The ACR is a completely different car, don't forget that the ACR comes from the factory with coilovers thus it was deemed "acceptable" to have people there to modify it much like someone would at a real track day. In this case, the Cobalt SS isn't modifiable so I doubt they brought some massive team for it. Moreover, I'm sure the other manufacturers were provided the same rights as Dodge or GM but didn't think it was necessary or worth it. I find it somewhat damning that this isn't just a flash in the pan result, the MotorTrend comparison is in line with the C&D results and the Nurburgring time indicates it's a very capable car.

 

Again, do you really think C&D would risk pissing off every other manufacturer just to promote one? It's like telling a room full of supermodels that they can go to hell just to get laid by another one, it makes no sense whatsoever.

 

I repeat, once again, they explained their issues with the IS-F.
And how much faster should the X be than the IX? On this course? Try 'they should be very very close, if not intuitive to assume that the IX would have been slightly faster on a high speed course'. Yet the X MR did even better (though a different year).

To me, that makes it pretty clear the X MR finished right where it should have. So the only thing in question is the Cobalt SS's lap time, which was quite good. But I kind of doubt C&D would just lop off a couple seconds from it's track time to make it seem faster for "advertising" purposes.

"well according to them anything is possible"? That tone is just being sour and whiney man.

 

OK maybe I missed something but what is the actual issue now? I went back and read some of the posts but didn't quite understand what was being contested now. It seems we've somewhat gotten past this idea that the magazine was bribed but are people now suggesting that the Evo X was sandbagged?

 

The guys rooting for the X are suggesting that, because the g loads in the recorded corners are not what evo X's can pull (numbers recorded on a skidpad...), that the x was not driven to its maximum potential

 

i never said they did a same as they did with the viper.. also there was cars there could be dialed in ... as i'm sure you know.

if you say it is not worth to dial a car in, for specific tracks . i 'm speechless.
i never said the SS is not capable car. I'm saying is, i highly doubt it will out run the SC lotus or the evo.
I did run with them on track and high way. But sadly my car is not stock so it is nothing to do with the tests.

the good part is, they all think now they are faster then a X. And they face are priceless when they find out, there is more behind the EVo then factory test numbers.....

 

well if you pull only 0.88gs from the X, you are certainly not on the edge. If you cant see that, and it is not a drag race you are
basically dont want to see that.
What is so hard about this?

dont try to make false statements. they are usually do between 92-94 'g on tracks.
I try to find the article where they did , Then it was a GSR test with 1.04 'g on some kind of mountain road test.
which is thinkis extreme, but we can bravely say you can pull at least 92-94 g's on track from the MR.
Now the 0.88 is really lame.

 

The hard part is that those g's were generated from a skidpad. G's at high speed corners are not going to be the same. just because the car can pull 1g going 30 mph does not mean it can pull 1g going 100mph.. Is that hard to understand?

 

hell yeah. who they **** off, they really care?

desperate times calls for desperate measures...

 

it is that hard to understand on skid pad the MR pull around 0.96 g's
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.../pageId=134355

and im talking about track G's? which are usually over 92 g's??

The 0.88 g's are never heard of ANY evo before this test..
what is so hard about that?

 

The MR rarely pulled those g's. Those g's were mostly made by GSR's on the skidpads. The MR's always pulled less. G's pulled in a high speed turn? Physics? Maximum g's generated doesn't even mean it will always pull that g.

And again you are arguing that the g's were not enough. So you are saying the X MR was not driven fast enough. Yet on a high speed course it went even faster than the IX, which we would assume to be close, as the IX and X have always performed closely, and especially on this a high speed course.

How many times do I have to repeat myself? Are you even reading the posts, to realize you are getting refuted over and over again?**

Quote:
1.
And how much faster should the X be than the IX? On this course? Try 'they should be very very close, if not intuitive to assume that the IX would have been slightly faster on a high speed course'. Yet the X MR did even better (though a different year).

To me, that makes it pretty clear the X MR finished right where it should have. So the only thing in question is the Cobalt SS's lap time, which was quite good. But I kind of doubt C&D would just lop off a couple seconds from it's track time to make it seem faster for "advertising" purposes.

Seriously. You have nothing on this. We agree it ran the right time. Yet because the Cobalt SS ran faster you say the Evo should have ran faster. Why? Because the g's weren't enough. Meaning you think it should have gone even faster than the IX. And then bump back to 1.

 

Their bank account cares, do you really think the other manufacturers are going to pay them advertising fees if they're just serving as a giant ad for Chevy? I'm still shocked that this is actually being discussed.

 

Are they aware that skidpad numbers may not accurately represent what the car is actually capable of or that the car used in the test was the MR not the GSR?

 

What I'm saying is that the Viper ACR was designed to be adjusted, it even comes from the factory with this capability. The Cobalt on the other hand doesn't come with coilovers and thus the only way to tune it would be to put aftermarket parts on which wouldn't be allowed.
Your experiences are irrelevant since there are too many variables. We don't know the other driver's abilities, what they've done to the car if anything, what you've done to your car, etc.

 

you repat your self because you not listening what i'm saying
so the C63 AMG and the cadillac and the m3 is pulls the same g's , as they do on skid pad almost, but the evo falls on face there. not other car drop that much for sure Well probably because the AMG C63 and the M3 and the Cadilaac is weight almost the SS under 3000 lbs. that would explain


every car above the SS pulled higher G's how about that? Unless the honda
and the STI

and i thought we over the high speed vs handling part.