Autoweek Cobalt SS review

[Buick61]

Originally Posted by member12

Now if only they can get the plane jane Cobalt sedans some nicer trim and more mpg.

For 2009 the 2.2L will get 35 mpg highway (EPA). I think that's fairly respectable.

[sigma]

Originally Posted by Buick61

For 2009 the 2.2L will get 35 mpg highway (EPA). I think that's fairly respectable.

Considering that would be 40mpg+ under the old EPA ratings system, I would say that is very respectable.

[vsd]

Those are some great stats, and a great price too. If only they updated the interior.

[E. Haskell]

It should have got that to start with (~39 mpg under old ratings)! That would've been a bold move. Regardless, I'm glad to see get better mileage.

[racy]

Originally Posted by CobaltSScrazy

what an amazing car, I love marveling at it!

CobaltSS

Second youngest market demographic in the entire country=Cobalt SS haters need to stop before they send would be Chevrolet buyers to Honda VW Subaru Dodge and Mazda.

I really want to understand this. Is punctuation missing? I don't get what you are trying to convey, but I do get the idea that there are Cobalt SS haters - and I find that surprising. Is the hatred more than simple manufacturer rivalry?

[ChevyOptra5]

Originally Posted by 5.3Avalanche

What's your point? You do realize what you all get for that do you? That's one helluva go cart and I think this car is great value if you want a performance-oriented ride.

For 22,995 it is a great value. Even at 25-26000 it would still be a good value but the HHR SSs i've seen are 31-32000 CDN$, not so much. But right now its all speculative, we'll see when the canadian pricing comes out. Keep in mind that the Dodge Caliber SRT4 starts at $24,995 with 285hp. The Impreza WRX starts at 32,995. Civic Si-->26,680. I just hope they price it competively, especially when the old Supercharged SS started at 25,000

[Orbit Orange]

23lbs of down force is not the same as 23lbs of weight.

Think about what you just said. Down force is weight exerted in a downward fashion on the rear of the vehicle. Weight is the downward force of gravity on the vehicle. Downward force is downward force, PERIOD. Now I'm not saying to go around driving with extra weight in the trunk. I'm trying to make a point that evidently some people can't grasp is that downward force is downward force. If you could put the Cobalt on a scale somehow at 70 mph it would weigh 23 pounds more over the rear wheels. If I put 23 pounds of weight in the trunk of a Cobalt it would weigh 23 more pounds over the rear wheels. SAME THING. The whole point is that the original author seems to be making a HUGE deal out of downforce like no other car in existence has ever had a spoiler. Another thing you are also forgetting is exactly how much DRAG the rear spoiler creates. Funny manufacturers never tell you about that. Spoilers are mostly there for looks. You have to be doing triple digits to get practically any downforce out of them. What percent of driving is done at 100+ mph? Sure spoilers work but the benefits of them are RARELY realized unless the car is a track car.

Something that can't be said about the wings on the GTO, Mustang, Supra.

Any data to back that up? That's what I thought, you don't. If you think the wings on those 3 don't create downforce you are SORELY mistaken.

I'm not trying to "pick" on the Cobalt, which you seemed to have jumped to a conclusion I am. In my post I said I LIKED THE COBALT SS and that it is a good bang for the buck. Don't be so defensive. I'm attacking the statement of the author of the article. Jeesh.

[Orbit Orange]

Originally Posted by Skank Boy

And the GTO is 50/50 right?

Who said it did?

Grow up.

[silvergoat2k6]

From the article:

Sure, it's only refined by the standards of front-wheel-drive performance subcompacts. When you really tromp on the throttle exiting a corner or doing a boy-racer drag-strip start, it'll still pull to one side or the other with mighty, spline-splitting torque steer.

You would think with all the engineers out there, someone would have come up with a solution for this by now. Until the torque steer issue is eradicated, I'll pass on these high-performance FWD cars. I can still remember the first time I jumped on the accelerator of a GXP Grand Prix from a standing start...what an eye-opening experience that was. If that car would have been RWD (or AWD) it would be in my driveway right now sitting next to my GTO.

[GMlvrsince72]

Originally Posted by JVal14

Wow, I didn't know it got 30 on the highway. That's better than a Civic Si that has 24% less power! Nearly as good as my old Focus that had 41% less! God bless DI!

I just can't understand this talk about MPG and what these new small cars are getting at all. I have owned larger cars back in the 90s that got apparently incredible mileage. I owned a 1994 Grand Am with a 3.1 L V-6 and auto trans that consistanly got over 30 MPG highway and as high as 35. I am not a slow driver either. I also owned a 1995 Bonneville with the 3800 engine which usually got about 27 MPG highway and and as high as 30 with easy driving . I guess the technology to get more MPG is simply not progressing much. Oh.....just for fun....I will mention that my old school Harley with carb. gets about 52 MPG even with agressive riding.

[Greg Burr]

Originally Posted by GMlvrsince72

I just can't understand this talk about MPG and what these new small cars are getting at all. I have owned larger cars back in the 90s that got apparently incredible mileage. I owned a 1994 Grand Am with a 3.1 L V-6 and auto trans that consistanly got over 30 MPG highway and as high as 35. I am not a slow driver either. I also owned a 1995 Bonneville with the 3800 engine which usually got about 27 MPG highway and and as high as 30 with easy driving . I guess the technology to get more MPG is simply not progressing much. Oh.....just for fun....I will mention that my old school Harley with carb. gets about 52 MPG even with agressive riding.

We've had eldorados with v8 that can do 30 mpg on the highway easily.

[jzEllis]

Originally Posted by Skank Boy

And the GTO is 50/50 right?

55/45 according to GM, though i remember reading from more than one mag that it was slightly better than that at 52/48 or sumthin...

[JVal14]

Originally Posted by GMlvrsince72

I just can't understand this talk about MPG and what these new small cars are getting at all. I have owned larger cars back in the 90s that got apparently incredible mileage. I owned a 1994 Grand Am with a 3.1 L V-6 and auto trans that consistanly got over 30 MPG highway and as high as 35. I am not a slow driver either. I also owned a 1995 Bonneville with the 3800 engine which usually got about 27 MPG highway and and as high as 30 with easy driving . I guess the technology to get more MPG is simply not progressing much. Oh.....just for fun....I will mention that my old school Harley with carb. gets about 52 MPG even with agressive riding.

The difference is that the 3.1 in that Grand Am made less power than even the 4-banger in my old Focus. As engines have become more efficient, they can be created to make more power than the old engines, or get better mileage, or a little of both. Until recently, the market prefered more horses, so mileage remained the same (or even fell due to increase vehicle weight). Now that mileage is more important to people, we'll probably see modest increases in both measures.