Anyone driven a new Cobalt SS?

joey48442 wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote:

Cotton wrote:

z31maniac wrote: 340lb/ft of torques in a FWD car is just insane. Granted you have the Solstice, but I'd imagine the upgrade is similar for the Cobalt. But like "celica", it's a Cobalt. Don't know if I could get past that.

Looks like the Cobalt gets bumped up to 280/320 with the kit. The HHR gets 290/315 Plus, you can add the factory catback and intake to get even more and keep your warranty. Some of you guys that worry so much about interiors would probably be horrified to learn that neither my 85 911 nor my 87 944 Turbo even have cup holders.....

Neither does the MX6, nor did the Escort until i messed with it.

Your escort didnt come with a cup holder? Joey

Well, it had that stupid thing up UNDER the console in front of the shifter, yeah. You couldn't fit a cup in it, though. Just a can. I don't drink out of cans in cars.

So i took it out.

Now it's got an MX3 shifter console with the cupholder that actually WORKS in the arm rest.

I was tempted to look at these when I was car shopping a couple of years ago. They were going for the same money as the WRX, so I went with that because I live in the Northeast and AWD is a good thing to have for the winter. That factory "stage 2" upgrade looks like it's awesome for the money, too!

HiTempguy wrote:

z31maniac wrote: I noticed the Speed 3 has trouble getting the power down in 1st with sticky 225s

Doesn't the speed 3 NOT have a limited slip, but instead has the lamesauce "traction control"?

yes, it has a yaw sensor of sorts that won't let you put down full power in 1st when the wheels are cocked to a certain angle as well.

OP - why not a wrx? Same price range as the MS3 (a few grand more than the cobalt), similar power, AWD, etc....It needs bigger sways, but that's an easy fix. Looks are subjective so I won't compare them.

I watched a fellow club member lap his Maytag white 4 door 2009 Cobalt SS at Mosport. It prompted me to take one for a test drive. I have to admit that it's moved near the top of my list for my next daily driver. I know that everyone complains about the cheap interior but the seats are nice. I also kinda like the rental car sleeper look.

It has an LSD, at least it calls out a "Torque sensing conical limited slip differential" on the spec sheet.

I just meant like in first gear, roll into full throttle down low and as the revs get up around 5k or so the tires break loose and start spinning toward the redline.

In reply to z31maniac:

yep, and the LSD works, for sure. i was going nuts one time because the car was wandering all over the road depending on whether i was on the throttle or not. i finally tracked it down to one front tire only having 22psi while the other was at 38... drove like new again after that, i have to say that car was good at knocking down the miles on the highway for sure, and the turbo power made it even better.

The seats in the 2010 Cobalt SS at the Toronto auto show last February were the most comfortable seats I sat in that evening. Period. I think I actually said "Ahhh." Whatever seat dummy they built them around must look exactly like me.

Localy there is an '09 with 2K for $16K, and the sedan is much more sedate looking.

Cotton wrote: Some of you guys that worry so much about interiors would probably be horrified to learn that neither my 85 911 nor my 87 944 Turbo even have cup holders.....

Roll of black duct tape (the gorilla brand works best) on the passenger side floor in my 924s solves the cup holder problem. The slightly tacky side of the tape keeps it from moving and holds a cup of coffee perfectly. The black tape matches my carpets so if you are not looking for it it is virtually invisible. AND I always have a roll of duct tape with me.

Wow, they come with 5 year/100k mile powertrain warranty. Along with the upgrade kit on the gm website bumps the car to 290h[ and up to 340lb/ft of torques.

I think I'm going to see if I can find one to test drive tomorrow.

93celicaGT2 wrote: Honestly, and this sounds shallow, if it wasn't a Chevy, i'd buy it over the MS3, hands down.

Would it help to know that it's an Opel?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Delta_platform

PS - May I humbly suggest that anybody using the word "torques" be forced to exclusively drive a 2.5l S-10 with a missing spark plug and poorly-bled clutch hydraulics?

Take you aren't a fan of Top Gear then?

Top Gear started that? I thought it was some Internet thing like "I shift mad quick, yo".

One more reason to not like them, I suppose.

It really, really, really, REALLY bothers me when people pluralize an intangible. Or even just apply a number to same: people who give dyno numbers as 175whp/150wtq for example. Yeah, well my engine makes 2000wtq.

Knurled wrote: PS - May I humbly suggest that anybody using the word "torques" be forced to exclusively drive a 2.5l S-10 with a missing spark plug and poorly-bled clutch hydraulics?

You certainly can, but saying "torques" is certainly more convenient than "lb-ft of torque", so I'll keep saying it, and I'll keep not driving any small GM pickups.

I'll keep verbing nouns, too.

Knurled wrote: Yeah, well my engine makes 2000wtq.

Must have a low first gear...

Knurled wrote: Top Gear started that? I thought it was some Internet thing like "I shift mad quick, yo". One more reason to not like them, I suppose. It really, really, really, REALLY bothers me when people pluralize an intangible. Or even just apply a number to same: people who give dyno numbers as 175whp/150wtq for example. Yeah, well my engine makes 2000wtq.

I suspect you suffer from high blood pressure.

Knurled wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote: Honestly, and this sounds shallow, if it wasn't a Chevy, i'd buy it over the MS3, hands down.

Would it help to know that it's an Opel? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Delta_platform PS - May I humbly suggest that anybody using the word "torques" be forced to exclusively drive a 2.5l S-10 with a missing spark plug and poorly-bled clutch hydraulics?

If i could get an opel body and interior with it, i'd be all over it. Until then, it's a little unappealing to me. I make similar, if not more power in my lighter car, and it doesn't look like a Cobalt.

It's the same car, except one's a wagon, and the other is a coupe/sedan.

I wasn't crazy about it when I bought one for my wife, but it's grown on me to the point where I really like the way it looks. The Pontiac GT's are even nicer looking, but no Turbo.

Whenever I haven't driven it for a while, I'm surprised at how quiet, smooth, and comfortable it is.

z31maniac wrote:

Knurled wrote: Top Gear started that? I thought it was some Internet thing like "I shift mad quick, yo". One more reason to not like them, I suppose. It really, really, really, REALLY bothers me when people pluralize an intangible. Or even just apply a number to same: people who give dyno numbers as 175whp/150wtq for example. Yeah, well my engine makes 2000wtq.

I suspect you suffer from high blood pressure.

I don't know, I am with him. The engineer and physicist in me gets ticked off when people don't use units properly. Like when people (I am looking at you too, Europe, don't think your far superior metric system gets you out of this one) measure weight by the Kg. Yes, I know there is a Kgf... for idiots. Try to calculate a Reynolds number, for example, with input from someone who relishes the word "torques" and you'll go insane.

OP - why not a wrx? Same price range as the MS3 (a few grand more than the cobalt), similar power, AWD, etc....It needs bigger sways, but that's an easy fix. Looks are subjective so I won't compare them.

I'm a big fan of the WRX. Around here, they're at least $4000 more, and I figured I didn't really need AWD. Frankly, I was looking for the cheapest way to get real acceleration in a small, new car. If it turns out to be false economy, it won't be the first time. Sincere thanks to all you enablers.

Tuna,

Calm down, its supposed to be a joke. Its done for entertainment, not factual representation of the actual amount of power a device is making.