Not that it's not impressive in a way, but don't act like your less powerful, equally expensive (or more expensive) car is somehow superior because it has better specific output.

Anyway, Now that I've gotten sufficiently off-topic...

 

called a motor swap... 5.0 motor in them.. its a little know flip flop volvo owners will do because of the ease of the work.

 

2006 Acura RSX-S: 201 HP au 7800rmp, 140 lb of torque at 7000

And this is at the flywheel. Every dyno sheet I've seen has put the HP in the 180s, and the torque 130s-140s.

2006 Cobalt SS/SC 205 HP, 199 TQ, actual HP on dynos: b/w 205 and 220...Torque: 195-205

And you were saying?

 

Hey don't mustangs GT's dyno like 225? LOL 48 hp per litre... NOT impressive

 

The only way you guys are gonna stop arguing about who's car is better is if one of you (Cobalt fans or Mustang fans) take a dive and call your car the lesser of the two. IMO the GT Stang is in the same league as the Balt SS/SC and is comparable. I think the words you guys are lookin for are "high output". Well, my Honda makes well over 100 hp/liter, BUT a Corvette stomps me all day long yet it is not a high ouput (100hp/liter) motor since it only makes around 67 horsepower per liter. But like I said, it STOMPS me all day long. So don't use that as a counterargument. So, the GT isn't as "high output" as the Balt. Who cares. It still runs bout the same, and that's what matters. Another thing, if your gonna hate on ALL Mustangs, you better make sure you can BEAT ALL MUSTANGS, including the Concepts AND the ones to be in the future. A GT is a GT, but a Cobra is something totally different with a totally different engine all together. I've seen 900whp Cobra's on all stock internals, tell me that aint bad awesome. Even though I loath the overrated opinions of Mustangs, I should say, hats off to Ford. Because that car is loved by more than half the population, and there are lot's and lot's of them on the streets. Why? Obviously not because they're "hands down the fastest car", cause they arent. But you see these cars on the street everywhere because it's an awesome deal to have one. Pretty fast, can be WAY faster, insurance isn't bad, price isn't bad, car is easy to drive. Can't beat that. Cobalts are on their way too, just give them time. Either way, both cars have strengths and weaknesses, none of which are anything you guys are talking about. It's not weak for a car to be slower than another, instead, a weakness would be this...if the car you're driving can't ever be the car you want it to be, no matter what you do to it, then it has a weakness. Mustangs don't really have that particular weakness, since they've been around for years and years. However, right now Cobalt's do. Because R & D is limited, and there isn't very much you can do right now, not as many options as most sporty cars, but that will change over time. And then again I also think the Cobalt is more enjoyable to drive compared to the Mustang GT, maybe not a Cobra. Regardless, there's always a flipside. Stop bashing..both cars are nice. If you can't agree on these things, then go somewhere else a find someone that can agree with you.

 

[QUOTE=fiad06]

You guys ever gave thought on how a naturally asperated rsx type s can make the same hp without the supercharger?


Because it doesn't! They make about 180 whp compared to an average of about 210 whp for the SS/SC. That would explain why have no problems bootstomping on a stock RSX-S or a new Civic Si for that matter!

 

YEa what does your 2.0 make without the supercharger? Exactly

 

If you take the supercharger off the cobalt, i am sure the rsx will have more hp and tq.

 

a HUGE LOL at fiad06....lol nice argument....the LSJ was made for boost, if you took off the supercharger, the engine would not run how it was supposed to. And actually, the 2.4SS has more torque than the RSX-S anyways, and that is without a supercharger.

The whole "take off your s/c and race" argument is immature, and GHEY!!!!!!

 

STFU anyways NOOB

 

No **** Sherlock! The LSJ was designed for boost. As for the RSX-S, it is designed to rev. It would be pointless to remove the blower. How good would the Type-S be if you could disable the V-tak?

 

you mean SUPER VEEEEEE-TECH!!

 

FIAD is that you SWEET gt in that pic in your sig

 

if it is, thats cool that you got somethin different....i never see mustang GT's....very rare... LOL!

 

It's .4 lit more than the rsx 2.0,


You dont see mustang GTs much, gay joke buddy...There are so many mustangs because they are the best bang for your buck and they look better than cobalts.....

Why are you guys always mad?and bashful?

Do you guys know what they say when a person is always mad at the world?? He has a small penius...people like you need to take the dick out of your ass, and get your ass out of the I suck dick for daddy car.....

Heres one more thing for ya. Im sure all of you know this article but avoid it.

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...preza-wrx.html

Im done with this forum...Peace...

 

1. Talking arguing about specific output [hp/L] is for ricers. Who cares how you get there, as long as you've got more power... Run what you brung. You never should have brought that up, Fiad, or whatever your name is. First, it's a ricer argument, because ultimately, specific output doesn't matter. A win is a win no matter how big your engine is... and second, Ford doesn't waste money building ultra-expensive tiny I4's like Honda does, they'd rather just toss in a cheap, big motor, and win that way... and that's why I like Mustangs... and Cobalts for that matter. Don't screw around, just throw in whatever it takes to win... and don't charge me ~$25k for 200hp.

2. Arguing about what a car would do if it didn't have the supercharger it was designed to have is like asking what if the Mustang's engine was reduced to only 2.0L. Guess what? They'd both suck... beause that's not how they were designed.

3. Don't put universal statements like, I don't know, "You've got a 4.6L V8? Well I'll whoop your ass and still get 30mpg" in your sig. Universal statements are also dumb. For instance, in my 4.6L V8, I could eat a sandwich at the tree, and still beat your Cobalt in the 1/4-mile, but I'm not stupid enough to think that I could beat EVERY Cobalt out there in the 1/4-mile... Don't jump on someone for saying their car is faster than every Cobalt, and then go and make the same claim yourself.


So, to recap...

1. Don't argue about specific output. Leave that to the ricers.
2. Don't talk about taking off superchargers or cylinders. That's a 2-way street.
3. Don't post universal statements.

Oh, and notice that I addressed both Cobalt and Mustang owners equally, for all those that would assume or suggest that I am biased. Of course, I wouldn't own 3 Mustangs if I didn't like them, but I don't have a problem realizing their weaknesses or the fallacious arguments presented by their owners.

 

that was some good postin!


i was curious though. at what HP rating (to the wheels that is) are the cobalts ticking time bombs? about 450RWHP is when a mustang is at risk of throwing a rod (not far from me). just wondering when a cobalt is in danger of something going bye bye.

 

I'm not sure about this but based on Chevy's statement of "300hp pistons" I'd say that the Balt could stand 350whp before something starts giving in. Of course, if you have an excellent tune I think even 400whp is doable. Chevy is being conservative about the motors durability to power. I mean think about it, Chevy is NOT afraid to boost that motor to 15psi and still keep warranty...that's gotta be an obvious sign that the LSJ can handle some power.

 

Nope, its called tuning.