That still doesn't answer the big question: WHY HAVE BOTH?

 

One for people who want to look fast and go fast-ish and one for people who just want to look fast. Seems simple enough to me.

 

since when did they let blind people have drivers licenses??
thats the only explanation for scion and honda sales in general

 

Had a guy at circuit city (idiots) tell me today that his stock Cobalt SS (sc) could keep up with a Mustang GT. I can just imagine the look of disgust on my face when he tried to tell me that. He did back off a little and said it "was pretty close."

 

I was trying to find a Fluidyne radiator for my car and found this topic. I wanted a mustang myself, but ended up with a cobalt because they are cheap. The one that isn't supercharged, if it is ss is the 2.4, they are fairly slow stock. Currently, there is a turbo kit for them. They put out about 360 whp with it.

The supercharged version with the best possible support excluding internals can hit 320 whp tops. Just sharing since I was passing through and have a cobalt plus have done a good bit of research while working on mine.

The 2.4 cars I'm not sure the turbo has been around long enough to get times to list, there aren't alot of them around either way, and no promise it won't blow the engine when they do try to race.

The 2.0 will do about 12 seconds 1/4 mile at it's best. The srt-4 is way better than the cobalt in most respects though. A friend of mine with the srt-4 has hit up to 460 whp and is inching in on 10-11 second 1/4 miles.

Anyway, not to bring up a dead thread if it was. Also, not to start a debate... Just figured I was share while I was passing through.

 

My cousin has a Cobalt SS (sc). We went to the track together and the best he ran was mid 14's. When we ran side by side it was never a contest. I had really bad wheel hop and still ran away every time.

 

Thanks for the info. Very fast car.

 

I`d hope !

 

Id drive the hell out of it as a DD but try to buy ne to race ? I'll pass. Funny thing how a supercharger even in stock form lets these guys think they can hang with a V8. True enough a factory option stage 2 gives ya 240 hp but still. I had one try me about 4 weeks ago. Guess he didn't see any badges so he thought I had a v6. Oh well he learned a valuable lesson that day.

 

my town has ZERo fast cars, i plan to change that but i'll have to drive like 25 miles if i wanna get main stream

 

I carry a little sign with a handle on it that says "UNCLE BENS RICE???" and show it to them when they do that . That usually is enough to **** em off enuf to go home

 

Nice

 

Automatic SS's aren't super-charged, M5 (or are they M6) cars are super-charged. On another note, the Cobalt SS did show a Mustang GT its tail lights at VIR, but take it for what its worth (IIRC it was either C&D or R&T), the Cobalt SS's suspension was supposedly tuned at the ring, which is kinda cool, would be neat to see a Mustang sporting a badge stating that it had been tuned at the Nurburgring

 

Lol, on the subject of neons with big power, a kid around my neck of the woods has a neon sporting 400+ hp, even with that power he is traction limited to low 13s (I'm told torque steer is a MONSTER), funny thing is, the kid ordered an upgrade kit that supposedly adds 150-200hp to what he has now.

I just dont get it???? He cant really control the thing at 400+ hp, why the hell is he gonna add 150-200 more hp. I suppose in pure ricer logic, he probably wont race from anything less than a 100 mph roll.

 

This is the kid I was talking about with the 400+ neon and 11 second times. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXsldpe91UU We are in the same car club.

 

http://www.cobaltss.net/forums/showthread.php?t=28685
Check out this forum, best time is 13.59 in the 1/4
I crused this site for a while the other nite, great for a laugh.

 

13.59 was the worst time listed. Not that 12.84 is much better. Why do mustang guys get down on us so much though? Ok, let say 13.59 and look at http://www.albeedigital.com/supercou...0-60times.html That beats nearly every mustang stock listed time give maybe 3 and you take the 12.84 it ups most all of them.

Yes, they are stock, but a lot of them also are V8. The only mods on the cobalt are stock optimizations no swaps or internal changes either. I don't get all the pokes? Not saying the cobalt is fast or anything. Just don't get the cheap shots at us.

 

Ok my bad on the 13.59 vs the 12.84, just reading fast.
What do you mean "the only mods on the colbalt are stock optimizations no swaps or internal changes"?
The car that ran 12.84 has the folowing mods:
Up graded intake
Ported blower
Downpipe (???WTF is that?)
Cat backs
2.5" blower drive pully
heat exchanger
tuned
and Drag radials.
If I put that much time , money and energy into fixing up a car to go fast, I want it to go fast. I have not had my car at the track yet but with a CAI, axel backs and a tune I think I could be close to the 13.59 mark.
Looking at the mustang 1/4 mile times the best we have is a 9.73 posted.
My brother has a cobalt ss. bought it thinking he could beat me with out looking at the specks. We have not run yet but he has already conceded the race. What " cheap shots" are you talking about? You would have to put quite a bit into a colbalt ss to keep up with a GT wit even minor mods.

 

dont forget 3 NOS stickers
just kidding just kidding

 

Sorry cut some out to save space. I mean the stock cobalt is a POS. Those upgrades fix problems rather than improve the car. The stock supercharger sucks + generates too much heat for the engine. The car gets no traction at all stock. I'm just saying those things are needed to fix factory issues. Even with the intake etc it is needed to get enough air for the supercharger. I'm just saying, the mustang doesn't really need fixes from the start to actually drive it lol. It is more fair to look at them that way.