Car and driver Nov 08 (Evo X MR) super comparo
Oct 8, 2008, 03:31 PM
#1
Car and driver Nov 08 (Evo X MR) super comparo
Moderators, please delete my post. I just noticed there is a similar post on a different section(I noticed it too late). My apologies.
Carlos
Carlos
Last edited by fromWRXtoEVO; Oct 8, 2008 at 04:45 PM.
Oct 8, 2008, 04:33 PM
#3
Evolving Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Deland, FL
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the cobalt ss is putting alot more to the wheels than a x and weighs less. it sucks the doors off the mr on the straights--that's where is gets the fast times. stock cobalt ss's are putting down between 260 and 270 whp stock and they're running in the mid 12's for afr's with the direct injection. pretty good car for the money.
Trending Topics
Oct 9, 2008, 12:44 PM
#8
The new Colbalt SS is fast, but I do not regret getting my MS3 instead. The Colbalt looks cheap to me. Sure it may be faster, but that is something that can be fixed quickly with a few basic mods.
If that the case, then Chevy is not telling the truth about the power the SS produces. It is rated at 260hp at the crank.
the cobalt ss is putting alot more to the wheels than a x and weighs less. it sucks the doors off the mr on the straights--that's where is gets the fast times. stock cobalt ss's are putting down between 260 and 270 whp stock and they're running in the mid 12's for afr's with the direct injection. pretty good car for the money.
Oct 9, 2008, 12:56 PM
#9
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that is just BS.
The Cobalt SS putting in times faster then the Evo X, STi, 135i, and IS-F.
If power/weight ratio is the key factor, then the Lotus Elise SC should be faster. I just think that it's BS.
I'm not in denial because it's faster then the Evo, but you have to be realistic about. Look at the field that it's up against.
The Cobalt SS putting in times faster then the Evo X, STi, 135i, and IS-F.
If power/weight ratio is the key factor, then the Lotus Elise SC should be faster. I just think that it's BS.
I'm not in denial because it's faster then the Evo, but you have to be realistic about. Look at the field that it's up against.
Oct 9, 2008, 01:23 PM
#12
Evolving Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Deland, FL
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that is just BS.
The Cobalt SS putting in times faster then the Evo X, STi, 135i, and IS-F.
If power/weight ratio is the key factor, then the Lotus Elise SC should be faster. I just think that it's BS.
I'm not in denial because it's faster then the Evo, but you have to be realistic about. Look at the field that it's up against.
The Cobalt SS putting in times faster then the Evo X, STi, 135i, and IS-F.
If power/weight ratio is the key factor, then the Lotus Elise SC should be faster. I just think that it's BS.
I'm not in denial because it's faster then the Evo, but you have to be realistic about. Look at the field that it's up against.
Oct 9, 2008, 01:31 PM
#13
Newbie
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think your on the right track, C&D probably siding a little more with GM after possibly a large advertising budget, and GM tweeking the tune of there test car. I can understand this car beating the Ralliart in the Road and Track mag, but now the EVO MR come on. But maybe that's all this car has for potential, were as the EVO is just waiting for a new tune to really open up.
Oct 9, 2008, 02:01 PM
#14
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm confused. Are you saying C&D is fudging the numbers? Also, you seem to be establishing power to weight ratios by the factory numbers, which are clearly inaccurate in certain cases---like the Cobalt. Also, did you ever consider that chevy or some other manufacturer threw in a ringer? I'm sure it wouldn't be hard for the factory to reflash a cobalt, up the boost, lean the mixture and make the timing more aggressive. Not that I even like the car, but the fact is, they are a pretty good platform and the engine is capable of decent power.
The previous Lightning Lap tested the Cobalt SS as well. At that time it put a lap time of 3:20.xx. It had 205 hp. Now, it has 260 hp. A gain of 55 hp does not equate to drop of 7 seconds in lap time.
GM didn't redesign/engineered the chasis. Maybe the suspension, but still 7 sec is a lot!
I'm not arguing that the Cobalt did in fact ran a 3:13 flat. But I just don't think there isn't any other modification to that car. Such as tires, etc......