Condensed Review: 2009 Chevrolet Cobalt SS
10-04-08, 07:38 AM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Condensed Review: 2009 Chevrolet Cobalt SS
A Condensed Review of the 2009 Chevrolet Cobalt SS Turbo Coupe.
http://www.chevrolet.com/cobalt/
In a Nutshell: A relatively inexpensive pocket-rocket with a lot of bang for the buck, but with a crude, unrefined powertrain.
.jpg)
There has been some limited interest in the new Cobalt SS among some CL members, and I've been asked my opinion of the car a couple of times, but since I have not gotten any specific requests for a full-length review, I decided to do a slightly shorter-length, condensed or mini-review instead. However, that does not mean I just quickly glanced at it and then took it for a quick spin around the block. I gave it more or less the same checks, inside and out, that any other review gets....without that, a credible write-up cannot be done.
Chevy's Cobalt, twin brother of the virtually identical Pontiac G5, replaced the forgettable Chevy Cavalier line that, along with the Dodge Neon, virtually defined the concept of the cheaply-built, plastic-interior, rental-grade compact. Cavaliers, along with pre-2000 Hyundais, were often the butt of jokes in the auto press. Even the mildly sporty Cavalier Z24 model failed to establish much of a reputation in the auto market for anything else than simple, ho-hum transportation....transportation that had its share of rattles and squeaks. It was the kind of car, that, back in high school, me and some of my friends would have described in two words......."Beats Walking".
So, finally, after an enormously long production run going back to 1982, the J-Body Cavalier, and several redesigns, Chevy finally decided to toss out the old Cavalier name and replace it with an all-new compact car.....the Cobalt. The Cobalt shares some of the Cavalier's ho-hum shortcomings, but, in general, is a substantially better car. It was given more respect in the auto press, especially the SS version....the subject of this review.
Since this is an abbreviated review, I won't go into a detailed description of all the present Cavalier models and trim lines, but will stick to the requested SS line. SS models, for 2009, come in coupe and sedan versions. Only one engine is offered, the ubiquitous 2.0L ECOTEC turbocharged four also used in several other high-performance GM small cars, and one transmission......a 5-speed manual. Unfortunately, no automatic is offered in the SS....a marketing move by Chevy that could hurt sales in urban, dense-traffic areas, although Mazda has the same no-automatic policy on its competing MazdaSpeed3.
So.....on with the review.
Model Reviewed: 2009 Chevrolet Cobalt SS Turbo Coupe
Base Price: $22,775
Major Options:
Limited-Slip Differential: $495
Performance-Display Gauge: $295
Aero-Wing rear Spoiler: $150
AM/FM Single CD/Auxilliary input USB: $100
Temporary Spare Tire: $75 (Come on, this is nonsense!)
Destination/Freight: $660
List price as reviewed: $24,550
Drivetrain: FWD, transversely-mounted 2.0L DOHC ECOTEC in-line turbocharged 4, 260 HP @ 5300 RPM, Torque 260 Ft-lbs. @ 2000 RPM,
5-speed manual transmission, limited-slip differential.
EPA Mileage Ratings: 22 City, 30 Highway
Exterior Color: Black
Interior: Black Sport cloth/Leather Suede
PLUSSES:
Excellent GM 5 year/100,000 mile transferable drivetrain warranty.
5 year/100,000 mile Roadside Assistance.
Simple, no-nonsense front/rear styling and headlights/taillights.
Torquey 2.0 Turbo Ecotec four.
Launch-Control feature usually found in more expensive performance cars.
Standard Brembo brakes.
No-sponge brake pedal.
Excellent handling/steering response.
Flat cornering.
Comfortable, well-shaped steering wheel.
Generally comfortable, form-fitting, Recaro-type seats.
Fairly good wind noise isolation.
Well-designed trunk hinges.
OK paint job for the price.
Bright red and yellow exterior paint colors appropriate for the car.
Nice stereo sound quality and adjustment *****.
Nice, painted silver-metallic trim inside doesn't look or feel bad.
MINUSES:
Relatively noisy engine.
No underhood insulation pad.
Crude, unrefined manual transmision/clutch.
No automatic transmission available on the SS line for 2009.
Too much road/tire noise on concrete surfaces.
Brake-deceleration not up to typical Brembo capabilities.
Thin, flimsy-plastic, too-small outside mirror housings.
Cheesy, flimsy, poorly located Performance-Display gauge/housing.
Rear seat almost useless on coupe model.
Temporary-spear tire costs extra.
Poorly-finished trunk.
Rough-fitting ignition key/switch.
Cheap-feeling climate control and dome-light controls.
Overly-firm seat cushions.
Long, heavy, hard-to-pull doors on coupe model.
High, flamboyant spoiler wing on trunk lid blocks rear vision.
Cheaply-made sun visors.
Only 7 exterior colors offered.
EXTERIOR:
Same as the last several years....no major facelift or redesign for 2009. I basically like the looks of both the coupe and the sedan, though, in the reviewed coupe model, I'd prefer a less-slanted rear roofline and slightly thicker C-pillars (not thick enough to block vision). The sheet metal is solid and substantial, except for the somewhat lightweight hood. The front and rear ends are both relatively simple, without a lot of bullet-shapes and excessive streamlining (the way I like it). The two doors, like in a number of coupes, are long, relatively heavy, and, once seated inside, require a stretch and a hefty pull to get them closed. The two somewhat undersized (IMO) outside mirrors have thin, flimsy plastic housings and don't swivel and lock smoothly.....a characteristic of many American-designed vehicles. Ground clearance is rather low, partly from the extremely low-profile 40-series performance tires and partly from the sporty lower-body fairings. Trim quality is OK...GM seems to be improving in this area. The paint job is OK....consistant with this car's price range, and, though only 7 colors are offered, the bright red and yellow are consistant with the car's sportiness. The big, garish trunk spoiler breaks up the car's clean looks and blocks some rear vision......more on that below.
UNDERHOOD:
The lightweight hood (I couldn't tell if it was aluminum or plastic) is held up by a single gas-strut and lacks an underhood insulation pad.....one reason for the engine noise (more on that later). The 2.0L Turbo four, mounted sideways like many FWD cars, fits in a little tight, but underhood access is actually quite good. The engine has no cover at all (the way it should be).......everything on top and, to an extent, the sides can be more or less freely accessed for maintenance, repair, or simple fluid checks. The battery is under the trunk floor in back, not up front with the engine, but everything else around the sides and front of the engine is at least reasonably easy to reach.
INTERIOR:
Like the exterior, the interior is mostly a re-hash of other recent Cobalts...no major changes this year. I liked the form-fitting, well-bolstered, relatively comfortable, Recaro-like SS seats, though the cushions were a little firm for my tastes. Several color combinations are offered....mine were a nice textured Black fabric on the edges and black leather-suede on the cushions. The Chevy parts-bin steering wheel had a comfortable leather grip and a nice three-spoke design. Gauges were large, round, clear, and legible, with red trim rings. Ahead, mounted on the left-front windshield pillar, is the choice of a nice, clear round turbo boost gauge or an optional Performance Display unit (which my car had). The Performance Display, IMO, was awful....one of the car's worst features. It is a big, square, ultra-cheesy-thin rectangular plastic box that sticks out of the pillar, blocking some left forward vision. A flimsy push/twirl **** scrolls through a number of turbo boost/G-force/speed/timing settings with video-screen and digital readings. Just another toy to play with...and distract you from the road.....while you're trying to drive.
The rest of the interior is generally OK. The silver interior trim is nicely done despite being painted plastic. The factory stereo sound is clearly above average, perhaps aimed at this car's generally young owner base that is into music. The stereo ***** and buttons are high-quality and easy to use; the climate-control *****/buttons cheaper and flimsier. Door panels are mostly black plastic with vinyl-like trim inserts depending on seat colors. Power-switch hardware is pretty good...this is another area where GM has been improving. Leg and headroom is fine up front if you adjust the seat low enough (my car didn't have a sunroof). Rear seats, in the coupe version, as is often the case in this type of car, are virtually useless except for small children or as a package shelf....the 4-door SS sedan, of course, solves part of that problem. Oops.....I forgot to check and see if the rear seats fold down for cargo or have a pass-through feature. Chevy doesn't say in the brochure, and I couldn't download the web-site Cobalt-spec PDF file that Chevy uses. Last, the dome light switch above, like on other Chevys, is cheap and flimsy.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
The swept-back roofline, of course, impacts the size of the trunk lid, but the lid itself has the nice, articulated-type of hinges that allow it to sweep up past vertical and actually lean forward to make loading easier...I wish all sedans and coupes had this feature. Inside, the trunk is quite poorly finished by today's standards, with nothing but a piece of thin fiber-board with cheap, gray, mouse-fur fabric covering the floor, which pulls up to reveal the car's battery and the $75 temporary-spare tire/wheel. Yes, that's right......even a temporary spare costs extra; standard equipment is a compressed-air bottle of Fix-a-Flat that may or may not work adequately under real-world conditions. One does not expect a car in this class to have a real spare tire and wheel, but come on, Mr. Lutz (Bob Lutz, GM's Chief).......you can do better than this.
ON THE ROAD:
Getting the 2.0 Turbo-4 started up is not one of the car's more pleasant experiences either. The conventional ignition key and switch, on the steering column, are both roughly and crudely cut, so inserting the key and turning it is not smooth. This engine, never known in the auto press as one of the more refined ones, starts up and settles into a somewhat noisy idle with a little vibration. On the road, like the similiar 2.0L VW/Audi Turbo four, it has plenty of power, with minimal but noticeable turbo lag, but, of course, lacks the superb VW/Audi DSG transmission. The 260 ft-lbs of torque peak at only 2000 RPM, and you get a healthy shove in the back when the boost really gets going. Of course, a fair amount of noise and vibration go with it.
I was not impressed at all with the 5-speed manual transmission (and no automatic is currenty available on the SS). It took a lot of practice and dexterity with the clutch to get reasonably smooth starts in first gear. With so much torque at so little RPM, even with the traction control, I spun the car's front tires (on dry pavement) a couple of times trying to get started uphill from a stop without rolling back into the car behind me. A Launch-Control program is built into the car if you want a max-performance run from a stop, but that is not the purpose of this review. The shifter had a generally nice feel and reasonably short throws, but the shift action itself was heavy, clunky, and notchy. With practice and a few miles, you can drive reasonably smoothly, but it was clear that this is not a slick, Honda-designed unit.
Handling, by FWD standards, was first-rate........the engineers seem to have done their homework on this chassis, which is shared by several other U.S/world-market GM vehicles. Steering response was quick, immediate, and positive, though the electric power steering doesn't transmit BMW-like road feel. It only takes a quick flick of the wrist to toss this car around any reasonably sharp corner, with a noted lack of body roll. Part of the good handling, of course, is the result of the very-low-profile 40-series tires, which provide, as expected, a firm ride. They are reasonably quiet on smooth asphalt, but get rough and noisy on bumps and on concrete. Wind noise, however, is well-sealed.
The standard-equipment SS Brembo brake package, unusual in this class, had a nice, firm pedal and no gas-to-brake-pedal hangups with my big shoes, but didn't seem to have particularly strong braking action unless you really put your foot into it. Perhaps the response is limited by the size of the wheels/rotors and the fact that the Brembo hardware is only up front.
THE VERDICT:
A relatively good pocket-rocket (translated: high-performance compact car) for the price, with a sporty (by FWD standards) chassis, good torque, comfortable front seats, and improved overall trim/hardware quality compared to previous GM cars, but hampered by crude, unrefined engine/transmission characteristics, a cheesy, poorly-designed Performance Display gauge, uneven brake action, and, despite GM's recent emphasis on better interiors, some flimsy, poorly-made interior parts. I can't compare it directly to the Dodge Caliber R/T, which is probably its closest domestic competitor (outside of its own twin Pontiac G5 GT), because I haven't reviewed a recent Caliber, but, comparing it to the MazdaSpeed3 and VW GTI/R32, IMO it compares favorably to both in handling, but lags on overall refinement.
http://www.chevrolet.com/cobalt/
In a Nutshell: A relatively inexpensive pocket-rocket with a lot of bang for the buck, but with a crude, unrefined powertrain.
There has been some limited interest in the new Cobalt SS among some CL members, and I've been asked my opinion of the car a couple of times, but since I have not gotten any specific requests for a full-length review, I decided to do a slightly shorter-length, condensed or mini-review instead. However, that does not mean I just quickly glanced at it and then took it for a quick spin around the block. I gave it more or less the same checks, inside and out, that any other review gets....without that, a credible write-up cannot be done.
Chevy's Cobalt, twin brother of the virtually identical Pontiac G5, replaced the forgettable Chevy Cavalier line that, along with the Dodge Neon, virtually defined the concept of the cheaply-built, plastic-interior, rental-grade compact. Cavaliers, along with pre-2000 Hyundais, were often the butt of jokes in the auto press. Even the mildly sporty Cavalier Z24 model failed to establish much of a reputation in the auto market for anything else than simple, ho-hum transportation....transportation that had its share of rattles and squeaks. It was the kind of car, that, back in high school, me and some of my friends would have described in two words......."Beats Walking".
So, finally, after an enormously long production run going back to 1982, the J-Body Cavalier, and several redesigns, Chevy finally decided to toss out the old Cavalier name and replace it with an all-new compact car.....the Cobalt. The Cobalt shares some of the Cavalier's ho-hum shortcomings, but, in general, is a substantially better car. It was given more respect in the auto press, especially the SS version....the subject of this review.
Since this is an abbreviated review, I won't go into a detailed description of all the present Cavalier models and trim lines, but will stick to the requested SS line. SS models, for 2009, come in coupe and sedan versions. Only one engine is offered, the ubiquitous 2.0L ECOTEC turbocharged four also used in several other high-performance GM small cars, and one transmission......a 5-speed manual. Unfortunately, no automatic is offered in the SS....a marketing move by Chevy that could hurt sales in urban, dense-traffic areas, although Mazda has the same no-automatic policy on its competing MazdaSpeed3.
So.....on with the review.
Model Reviewed: 2009 Chevrolet Cobalt SS Turbo Coupe
Base Price: $22,775
Major Options:
Limited-Slip Differential: $495
Performance-Display Gauge: $295
Aero-Wing rear Spoiler: $150
AM/FM Single CD/Auxilliary input USB: $100
Temporary Spare Tire: $75 (Come on, this is nonsense!)
Destination/Freight: $660
List price as reviewed: $24,550
Drivetrain: FWD, transversely-mounted 2.0L DOHC ECOTEC in-line turbocharged 4, 260 HP @ 5300 RPM, Torque 260 Ft-lbs. @ 2000 RPM,
5-speed manual transmission, limited-slip differential.
EPA Mileage Ratings: 22 City, 30 Highway
Exterior Color: Black
Interior: Black Sport cloth/Leather Suede
PLUSSES:
Excellent GM 5 year/100,000 mile transferable drivetrain warranty.
5 year/100,000 mile Roadside Assistance.
Simple, no-nonsense front/rear styling and headlights/taillights.
Torquey 2.0 Turbo Ecotec four.
Launch-Control feature usually found in more expensive performance cars.
Standard Brembo brakes.
No-sponge brake pedal.
Excellent handling/steering response.
Flat cornering.
Comfortable, well-shaped steering wheel.
Generally comfortable, form-fitting, Recaro-type seats.
Fairly good wind noise isolation.
Well-designed trunk hinges.
OK paint job for the price.
Bright red and yellow exterior paint colors appropriate for the car.
Nice stereo sound quality and adjustment *****.
Nice, painted silver-metallic trim inside doesn't look or feel bad.
MINUSES:
Relatively noisy engine.
No underhood insulation pad.
Crude, unrefined manual transmision/clutch.
No automatic transmission available on the SS line for 2009.
Too much road/tire noise on concrete surfaces.
Brake-deceleration not up to typical Brembo capabilities.
Thin, flimsy-plastic, too-small outside mirror housings.
Cheesy, flimsy, poorly located Performance-Display gauge/housing.
Rear seat almost useless on coupe model.
Temporary-spear tire costs extra.
Poorly-finished trunk.
Rough-fitting ignition key/switch.
Cheap-feeling climate control and dome-light controls.
Overly-firm seat cushions.
Long, heavy, hard-to-pull doors on coupe model.
High, flamboyant spoiler wing on trunk lid blocks rear vision.
Cheaply-made sun visors.
Only 7 exterior colors offered.
EXTERIOR:
Same as the last several years....no major facelift or redesign for 2009. I basically like the looks of both the coupe and the sedan, though, in the reviewed coupe model, I'd prefer a less-slanted rear roofline and slightly thicker C-pillars (not thick enough to block vision). The sheet metal is solid and substantial, except for the somewhat lightweight hood. The front and rear ends are both relatively simple, without a lot of bullet-shapes and excessive streamlining (the way I like it). The two doors, like in a number of coupes, are long, relatively heavy, and, once seated inside, require a stretch and a hefty pull to get them closed. The two somewhat undersized (IMO) outside mirrors have thin, flimsy plastic housings and don't swivel and lock smoothly.....a characteristic of many American-designed vehicles. Ground clearance is rather low, partly from the extremely low-profile 40-series performance tires and partly from the sporty lower-body fairings. Trim quality is OK...GM seems to be improving in this area. The paint job is OK....consistant with this car's price range, and, though only 7 colors are offered, the bright red and yellow are consistant with the car's sportiness. The big, garish trunk spoiler breaks up the car's clean looks and blocks some rear vision......more on that below.
UNDERHOOD:
The lightweight hood (I couldn't tell if it was aluminum or plastic) is held up by a single gas-strut and lacks an underhood insulation pad.....one reason for the engine noise (more on that later). The 2.0L Turbo four, mounted sideways like many FWD cars, fits in a little tight, but underhood access is actually quite good. The engine has no cover at all (the way it should be).......everything on top and, to an extent, the sides can be more or less freely accessed for maintenance, repair, or simple fluid checks. The battery is under the trunk floor in back, not up front with the engine, but everything else around the sides and front of the engine is at least reasonably easy to reach.
INTERIOR:
Like the exterior, the interior is mostly a re-hash of other recent Cobalts...no major changes this year. I liked the form-fitting, well-bolstered, relatively comfortable, Recaro-like SS seats, though the cushions were a little firm for my tastes. Several color combinations are offered....mine were a nice textured Black fabric on the edges and black leather-suede on the cushions. The Chevy parts-bin steering wheel had a comfortable leather grip and a nice three-spoke design. Gauges were large, round, clear, and legible, with red trim rings. Ahead, mounted on the left-front windshield pillar, is the choice of a nice, clear round turbo boost gauge or an optional Performance Display unit (which my car had). The Performance Display, IMO, was awful....one of the car's worst features. It is a big, square, ultra-cheesy-thin rectangular plastic box that sticks out of the pillar, blocking some left forward vision. A flimsy push/twirl **** scrolls through a number of turbo boost/G-force/speed/timing settings with video-screen and digital readings. Just another toy to play with...and distract you from the road.....while you're trying to drive.
The rest of the interior is generally OK. The silver interior trim is nicely done despite being painted plastic. The factory stereo sound is clearly above average, perhaps aimed at this car's generally young owner base that is into music. The stereo ***** and buttons are high-quality and easy to use; the climate-control *****/buttons cheaper and flimsier. Door panels are mostly black plastic with vinyl-like trim inserts depending on seat colors. Power-switch hardware is pretty good...this is another area where GM has been improving. Leg and headroom is fine up front if you adjust the seat low enough (my car didn't have a sunroof). Rear seats, in the coupe version, as is often the case in this type of car, are virtually useless except for small children or as a package shelf....the 4-door SS sedan, of course, solves part of that problem. Oops.....I forgot to check and see if the rear seats fold down for cargo or have a pass-through feature. Chevy doesn't say in the brochure, and I couldn't download the web-site Cobalt-spec PDF file that Chevy uses. Last, the dome light switch above, like on other Chevys, is cheap and flimsy.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
The swept-back roofline, of course, impacts the size of the trunk lid, but the lid itself has the nice, articulated-type of hinges that allow it to sweep up past vertical and actually lean forward to make loading easier...I wish all sedans and coupes had this feature. Inside, the trunk is quite poorly finished by today's standards, with nothing but a piece of thin fiber-board with cheap, gray, mouse-fur fabric covering the floor, which pulls up to reveal the car's battery and the $75 temporary-spare tire/wheel. Yes, that's right......even a temporary spare costs extra; standard equipment is a compressed-air bottle of Fix-a-Flat that may or may not work adequately under real-world conditions. One does not expect a car in this class to have a real spare tire and wheel, but come on, Mr. Lutz (Bob Lutz, GM's Chief).......you can do better than this.
ON THE ROAD:
Getting the 2.0 Turbo-4 started up is not one of the car's more pleasant experiences either. The conventional ignition key and switch, on the steering column, are both roughly and crudely cut, so inserting the key and turning it is not smooth. This engine, never known in the auto press as one of the more refined ones, starts up and settles into a somewhat noisy idle with a little vibration. On the road, like the similiar 2.0L VW/Audi Turbo four, it has plenty of power, with minimal but noticeable turbo lag, but, of course, lacks the superb VW/Audi DSG transmission. The 260 ft-lbs of torque peak at only 2000 RPM, and you get a healthy shove in the back when the boost really gets going. Of course, a fair amount of noise and vibration go with it.
I was not impressed at all with the 5-speed manual transmission (and no automatic is currenty available on the SS). It took a lot of practice and dexterity with the clutch to get reasonably smooth starts in first gear. With so much torque at so little RPM, even with the traction control, I spun the car's front tires (on dry pavement) a couple of times trying to get started uphill from a stop without rolling back into the car behind me. A Launch-Control program is built into the car if you want a max-performance run from a stop, but that is not the purpose of this review. The shifter had a generally nice feel and reasonably short throws, but the shift action itself was heavy, clunky, and notchy. With practice and a few miles, you can drive reasonably smoothly, but it was clear that this is not a slick, Honda-designed unit.
Handling, by FWD standards, was first-rate........the engineers seem to have done their homework on this chassis, which is shared by several other U.S/world-market GM vehicles. Steering response was quick, immediate, and positive, though the electric power steering doesn't transmit BMW-like road feel. It only takes a quick flick of the wrist to toss this car around any reasonably sharp corner, with a noted lack of body roll. Part of the good handling, of course, is the result of the very-low-profile 40-series tires, which provide, as expected, a firm ride. They are reasonably quiet on smooth asphalt, but get rough and noisy on bumps and on concrete. Wind noise, however, is well-sealed.
The standard-equipment SS Brembo brake package, unusual in this class, had a nice, firm pedal and no gas-to-brake-pedal hangups with my big shoes, but didn't seem to have particularly strong braking action unless you really put your foot into it. Perhaps the response is limited by the size of the wheels/rotors and the fact that the Brembo hardware is only up front.
THE VERDICT:
A relatively good pocket-rocket (translated: high-performance compact car) for the price, with a sporty (by FWD standards) chassis, good torque, comfortable front seats, and improved overall trim/hardware quality compared to previous GM cars, but hampered by crude, unrefined engine/transmission characteristics, a cheesy, poorly-designed Performance Display gauge, uneven brake action, and, despite GM's recent emphasis on better interiors, some flimsy, poorly-made interior parts. I can't compare it directly to the Dodge Caliber R/T, which is probably its closest domestic competitor (outside of its own twin Pontiac G5 GT), because I haven't reviewed a recent Caliber, but, comparing it to the MazdaSpeed3 and VW GTI/R32, IMO it compares favorably to both in handling, but lags on overall refinement.
Last edited by mmarshall; 07-30-09 at 11:39 AM.
10-04-08, 11:38 AM
#2
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 1,751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great review mmarshall!!!
OMG... the pluses and minus are so similar to my old ITR... except that it has A LOT more hp and torque and color variation... Some of the minuses you pointed out, they are not minuses in my eyes.
I think I am falling in love with this car... The coupe especially in red color looks so much better than the sedan..
A agree that it's a lot of bang/performance for the buck
OMG... the pluses and minus are so similar to my old ITR... except that it has A LOT more hp and torque and color variation... Some of the minuses you pointed out, they are not minuses in my eyes.
I think I am falling in love with this car... The coupe especially in red color looks so much better than the sedan.. A agree that it's a lot of bang/performance for the buck
10-04-08, 11:44 AM
#4
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks.
If you're looking for a competent, inexpensive pocket-rocket, fine, but don't expect it to drive like a Lexus, Acura, or BMW. The engine/transmission have spunk but are somewhat crude, and it is noisy on coarse road surfaces.
OMG... the pluses and minus are so similar to my old ITR... except that it has A LOT more hp and torque and color variation... I think I am falling in love with this car... The coupe especially in red color looks so much better than the sedan..
A agree that it's a lot of bang/performance for the buck
A agree that it's a lot of bang/performance for the buck
10-04-08, 11:49 AM
#5
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
10-04-08, 04:29 PM
#7
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
But, for everyday driving, they are fine....and, like the last three cars I've reviewed (Challenger R/T, Acura TL, and Legacy 3.0R), have a delightful pedal feel.
Last edited by mmarshall; 10-04-08 at 04:32 PM.
Trending Topics
10-04-08, 07:34 PM
#8
Lexus Fanatic
I knew a guy at work who had a yellow Cobalt SS and it had so many problems he had to give it back under a lemon law and he was a huge GM fan. He said the car was pretty fast but that was about the only good thing about it and pretty much said he could tell it was falling apart as he was driving it and it spent more time getting serviced then on the road. It is a decent looking sport hatch with some nice power though, but I would never consider one.
10-05-08, 03:41 AM
#10
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
I knew a guy at work who had a yellow Cobalt SS and it had so many problems he had to give it back under a lemon law and he was a huge GM fan. He said the car was pretty fast but that was about the only good thing about it and pretty much said he could tell it was falling apart as he was driving it and it spent more time getting serviced then on the road. It is a decent looking sport hatch with some nice power though, but I would never consider one.
Seriously, You can't always tell how reliable a car will be in the long run just from one review and test drive....that usually just catches surface factory assembly goofs. And some things, of course, depend on how hard you drive it (He may have been rough on his car; I don't know). But the previous Chevy Cavalier, which the Cobalt replaced, was, IMO, a poorly-built car.....the Cobalt shows some improvement, but still falls short of, say, a Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla in overall quality.
10-05-08, 03:46 AM
#11
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Though I don't drive really hard or aggressive enough on public roads to do tailslides or other extreme RWD stunts (I consider it dangerous), under moderately hard cornering and steering (which I DO give it), it behaves much like a RWD car. Unless you are into really hard track stuff, you probably won't notice the difference. With the stock suspension and tires on this car, you can flip it around any reasonable corner quickly with one flick of the wrist....Chevy has done a good job on the chassis from a handling standpoint, especially for general street use.
10-05-08, 11:01 AM
#12
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 1,751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mean it would make a greater track car because in its current form, it's already a great track car.
Nissan 350Z Track 3:12.5 (2006)
Chevrolet Cobalt SS Turbocharged 3:13.0 (2008)
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X MR SSTT (semi-auto)- 3:13.3 (2008)
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution IX MR- 3:13.5 (2006)
BMW 135i (steptronic automatic)- 3:13.7 (2008)
Lexus IS F- 3:14.0 (2008)
Audi S5- 3:14.6 (2008)
Honda S2000 CR- 3:15.0 (2008)
Pontiac Solstice GXP- 3:15.7 (2007)
Mazda Speed 3- 3:16.0 (2007)
Dodge Challenger SRT8- 3:16.3 (2008)
Lotus Elise SC- 3:16.6 (2008) [WTF happened???]
Infiniti G37 Sport- 3:17.5 (2008)
Dodge Charger SRT8- 3:18.2 (2006)
Subaru Impreza WRX STI- 3:19.0 (2008)
Mazda RX-8- 3:19.0 (2006)
Chevy Cobalt SS (Supercharged)- 3:20.6 (2006)
Dodge Caliber SRT4- 3:20.8 (2008)
Ford Mustang GT- 3:20.9 (2006)
Volkswagen R32- 3:21.8 (2008)
Mini Cooper S (Turbo)- 3:22.9 (2007)
Honda Civic Mugen Si- 3:24.8 (2008)
Volkswagen GTI- 3:25.1 (2006)
Honda Civic Si- 3:26.5 (2006)
Volvo C30 T5 Version 2.0- 3:26.6 (2008)
Mazda MX-5- 3:29.3 (2006)
Chevrolet Cobalt SS Turbocharged 3:13.0 (2008)
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X MR SSTT (semi-auto)- 3:13.3 (2008)
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution IX MR- 3:13.5 (2006)
BMW 135i (steptronic automatic)- 3:13.7 (2008)
Lexus IS F- 3:14.0 (2008)
Audi S5- 3:14.6 (2008)
Honda S2000 CR- 3:15.0 (2008)
Pontiac Solstice GXP- 3:15.7 (2007)
Mazda Speed 3- 3:16.0 (2007)
Dodge Challenger SRT8- 3:16.3 (2008)
Lotus Elise SC- 3:16.6 (2008) [WTF happened???]
Infiniti G37 Sport- 3:17.5 (2008)
Dodge Charger SRT8- 3:18.2 (2006)
Subaru Impreza WRX STI- 3:19.0 (2008)
Mazda RX-8- 3:19.0 (2006)
Chevy Cobalt SS (Supercharged)- 3:20.6 (2006)
Dodge Caliber SRT4- 3:20.8 (2008)
Ford Mustang GT- 3:20.9 (2006)
Volkswagen R32- 3:21.8 (2008)
Mini Cooper S (Turbo)- 3:22.9 (2007)
Honda Civic Mugen Si- 3:24.8 (2008)
Volkswagen GTI- 3:25.1 (2006)
Honda Civic Si- 3:26.5 (2006)
Volvo C30 T5 Version 2.0- 3:26.6 (2008)
Mazda MX-5- 3:29.3 (2006)
10-06-08, 05:45 AM
#13
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
OK, guys, while we're on the subject of "track cars", Road and Track Magazine, in its November issue (I got my copy in the mail just after I posted this review), picked a Cobalt SS first in a comparison with the new Subaru WRX, Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart, and MazdaSpeed3 (I've already reviewed the SS and MazdaSpeed3, and plan to review a Ralliart soon).
The SS scored more points in the tests than any of the others, primarily because they went ga-ga over its torque and handling. They didn't find the engine or transmission as unrefined as I did, though they did agree with me on the great FWD handling, cheap interior, bargain price, and, except for the spoiler, the fact that it had sleeper-styling like its more mundane Cobalt brothers. They felt that the SS was extremely underrated in the marketplace and was a great bargain for the money...several of the R&T staffers wanted to take one home.
I have a lot of respect for R&T magazine (or else I wouldn't subscribe to it). They admittedly test their cars under harsher and rougher track conditions than I do, especially in braking, and take them to their limits. My reviews are usually done with brand-new vehicles, under more or less average street and highway conditions, are more an indication of what you get for your money in everyday driving, and are more of a thorough examination of what the cars are like stem to stern.
I respect R&T's opinion on the drivetrain their Cobalt SS had (though theirs didn't have the limited-slip differential my car did), but, in my experience, under the conditions I drove mine, I felt that the engine, while powerful and torque-laden, didn't have much in the way of refinement, and that the 5-speed manual transmission/clutch was clunky, imprecise, and needed some practice to shift smoothly. Of course, in R&T's max-performance runs, shift smoothness is usually not top priority. I also would have picked the WRX or MazdaSpeed3 just on the general level of build quality alone.
The SS scored more points in the tests than any of the others, primarily because they went ga-ga over its torque and handling. They didn't find the engine or transmission as unrefined as I did, though they did agree with me on the great FWD handling, cheap interior, bargain price, and, except for the spoiler, the fact that it had sleeper-styling like its more mundane Cobalt brothers. They felt that the SS was extremely underrated in the marketplace and was a great bargain for the money...several of the R&T staffers wanted to take one home.
I have a lot of respect for R&T magazine (or else I wouldn't subscribe to it). They admittedly test their cars under harsher and rougher track conditions than I do, especially in braking, and take them to their limits. My reviews are usually done with brand-new vehicles, under more or less average street and highway conditions, are more an indication of what you get for your money in everyday driving, and are more of a thorough examination of what the cars are like stem to stern.
I respect R&T's opinion on the drivetrain their Cobalt SS had (though theirs didn't have the limited-slip differential my car did), but, in my experience, under the conditions I drove mine, I felt that the engine, while powerful and torque-laden, didn't have much in the way of refinement, and that the 5-speed manual transmission/clutch was clunky, imprecise, and needed some practice to shift smoothly. Of course, in R&T's max-performance runs, shift smoothness is usually not top priority. I also would have picked the WRX or MazdaSpeed3 just on the general level of build quality alone.
Last edited by mmarshall; 10-06-08 at 05:51 AM.
10-06-08, 06:01 AM
#14
10-06-08, 06:06 AM
#15
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter