heh Ion got 5th place cobalt got 4th...
'nothing to hate nothing to love"
they didnt really like em....srt4 got 3rd
ut oh... impreza got 2nd...an rsx type S got 1st place...
they ripped into the srt 4...sayin its nice if you wanna take it to the track an beat the piss out of everyone...but not if you want to live with your car...
I canceled my subscription to C and D. I think thats probably the bottom end of the Auto Mags, their tests are frequently inaqurate(sp(the irony of mispelling that is too much)) and some of the point they make just sound silly. Plus, for an american car mag, they are almost always to critical of american made cars. I read an editorial by Csaba Csere and was literally fuming over the inherently disingenious comments he was making.
i was referring to the show...
Well, yes, but the same thing is in the mag with the same POV's
well I was writing up a detailed report on this...I guess it's not necessary now, lol.
but i'll probably finish since i'm halfway there, haha
I got a kick out of one of the reader comments published in the mag:
"You guys would pick a Honda to win even if there wasn't one there"
-----
Formerly running a 1998 Black Z24 5-speed...
See my Cardomain sites:
(My 2004 GTO) 1 of 889 built...
(My Eldo) <-slow and smoky...
RSX-S deserves top be #1
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Real cars don't make power at the front wheels......
THEY LIFT THEM !!!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
b0jan jebac wrote:RSX-S deserves top be #1
SS owner or not I agree.
I have the video of the comparison on my comp if someone can host it.
RkSport 2003 wrote:b0jan jebac wrote:RSX-S deserves top be #1
SS owner or not I agree.
I have the video of the comparison on my comp if someone can host it.
Well it depends on how your ranking the cars. No doubt that the RSX-S is a great car for what it is, but the article was titled "Cheap Speed". The RSX-S is definitely the most balanced vehicle there, initial quality is top notch, and the engine is a beauty. Interior is also pretty nice, and the handling is very well-balanced.
Unfortunately though it seems that C&D took that criteria over the purpose of the article. The objective was to pick the best performing vehicle, while still taking into consideration things like quality, driveability, ect.
But alas, C&D ends up picking the slowest, most expensive car for the 'Cheap Speed" test. A little ironic, don't you think??
Obviously the SRT-4 was fastest, but the "refinement" factor would have bumped it out of 1st or 2nd. the Ion is quick, but just too quirky and not very well rounded, especially in terms of interior quality. The WRX is nothing new - mediocre interior, quick off the line, lots of turbo lag, decent styling, relatively expensive, yet still fun to drive. Cobalt SS is definitely the most well rounded car of the group - excellent handling, great acceleration, very nice interior, and yet still not too expensive.
Here's how I would have ranked them, based on the title of the article, and taking into consideration performance as 70% of the score, and refinement, quality, ect. as 30%.
1. Cobalt SS S/C
2. Subaru WRX
3. Dodge SRT-4
4. Saturn Ion Redline
5. Acura RSX-S
My CarDomain Page
love it or hate it....for the money , the rsx-s is still a level above the cobalt....regardless of any type of redefined engineering that gm claims to have put in the car. gm will always lag behind . ...and its sad to say because i love gm products.
ClassGlass / RkSport / Eibach / Motegi / Ractive / Borla / K&N
RSX Type S base price is $23,845 which includes a sunroof and side air bags. (Per Acura website).
Cobalt SS S/C base price is $21,995, plus $725 for sunroof and $395 for the air bags. Total is $23,115. (Per GM website).
Anyway you slice it, the Cobalt is not going to be alot cheaper than the RSX Type S. And while it does have a S/C, and it puts out good performance numbers, it doesn't have IRS or 6 speeds, and it looks alot like its cheaper sibblings.
Joe Kidd wrote:RSX Type S base price is $23,845 which includes a sunroof and side air bags. (Per Acura website).
Cobalt SS S/C base price is $21,995, plus $725 for sunroof and $395 for the air bags. Total is $23,115. (Per GM website).
Anyway you slice it, the Cobalt is not going to be alot cheaper than the RSX Type S. And while it does have a S/C, and it puts out good performance numbers, it doesn't have IRS or 6 speeds, and it looks alot like its cheaper sibblings.
If you wanna start quoting prices, quote them correctly.
First of all, you forgot to add the destination charge to the RSX-S, which adds another $570. So you're now at $24,415. The $21,995 of the Cobalt includes destination.
And if you want to make everything equal, then you need to add some items to the RSX-S.
Cargo Net = $47.00
Fog Lights = $350.00
So your complete comparison is now:
RSX-S = $24,812
Cobalt SS = $23,115.
wesmanw02 wrote:RkSport 2003 wrote:b0jan jebac wrote:RSX-S deserves top be #1
SS owner or not I agree.
I have the video of the comparison on my comp if someone can host it.
Well it depends on how your ranking the cars. No doubt that the RSX-S is a great car for what it is, but the article was titled "Cheap Speed". The RSX-S is definitely the most balanced vehicle there, initial quality is top notch, and the engine is a beauty. Interior is also pretty nice, and the handling is very well-balanced.
Unfortunately though it seems that C&D took that criteria over the purpose of the article. The objective was to pick the best performing vehicle, while still taking into consideration things like quality, driveability, ect.
But alas, C&D ends up picking the slowest, most expensive car for the 'Cheap Speed" test. A little ironic, don't you think??
Obviously the SRT-4 was fastest, but the "refinement" factor would have bumped it out of 1st or 2nd. the Ion is quick, but just too quirky and not very well rounded, especially in terms of interior quality. The WRX is nothing new - mediocre interior, quick off the line, lots of turbo lag, decent styling, relatively expensive, yet still fun to drive. Cobalt SS is definitely the most well rounded car of the group - excellent handling, great acceleration, very nice interior, and yet still not too expensive.
Here's how I would have ranked them, based on the title of the article, and taking into consideration performance as 70% of the score, and refinement, quality, ect. as 30%.
1. Cobalt SS S/C
2. Subaru WRX
3. Dodge SRT-4
4. Saturn Ion Redline
5. Acura RSX-S
LOL i cant believe this fag!!! he is now saying a magazine is wrong after all of his mag. ricing he does. LOL this is awesome, your putting the srt in 3rd when its the fastest of all of them LOL, the wrx is faster than the cobalt, and more refined, your a faggot. you havnt even friven those cars and you think you know about them.
RoNuS20 wrote:Joe Kidd wrote:RSX Type S base price is $23,845 which includes a sunroof and side air bags. (Per Acura website).
Cobalt SS S/C base price is $21,995, plus $725 for sunroof and $395 for the air bags. Total is $23,115. (Per GM website).
Anyway you slice it, the Cobalt is not going to be alot cheaper than the RSX Type S. And while it does have a S/C, and it puts out good performance numbers, it doesn't have IRS or 6 speeds, and it looks alot like its cheaper sibblings.
If you wanna start quoting prices, quote them correctly.
First of all, you forgot to add the destination charge to the RSX-S, which adds another $570. So you're now at $24,415. The $21,995 of the Cobalt includes destination.
And if you want to make everything equal, then you need to add some items to the RSX-S.
Cargo Net = $47.00
Fog Lights = $350.00
So your complete comparison is now:
RSX-S = $24,812
Cobalt SS = $23,115.
Yeah, I forget the destination charge. Sorry bout that dude. The rest of that crap (cargo net and fogs - who needs fogs, I would rather have IRS) are dealer installed access., not options. Whatever.
I guess the Cobalt is a better deal now huh? Anyway the Cobalt list price is horsecrap anyway 'cuz everyone and his monkey knows that GM will be giving them away soon enough. This will happen when people figure out that the competiton has alot more to offer at that price. Well, except for that damn cargo net.
Joe Kidd wrote:RoNuS20 wrote:Joe Kidd wrote:RSX Type S base price is $23,845 which includes a sunroof and side air bags. (Per Acura website).
Cobalt SS S/C base price is $21,995, plus $725 for sunroof and $395 for the air bags. Total is $23,115. (Per GM website).
Anyway you slice it, the Cobalt is not going to be alot cheaper than the RSX Type S. And while it does have a S/C, and it puts out good performance numbers, it doesn't have IRS or 6 speeds, and it looks alot like its cheaper sibblings.
If you wanna start quoting prices, quote them correctly.
First of all, you forgot to add the destination charge to the RSX-S, which adds another $570. So you're now at $24,415. The $21,995 of the Cobalt includes destination.
And if you want to make everything equal, then you need to add some items to the RSX-S.
Cargo Net = $47.00
Fog Lights = $350.00
So your complete comparison is now:
RSX-S = $24,812
Cobalt SS = $23,115.
Yeah, I forget the destination charge. Sorry bout that dude. The rest of that crap (cargo net and fogs - who needs fogs, I would rather have IRS) are dealer installed access., not options. Whatever.
I guess the Cobalt is a better deal now huh? Anyway the Cobalt list price is horsecrap anyway 'cuz everyone and his monkey knows that GM will be giving them away soon enough. This will happen when people figure out that the competiton has alot more to offer at that price. Well, except for that damn cargo net.
Dude it's cool, I just wanted to get them both equal as can be.
Whether someone wants the cargo net or foglights isn't relevant because it simply isn't included with the price. This is where you come down to the fact of "do i really need this or not" attitude with the car. Some will say "yes I really need this so I like this car better" whereas other people may have different opinions. Some people could care less about IRS, or a moonroof of side air bags, these are all preferences in a car. I for one, don't give a rats ass about IRS. I will not be doing any type of driving where I will notice a difference in cornering.
The competition does NOT have more to offer at this price, if you really want to get into details, we can throw in the fact that the Cobalts leather seats are heated. Something the RSX-S doesn't even offer. But then you may throw back the fact that the RSX-S has heated side mirrors.........once again these are all just preferences that one may or may not want in the car. The competition just offers different options on the car than the Cobalt has, but it may or may not be more for your money simply on the fact of which manufacture offers more of what YOU are looking for in a car, and leaves out what you don't want. Please remember this whenever you compare cars.
wesmanw02 wrote:RkSport 2003 wrote:b0jan jebac wrote:RSX-S deserves top be #1
SS owner or not I agree.
I have the video of the comparison on my comp if someone can host it.
Well it depends on how your ranking the cars. No doubt that the RSX-S is a great car for what it is, but the article was titled "Cheap Speed". The RSX-S is definitely the most balanced vehicle there, initial quality is top notch, and the engine is a beauty. Interior is also pretty nice, and the handling is very well-balanced.
Unfortunately though it seems that C&D took that criteria over the purpose of the article. The objective was to pick the best performing vehicle, while still taking into consideration things like quality, driveability, ect.
But alas, C&D ends up picking the slowest, most expensive car for the 'Cheap Speed" test. A little ironic, don't you think??
Obviously the SRT-4 was fastest, but the "refinement" factor would have bumped it out of 1st or 2nd. the Ion is quick, but just too quirky and not very well rounded, especially in terms of interior quality. The WRX is nothing new - mediocre interior, quick off the line, lots of turbo lag, decent styling, relatively expensive, yet still fun to drive. Cobalt SS is definitely the most well rounded car of the group - excellent handling, great acceleration, very nice interior, and yet still not too expensive.
Here's how I would have ranked them, based on the title of the article, and taking into consideration performance as 70% of the score, and refinement, quality, ect. as 30%.
1. Cobalt SS S/C
2. Subaru WRX
3. Dodge SRT-4
4. Saturn Ion Redline
5. Acura RSX-S
i fail to see with your criteria how a wrx is outperformed by a cobalt
and i really fail to see how an rsx is last
and that the redline and cobalt ss are basically the same car with different skins and yet you have one in first and one in fourth? You bitch about GM Goodwrenchs bashing of the cobalt, but you are just as bad with praising it......
themarin8r wrote:
i fail to see with your criteria how a wrx is outperformed by a cobalt
and i really fail to see how an rsx is last
and that the redline and cobalt ss are basically the same car with different skins and yet you have one in first and one in fourth? You bitch about GM Goodwrenchs bashing of the cobalt, but you are just as bad with praising it......
This comparison has made me realize something. For those that have read the article will know what I'm talking about. First of all, yes, the article was titled cheap speed, however they didn't rate the cars in order of "best bang for your buck". They rated the cars in their personal opinion of the interior quality and overall feel of the car for the buck. The title simply narrowed the cars down to "sport compact" cars that averaged a little above 200 HP each.
Anyways, these ratings don't mean jack @!#$. It is simply the opinion of a magazine and how they felt about a car. This review was based upon OPINION and not facts. The fact is, the fastest car is the SRT-4. So if they did a review based upon the fastest car of the 5, and they did not put the SRT-4 at top, then there would be call for concern. But if you read through the article and read the reasons of why they rated the cars in the way they did, you will find out that it is for reasons like i explained above......PREFERENCES. C&D must prefer the interior looks of the RSX-S over the Cobalt......does it make it a better car? Yes & No. Yes if you prefer the same kind of interior that C&D prefers; No if interior quality is not important on your list.
I hate to see people bashing magazines, auto manufactures, etc because of opinions that are written or options that are/are not available in a car. People fail to realize the whole picture and would rather complain one way or another.
*sigh*
RoNuS20 wrote:
The competition does NOT have more to offer at this price, if you really want to get into details, we can throw in the fact that the Cobalts leather seats are heated. Something the RSX-S doesn't even offer. But then you may throw back the fact that the RSX-S has heated side mirrors.........once again these are all just preferences that one may or may not want in the car. The competition just offers different options on the car than the Cobalt has, but it may or may not be more for your money simply on the fact of which manufacture offers more of what YOU are looking for in a car, and leaves out what you don't want. Please remember this whenever you compare cars.
I would argue that the RSX does offer more, esp. considering how closely priced they are. It goes beyond gadgets like heated anything, fog lights and cargo nets. Things like interior materials and layout, cachet, projected resale, and styling.
The brand is important too. Lets face it, one is an upgraded Chevrolet Cobalt, the other is an Acura RSX in a type S configuration. Unless you are worried about tearing up a quarter mile track, or nit picking about this option or that, at the price they are offering the Cobalt SS it doesn't seem to make alot of sense.
Joe Kidd wrote:RoNuS20 wrote:
The competition does NOT have more to offer at this price, if you really want to get into details, we can throw in the fact that the Cobalts leather seats are heated. Something the RSX-S doesn't even offer. But then you may throw back the fact that the RSX-S has heated side mirrors.........once again these are all just preferences that one may or may not want in the car. The competition just offers different options on the car than the Cobalt has, but it may or may not be more for your money simply on the fact of which manufacture offers more of what YOU are looking for in a car, and leaves out what you don't want. Please remember this whenever you compare cars.
I would argue that the RSX does offer more, esp. considering how closely priced they are. It goes beyond gadgets like heated anything, fog lights and cargo nets. Things like interior materials and layout, cachet, projected resale, and styling.
The brand is important too. Lets face it, one is an upgraded Chevrolet Cobalt, the other is an Acura RSX in a type S configuration. Unless you are worried about tearing up a quarter mile track, or nit picking about this option or that, at the price they are offering the Cobalt SS it doesn't seem to make alot of sense.
That's good to know that you care more than just speed. And you are correct, if you are purely interested in speed more than the options you listed, then the Cobalt SS is a better choice than the RSX-S. I'm just saying that what you are saying is not a fact, because it is only your opinion. If you really want to get technical about it, it is nearly impossible to clearly identify one car as truly better than another. There are so many factors that may/may not be relevant to some people.
Umm.. my Acura RSX-S came with heated seats.. but I'm in Canada...
I gotta question C&D's motives if they title it like they are testing for speed but give points for nicer interior, etc.
I haven't seen the segment but I'm curious on how they tested speed. 1/4? 0-60? lap times?
<A HREF="http://www.precizion.org/forums/"><IMG SRC="http://www.brew-san.com/pics/sig.jpg" border=0></a><A HREF = "http://www.precizion.org/forums/"><IMG SRC="http://www.j-body.org/registry/kenz24/precizionsmall.gif" border=0></A>
i think the speed was in the road corse they had set up
the srt and the ss had the faster times on their road corse , both being equiped with a lsd
and i laugh at you guys trying to compair all the small stupid options on each model
Kyle Kurtz wrote:
LOL i cant believe this fag!!! he is now saying a magazine is wrong after all of his mag. ricing he does. LOL this is awesome, your putting the srt in 3rd when its the fastest of all of them LOL, the wrx is faster than the cobalt, and more refined, your a faggot. you havnt even friven those cars and you think you know about them.
Hahaha guess what Kyle?? Your a tool with no life, you have nothing better to do then go online and call other people "Fags". Looks like your the true fag, faggot
And I really don't care what you have to say (in fact, nobody does), so I don't even see why you waste your time posting all that crap. And for the record, I have experience with Cobalt, Ion, RSX, and SRT-4, so shut your mouth, "your a faggot"
Bottom line is the Neon is a piece of @!#$ when it comes to quality, the SRT-4 is just about numbers. The WRX loses to the Cobalt SS S/C from anything other than a dig, which it excels in due to its AWD. Interior quality on the WRX is just average. Of course the RSX-S is the highest quality vehicle out of all of them, but its also the most expensive and its the worst performer out of the group, so its no bargain at all. The Cobalt SS is the most well rounded package, its the 2nd cheapest out of the group, its faster than all but the SRT-4, and the quality is well above average.
You're the true ricer Kyle, and next time you might want to take the extra 10 seconds to spellcheck your post, you look like a dumbass - but not that it actually matters, because we already know that you really are.
My CarDomain Page
yay for internet arguing. of those cars....I'd take the type S...why? drive one. I never seen a car that loved gettin beat on so much
