It's a fast car but the SS will always be FWD so as long as you leave it stock it will be fine but increasing the power will decrease driveability and handling proportionally. You can put in a high HP engine and stiff suspension but it's still FWD and we learned a long time ago with DSM's that modded GST's sucked ***** compared to modded GSX's.

 

The SS is like 600 pounds lighter, so I guess the evo is asking to get embarrased trying to compete with something that is ~20% lighter and not that much lower in hp with less drivetrain loss. We (the evo) would lose to lots of FWD light cars, they are light and fast and use their power more efficiently, we buy the evo because once modding begins we wave bye bye to those cars, not because we beat them stock necessarily.

Ps. Drivers of these cars is so relative, who knows, maybe they have lots more experience driving FWD over AWD. We need better drivers for these tests, or an AWD driver and a FWD driver for each, but then the test becomes more flawed, who knows??

 

So the Evo goes down to an SS. Impressive! I shall have to look for one of these cars and see what it's got.

 

Most of you in here are a bunch of big babies. You seem to have the sore loser attitude whenever our cars get beat by something else. "oh, it's wrong wheel drive, it looks dopey, crappy interior, bias journalists!" Chevy built a well put together drivers car out of a bland cooking pot econo bucket. Does that sound familiar? ()

 

The SS is the $22k version of the EVO. When the EVO came out people said - crappy interior, based on a Lancer, fugly, lackluster build quality, etc....but it was fun to drive...just like the SS seems to be.

 

The Cobalt is a great car, I just don't care for the overall design of the interior (note. I said design, not quality)

 

Hey, - I drive an '08 Evo X MR and I'm not a girl!!

I don't understand all of the hate on the X MR from so many so-called "Evo enthusiasts". I mean, I just don't get it.

I can understand the initial skepticism about the SST transmission because, admittedly, I was skeptical myself at first about any performance-focused car equipped with anything but a "traditional" manual-shift tranny. But the key distinction in my statement here is at first.

I'm not even going to try to claim that the MR is "faster" than the GSR, because I've seen / read more than one test where the GSR came out on top. At the same time, I've also seen / read a number of tests where the MR has beaten the GSR. Besides, anyone who points to ANY single source for car test results is extremely naive, IMO. It's not that I don't "trust" Car and Driver, but when you test different cars with different drivers in varying conditions (even a track's condition from year to year), you're going to get inconsistent results - period. Just look at the results from the list that Noize posted (thanks for that, btw ) - A 2008 Lotus Elise SC running 7+ seconds slower than a 2006 Lotus Elise?!? "WTF happened?" indeed!!
But back to the MR vs. the GSR - To be fair, there are other factors to consider aside from the SST vs. 5mt. The MR is heavier by... what - 100lbs? (I've read conflicting numbers around this). The MR is also less stiffly-sprung than the GSR. But both of those factors still haven't prevented the MR from eeking out better lap times in at least some tests.

One thing that I don't think anyone can really argue is that, like it or not, the SST does shift faster than it's humanly possible to with a traditional manual. And to everyone who talks smack about how lame or "gay" the paddle shift / SST tranny is - Have you people not heard of another new car from Nissan that uses the same type of transmission? You know - the one that's making a few headlines here and there due to its ridiculous performance? Sure, the GT-R has substantially more power than the Evo X, but it also outweighs the MR by roughly 300lbs. Mid 11's in the 1/4, low 3's from 0-60 (!!)... But yeah, you're right, of course: Just think about how much "better" the new Nissan GT-R could have been if only they'd equipped it with a tried-and-true REAL 6-speed manual gearbox. I guess Nissan must have designed that car to "target women" the same way Mitsubishi did with the Evo MR. Such a shame.

Come to think of it - Formula 1 race cars are "sadly burdened" with semi-automatic sequential gearboxes, too. I suppose the drivers in that series must simply lack the talent required to work real MAN'S transmission. Not that it matters - I've heard that Formula 1 cars are really boring to drive anyways. Give me a good 'ol stick shift any day!!

Okay - I'm done ranting for now. I'm gonna go put on a skirt and paint my nails so I'll feel more at home when I drive out to meet my buddies in my Evo X MR tonight. I'd say I'd wear heels, too, but I hate having to walk in them when I have to park my pathetic excuse for a car so far away from where I'm going to avoid the embarassment of having anyone see me pull up in it.

Seriously, dudes - get a clue.

 

very impressed by the cobalt

 

What everyone said about my Evo VIII when I was kickin their butts with it in Spring 2003 is now being said by Evo owners about the Cobalt. Remember how the Evo came from the Lancer platform?

Congrats to GM for doing such a great job with a crappy car. It deserves some respect for its achievements... I only wish the Evo could get 30 mpg from the factory. Now GM, take your Astra (Saturn/Opel), add AWD, give it SS treatment equivalent to the Cobalt SS, charge me $26k and I'll buy it.

Oh, there are rumers that GM is doing a staged kit to up the power from 260 to 315hp. Also, a tune SS is doing around 260+whp and 300+tq.

Last comment, the STIs performance is laughable. I wish they had tested an 06 or 07 STI so we could see how it compared. I bet the older STI would have been right there with the IX MR.

 

It appears the Cobalt SS really is as fast as an X. Here are the results from Motor Trend's test at Laguna Seca:

Laguna Seca Lap Times
Dodge Viper ACR....................1:35.117
Nissan GTR............................1:40.453
Audi R8.................................1:40.920
Porsche 997 Turbo..................1:42.507
BMW M3...............................1:42.964
Ford/Shelby Mustang GT500KR..1:44.716
Mitsubishi Evo MR....................1:47.713
Chevrolet Cobalt SS................1:47.751
Mazda RX-8............................1:50.418
Mini Cooper S..........................1:51.917

I guess C&D's results were not due to bad driving. The SS is FAST and I want one.

 

Wow , just got my C&D mag today and I know Iam late to this party.

This is just embarrassing AWD , Super dupper yaw control (wtf ever its called), 291hp and a super quick trans .

Got beat by good ole common cents (lite , good power/brakes and cheap) .

Good job Chev , I wish would pull ther head out of ther but and take notice .


BTW we drive Evo's so NO one should talk bad about other cars interiors .

 

i hold the C&D in my hand....
so they dived the track for 5 section.
here is the time differences SS vs Evo
Section 1 = 0.0sec even
section2 = +0.6sec SS loose
section3 = +0.8 sec SS loose
section 4 =+0.5 sec SS loose
section 5 = -0.2 sec SS won.

So... i might be a real dummy but how the hell it won the lap 0.3 sec? Unless it flied through the straights. Would be that much faster in straights?
Please if you have the article check it and explain to me.
I am a real dummy.

 

nice write up. But pretty bold to compere the MR tranny to the F1
In Formula 1 the things are happening much faster...

 

Subaru Impreza WRX STI - 3:19.0

Lol, wtf...

 

If you look at the sector map, it appears that the timed sectors only account for about 1/3 of the total lap. I guess the SS made it up in the untimed half, some of which was curves too.

http://www.caranddriver.com/content/...08+Results.pdf