lifesavedave

The frickin' $22k Cobalt SS trounced the following vehicles:


$20k with gm employee discount With the engine changes i'm surprised they didn't do a more agressive body kit on it. I still think they look like the old cavalier's.

CleverUserName

iTrader: (1)

no matter how you cut the mustard, that's embarrassing.

love9sick

Actually at the end of the thing. I like how we beat the EVO IX. lolz

E. Haskell

Yes, every car has those things, but on a more expensive car you pay more.

For example, at 5% tax you would pay $1100 for the SS whereas the X would be about $1750. Yearly tax would also be about $75 more. $75 x 5 = $375. That's $1025 + interest.

Fuel. According to the EPA, the SS gets 25 mpg combined whereas the X gets 18 mpg. Thus, driving 13k miles per year, I'd be paying an extra $809 to put fuel in a EVO. $809 x 5 = $4045 + interest.

Price - the purchase price for an X will be about $12,000 more. $12,000 at 5% interest for 5 years = $15,408

Now lets add it all up: $15,408 + $4045 + $1025 = $20,478+

For many people, that is A LOT of money.

love9sick

Interesting because besides the fact that things are not that clear cut (like me who traded in a 24k car and didn't have to pay tax on that value and also got a 4.8% ) as it is, I also left a down payment(which I always recommend in order not to get raped by the bank) My average combined MPG is 22.4 thus far since last I reset my ECU and on average I do 23 ish in city with a reset every day and 24ish on the highway(don't know why the highway doesn't really improve that much). If you argue for around 1mpg you shouldn't really buy either of these cars and look into a Civic hybrid DX or along those lines. I also drive my car pretty hard.

I only debate with you because I also look into the $$$ issue this hard as well with my decisions. I don't make a lot of money and I went from a 2006 RSX type S to the X....doesn't really feel like a bigger hit at all to tell you the truth ... gas is taking its toll but it was no matter what car I was driving as gas is just plain simply expensive.

Boston_eagle

+1

ImsoevoX

iTrader: (2)

I'm not worried about getting rolled by a Cobalt SS, in a straight line or curve. They tested the MR, which, I'mm sorry to say is an insult. Whats next the MR gets beat my an Si...lol. I've seen nothing but girls driving these cars anyway. Lets see how the Colbat handles snow...then we'll see what's worth writing about...

mike100

iTrader: (4)

You don't have to like them, but every 2008 turbo SS has been sold. When GMS pricing hit on 08's, the 'balt was marked down to $20-$21k. Maybe they didn't make money on them, but they moved the steel.

On a high speed course, I can't imagine an MR being faster. It's pretty much well documented that the SST sucks 10-15 hp out of the 4b11 vs. the 5 speed. Probably weighs a bit more too. Certainly the damping is on the soft side. I think I'll go out on a limb and say that the GSR is a tick faster than a cobalt on this track. Even so, the Cobalt is faster than the Saturn Skyy etc, so props to it. GM hit the sweet spot on the price and will basically sell everyone of those suckas.

Ph3n1x

iTrader: (12)

But the car will still suck bawls!

MrBonus

iTrader: (4)

I'm not quite sure why I or anyone else here should care. Unless it's me running those laps, lap times performed by unknown drivers in unknown conditions don't really carry much weight.

RoninR33

if you look at the sector times, the evo beat the cobalt in every sector except for sector 1 where they were tied and sector 5 where the cobalt was faster by only 2 tenths... i guess the cobalt was making up all it's time on the straights.

still pretty impressive that the cobalt put up the time it did. it's a pretty solid car. i would have seriously considered buying one if i couldn't afford an evo.


anyway, we spanked that sti and that's all that matters anyway, right????

286bhp

iTrader: (1)

Thanks!

yoda

BMW Driver: "Oh man those Evos are so cheap with crappy build quality. They might be faster than my BMW but I would never be seen in one of those tarted up Lancers. The BMW interior is so much better, and pshhhh you can make anything go fast. An Evo can't get the chicks like my BMW can."



Now replace BMW with Evo and Evo with Cobalt and that's what most of you are sounding like:


Evo Driver: "Oh man those SS Cobalts are so cheap with crappy build quality. They might be faster than my Evo but I would never be seen in one of those tarted up Cobalt. The Evo interior is so much better, and pshhhh you can make anything go fast. A Cobalt SS can't get the chicks like my Evo can."


I remeber a couple years ago when they did a similar article where the Porsche Boxster S beat the Evo IX around VIR.

Noize

iTrader: (24)

Honky

The only elements that kept the Mitsubishi from the 3:12 lap bracket were its power-to-weight *index—at 3650 pounds, the 291-hp Evo MR is 25 pounds heavier than the 414-hp M3—and a slightly relaxed shift response from the otherwise excellent six-speed *automated manual transmission.


Hopefully that ends the debate on what car is heavier on the previous thread that got deleted. The Cobalt SS may be a plastic junk box, but it is a damn quick one! Shame the Evo X MR is not the same weight as the old model IX MR that did a 3:13.5 back in 2006. The X has the potential to be a quick track car with less weight and some more go power under the hood.