Full Test: 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt SS Supercharged

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1


you drove a Lumina... that vehicle was replaced in 1997 by the Venture. EIGHT YEARS AGO

im pretty sure any vehicle from pre 1997 that was a minivan was pretty blah.

MIKE

You're thinking of that old Lumina APV minivan. I'm talking about a newer Lumina car.

again that car is no longer manufactured either.

although i cant find when it was phased out/ what car replaced it.

MIKE

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
again that car is no longer manufactured either.

although i cant find when it was phased out/ what car replaced it.

MIKE

It's this thing:
Lumina

It's only a few years old. I think the Monte Carlo is similar.

I've also been in a Camaro and it also has that lifeless, mushy, rubbery, sloppy feel to it. It feels as though the vehicle isn't connected to the road.

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
again that car is no longer manufactured either.

although i cant find when it was phased out/ what car replaced it.

MIKE

It's this thing:
Lumina

It's only a few years old. I think the Monte Carlo is similar.

I've also been in a Camaro and it also has that lifeless, mushy, rubbery, sloppy feel to it. It feels as though the vehicle isn't connected to the road.

Both old vehicles - I think the Lumina bit the big one in 1999 or so - the Camaro 2002 (?). And even then, the platforms were MUCH older.

Try a GM new car, they aren't an import, but they aren't bad.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
again that car is no longer manufactured either.

although i cant find when it was phased out/ what car replaced it.

MIKE

It's this thing:
Lumina

It's only a few years old. I think the Monte Carlo is similar.

I've also been in a Camaro and it also has that lifeless, mushy, rubbery, sloppy feel to it. It feels as though the vehicle isn't connected to the road.

Both old vehicles - I think the Lumina bit the big one in 1999 or so - the Camaro 2002 (?). And even then, the platforms were MUCH older.

Try a GM new car, they aren't an import, but they aren't bad.

the Camaro 35th anniversary edition was a 2001 model?? i thought and was the last model offered.

also, 91ttz werent you the one who went to the GM driving experience and said that the GTO lacked punch in the low end?

MIKE

 

[Bullhonkie]

Originally posted by: Rent
Anyone who thinks its slow needs to look at their (edmunds) 1/4 trap speeds

Cobalt SS - 15.4 @ 97mph
SRT-4 - 14.9 @ 94.3

Do you see how ridiculous that is? Cars that trap 97mph in the 1/4 usually hit low 14s (RSX, SRT4, WRX). Those retards couldn't drive to save their life.

This car is a stoplight racer if anything, which is unfortunately what kids want now. Its not a bad car, it was just designed for that.

Beat me to it. Edmunds is notorious for launching cars like a granny. Their 0-60 and ETs are almost always a half second to full second behind what other reviewers can get from the same cars.

 

[Rent]

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1


you drove a Lumina... that vehicle was replaced in 1997 by the Venture. EIGHT YEARS AGO

im pretty sure any vehicle from pre 1997 that was a minivan was pretty blah.

MIKE

You're thinking of that old Lumina APV minivan. I'm talking about a newer Lumina car.

again that car is no longer manufactured either.

although i cant find when it was phased out/ what car replaced it.

MIKE

I believe the Impala replaced the Lumina. Not a bad car, not a great car.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: DougK62

Both old vehicles - I think the Lumina bit the big one in 1999 or so - the Camaro 2002 (?). And even then, the platforms were MUCH older.

Try a GM new car, they aren't an import, but they aren't bad.

I've been hearing the same argument from the domestic camp for the last 10 years. "Try a newer one, you'll like it". But each time I don't. How recent of a car do they want me to try? Even early 90's Japanese and German cars had it right. Hell, many 1980's Japanese cars had it right. And as time progresses, the US manufacturers are lagging way behind. Instead of giving me a valid reason for it, I get the same runaround each time- "Try a newer one"

In fact, I have never been in a Chevy vehicle which felt good. My Saturn feels ok, but that's a semi-autonomous division of GM. The mushy feel has been a common theme of Chevy vehicles for as long as I can remember, and I doubt it's going to change overnight.

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
the Camaro 35th anniversary edition was a 2001 model?? i thought and was the last model offered.

Are you asking me or telling me? If you're asking, then no, 2002 was the 35th anniversary year. If you're telling me, then no, you're wrong.

Grammar is our friend.

 

[Rent]

Originally posted by: Bullhonkie

Originally posted by: Rent
Anyone who thinks its slow needs to look at their (edmunds) 1/4 trap speeds

Cobalt SS - 15.4 @ 97mph
SRT-4 - 14.9 @ 94.3

Do you see how ridiculous that is? Cars that trap 97mph in the 1/4 usually hit low 14s (RSX, SRT4, WRX). Those retards couldn't drive to save their life.

This car is a stoplight racer if anything, which is unfortunately what kids want now. Its not a bad car, it was just designed for that.

Beat me to it. Edmunds is notorious for launching cars like a granny. Their 0-60 and ETs are almost always a half second to full second behind what other reviewers can get from the same cars.

I honestly think this car will be hitting low 14s without any big problems.

It just hurts my mind to see someone hit a 15.4 at fvcking 97 mph. Did they WAIT a good second at the tree to go???

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1

also, 91ttz werent you the one who went to the GM driving experience and said that the GTO lacked punch in the low end?

MIKE

No, that wasn't me. I've never driven a GTO.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Rent

It just hurts my mind to see someone hit a 15.4 at fvcking 97 mph. Did they WAIT a good second at the tree to go???

They can wait all day at the tree and it won't hurt their ET. The timer doesn't start until you go and break the beams.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
the Camaro 35th anniversary edition was a 2001 model?? i thought and was the last model offered.

Are you asking me or telling me? If you're asking, then no, 2002 was the 35th anniversary year. If you're telling me, then no, you're wrong.

Grammar is our friend.

i threw question marks in before i should have but it was more of a i thought it was 2001 but if it was 2002 then that was the last year of the Camaro.

Rent: i dont think they have a tree fall down when they do 1/4 mile times, i think they just have the timing start when they launch. but that must have been a one try time and they either horribly spun the tires, or they crawled out of the gate.

MIKE

 

[MazerRackham]

Originally posted by: MrChad
I'd still take my RSX Type-S over a Chevy Cobalt.

Me too! What year do you have? I love my '05!

 

I'll pass.
GM is catching on though.

 

[MasterAndCommander]

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
uh...

its replacing the cavalier??

the camaro has no replacement, and wont. the GTO will be the closest thing to a replacement you will get for some time.

where have some of you been.

The Cobalt replaced the Cavalier and the SS is just to bring in more money.

MIKE

This is pathetic - I remembered seeing this on Chevy's Cobalt site:

To put the muscle car thing in perspective, however, consider that the Cobalt SS Supercharged weighs less than a five-speed 1987 IROC-Z, and almost matches the output of the Camaro's 5.0-liter V8. Fact is the Cobalt SS is likely quicker than the IROC, although it'll get spanked by a 230-hp, turbocharged Dodge Neon SRT-4 which costs about the same.

The Cobalt SS also drives much like that old Camaro, and we mean that as a compliment, mostly. It tracks beautifully, pulls hard through corners and its electric steering has a heavy, numb feel reminiscent of the third-generation F-body. That kind of steering worked in heavy muscle cars cranking Huey Lewis and the News, but the 2005 tuner market wants, and expects, improved feel and feedback.

It ain't no F-body!

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: MasterAndCommander

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
uh...

its replacing the cavalier??

the camaro has no replacement, and wont. the GTO will be the closest thing to a replacement you will get for some time.

where have some of you been.

The Cobalt replaced the Cavalier and the SS is just to bring in more money.

MIKE

This is pathetic - I remembered seeing this on Chevy's Cobalt site:

To put the muscle car thing in perspective, however, consider that the Cobalt SS Supercharged weighs less than a five-speed 1987 IROC-Z, and almost matches the output of the Camaro's 5.0-liter V8. Fact is the Cobalt SS is likely quicker than the IROC, although it'll get spanked by a 230-hp, turbocharged Dodge Neon SRT-4 which costs about the same.

The Cobalt SS also drives much like that old Camaro, and we mean that as a compliment, mostly. It tracks beautifully, pulls hard through corners and its electric steering has a heavy, numb feel reminiscent of the third-generation F-body. That kind of steering worked in heavy muscle cars cranking Huey Lewis and the News, but the 2005 tuner market wants, and expects, improved feel and feedback.

It ain't no F-body!

You're right - a mullet isn't a requirement for ownership.

 

[MasterAndCommander]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: MasterAndCommander

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
uh...

its replacing the cavalier??

the camaro has no replacement, and wont. the GTO will be the closest thing to a replacement you will get for some time.

where have some of you been.

The Cobalt replaced the Cavalier and the SS is just to bring in more money.

MIKE

This is pathetic - I remembered seeing this on Chevy's Cobalt site:

To put the muscle car thing in perspective, however, consider that the Cobalt SS Supercharged weighs less than a five-speed 1987 IROC-Z, and almost matches the output of the Camaro's 5.0-liter V8. Fact is the Cobalt SS is likely quicker than the IROC, although it'll get spanked by a 230-hp, turbocharged Dodge Neon SRT-4 which costs about the same.

The Cobalt SS also drives much like that old Camaro, and we mean that as a compliment, mostly. It tracks beautifully, pulls hard through corners and its electric steering has a heavy, numb feel reminiscent of the third-generation F-body. That kind of steering worked in heavy muscle cars cranking Huey Lewis and the News, but the 2005 tuner market wants, and expects, improved feel and feedback.

It ain't no F-body!

You're right - a mullet isn't a requirement for ownership.

Is that aimed at the bow-tie fanboys or all muscle car enthusiasts
I'd like to stomp something else other than rice

 

[Demon-Xanth]

"In comparison, a similarly priced Dodge SRT-4 (which is turbocharged) that we recently tested went zero to 60 in 6.3 seconds and ran the quarter in 14.9 seconds at 94.3 mph."

...they suck at performance driving. Everywhere else gets 13.8-14.2 with that car.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
again that car is no longer manufactured either.

although i cant find when it was phased out/ what car replaced it.

MIKE

It's this thing:
Lumina

It's only a few years old. I think the Monte Carlo is similar.

I've also been in a Camaro and it also has that lifeless, mushy, rubbery, sloppy feel to it. It feels as though the vehicle isn't connected to the road.

Both old vehicles - I think the Lumina bit the big one in 1999 or so - the Camaro 2002 (?). And even then, the platforms were MUCH older.

Try a GM new car, they aren't an import, but they aren't bad.

No, they're horrible. My wife rented an '03 Monte Carlo. That thing drives like a land barge, has horrible brakes and is woefully underpowered. You couldn't give me that car. It's a piece of crap.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
again that car is no longer manufactured either.

although i cant find when it was phased out/ what car replaced it.

MIKE

It's this thing:
Lumina

It's only a few years old. I think the Monte Carlo is similar.

I've also been in a Camaro and it also has that lifeless, mushy, rubbery, sloppy feel to it. It feels as though the vehicle isn't connected to the road.

What year Camaro? Mine feels like a slot car.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Squisher

What year Camaro? Mine feels like a slot car.

2000

It felt sloppy.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Squisher

What year Camaro? Mine feels like a slot car.

2000

It felt sloppy.

Hmmm, maybe my upgraded wheels and tires made a difference.

mine