Mazdaspeed 3 vs Cobalt SS vs '09 WRX vs Lancer Ralliart: Road & Track

[roninsoldier83]

Road & Track just did a comparison test of the Mazdaspeed 3 vs Cobalt SS vs new 2009 WRX vs Lancer Ralliart, take a look:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=7103


^^^This is the first time I've ever seen the MS3 not win a comparison... but IMO, competition is a good thing, as it only makes the breed better What was interesting is that in their autoX event, both the WRX & the Cobalt SS beat the MS3 by about a second... and more interesting is that the Cobalt SS did so without the optional LSD, that's extremely impressive IMO. I said it when I first saw the specs on the new Cobalt SS, and it has been confirmed, Chevy now has the best bang for buck car in the under $30k market.

I thought that autoX time might have been a fluke, until I saw the Cobalt SS' lap time on C&D's Lightning Lap, where it beat cars like the EVO, STI, Audi S5, BMW 135i, Lexus IS F, Honda S2000 CR, ect ect. I'm assuming that lap time was with the optional $500 LSD:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/features_classic_cars/the_lightning_lap_2008_feature+page-2.html

^^^Needless to say, the new Cobalt SS is the real deal. If I were in the market for a new car, or was in a position to trade the STI in (assuming I didn't love it), no doubt I would be buying American

For anyone only interested in the performance stats from the comparo, here they are:

Cobalt SS:
5.4 second 0-60
13.9@104mph (<<holy shit look at the trap speed)
0.92g (with an open diff....)
70.0mph slalom
121 ft 60-0 braking
45.62 seconds autoX

2009 WRX:
5.1 second 0-60 (<<only 0.1 slower than R&T tested the 2008 STI!)
13.8@101.0mph
0.87g
67.0mph slalom
124 ft 60-braking
45.46 seconds autoX

Mazdaspeed 3:
5.7 second 0-60
14.1@101.3mph
0.86g
68.7mph slalom
120 ft 60-0 braking
46.61 seconds autoX

Lancer Ralliart:
5.4 second 0-60
14.1@97.2mph
0.84g
66.7mph slalom
129 ft 60-0 braking
47.16 seconds autoX


Needless to say, after almost 2 years of dominating the market, the MS3 finally has some new competition

[AIM WO4]

Yea. I think I'll go drive them myself. Sometimes I wonder how the results would look if the tests were performed by Japanese mags. IMO R&T and all those other mags, are full of crap. (Not to say this happens... But, if I were GM, I'd sure be paying somebody to make my car look better.)

[Colombia28]

I'm impressed with the numbers and all but it seemed as though R&T was looking past most of the flaws of the Cobalt while going straight for the obvious flaws in the other cars.

"torsion-beam rear axle" - LOL.

I also found it funny that GM sent them one without the optional LSD.

[roninsoldier83]

Yea. I think I'll go drive them myself. Sometimes I wonder how the results would look if the tests were performed by Japanese mags. IMO R&T and all those other mags, are full of crap. (Not to say this happens... But, if I were GM, I'd sure be paying somebody to make my car look better.)

I hear ya, however in their (R&T) last 2 comparos featuring the MS3, the MS3 won them both, including the beat down it gave the American Caliber SRT-4. The fact that they gave the win to the MS3 it's last 2 times up to bat, would leave me to believe they liked the MS3 going into this comparo... either way though, for sure go take one for a test drive, I know I'm going to

[MazdaTom]

Or said they sent them one without the LSD..... But any tester worth their salt would know if it had one or not.

[Low Impedance]

damn. the SS is kicking ass

[bobopud]

Too bad it is still a chevy. I'm still amazed that a car as "old" as the MS3 is holding up so well in the current performance wars.

With gas comming back down I'm sure we will just see more increases in the average hp of new cars, especially those from japan.

[roninsoldier83]

I'm impressed with the numbers and all but it seemed as though R&T was looking past most of the flaws of the Cobalt while going straight for the obvious flaws in the other cars.

"torsion-beam rear axle" - LOL.

I also found it funny that GM sent them one without the optional LSD.

They noted the Cobalt SS had the lowest grade interior of the group, but I think they just named the best performing car the winner.... which is what I would do. I hated reading C&D articles a few years back, when the Acura RSX Type S used to win their comparos just because it had a nicer interior... a car that had poorer acceleration/handling/braking ect than it's competitors but still managed to win in a test designed to push the performance limits of a handful of cars.

Live rear axle or not, it handed several more expensive (and powerful) cars their ass at VIR:
http://www.caranddriver.com/content/download/122224/1656509/version/1/file/The+Lightning+Lap%2C+2008+Results.pdf

Take a look at the list of cars & their lap times... amazing. Apparently GM knows a thing or two about tuning a live rear axle suspension... one thing about the live rear though, it sure does keep costs down. Take a look at the price section in this test:

Cobalt SS
List price $22,775
As tested $23,510

Mazdaspeed 3
List price $24,055
As tested $26,640

2009 WRX
List price $25,495
As tested $28,660

Lancer Ralliart
List price $26,490
As tested $29,915


^^^Basically, the best performing vehicle (the SS), also happens to cost the least... and to boot, has the EPA's highest rated fuel economy & makes peak torque at an insane 2000rpm. What turbo lag? LOL. Although to be fair, even though the SS was rated at the best fuel economy, it wasn't the winner in their actual fuel economy tests, R&T averaged 20.4mpg for both the Cobalt SS & MS3, which were both beat by the WRX at 22.2mpg observed.

Either way, in terms of raw performance for the money, the SS appears to be the new champ. If you don't mind sacrificing a little performance, & paying a little more money for a nicer interior, buy the WRX or MS3

[Colombia28]

The price section of any comparo is almost always a little strange to me. I have seen articles doc the MS3 because it was the most expensive in the comparo, but they always use the price of a fully loaded GT model (navi and all). A Cobalt SS list price of 22.7 (i'm guessing thats without the option LSD) is more expensive than a list price of a MS3 sport. Now the sport starts at 23.4 but in 2007 and 2008 the price for a sport was less (under 23k). Either way they always seem to test the GT and then say its expensive when they easily could have used a sport and had all the same performance figures ect, no need to get a top of the line just to get the LSD in the case of the MS3.

But price doesn't matter to me in a comparo. The prices are always a grand or two off from one another.

[roninsoldier83]

Good lord, just saw this article from Autoblog:
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/13/in-the-autobog-garage-2009-chevy-cobalt-ss-turbo/

^^^That thing has some AWESOME optional features... apparently, you can get an optional LCD screen at the bottom of the A-pillar, and the screen has the option to display boost pressure, coolant temperature, inlet air temperature, fuel pressure, air/fuel ratio, cam phaser angle and overlap for both the intake and exhaust, spark advance and knock retard, engine horsepower and torque, g-forces and your speed in miles per hour... for anyone interested in tuning, that's just awesome. I really, really wish my STI came with something like that

[Colombia28]

^That is some neat stuff right there! Its like an OEM dashhawk!

But looking at the photos all i think about is a cavalier *shivers* The front end looks pretty nice but thats about it for me.

[Huzer21]

Cool car for the money. Seems like they followed the Mazda cycle...make a kick ass performance version at the end of its run (since this is being replaced by the Cruze, probably in 09 as a 2010 model, I think). Hopefully, Chevy can keep the performance up there in the Cruze model as well. Those are some cool extra features they have available too.

As far as those wondering about the potential domestic slant of R&T and C&D...those magazines (and Automobile) have been horribly slanted towards imports for y-e-a-r-s. When's the last time a BMW didn't when a C&D comparo? (rhetorical question) Motor Trend has been the torch bearer for domestic love.

[RX-7 Chris]

good numbers. I wouldn't buy one because of the interior quality.

[Ranger]

In reference to earlier comments...I could be wrong but I don't think the SS has a live rear axle, it just employs torsion bars instead of springs. The axle itself (meaning the piece that connects the wheels) is still independent. The torsion bars however are located in a solid housing, which is connected to the rear wheels via a semi trailing arm and some other arm (swing arm? I don't know, they're called banana arms on Porsches). Of course I have never seen the rear end of an SS so I'm not sure, but if that's the case it's a similar layout to the 944 and the old 911s (minus being RWD of course), which obviously excel on track.

The new SS looks like a good car...but it's still FWD, and it's still ugly. I'd much rather have a Saturn Sky, although it's hard to compare the two. Perhaps if I drove one it would change my mind.

[roninsoldier83]

In reference to earlier comments...I don't think the SS has a live rear axle, it just employs torsion bars instead of springs. The axle itself (meaning the piece that connects the wheels) is still independent. The torsion bars however are located in a solid housing, which is connected to the rear wheels via a semi trailing arm and some other arm (swing arm? I dont' know, they're called banana arms on Porsches). Of course I have never seen the rear end of an SS so I'm not sure, but if that's the case it's the same layout as the 944 and the old 911s (minus being RWD of course), which obviously excel on track.

The new SS looks like a good car...but it's still FWD, and it's still ugly. I'd much rather have a Saturn Sky, although it's hard to compare the two. Perhaps if I drove one it would change my mind.

You are correct sir, I apologize for the mix up. I mis-typed and stand corrected