Road and Track: RA, WRX, MS3, and Cobalt SS
Sep 26, 2008, 02:22 PM
#166
Newbie
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sep 30, 2008, 12:56 PM
#167
Evolved Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Weight keeps the vehicle in line and planted while maneuvering. Weight only becomes an issue at high velocities which nobody in their right minds drive at in snow and ice. Ever drive on the highway during a major snow storm where the ditches are riddled with vehicles yet semi-trucks just keep on moving?
Sep 30, 2008, 01:07 PM
#169
Evolved Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: ATLANTA
Posts: 1,259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Traction. You know the reason that pickup truck owners toss bags of sand in the rear in the winter. Weight keeps the vehicle in line and planted while maneuvering. Weight only becomes an issue at high velocities which nobody in their right minds drive at in snow and ice. Ever drive on the highway during a major snow storm where the ditches are riddled with vehicles yet semi-trucks just keep on moving?
Weight keeps the vehicle in line and planted while maneuvering. Weight only becomes an issue at high velocities which nobody in their right minds drive at in snow and ice. Ever drive on the highway during a major snow storm where the ditches are riddled with vehicles yet semi-trucks just keep on moving?
Sep 30, 2008, 01:08 PM
#170
Evolved Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: ATLANTA
Posts: 1,259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sep 30, 2008, 01:13 PM
#171
Evolved Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Exactly. It's the direction changes that you are trying to avoid in poor winter conditions going around slippery corners or fishtailing. The goal is to drive straight and only change direction when you turn the steering wheel on ice. Much easier to achieve with more mass.
Sep 30, 2008, 02:18 PM
#173
Evolved Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oct 8, 2008, 05:38 PM
#174
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: ohio
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got my issue of R&T today. There are some things in the mag that are not on the internet posting. First off, 2 editors picked the SS, two picked the WRX. Now, as some might have thought it appeared it was in for the fix for the CHEVY. After looking at the numbers there is some definite fudging going on.
For instance. In MPG, they give the max score to the SS. In the test data the WRX was best by 10%. Then the SS and MS3 were tied followed by the RA way behind. In the test score tally, the SS got 20 points out of 20. The rest were tied at 16. This is a large swing for no reason. The WRX should have gotten 20 followed be the SS and MS3 with something like 16 and then the RA with 13 or so.
Braking. While the SS stops from 60 in 3 less feet than the WRX they give the SS a 20 and the WRX a 16.4. Meaning it was almost 20% less effective. Just not the case. This created a 3.5 point swing in the total.
Also, they gave the handling to the SS by 1.5 points over the WRX. The WRX was FASTER on the autocourse. Again, fudging the score. The SS should have trailed the WRX by that amount.
Just in those three biased mistakes, the WRX would have won easily over the SS.
Also of note, on exterior styling, they actually have the WRX ahead of the RA a few tenths.
Skidpad, brakes and MPG killed the RA. They also did not feel the car was exciting and did not like the engine. It was the least powerful of the group. The steering and brakes also hurt it. So overall I do not think the RA was as far out of pace as the test showed. There were some subjective tests that really brought it down.
Not that any of this really matters, but after looking at the article in depth, I do not feel the Cobalt SS is the winner. I think it was fudged for an American win over the imports.
By their own numbers, the WRX was the best of the test. And by a fair amount.
For instance. In MPG, they give the max score to the SS. In the test data the WRX was best by 10%. Then the SS and MS3 were tied followed by the RA way behind. In the test score tally, the SS got 20 points out of 20. The rest were tied at 16. This is a large swing for no reason. The WRX should have gotten 20 followed be the SS and MS3 with something like 16 and then the RA with 13 or so.
Braking. While the SS stops from 60 in 3 less feet than the WRX they give the SS a 20 and the WRX a 16.4. Meaning it was almost 20% less effective. Just not the case. This created a 3.5 point swing in the total.
Also, they gave the handling to the SS by 1.5 points over the WRX. The WRX was FASTER on the autocourse. Again, fudging the score. The SS should have trailed the WRX by that amount.
Just in those three biased mistakes, the WRX would have won easily over the SS.
Also of note, on exterior styling, they actually have the WRX ahead of the RA a few tenths.
Skidpad, brakes and MPG killed the RA. They also did not feel the car was exciting and did not like the engine. It was the least powerful of the group. The steering and brakes also hurt it. So overall I do not think the RA was as far out of pace as the test showed. There were some subjective tests that really brought it down.
Not that any of this really matters, but after looking at the article in depth, I do not feel the Cobalt SS is the winner. I think it was fudged for an American win over the imports.
By their own numbers, the WRX was the best of the test. And by a fair amount.
Last edited by dboz; Oct 8, 2008 at 05:43 PM.
Oct 8, 2008, 08:32 PM
#175
Newbie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got my issue of R&T today. There are some things in the mag that are not on the internet posting. First off, 2 editors picked the SS, two picked the WRX. Now, as some might have thought it appeared it was in for the fix for the CHEVY. After looking at the numbers there is some definite fudging going on.
For instance. In MPG, they give the max score to the SS. In the test data the WRX was best by 10%. Then the SS and MS3 were tied followed by the RA way behind. In the test score tally, the SS got 20 points out of 20. The rest were tied at 16. This is a large swing for no reason. The WRX should have gotten 20 followed be the SS and MS3 with something like 16 and then the RA with 13 or so.
Braking. While the SS stops from 60 in 3 less feet than the WRX they give the SS a 20 and the WRX a 16.4. Meaning it was almost 20% less effective. Just not the case. This created a 3.5 point swing in the total.
Also, they gave the handling to the SS by 1.5 points over the WRX. The WRX was FASTER on the autocourse. Again, fudging the score. The SS should have trailed the WRX by that amount.
Just in those three biased mistakes, the WRX would have won easily over the SS.
Also of note, on exterior styling, they actually have the WRX ahead of the RA a few tenths.
Skidpad, brakes and MPG killed the RA. They also did not feel the car was exciting and did not like the engine. It was the least powerful of the group. The steering and brakes also hurt it. So overall I do not think the RA was as far out of pace as the test showed. There were some subjective tests that really brought it down.
Not that any of this really matters, but after looking at the article in depth, I do not feel the Cobalt SS is the winner. I think it was fudged for an American win over the imports.
By their own numbers, the WRX was the best of the test. And by a fair amount.
For instance. In MPG, they give the max score to the SS. In the test data the WRX was best by 10%. Then the SS and MS3 were tied followed by the RA way behind. In the test score tally, the SS got 20 points out of 20. The rest were tied at 16. This is a large swing for no reason. The WRX should have gotten 20 followed be the SS and MS3 with something like 16 and then the RA with 13 or so.
Braking. While the SS stops from 60 in 3 less feet than the WRX they give the SS a 20 and the WRX a 16.4. Meaning it was almost 20% less effective. Just not the case. This created a 3.5 point swing in the total.
Also, they gave the handling to the SS by 1.5 points over the WRX. The WRX was FASTER on the autocourse. Again, fudging the score. The SS should have trailed the WRX by that amount.
Just in those three biased mistakes, the WRX would have won easily over the SS.
Also of note, on exterior styling, they actually have the WRX ahead of the RA a few tenths.
Skidpad, brakes and MPG killed the RA. They also did not feel the car was exciting and did not like the engine. It was the least powerful of the group. The steering and brakes also hurt it. So overall I do not think the RA was as far out of pace as the test showed. There were some subjective tests that really brought it down.
Not that any of this really matters, but after looking at the article in depth, I do not feel the Cobalt SS is the winner. I think it was fudged for an American win over the imports.
By their own numbers, the WRX was the best of the test. And by a fair amount.
Oct 9, 2008, 06:36 AM
#176
People... People...
go and test drive the darn cars and then decide upon your personal preference. Do not let a damn Online Magazine that gets under-the-table checks from GM tell you what you should buy.
This is the most ridicule (no pun intended) way for people to discuss about which car should you choose out the bunch. Go and Test Drive it, gosh!
Overall, the Ralliart looks the best of the bunch, and it's got potential; and you also have to remember Subaru revamped their WRX once their noticed what Mitsu had in store with the '09 Ralliart; The Ralliart has been on hold for quite a while, which makes it a competitor to the '08 WRX, not the '09... and in that case, Ralliart hands down. You know it.
Edit:
Look at the numbers, each of these cars have around 30 horses over the Ralliart...
The answer is obvious.
Plus, yes the Ralliart is $3,000 too expensive.
go and test drive the darn cars and then decide upon your personal preference. Do not let a damn Online Magazine that gets under-the-table checks from GM tell you what you should buy.
This is the most ridicule (no pun intended) way for people to discuss about which car should you choose out the bunch. Go and Test Drive it, gosh!
Overall, the Ralliart looks the best of the bunch, and it's got potential; and you also have to remember Subaru revamped their WRX once their noticed what Mitsu had in store with the '09 Ralliart; The Ralliart has been on hold for quite a while, which makes it a competitor to the '08 WRX, not the '09... and in that case, Ralliart hands down. You know it.
Edit:
Look at the numbers, each of these cars have around 30 horses over the Ralliart...
The answer is obvious.
Plus, yes the Ralliart is $3,000 too expensive.
Last edited by jazket; Oct 9, 2008 at 06:41 AM. Reason: Clarifying power on each machine...
Oct 9, 2008, 01:40 PM
#178
anyway, this tests makes me regret to by a X. 
If i where smarter...
The SS is faster then a X MR according those tests , so the WRX too since its faster then a SS...
So my GSR is slower the a X MR. makes me wonder what a hell i was thinking to get that damn slow X GSR...
If everything would be the way the american test stating, then my car would be the ultimate looser.
But something makes me wonder how the STI is that much slower then a WRX? Since its even slower then a GSR. never mind the X MR...
OR do i miss something?
If i where smarter...The SS is faster then a X MR according those tests , so the WRX too since its faster then a SS...
So my GSR is slower the a X MR. makes me wonder what a hell i was thinking to get that damn slow X GSR...
If everything would be the way the american test stating, then my car would be the ultimate looser.
But something makes me wonder how the STI is that much slower then a WRX? Since its even slower then a GSR. never mind the X MR...
OR do i miss something?
Last edited by Robevo RS; Oct 9, 2008 at 01:43 PM.
Oct 9, 2008, 02:19 PM
#180
anyway, this tests makes me regret to by a X. If i where smarter...
The SS is faster then a X MR according those tests , so the WRX too since its faster then a SS...
So my GSR is slower the a X MR. makes me wonder what a hell i was thinking to get that damn slow X GSR...
If everything would be the way the american test stating, then my car would be the ultimate looser.
But something makes me wonder how the STI is that much slower then a WRX? Since its even slower then a GSR. never mind the X MR...
OR do i miss something?
If i where smarter...The SS is faster then a X MR according those tests , so the WRX too since its faster then a SS...
So my GSR is slower the a X MR. makes me wonder what a hell i was thinking to get that damn slow X GSR...
If everything would be the way the american test stating, then my car would be the ultimate looser.
But something makes me wonder how the STI is that much slower then a WRX? Since its even slower then a GSR. never mind the X MR...
OR do i miss something?