At the SCCA National Runoffs (class T3 championship) a Cobalt SS won; S2000's took second though fourth place (another Cobalt SS actually finished in 2nd place, but was disqualified after the race).

http://www.scca.com/popup/raceresult.aspx?...=12416&file=484

 

At VIR Grand East, the use of racing pads and better fluid will take more than 4 seconds off the lap time of the S2000 (or any other similar car in it's class).

 

brakes are what i thought, too. the CR has very similar power to weight, as the cobalt SS is a bit heavier. the S will sit above 6k the whole race, so torque has absolutely no impact. i can't imagine the cobalt has better cornering and/or rubber--at least not by a large margin.

it's the brakes.

the one that makes me really wonder is the elise sc. WTH?? it seems like anything can beat an elise sc in these mag comparos, but i'd want to see it to believe it.

 

Makes you wonder why Honda would offer a Club Racer without upgraded brakes.

 

I agree that with better brake pads the CR could have been run harder and faster. One area I noticed the CR outperformed the Cobalt was in the Horse Shoe portion in Sector 1. The Cobalt pulled 0.89g of cornering grip whereas the CR pulled a 0.93g. The Cobalt's avg lap time was was a 3:13.0 and the CR's was 3:15.0. Considering the CR had the fourth lowest power with only 237BHP I think the CR performed alright on this 4.2 mile race course.

 

you know. Having come from a previous car, which had a big brake kit on it, to the S2000. I must say the S2000 brakes SUCK. I dont care what any racer says. Sure you might be able to make them work with ducts, race pads, and regular replacement of rotors.

Its funny alot of people say the S2000 doesnt need a BBK or brembos. But then you have things like this happens when an S2000 gets beat by an turboed econobox and guess what.. The s2000 couldnt perform its best because its brakes faded.

I faded the crap out of my s2000's brakes on multiple occations and upgrading to race pads and race fluid is NOT acceptable for a street car.

The S2000 NEEDs better brakes and the CR should have come with an oem brembo package. Hell even the Civic Type R now has brembos.

Wake up honda!

 

Hey, can't we just admit that GM maybe got it right this time?

Maybe it will make a couple of you feel better to know that the SS only beat the EVO, 135i and IS F by 1 second or less...on a lap time of 3.13.

The SS carries about the same weight per HP as the EVO and the STi. The STi was a real disapointment posting a slower lap time than a dodge challlenger SRT8 on a track that did NOT favor big iron.

The Cobolt benefits from great brakes (NEVER underestimate the value of great brakes on the track), tires that keep their grip lap after lap, good power, and a limited slip to minimize fwd handling issues.

The cars were driven by Tony Quiroga, Tony Swan, and Larry Webster. These guys can all drive. I believe they each carry competition licenses of one kind or another and are frequent participants in various motorsports.Each gets in hundreds of miles of lap time every year. It does sound like each got assigned to several cars so each car was onlly run with one driver...although this is not entirely clear from the article. What is clear is that the cars were each run for two three-to-five-lap sessions and the best lap time was used in the comparison. Might the finishing order have changed with a different driver arrangement? Perhaps. But not enough to kill the notion that the SS is competative on the right road course with cars costing a WHOLE lot more.

On that score, the as tested price for the ss, $23,795, was lowest by a substantial margin. Only the Volvo and the Caliber SRT-4 were grouped with the SS in the under-$30K class.

Sure you can buy an imaculate CRX for 6 grand, put $17,000 in parts and labor into it and end up with a very nice ride. But you better set aside some of that $17 to pay for repairs...The SS has that 5 year 100,000 mi warranty after all. Oh, and good luck getting financing for that Rex and its many parts. Or insuring it for what you have in it. Don't forget dyno time to sort out the tune and some track time to get the suspension right.

Face it... It ain't pretty and it isn't the fastest thing out there. On a different track layout it might not do as well relative to the competition. But from a strictly performance/value point of view there can be no doubt that GM hit one out of the park.

 

Somebody else trying to price this thing out of my reach. Yeah...it could use some torque, too...maybe a low pressure factory turbo. And the hard top should come standard on non-CRs. And how about a better stereo? And forged 18s. Even the Cobolt SS has forged 18s.

And there are plenty of pretty capable cars out there with oem brake pads that tend to fade under heavy use.

I love the factory pads for street use. Great bite, teriffic feel, no noise, and almost no dust! If I hit the track I'll swap out the pads like a good track rat should anyway.

[edit]
Hey, you know what? On second thought, you've got a point. You did say the CR should have Brembos. The stock pads are fine for regular S2Ks but the CR SHOULD have more track-worthy pads. I still think the brembos would have driven the already high cost up market too far for a four-banger n.a. drop top, even one in track dress.

 

At a very least Brembos could have been an optional part. (with optional wheels with the proper offest and size to clear the brakes)

Its not like Honda doesnt already have the partnumbers. Hell how much you wanna bet the civic type R brembos and wheels would bolt up to thr s2k?

 

Well, the cars didnt drive themselves around the track, a person did. Car and driver and all those other consumer report magazines suck balls when it comes to road testing. As we all know, AP2s are high 13 sec cars, not mid 14secs. So clearly the S2000 is a difficult car to drive, and im even more certain that on a road course its just as hard.