[TXRLU]

Ok so looking at the new Road & Track article regarding the Cobalt SS and the SRT-4, besides the fact that they gave the overall nod to the SS as well as showing that the SS was only .1 tick slower than the SRT-4 one thing I noticed on the article was that they state they used REGULAR unleaded fuel for the SS. I'm wondering if the SS would've been quicker than the SRT-4 if they had used Premium instead of Regular fuel? I'm thinking the more agressive tunning with the Premium fuel could've easily added a .1 second time to the 0-60 and the 1/4 mile. Just thought if anyone else caught this article.

 

[SRT4FURY]

Don't believe magazine times. Go to the track and get the real #s.

 

[cvenom2122]

no way cobalt is that close to srt 4 we are supposed to be faster then cobalt ss because of rims and we are plastic , I remember a while back seeing a magazine comparing the redline and srt 4 and we can crush a srt 4 on a course with turns but on a straight away watch out lol

plus in my new car and driver or road and track they got redline down to 14.5
and Srt 4 to 13.9 so there drivers have improved cool thing is we right there with subaru (magazine stats) That issue i believe alot more then past ones

 

[Sp00ner]

no way cobalt is that close to srt 4 we are supposed to be faster then cobalt ss because of rims and we are plastic , I remember a while back seeing a magazine comparing the redline and srt 4 and we can crush a srt 4 on a course with turns but on a straight away watch out lol

plus in my new car and driver or road and track they got redline down to 14.5
and Srt 4 to 13.9 so there drivers have improved cool thing is we right there with subaru (magazine stats) That issue i believe alot more then past ones

Those bigger tires and rims might help on a good long road course, it's not about 1/4 mile runs on a road course, it's real racing, using ALL of the car.

 

[SatredL]

I like how they said if you were playing a video game choose the SRT, but if it were real life, choose the Cobalt.

 

[TXRLU]

Don't believe magazine times. Go to the track and get the real #s.

Well, that's the beauty of this article, they went to the track for us. I'm sure you have a LITTLE biased against the article, but you have to take that article in consideration as well as the Motor Trend article in which they tested a RL vs an SRT-4 and came up with about the same numbers. Makes me wonder if Dodge has been sending these car magazines ringers in the past. Wouldn't be surprised since a few years ago either BMW or Mercedes was cited for over-rating their engines.

 

[Sp00ner]

Nah, I don't think they were ringers, it seem pretty consistent to what most of us have seen or estimated. Not that it hasn't been done in the past, like you said, by MERCEDES, or should I call it Daimler-Chrysler.... hmmm....

Ok, I just realized something... is there ANYTHING american about the SRT? I mean, it is built right down the street from me, so there's that fact. The Civic is built in Ohio though, and that's not an American car to me. I'm not bashing your SRTs, I would be alot meaner if I was, but it's got an asian drivetrain, and is produced by a German automaker...

 

[Tom01SC2]

So, our Redline engines and tranny's are built in Germany. Not a biggie if you ask me...

Tom

 

[Sp00ner]

I know, but it is owned by an American company at the end of the day, not like Dodge. I'm not bashing, I just was thinking outloud about Mercedes ringer history, and then the fact that they owned Dodge, and the rest just kinda spewed out... I'm sure I'll get a little heat from the SRT boys, but that's ok, if they take that as an insult they've got way too thin of a skin.

It's still built with that one American characteristc... torque... and plenty of it...

 

[matt]

Are you sure it wasn't Road & Track instead of Motor Trend? Maybe both did an article?

Anyways, it's awesome that the Cobalt SS did better in every test except 1/4 mile, where they both ran a 14.4. The SRT4 had a 1 MPH higher trap speed though. I don't really see how the numbers can be false in the 1/4 mile, if the SRT4 was a whole lot quicker car it would have had a lot higher trap speed than it did.

 

[SRT4FURY]

Thats cool believe these times. I'm sure they are real its just that I have seen with my own eyes stock SRT-4s running 13.9-14.2 with good drivers. I went 14.1 @ 101mph with mine stock. And if any body has ringers I would say Chevy. Every 1/4time for SS I have seen to date has been high 14s, 14.7 being the best. Have you seen the Motor trend issue with Cobalt SS vs SRT4. Look at the 0-100ft times then look at the 1/4 mile times. You can not tell me these numbers look right. The 0-100 time contradicts the 1/4 mile time.


Cobalt0-100 15.4 1/4 [email protected]

SRT4 0-100 13.8 1/4 [email protected]


How can they hit 100 in 13.8 but hit 100.8 in 14.4? That doesnt make sense.
It takes them 15.4 secs to hit 100 in the SS yet they run the quarter in 14.4 @ basically 100. unless its takes them a full second to do 7 tenths of a MPH. Look I like both the RL and SS but I'm just trying to look at this logically. If its really that fast thats cool but those times just don't add up. A 13.8 for 0-100 would finish the 1/4 in 14.0-14.2 which is what the SRT4 ran last time at MT. The year before that a 13.9. So why the sudden drop in performance when nothing has changed in production. I'm not flaming, I think its great we have more wheat burners but just don't believe everything you see in a magazine.

 

[rip_vw32]

At that speed it is possible.....(According to the litature) Look our 0-60 times are around 6 seconds (?) and the 0-130 is at 30 sec (?). So from 61-130 it takes an additional 23-25 seconds for 70 mph, so the 1/10 of a sec for 1 mph is pretty reasonable at those speeds.

 

[Sp00ner]

Thats cool believe these times. I'm sure they are real its just that I have seen with my own eyes stock SRT-4s running 13.9-14.2 with good drivers. I went 14.1 @ 101mph with mine stock. And if any body has ringers I would say Chevy. Every 1/4time for SS I have seen to date has been high 14s, 14.7 being the best. Have you seen the Motor trend issue with Cobalt SS vs SRT4. Look at the 0-100ft times then look at the 1/4 mile times. You can not tell me these numbers look right. The 0-100 time contradicts the 1/4 mile time.


Cobalt0-100 15.4 1/4 [email protected]

SRT4 0-100 13.8 1/4 [email protected]


How can they hit 100 in 13.8 but hit 100.8 in 14.4? That doesnt make sense.
It takes them 15.4 secs to hit 100 in the SS yet they run the quarter in 14.4 @ basically 100. unless its takes them a full second to do 7 tenths of a MPH. Look I like both the RL and SS but I'm just trying to look at this logically. If its really that fast thats cool but those times just don't add up. A 13.8 for 0-100 would finish the 1/4 in 14.0-14.2 which is what the SRT4 ran last time at MT. The year before that a 13.9. So why the sudden drop in performance when nothing has changed in production. I'm not flaming, I think its great we have more wheat burners but just don't believe everything you see in a magazine.

Wheat burners! Thats awesome!!!!

The best use for these magazine is to approximate the abilities of the two cars. There are a million things that can happen when recording those numbers, some are averages, some are one time bests. What every article on the SRT/Redline/CobaltSS has shown, is that the cars are INCREDIBLY close to each other overall. Yes, the SRT is a little faster straight ahead, but it gives it up in the corners. For someone that says not to belive everything in a magazine, you're getting entirely too caught up with the mag's numbers. Plus, you're on a site where the Cobalt is basically our cars, so we have a bit of a bias, as do you. The cars are too close to call, period. Even the Redline was right on the ass of the SRT around the road courses, if the Cobalt is in front this time, that dosen't seem strange to me. Lets remember that there is more to a car than the 1/4 mile...

 

[Tom01SC2]

I've seen stock SRT-4's running 13.8's at the track. They are pretty quick puppies. However, I can tell you the Redlines can definitely hit mid 14's with a decent driver. Our wheel hop and launching is way harder to control than the SRT-4. I can tell you that from my experience of driving both, owning one of them.

Tom

 

[unknownsuperhero]

Yeah, on my SRT the wheel hop was a bit of a problem, then I was a cheap ass and put some motor mount inserts in, it fixed the hop (till I broke the 2 tob mount bolts) but tracion was a HUGE problem. I still don't know why they put such skinny ass tires on there. Both of them have(had) open dif's and it was comprable. I just found it a hell of alot harder to get a good launch with the srt, the power comes on so quick and sudden at about 2800 it would break them loose even if you featherd it. The RL's power curve is much more consistent, paired with a slightly wider tire, it makes for an easier and better launch. Case in point, My old srt is in the low 12's now. I can jump about 3 cars on it off the line, but as soon as he gets into second it is pathetic. Feel like I am in a 3 cly geo metro.

 

[SRT4FURY]

I do agree the RL and Cobalt are better in the turns and mid 14s in a RL is a very realistic time with a decent driver. I just think the Cobalt would be a little behind the RL because of the bigger wheels and heavy all metal doors. I would not be surprisred if MT ran 14.4 with the RL but I figured the SS to be a tenth or two behind that.