STi2EvoX

I looked at the specs from the test and something looks very fishy. Two cars imparticular caught my eye; the Lotus Elise SC and the EVO X. Now, both of these cars are widely noted for pulling about a full G in lateral acceleration stock, yet in this comparison test they both only pulled .88 Gs. Hmmm, this to me looks like the driver either didn't know how to drive, or these cars were handicapped for some reason. But why would they do that?

Also strange is the fact that the cobalt SS beat both of these cars. Now I will give the cobalt SS credit where credit is due, but it's not in the same league as the Lotus or the EVO. Is it possible that the magazines accept bribes from companies like say, GM? Who knows, but I find it very strange that these cars seemed to be putting down numbers in comparison test that are far worse than the individual test from the same magazine.

Same story with motor trend, where the EVO in this case at least beat the cobalt but barely. The handling numbers didn't match their OWN individual tests of the car previously. Is this not fishy to anyone else? Any comments or ideas? I'd like to know everyone else's take on this, because I know I can't be the only one who is skeptical about all of this.

DylanPS

If anyone is biased, it's you because you own an Evo. People always accuse C&D of being biased towards BMW or Honda, when fact is, they are just very good cars. Accept the fact that the Cobalt SS is a very good car and was faster than an Evo. The company isn't buying off the magazine.

STi2EvoX

I guess that you don't want to acknowledge the fact that the numbers in that test are very different than the numbers from that SAME magazine's test of the cars in the individual tests. That doesn't seem strange to you? Are you a cobalt owner?

midwestX

iTrader: (4)

^lol nice

xxxAce21xxx

i believe it i reviewed the numbers as well it just dosnt match up Very Fishy = /

eaglesevo

I think you have to look at the track they are running. If they were running at one with more curves and less straightaways then the results may be different. The Cobalt does have a much better power to weight ratio than the EVO. If you look at a lot of the comparison numbers you will notice that a difference of about 0.3 in 0-60 times and up to 0.5 sec in 1/4 mile times is not statistically significant meaning that that 2 cars within that time would be considered equal. I would have to consider cars within a close range of each other at the road course to be equal and likely due to other variables than just the "better" car.

But I think you would have to be blind or accepting payouts as well to think that car and driver is completely unbiased. Especially when they chose the M3 over the GTR and the 911 Turbo on the comparison test because IDK, it had a quieter ride. Come on, there is one driving reason someone is going to spend that much money on those vehicles......that is performance.

STi2EvoX

Well, the issue is that the handling numbers didn't vary just a bit, they were drastically off from that same magazine's individual test of the cars. It has nothing to do with whether or not the track tested in this case had lots of curves or lots of straights, as I am not talking about lap equallizing factors for different cars with different strengths.

I am talking about the handling numbers from the EVO and Lotus both being way off from what they really are and I call handicapping on this one or driver error. It doesn't matter how many turns there were on this track, what matters is that on the turns that the car encountered it pulled .11 Gs less than the normal .99 that the car averages. That's a huge discrepancy that can't be equated to track conditions that day or anything else other than driver error or purposeful handicapping.

jayevo23

i can believe it, there is corruption in our government what makes you think that a car magazine would be an exception

spdracerut

iTrader: (2)

The individual tests were likely performed at another location. Not all skidpads are created equal. The skidpad at Streets of Willow would throw numbers way off compared to testing at a good skidpad.

The Cobalt is a damn fast car, essentially the equal of a stock Evo around many road courses. The lotus turned 'slow' times because it doesn't have enough power.

chris719

Um, you cannot compare numbers from one day to another, especially not skidpad which depends on whether its a 300ft, 200ft, etc, and is NOT 100% representative of lateral G's in turns.

s7v7n

lol ^^^ jayevo23
but seriously does it matter that much to you?

STi2EvoX

Well, funny that all of the magazines agree on the .99 Gs of the stock EVO X and also funny is the fact that the EVO and Lotus were the only two cars in the test that didn't closely match their skidpad numbers in other tests. Hmmm, fishy fishy fishy? Oh, and for the record the EVO has been reported to pull over 1 full G in turns on a track, not on a skidpad so don't claim that the evo just puts down good skippad numbers that don't equate to the turns because that's BS.

kyoo

iTrader: (29)

.99 g's were for evo x gsr's. evo x mr's always pulled worse. But evo x mr's also always performed near equally to gsr's, give or take. (on a track)

as mentioned elsewhere, though it was a different year the cobalt ss turbocharged also beat the lancer evolution ix mr's time. I don't want to get into that argument again, but surely you can't suggest that stock vs stock the x mr would go around a track any more or any less than a one second differential from the old ix mr.

also, as for the elise sc, i don't know about the different handling numbers it pulled but i do know for a fact it's not as fast as the old n/a one

i say.. just accept it. hard to swallow yes. hurts the pride yes. But honestly I don't know if i can say i doubt the times. on a course like VIR im not sure how much good 4wd (I don't know personally) will do. Just because the car feels better and has some rotation in the corner doesnt make it faster. and i'm pretty sure the MR and the cobalt pull similar 1/4 times

Robevo RS

iTrader: (16)

It is false for sure. No SS pass the Elise Supercharged on Advan A048, period.
That is more then lie.
And this is clear for everyone who ever been in the race track.
Only possible way you can do that , if the driver is scared and has no experience on track.
other wise the Elise SC should murder the SS.
i had a long conversation about this and even their own number is messed up. One straight a way in up hill the evo beats the SS by their own numbers.. SO where is actually the SS is faster? In turns? /not really.. Up hill starights ? not really... So where is the FWD more hp/lb power come over the MR?

In the other test the WRX was faster then a SS. So figure that one out...
So with that logic the WRX 08 is faster then a STI and the evo .


today i was at englishtown road race , and i was watching the SS cars like a hawk.

My conclusion is, 2 things is possible about them:
1/ they are not even nearly as track ready as they say
2/ those SS drivers sucks.

pick one.

the real life doesnt know anything about the test numbers or magazine opinions , and that was very clear today.

kyoo

iTrader: (29)

as mentioned, the elise sc is much worse than the old n/a version. I don't know how much worse, but just because the car feels a certain way i don't think it's fair to say in anyway that it should be "clear" that one car is faster. I would have picked the elise sc over the heavy dodge challenger srt8 too right?

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?

Forgetting about this test, it ran the same nurburgring lap time as the old e46 m3 didn't it? And the old e46 m3 is a tiny bit faster on the track than the 135i. Which is exactly where the Cobalt ended up for VIR. Are you suggesting the Nurburgring time was faked as well?