jkhd03cav wrote:Why does the RSX-S own the Cobalt??? Please enlighten me.
Because the RSX-S makes 210hp naturally aspirated, while the Cobalt only makes 205hp supercharged. Plus, it's a Honda, so it won't be worth $15,000 once you drive it off the lot. Oh yeah it's transmission shifts SO smooth, and you gotta love that 7800rpm redline.
jkhd03cavy wrote:And you're wrong about wheels and tires by the way... but I'm done arguing because you obviously are retarded
And I think he means just the tires are better on the Cobalt. We all know what 18" wheels do for performance.
Rob
Sold 2/2/05
the reason that it make 210 hp is the compression ratio is through the roof for a n/a car
for the cobolt the compression ratio is high for boost
and as i said it can make more power if you read
ROBZ IL CAV wrote:and you gotta love that 7800rpm redline.
Its too bad you have to hit that redline in order to make that 210hp. The Cobalt would straight own an RSX all over the place in a race from dead stop. The Cobalt has MUCH more torque, 90% of which is available from about 2000 rpm. At 3000 rpm the Cobalt is already making 100hp. The RSX doesn't make 100hp until 5000 rpm. I won't argue twisties, the RSX wins in that department, it has a good refined suspension, not a repackaged 1985 suspension. However for what its worth, the Cobalt SS can still outhandle many other cars such as the Neon. Also I'm still of the opinion that the Epsilon rear suspension can be fitted to the Delta, much like the N-body rear setup can be fitted to the J-body with some minor modification.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about
the former." - Albert Einstein
you have to run 93 oct. It says right in the manual.
-Adam
Lastly to say the SS handles better then SRT-4. Uber ignorant, I know some of you guys lovvvve to magazine race. So let put somethings into perspective using your lovely mag ok. Motor Trend May-2005:
Lateral Accel: The test that determines the amount of G-force before breaking loose in a 300ft skidpad
SRT-4: 0.88G
SS: 0.88G
Slalom: Going left-to-right-to-left-to-right at a max speed before loosing traction and going into a tailspin.
SRT-4: 65.9mph
SS:67.2mph
MT's Figure 8
SRT-4: 25.9 secs @ 0.69g
SS: 26.0 @ 0.69g
As you can very well see it is very damn close. Here is the kicker, the SRT-4 is running on handicapped tires compared to the SS. Don't believe me?
Well lets look what Chris Walton wrote:
"Unfortunately, after a couple of hard track laps, the only message this rubber has to send is 'HELP!' The 'W' in BFGoodwrich KDW tires stands for wet traction, which is achieved with deep water channels in the tread design. These troughs leave tall rubber blocks that can lean over---a lot. The out board edge of nearly every block across the tread showed serious shoulder wear after a few hot laps and laps fell accordingly as each session went on.
Sound familiar? Yes! I have been saying this since the beginning of time. The reason SRT-4 pulls lower numbers is because of the tires! Yes, the freaking tires! THE ONLY PIECE THAT CONTACTS THE ROAD!
If you people just read just a little, you guys would not be so quick to point out utter crap. You know whats more, this was divine justice, because this came from your favorite source: Motor Trend! The same magazine that did that intro article that was utter BS. I said it in the past, wait till a real test was conducted and there you have it. I know how the media works very well. Intro articles are usually written favoring the product so they have a chance in the real world. It's like marriage, nice and peachy in the beginning, but reality will settle in as time goes on.
The article agrees so much which I have said in the past when it comes to handling, thank you MT.
As for the times. That I am skeptical for the SS.
0-80:10.2
0-90: 12.6
0-100: 15.4
1/4 mile 14.4@ 99.3 <<<
If it takes 15.4 sec to achieve 100mph, but 14.4 to achieve 99.3. (?) This lead me to believe a more realist 14.8-15.1 1/4 mile run. Because it takes a full second achieve 0.7 mph?
The SRT-4s with its green engine was more consistent
0-80: 9.7
0-90:11.8
0-100: 13.8
1/4 mile 14.4@ 100.8
Something to ponder next time you people say that the "SS handles better."
Oh and if it SRT-4 handles like this now, I can't wait to see what the ACR version with the appropriate summer tires will do.
Carry on
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
Dave, we all know you pre-ordered a cobalt SS and now that you hear the truth about it, your giving it you very all to support it. how sad, stick to jbodies. are you bitter that if a GM car went over 8k RPM it would blow up? jealous that a NA 2.0 motor pushes out more HP than a SUPERCHARGED ecotec?are you upset its going to go down in value $6k the second you drive it off the lot? reliability? <--well.............not GMs thing.
I ll take my typeS over a chevy anyday.
*Jammit has been here since 1998 everybody!!!!!!!Should you care? YES!*
now we have a RSx we are talking about. cobalt drivers will have to scream V tec in order to be cool.
how does the mazdaspeed guys feel about this stuff? any of you @!#$ers out there reading?
( dont get me wrong, i am a huge fan of what 4 bangercars are out there today , i just think the domestic big boys are doing it better then the imports, i like every car that was mentioned, wish i could own them all).
carry on
btw.- stage 3 srt's own all , no ?s' asked. 300+ whp, with all the toys, and factory built parts? what else more does any one want? there is no comparison there.
I was quoted $27k CDN for a SS with all options except On-Star and side impact airbags.
As for all the posts about which car is better,when it comes down to it they're all better in the own way and it all comes down to preference,mostly which company you support. Import fans will buy the rsx,domestic guys will choose between the cobalt and the srt4. You cant go wrong with any of them anyways.
Hairyblackdude how can you judge a car's reliablility before it's even been out more than a year? How can you judge a resale value before anyone even resells the car? And are you bitter because you have to get your car to 8k rpm to make the same horsepower the chevy can make at 5500? hmmm maybe you should go cry.
Hairy Blackdude wrote:Dave, we all know you pre-ordered a cobalt SS and now that you hear the truth about it, your giving it you very all to support it. how sad, stick to jbodies. are you bitter that if a GM car went over 8k RPM it would blow up? jealous that a NA 2.0 motor pushes out more HP than a SUPERCHARGED ecotec?are you upset its going to go down in value $6k the second you drive it off the lot? reliability?
Wow you are an ignorant fool, just like GoodwrenchGT and "Anal Rape". You brag about the RSX-S like its the best car ever invented, who cares if it can rev to 8,000RPM?? It may make all of 210HP at an insanely high 7800RPM, but the bottom line is that its got no balls below that. A Cobalt SS S/C will rip the RSX-S a new one off the line, and then still take it in both 0-60 and the 1/4 mile. And of course the Cobalt outhandles the RSX-S as well as outbrakes it, yet the RSX costs a couple grand more. Some bargain
Don't even comment on resale value or dependability. Neither of those have been determined yet, and its just retarded to speculate on it without any real facts.
Quote:
[Because the RSX-S makes 210hp naturally aspirated, while the Cobalt only makes 205hp supercharged. Plus, it's a Honda, so it won't be worth $15,000 once you drive it off the lot. Oh yeah it's transmission shifts SO smooth, and you gotta love that 7800rpm redline.
You are misstating the facts. The RSX-S makes 210HP at a very high RPM, and lacks any form of low-end punch that most people expect in a high-performance car. That 210HP is rated at the crank, whereas the Cobalt SS S/C's HP is actually 205
to the wheels. Big difference, so all of a sudden that non-supercharged argument vanishes into thin air along with the RSX-S's supposed "5HP advantage".
Don't even get started on the RSX transmission - do you have any idea how many people have problems with those gearboxes?? Go on the RSX forums and read through some posts, the transmissions are nothing but problems. They grind into 2nd gear all the time, don't want to shift when cold, and sometimes just refuse to move into the next cog during an upshift. It may be smooth when the car is idle in the showroom, but in actual driving they are far from good transmissions.
My CarDomain Page
Hairy Blackdude=troll.
i just checked out his profile, and 99% of his posts are just talking crap on us and j-bodies. if he hates us and the car so much then i say ban him and he can go back the ricer forums. where people care about his opinions.
anyway
they screwed up the circle track time in motortrend
the cobalt ran it faster
if you read the article it says in their they must have had a typo w/ the times
anyway
like i said the cobalts engine can make power until they dont know what rpm they just put it where its at because they didnt have time to test it for a higher redline
the eco engine can rev to 9k rpms easy if its built right
lol