Chevy Cobalt SS turbo vs Evo X
It depends on what IX was used. Didn't the JDM IX have S-AYC? If the IX is lighter than the X and it has S-AYC, it should be as fast if not faster than the X. I don't think an IX would hand the SS it's *** in the straights, the SS has plenty of power, is lighter and has less drivetrain loss, it probably has more power to the wheels than the IX which would equate to higher speeds in the straights.
On this forum, plenty of people talk **** about the GTR, Z06, etc. and have wild ideas about Evos and even Ralliarts with basic bolt-ons taking down those cars.
On this forum, plenty of people talk **** about the GTR, Z06, etc. and have wild ideas about Evos and even Ralliarts with basic bolt-ons taking down those cars.
It depends on what IX was used. Didn't the JDM IX have S-AYC? If the IX is lighter than the X and it has S-AYC, it should be as fast if not faster than the X. I don't think an IX would hand the SS it's *** in the straights, the SS has plenty of power, is lighter and has less drivetrain loss, it probably has more power to the wheels than the IX which would equate to higher speeds in the straights.
On this forum, plenty of people talk **** about the GTR, Z06, etc. and have wild ideas about Evos and even Ralliarts with basic bolt-ons taking down those cars.
On this forum, plenty of people talk **** about the GTR, Z06, etc. and have wild ideas about Evos and even Ralliarts with basic bolt-ons taking down those cars.
if you knew anything about the EVO other than that it's AWD, you'd know that ALL EVO's except the USDM models had S-AYC. You would also know that the JDM EVO X models aren't as heavy as the USDM models because their crash regulations aren't as strict. the EVO X and EVO IX have been run many times on the same race track together in tests and the EVO X is almost always faster. if it's not faster, it's very close. The EVO X's SAWC system is better than the IX's system (even with S-AYC). the JDM EVO X isn't much heavier than the JDM IX, so it's not that big of a gap.
as for the bit about the Cobalt putting down more whp than the IX...
are you freaking kidding? you do know that the EVO IX is rated at 289hp right? compared to 260? that doesn't even make any sense. i've got a group of about 15 people laughing at you right now. i'm sure more will do the same when they read this thread. you also know that EVO IX's BONE STOCK dyno at anywhere from 260-270+ on a dynojet? that puts their actual output at around 310-320hp Import tuner had an EVO IX MR that they did a feature on in their upgrade section and theirs dyno'ed right around 270 at the wheels, bone freakin stock. no cobalt is putting out numbers anywhere near there.
also, no cobalt is running mid-high 12's in the 1/4 bone stock. they don't trap what the EVO IX traps, so YES THE EVO IX WOULD HAND IT IT'S *** in a straight line. ESPECIALLY given the fact that it will have a higher corner exit speed than the Cobalt, and will be on the power much sooner, so it will achieve a higher speed on the straights. Even if the EVO fudges the corner a bit it'll still suck the cobalt up because it's just faster.
as for the GTR arguements, i was trying to make a point that you obviously missed (as usual). Yes, you can build an EVO X to take down a GTR. with the gains they are making from just a tune (60-85whp or MORE) it is not really that big of a deal to be able to make one as fast as a GTR. The point is, that doesn't mean the EVO is anywhere near the new GTR stock for stock, and shouldn't be compared to it. that's the point i'm making with this Cobalt/EVO crap. driven correctly, the EVO IX or X should beat the Cobalt SS. Especially if you want to throw the JDM versions or UKDM versions into the mix.
stop hating the EVO. Go back to the damn subaru forums.
Last edited by ODUB; Jun 30, 2009 at 11:07 PM.
and here you come again.... honestly you guys can give me an infraction or whatever it is you do, i don't care. Ambystom...you are the worst moderator on this site and have no business moderating an EVO site because for the most part you don't know much about these cars, or what they are capable of or you just don't act like it. the biggest reason though is that you are the biggest cheerleader against the EVO anytime it's ever put up against another car no matter how ridiculous the comparison is. then you come back with that crap about, "oh i love EVO's, some of my best friends drive EVO's." it's just like the whole, "oh, some of my best friends are black," defense. we all know what it is. a thin veil pulled over a steaming pile of bullcrap.
if you knew anything about the EVO other than that it's AWD, you'd know that ALL EVO's except the USDM models had S-AYC. You would also know that the JDM EVO X models aren't as heavy as the USDM models because their crash regulations aren't as strict. the EVO X and EVO IX have been run many times on the same race track together in tests and the EVO X is almost always faster. if it's not faster, it's very close. The EVO X's SAWC system is better than the IX's system (even with S-AYC). the JDM EVO X isn't much heavier than the JDM IX, so it's not that big of a gap.
as for the bit about the Cobalt putting down more whp than the IX...
are you freaking kidding? you do know that the EVO IX is rated at 289hp right? compared to 260? that doesn't even make any sense. i've got a group of about 15 people laughing at you right now. i'm sure more will do the same when they read this thread. you also know that EVO IX's BONE STOCK dyno at anywhere from 260-270+ on a dynojet? that puts their actual output at around 310-320hp Import tuner had an EVO IX MR that they did a feature on in their upgrade section and theirs dyno'ed right around 270 at the wheels, bone freakin stock. no cobalt is putting out numbers anywhere near there.
also, no cobalt is running mid-high 12's in the 1/4 bone stock. they don't trap what the EVO IX traps, so YES THE EVO IX WOULD HAND IT IT'S *** in a straight line. ESPECIALLY given the fact that it will have a higher corner exit speed than the Cobalt, and will be on the power much sooner, so it will achieve a higher speed on the straights. Even if the EVO fudges the corner a bit it'll still suck the cobalt up because it's just faster.
as for the GTR arguements, i was trying to make a point that you obviously missed (as usual). Yes, you can build an EVO X to take down a GTR. with the gains they are making from just a tune (60-85whp or MORE) it is not really that big of a deal to be able to make one as fast as a GTR. The point is, that doesn't mean the EVO is anywhere near the new GTR stock for stock, and shouldn't be compared to it. that's the point i'm making with this Cobalt/EVO crap. driven correctly, the EVO IX or X should beat the Cobalt SS. Especially if you want to throw the JDM versions or UKDM versions into the mix.
stop hating the EVO. Go back to the damn subaru forums.
if you knew anything about the EVO other than that it's AWD, you'd know that ALL EVO's except the USDM models had S-AYC. You would also know that the JDM EVO X models aren't as heavy as the USDM models because their crash regulations aren't as strict. the EVO X and EVO IX have been run many times on the same race track together in tests and the EVO X is almost always faster. if it's not faster, it's very close. The EVO X's SAWC system is better than the IX's system (even with S-AYC). the JDM EVO X isn't much heavier than the JDM IX, so it's not that big of a gap.
as for the bit about the Cobalt putting down more whp than the IX...
are you freaking kidding? you do know that the EVO IX is rated at 289hp right? compared to 260? that doesn't even make any sense. i've got a group of about 15 people laughing at you right now. i'm sure more will do the same when they read this thread. you also know that EVO IX's BONE STOCK dyno at anywhere from 260-270+ on a dynojet? that puts their actual output at around 310-320hp Import tuner had an EVO IX MR that they did a feature on in their upgrade section and theirs dyno'ed right around 270 at the wheels, bone freakin stock. no cobalt is putting out numbers anywhere near there.
also, no cobalt is running mid-high 12's in the 1/4 bone stock. they don't trap what the EVO IX traps, so YES THE EVO IX WOULD HAND IT IT'S *** in a straight line. ESPECIALLY given the fact that it will have a higher corner exit speed than the Cobalt, and will be on the power much sooner, so it will achieve a higher speed on the straights. Even if the EVO fudges the corner a bit it'll still suck the cobalt up because it's just faster.
as for the GTR arguements, i was trying to make a point that you obviously missed (as usual). Yes, you can build an EVO X to take down a GTR. with the gains they are making from just a tune (60-85whp or MORE) it is not really that big of a deal to be able to make one as fast as a GTR. The point is, that doesn't mean the EVO is anywhere near the new GTR stock for stock, and shouldn't be compared to it. that's the point i'm making with this Cobalt/EVO crap. driven correctly, the EVO IX or X should beat the Cobalt SS. Especially if you want to throw the JDM versions or UKDM versions into the mix.
stop hating the EVO. Go back to the damn subaru forums.
It depends on what IX was used. Didn't the JDM IX have S-AYC? If the IX is lighter than the X and it has S-AYC, it should be as fast if not faster than the X.
The Evo also splits that 289 HP between four wheels, three differentials, an extra driveshaft, etc. You are aware that those things result in friction which costs power right? Now then, if you have 289 HP being run through significantly more hardware, it's not hard to see why a 260 HP with less hardware would get more to the ground. Sorry, apparently this is hard to see. What a car puts down on one dyno isn't relevant unless you have an actual comparison between car A and car B on that dyno on that day. As far as we know, a Cobalt would put down 260 HP on that dyno.
Actually the Cobalt traps higher than the X and slightly lower than the IX RS. The numbers are 13.9@104.0 for the Cobalt, 13.6@100.9 for the X GSR and 13.0@104.9 for the IX RS. If you look at the 0-60 times, you get 4.4 for the IX, 4.9 for the X and 5.4 for the Cobalt. Now then, the 0-60 time for the IX and Cobalt differ by one second which is conveniently the difference in the 1/4 mile time. This suggests that the IX isn't walking away from the Cobalt but is merely maintaining that lead. The 0-100 times suggest the same thing. For the X, the Cobalt is faster to 100 MPH. I never knew that staying even was considered "handing them their ***" nowadays.
I wasn't referring to you in my GTR statement, you are welcome to find and read the various threads where people state that the Evo is better than a GTR or the Ralliart is better than a Z06.
Stop simply jumping to the defense of the precious Evo and actually get the facts first. Nobody is bashing the Evo by saying the Cobalt is a decent car. The Evo is superior but in terms of straight line speed, the Cobalt is a hell of a package for the cost. You try to argue that the X would be faster than the IX at the track yet the Cobalt either kept up with or beat the X in the now infamous Lightning Lap and Motortrend's test at Laguna Seca. Through this logic, the Cobalt would be faster than the IX.
Wow, just wow. I state everything you said, yet naturally I'm wrong. I said
implying that the JDM IX has S-AYC (as you say) and that it would likely run a similar time to the X (as you say). Of course since I said it, it's wrong but when you say it, it's magically right.
The Evo also splits that 289 HP between four wheels, three differentials, an extra driveshaft, etc. You are aware that those things result in friction which costs power right? Now then, if you have 289 HP being run through significantly more hardware, it's not hard to see why a 260 HP with less hardware would get more to the ground. Sorry, apparently this is hard to see. What a car puts down on one dyno isn't relevant unless you have an actual comparison between car A and car B on that dyno on that day. As far as we know, a Cobalt would put down 260 HP on that dyno.
Actually the Cobalt traps higher than the X and slightly lower than the IX RS. The numbers are 13.9@104.0 for the Cobalt, 13.6@100.9 for the X GSR and 13.0@104.9 for the IX RS. If you look at the 0-60 times, you get 4.4 for the IX, 4.9 for the X and 5.4 for the Cobalt. Now then, the 0-60 time for the IX and Cobalt differ by one second which is conveniently the difference in the 1/4 mile time. This suggests that the IX isn't walking away from the Cobalt but is merely maintaining that lead. The 0-100 times suggest the same thing. For the X, the Cobalt is faster to 100 MPH. I never knew that staying even was considered "handing them their ***" nowadays.
I wasn't referring to you in my GTR statement, you are welcome to find and read the various threads where people state that the Evo is better than a GTR or the Ralliart is better than a Z06.
Stop simply jumping to the defense of the precious Evo and actually get the facts first. Nobody is bashing the Evo by saying the Cobalt is a decent car. The Evo is superior but in terms of straight line speed, the Cobalt is a hell of a package for the cost. You try to argue that the X would be faster than the IX at the track yet the Cobalt either kept up with or beat the X in the now infamous Lightning Lap and Motortrend's test at Laguna Seca. Through this logic, the Cobalt would be faster than the IX.
implying that the JDM IX has S-AYC (as you say) and that it would likely run a similar time to the X (as you say). Of course since I said it, it's wrong but when you say it, it's magically right.
The Evo also splits that 289 HP between four wheels, three differentials, an extra driveshaft, etc. You are aware that those things result in friction which costs power right? Now then, if you have 289 HP being run through significantly more hardware, it's not hard to see why a 260 HP with less hardware would get more to the ground. Sorry, apparently this is hard to see. What a car puts down on one dyno isn't relevant unless you have an actual comparison between car A and car B on that dyno on that day. As far as we know, a Cobalt would put down 260 HP on that dyno.
Actually the Cobalt traps higher than the X and slightly lower than the IX RS. The numbers are 13.9@104.0 for the Cobalt, 13.6@100.9 for the X GSR and 13.0@104.9 for the IX RS. If you look at the 0-60 times, you get 4.4 for the IX, 4.9 for the X and 5.4 for the Cobalt. Now then, the 0-60 time for the IX and Cobalt differ by one second which is conveniently the difference in the 1/4 mile time. This suggests that the IX isn't walking away from the Cobalt but is merely maintaining that lead. The 0-100 times suggest the same thing. For the X, the Cobalt is faster to 100 MPH. I never knew that staying even was considered "handing them their ***" nowadays.
I wasn't referring to you in my GTR statement, you are welcome to find and read the various threads where people state that the Evo is better than a GTR or the Ralliart is better than a Z06.
Stop simply jumping to the defense of the precious Evo and actually get the facts first. Nobody is bashing the Evo by saying the Cobalt is a decent car. The Evo is superior but in terms of straight line speed, the Cobalt is a hell of a package for the cost. You try to argue that the X would be faster than the IX at the track yet the Cobalt either kept up with or beat the X in the now infamous Lightning Lap and Motortrend's test at Laguna Seca. Through this logic, the Cobalt would be faster than the IX.
bolded area number 2, more crap because you're a damn magazine racer. the hell with those BS numbers for the IX RS. with a GOOD driver the IX RS is a 12 second car all day long and should trap higher than 104. also, i'd like to see more than one Cobalt SS that trapped 104 bone stock. also, there's a lot more to telling what a car is capable of than trap speed. it would be nice to see what the rest of that slip looks like. i say that because i ran a car that trapped higher than me ONCE because he spun his *** off on the launch. somehow trapped around 108 or 109, but normally trapped around 103-105. on his best run ever time wise, he only trapped 104. i trapped consistantly in the 106-108 range. and when we ran each other at the track, surprise surprise i beat him. we also ran at a top speed event at belle chase airstrip and got to go from a roll. low and behold, i beat him there too. the worse the launch, the higher the trap to a certain point, so one cobalt hitting 104 one time isn't anything to be scared of. as for the numbers you posted for the X GSR, STOP MAGAZINE RACING. there have been guys who have hit low 13's in X GSR's bone stock with much higher traps than that. also, in the intrest of road racing, traps don't mean as much as you're trying to make them out to with a properly driven car because the EVO WILL GET ON THE POWER sOONER AND HAVE A HIGHER CORNER EXIT SPEED SO IT WILL BE FASTER ON THE STRAIGHTS IF DRIVEN PROPERLY.
the ULTIMATE is magazine racing is the dumbass lighting lap which i have already addressed, so i'll just quote myself for truth:
as for the "lightning lap" i don't trust those things because magazine editors can't drive for ****. the last one they did with the EVO IX MR, 350Z track, and old cobalt SS, there were multiple corners where the cobalt, FWD and all, had higher corner entry AND EXIT speeds than the Z and the EVO. that tells me one thing...they couldn't drive. driving an AWD car is nothing like driving a RWD or FWD car. those guys never know what they are doing when they get behind the wheel of an STi or EVO because they have little to no experience with them. they've only been available here for a few years, and these guys drive them once a year IF THAT. they need to stick to vettes and civics and bring in someone else when they test AWD turbo cars.
Last edited by ODUB; Jun 30, 2009 at 11:47 PM.
Account Disabled
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
From: Chicago, IL
ODUB - I LOVE YOU
You are 100% right. I have never seen more retards in one place more then on the EVOM forum. Everyone hates on the Evo because it's the most powerful car on this planet for the money. I am so sick of these little kids that come here and only look to start S***t. At the track I brutally rape my friend's modded Cobalt SS Turbo. I have only 350 WHP and run Mid to high 11s and I trapped my best 118 mph. My friends Cobalt SS is modded to high hell and he still fights to get high 12's and his best trap was 110 with slicks. His trans went out twice. From a roll there really wasn't any comparison. I destroy him. We went at the track and I was toying with him the whole day. I killed him in the straight and raped him in the corners. Keep in mind he is at the same horsepower level also.
Ohh wait GM is closing down dealers and will stop building these clown butt ugly American cars. So how will you service your SS crap now
I don't care how fast a car will go in a straight line or not, but I will never buy an American car if my life depended on it.
Japan and Europe for the win.
You are 100% right. I have never seen more retards in one place more then on the EVOM forum. Everyone hates on the Evo because it's the most powerful car on this planet for the money. I am so sick of these little kids that come here and only look to start S***t. At the track I brutally rape my friend's modded Cobalt SS Turbo. I have only 350 WHP and run Mid to high 11s and I trapped my best 118 mph. My friends Cobalt SS is modded to high hell and he still fights to get high 12's and his best trap was 110 with slicks. His trans went out twice. From a roll there really wasn't any comparison. I destroy him. We went at the track and I was toying with him the whole day. I killed him in the straight and raped him in the corners. Keep in mind he is at the same horsepower level also.
Ohh wait GM is closing down dealers and will stop building these clown butt ugly American cars. So how will you service your SS crap now
I don't care how fast a car will go in a straight line or not, but I will never buy an American car if my life depended on it. Japan and Europe for the win.
bolded area number 1 is all crap. the EVO IX put's down at the wheels what the cobalt is rated at the crank. bottom ****ing line. also, the estimation that a car with almost 30 more hp (actually more than that because everybody but you knows that the EVO IX was underrated from the factory) will put down less whp because it's AWD is ****ing retarded. i'm just gonna leave this topic alone because YOU don't even believe that BS. just admit it. say it with me, "I fudged up, mybad."
bolded area number 2, more crap because you're a damn magazine racer. the hell with those BS numbers for the IX RS. with a GOOD driver the IX RS is a 12 second car all day long and should trap higher than 104. also, i'd like to see more than one Cobalt SS that trapped 104 bone stock. also, there's a lot more to telling what a car is capable of than trap speed. it would be nice to see what the rest of that slip looks like. i say that because i ran a car that trapped higher than me ONCE because he spun his *** off on the launch. somehow trapped around 108 or 109, but normally trapped around 103-105. on his best run ever time wise, he only trapped 104. i trapped consistantly in the 106-108 range. and when we ran each other at the track, surprise surprise i beat him. we also ran at a top speed event at belle chase airstrip and got to go from a roll. low and behold, i beat him there too. the worse the launch, the higher the trap to a certain point, so one cobalt hitting 104 one time isn't anything to be scared of. as for the numbers you posted for the X GSR, STOP MAGAZINE RACING. there have been guys who have hit low 13's in X GSR's bone stock with much higher traps than that. also, in the intrest of road racing, traps don't mean as much as you're trying to make them out to with a properly driven car because the EVO WILL GET ON THE POWER sOONER AND HAVE A HIGHER CORNER EXIT SPEED SO IT WILL BE FASTER ON THE STRAIGHTS IF DRIVEN PROPERLY.
the ULTIMATE is magazine racing is the dumbass lighting lap which i have already addressed, so i'll just quote myself for truth:
there you go.
bolded area number 2, more crap because you're a damn magazine racer. the hell with those BS numbers for the IX RS. with a GOOD driver the IX RS is a 12 second car all day long and should trap higher than 104. also, i'd like to see more than one Cobalt SS that trapped 104 bone stock. also, there's a lot more to telling what a car is capable of than trap speed. it would be nice to see what the rest of that slip looks like. i say that because i ran a car that trapped higher than me ONCE because he spun his *** off on the launch. somehow trapped around 108 or 109, but normally trapped around 103-105. on his best run ever time wise, he only trapped 104. i trapped consistantly in the 106-108 range. and when we ran each other at the track, surprise surprise i beat him. we also ran at a top speed event at belle chase airstrip and got to go from a roll. low and behold, i beat him there too. the worse the launch, the higher the trap to a certain point, so one cobalt hitting 104 one time isn't anything to be scared of. as for the numbers you posted for the X GSR, STOP MAGAZINE RACING. there have been guys who have hit low 13's in X GSR's bone stock with much higher traps than that. also, in the intrest of road racing, traps don't mean as much as you're trying to make them out to with a properly driven car because the EVO WILL GET ON THE POWER sOONER AND HAVE A HIGHER CORNER EXIT SPEED SO IT WILL BE FASTER ON THE STRAIGHTS IF DRIVEN PROPERLY.
the ULTIMATE is magazine racing is the dumbass lighting lap which i have already addressed, so i'll just quote myself for truth:
there you go.
Given that WHP is a measure of *gasp* power at the wheels, it's not hard to imagine that a car with more hardware between the engine and the wheels will have larger loses. You are welcome to ask Bushur, AMS, etc. about this.
And what is a Cobalt with a good driver? I used numbers from the same magazine to keep it fair. I knew you would raise the 12 second stock issue.
I love how everybody plays the "they can't drive card" as if the Evo has to win. Oh no, a cheaper car used the same formula that made the Evo famous (spend all the money on performance bits). You guys are starting to sound like insecure domestic owners.
So you expect me to find the fastest Evo time ever, a car that's been out for 3 years now (IX) and find the fastest Cobalt time ever, a car that's been out for what, a year now? I used the same source to keep it fair. Moreover, using the fastest times is a bit silly anyways, unless every match up between the Evo and the Cobalt is between the best drivers ever, it's not that useful. None of this means the Evo is a bad car, I'm sure we all agree that the Evo is better than a Cobalt but for the money, the Cobalt is a quick car.
Evolved Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,312
Likes: 3
From: Birmingham, AL
Yep, I'm a troll what with thousands of posts, 6 years on the forum, FAQs, PM assistance, etc. but nope, I'm just a big old troll since I'm willing to accept that the Cobalt is a fast car. I guess you need to be a die hard fanboy to be a true enthusiast 
.
.
Evolved Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,312
Likes: 3
From: Birmingham, AL
I've never needed your FAQs, never PM'ed you for assistance, never come across you in the seven years I've been here except when you troll Evo or RA threads. So all those accomplishments you tout don't mean a thing to me.