STi2EvoX

No, read more carefully next time. We are talking about the motortrend test, not the car and driver test. In the motor trend test, the X beat the cobalt in lap time and came in much higher than the cobalt in the handling ranking (6th place compared to 9th for the cobalt), which was what the test was centered around. Oh, and as far as the track conditions are concerned, as the guy above me said, VIR has more staights then almost any track in the US so your comment about it being balanced is a little off. It is what it is. We disagree and that's never gonna change. The X is the superior car hands down, and if it loses to a car with a better power to weight ratio on a track with long straights then I'm ok with that. What's funny is that you're acting like the cobalt ss is the evo's equal for less money and that on a twisty track the evo wouldn't beat it and that is just ignorant. BTW, here is the motortrend article showing that the X is faster and ranked higher if you need to see the proof for yourself: http://www.motortrend.com/features/p...ing/index.html

Thegame

iTrader: (26)

By the way, the Evo IX MR was also beaten by the Cobalt... Sure the test was a few years ago, but the numbers don't change. In fact, the IX MR was slower than both the SS and the X MR.

Sti2EvoX - I'm right with you. As soon as I read this I knew there was something wrong. The Cobalt's a great buy for the money, but I just cannot see a FWD car keeping up with anything other than FWD cars.

I've said it before, I think the driver had AYC off and didn't know how to drive. The lateral G #'s might be indicative of this.

STi2EvoX

Maybe, although I think it's more likely that ASC was on, which actually hurts laps times. It doesn't allow the rear to rotate much and that hurts the handling performance. I think you are right though, the driver most likely didn't have much seat time in the EVO and didn't realize that it could do more than what he was giving it. Who knows? But I will say this, at least the motor trend test used a better track to compare the cars on and at least they give in depth data for the whole course showing the strong points and weak points of the cars. Car and driver FTL.

jackygor

iTrader: (9)

I am with you too STi2EvoX, the numbers just don't add up. This is not to discredit the fact that the cobalt is a good car though. Nothing against the cars, just the numbers.

ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

So how is the MotorTrend article relevant? Different track, different conditions and different drivers. If you actually look at the results, the times are nearly identical. The Evo MR posts a 1:47.713 while the Cobalt posts a 1:47.751. The difference is less than a tenth of a second. That's not significant, you can lose that by missing the apex by a foot. Even the average G-force numbers are close, 0.559 to 0.545. The Evo wins the subjective comparison but that's subjective, if a bias is going to affect anything, that's it.
You're acting as if the Evo is some lame horse that can only turn. It's a very quick car by most standards. A 0-60 of 5 seconds isn't anything to laugh at. In this case, the Cobalt is just a better bang for the buck car. As I said earlier, if you can't handle that, you should just sell your car right now.
Let me guess, now you're going to argue that Laguna Seca favors power-to-weight ratio over handling?

kyoo

iTrader: (29)

Actually, they sure do (numbers vary), when there's different drivers. Like I said again and again and again.. Think logically. Different drivers, or same with one year + experience. Come on man.

1.
Forget the placement. Look at the times. They're right on. You're definitely not accusing C&D for dropping any seconds on the Cobalt. That means it's pretty damn fast.

2.
So, that means you are once again accusing C&D of sandbagging in the Evo. So, how much faster do you think a X MR would be on a power course like VIR?
The final lap time seems on the money to me. You guys are just overanalyzing the data in hopes of finding something that allows your X to be a little faster.

3.
What are you hoping for? An extra .5 seconds? Cobalt is still right there.

You guys for the Evo X really seem to be missing this point. The faster you say it should have gone, the faster you're saying it is that the Evo IX MR (for REFERENCE ONLY). This is a POWER course. On nearly any track, haven't we agreed that both cars (IX and X stock) will run similar lap times? Yet for this course, because the Cobalt is so fast, the MR MUST have had potential to run faster. You guys are biased as hell


I really would like to see responses to these points from you guys. You guys have been dodging this stuff, but if you guys are sure, you should be able to answer these points


TheGame : as you stated, the IX was slower than the Cobalt and the MR. Then you go on to state the MR should have been even faster. Really now? How much faster? I missed the part where, stock for stock, the MR received a huge leap in track times all of a sudden, against the IX... on a power course

ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

Actually FWD cars are more than capable of taking on their AWD competitors. AWD isn't a gift from God, other drivetrain arrangements can be better as long as the car is setup correctly.
Considering that they hired professional drivers, I doubt skill is an issue. Of course since this is the internet everyone on this forum is better than the professionals and can question their abilities if they're unhappy with the results.

spdracerut

iTrader: (2)

Hmm... lets look at some of the other cars in the comparison:

Evo X 3:13.0
BMW 135i 3:13.3- more hp/tq, ~same weight if not lighter than the Evo
Lexus IS-F 3:14.0 - 400hp monster in a straight line. Power only track right?
Honda S2000CR 3:15.0- great handling car
Challenger SRT8- 3:16.3 it'll crap on most cars in a straight line
STI 3:19.0 - direct competitor to the Evo and 6 seconds slower!!! OMG, they're sandbagging to make the Evo look good!
SRT-4- 3:20.8 another high HP FWD car.

STi2EvoX

Jesus buddy, you need to grow up. Every time I make a point or explain my point of view you come back at me with some hostile, sarcastic remark and it's uncalled for and immature. In any case, no, I'm not going to argue that laguna seca favors power to weight; it's actually a better track for comparing a wide range of cars than VIR is. And again, I have no problem with a little competition so stop with the "I should sell my car" comments.

You don't know me or anything about me so dont talk to me in a condescending mannor. I have made valid points and we don't have to agree, that's fine. But the attitude isn't warranted and it needs to stop. Moving on, I agree that the cobalt is a fantastic car for the money. I would never buy one, but for what it is it's great. The evo is a superior car though, and as a platform for race preparaton there is no comparison and if you think otherwise then you are sadly mistaken. Stock for stock it all comes down to the track and that's fine.

In venues where power to weight is favored the SS will win by a hair. In venues that are more balanced they will be close, and on a tight, technical track the EVO will win. Once modding begins, the cobalt's potential will taper off quickly though and the EVO will dominate. In any case, if you love the cobalt so much then go buy one. BTW, you are a terrible moderator and I'm surprised that you have the position. Your job is supposed to be to quell arguments and help keep the peace, but you antagonize people and create more problems then you solve. Good job.

Robevo RS

iTrader: (16)

let see . it is slower then the Elise N/A. that is perhaps is right. But i never compere the two.
I compere the track ready Elise 240 SC with the 60 Utoq rating tires to the Cobalt SS. which is faster you say.
So you think i over hype it , but you dont the Cobalt SS, right?

here is some usefull info about the slow 240 SC :
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 12.0 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 26.6 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 5.6 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.3 sec @ 104 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 145 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 157 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.97 g

and it is 2043 LB mid engine rear wheel drive street legal gokart if i may.
With the Advan A048 tires...

http://bbs.iamcool.net/topic.DetailV...ic_id=7661&p=1

the mean time the SS are
not on ADVAN A048 for sure and FWD front engine car
0-60 mph 5.8sec slower 1.3 sec vs elise sc
1/4 mile 14@103.6mph slower 0.7 sec and less trap speed 0.4 sec
skip pad 0.89 g weaker 0.08 g's then a elise SC
weight 2967 lbs heavier 924 lb
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.../pageId=137007

so who is really over hype what?

The Exige has tremendous advantage in a good driver hands. And my track experience no factory Cobalt will pass any Elise SC with a good driver behind it. And we can assume in the test the drivers at least a good drivers. SO in this test we can bravely say something is fishy at least.
And i'm purposely dont brought up the Evo vs Cobalt thing , but i can assure you it is a same.

kyoo

iTrader: (29)

8:41.9 - 142.07 km/h -- Lotus Elise SC, 220 PS/902 kg (AutoBild sportscars 08/08) http://www.autobild.de/artikel/nords...-s_744720.html

Cobalt SS hit 8:22.x

ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

How was my comment "hostile"? The only sentence that could be considered hostile is my "sell your car" remark and that stands, if you're so insecure about your vehicle that you chalk up a lose to a magazine bias or blatant lies than you should just quit now and start riding a bike because no matter what you drive, a car will come out that is better. As for the other personal remarks, I'll just leave those alone. You're posting on Evom, if you can't handle people disagreeing with you or thinking your arguments don't/can't stand up, a forum may not be the best place for you.
Stock for stock it doesn't come down to track since the SS is right on the Evo's *** in both comparisons. The difference between the cars is less than a second at both VIR and Laguna Seca. Those are two very different tracks. Now then, what does this tell us? Well we can either continue with the paranoia and suggest that both magazines are biased against the Evo or we can use this as evidence that the SS is a damn fine car.
Considering the SS hasn't been around as long as the Evo we have no idea how it will perform when modified. Don't forget that the Ecotec motor is very strong and it is more than capable of handling big power. I believe that the Ecotec motor holds some speed records.
Wait, so because I actually take part in the discussions I'm a bad moderator? What do you expect us to do, stay quiet and just delete posts whenever someone feels hurt? I haven't made any personal comments about you but rather simply dissected your arguments (or lack thereof).

SoR

iTrader: (19)

That's not really true.
Remember what happened to WRC when Audi introduced AWD?
It's not quite as clear cut today but similar would still happen to other forms of road racing if AWD was allowed. Most don't allow AWD. Audi wanted to enter DTM with quattro too but they didn't let them. Ever wonder why?
Not every race happens in ideal weather conditions and that's where FWD and RWD cars are just out.

kyoo

iTrader: (29)

STi2EvoX, please stop ignoring my posts. I'm trying to bring up valid points to figure and sort all this stuff out

I think clarifying these points I made earlier should help with the dispute

ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

That was decades ago, hell that was before I was born. Now a days FWD cars can be made to minimize their negatives aspects (torque steer) and highlight their advantages (weight, ease of driving).