View Poll Results: Stang or Balt?
Voters: 127. You may not vote on this poll
07 Steeda GT vs 08 Turbo SS
05-02-2008 | 12:01 PM
#77
Senior Member
Joined: 05-20-06
Posts: 6,911
Likes: 6
From: Phoenix, AZ
Real world MPG on my Mustang is 19-24. Real world on my cobalt was 23-28. Both use Premium despite Ford spreading lies about 87 octane.
Hands down, I like driving my Mustang. Cobalt has nothing on it from the driver's seat. It feels better, drives better, Good God it shifts better, and you can get the back end loose.
Hands down, I like driving my Mustang. Cobalt has nothing on it from the driver's seat. It feels better, drives better, Good God it shifts better, and you can get the back end loose.
Last edited by Psykostevo; 05-02-2008 at 12:01 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
05-02-2008 | 01:16 PM
#78
Senior Member
Joined: 09-07-05
Posts: 3,533
Likes: 0
From: Canada
I have to constantly clean my maf, injectors etc to avoid the chug a lug shift that many experience. Re adjusting the spark plug gap did wonders too. The balt is very finicky, well, my 06 is.... I am picky too, I need my 1-2 shift to be like butter..
btw - That stang above is just sick looking. Badass.
Last edited by SuperchargedSS; 05-02-2008 at 03:04 PM.
05-05-2008 | 11:39 AM
#82
Senior Member
Joined: 10-05-06
Posts: 784
Likes: 0
From: Morgantown/Glen Fork, WV
Normal GT, get the cobalt, but steeda, come on guys, you can't even say an SS Turbo is more rare. LOL. I mean, sure, right now it is, but when they get some good production runs started.
05-05-2008 | 12:55 PM
#83
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: 12-25-07
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
From: Po-town Ny
I've made my decision
Cobalt SS Turbo is the winner.
Reasons:
Both use premium gas and thats already over 4 dollars a gallon. Obvious winner cobalt.
0-60 in 5.5 vs 0-60 in 5.3 for the mustang. (Its a drivers race)
1/4 mile at 13.9 @ 102.5 vs the mustangs 1/4 mile 13.9 @ 101.7 (drivers race again)
Cobalt throws out .92G's on the skidpad, while the mustang throws out .87
The only thing mustang really has over the cobalt is the mustang name, and its aftermarket support. But in reality im not doing any real tuning until the warranties would be up on the cars, so therefore cobalt will have plenty of support by the time i hit 100,000k
Imperial blue SS, with 35% tints, maybe some blue ambient lighting inside. And 15" Polk Momo's, is going to be effin sick. Plus HID's is a must.
Any cobalt kit from the past should fit just fine for that.
And one more thing, the dealer wouldn't go any lower on the mustang. (25,000) I can get a fully loaded cobalt at 22,000
And thats before the GM loyalty incentive.
Cobalt SS Turbo is the winner.
Reasons:
Both use premium gas and thats already over 4 dollars a gallon. Obvious winner cobalt.
0-60 in 5.5 vs 0-60 in 5.3 for the mustang. (Its a drivers race)
1/4 mile at 13.9 @ 102.5 vs the mustangs 1/4 mile 13.9 @ 101.7 (drivers race again)
Cobalt throws out .92G's on the skidpad, while the mustang throws out .87
The only thing mustang really has over the cobalt is the mustang name, and its aftermarket support. But in reality im not doing any real tuning until the warranties would be up on the cars, so therefore cobalt will have plenty of support by the time i hit 100,000k
Imperial blue SS, with 35% tints, maybe some blue ambient lighting inside. And 15" Polk Momo's, is going to be effin sick. Plus HID's is a must.
Any cobalt kit from the past should fit just fine for that.
And one more thing, the dealer wouldn't go any lower on the mustang. (25,000) I can get a fully loaded cobalt at 22,000
And thats before the GM loyalty incentive.
05-05-2008 | 01:35 PM
#87
I've made my decision
Cobalt SS Turbo is the winner.
Reasons:
Both use premium gas and thats already over 4 dollars a gallon. Obvious winner cobalt.
0-60 in 5.5 vs 0-60 in 5.3 for the mustang. (Its a drivers race)
1/4 mile at 13.9 @ 102.5 vs the mustangs 1/4 mile 13.9 @ 101.7 (drivers race again)
Cobalt throws out .92G's on the skidpad, while the mustang throws out .87
The only thing mustang really has over the cobalt is the mustang name, and its aftermarket support. But in reality im not doing any real tuning until the warranties would be up on the cars, so therefore cobalt will have plenty of support by the time i hit 100,000k
Imperial blue SS, with 35% tints, maybe some blue ambient lighting inside. And 15" Polk Momo's, is going to be effin sick. Plus HID's is a must.
Any cobalt kit from the past should fit just fine for that.
And one more thing, the dealer wouldn't go any lower on the mustang. (25,000) I can get a fully loaded cobalt at 22,000
And thats before the GM loyalty incentive.
Cobalt SS Turbo is the winner.
Reasons:
Both use premium gas and thats already over 4 dollars a gallon. Obvious winner cobalt.
0-60 in 5.5 vs 0-60 in 5.3 for the mustang. (Its a drivers race)
1/4 mile at 13.9 @ 102.5 vs the mustangs 1/4 mile 13.9 @ 101.7 (drivers race again)
Cobalt throws out .92G's on the skidpad, while the mustang throws out .87
The only thing mustang really has over the cobalt is the mustang name, and its aftermarket support. But in reality im not doing any real tuning until the warranties would be up on the cars, so therefore cobalt will have plenty of support by the time i hit 100,000k
Imperial blue SS, with 35% tints, maybe some blue ambient lighting inside. And 15" Polk Momo's, is going to be effin sick. Plus HID's is a must.
Any cobalt kit from the past should fit just fine for that.
And one more thing, the dealer wouldn't go any lower on the mustang. (25,000) I can get a fully loaded cobalt at 22,000
And thats before the GM loyalty incentive.
05-05-2008 | 01:52 PM
#88
Senior Member
Joined: 05-20-06
Posts: 6,911
Likes: 6
From: Phoenix, AZ
I've made my decision
Cobalt SS Turbo is the winner.
Reasons:
Both use premium gas and thats already over 4 dollars a gallon. Obvious winner cobalt.
0-60 in 5.5 vs 0-60 in 5.3 for the mustang. (Its a drivers race)
1/4 mile at 13.9 @ 102.5 vs the mustangs 1/4 mile 13.9 @ 101.7 (drivers race again)
Cobalt throws out .92G's on the skidpad, while the mustang throws out .87
The only thing mustang really has over the cobalt is the mustang name, and its aftermarket support. But in reality im not doing any real tuning until the warranties would be up on the cars, so therefore cobalt will have plenty of support by the time i hit 100,000k
Imperial blue SS, with 35% tints, maybe some blue ambient lighting inside. And 15" Polk Momo's, is going to be effin sick. Plus HID's is a must.
Any cobalt kit from the past should fit just fine for that.
And one more thing, the dealer wouldn't go any lower on the mustang. (25,000) I can get a fully loaded cobalt at 22,000
And thats before the GM loyalty incentive.
Cobalt SS Turbo is the winner.
Reasons:
Both use premium gas and thats already over 4 dollars a gallon. Obvious winner cobalt.
0-60 in 5.5 vs 0-60 in 5.3 for the mustang. (Its a drivers race)
1/4 mile at 13.9 @ 102.5 vs the mustangs 1/4 mile 13.9 @ 101.7 (drivers race again)
Cobalt throws out .92G's on the skidpad, while the mustang throws out .87
The only thing mustang really has over the cobalt is the mustang name, and its aftermarket support. But in reality im not doing any real tuning until the warranties would be up on the cars, so therefore cobalt will have plenty of support by the time i hit 100,000k
Imperial blue SS, with 35% tints, maybe some blue ambient lighting inside. And 15" Polk Momo's, is going to be effin sick. Plus HID's is a must.
Any cobalt kit from the past should fit just fine for that.
And one more thing, the dealer wouldn't go any lower on the mustang. (25,000) I can get a fully loaded cobalt at 22,000
And thats before the GM loyalty incentive.
Gotta get HIDs! I have them in my headlights and foglights on my GT and they are rediculous! Also, depending on where you read, the GT has a 0-60 of 5.1 sec. I think the 5.3 was for the auto. And I read that the SS/TC was a 0-60 of 5.9 seconds. But it's all just paper anyways. Gotta get them on the streets to compare.
Steeda is an aftermarket company. It doesn't make the car more rare.
Last edited by Psykostevo; 05-05-2008 at 01:53 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
05-05-2008 | 07:14 PM
#89
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: 12-25-07
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
From: Po-town Ny
Motor Trend numbers is where I got my info.
There the only magazine that ive read of late that aren't extremely biased (like caranddriver with bmw) and post pretty good stats. (The only mag that took a stock saab to 60 in 6.4 sec, just like i did)
So in my book there pretty reliable. But with rwd I'd hope the stang is a tad faster to 60. But you gotta love the 13.9 1/4 mile they both post
There the only magazine that ive read of late that aren't extremely biased (like caranddriver with bmw) and post pretty good stats. (The only mag that took a stock saab to 60 in 6.4 sec, just like i did)
So in my book there pretty reliable. But with rwd I'd hope the stang is a tad faster to 60. But you gotta love the 13.9 1/4 mile they both post
05-06-2008 | 11:52 PM
#90
New Member
Joined: 05-24-06
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
From: Houston
I had a cobalt ss/sc. Now I own a GT.
- I get way more comments on my mustang.
- Better quality interior.
- the ladies like it more.
- will likely be quicker(not faster) than the new turbo.
??????
I am not telling you not to go with the cobalt, but you are way way wrong.
My GT use regular gas. I pay 35 dollars less per month(year ago) with my stang even though it gets bad mileage. I have never used premium and the only difference between regular and premium is a little knock every once in a blue moon at 2800 rpm.
I can do 0-60 in under 5.5 seconds on it. Here is a video of me doing it while holding a camera:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hL-x7dwxKok
13.7 is easy in the stang, and fastest stock is 13.4.
- I get way more comments on my mustang.
- Better quality interior.
- the ladies like it more.
- will likely be quicker(not faster) than the new turbo.
I've made my decision
Cobalt SS Turbo is the winner.
Reasons:
Both use premium gas and thats already over 4 dollars a gallon. Obvious winner cobalt.
0-60 in 5.5 vs 0-60 in 5.3 for the mustang. (Its a drivers race)
1/4 mile at 13.9 @ 102.5 vs the mustangs 1/4 mile 13.9 @ 101.7 (drivers race again)
Cobalt throws out .92G's on the skidpad, while the mustang throws out .87
The only thing mustang really has over the cobalt is the mustang name, and its aftermarket support. But in reality im not doing any real tuning until the warranties would be up on the cars, so therefore cobalt will have plenty of support by the time i hit 100,000k
Imperial blue SS, with 35% tints, maybe some blue ambient lighting inside. And 15" Polk Momo's, is going to be effin sick. Plus HID's is a must.
Any cobalt kit from the past should fit just fine for that.
And one more thing, the dealer wouldn't go any lower on the mustang. (25,000) I can get a fully loaded cobalt at 22,000
And thats before the GM loyalty incentive.
Cobalt SS Turbo is the winner.
Reasons:
Both use premium gas and thats already over 4 dollars a gallon. Obvious winner cobalt.
0-60 in 5.5 vs 0-60 in 5.3 for the mustang. (Its a drivers race)
1/4 mile at 13.9 @ 102.5 vs the mustangs 1/4 mile 13.9 @ 101.7 (drivers race again)
Cobalt throws out .92G's on the skidpad, while the mustang throws out .87
The only thing mustang really has over the cobalt is the mustang name, and its aftermarket support. But in reality im not doing any real tuning until the warranties would be up on the cars, so therefore cobalt will have plenty of support by the time i hit 100,000k
Imperial blue SS, with 35% tints, maybe some blue ambient lighting inside. And 15" Polk Momo's, is going to be effin sick. Plus HID's is a must.
Any cobalt kit from the past should fit just fine for that.
And one more thing, the dealer wouldn't go any lower on the mustang. (25,000) I can get a fully loaded cobalt at 22,000
And thats before the GM loyalty incentive.
I am not telling you not to go with the cobalt, but you are way way wrong.
My GT use regular gas. I pay 35 dollars less per month(year ago) with my stang even though it gets bad mileage. I have never used premium and the only difference between regular and premium is a little knock every once in a blue moon at 2800 rpm.
I can do 0-60 in under 5.5 seconds on it. Here is a video of me doing it while holding a camera:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hL-x7dwxKok
13.7 is easy in the stang, and fastest stock is 13.4.
Last edited by drslash; 05-06-2008 at 11:52 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
05-06-2008 | 11:55 PM
#91
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: 12-25-07
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
From: Po-town Ny
I thought the V8 would need premium as well. Oh well ill still get much better mileage in the cobalt to negate the price diff. lol
Good runs with the stang man. my numbers were motor trend numbers. There very good but never the best one can do with them. I always go by there's because they always seem to post very good ones unlike other mags.
Good runs with the stang man. my numbers were motor trend numbers. There very good but never the best one can do with them. I always go by there's because they always seem to post very good ones unlike other mags.
05-07-2008 | 12:29 PM
#92
Senior Member
Joined: 05-20-06
Posts: 6,911
Likes: 6
From: Phoenix, AZ
I had a cobalt ss/sc. Now I own a GT.
- I get way more comments on my mustang.
- Better quality interior.
- the ladies like it more.
- will likely be quicker(not faster) than the new turbo.
??????
I am not telling you not to go with the cobalt, but you are way way wrong.
My GT use regular gas. I pay 35 dollars less per month(year ago) with my stang even though it gets bad mileage. I have never used premium and the only difference between regular and premium is a little knock every once in a blue moon at 2800 rpm.
I can do 0-60 in under 5.5 seconds on it. Here is a video of me doing it while holding a camera:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hL-x7dwxKok
13.7 is easy in the stang, and fastest stock is 13.4.
- I get way more comments on my mustang.
- Better quality interior.
- the ladies like it more.
- will likely be quicker(not faster) than the new turbo.
??????
I am not telling you not to go with the cobalt, but you are way way wrong.
My GT use regular gas. I pay 35 dollars less per month(year ago) with my stang even though it gets bad mileage. I have never used premium and the only difference between regular and premium is a little knock every once in a blue moon at 2800 rpm.
I can do 0-60 in under 5.5 seconds on it. Here is a video of me doing it while holding a camera:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hL-x7dwxKok
13.7 is easy in the stang, and fastest stock is 13.4.
I use Premium now, because I modded my GT and retuned it, but it's worth the extra 43rwhp to pay for the difference since I can't use regular gas with my mods and tune. My mods are modest even. I am really tempted to bottle this car and use Nitrous, but when and why still escapes me.
I have never been to the track with my GT to say how fast mine is, but I know that it feels fast enough, and I'm not scared of it like I was with my GTO.
05-07-2008 | 01:26 PM
#93
I thought the V8 would need premium as well. Oh well ill still get much better mileage in the cobalt to negate the price diff. lol
Good runs with the stang man. my numbers were motor trend numbers. There very good but never the best one can do with them. I always go by there's because they always seem to post very good ones unlike other mags.
Good runs with the stang man. my numbers were motor trend numbers. There very good but never the best one can do with them. I always go by there's because they always seem to post very good ones unlike other mags.
but when you go to a saleen or GT500 it will be 92/93 oct
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post