Robevo RS

iTrader: (16)

"As for the cobalt, is it really that hard to believe that a car with more whp, lighter, and with a very good suspension set up beat a heavy 4wd car on VIR?"

so it should run faster on up hill straight a ways , dont you think???
BUT it is not . By their own test numbers. The EVO MR is faster and goes that section 0.5 sec faster..
At that is only one section...
In the turns also the MR was faster.. so where is the SS collect 2 sec over the MR a rest of the track??
IT is same reason is not documented at all.
Just check out the test and the data you got + the lay out of the track.

I hope you aware about the ADVAN A048 tires and the mid engine RWD Elise handling. Right?
VS the all season, fwd front engine SS ... And LESS whp/ lb ratio...

JWA

iTrader: (9)

Lotus has moved Elise SC to narrower less grippy tires versus prior years which explains the lower performance over previous years.

kyoo

iTrader: (29)

How about what I said about the ring? I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm just looking at likeliness, probabilities, etc. Does the evo community really want to accuse car and driver of faking this test and numbers, and then end up having to eat our words later?

And about the numbers. Yea they're weird. Like Sector 3. Cobalt has a faster peak speed, min speed, and exit speed. Yet the evo X mr is faster through the sector. Obviously the MR must have had an overall higher average speed. But overall, I'm still thinking the Cobalt's time was accurate.

As for the Elise SC, I've actually seen a couple. Really, I think you guys are overhyping it. It's not as fast as the old one.

MR-X1212

Easy solution guys... get somebody with an SS and take your EVO to the track and find out who runs better.

BTW: obviously we are all pretty bias towards EVO's, which is our opinion. Car and Driver is just an opinion as well.

aiden1983

They are called Advertorials. They do accept money to make cars look better than they really are. They do it in almost all forms of media, it is just the world we live in.

AWD Ninja

I knew it ! I have been a fan of EVO's and STI's my whole life. and I have noticed that there has always been a HUGE problem with car and driver and motortrend with numbers regarding these AWD Ninja cars. One of the thing that has been pissing me off lately with these companies is the gay races they have been setting up with the RACE CAR VIPER ! its a ****ing race car ! !! there is no comparison to a fully prepped track car. its dumb if you ask me. Anyway, I totally agree with the number being fudged with the EVO for sure. And I actually think that the STI get its number even worse. The new independent car review companies are much better I believe.

TruboPower

Yep.. $ talks.

Just like a local magazine had.. They had a section for the best local doctors of 2008, turns out.. it was who wanted to pay $2500 to be in the article... guess $ makes you the best

STi2EvoX

"Feel" has nothing to do with it. The evo is a better car for a lot more reasons than "feel." I wouldn't be suprised if the Cobalt SS is actually a hair faster in the straights from a roll then the X is just because of the power to weight ratio, but that's about it. I give the SS credit where credit is due. However, the cobalt will NEVER be the handling car that the EVO X is, stock and especially modded, so this is where my discrepancy is. In the test, the cobalt pulled .88 Gs in the turns, which sounds reasonable enough considering that .91 is the best I've seen from that car in any independant test so far.

However, the EVO pulls an AVERAGE of .99 for the GSR and .96 for the MR, with peaks around some turns even higher, yet the best they could muster out of it was .88? That's indicative of the EVO being purposefully driven slower than what it's capable of and there's no two ways about it. It could be that the driver just didn't realize how much faster the X could go and thought he was at the limits when it wasn't even close or it was done on purpose to help the cobalt gain ground and boost sales for GM, which would help our economy. Could GM have bribed the magazines to make the cobalt seem better than it really is in order to boost sales? Who knows, but I do find the data a little fishy and if you look at the two cars and the specs it's clear that the EVO is superior on all fronts.

The engine is superior, the chassis is FAR better and can house much bigger wheels and tires to boot which when the modding begins becomes a major factor in handling capabiliy, the brakes are bigger, the AWD system is far superior to what almost any other AWD system on the market has ever offered and INFINITELY better than any FWD setup, the transmission I guarantee is stronger (based on the teardown reports and the fact that the tranny in the cobalt SS is derived from a SAAB, which isn't exactly a performance car company), the suspension geometry is WAY better as the cobalt uses a very basic suspension setup in the rear that is very cheap and normally found on econo cars like the base model that it comes from (I don't remember the type but one magazine commented on how amazing it is that the cobat handles the way it does considering how crappy the rear suspension setup is and that the springand damper rates are great to be able to counteract this), the steering system and ratio are far better on the EVO, and lastly the EVO is a much better quality car with higher quality materials from end to end.

The evo is just the superior car hands down, but for what it costs it should be. The evo's job is to be a mid 30k supercar killer, and no 22k FWD car can dethrone it from that position, period.

ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

Jesus, are people still debating the results from this test? There is no conspiracy, on that day with those drivers at that track, the Cobalt SS was as fast as the Evo. The results of other tests are irrelevant since either A. the variables were different or B. the tests themselves were completely different. People keep on saying "Oh the WRX was than the SS therefore since the Evo is faster than the STI, the Evo should be faster than the SS" but that's absolutely horrible logic. The WRX vs. SS test was in terms of performance numbers (0-60, 1/4 mile time, etc) and a short (45 second) autocross track. As any racer can tell you, autocross is fundamentally different than road racing thus the results are not comparable.
A friend of mine has a Lotus and an STI and *gasp* the STI is faster than the Lotus at the track. It boils down to how the track is setup. Some tracks naturally favor power over handling while others are the reverse. In this case power was king.
I love how Evo owners are pissed about the SS. It's oddly reminiscent of how Porsche or Corvette owners responded to the Evo.
"How can a 30000$ rice rocket beat my 60000$ Corvette? Obviously the tests are false."
"My 90000$ Porsche is better than a Mitsubishi boy toy, the brakes are better, the engine is better, the chassis is better, it's just a better car all around."
Dear god, get over it. It was inevitable that a car would come around that could challenge the Evo for the cheap. The SS is a very potent car. It has plenty of power, it's suspension was tuned at the Nurburgring, it has brembos (I believe), it comes with flat-foot shifting and launch control built it, it's very much a performance packed vehicle. If you're so uncomfortable with your own vehicle that you can't handle competition, I suggest you sell your car now and save yourself from a lot of sleepless nights. The fact people are suggesting that multiple magazines have thrown away their editorial integrity to champion the SS is laughable at best.

STi2EvoX

Oh get off your soapbox pal. It's not about not being able to deal with a little competition, it's about the handling numbers of the evo in this test being clearly flawed. Every other car in this test puts down handling numbers that closely mimick their skidpad tests except for the evo and the Lotus. Strange, considering that in every other test, the evo puts down cornering Gs that match it's skidpad to a "T." Are we to believe that VIR allows every other car in this test to lay down the cornering loads that it normally lays down except for the EVO? We are talking about data being scewed, not about whether or not the cobalt can give the evo a run for it's money on the right track. I don't care if you're a mod or not, if you don't understand what we are talking about or you want to make antagonistic comments then do it somewhere else.

P.S. This is nothing like the corvette and porsche guys feeling cheated when the EVO beats their car because the data of their cars are still represented accurately. The problem, again since you don't seem to be able to understand this for some reason, is that the EVO and Lotus, the top performers in their bracket, seem to have been misrepresented and that makes for a bunk test IMO. A car that normally pulls about a full G in the turns only managing .88 matching a FWD POS like the cobalt is BS and everyone knows it.

jrsimon27

iTrader: (1)

all mags lie dont believe them that much and of course they accept bribs

ibognar

iTrader: (1)

It's been a while since I've read the article and I'm too lazy to go and review it but...I don't think those G numbers were generated on a skidpad. They were measured on a track during the course of a lap. You therefore can't compare them to skidpad G ratings. Therefore no rigging, that's just how they turned out.

Having said that, it irked me too that the Evo lost to the Chevy. So much so that I'm considering getting a SS for a daily beater.

ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

No it's about people not being willing to accept data because it doesn't adhere to their predetermined expectations. You're acting as if the test was aimed specifically against the evo, which is wasn't. No car magazine is going to intentionally handicap a car since *gasp* most manufacturers advertise in their magazine. As far as you know, the data produced in the past was flawed. The fact is that under the conditions of this comparison, the evo posted the numbers presented in the magazine. The Evo still posted a good time but what did you expect? It's not an especially light car and it's not especially powerful. You'll also notice that in the results they only post the cornering grip for corner 1 so I fail to see how a 0.89 G there means the test was a lie. In other tests (like Road and Track's Ultimate Track Test), the MR posted a 0.91 G value so it's not that far off.
Actually this is exactly like the Porsche and Corvette guys. I'm sure they doubted the data and accused the magazines of being biased but you of course feel that the data is completely accurate.

kyoo

iTrader: (29)

lol. so biased. First of all, those g's are skidpad g's. You think it'll pull the same g's on a high speed turn as it would a controlled skidpad test? So yes, there is a way about it, and how quick you are to assume something wrong with the evo x, or that these drivers were sandbagging or whatever.

Like I said, the evo ix mr ran .2 seconds slower on VIR. You claim that the evo X MR should have gone faster. So how much faster do you really think the evo x mr should have been? a whole second? It's never been that much faster than the IX, if it all, on a track. Either way the Cobalt SS is very close.

Seriously. Think about that. The faster you say the MR should have run on VIR, the faster you're saying a X MR will outrun a IX MR. And after 90+ pages of debate I think we can both agree that these two cars will perform very similarly to one another on any course.

Lastly, I agree with everything you said about the superiority of the evo. Engine, chassis, drivetrain better? Hell yea. But that doesn't mean the engine makes more power stock. That to me means it can handle more power modified, will last longer, has higher build qual etc etc etc. None of which have anything specifically to do with what happened in this test. And no, the cobalt's suspension isn't the best and most innovative thing ever created. But it's decent enough suspension to get this job done. And transmission? I personally think the X MR's tranny is one of the best I've ever seen for an auto.

So yea, which would I pick? The Evo. Which car just stomped it and your superiority complex? The Cobalt SS. There's no faking the fact that the Cobalt will run closely to the MR on VIR.

Skywarp

iTrader: (1)

Yup, its got Brembos in the front.