For as much as the cobalt costs I could build a CRX that would blow both cars away...a chasis that was build in 1988.

I would pay good money to see the Cobalt race the S on a curvy track. Straight aways are what kill the S. It's not a car made for power, only handling.

If their test was anything like the Mugen Si's running the S2000's...they always use their best drivers to test the NEW cars against the tried and true S2000's with so so drivers. This is not a fair test people.

 

Is the mugen civic si diffrent than the rr? Is the mugen si just the si we have here in the states?

The is-f wins the nurburgring but gt-r takes this..


How many different drivers were their?


I want the stig to drive them all in a rematch

 

Maybe the Driver of the S was fat.. I mean come on trying to get the S to lug around 100 more pounds over the next dude is ruff . Plus I don't care what anyone says its powerful for a N/A 4 cylinder. I mean look, it took them a turbo and plenty of other things just to get it to beat a N/A car. We may lack torque but its nothing the S can't archive with forced induction just like the colbalt.

 

We need to replace those brake pads and have them do it again.

 

If the S was turboed it should be making at least 280 hp and 240 ft lbs. That would put it into supercar performance considering it's handling is already supercar-like...it only gets beat in the straights.

 

I did not buy my S for how fast it is. Granted it is nice to hit 6K, but I bought the car for the convertible, 2 seater, styling, fit and finish, reliability, subtleness, etc. (if I want fast I'll buy a bike again).

I cannot say the Cobalt falls into any of these categories. It is still the "Z-24" of today and is noit my cup of tea, even if it has a vette motor in it. I will respect it though, as Chevy is making some very noticable improvements in the last few years.

 

i was just at the library today reading this article..and this cobalt is no joke..ive read in another magazine saying
"its an understatement to call the cobalt the best handling front wheel drive car, it's one of the best handling cars period"

or something to that effect ..read it in either road and track, car and driver or automobile

 

Don't pass over the comment in the article that the S2000 was capable of faster lap times but the car had brake fade problems so it was driven slower.

 

I wonder how much ad space Chevy buys in Car and Driver?


...J/K

 

@ you pointing that out, too. I keep pointing that out, but nobody seems to understand that because of the faded brakes, the CR was not driven to its full potential.

On a side note, even with the faded brakes, the CR outperformed the Lotus Elise SC. That must really tell you something, right?