Karlen89

iTrader: (1)

I can see how we got a better car out of it, but think about it.

What if GM hadn't gone turbo? Then we would be stuck with the 2.4 or 2.2.

Look at how this bullshit from California is controlling how automakers produce cars for the rest of us who don't have to live in that commie regime they have out there. I hate that damn state.

soundjunky

iTrader: (4)

BAH-HA-HA

Please wake up & smell the coffee...

and I've read that the LSJ engine was discontinued for two reasons;
1) not meeting emissions requirements for the 2008 model year.
2) deal with Eaton being up.

The LNF Cobalts had more updated than not;
According to what I've read any shortcomings observed from the LSJ Cobalts (mostly via warranty work, or parts breaking on the track) was upgraded for the LNF package.

imho torque number say alot:
LSJ = 200ft/lbs
LNF = 260ft/lbs (ECM limited; 320ft/lbs w/o ECM limitations)

As to the 2.4L debate, crap guys, there's nothing wrong with the LE5 SS's.

The LE5 in the Cobalt line was specific to the 2005-2007 Cobalt SS - that already makes a degree of separation of the SS from any lesser models - a good 20hp difference.

The SS moniker was designed initially as a sport appearance package, and nothing more, only after Pontiac broke GM's own rules by releasing the GTO did the SS start to take on more than a poseur meaning...

I think that combined with the specific engine the LE5 Cobalt's styling really set them apart from the lesser Cobalts, and were a nice sporty alternative to the higher dollar LSJ cars of their time.

I actually don't know why the SS nameplate was dropped at all - granted dropping it, then bringing it back does create more of a "wow" factor, but many of the "Z" series (Z24, Z26 ect) Chevrolets were sport packages which included specific engine's - I really liked a Cavalier SS I saw last year when driving north out of LA last spring - I think that would have been cool if they made them... I'd wager that all the "Z" cars (aside from the original; Z28) will just be a foot note of hi-po Chevy's circa the 1990's...

Frankly I think the LE5 SS Cobalt actually helped sales, and got more people buying an SS when they might have either gone elsewhere, or spent less on a lower level Cobalt.

So says a guy shown spanking an LE5 car in his sig

(changed sig, so I'm adding the old sig for illustration purposes here)

marcod13

yeah this completely dumb, an SS doesnt have to have all the major performance upgrades, turn the clock back a few decades when Chevrolet was starting out with the muscle cars, not all SS models had the performance upgrades why should it be any different now? The Cobalt 2.4 SS is a deserving car to carry the SS badging its loads of fun, has the same exact sound system as the super/turbo version minus the mp3 playback from 05-06 models, 17inch wheels, yeah they may be smaller but who cares and its cheaper than the super/turbo models. It still an SS just not fully blown there must be a middle between the classes, LS/LT - SS -SS/SC/TC.

car_audi0_king

I've been a gm guy all my life. So when i decided to give my cavalier z24 a rest, I knew my next would be a gm. I've always liked the ss/SC..Its stands out a WHOLE LOT MORE to me than the tc version..I could have bought a tc just as easy as a sc..But look around guys...Whats mitisu got...Turbo'd 4 banger ...Whats Suburu Got?? Turbo'd..Dodge?? Yup turbo'd..I like the sc ALOT more than the tc..So what if it doesn't go down the track as fast..It's a 2.0 Super charged SS made by chevy from the factory..And thats just cool..As far as the ss/na Chevy done the same thing it had done for years. Times are just changing so your not seeing it the same way.

Lapila82

iTrader: (3)

How do you feel about the Trail Blazer SS?

And I liked the Impala SS, it seems like they'd be able to come out with a good one.

They were talking about rebadging the Pontiac G8 as a Chevy, do you think a Caprice or an Impala would suit the car better?

CordiaDOHC

iTrader: (2)

For me I wanted more power than the 2.2 offered. I wanted the better suspension nicer looking body and all the other various bits. But I wanted an auto. And the LSJ/LNF wasnt available this way. Though honestly a fully loaded sport 2.4 auto comes close in rivaling a fully loaded LSJ/LNF car. think my car stickered for 23,881 or something like that. Though I bought it preowned for 13k.

crypticscifer

The Z24 went out with the Cavi....

CurrentlyPissed

Actually it was ram air, from the hood, different LSD, and a different suspension with bill stein shocks all around and larger anti sway bars.

CordiaDOHC

iTrader: (2)

the ram air was only truly on the ws6 cars. And the bilstein shocks were also an SLP option on the z28..... As for the sway bars they were all 36mm fronts for the LS1 cars I believe.

firemanfrank

There couldn't have been many shortcomings/parts breaking issues with the LSJ at 218 lb-ft torque, as Chevy warrantied their Stage 2 Package for the Balt at that level.

EcoTecDriver

true, they never should of put an SS on a 4 banger...sorry guys...

CordiaDOHC

iTrader: (2)

Really? What about the 90s camaros,90s impalas,80s monte carlos etc etc etc...

Or hell what about the Z28 that had 165hp? Or the Corvette with 200hp?

EcoTecDriver

fwd=lame SS....the cobalt is too cheap to be an ss, just mo and I never said hp I said 4 banger, your is obnoxious.

and those cars you listed look way better then a Cobalt, not to mention are built better, and also have a history, the cobalt is nothing more then a chevy cavalier with upgrades.

soundjunky

iTrader: (4)

@ EcoTecDriver

Huh??

Is somebody posting purely in hopes of getting flamed?

Crap man, although I know what you say, and in many camps it has merit, but I (like so many others here) like the SS, and am glad they revived the SS moniker to put on the Cobalt;
it eludes to more of Chevrolet's heritage of performance cars built with SS badging.

regarding the people who think (here or anywhere else) that the Cobalt should have never had an SS badge, lets look at the high watermark compact Chevrolet from the musclecar days;

1969-1970 Nova SS c/w 'L78' 396cid
To the best of my knowledge the fastest period road test peg this car at:
0-60mph = 5.9seconds
standing quarter mile = 14.5seconds

Now, lets compare that to he latest itineration of the Cobalt SS;

2008-2010 Cobalt SS
to the best of my knowledge the best magazine road test peg this car at:
0-60mph = 5.5seconds
standing quarter mile = 13.9seconds

IMHO, that clearly puts the Cobalt SS as being worthy of the badge.

Let's say you still don't agree;
fair enough.

Let's try looking at this from a different angle;
Back when musclecars were new, they were primarily marketed to a younger audience, and made affordable for that audience.
Using 1969 & 2009 as comparison because they're 30 years apart;

Q: What did the 1969 Nova with the L78 motor cost?
A: roughly $3,500

Q: What is $3,500usd worth when calculated (via inflation calculator) in 2009 dollars?
A: $19,700

Q: What can you buy for $19,700 these days that comes close to that '69 L78 nova?
A: NOTHING, if you're going to be legalistic - but if you're flexible, you should see a parallel here with the Nova's $19,700 price, and the aprox $23,000 Cobalt SS msrp.

When you stop to consider that:
1) the Nova was the compact for Chevrolet back then...
2) the performance is comparable between the two...
3) the MSRP is comparable between the two...
4) the cars were/are marketed to the exact same age group...

You should hopefully be reasonable, step back and conclude that the Cobalt SS is most certainly worthy of the "SS" badges it adorns.



Here's another thing to ponder;

IMHO, the current Camaro SS is being marketed not to the same age group as it was back in the late 1960's, but the exact same people that were going out and buying 1967-1973 Camaro's brand new...
The MSRP for an SS-2(?) Camaro in Canada is sitting at about $51k landed with dealer mark up or whatnot (or so I was told off the record from some GM-dealership employees, right after one bought one that he thought was a low option car).
Sorry, but I don't know too many twenty or thirty somethings that are able to go out and plop down over $40k on a car...



--------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the low power Z28;
That car was a sign of the times, and back then that was as good as the US gov't would allow due to engine size & emission limits.
The 3rd gen Fbody's are great cars for their time, and there really is no need to knock them here just because this isn't an F-body site.
(Essentially the same can be said about hte 200hp Corvette.)

08SSTCRD

SS has nothing to do with the amount of cylinders it has, its all about the overall performance of the car.

The Cobalt SS isn't just a regular Cobalt with a different engine. Everything is upgraded - engine, trans, mounts, chassis, shocks, wheels, brakes, interior, ect. It beat the Evo and STi around Virginia International Speedway and holds the record of the fastest stock FWD production car to ever lap the 'Ring.

I think thats more than worthy of the SS badge.

Skunk

You forgot 0-60, 0-100, 1/4 mile time, lateral g's, 60-0, well I guess you covered the last 2 with brakes and suspension. So at what point isn't the 08+ SS/TC not an OVERALL better car stock vs. stock?

CordiaDOHC

iTrader: (2)

lol a 3rd gen fbody is better built than a cobalt? What planet are you from? Man I need to go buy cars from wherever your from. And history means nothing if the car itself is garbage!

Look at the Mustang II! all its good for is its front suspenion for hotrods lol.
Look up the CFI Corvettes. They squeak they rattle they are slower than the 2.4 5spd cobalts. Come on man. The cobalt SS is more worthy of the badge than some of the v8's that GM has put more prestigious badges on!

Its definitely more worthy than like the 2000 ish Monte Carlo SS (3.8 NA 200hp auto fwd) That car couldnt handle and was as fast as a 2.4 auto cobalt...

The Cobalt SS is deserving of the SS badge if you follow Chevy's history.

Your talking to an EX 3rd gen owner.

1989 RS LO3 auto (slow as hell but fun... 15.7 in the 1/4... ouch)
1986 Z28 ex LG4 auto (gm 350 crate)

And not knocking them just pointing out that they carried a badge they honestly werent worthy of. Now later 3rd gens yes. Especially TTA's... but still was proving a point.

And my point is back then there really wasnt much difference suspension wise from a berlinetta 305 and a z28 305. same hp. Though depending on year the z28 could come with upto 3 V8's. But thats also beside the point.

09turbo

.........sub'd.......

soundjunky

iTrader: (4)

I'm not looking to argue;
but to build on some of what you pointed out, the 82-92 F-bodies were still for their time a great car;

Hindsight allows us to say they stunk in the grand scheme of things, and although this can be said about pretty much everything (with the odd exception) from about 1975 through 1986 - only after 1985 did things start to pick up.

FYI: the 75-86 F-bodies were the fastest if not one of the top three fastest cars built in North America from that time period.

Pretty sad that a <200hp rwd ponycar can be a matter of such hype.

I have one uncle who bought a 'stripper' 1987 GTA (350/at/disney-dash delete) brand new, and another uncle who bought a full load '88 GTA (305/at), brand new.
Both were great cars for their time, and had I the chance, I would have bought either one...
A TTA would have easily spanked either no contest (I know two people at this time that own one, I also know (well kinda) a GNX owner, and several other 87-88 GN/T-type owners).
The slower cars of those years all focused on the suspension to help them be sportier...

EcoTecDriver

thats all im saying, no reason to get attacked here, I know there will be major defensive here being a SS from So we will agree ti disagree with slight agreement, so yes the world is flat at css.net.

soundjunky

iTrader: (4)

fair enough, but if you maybe didn't stop to realize where/what you posted, it read as though your post was really just meant ot rile people up;
From what I read when I first got here, that would have been a post that would have been flamed to no end;
which is why I posted what I did in as polite a manner as possible...
ha-ha!

EcoTecDriver

I dont sugarcoat,but I dont mean to offend at all.

DevotedHartt

I agree with the post. When I was first interested in the cobalt SS I had to do a lot of research. I ended up buying a regular 2.4L Cobalt SS. After having the car for a while and explaining how it was not supercharged or turbo to my friends they came up with the name "fake SS". Now I have upgraded to a true SS supercharged. It was confusing for a lot of people and I think it would be good to only have a true SS.

soundjunky

iTrader: (4)

@DevotedHartt
Although I understand what you mean;
The 2.4L SS is faster than the LT & LS and offers appearance & handling upgrades over the LT & LS;
There are few exceptions to Chevrolet doing a tiered SS system; it was this was from day #1 back in the 1960's.

Back in the day of RWD+V8's you could even (occasionally) get 6 cylinders in the SS... :gasp:

Then there are the 1970's SS packages that were really just a poseur package (appearance only)...

Staged07SS

iTrader: (25)

If they made the N/A 2.4L the Sport from the beginning there would be zero issues. The N/A 2.4's def. deserve the Sport badge as they are a true upgrade from the base 2.2's in stock form. It would have been the perfect setup .... 2.2's, 2.4 Sports, 2.0 SS/SC & 2.0 SS/TC.