And here we are folks... "another CobaltSS.net thread streaks the bowl on its way down."

 

this would mean most of the mustang GT's in history (most, but not all) would not be considered high performance cars either?

 

Uh huh, and your point???

 

*shrug* just curious.

I think ford might be a little saddened to think that their 2 door rear wheel drive 4.6-5.0 L V8's dont count as a high performance sports car though lol.

i mean, what else is it?

 

id call the gt almost the same class as a sc cobalt, the shelby is in the same class as a vette. I'm getting one dropped off here soon, mabye we can race, and i can post how many dozen car legnths he'll beat me in a 1/4 mile. lol

 

I don't know fire. I have argued with the ford guys over this and they repeadetly claim the Shelby is NOT in the same class as the vette as it has rear seats.

"Vette is a two seater sport car...the shelby is a four seater family car"


Go figure?

and what about the old vettes? not high performance sports car??
What about the old ferrari's??? They aren't high performance sport car?

I mean seriously...who here produces enough vehicles in THEIR company to be the determining voice on what the "quartermile cut off is on high performance"...it's all opinion...no more...no less...

and I would certainly call the Mustang GT a High Performance Auto...

They have other names for the fast cars:

Exotic...
Super Cars...
Super Sports...
Muscle Cars...

High Performance simply means it performs highly compared to all of the other cars in its class. It is possible to have a high performance economy...high performance hatchback...high performance family car...I guess who gave you guys the authority to say 14 seconds is the cutt-off...anything slower..."not high performance"...again..the guys who made the older vettes would be very disappointed to hear you say something so inaccurate. Or no? Just my opinion.

 

14 seconds was just one of my stipulations. And 14 seconds now compared to 14 seconds 20 years have two different levels of importance.

 

Performance is relative. Everyone has their own opinion of what constitutes performance parameters. This largely depends on the car's intended use. To a dragster, a low ET would constitute the only performance parameter - but this is in a limited use vehicle. Most of us drive a car for the mundane tasks of commuting, grocery getting, etc.; where fuel mileage, braking, handling, comfort and hauling ability factor into the performance equation.

Doubt it? How many of us would choose to drive a 10sec. car to work if it only got 5-6mpg? We would love to own one, but drive it to work 50+ miles each day? I think not.

With this being said, "high performance" to me means how well it suits this utilitaritan definition of performance. Before I purchased my car, I established the following minimum performance criteria. Those failing in one aspect of this criteria were rejected:

My "performance" criteria for selecting a new vehicle:

1. It must cost less than $20k (the lower the better).
2. It must have an automatic tranny (wife can't drive a stick for physical reasons and she needs to drive it occasionally - this leaves out motorcycles).
3. It must get at least 30mpg on the highway and 25 city.
4. It must have affordable insurance (<$100/mo.)- the lower the better.
5. It must accelerate, stop and handle the best amongst all cars meeting the above minimum standards.

To me, my 2.4l auto performs better than any other vehicle that also meets my needs. Out performing every other car that I am in the market to buy makes it a "high performance" vehicle. Your selection criteria will certainly be different than mine.

There are those who value mileage above everything else, making a Honda hybrid or Prius top their list of "High Performance" vehicles. Their definition is certainly different from ours, but that doesn't mean they're wrong.

At the track 4 days ago, I watched some outrageous sport bikes running 9sec. 146mph 1/4 miles on a wet track. If all you value is acceleration, theirs blows away 99.99% of all so called "high performance" vehicles on the road. It all depends on what you value.

 

good write up sush...

X2

 

I understand that...but how many cars now days have a sub 14.5 quartermile compared to how many cars are on the market? Not that many actually...at least not many under 70,000 dollars...there are what 100 maybe? There are over 2000 types of cars produced, guess I am curious as to why the top 100 accelarators and performers are not considered "high performance".

I mean sushi is right...by you guys standards a guy driving a saleen s7 could tell the guy in the Z06...your car is not "high performance"...sorry. You are putting a figure on what high performance is and I guess my question is what qualifies you to determine what high performance is? Not being smart...just asking a question.

It's all opinion isn't it?

 

And I said it was my opinion.

And to quote myself from redline forums, '13s is fast to the slow asses and slow to the people that really know what fast is.'

I am sure there are more than 100 cars that run faster than 14.5s.

 

fine what about a high performance vehicle is a vehicle that has over a 100hp per liter...made for racing...comes with performance tires and suspension and race seats...

Those are all RACE oriented features, that are found on the cobalt and the cars you listed above...name 10 more cars made that fit the above criteria...you will be hard pressed.

My point is the cobalt has EXCELLENT hp to liter ratio...gearing set up for track racing...suspension set up for track racing...seats and LSD for racing...It was designed for with the Xcrosser in mind...not going back and forth to work for 6 weeks on 5 bucks like the honda hybrid...I think you got my point but chose to draw attention to what I said instead of the point I tried to make.

Please try and name ten....I am curious. All must be 06 or newer.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

 

I know man...im not busting chops here...just getting opinions.

Fact is there are probably not even 100 cars with 14.5 or lower quartermile. Made in 06 or 07. For a straight off the floor car..thats ballsy.

Your right to someone with a 9's camaro...14.5 isn't fast...but to auto makers and john Q public...it is high performance. Not cutting edge..not insane...but HIGH in PERFORMANCE when linked to its handling, braking, track capabilities, top speed, acceleration and purpose

 

1.EVO
2.STI
3.Civic SI
4. WRX
5. Nissan Sentra SE-R
6. Mini Cooper S

Thats not even getting into RWD and exotic cars. Think about all the AMG and SRT cars and so on.

 

I know. And I agreed with your main point, just not with the hp/l argument. Hp/l should only be brought up when comparing engines, not cars.

 

good job!

1) The 2006 nissan sentra se-r only has 165 horse for a 2.5 liter (not 100hp/l).
2) The WRX only has 224 horse for a 2.5 liter (not 100hp/l).
3) I thought the only SRT to produce over 100 hp per liter is the SRT4 and if I am not mistaken they are 230 hp for a 2.4 liter which isn't 100hp/l either.
The viper doesn't, charger doesn't, am I missing something?
4) Most exotics have 10 and 12 cylinders in them and don't have 100hp/l...nor do the 10 cylinder AMG mercedes or M5 or M6's.
So you have named 4 (giving you the cobalt SS/SC) give me 6 more

Your right, I won't argue with you on that point...but I was just touching the tip of the iceberg and listed on aspect...but your right.

 

hp/l means jack ****. it doesnt matter how you make power as long as you do. the z06 has a 7.0l ls7 that makes 505 hp...that is nowhere near 100 hp/l, so is it not high performance??? High performance is more of an opinion than anything. to someone that drives a 700hp cobra or something like that, an sti isn't gonna seem high performance, but to someone that drives a 1992 honda accord, a ******* lancer oz rally is gonna be high performance. this is the dumbest argument ever.

 

HAHA, my bad I completely missed where you said 100hp/l.

 

In the end i think the term "high performance" is just something that comes from the factory with obvious effort on the part of the manufacturers to make the car quite a bit more than a grocery getter.

I think any car that comes off the line with racing inspired seating....rubber....transmission/shifter....and some noticable effort into its suspension and engine would qualify for a high performance vehicle.

Dont forget....there are a few classifications ABOVE this....and if you get to picky there wont be any cars to fill these classes.

IE i would consider the Cobalt ss/sc a high performance vehicle.....but i think sports car might be a bit out of reach....and its obviously no supercar.....

but if its not a high performance vehicle....then what is it?

to me...there is
Grocerygetter
High performance
Sportscar
Supercar

I might be missing one in there maybe?
but i think its a little hard to call a cobalt ss/sc a grocery getter.

 

What would you call an Altima 3.5 that is capable of low 14s, just like an SS/SC??

 

why not...just because the tuner market hasn't really taken to it and it is more expensive doesn't mean it doesnt out perform the competition...again it is all opinion. would you consider a huge dodge ram turbo diesel high performance? well after a tune they can run low 14's and with just a few mods after that they could run with some of the 02,03 sti's...would that make the truck high performance? well for what it does yes cause that thing could haul like a mother...is the mazda rx-8 high performance? well it handles the road course like a CHAMP, but is nothing from a dig, but i would still say yes because it handles so well...it is all in how you look at it dude...

 

they don't make 02, 03 STi's. I was just asking what he thought about the Altima.

 

i thought they just didn't ship to the states....

 

Well yeah, but why would you compare a truck to a car only available in other countries?

 

ok lets see here:


I am pretty sure NO ONE here...is arguing. We are getting the others opinions, plain and simple.


I would consider a 3.5 altima borderline "high performance family car". It handles nice, good braking, good acceleration...but it's heavy..not made for a track...no modifications were done at the factory to make it a car that is to be taken to the track...so it is borderline...a car that performs high..but wasn't built with track application in mind. The SS/SC was designed for track racing...it was developed by GM with the track in mind. I watched a show on the speed channel about it...I forgot how many goobs of money GM spent testing the SS/SC at the track...it was crazy. Not to mention it took the nurburgring lap record away from the skyline.


Couldn't have said it better myself!