Good lord man relax !! You are gonna pop a vain or something. I know the Celica is a nice car I never said it wasn't but what is the title of this post? I think you guys maybe
forgot what it was. If you want to start an arguement about which is better the Cobalt or the Celica start a new post cause you've seriously jacked this one.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
" The SS is a diferent animal all togther. The struts, springs, brakes, bushings, swaybar,
tires all different then a regular Cobalt they are faster then a corvette in a slolum corse
and pull higher G's on the skid pad the a Vette also. The 60-0 stopping is the same as a Lamborhini Galardo so yeah I'd say they handle pretty good. "
and then the 1/4mile times and etc with corvette and cobalt trying to say the cobalt is better than the corvette bla bla bla..
cars like the celica have been better than the corvette for years in most aspects.. heck the celica supra was known as the corvette killer because it was built better.. but ur rite this thread is for cavs and cobalts.. so why bother bringing up corvettes? where as the sport/coupe cars like cavalier/cobaltss/celica are more or less in the came class apart from corvette.
and i am assuming u think u have some psychic link to assume im angry or popping a nerve? im just trying to show you that the cobalt ss is nothing compared to whats been around for years already.
http://www.cardomain.com/memberpage/618295
The Celica couldn't beat the sweat off a Corvettes nuts ( if it had them ) Toyota split the Celica and the Supra into two different cars Mr.Toyota. And if you want to compare a
Supra to a Vette fine shall we. Since the Supra is the built up version of the Celica then
compare it to the built up version of the Corvette, the Z-06. Now since the Z-06 is compared to Porsches and Ferriris and aven the Lamborgihinis I don't see anyway
you can compare it to your Supra. IN fact the Z-06 stomps on all the Skylines short of the new GTR that NISMO just built. NISMO bought back a limited number of Skyline
GTRs and re-built them NOW they can beat a two year old version of the Z-06. And since the SkYLINE stomps on the SUPRA it doesn't stand a chance stock for stock.
Next years 505 hp Z-06 has the world running scared. Its putting down numbers even
Ferriri is worried about. Its supposed to run down an ENZO. I don't see too many Celicas running down ENZOs do you? Or SUPRAs either. If you want to compare cars at least compare ones that are worthy of compition. Don't put up a car that doesn't stand a chance in hell its just not fair to TOYOTA.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
since when was there a z06 back in the 70's and 80's ?
if the corvette was such a rally machine that coulnt be beat why was it never used in rally racing? oh wait until mid 90's the celica was champion in rally races around the world, not some corvette designed for 2 people doing the 1/4 mile. any supra would out road course any corvette they were designed for it. but since you think the corvette and celica and enzo are in the same catagory i must call it quits to this discussion as you are surely missing a few brain cells.
BTW seeing as you keep commenting on how u like telling facts and truth and such.. go look up how 1993 supra tt compared to the 1993 vette of the time. see how they compare or 1991 vette as i believe 91-96 vettes were more or less the same throught those years as 93-98 were for supras
so why are you still defending the fact that the cobalt and corvette were beat in numbers by a celica for braking and slalom ? because you cant admit that there are better cars out there and GM is still behind in most things?
If you want to compare and enzo to something pick a lotus i bet you those lotus' handle better than some enzo - which was made like the vette.. for 1/4 mile runs and high purchase prices not much else
http://www.cardomain.com/memberpage/618295
Your funny. You like to put cars from different years in match ups where your Toyotas
win but get pissy when I compare them the same way.
Anyway since I see reading comprehension is not your strong suit let me help you with something. The tittle of this post.......
THE COBALT IS SLOWER THEN THE CAVALIER...
I don't know where you thought it said anything about the Celica. And since you insist on compareing the Celicas racing history to that of the Corvette well your just s.o.l.
aren't you? We'll start at the begining of Corvette history 1953 The Corvette beat up on competitors form the world over all thru the 50's. 1963 new body style and a bigger engine. The Corvette again beat up on competion even a V-12 powered Jag couldn't beat it. The late 60's all the tru to present the Corvette has allways been a DOMINATE
car on and off the race track winning more trophies then then you whole TOYOTA
company combined. So if you would like to compare them fine I got no problem with that. But there is no comparision.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Blue Shark wrote:I cant quite remember which car magazine it was (only that I saw it last month), but they tested a 4-door Cobalt against a bunch imports (170 hp-Toyota Corolla, etc) and it ran 0-60 in 8.5 secs as a 5-speed manual. Consumer Reports ran a 4-door 2004 Cavalier with an automatic and it ran 0-60 in 8.2 secs.
After reading a bit, the 2005 Cobalt is a good 200+ lbs heavier than the equivalent 2004 Cavalier. Granted the Delta platform is a huge improvement over the J-body as far as stiffness, couldnt GM kept the weight the same??
Must you ask questions about GM! lol they don't know their head from their ass sometimes. I've had many issues with them in the past, and count on it in the future. But from what I remember, wasn't the Colbalt replacing the Camaro, not the Cavalier? Please correct me if Im wrong, but that would have something to do with the weight change.
trdcelica90- where the hell did a Celica come into play??? I don't believe this thread had jack @!#$ to do with your Celica. Title is 'The Cobalt is slower than the Cavalier..'
trdcelica90 Got a question for ya? Where in the topic does it say anything about a Toyota Celica? I could have sworn we were talking about Cobalts vs Cavaliers.
jackalope Almost the same question except why did you start bringing in the info on the Corvette? Come guys, let's try to stick to the original topic "The Cobalt is slower than the Cavalier.."
98 Z24
RIP Specks
it came into view when someone tried to show that the cobalt is genious technology as it can out slalom and break a v8 corvette. where as i just showed there ahve been cars around like the celica for years already.
how bout u both read and see that question was answered already
http://www.cardomain.com/memberpage/618295
How about you just stick to the topic! Thanks hon!
^^^ Thanks Da BrOkE oNe. I couldn't agree with you more!
98 Z24
RIP Specks
NP! lol
ANYWAY....back to the topic. Wasn't the Cobalt ment to replace the Camaro, not the Cavalier? That was my understanding. If so that would explain the difference in weight, but not the fact the Cav still beats it.
I test drove the Cobalt and have to say Im not impressed!
^^^ To answer your question, No! The Cobalt name was taken because of the bad rap Cavaliers got over the past 25 years it has been out. Chevy was doing a redesign for the Cavalier and chose to change the name, also. Here is a link on the review.
http://www.epinions.com/content_165871652484
98 Z24
RIP Specks
Hmm...interesting. I always hear it was taking over the Camaro, but it was suppose to combine into the Cavalier. Thanks for the info!
nope just the replacement for the cavis. never heard about anythign to do with the camaros. hell, gms even talking about bringing back the camaros in like 3 years.
5 YEAR ANNIVERSARY FREEBIE GIVEAWAY - CLICK HERE TO ENTER
What you know about Street Racing anyways? Only what Fast & Furious taught us....
SO EVERYTHING!
i got beat by my buddy driving a cobalt rental car today...twice, and i have a few minor mods. once from a roll and once from a stop. would have been pretty close if id remembered to shut off the A/C first. after a 10 hour work day you tend to forget the little things. still pretty sad...but ive been telling people for a long time now i have the slowest Eco ever made.
_________________________________________________________________
Looking for something new? How about an off topic forum where you can truly express your opinions without interference of mods or admins?
Join verbalwarfare.com
http://www.verbalwarfare.com/forum.php?referrerid=86
the stock base cobalt is probably like a low 16 sec car......but what more do you want from a base model grocery getter??? most people buying the base could care less about how fast it is, they only want gas millage and reliablity
But they're such pretty turds.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Blue Shark wrote:I cant quite remember which car magazine it was (only that I saw it last month), but they tested a 4-door Cobalt against a bunch imports (170 hp-Toyota Corolla, etc) and it ran 0-60 in 8.5 secs as a 5-speed manual. Consumer Reports ran a 4-door 2004 Cavalier with an automatic and it ran 0-60 in 8.2 secs.
After reading a bit, the 2005 Cobalt is a good 200+ lbs heavier than the equivalent 2004 Cavalier. Granted the Delta platform is a huge improvement over the J-body as far as stiffness, couldnt GM kept the weight the same??
Wow, didnt expect Toyota Celica's to get into the discussion, let alone Vette's and Camaros! Not to kick a dead horse, but its apples to oranges to compare a 1990 Toyota Celica to a 2005 Cavalier or Cobalt. Are the performance figures for the Toyota Celica based on the "All Trac"? If it is the "All Trac", they made very few of them and they were priced like Camaro Z28's, not Cavalier Z24's. I ran autocross events in 1990 when that particular Celica body style was new and they didnt do that great on track times. They were usually some of the slowest in their perspective class. I'm sure if you updated the suspension, etc, they probably will handle decent. Most drivers perferred the Toyota MR2 as it was pretty much the best handling Toyota for autocross events.
The base 2003-2005 Cavalier coupe is easily the fastest under $15,000.00 car available(I paid $13,505.00 for my 2003). Between $15,000 and $20,000, there are at least a 1/2 dozen cars as quick or quicker. I just wish GM had either stuck a more powerful Ecotec engine in the base Cobalt or tried to keep the weight down.
"...nevermind maneuvers lieutenant, just go straight at them!"
-Admiral Nelson at the Battle of Trafalgar
dude, we're talking about a speed contest between 4 door sedans here.... in short, why bother. Who the hell cares? Is there a new sedan-racing craze that I'm not aware of?
And to the jackass who said that cobalt SS's were runnign the same times as Z24s, you're an idiot.
Especially if you're using the nitwit cobalt drivers at the Bash as a point of reference. The SS's there were trapping 92-95 mph, which SHOULD be a mid 14 second car. There numbskulls couldn't launch to save their lives so 90 percent of them were running high 15 second ET's. You can't use ET's to compare the performance of a car, because there are too many factors to take into account, like driver ability (or disability for that matter)
But anyway, yes the non SS cobalts are going to be slower than the base cavaliers with an eco, or the Z24's. I don't know why anyone would be surprised by this, Same power, heavier car.... duh.
Arrival Blue 04 LS Sport
Eco
Turbo
Megasquirt
'Nuff said
I thought I read the SS would run a 1/4 in 14.1 at like 99-101 mph? At least thats what
the different magize tests come up with.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
^^^show me these magazines
2006 Cobalt SS 2.4L 9.6 @74mph 1/8th mile w/2.28 60ft
Look in the back of any motor trend and the stats are right there. And the 1/4 mile time was 14.3 I think, My bad on the 14.1 but thats what like the difference between a full tank and a 1/4 tank? Oh well there still not bad for the money.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Motor trend, may 2005. The stats dont lie.
I <3 SCANNERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1971 camaro 427 --- here!
Stock... and loving every minute of it.
Ok 14.4 I was real close tho! But thanks 2.2 ECOTEC.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
the only good thing about the cobalt is the new motor that can fit in the 03-04 ecotec cavaliers engine bay wich is a 2.4 ecotec with v v t 170 stock horse power
SILVER 2000 CAMARO SS BONE STOCK..........YEAH STOCK THATS IT
slp ss build number 2288 of 4312
