http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?se...article_id=7103

Cobalt SS beats Ralliart, 2009 WRX, and Mazdaspeed3. I wouldn't say that the Cobalt SS is necessarily the best sport compact on the market, but it's definitely the most underrated.

It's a pretty hotly contested segment, and I think it really comes down to personal preference. They're pricey but the GTi or the Cooper S are still my picks, followed closely by the Si. Kudos to GM for improving on what was already a pretty good car, though I'll wait to hear it from InsideLine.

If i had to get a 2nd car, i would probably get the SS, Si and then the Cooper S. Well maybe a toss up between the CooperS and the Mazdaspeed3 but most likely the Mini.

I drove the 205 HP Cobalt SS with the performance package (recaros and LSD) and it had one of the most divine chassis of any car. With the engine now up to snuff (the 2.0 SC was really rough around the edges), the only complaint I could have against the Cobalt SS is its mediocre interior...which is pretty excusable given how much it costs and how fast it goes. I imagine the Cobalt SS is 2009's SRT-4 in that respect.

No doubt. My favorites are the GTI and Cooper S, but I tend to favor intangibles over outright performance. What I was getting at was just that I had always kind of assumed that the Cobalt SS was an "also-ran" with a powerful engine, not a serious contender.



The detailed, written article...

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...rticleId=125288

And the minimally-informative companion video.

Movie is gone, mitlov. (edit, works)

Makes me want to test drive one.

I might be tempted to get one as my next car if it wasn't fwd...

I went to some local drag races with some people on the cobaltSS.net forums a year ago and they ran consistently faster times than the Si. The positives in that video vastly outweigh the negatives. I would rather have the coupe over a 5-door Astra or the 4dr body and I am not yet sick of how it looks, furthermore, this car is rumored to be phased out in 2010 and to be replaced by the Chevy Cruz. And as far as interior space I've had no issues with it, in fact I have more headroom than I did with my Cougar in the back seats.

How is the new Spec V not up to these standards? I really feel like Nissan dropped the ball on that car.

Yeah, the Spec V is really weak, especially considering that they could have pulled from the Renaultsport parts bin and that the Sentra platform-shares with the Megane.

CAR Magazine's test drive of the Renaultsport Megane 230 F1 Team R26

Though the "weakest sport compact effort on the market" award goes, without question, to the new Corolla XRS. And before you say it's not a sport compact, consider not just the garish bodywork but the $22,800 out-the-door price (the cheapest I can configure on Toyota's webpage).

The Spec V sounds like it's not bad to me...not great, but not bad. It looks reasonably attractive as an overall package when you realize it's the only one in that segment that's around the $20k mark when $25k+ is quickly becoming the standard issue pricetag for sport compacts.

Amen.



Heh...I actually like the SE-R's styling...I think Motive had a piece comparing the original SE-R to the current one, highlighting how it is a good car, just not a special one.

The Spec V starts at $20,570. The Civic Si starts at $21,805, and has better standard equipment (LSD, sunroof, 350-watt sound system with subwoofer). If you want any of these things on the Spec V, you need to get all of these things together. All in all, including D&H, an Si is $22,475 out the door, and a similarly-equipped Spec V is $23,445. And for comparison, the Cobalt SS Turbo with a sunroof and its best sound system (and the standard LSD) is $24,285.

Basically, I don't think that a Spec V is worth $1,000 more than a similarly-equipped Civic Si, or that it's only worth $800 less than a similarly-equipped Cobalt SS Turbo.

The Si is also a bargain in its segment so I feel like it emphasizes my point more than it refutes it...and as for the Cobalt SS comparison, we have to admit that the Sentra is screwed together much nicer than the Chevy, especially inside (nicer materials and design, too).

Also, god knows you can get a Spec V out the door for less money than an Si. I'm not trying to say the Spec V is the best in its segment or anything ridiculous like that but I am saying that it's not bad.

Wow, a lot of Spec V defense going on... Anyone wanna buy mine?

Gimme some details on it. I have a friend who MAY be interested (but I'd sorta doubt it).

Ooooh a turbocharger and an intercooler!

we all know that GTI is the gold standard


Seriously though, I would argue that the Nissan is screwed together better than the Chevy.

I dunno b0mb3r, the QR25DE has a history of being a piece of shit and blowing up/sludging/sucking at life. Nissan interiors aren't that impressive either. My brother in law had a Sentra SE-R (like an '03) that was barely running by 100k. Not something you could say about a Honda, usually.

Incidentally, my choice in this market would have to be a Civic Si sedan with navigation. Very, very appealing car.

Yeah, I was going to say that neither GM nor Nissan has a fantastic history with reliable four-bangers, and neither is known for their interiors. The Spec V may have the edge over the SS here on those fronts, but is it enough to make up for the vast performance difference and a $800 price difference? Remember that the people who really care about reliability will probably be in a Civic Si instead of either, and the people who really care about interiors will probably be in a GTI instead of either.

Nah, that would be the Renaultsport Megane...but you don't get that do you

Its also the douche standard, the overhype standard and around here the fanboi standard

...douche standard? I would've attributed that more to the Honda Prelude or WRX. Though anyone who regularly visits VWVortex could definitely be guilty of that.
...overhype standard? Maaaaaybe from a few quarters, particularly with the MkV, but overall it's a car that gets a certain amount of quiet respect and not much more than that.
...fanboi...we've discussed that at length already.

The BMW M3 is the biggest douchebag car on the planet. Nothing else compares. Period.

that makes me sad because I've met tons of really nice M3 owners.

I've never seen an M3 being driven by anyone other than an enthusiast. I've seen plenty of douche bags in 335s and M5s though.

I've never really gotten a chance to chat with any of them. But it's hard to have a conversation when some asshole's distinctive kidney grill is halfway up your rectum.

Maybe it's just a local thing.

i have met a douchebag M3 driver. He was 40 something, 50 lbs overweight and considered himself driving god because his automatic M3 had launch control or something.

There are lots of douchebag m3 drivers in the suburbs of detroit. Although, I won't deny that I haven't met one or two really cool ones. The rest suck ass though. Lots of rich high schoolers.

Not to get this back on track, but Car & Driver just did their "Lightning Lap" (a standardized lap around Virginia International Raceway which they use as an overall performance standard). The Cobalt SS Turbo did it in 3:13.0. That's FASTER than the following cars:

Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution MR (3:13.3)
BMW 135i (3:13.7)
Lexus IS-F (3:14.0)
Audi S5 (3:14.6)
Honda S2000 CR (3:15.0)
Dodge Challenger SRT8 (3:16.3)
Lotus Elise SC (3:16.6)
Infiniti G37 Sport (3:17.5)
Subaru Impreza STI (3:19.0)
Dodge Caliber SRT4 (3:20.8)
Volkswagen R32 (3:21.8)
Honda Civic Mugen Si (3:24.8)
Volvo C30 T5 Version 2.0 (3:26.6)

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_li...ap_2008_feature

Those are some pretty prestigious Goliaths for a $23,000 David to take down.

Next car ftw is a 135i with bigger turbos...

This is a very weird and hard to believe test...

Why is it wierd? Taking various cars and putting them all around the exact same racecourse, with the same driver(s), is what people have been begging for with the Nurburgring. Consider the "Lightning Lap" to be C&D's attempt to start a US-based, properly-standardized "Nurburgring lap time" measurement of performance.

As for hard to believe results, I'm also struggling to figure out how a 260-hp front driver could beat all those cars, but it's not unprecedented: GM set a miraculously-low Nurburgring time with the Cobalt SS Turbo recently (8:22).

Why is it so hard to believe? Same guys made the Z06, ZR1, and the CTS-V. All of them are brilliant (ok, maybe the Z06 less so). Chevy is just a bucketload of awesome right now. Was there any info non-quantifiable things, like steering feel, etc Mitlov?

Duke... HOW DOES THAT FEEL?

There's some subjective info, but not a lot, here:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_li...ure+page-2.html

Cliff Notes: surprising lack of understeer, fade-free brakes, "compliant and balanced chassis."

Sounds promising. I really do wish they sold it here.

I read the review and its pretty surprising that the cobalt is that good. From a performance only stand point its a steal but as an over all package its kinda meh. Judging from the pictures the interior and the seats look pretty low rent.

And as far as the GTI being a gold standard - it was the original hot hatch

I think it's safe to say that the Cobalt SS Turbo is much like the Corvette. Its greatest strength is that it performs like a car twice its price, and its greatest weakness is an interior reminiscent of a car half its price.

Very well put.

I can speculate all day long but the fanboi inside me thinks the idiot can't drive as required.

To be fair, I actually agree. Even with that understeer it shouldn't be a full six seconds behind the Evo.

One example of weird is what Razor/Duke are talking about. Also, another is that the supercharged 2008 Elise was 7.4 seconds slower around the track than the N/A 2006 Elise. They say because the 2006 had better tires and that they "experienced gear-selection drama"...at least run the car around again, without the gear selection error.

Yeah, looking at these again, I'm pretty sure the driver had to be on crack to lap the Evo slower than the Cobalt. Does that really not seem weird from a technical standpoint to anyone else? The Cobalt is basic FWD while the Evo X is known to be a tech-loaded autocross and track weapon. Plus, the Evo X is just a faster overall car. I'm calling WTF on this unless there's a better explanation as to why.

I'm not agreeing with C&D, but here's what they had to say:



I think the Cobalt SS Turbo's curb weight is 2975? So not only is the Cobalt SS about 675 lbs lighter, but it has a significantly better power-to-weight ratio. The EVO would need 320 hp to match the Cobalt's power-to-weight ratio.

Of course, power-to-weight is not all that matters, as the Nissan GT-R has proved. Like you, I'm a little uncomfortable with the result here. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate to see if that furthers the discussion.

The Nurburgring sounds like a shit place to compare cars...seeing as how there are so many variables that can make two of the "same" laps so different. It's a great place to test, develop, and enjoy cars, but with all the BS calling and scratch-your-head numbers that seem to be coming from the 'Ring lately...seems like a less than ideal place for legitimate time comparisons.

Shit place to compare, yes. Fantastic place to test and drive (though I've heard that the 'ring is relatively easy on brakes, and I think I'd agree with that, so it's not the end-all for all car development in every way).

As for the Cobalt SS's pace versus the STi/Evo/etc., Mitlov's right about the weight. Also, the chassis is supposedly sublime (the 2006 S/C I drove was) which means it's making the best of the grip available from its undoubtedly aggressive tires. Mix in an engine with a broad torque band, the few tenths you can pick up from no-lift shift, and a driver who ate his wheaties that morning and I don't find anything suspicious about it.

Anyone know who were the drivers for the whole gig? A lot depends on driving a certain type of car in a certain way. I can almost guarantee that if someone tried to drive the sti like a RWD car, it is going to understeer. Each car has a certain driving style and I just dont see some random dude jumping from one car to another and driving it to their limit.

The only way I'll give credibility to this test is if the driver was the Stig.

...and yet, when you have different drivers for different cars, people complain that there's too many variables for a fair comparison

not sure if i believe those vir times... it's a very high-speed track and i feel like the evo would have an advantage on the straights.
either way, i think this car is the shit. i'd love to own one actually, which is suprising because have not been impressed with american cars lately