I believe it has been well documented that a car with AWD drive will go quicker around a track than same w/o AWD despite the weight differential. So in short, the extra weight advantage is not realized relative to the handling benefits of the AWD system. Now I am not sure the degree to which the AYC enhances the handling in the X relative to the stated increase of 150lbs and what percentage the AYC's weight is to the total weight of the AWD system. As with most things, an emperical test is required to end this debate.

Later, Ken
AMS intake and single exhaust
Iveytune (322 all around)
Robispec K&W

 

the RS have different and better Turbo too vs the GSR , just an add on for the debate

 

Regarding the AWD system it may hold true for most cases. But in extreme cases like Formula 1 where vehicles weigh around 1300lbs and making 700+hp with high rpm, currently there isn't seem to be an AWD system that can fit on the F1 cars to overcome the added weight, reduced aerodynamics and increased center of gravity, and possible durability/reliability issues.


Yes the RS has Ti-Al/Mg turbo for 9, Ti-Al/Al for 9.5, and Ti-Al/Al for 10.

GSR had Al/Inconel (steel) as standard and Ti-Al/Mg as option for 9, Ti-Al/Mg as standard and Ti-Al/Al as option for 9.5, Al/Inconel as standard and Ti-Al/Al as option for 10. The boost comes in maybe about 50-100rpm quicker but on track it wouldn't really matter since you will stay in boost most of the time.

 

The weight is fine. The few extra lbs it has isn't what makes the difference. It is the horrid tune by what seems like a 10 year old. How do you expect a car to run on a track when it miss-fires a few times each gear? Just get a tune and problem is solved. In-fact I like what happened, because no car out there has this type of potential with just a tune alone. How many cars out there dyno in the low 200s and with NOTHING ELSE but a tune nearly break 300?

 

You cannot compare F1 cars to production cars. For the former, straight line speed of 200 mph is more important than transitions in corners so weight is paramount. To illustrate how "extreme" F1 is, there were discussions of having Ralph Schumacher's legs' shortened so the monoque could be smaller and therefore be less weight because he is relatively tall for an F1 driver! Such considerations of weight reduction do not arise for production cars and it is here that AWD has shown its strengths relative to RWD despite the weight gain.

Later, Ken

 

Lol I agree, the production AWDs do perfectly well against their RWD/FWD competitors.
A list of performance oriented AWD cars both short course and long course (they usually do better than most RWD/FWD competitors of its price range and power output, despite the weight disadvantage):


Audi RS4
Audi R8
Lamborghini Murcielago LP640
Lamborghini Gallardo LP560
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution
Nissan GT-R
Porsche 911 Turbo (and Turbo S)
Subaru Impreza WRX STI
Volkswagen GTI R32

And couple interesting cars from the VW group that has no clear competition:

Bentley Continental GT
Bugatti Veyron

 

I'm gonna resurrect this one because I happened upon it while searching around on Google. I previously owned an Evo 8 many years ago, until the stock brake line separated from the crimp while I was on track. It's one of my last posts on this board.

Last January, I picked up an 09 Cobalt SS. I'll tell you guys right now that it's ridiculously good on track. Sustained slow sleepers? Not so good. Slalom or high speed turns? Bring on all comers. The stock brakes are phenomenal as well. Comes with front monoblock Brembos and Ferrodo pads. I upgraded to Cobalt Friction XR1s for additional stopping endurance though.

I just spent 2 days instructing at VIR. One day of the Full course, and one day of the Grand East course. Let me tell you, there are some seriously stunned and awe struck drivers in much more expensive machinery.

The head instructor drove my car and was stunned. An old racer buddy of mine that I took for a ride was flabbergasted. I'm convinced this is one of the best kept car secrets in the last few years.

Ahh well, at this point, it's just some fuel to the 20 page flame :-)

 

Bump!

 

Oh, one other thing to point out. In MT's test, Randy is quoted as saying that the traction control was flickering at him. It means he only put it into competition mode, but didn't totally disable the traction control. You have to hold the button down for 5 seconds before the traction control is disabled. If you properly disable it, the light just goes solid.

Randy's an awesome driver, and a super nice guy. I've met him in person. It's not his fault that no one told him to do that. Shame on MT for not reading the manual, and shame on the GM rep for not specifically telling MT.

 

That is too funny. I thought I saw a colbalt in my session. I think I was the only one there with an Evox. I thought I was seeing things but I never caught back up to ya. My X is stock cept for Hawks DTC 70 pads and RE11s on rota grids. I think I was just below average in the yellow group since I was giving out maybe twice as many point-by's compared to passing people.

 

If you saw my car out there at all in yellow, then it was the end of the 2nd day on Grand. Colin, the head instructor, took the car out and blasted around. I was instructing the entire event, so red/black run groups only for me.

 

car and driver is one of the worst car magazines. i dont believe a word they say,

 

I wouldn't trade my X for the Cobalt SS, but I think it is an amazing price performance offering at 25K before haggling. It is also pretty impressive looking in person. Nice car.

 

I have a friend who regularly spanks V-8's with his Cobalt with a few boltons and a tune. I'm not saying anything about what car is better all I'm saying is I was very surprised how quick those little cars are.

 

Let me help you out: the X is better. If it wasn't FWD this all might be a very different conversation. I don't care how they tuned the suspension, just knowing kills it for pretty much all of us I'm guessing.