2006 Sport Compact Comparison Test - Cobalt beats Civic Si, Scion tC

[91 s-10baja]

2006 Sport Compact Comparison Test Chevrolet Cobalt SS Supercharged vs. Honda Civic Si vs. Scion tC Supercharged vs. Volkswagen GTI by Christian Wardlaw Introduction

Chevrolet Cobalt SS Supercharged: Second Place
Who could predict that GM’s rather unrefined Ecotec four-banger could be turned into such an entertaining powertrain? Equipped with a supercharger and making 205 horsepower as well as 205 lb.-ft. of torque, the Chevy Cobalt SS Supercharged was a crowd pleaser, its greatest strength the ability to entertain no matter where we drove it – city, country, highway, or race track. This flexible character helped us to overlook the Cobalt’s 19.6 mpg test average, but ultimately we decided that the Chevy’s lack of refinement and less entertaining torque band relegated it to second place.

“Engine has good power; builds strong and steady through the revs. Slick five-speed with short throws.” – Blackett

“Ribbons of power, and transmission is well matched. All in all a pleasure to drive, either taking corners or going straight.” – Chee

“Very sporty, pulls hard, lots of torque at all RPM.” – Perry

“Doesn’t feel as lively as GTI – torque band not as thick. Clutch takes up high – easy to slip it. Not the most refined powertrain.” – Wardlaw

At the foot of the northernmost runway at Los Angeles International Airport, tucked up against the side of a parking garage and equipped with outdoor seating that provides patrons with up-close-and-personal views of a Boeing 747’s landing gear, sits a bustling In-N-Out Burger joint. Part of the In-N-Out fast-food chain that blankets the southwestern part of the U.S., this particular restaurant is notable for its LAX location, within clear view of visitors and tourists who are landing on the adjacent runway as well as those who are traveling down Sepulveda boulevard as they depart Southern California. This convenient spot capably serves the multitudes that have gotten hooked on the delicious hamburgers, fresh-cut French fries, and homemade milk shakes that In-N-Out has served since 1948, people who need their fix as soon as they step off the plane or want to indulge just one more time before they head for wherever home is.

In-N-Out is successful because it makes inexpensive, pleasurable, quality food, and people love to have a good time on a dime rather than a dollar. Of course, there are compromises to be made. The menu is limited to burgers, fries, shakes, and sodas. There’s usually a line to reach the counter, and the wait for your order number to be called is interminable while sitting on the cold, hard swivel seats, head swimming in the intoxicating aroma of grilled onions and grease while your stomach growls uncontrollably. But when that red plastic tray of yummy goodness lands on your table, the wrapper of the cheesy Double-Double is peeled back, you take that first eager bite, and your taste buds revel in the toasted bun, the crispy lettuce, the creamy dressing, and the steaming beef, you feel like you’ve gotten far more than your five bucks worth of happiness.



Bang for the buck: we Americans want it in everything, not just food. With the run-up in gas prices during the past year, this in-bred emphasis on value has become increasingly important when it comes to our choice of vehicles, too. Smaller, fuel-efficient, but still well equipped models are more appealing than ever, and consumers are becoming increasingly educated about the effects of global warming, making it even more important to burn as little fuel as possible. These shifts in the market have most experts predicting that compact cars are back to stay in a big way, and help to explain the media frenzy over and dealer mark-ups on econo-boxes like the new Honda Fit and Toyota Yaris. Clearly, until household budgets can swallow the new reality of paying three bucks for a gallon of gas, small cars will be high on consumers’ shopping lists – if not for a primary vehicle, then as a commuter car and grocery getter.


Continues:http://www.autobytel.com/content/sha...le_id_int/1971

[chad4835]

Had my first In-N-Out burger on a recent trip to LA and they are good, Oh and by the way the Cobalt SS looks great in red and I really like the wheels, wish they would have stretced for a more unique grill...guess you can't have it all.

[Bvonscott]

Wow the Cobalt did very good in this comparo..

Street Driving: First Place
Track Driving: First Place
Powertrain: Second Place
Comfort: 4th Place
Quality: 4th Place
Design: 4th Place (very subjective)
Overall: 3rd Place (you'd think in this comparo the best performer would win....only .2 points behind civic.... what a crock)

If GM puts a little more quality and better interior design... they will surely outsell the horribly overhyped Civic.

[Kheiron]

The Cobalt SS-S/C had an excellent showing only losing to the Civic by a hair, I cannot wait for LNF powered one as I'd highly consider buying one for the right price (I'm not in the market for a car for another year and a half, otherwise the S/C would be high on my list of options). With money being no option, I'd take a GTI any day as I absolutely love the interior, seats, turbo, and the hatch as well (I have a sweet spot for hatches.)

This perturbs me though---"Inside, the Saturn Ion Red Line gets lovely Recaro sport seats. The Cobalt gets flat-as-Kansas buckets that look like they were ripped out of a mid-70s Camaro, crappy upholstery and all. What the heck? Yeah, they’re comfortable enough when going in a straight line, but the Cobalt SS is so much fun to fling around and the lack of any bolstering whatsoever detracts from the quality of the driving experience. Also, there’s no telescopic steering wheel in the Cobalt, hard plastic bites into your knees when bracing for turns, and there’s no center armrest, either."

The G85 package enters Recaro racing seats similar to the Ion RL into the Cobalt SS as well as a Limited Slip Differential, so that is a moot point as they tested an ill-equipped car. Package is 1500$. (I really like the plaid scheme on the GTI though as I really like that vehicle also, even if it is overpriced. Also, I've seen on other comparisons that the Si outhandled the GTI in almost all R&T excursions, most recently www.edmunds.com

No telescoping is a no-no for a sport compact segment product and GM should put one in on the Delta II / refreshed Cobalt rumored to come out in 2008.

The center armrest can be ordered through GM accessories and fitted for the SS-S/C for a price of around 40$ and if you check www.cobaltss.com/ gentlemen on there have done it in a very short amount of time. That is another moot point although GM should offer it as an option from the factory or as a dealer installed option if it already is not.

The quality on the SS really falls short of the competition, I saw one at the Chevrolet dealership a few months ago and the headlamps had noticeable gaps between the lamp module and the housing around it, big enough for me to stick my finger in. Additionally, I've heard about problems with the clutches on these vehicles as well as the sunroof sealing and passenger door sealing. The silver plastic in the interior looks tacky and low-rent IMO although the bowtie corporate radio is supposed to go in the car for the 07 model year.

[kool_zx3]

Now we got to do this all again this fall with the mazdaspeed 3

I am thinking the mazda will dominate that comparo if they did it....

[genjy]

Originally Posted by chad4835

Had my first In-N-Out burger on a recent trip to LA and they are good, Oh and by the way the Cobalt SS looks great in red and I really like the wheels, wish they would have stretced for a more unique grill...guess you can't have it all.

I go to In-N-Out once a week and order an Animal Style Double Double with extra crispy fries. It costs less than the crap-food McDonald's and BurgerKing sell and tastes infinitely better.

The best part about In-N-Out is that you can literally order anything that the workers can conjunct. For example:

The famous 12x12 (12 meat patties + 12 slices of cheese)

[driverfan]

GM needs to learn how to design naturally aspirated 4 cylinder engines that can put out 220 hp without forced air induction (turbo, SC), and have 200,000 mile guaranteed reliability with no leaks or burning.

Anyone can smack a supercharger on a 4 cylinder engine to make it go faster.

[69Firebird400]

Originally Posted by driverfan

GM needs to learn how to design naturally aspirated 4 cylinder engines that can put out 220 hp without forced air induction (turbo, SC), and have 200,000 mile guaranteed reliability with no leaks or burning.

Anyone can smack a supercharger on a 4 cylinder engine to make it go faster.

Other than the torqueless (162 lb-ft) S2000 (which costs $14,000 more than a Cobalt SS/SC and needs to be revved to 7800 RPMs to get its 237 horsepower), what does Honda or Toyota offer that meets your criteria? And I don't see any manufacturer anywhere offering a 200,000 mile warranty that the engine will not leak anything or burn any oil. I think you're asking a lot.

Who cares how GM engines get their power, as long as they get it?

[driverfan]

Originally Posted by 69Firebird400

Other than the torqueless (162 lb-ft) S2000 (which costs $14,000 more than a Cobalt SS/SC and needs to be revved to 7800 RPMs to get its 237 horsepower), what does Honda or Toyota offer that meets your criteria? And I don't see any manufacturer anywhere offering a 200,000 mile warranty that the engine will not leak anything or burn any oil. I think you're asking a lot.

Who cares how GM engines get their power, as long as they get it?

My 2000 Prelude has 200 hp. Honda was getting 190 out of their 4 cylinders in 1994. The Acura TSX has over 200 out of a 4. Same as the RSX Type-S. Civic Si as well. I wasn't suggesting GM offer a 200,000 mile warranty, but they need to make them far more reliable. Everyone knows Honda engines go for 200k easily, and if you take care of them they can go 500k without burning oil, leaking fluids, or leaving you stranded on the freeway. Never could say that about any GM 4 banger.

Forced induction severely shortens the life of any engine. The old 3800 SC'd engines in the Buick Riviera and Pontiac Grand Prix GTPs routinely need new SC's at about 120k, and at that point the engines develop oil leaks.

Your comment about "who cares how they get the power so long as they get it" is so typical of someone who only buys domestic without paying attention to really well engineered cars. It's also typical of GM's 50 year old thinking and the reason why they've lost 5 billion in the last 5 years and a Japanese and French car company see an opportunity to buy a piece.

[darknight9]

Originally Posted by 69Firebird400

Other than the torqueless (162 lb-ft) S2000 (which costs $14,000 more than a Cobalt SS/SC and needs to be revved to 7800 RPMs to get its 237 horsepower), what does Honda or Toyota offer that meets your criteria? And I don't see any manufacturer anywhere offering a 200,000 mile warranty that the engine will not leak anything or burn any oil. I think you're asking a lot.

Who cares how GM engines get their power, as long as they get it?

driverfan, you are asking quite a bit here!

69firebird400, is right on here

Most of the now ailing sport compact business is cemented in installing power adding devices to wheezing Honda, Toyota and Nissan engines. When I was big into import car tuning, you weren't anything if your civic didn't have at least a Bxx motor transplant and some kind of forced induction. Most of those didn't last a thousand miles with a turbo strapped on. C'mon, you're taking us for idiots!

The Cobalt ss/sc engine was made for a blower and not just some afterthought, aftermarket, cobbled together setup with IC pipes held together by hose unions from Lowes...

Oh, and for what it's worth: My babied S2000 has 27,838 miles on it and it uses 2 quarts of oil between 3k intervals. I'm having serious doubt it will last to 200k. Frankly, I doubt it will last to 50k, so it will be on a Saturn pre-owned lot sometime next year when my Sky RL arrives...

[driverfan]

Originally Posted by darknight9

driverfan, you are asking quite a bit here!

69firebird400, is right on here

Most of the now ailing sport compact business is cemented in installing power adding devices to wheezing Honda, Toyota and Nissan engines. When I was big into import car tuning, you weren't anything if your civic didn't have at least a Bxx motor transplant and some kind of forced induction. Most of those didn't last a thousand miles with a turbo strapped on. C'mon, you're taking us for idiots!

The Cobalt ss/sc engine was made for a blower and not just some afterthought, aftermarket, cobbled together setup with IC pipes held together by hose unions from Lowes...

Oh, and for what it's worth: My babied S2000 has 27,838 miles on it and it uses 2 quarts of oil between 3k intervals. I'm having serious doubt it will last to 200k. Frankly, I doubt it will last to 50k, so it will be on a Saturn pre-owned lot sometime next year when my Sky RL arrives...

Okay, you're comparing apples to bricks. First off, I'm not talking about the "ricers" to which you admit to being one yourself. I'm talking stock, off the showroom floor, with little or no modification made, any Honda 4 cylinder with 200 hp and up will last indefinitely. The ricers you speak of (and I've always blamed them for any bad rap Honda gets just simply because most of them are punks with illegal neon ground lighting who think they can turn a 1.6 liter 90 hp Civic DX econobox into a 400 hp dragster) have no idea what ballanced performance is. You own an S2K, so I would hope you do.

Why your S2K burns oil like that there are a few explanations: you either hit VTEC every day (which is fine, so long as you keep tabs on the oil level at each gas fill up) or it wasn't broken in properly. Although you tell me it's been babied, I have doubts if you followed the break-in procedure verbatim. Or, if you bought it used, you certainly have no way to tell (other than your oil burning problem) if it was broke in properly to begin with.

My point is GM needs to start thinking outside their little Detroit coccoon. Inovate. They could design a modern, efficient, reliable, high performance 4 cylinder without forced induction if they wanted to. But the SC is the cheaper and easier way to do it.

Which, again, is why Kerkorian is getting tired of seeing his stock loose money.

Lutz said it's all about product. He's right, it is. And the product GM continues to push out will be inferior to the competition untill one of their engineers makes a law that says our next 200+ hp 4 cylinder will not have a turbo or supercharger. Get to work.

[Darc Requiem]

Originally Posted by driverfan

My 2000 Prelude has 200 hp. Honda was getting 190 out of their 4 cylinders in 1994.The Acura TSX has over 200 out of a 4. Same as the RSX Type-S. Civic Si as well. I wasn't suggesting GM offer a 200,000 mile warranty, but they need to make them far more reliable. Everyone knows Honda engines go for 200k easily, and if you take care of them they can go 500k without burning oil, leaking fluids, or leaving you stranded on the freeway. Never could say that about any GM 4 banger.

Forced induction severely shortens the life of any engine. The old 3800 SC'd engines in the Buick Riviera and Pontiac Grand Prix GTPs routinely need new SC's at about 120k, and at that point the engines develop oil leaks.

Your comment about "who cares how they get the power so long as they get it" is so typical of someone who only buys domestic without paying attention to really well engineered cars. It's also typical of GM's 50 year old thinking and the reason why they've lost 5 billion in the last 5 years and a Japanese and French car company see an opportunity to buy a piece.

The Quad-4 (W41) made 190hp and 169lbs feet of torque in the 1991. So your Honda made 200hp N/A four cylinders in 1994 argument isn't as great as you think.

[cooguyfish]

Originally Posted by Darc Requiem

The Quad-4 (W41) made 190hp and 169lbs feet of torque in the 1991. So your Honda made 200hp N/A four cylinders in 1994 argument isn't as great as you think.

Beat me too it, I was going to post the same thing about the W41 Quad four, I just didn't know what year it came out.

As for GM using forced induction as a handicap,

Why are you not tearing down the GTI or the Scion Tc for using FI?

I mean surely an amazing automaker like toyota or VW could make a powerful engine without a turbo or supercharger. Why would they use one? Man they suck, just like GM for using FI.

Just incase you didn't figure it out, that was sarcasm.

Anyways, not that turbo's or S/C's are for everyone, but I know a lot of people in the compact segment that would take an S/C engine or Turbo motor over N/A anyday, myself included. For one thing, your beloved honda's make absolutely no torque below 5K (at least the really hi-po ones that make your 200 HP) Which is fine if you either A) have the gears to back it up (and love cruising 60 @ 3-3.5K RPM), or B) don't mind waiting until you get out of first to not suck. They also have not as broad a powerband as most F/I engines.

Furthermore, let's say you buy a honda with 200 HP, and you decided it's not enough (which you will, afterall it's only 200 HP) what can you do at this point? header, Exhaust, intake, clutch, flywheel, higher gears, cams, higher comp piston's, bigger bore, ported head, programmable fuel management, etc.

So you decide to spend 1K, for that you could probably get some cams, exhaust, header, intake, and maybe a programable fuel management. Let's be generous as hell and say you magically pull 300 HP from this engine. Now you're power is even higher, you're powerband is even smaller, and you still suck at life.

Let's say you have a cobalt, GTI, or TC, for 1K you could

get bigger injectors, and minor tuning, and turn the **************** boost up and make 400 at the wheels! I mean, for the sake of argument, even if you could get 300 HP out of a honda with 1K (which I highly doubt N/A, maybe 225-250, maybe). But I know for a fact you can buy a $500 kit with a pulley, and re-mapped ECU for a cobalt and it's been dyno'd at 270 WHP (that'd be like 300+ at the crank) and have spent only $500, and bolted it on in a day.

Wow, why would anyone put cheap out and go S/C or turbo, it's so stupid. N/A is the ONLY way to go, since honda does it, as should everyone else.

BTW, I don't argue that honda's are reliable, I know they are. But I have seen saturns with the 1.9L that have gone 200-400K miles without rebuild, I had a friend in highschool that had one with 221K before it was wrecked (all stock, no rebuild). And I've seen 'em on ebay in the 300-400K range more than several times. So, yes, GM did make a 4 poper that could run 200K+ miles just fine.

[steve333]

The Cobalt should have had interior dashboard improvements, storage on the console, and a telescoping steering wheel ready for the 2007 model. GM is letting the car rot just like they did with the cavalier.
GM does not strive to be the best, they strive to be OK, and that is just unacceptable in this markeplace. Lutz isnt making as much of a difference as I thought he would.

[mikesright]

Originally Posted by driverfan

Okay, you're comparing apples to bricks. First off, I'm not talking about the "ricers" to which you admit to being one yourself. I'm talking stock, off the showroom floor, with little or no modification made, any Honda 4 cylinder with 200 hp and up will last indefinitely. The ricers you speak of (and I've always blamed them for any bad rap Honda gets just simply because most of them are punks with illegal neon ground lighting who think they can turn a 1.6 liter 90 hp Civic DX econobox into a 400 hp dragster) have no idea what ballanced performance is. You own an S2K, so I would hope you do.

Why your S2K burns oil like that there are a few explanations: you either hit VTEC every day (which is fine, so long as you keep tabs on the oil level at each gas fill up) or it wasn't broken in properly. Although you tell me it's been babied, I have doubts if you followed the break-in procedure verbatim. Or, if you bought it used, you certainly have no way to tell (other than your oil burning problem) if it was broke in properly to begin with.

My point is GM needs to start thinking outside their little Detroit coccoon. Inovate. They could design a modern, efficient, reliable, high performance 4 cylinder without forced induction if they wanted to. But the SC is the cheaper and easier way to do it.

Which, again, is why Kerkorian is getting tired of seeing his stock loose money.

Lutz said it's all about product. He's right, it is. And the product GM continues to push out will be inferior to the competition untill one of their engineers makes a law that says our next 200+ hp 4 cylinder will not have a turbo or supercharger. Get to work.

GM's four's are much more torquey than the Toyota and Honda offerings, and offer less peak hp. They have a much richer band of power and torque through the rev range that increases all the way to redline, baby. GM does this by stroking the engine. Honda has huge bores and hardly any stroke, so it can rev 8000 rpm's, but the engine is a torqueless wonder and has no hp, either, unless you rev it to VTEC where the hp and torque spike for your 190 or 200 hp number. That number is in question as well, since Asian makes (especially Honda) are famous for inflating hp numbers.

And who cares about using turbos or superchargers to get more power? The amount of money invested in upgrading a car to get more NA power is more than upgrading a blown engine!

My friend has an NA ecotec in his Cobalt, and it is a great engine, and is very smooth in its power delivery, while another has a Civic with various mods that has no get up and go. While the editiors of that magazine don't like the so-called "harshness" at high rpm's, I don't want an engine that I need to rev to redline to go the same speed as my buddy's Cobalt.

As for the question about Cobalt's reliability, it is of higher quality than any Corolla or Civic coming out right now, with a reported 43 probs/100 cars, less than either of those. I also don't see a warranty as good as Cobalt's (4 yrs/50,000 miles) on Civic or Corolla (3/36). It's also less expensive by $2,000, and has higher standard and optional hp than those cars (145, 170, or 205, vs Civic's 140 and 197, and Corolla's 123 and 167).

And GM's stock? It's gone up 50% so far this year, while outselling Civic this past month. Obviously someone needs to get out of Tokyo and actually test-drive a Cobalt before bashing it.