Chevy Cobalt: Import Equivalent?

Hi,

My friend is purchasing a new car and is looking at the Chevy Cobalt, it's got a lot of power and potential and gets great gas mileage. I think I remember Bulldog saying he gets around 30 or something. Anyways, my friend doesn't really like domestic cars (Tried to talk him out of it, but I guess it's in his blood. Born and raised on imports.). Anyways, what do you think is the import equivalent of the Chevy Cobalt?

I was thinking something like an Integra GSR/ITR or a Celica GTS but was just curious on what you guys think.

Thanks.

Well I believe that I am speaking for everyone when I say that if your friend does decide on a Cobalt, it better be the SS! As an enthusisast, I believe that the SS is a solid car that can be as good or even better than its competition.

A standard Cobalt is nothing more than a daily runner just as the rest of its competition. So if that is the case, it would be close, but maybe an import would suit his needs better.

Even the Cobalt SS Supercharged only has 205hp, thats pretty weak.

Convince him to get an Integra, Prelude, 240sx, 300zx or something along those lines. The Cobalt will probably lack what he wants.

Even the Cobalt SS Supercharged only has 205hp, thats pretty weak.

Convince him to get a Integra, Prelude, 240sx or something along those lines. The Cobalt will probably lack what he wants.
but you forget, the cobalt (along wit every other chevy under the sun) is supposedly underrated from the factory.

from what i've read on the cobalt SS it's pretty quick straightline, i've heard it handles like shit, and with a lightwieght, supercharged, FWD car the fact that it doesn't have a LSD as a standard feature is pretty dumb IMO.

and if you're not talking about the SS then you're really looking at the wrong car, my buddies girlfriend has an LS cobalt and it's doo-doo slow.

acura RSX type-s / honda civic si
from what i've heard, the civic is a better choice unless you really need leather seats or like the acura brand for whatever reason. It has an LSD while the RSX does not.

scion tc? i've heard it's a pretty nice car but overweight.

those are the only new imports i can think of for right now

older supra, or a toyota mr2. both fast w/ toyota reliability. Much better than anything detroits cooking up right now, unless your friend wants practicality. in that case go 4 the 300zx, a bit more room than the supras. (not saying the 300zx is practical...)

Yeah, I meant the Cobalt SS. Sorry about that.

Anyways, thanks for the replies guys. I'll be sure to talk to him about the Integra, Civic Si, and the MR2. Doesn't the MR2 have a high chance of spin-outs though?

http://www.mr2oc.com/showthread.php?t=231

From what I heard the Cobalt SS handles pretty good handling. It does pull .88gs on the skidpad which is pretty good for a budget performance vehicle.

It is also powered by the ECOTEC engine which started out in Opels in Vauxhalls. In fact, the Cobalt is probably more like an Opel Omega in a Chevy shell. Realiable might go under question for the normal Cobalt but for the SS I haven't heard that many problems.

But sure, any Integra, used RSX, Prelude, Eclipse, 200SX, 240SX, but if he truely has his sites on the Cobalt SS, the least you can do is permit him to test drive it. Perhaps you can go with him whenever he does.

I've heard that the Cobalt SS has pretty good handling, but I'm sure the flashy 18-inch rims don't do anything to help it, nor does Chevy's poor steering and pedal feedback. The closest thing you're going to get to a Cobalt SS in an import is a Scion tC with the optional supercharger from the factory. It makes almost exactly the same horsepower and torque, and it's a little more luxurious and better built, but it costs more and doesn't perform quite as well.

the cobalt ss is a good little car. its definitley up to par with its import competition. if your friend doesnt like it cause it was made in america then he is ignorant. the acura rsx-s is similar to the cobalt but has much less torque as well as the celica gt-s. another car to consider is the dodge srt-4 230hp a shitload of torque, and will demolish any car in its class in straight line speed.

I really really like the Cobalt (SS only) as a realtively inexpensive quick little car...not the least bit refined, but who cares if your looking for speed

C/D did a comparo of the new cars in the Cobalt / RSX range and it went like this

5. Saturn...something its a friggin Cpobalt
4. Chevy Cobalt
3. Dodge Neon Srt-4
2. Subaru Imprezza WRX
1. Acrua RSX Type S

The Subaru and Neon may bein the wrong order I forget

Either way the Cobalt was a lil behind the other vehicles, but C/D always seems to pick Chevy, Ford, and Audi pretty far behind Honda, Nissan, and especially BMW

I really really like the Cobalt (SS only) as a realtively inexpensive quick little car...not the least bit refined, but who cares if your looking for speed

C/D did a comparo of the new cars in the Cobalt / RSX range and it went like this

5. Saturn...something its a friggin Cpobalt
4. Chevy Cobalt
3. Dodge Neon Srt-4
2. Subaru Imprezza WRX
1. Acrua RSX Type S

The Subaru and Neon may bein the wrong order I forget

Either way the Cobalt was a lil behind the other vehicles, but C/D always seems to pick Chevy, Ford, and Audi pretty far behind Honda, Nissan, and especially BMW
The #5 was the Saturn Ion Redline. I remember reading the article as well. To those that pointed out crappy handling, I'd like to point out that, although the SS wasn't turning the best straight-line times, it did, however, pull off the fastest lap times on a course.

Just a few options, such as the LSD and Recaro seats w/ color-keyed inserts, and you'll be sitting nicely with that car. I'd personally love to have one of them. Solid, reliable (a keynote of the ecotec platform), and none of that turbo lag.

(oh yeah, and the 18" wheels are specifically designed for light weight)

yea... i read that same article... the rsx-s... didnt come in 1st place in anything except the subjective ratings... they were obviously so incrediably biased towards honda/acura...

the subaru is i THINK a few $1000 more expensive then the others... and its AWD... so it really should get 1st place (in terms of preformance... maybe not price/preformance ratio...)

yea... i read that same article... the rsx-s... didnt come in 1st place in anything except the subjective ratings... they were obviously so incrediably biased towards honda/acura...

the subaru is i THINK a few $1000 more expensive then the others... and its AWD... so it really should get 1st place (in terms of preformance... maybe not price/preformance ratio...)
But it didn't b/c the article cited absurd turbo lag from the motor. Needless to say...that wasn't an issue in the Redline/Cobalt cars. Also, don't forget that while the redline and the ss are both delta platform, the SS is more rigid both as a result of strengthening the chassis as well as only having 2 doors.

The WRX's turbo lag is horrendous. It's also got 16-inch rims (up against 17's and 18's), all-season tires (crappy ones, too), and a fairly soft suspension. Despite the AWD and fairly big power, it's outclassed performance-wise.

straight line-srt
road course-cobalt
luxury-rsx
traction/wintercar-subaru

if u want balls to the walls speed get the srt, if u want a good track car get the cobalt and if u want luxury and refinment get the rsx.

si, wat he said. about the mr2 spinning out: it isn't any easier to spin out than any other rear-wheel drive car. Actually, it might be, w/ the rearward weight bias... but only slightly.

When I first started reading through this thread, the first car that jumped into my mind was the Subie WRX. I'm really kind of surprised that it didn't get a little more support. That being said, you guys are definately right when you say the WRX is softer around the edges than the other cars in the comparison. I don't think it is by any means out of it's league, though. It will put out track numbers as good or better than any other car in this comparison, but you've really got to drive it like you hate it to do so.

The RSX type S is a great car, but it, like the Subie, will cost you a little more than the Cobalt and Neon. It's very refined, and tons of fun to drive. I for one think it deserved its' number one spot on the C&D podium.

As far as older, used alternatives go, the horsepower numbers between the Cobalt and Integra GSR and Prelude may be similar, but road tests are showing that the Cobalt is significantly faster in a straight line. But then again, you could buy one of these older cars for much less money, and do whatever you want to make them faster. Of course, you could also get carried away and end up with a money pit.

The SRT-4 is wicked, but it's acceleration numbers in tests are all over the place. You'll see one test where it can actually manage to edge out a 350Z, but then in another test it will take mid sixes to hit sixty. Maybe its turbo motor is picky about weather and humidity conditions. Of course, some of these issues may be cured by Mopar upgrades that can help you make a really mean front driver for not all that much money.

Anyway, my pick would be a very lightly used WRX. You could buy it for a few thousand less than a new Cobalt, it would be just as (if not more) reliable, and you could use the money you saved to fix all of the issues that Car and Driver complained about. (Namely, wheels and tires, PCM uprade, and some very minor supsension mods.)

But then again, for the price of a new Cobalt, you could buy some absolutely fantastic examples of Japanese flagship sports cars from the 1990s, or a pristine mid nineties C4 Corvette. Sorry. I don't mean to go off subject with this idea. I realize that insurance, age, and the preferences of the loan company may push all of these options out of the question. Just something that came to mind... :wink:

I haven't had the chance to flog an SS yet, but I'm impressed by the 4-door. No, it's not a racer, but it's screwed together very well. It's kind of, well, read this (http://www.carbuzzard.com/review.php?id=11103).

As far as people who have driven the SS, go here. (http://www.carbuzzard.com/?whatchanged=&col__make=9&col__model=92&col__year=444&x=34&y=17)

McLarenF1, when you say that he could have other mid-90's Japanese cars, which cars did you have in mind?

ya i personally would look at an RSX..maybe a tC

McLarenF1, when you say that he could have other mid-90's Japanese cars, which cars did you have in mind?

Ahhhhh.... The usual culprits. The 300ZX twin turbo (There's obviously some personal bias pushing that one), the Toyota Supra turbo (If you can find one that someone is selling for a halfway sane price), the 3000GT VR4 or Dodge Stealth RT, or maybe even the last generation RX7 (If you can find one with replaced and upgraded apex seals). I won't try to argue the practicality of these cars for a split second- especially with gas and insurance prices being what they are. You'll have to forgive me. When I think about having a mid twenty thousand budget to spend on a car for myself, my mind tends to wander toward all those cars that I've lusted after for so long. That kind of budget would allow you to buy a super low mileage, unmodified "time warp" car. Heck, you might even consider a 2003 base model 350Z.

And there are other great, non Japanese options... A mid to late nineties M3 would be fantastic, and arguably just as practical as the Cobalt. Especially the four door model. Or as mentioned, you could get a super nice C4 Corvette, or even a moderate mileage C5. Or how about a Mercedes C43 AMG? Oh man. The list goes on.

Needless to say, if I was looking at a new Cobalt SS, I would be sorely tempted to consider a few of these used car options.

Did someone mention the M3? :cheers:

I think that C&D got it right when they did their most recent Cheap Speed comparo.

The RSX-S is in a little bit of a different league then these other cars. It lost pretty much every one of the acceleration tests (in last place), and had some of the worst braking. To top that all off, it finished last in the autocross course, losing by almost 2 seconds to the SRT4. On the up side, it pulled the most G's on the skidpad, was about tied with the Subaru for being the quietest, and had the best fuel economy. The reason the Acura won, was because it was the easiest of all of them to drive. The transmission was labled, "world's slickest front-wheel-drive shifter." It also has some amazing handling supposedly (even though it scored the worst autocross time). It offered the only 6-speed transmission. It revved higher, but rattled less then any of the other cars. Finally, the interior was miles ahead of any of the competition. Where as the other cars are trying to be the little brother of the Corvette, STI, or Viper, the RSX-S is trying to be the long lost Asian cousin of the M3. A 50:50 mix of comfort and performance, the ultimate daily driver as far as Im concerned. So if you are really serious about performance and only performance, don't get this car, it you want a fun daily driver that is at least competitive with these cars, this is the one to get.

The polar opposite of the RSX-S in this class is the SRT-4. If you want cheep speed, a SRT-4 and the Mopar stage 2 upgrades will put you miles ahead of the competition at over 300hp, but your car will still be the loudest, least comfortable, and ugliest of all. Great performance deal.

The rest of the cars (WRX, Ion, Cobalt) all lie somewhere in between these two.

Alas, like McLaren F1 said, if you were willing to go used, it shouldn't be too hard to get a used 97-98 E36 BMW M3 for the same price, which I like more then any of these cars. Its faster (240hp), RWD, better looking, more comfortable, and just all around a better car. It is a great daily driver, which I can't say about the Vette. Just for the hell of it, you might want to look up C&D's best handling car comparo from years back (I wanna say 1996-1997). They ranked the E36 M3 ahead of the Boxster, 911, NSX, Viper, Vette, F355, Supra TT, and others for pure handling.

Yep, no doubt about it, the M3 would be a fine choice. And you could buy a reeeeeally nice one for Cobalt SS money. As a matter of fact...

Now THIS is what I'm talkin' bout:
http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=186979065&dealer_id=56335027&car_year=1997&search_type=both&make=BMW&transmission=Manual&distance=300&model=M3&address=37660&make2=sel_one&advanced=y&certified=&max_mileage=&max_price=&bkms=1131070162326&min_price=&first_record=1&end_year=1998&color=&start_year=1995&drive=&isp=y&pager.offset=0&engine=&doors=&fuel=&lang=en&cardist=206

Four doors and everything. That is sharp. I'd say there's some room to work with on that price. And there are alot of higher mileage ones out there that you could buy for less money that are also in great shape.

Another alternative that I forgot to mention is something like a 99 or 2000 Camaro SS. Not as refined as an M3, but if numbers are your main concern, it represents alot of bang for the buck. Loads of fun to drive, too.

Well, what do you guys think of the Cobalt models that aren't the SS? Do you guys see any potential in them?

Thanks.

i see a potential grocery getter..

Non-SS Cobalts are fine cars, but not sports cars. Sort of like when you talk about a Civic DX. Sure it's a great car, but why would you consider one if you want something exciting? The choices in previous posts are fine. If you're out to spend 15 grand or so, it's hard to outdo a C4 vette, 300zx tt, Camaro SS or TA WS6. After that there are cars that are nicer but are less powerful, such as an E36 M3 or Audi S4 or something like that. The non SS Cobalt is way way way down the list as far as performance goes. In fact, aside from SS trim, the words cobalt and performance shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence unless the sentence includes words such as "bad" or "lack of".

i can't agree with the last sentence more..

The WRX has has bad turbo lag? NO!! :P Yeah, it sucks pretty bad. 3600rpm-ish for full boost

But if you want a fun car to drive through the twisties, the WRX is FUN! But I wouldn't say it's a cobalt equivalent.

Based on what I see at the garage, the Cobalt is a great car to get you back and forth from warranty repairs.

Come on... are we really talking about a foreign "equivalent" to a Chevy??? I own three GMs, and have owned 8 in my life, but you can't compare a Cobalt to a Subaru or Acura. GM's hurting bad and its showing up in their cars. The stockholder report shows growth after 13 years of loss, but after just spending four days with a GM designer touring SEMA, even HE's cringing for the future of GM.

E36 M3
MR2
300z
or for that matter a C5 vette... which I don't really lump together with GM anymore.

I would sooner buy an E36 bimmer with 150k over a new chevy. It will last longer and make fewer trips to the garage... AND another hundred thousand miles later when you're done with it, you still get back 75% of your investment on the bimmer, or 25% back from your Cobalt.

Based on what I see at the garage, the Cobalt is a great car to get you back and forth from warranty repairs.

Come on... are we really talking about a foreign "equivalent" to a Chevy??? I own three GMs, and have owned 8 in my life, but you can't compare a Cobalt to a Subaru or Acura. GM's hurting bad and its showing up in their cars. The stockholder report shows growth after 13 years of loss, but after just spending four days with a GM designer touring SEMA, even HE's cringing for the future of GM.

E36 M3
MR2
300z
or for that matter a C5 vette... which I don't really lump together with GM anymore.

I would sooner buy an E36 bimmer with 150k over a new chevy. It will last longer and make fewer trips to the garage... AND another hundred thousand miles later when you're done with it, you still get back 75% of your investment on the bimmer, or 25% back from your Cobalt.

Ouch, harsh words for GM. I guess all the hype of the Solstice being the only the beginning of Bob "savior of general motors" Lutz designed cars wasn't entirely true.

Either way I was under the assumption that the Cobalt SS was relatively solidly built, and well engineered...not with RSX refinement, but still an E for effort

and after driving a WRX for a solid week I have to say, that car is an engine, wheels, and a seat...there is absolutely nothing else to it...its loud, its harsh, its got a crappy Mazda Protege interior....but MAN is that thing sooooo much fun to drive! I dont care about the refinement or anything when im driving it, its just so much fun to push

Ouch, harsh words for GM. I guess all the hype of the Solstice being the only the beginning of Bob "savior of general motors" Lutz designed cars wasn't entirely true.

Either way I was under the assumption that the Cobalt SS was relatively solidly built, and well engineered...not with RSX refinement, but still an E for effort

Your last sentence is spot on... GM is hiring great designers and engineers, then not listening to a word they say. The leadership over there is not so hot. Then they're built by excellent workers who are paid way too little with quality control policies that are non-existent to say the least.

I wouldn't mind owning a 300ZX TT... you can push 400-600hp with fairly minimal effort/cost for the performance you get. Not to mention the 4 wheel steering :smile: