solodogg

ROFLMAO headgaskets? LOL lets see, 47k on the motor...beat on daily (running 15psi), WOT shifts at least twice a day...and I haven't replaced a single part on the car. Anything else?

IonNinja

they also have about 50 more HP and rev to about 8K so theres other factors in there besides torque ...the low end torque is what will actually make it a semi close race.

solodogg

have any of you ever driven a neon, civic si, or celica? How high the car rev's doesn't mean jack...nor will 15 ft/lbs of torque make up for 50 more horsepower in a car that weighs 300lbs less than the cobalt.

Some day...i'd like to see a few of you get in your cars...and run down to your local toyota/honda dealership, and test drive something different. I'm sure you'd just get back on here and bash the other vehicles...but maybe at least you'd realize that there are other fish in the sea...

D4u2s0t

some of us have driven lots of different cars... keep in mind that most cobalt owners are younger, and it's probably their first car...

RedBaseBolt

As a matter of fact I worked for Toyota. I drove Celica GT-S' and Corola/Matrix XRS' everyday. When we would go fill them with gas on ocation we got a chance to rip on them a little and they are not as fast as anyone claims them to be. They have no ***** unless you rev them to 7k.

EDIT: Hense why I bought a Cobalt. I was much more pleased with it. Cheaper, better on gas and faster.

roccityroller

i drove an srt-4 and an si before i bought my cobalt. both of them were quite quick (revving to 4839024832094809 rpms is fun) but i didnt have the cash at the time and out of the base model versions (all i could afford while in school) of the cobalt, ion, civic, and neon, i liked the cobalt the best.

solodogg

well what you're saying is exactly why i have an srt engine/trans...i hate revving for power. But...once those cars get into their power band, they're definitely no slouch.

I've driven a ton of cars...and was impressed with the build quality of the cobalt. Hell...I even considered getting rid of my swap car for a cobalt if that says anything at all. But if I had the $$ right now...i'd probably be driving an RSX-S or Camaro SS

invisiride

we have several guys around here that very much so swear by their particular make of car. The honda guys and some of our mitsu guys both are all about their cars but every single one of them would love to have an SRT-4. I am sorry but they are damn sturdy cars built exactly for what they are used for. The designers when they created the car created it specifically for what people are using them for. I have to say i have definitely seen em withstand the WORST beatings, and never have anything replaced.

I personally really really really love my new car. I definitely know it is not the fastest thing out there. I know a lot of low rent cars that it will take out. But i also know of a lot of cars that it wont even come close to. Yes it was dead even between at celica gt and my car.

wikkymaster

buy the cobalt and ill race you with my neon we can find out

my 2.2 cobalt wasnt very slow but i never did racea neon so im not positive

roccityroller

definitely, i see all these things about the ss/sc guys snapping axles, blowing trannies, and shattering drivershafts while they're only making like 270 when there's a guy down the street from me with a monstrous 50 trim and stage 2 with toys on his SRT and his car has yet to break and he dynoed at 390 something last weekend.

8cd03gro

lol actually they rev high so they can make higher hp...if those engines had say a 6000rpm redline, they would have horrible torque, and alot less hp. hp=(torque*RPM's)/5252...

8cd03gro

wow...rsx-s vs camaro ss...wow...have you actually driven and compared the two?! the camaro ss is a monster compared to an rsx-s!

solodogg

yeah, i've driven both. i love the handling of the RSX, and the refined feeling of the car. The Camaro SS is just raw power, but a lot less refined.

And about the power differences...you can make more power down low with a different cam. It's all in the way the car is tuned. Honda, Toyota, etc. just like to make high RPM monsters.

IonNinja

so then you're admitting that is how they make their power...

solodogg

as opposed to denying it? comeon people...i know reading takes some time, but really...it's not that difficult. Is english your native language, or would you rather that I post in a different language that's easier for you to understand???

who gives a **** how they make power...they have more of it...and the car is lighter. what else do you need to know? Great...you might be able to jump on a Civic SI off the line since you have more down low power..but they'll blast you on the top end.

8cd03gro

you might want to listen to me on this because i know a bit about it, horsepower relies on torque and rpm's. The higher the torque, with the same redline, the higher the horsepower. The cars you are talking about make high hp as opposed to torque because they have very small displacement and high redlines. If you dropped the redline to say where mine is at 5800, those cars would be slow as *****! You can feel the difference between a car with 200 hp 150 ft lbs and 200hp 200ft lbs. Low end those cars are not fast at all. They are only quick because they are lite. I am not arguing that they arent quick, but those cars just dont feel fast at all because they make no low end torque...and i rape si's all day, so i hope you arent talking to me. Torque matters...if it didnt my car would be FAR slower than an rsx-s. I have the same hp as one, but much taller gearing, and i weigh a good 500 lbs more, so you would think it would be a good deal faster....then you see my torque is 100 ft lbs higher at peak, which is why my car is actually a bit faster. everything counts when you are looking at the speed of a car. Gearing, torque, hp, and where they make their hp and torque.

solodogg

OMG dude, i'm not an idiot, and I understand how engines work, probably more so than you do....

But see...you're assuming dropping redline to 5800 rpm without a camshaft change. If you change the camshaft to maximize power at a lower RPM, then the motor will produce more torque, at the expense of a few ponies. But since Honda likes high fuel efficiency, and low emissions while still having high horsepower, they choose to install VTEC, which combines a low emissions/high economy profile with a radical power profile. This makes the car rev like hell, and create a shitload of high end horsepower.

Now...if you could enable VTEC at idle, the car would make a lot more torque...but the car would also have horrible fuel efficiency, and terrible emissions.

Torque is nothing more than a force to move something. a 200hp/200ft.lb. car will pull harder than a 200hp/150ft.lb car, BUT if the 200hp/150ft.lb. car weighs considerably less, they will both pull the same, because the torquier car has more weight to pull.

To simplify things...horsepower is the measurement of how fast you can go...torque is a measurement of how fast you can get there (and that's overly simplified)

Want proof of my theory?? Compare a non-vtec D16 and a B16A2 honda motor. The D16 has a peak horsepower rating of 125, and the B16 has a peak horsepower rating of 160. between idle and vtec engagement point, the D16 actually makes more power, and has a much flatter torque curve stock for stock...but once the B16 goes into VTEC, then the power really comes on. Both engines have identical displacement, but one is designed for normal driving power, and the other is designed for performance.

And to say that they don't feel fast is a joke. You obviouslly have not driven a fast honda or toyota, or anything with a small displacement high horsepower engine. Hell, even the stock Civic SI is rated at 197hp, and pulls like hell when it's in VTEC. Those cars weigh 2800lbs, and run mid-high 14's bone stock.

roccityroller

technically... torque is the ability to resist rotational resistance, or, in lamen's terms, the ability to keep something spinning.

sorry, i'm an engineering major and that has been drilled into my head. Continue your pointless arguement.

Dead Zen

I have a stock 96 neon, that can rape a....... 50cc moped?? so anyway, anyone in the burgh with a 2.2 base wanna race me, we can tape it and put this to rest.....



Rick

8cd03gro

i have driven both the si and the rsx-s on numerous occasions and neither of them feel nearly as fast as my car, that's exactly why i bought my car. TORQUE. A considerable amount of torque will not be made from a camshaft change, torque is more reliant on the stroke size of the motor and since the engines you are talking about have a very small stroke, they put out very little torque, but can rev more freely and make higher hp. THe longer the stroke of the piston (the distance the connecting rod journal is offset from the centerline of the crankshaft) the more torque the engine can make. END OF STORY. I think we are pretty much arguing the same point here, but in my opinion, those cars do not FEEL fast because they have no torque. They are dogs when they aren't in vtec, and since vtec engagement is set in the higher rpm's they DO have to rev to make power which is what we have been arguing about this whole time.

solodogg

actually, a camshaft change CAN make torque...but not as much as a displacement change. When I had my '99 R/T, I changed to 2.4L cams (shorter lift but longer duration) and gained about 15ft/lbs of torque and actually gained about a horse or 2 all across the band. The car just wouldn't pull all the way to the rev limiter anymore, which was no big deal to me. that was with 0 change to the displacement of the engine.

nomoreavril

i still think srt-4s exhausts sound like poop

solodogg

make your car faster...then maybe you'll be able to hear the intake sometime!

nomoreavril

seriously...compare

Click here to see Video


Click here to see Video

8cd03gro

i said it can't make a drastic change...and 15 ft lbs, hell even 30 ft lbs still leaves an si or rsx-s far behind what i want in torque...