Cobalt Faster than STi & Evo X
10-26-2008, 12:09 PM
#127
Registered
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<shrug>
I don't live on a race track. I don't care how fast some professional race driver who has been racing longer than most people on here have been alive can go around some track I will never drive on.
Cars with balance and control will always be more fun to drive in normal conditions or even some canyon runs vs some 'fast' car that is a pita to drive the rest of the time.
I dunno, I used to be all into what some number was on a piece of paper. I guess some people get over that after a while.
10-26-2008, 12:16 PM
#128
worked before when we wanted something.
10-26-2008, 04:18 PM
#129
oh well
Last edited by nycgps; 10-26-2008 at 04:27 PM.
10-26-2008, 05:15 PM
#131
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St.Pete, FL
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will say 99.99999998% of the politicians dont know **** about cars and they will bull whatever **** they can to get those vote since 99.99999999999999999999% of the population cant tell the difference between actual science and bullshit. they will vote for whoever the hell can make the most wonderful bs. like oh yes we will reduce smog blah blah blah
oh well
oh well
10-26-2008, 05:21 PM
#132
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ocala, FL
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haha everyone's talking **** about it being an american car when Mazda is owned by Ford... The new Cobalt SS/TC is an impressive car for the price and the fact it's fwd. The SS/SC was pretty good as well. They have a strong motor with alot of power potential. So talk all the **** you want about the quality of Chevy while how many members on this forum are on their 2nd or 3rd motor...
10-26-2008, 06:22 PM
#135
if anybody tells me that its cobalt or public transportation, Im all for public transportation. at least that way, I wont get any embarrassment from driving a 2f2f ricer boi pos econ box with SS from factory w00t !
Yes we all know that you love garbage. you proof ur point already. now go have fun with that econ box with SS hahaha
Last edited by nycgps; 10-26-2008 at 06:28 PM.
10-26-2008, 07:46 PM
#136
Are you handicapped?
I'm being completely serious. I have a feeling you have a learning disability. That's the only explanation I can come up with for the stupidity of your posts.
I'm being completely serious. I have a feeling you have a learning disability. That's the only explanation I can come up with for the stupidity of your posts.
10-26-2008, 08:26 PM
#137
06 Copper Red Shinka
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pewaukee, WI
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, I think somoene just has a stick up their **** tonight and is having fun getting everyone riled up. Truth of the matter is, as follows:
1) Ford does own 40% stock in Mazda last I check.
2) GM does build decent cars, this includes Cheverolet, problem is they are uninspiring from a looks standpoint. They are however very reliable.
3) At the end of the day a Cobalt will always be a Cobalt, but that won't keep me from looking at purchasing one either.
4) EVO's and STI's are also 2F2F cars, and are nothing more than modified econoboxes at the end of the day as well, so this renders your arguement null and void nycgps.
Ok, said my peice, continue your petty bickering.
1) Ford does own 40% stock in Mazda last I check.
2) GM does build decent cars, this includes Cheverolet, problem is they are uninspiring from a looks standpoint. They are however very reliable.
3) At the end of the day a Cobalt will always be a Cobalt, but that won't keep me from looking at purchasing one either.
4) EVO's and STI's are also 2F2F cars, and are nothing more than modified econoboxes at the end of the day as well, so this renders your arguement null and void nycgps.
Ok, said my peice, continue your petty bickering.
10-26-2008, 08:38 PM
#138
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, I think somoene just has a stick up their **** tonight and is having fun getting everyone riled up. Truth of the matter is, as follows:
1) Ford does own 40% stock in Mazda last I check.
2) GM does build decent cars, this includes Cheverolet, problem is they are uninspiring from a looks standpoint. They are however very reliable.
3) At the end of the day a Cobalt will always be a Cobalt, but that won't keep me from looking at purchasing one either.
4) EVO's and STI's are also 2F2F cars, and are nothing more than modified econoboxes at the end of the day as well, so this renders your arguement null and void nycgps.
Ok, said my peice, continue your petty bickering.
1) Ford does own 40% stock in Mazda last I check.
2) GM does build decent cars, this includes Cheverolet, problem is they are uninspiring from a looks standpoint. They are however very reliable.
3) At the end of the day a Cobalt will always be a Cobalt, but that won't keep me from looking at purchasing one either.
4) EVO's and STI's are also 2F2F cars, and are nothing more than modified econoboxes at the end of the day as well, so this renders your arguement null and void nycgps.
Ok, said my peice, continue your petty bickering.
But unless we're talking about a purpose built exotic like a Viper, Porsche, Aston Martin, etc. then they're all just modified econoboxes. That includes the M3, M5, Audi S and RS series, Evo, STi, etc. Purpose built sports cars make my wallet hurt.
10-26-2008, 11:07 PM
#139
next ~
Nope, I think somoene just has a stick up their **** tonight and is having fun getting everyone riled up. Truth of the matter is, as follows:
1) Ford does own 40% stock in Mazda last I check.
2) GM does build decent cars, this includes Cheverolet, problem is they are uninspiring from a looks standpoint. They are however very reliable.
3) At the end of the day a Cobalt will always be a Cobalt, but that won't keep me from looking at purchasing one either.
4) EVO's and STI's are also 2F2F cars, and are nothing more than modified econoboxes at the end of the day as well, so this renders your arguement null and void nycgps.
Ok, said my peice, continue your petty bickering.
1) Ford does own 40% stock in Mazda last I check.
2) GM does build decent cars, this includes Cheverolet, problem is they are uninspiring from a looks standpoint. They are however very reliable.
3) At the end of the day a Cobalt will always be a Cobalt, but that won't keep me from looking at purchasing one either.
4) EVO's and STI's are also 2F2F cars, and are nothing more than modified econoboxes at the end of the day as well, so this renders your arguement null and void nycgps.
Ok, said my peice, continue your petty bickering.
Cuz last I "checked", like 2 minutes ago, is nowhere close to that 40%. also did ya fail math or something ? since when is 1/3 = 40% ?
and they're selling it to : either back to Sumitomo Corp. or TaTa motors (which I hope not)
Ford need this money quick.
2. GM has some nice cars just like all auto makers, but they also have more garbage than anybody else. if they're really that reliable, then do you mind to explain to me that why is GM in deep red for so many years ? And at a stock price of 5.95, why is that happening ?
3. Maybe I will buy a GM made car one day, but Im sure that will not happen unless they change their garbage lineup.
4. S2000 is not Econbox, right? Z350 ? How about RX-8? the list goes on. and lemme guess, you can't read japanese do ya? cuz if u do you should know that Mitsubishi/Subaru actually design Evo/STi stuff first, then they "strip" the stuff down and sell the regular version because Evo/STi stuff requires more testing. if they dont do that they might end up bumping into some sort of limitation.
blah,what do I know ? but Im pretty sure Cobalt is nothing like that.
GM is working hard, I can tell. but I mean seriously, get a clue of what WE want, not what THEY want.
Last edited by nycgps; 10-26-2008 at 11:16 PM.
10-26-2008, 11:32 PM
#140
4. S2000 is not Econbox, right? Z350 ? How about RX-8? the list goes on. and lemme guess, you can't read japanese do ya? cuz if u do you should know that Mitsubishi/Subaru actually design Evo/STi stuff first, then they "strip" the stuff down and sell the regular version because Evo/STi stuff requires more testing. if they dont do that they might end up bumping into some sort of limitation.
in contrast the cobalt ss, is an econobox that was modified after the fact. like the srt series, mugen series... etc.
10-27-2008, 01:48 AM
#142
Registered
When Ford took 27+% control of Mazda in 1979, Mazda's trouble stemmed from the 70's oil crisis. They were too wed to the rotary engine at the time, without diversifying with reciprocating powerplants.
When Ford helped out Mazda during the 90's, it was because of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. The FD RX-7 came out during this time.
Automaker's product development cycle is like 5+ years. It's very difficult to predict what the economic environment will be like by the time the car hits the road.
I'd be interested in you naming some competing cars that were actually better than ones made by Mazda during these two eras.
I think it's immature to jump to conclusions that way.
10-27-2008, 07:57 AM
#143
My point is that one can't assume that a company goes bankrupt because their primary product or service is bad.
When Ford took 27+% control of Mazda in 1979, Mazda's trouble stemmed from the 70's oil crisis. They were too wed to the rotary engine at the time, without diversifying with reciprocating powerplants.
When Ford helped out Mazda during the 90's, it was because of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. The FD RX-7 came out during this time.
Automaker's product development cycle is like 5+ years. It's very difficult to predict what the economic environment will be like by the time the car hits the road.
I'd be interested in you naming some competing cars that were actually better than ones made by Mazda during these two eras.
I think it's immature to jump to conclusions that way.
When Ford took 27+% control of Mazda in 1979, Mazda's trouble stemmed from the 70's oil crisis. They were too wed to the rotary engine at the time, without diversifying with reciprocating powerplants.
When Ford helped out Mazda during the 90's, it was because of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. The FD RX-7 came out during this time.
Automaker's product development cycle is like 5+ years. It's very difficult to predict what the economic environment will be like by the time the car hits the road.
I'd be interested in you naming some competing cars that were actually better than ones made by Mazda during these two eras.
I think it's immature to jump to conclusions that way.
in 1979, Mazda's Rotary engine tech was not even that mature, but they were so ambitions and made the wrong "bet" and thats what happen
in 1997, Was it 323/626 or something ? thats some unreliable piece of crap.
it seems that GM finally "woke up" and wanna do something about their lineup. It will be interesting to see what they gonna come out with in the next 10 years. but for now, they still have tons of garbage, if they are as good and as reliable as some lover here has said, then they shouldn't be trading at 5.95 per share.
10-27-2008, 01:49 PM
#144
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St.Pete, FL
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10-29-2008, 08:27 AM
#148
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 1,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, and your comments about stock price is incorrect, it does not say it all. Just because a company's stock price is down does not mean their no good. My company stock price dropped 50% in the last month but we are still the industry leader.
Last edited by devildog1679; 10-29-2008 at 08:33 AM.
10-29-2008, 09:00 AM
#149
Void Where Prohibited
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Mineola, TX
Posts: 3,046
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a company structured the way GM is, a lot more contributes to low share value than a simply the product. You've got a lot of factors involved such one being that fact that most of their core profit rides on trucks/suvs which have dramatically dropped in sales lately. If you think the sales suddenly flip flopped on these types of vehicles because they aren't "quality stuff" you're an idiot. If in quality you mean reliability/dependability I'll say it again: Chevrolet (as does most of GM brands) regularly rates above average and most of the time and in recent years usually rates above Mazda. Now as far as being a desirable product that's a different story. Bottom line and the whole purpose of this thread: The Cobalt SS is fast and handles surprisingly well. All these major auto mags aren't conspiring to make this **** up. If you want to put up with the rest of the Chevrolet car to drive something that can perform as good as the Cobalt SS does that's your choice.
10-29-2008, 09:13 AM
#150
Some one else said it before, they are about to fail because they failed to build inspiring cars, their cars are reliable, but maybe not as much as a civic. The reason why they are going bankrupt along with FORD is also to do with the UNIONS. You have morons that think they should get paid 30+ an hour to work on a assembly line. Don't get me wrong some of those people really do have skills, while others get paid good money to do a job a 12 year old can do. Case in point, my buddy worked at the Janesville plant which is being closed by GM. He bolted on bumpers to SUV's. Guess how much he was making? $28 an hour, he even admitted he was overpaid for what he did. One of the reasons he never went to school was because he new he could get a good paying job at the factory. Unions also breed people who have no desire to better themselves. Their OH is so high they could barely turn a profit. Though the unions are not solely to blame, they are a part of the failure.
Oh, and your comments about stock price is incorrect, it does not say it all. Just because a company's stock price is down does not mean their no good. My company stock price dropped 50% in the last month but we are still the industry leader.
Oh, and your comments about stock price is incorrect, it does not say it all. Just because a company's stock price is down does not mean their no good. My company stock price dropped 50% in the last month but we are still the industry leader.
At least thats the experience all my uncles had. and they all swear to god that they will not buy another American made car again.
Things could be better now, but its really hard to change people's heart.
Just look at me, My father hate Mazda for the very same reason above(during 80s 90s Mazda cars were ... piece of crap) it took me a "long" while b4 I convince my father that CX-7 is a pretty good bang for buck deal. he is ok with it so far. but I know in his heart he still not 100% happy with it, he wants a Lexus RX 350/450h in the first place.
And look at Rotary, as of today, even with many Renesis gone way over 150K miles mark. people "still" think that our motors will self-destruct every 60 thousand miles.
In a company structured the way GM is, a lot more contributes to low share value than a simply the product. You've got a lot of factors involved such one being that fact that most of their core profit rides on trucks/suvs which have dramatically dropped in sales lately. If you think the sales suddenly flip flopped on these types of vehicles because they aren't "quality stuff" you're an idiot. If in quality you mean reliability/dependability I'll say it again: Chevrolet (as does most of GM brands) regularly rates above average and most of the time and in recent years usually rates above Mazda. Now as far as being a desirable product that's a different story. Bottom line and the whole purpose of this thread: The Cobalt SS is fast and handles surprisingly well. All these major auto mags aren't conspiring to make this **** up. If you want to put up with the rest of the Chevrolet car to drive something that can perform as good as the Cobalt SS does that's your choice.
I think the only solution to GM now is ... maybe file for bankruptcy. So they can fired all those overpaid people, and restructure their whole company.
Last edited by nycgps; 10-29-2008 at 09:15 AM.