I'm not sure if anyone would be interested in reading this, but I thought this was interesting enough, so I'll post it. I saw that DrPaul84 posted a quick summary earlier...but I thought I would post this if people wanted a little more detail. It's a litle lengthy, so if you don't like reading long message, then please skip this one...
I was watching Car & Driver on Spike TV today and one of the features for this week's episode is a 5 car comparison of "super sport tuners" (may not be the actual words they used but close enough) for under $25,000 or "cheap speed" as they call it.. The five cars that were in this comparison are a Dodge Neon SRT-4 with the American Club Racing package, Subaru Impreza WRX, Chevrolet Cobalt SS Supercharged (with the performance package), Saturn Ion Redline (which they referred to as being the Cobalt's twin - must be fraternal) and the Acura RSX Type-S.
Some of the prelimary items they showed were these cars going around cones and stuff in a parking lot (kinda like autocrossing) and giving tips on how to get the most out of these cars if people wanted to race them. They did mention specifically that the Subaru WRX had a problem with "turbo lag" and that the ACR package really helped the SRT-4 handle the corners well.
Now the rankings...
5th place: Saturn Ion Redlne...The guys at C&D stated that the Ion lacked passion and refinement but they did like it was the lowest priced car out of the 5 tested and the smooth power from the Supercharged Ecotec as compared to the other cars in the bunch that are turboed. They continue back on their negative rant stating that the styling of the Redline is bland & boring (which I disagree with) and the only part of the car that tries to exude "sport" is the rear spoiler saying it floats and flutters at speeds. They insult the interior by calling it an obnoxious drab of black plastic noting they hate the center mounted gauge clusters. They finish off on the Redline by saying that if a person is looking for the "cheapest speed" this is the car to get...although the problem with that is that the car feels cheap...Interesting to note the Redline they chose didn't have a performance package option on it.
4th place: Chevrolet Cobalt SS Supercharged...About the SS Supercharged, the guys at C&D described some of the same problems with this car that they had with the Redline. They called the Cobalt's steering "heavy and artificial" which they said is like the Redline but never mentioned it during the Redline's review. They also noted that the Ecotec Supercharged never ceases to make odd and uncomforting noises, whatever that means. They note the exterior styling is a lot better than it's "fraternal twin" but the interior styling is barely better than the Redline noting that "at least the gauges are in the right place." They also noted the Cobalt had the biggest rear spoiler of the 5 cars tested (but I thought the spoiler on the Redline and Cobalt SS Supercharged were identical) noting that at high speeds it looks like the rear spoiler is about to blow off the back of the car. They stated the SS Supercharged was the 2nd fastest of the five cars tested and that when pushed, it behaved in a predictable manner...noting overall there's nothing to hate about the car...but nothing to love about it either but don't try to stand out, if you aren't going to win.
3rd Place: Dodge Neon SRT-4...C&D start off by saying that the SRT-4 may not be the cheapest of the 5 cars tested but it was the fastest of the 5 cars tested taking first place in both acceleration and autocrossing, noting if this was just a contest of speed, the SRT-4 would win hands down. They note the seats and exhaust system in the SRT-4 are both uncomfortable. They finish off on the Neon by stating that if you want a car that just comfortable enough to get to the track and beat the piss off of everyone, this is the car to get, but if you really want to live with your car, there are better options out there than the SRT-4. Harsh words on this car, but in my opinion no where near as rough as they were with the Redline.
2nd Place: Subaru Impreza WRX...Needless to say the guys at C&D make it abudantly clear they like this car more than they do the SRT-4, nothing everything within the car is perfectly placed and in the right position...even down to the manual shifter. They continue the praises for the WRX noting the car handles really well which helps build up driver's confidence. They state the suspension on the car is good but on curves, the body rolls a little and there's a problem with turbo lag from the vehicle, which they mentions at the beginning of the feature. They finish off on the WRX by saying is a fun to drive vehicle.
1st Place: Acura RSX Type-S...C&D noted that even though this car isn't the fastest nor the cheapest it's the overall best car whether it's used as a daily driver or a weekend racer. They also note it's the lightest vehicle of the 5 tested with the highest revving engine and the only car to be offered in a six speed manual which is as good as any high dollar sports car. They described the looks of the car as a nice fit and finish noting they it had the best interior of the 5 cars featured. They finish the piece by saying that's its the distinguished boy racer.
My personal thoughts are that I always take what Car and Driver say about cars with a grain of salt but I absolutely hated the way they buried the Cobalt and Ion. You would think they were talking about crap on a stick rather than the cars that placed 4th and 5th respectively. However it does seem they have a HUGE problem with Saturn vehicles of any kind just from the review they gave the Redline and their comments about Saturn in general. I'll be the first to admit I don't know squat about car performance or engines, but I thought it was laughable that they complimented the Ecotec in the Redline, but took the opposite position on it when it came to the SS Supercharged. Also with the exception of the Redline, it looked as if every car has some form of performance upgrade/package. It seems C&D were more concerned with ripped 5th - 3rd however than they were with complementing the cars that finished 1st and 2nd, however, like I said, I always take the venom that spew from their mouth with a grain of salt.
execellent write up^^^^^^^^ very good info
ClassGlass / RkSport / Eibach / Motegi / Ractive / Borla / K&N
yeah i caught part of it yesterday
it was kinda cool
I hate C&D so much.. If it's not an import, they're going to rag on it for sure..
Red 2005 Saturn Ion-3 Coupe
But the RL and SS's are crap on a stick.
have u ever driven a WRX, SRT , OR RSX?
u cant compare them all unless uve driven them all, like i have...and i will not agree with those RANKINGS AT ALL!
IMO, id say the Cobalt would be on top...
and i hate my cavalier...and i dont think id buy another...but i like how the Cobalt feels...
1. Cobalt..
2. Redline.
3. WRX
4.RSX
5. SRT...
SPONSORED BY: CAVALIER EXTREME
^^^^
Are you kidding me? if you truly did drive them all and think a Cobalt is a better car in all areas of build quality, handleing (which proves you know nothing) Ergonomics, and performance over the RSX and WRX your crazy. i think the show was dead on and the results were 100% correct. my only disagreement is the Cobalt SS at least should have ranked higher than the SRT. I'm sure SRT's only saving grace was it's acceleration. but if the RSX can win based on "balance" then the Cobalt should be able to out rank the Neon...it's a far better balanced car than the SRT. And i too do not think the redline is bland. it's uncluttered a smooth design, i dig it.
but other wise the WRX is a a better car than a cobalt or SRT or Redline for that matter and the total package of the RSX is leaps and bounds above all the cars in this comparo. it may not have the acceleration of them but has a better balance of everything than all of them and amazing build quality.
If you turly drove them all and think a fatter heavier cavalier...because "mechancally" a Cobalt is nothing more spectatular than the last Cavalier LS Sport...save it now has a S/C. Than you either know nothing about cars, or your a serious GM nut hanger. You are entitled to your opinion but sorry it's just yours...and few others maybe on here.
"Formerly known as Jammit - JBO member since 1998" JBOM | CSS.net
Yeah, I dont see whats wrong with those rankings at all. Quite frankly, too many people are hung up on how fast something goes from A to B and not thinking about the car as a whole.. Thing is, I think the cobalt is a decent car, im not a cobalt hater by any stretch. But comparing a cobalt (even the SS) to an Acura RSX-S is like comparing a Ford 500 to a Chrysler 300. Same type of car, one is way more refined and an overall better car
I saw the article last week lol. I did not post on it because some are quick to point I am "Cobalt hater" and all sorts of names, blah blah blah.
But let me sing out something...(ahem-ahem-- me, me, me, me.)
I told you so... .
US "Delta" cars trails with its competition with 4-doors and now the SS and RL. Then GM wonders why it can't sell (cars) at MSRP price?
The last opportunity GM has to redeem in itself in the compact or sub-compact class is to bring over the Opel Astra OPC and badge it Pontiac Sunfire. Performance/ quality for the performance division.
The-End!
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
95CavBlue wrote:have u ever driven a WRX, SRT , OR RSX?
u cant compare them all unless uve driven them all, like i have...and i will not agree with those RANKINGS AT ALL!
IMO, id say the Cobalt would be on top...
and i hate my cavalier...and i dont think id buy another...but i like how the Cobalt feels...
1. Cobalt..
2. Redline.
3. WRX
4.RSX
5. SRT...
I've driven all of them except the ACR was only a SRT-4.
I think for the money the rsx is the best buy.
But the cobalt SS interior is superb. I've gotten many compliments on mine, and the build quality feels more german than american.
I love my car and know what it will be (after alot of money), but I agree, out of the box the rsx is the best looking, power, engineering for the money.
Someone hit the nail on the head when they mentioned GM's pricing. The biggest problem is the fact that car-wise, the SS is a closer match to the SRT-4 than the RSX-S, but price-wise, it's a dead on match for the RSX-S, and that's before adding the performance package to the SS. With every option, save for OnStar, the SS runs around $23,500 (GM's website pricing). Optioned with only the factory ground effects (other stuff optional on the Cobalt is standard on the RSX-S), the RSX lists out at $24,200. Sorry, but the Cobalt isn't near the car the RSX-S is. Powerwise, ok fine, near even. Overall car, hell no.
Now, on the other end of the spectrum, the SRT-4 ACR (w/ sunroof, no side air bags) tops out at $23,300. Tack on an expected $2000 premium for the SS's performance package (which is only an LSD and Recaro seats, which come standard on the SRT) and you're looking at well into the $25,000 range, for a car with 25 fewer HP and less of a "performance build".
Bottom line, GM has made a marked improvement from the Cavalier to the Cobalt, especially in the performance department. However, they've still got a ways to go to catch the field. They've either got to compete based on the build quality (which is HIGHLY unlikely to happen) or drop the price comparitively.
FstCavZ24 (Turbo ECO) wrote:But the RL and SS's are crap on a stick.
Now theres an intelligent comment. If you're going to make an asinine comment like that, at least
try and explain yourself
Quote:
I saw the article last week lol. I did not post on it because some are quick to point I am "Cobalt hater" and all sorts of names, blah blah blah.
But let me sing out something...(ahem-ahem-- me, me, me, me.)
I told you so... .
US "Delta" cars trails with its competition with 4-doors and now the SS and RL. Then GM wonders why it can't sell (cars) at MSRP price?
The last opportunity GM has to redeem in itself in the compact or sub-compact class is to bring over the Opel Astra OPC and badge it Pontiac Sunfire. Performance/ quality for the performance division.
Well look whos chiming in when the Cobalt doesn't get ranked favorably. Funny how you are noticeably absent when there is a favorable review regarding either of the Delta twins, and come to think of it those posts were much better without you stupid azz there.
Whats "told you so" supposed to mean?? What are you some kind of obnoxious kid?? You have been wrong all along, yet now something slightly favoring your distorted views comes out, and your all over it like flies on @!#$. Get a life.
Quote:
If you turly drove them all and think a fatter heavier cavalier...because "mechancally" a Cobalt is nothing more spectatular than the last Cavalier LS Sport...save it now has a S/C. Than you either know nothing about cars, or your a serious GM nut hanger. You are entitled to your opinion but sorry it's just yours...and few others maybe on here.
Cobalt and Cavalier are completely different cars. "Mechanically" the Cobalt SS S/C is nothing like the cavalier LS Sport, thats a dumb comment. Not only is the Cobalt SS incomparably better, but they are in completely different leagues in terms of build quality, price, and class. Funny how quick everyone is to bash GM, and anyone who supports them is a "nut-swinger"
Quote:
Someone hit the nail on the head when they mentioned GM's pricing. The biggest problem is the fact that car-wise, the SS is a closer match to the SRT-4 than the RSX-S, but price-wise, it's a dead on match for the RSX-S, and that's before adding the performance package to the SS. With every option, save for OnStar, the SS runs around $23,500 (GM's website pricing). Optioned with only the factory ground effects (other stuff optional on the Cobalt is standard on the RSX-S), the RSX lists out at $24,200. Sorry, but the Cobalt isn't near the car the RSX-S is. Powerwise, ok fine, near even. Overall car, hell no.
The problem is that you're adding every single possible option. For people who just want a Cobalt SS with the standard options, the price is only $20K. Thats a big difference from $23.5K, and over 4 grand less than the comparably equipped RSX-S.
Yet the SS S/C outperforms the RSX-S in every single performance category. As for quality, the honda fanboys will tell you different, but after thoroughly checking both vehicles out, I think its a toss-up. I'll gladly take that $4K and upgrade to the 300HP Stage 3 package thats coming out in December
My CarDomain Page
OMG.......here we go again!<img src="http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/rolleye/rolleye0011.gif">
Acura RSX-S and Chevy Colbalt quaility a toss-up?! Are you kidding me?! Yes the Colbalt has a nice interior......yes I have driven an SS and I did like it, but it is not on par with the RSX-S.....sorry! And yes I have driven the RSX-S.
Why does it bug you so much when someone makes a negative comment against the Colbalt? You don't even own one!
Im not going to read all the posts but I will say that C&D suck. The got to have it BS needs to stop.
the fan boys certainly came ouyt of the closet on this one.
19.2@104 2.0 60ft
does that work out? how many people actually read the sig....
as for the interiors on all of them i havent been in a regular wrx or rsx-s so i cant compare
MONGOOSE(TheL61) wrote:as for the interiors on all of them i havent been in a regular wrx or rsx-s so i cant compare
The WRX interior is very nice. The back seat was a little cramped for me......I'm 6'1", but not too bad.
RSX-S
<img src="http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//pictures/VEHICLE/2005/Acura/100449649/20021939-E.jpg">
Colbalt SS
<img src="http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//pictures/VEHICLE/2005/Chevrolet/100434292/20023848-E.jpg">
SRT-4....ehhhh
<img src="http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//pictures/VEHICLE/2003/Dodge/100086158/003358-E.jpg">
WRX
<img src="http://us.autos1.yimg.com/img.autos.yahoo.com/ag/subaru_impreza_wrxsedan_2005_interior_19_346x270.jpg">
IMO.....I like the RSX-S interior layout......then WRX....then Cobalt.....then Redline.....and SRT-4 last.
^^^^ Agreed
I'd love to have any of the above cars
Looked up stats on the Opel Astra OPC
BHP: 240@5600
TRQ: 236@2400
Weight: 3070
stock 18s with optional 19s
0-62: 6.4sec
and top speed of 152mph
if it ain't broke...MAKE IT GO FASTER
wesmanw02 wrote:FstCavZ24 (Turbo ECO) wrote:But the RL and SS's are crap on a stick.
Now theres an intelligent comment. If you're going to make an asinine comment like that, at least try and explain yourself
I only used that phrase because it's what someone previously stated in this thread. I was like the 2nd person on here to write a review up on the RL testdrive. I've posted my comments many times before on both GM cars. I don't really feel like re writing or C&P'ing the info again.
