Cobalt SS is faster than the Exige S

[FLuXeXigeS]

the test sounds "iffy" but i will add that the Cobalt SS is NOT a bad car, but it aint no freakin Lotus...

[XPcarguy]

Originally Posted by Noen

I mean, let's be super honest. The Lotus IS lacking in top-end speed, for it's car class.

No argument here. My point is that the Elise's lack of top end speed doesn't really come up in real life. Not on a road course and certainly not on the street (save for the Silver State Classic).

Originally Posted by noen

If you don't want to reward speed, stick to Auto-X. The 'ring, like it or not, IS a great test of a car's abilities on the road and the track.

It's a great test of abilities the consumer can use to brag about but not ever use in any meaningful way. That's all I meant to say. I would personally be more interested in Laguna lap times or Top Gear lap times. IMO, the Ring is best reserved for super cars for the sake of putting together bragging rights between mfgs over best-car-on-planet sort of discussions. When you're dealing with cars like the Cobalt and the Elise, why not stick to tests that demonstrate the potential in ways relevant for the way their drivers will really be using them?

[XPcarguy]

Originally Posted by SteveLevin

The Cobalt is far from "a box of poo."

"box" was in reference to the shape.
"poo" was in reference to the gold bow tie emblem with alternative definitions:
1) front wheel drive econo car
2) fleet automobile that makes you yell "Oh CRAP!!!" when the Hertz agent assigns it to you

PS: The ZR1 would be a hatchback of poo so you can tell I hates me a Chevy

[Monsi]

agree 114.5% with XP

[Bane]

Originally Posted by XPcarguy

"box" was in reference to the shape.
"poo" was in reference to the gold bow tie emblem with alternative definitions:
1) front wheel drive econo car
2) fleet automobile that makes you yell "Oh CRAP!!!" when the Hertz agent assigns it to you

PS: The ZR1 would be a hatchback of poo so you can tell I hates me a Chevy

That's hilarious... at least you're upfront with your bias even if it is illogical.

I'm going to go test drive one either tonight or this weekend for sure. This thread got me into researching the car and now I'm really curious.

[mopho]

Originally Posted by XPcarguy

My point (though missed on plenty of people) was that mfgs manipulate the gullible public. People want to know 0-60 and top speed. Both are irrelevant for the very people that are asking the questions or anxiously reading the mag reviews.

People rarely (if ever) actually run their cars from 0-60. Unless your a stoplight racer (read: idiot) or a drag strip frequenter (read: the vast minority), the cars purported 0-60 time will never show up in your driving. You have to launch a car to get a good run and you have to launch it well. Most people run through the gears from a roll and typically from 2nd gear sweet spot and up. But you still bite on the 0-60 quotes.

So why are all these cars coming with launch control now, including the Lotus?

Actually, the Cobalt SS is aiming at the drag strip frequenter, i.e. the Nopi crowd. The SS has launch control and a flat foot shifting program that works pretty well and it makes sense given their target audience

But in cars like the GT-R or Porsche GT2, Lotus, etc, how many times are you going to use launch control? You'll show it off a few times to your friends and that will be it.


I look at 0-60 times because it gives me a quick mental picture of how much shove the car is going to have. I may never do a hard launch (actually, I probably will and have) but it gives me a sense of the performance I can expect. Am I going to really care if one car does 0-60 in 5.5 vs 5.8, no, but if one car is a 5s car and the other is a 4s car that is a pretty big difference and that will translate into most of the usable (i.e. below going to jail speeds) performance numbers
Of course you have to look at all the figures to get a full evaluation, but 0-60 is a decent quick reference point IMO

[FLuXeXigeS]

"the nopi crowd"

[Notorious L.R.G.]

Originally Posted by CosmosMpower

I like the steering in the S2000 better, the feeling is more numb but the effort at low speed is 100X more linear.

Unless you want to track the car all out don't buy the Elise it's inferior to everything else compared to the S2000.

Wow, I test drove an S2000, and I thought the steering was sloppy and body roll almost indecent. This is what sold me on the M100 Elan, a 10 year older car that was just the balls to drive.

I think Lotus fanatics hate anything that dilutes the steering feel.

[John Stimson]

Originally Posted by Bavarian Motorist

...maybe Lotus needs to step up their game? ...rear swaybar...

How exactly is that stepping up their game?

[John Stimson]

Originally Posted by Notorious L.R.G.

Wow, I test drove an S2000, and I thought the steering was sloppy and body roll almost indecent. This is what sold me on the M100 Elan, a 10 year older car that was just the balls to drive.

Having driven an M100 Elan, I think you are quite, quite mad.

[brgelise]

Having experienced it visually and having my visual observations confirmed by the driver, S2000's are a handful at the limit. Very darty and unstable!!
Secondly, you think our motors are flat off cam, that Honda motor may be sweeter than ours on cam, but it just plain dead off cam. Drove one years ago and came away very unimpressed. Turbine smooth but no soul!

[Hanzo]

The ring is a bench mark because it simulates the real world roads more closer than a proper race track would. There are all types of corners and elevations. Give credit where credit is due. Like most of you said, you won't buy a Cobalt anyways so what does it matter?

[CK_lotus]

Cobalt SS is great!!
Alrighty, having said that now I can't wait to buy an Exige S. If we were all rational people we would all just line up at the Honda dealership and buy an Accord.

[charliex]

I guess it must be the 60-155 times that the SS is outperforming the S on, thats where the S starts to get slow.

Since its top speeds are about the same, 0-60 is slower on the SS.

Excellent bang for the buck.

[spf4000]

Originally Posted by brgelise

Having experienced it visually and having my visual observations confirmed by the driver, S2000's are a handful at the limit. Very darty and unstable!!!

Our cars are not exactly progressive at the limit. Also, the later year S2000 have revised suspension setups that are more composed at the limit.

[Notorious L.R.G.]

Originally Posted by John Stimson

Having driven an M100 Elan, I think you are quite, quite mad.

The Elan must be freed of its emission controls to bring it to life. Agreed, stock does not have enough power. Remove the pre-cat, change to 3" exhaust, add manual boost controller to double the factory boost limit (ECU supports twice what the wastegate allows stock). All the LA area owners seem to have these mods, and the cars can easily run with Elises and Esprits on most roads. The front wheel drive is so re-assuring, even I could be a hero in low traction situations. Also, Wilwood brakes, the factory car is oddly supplied with toy brakes.

[robains]

mopho,

You have to be kidding, you would turn away a Nissan GT-R - the looks will grow on you, give it time? We'll not be able to find one in the US for $70K, but this car seriously puts the Lotus Exige S (even modified) to shame considering the price is about the same. And, you get the benefit of 4 seats, quieter ride, and big ass sub woofers so you don't have to endure the rap crap thumbers who pull up next to you. It's only disadvantage is MPG 16-19 city which isn't horribly bad compared to other exotics that aren't as fast.

Top Gear, it ran a 1:19.7 around their tight test track this is 0.2 slower than an Arial Atom. That good sir, is freakin' impressive for a 4000 lb car. It ran a 1:56.9 bone stickin' stock on stock tires at ButtonWillow -- FF 380 ran 1:55 and you know how highly modified the FF car is. Hate to see how fast the GT-R would be with good rubber. And would really hate to see what the Spec-V version would do with 300lbs less weight and 60+ more HP. Spec-V 0-60 is sub 3 secs.

As for the Cobalt SS, seems like a fun package, but no matter how you slice it, front wheels are doing everything and that will be it's fundamental flaw -- this would be one car I would NOT want to do any moderately extended track time in as I couldn't afford the bill for new front rubber. But for a street car, it does seem like a nice package.

[mopho]

Originally Posted by robains

mopho,

You have to be kidding, you would turn away a Nissan GT-R - the looks will grow on you, give it time? We'll not be able to find one in the US for $70K, but this car seriously puts the Lotus Exige S (even modified) to shame considering the price is about the same. And, you get the benefit of 4 seats, quieter ride, and big ass sub woofers so you don't have to endure the rap crap thumbers who pull up next to you. It's only disadvantage is MPG 16-19 city which isn't horribly bad compared to other exotics that aren't as fast.

Top Gear, it ran a 1:19.7 around their tight test track this is 0.2 slower than an Arial Atom. That good sir, is freakin' impressive for a 4000 lb car. It ran a 1:56.9 bone stickin' stock on stock tires at ButtonWillow -- FF 380 ran 1:55 and you know how highly modified the FF car is. Hate to see how fast the GT-R would be with good rubber. And would really hate to see what the Spec-V version would do with 300lbs less weight and 60+ more HP. Spec-V 0-60 is sub 3 secs.

As for the Cobalt SS, seems like a fun package, but no matter how you slice it, front wheels are doing everything and that will be it's fundamental flaw -- this would be one car I would NOT want to do any moderately extended track time in as I couldn't afford the bill for new front rubber. But for a street car, it does seem like a nice package.

No, I am not kidding you, you need to stop looking at just the numbers. What a professional driver does around some arbitrary track is meaningless to me, I have no need to buy lap times.

I have driven the GT-R and I found it not that interesting. And compared to my Caterham (which is nearly as fast with the smaller engine in it), the GT-R is a complete snooze. So why would I want one?
Additionally, for MSRP, I could have my Caterham and a nicer daily driver that is far more practical than the GT-R, and have the best of both worlds.

And like I just said yesterday in another thread, it's a nice car, but I take issue with other things:

A) Automatic transmission. You can claim all you want that it is a manual, but if you can put it in "drive" and it will change gears itself, it's an automatic. Period!
Sure it shaves seconds off your lap time (again, you're buying a lap time), sure you can do a manual override and it shifts when you want it to and does nice (artificial) throttle blips on the down shift, but it is not as engaging and takes away a lot of the fun in driving. A true manual transmission car can make even a boring drive a bit more entertaining. A manual transmission also makes the acceleration more exciting too because you really have to work it

B) It doesn't sound very good. A nice sounding car adds to the experience. Sure you can put an aftermarket exhaust on it, but the aforementioned automatic transmission upshifts so seamlessly that the car will sound like a Honda Accord with a fart can

C) It is not all that visceral and there is not much sense of speed. One of the parameters in the design of the car was to be able to have a conversation at 150mph. Why? I don't need to have a conversation at 150mph! If I buy a fast car, I want it to knock my socks off, I want it to be exciting, and I don't want to have to drive at absurd speeds (i.e. go to jail speeds) in order for it to be so. And this is the problem with a lot of these supercar types, they are so competent at really high speeds, they are boring to drive at realistic speeds. So what's the point really? Bragging rights?

For me, if I am going to buy a performance car, I prefer a lightweight car that is responsive, gives lots of feedback, and is a visceral experience, even if it is not the fastest car in the hands of a professional driver on the block




Edit: To add, the maintenance costs to track the GT-R will be tremendous

[davecarama]

Doesn't Dan sell those too? Will we see a cobolt SS for sale thread in the near future too?

[robains]

How is the GT-R not practical? It's only flaw is the 16-19 mpg city.

Buying a lap time makes no sense to me? Putting stickier rubber on any car is buying a better lap time - so what is your point? More HP is buying a better lap time. etc. etc. I can get cheap lap times but simply removing stuff from my Lotus and make it an even more of a harsh street car.

If you want the cheapest laptime, go buy a 125cc shifter Kart (good for about 3Gs under braking and 2.5 Gs cornering and 120 mph top speed with big track setup) or better yet a 250cc shifter single or twin (good for about 160 mph) -- all manual, and then some. I can assure you, they are more responsive than any shock based vehicle.

I guess Clarkson disagrees with you, his impression was a great deal of feedback from the car, much more than he expected.

Exhaust, well it's a turbo, rarely do they ever sound good (except maybe a Champ car) no matter what exhaust you slap on it.

Automatic tranny, less effort -- sounds good to me for a street car - especially stop an go traffic. My Lotus is a major pain in stop and go traffic.

Ok, 150 mph and I can still use my bluetooth cell phone, sounds good again -- for a street car. I can't hear myself think at 150 mph in my Lotus.

Seems like you're getting confused as to what the GT-R is -- it's a street car that also happens to be a REALLY fast track car.

It's supercar performance (actually beyond many supercars) at an affordable price without the compromises that come with many supercars.

Bragging rigthts in the sense Nissan produced a car that is 1/2 the cost of supercars and eats them for lunch and is still comfy, a car you want to drive for hours every day -- street or track.

The only real challenge is finding one without some insane markup.