TXRLU

I'd have to disagree with the SI being quicker than the SS in an Autocross. The RSX-S is about the same vehicle as the SI, and the article in Car and Driver reported that the RSX-S was a good 2 seconds slower than both the Red Line and Cobalt SS in their little Auto Cross article.

And the article where the Cobalt SS was better than the RSX-S, it was a Road and Track write-up, they rated the Cobalt SS higher in all performance categories and in price, but all the interior/driving categories went to the RSX-S. The article with the WRX, RSX-S, SRT-4 ACR, Cobalt SS, and Ion Redline comparo was a Car and Biased Driver. Its funny how the slowest car won their comparo for "cheap speed".

CobaltBurst

$21,300 WITH G85, sounds like you got RIPPED OFF, again Torque is a necessity in Auto X and SI doesnt have it, im sorry but your WRONG>

Tomtwtwtw

The Si and SS/SC will likely be close on the Auto-x, but depending on the driver and the tires, (Si does come with summer tires as an option), either one may win. I'd have to see results and set-ups to see if one car is truely faster than the other.

Brian MP5T

I wasted one Over and Over on a 20 Km Stretch..

SS4ME

I wish my wife would agree on a new Si, instead she wants a Dodge Caliber! I have sat in 2 new Civics and the fit and finish is better then the Cobalt, not a great deal but still nicer! Also, I hate Fwd Autocross! Both cars will most likely fall apart after the abuse!

OniMirage

looking for the 100% ideal situation for any race is impossible and can't even be done at the pro levels. That is the point of racing. Getting from point a to b quicker and nothing changes that fact. left turn vs right turn, up hill vs down hill the car with the right mix should statistically win. Throw in human error even if small at the pro level and such ideal situations for the perfect race are gone. So saying in a straight you can win but in the cross you can't doesn't mean much since a course is designed with both. This idealy will make the car with the right mix come out on top.

280Z1977

The SI has better gearing and an LSD stock, compared to the RSX-S.

Stop bringing up that article if it hurts your feelings, so much.

280Z1977

Sorry but you are wrong. You don't want a lot of torque in a FWD car. When accelerating horsepower is what matters.

OniMirage

lets not get into the torque vs hp argument or lsd vs non lsd

CobaltBurst

You my friend are not too bright.... why do you think cars with more torque than HP accelerate quicker then cars with more hp than torque????

280Z1977

I would love to see your proof of this.

Here is something supporting my views... http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html

TXRLU

No, someone mentioned the article, and I mentioned the fact that the SI is pretty much the same as the RSX-S which the powertrain is almost identical. And I'm sure that "gearing and lsd" will do just wonders for the puny Torque of 139 @ 6100 (lb.-ft. @ rpm) (from the honda website) I guess that 1 less lb/ft of torque than the RSX just puts it in such a perfect balance for beating the SS/SC I guess I can see where ricers get their bad rap for not knowing a damn thing. I mean lets lay out the facts

TRIM LEVEL

Si

Curb Weight (lbs., MT/AT) 2877 / NA

Displacement (cc) 1998

Horsepower @ rpm (SAE net, Rev 8/04)* 197 @ 7800

Torque (lb.-ft. @ rpm) 139 @ 6100

Redline (rpm) 8000

Compression Ratio 11.0:1


Cobalt SS/SC 2.0 LSJ

Curb weight, estimated (lbs./kg) 2,991/1,356.7

Displacement (liters/cu. in.)
2.0/122.0

Horsepower/kW @ engine RPM
205/152.93 @ 5,600 RPM

Torque (lb.-ft./N-m) @ engine RPM
200/271.16 @ 4,400 RPM

Redline (rpm)
6,500

Compression Ratio
9.5:1

So lets see, the SI has a 14.6 lb. per HP rating, the Cobalt SS/SC has a 14.5 lb. per HP rating, and many people here will tell you that the 205 advertised HP AT THE CRANK is not even what its putting out at the WHEELS. So the SI would probably put down, lets see, a conservative 10% parasitic loss from the crank to the wheels (we'll give the Honda the benefit of the doubt here so the fanbois don't cry), 177 WHP (16.25 lbs per HP, even weaker). But an even more interesting number to me is LBS per torque........ The SI rings in at 20.00 lbs for each lb/ft of torque, the Cobalt SS/SC, 14.95 lbs for every lb/ft of torque. Granted these numbers do not translate to real world and they translate even less in an Auto-X scenarios. Ok, so now lets hear from the ricer fanboiz about how "Well at least mine doesn't have to be supercharged to make its power" argument, those are always fun to hear.........

Tomtwtwtw

In reality, you need both hp and torque to have good acceleration. High hp is worthless if it's at a stratospheric rpm and it takes forever to get there, and high torque is worthless if the car run out of steam at 4k rpm. A nice long and flat torque curve is best, at because of that high torque at high rpm, you get high hp. Of course, almost any weakness in a car's powerband can be compensated for by gearing.

Hypothetical situation, but here's an example. The 06 Si makes 197 hp at 7800 rpm, which means it's also making about 133lb of tq, just a little less than its peak of 139 at 6100 rpm.

Let say instead it made 150lb of tq from 2.5k rpm until 6.5k rpm, and then you had to shift. That nets you a peak hp of about 185 instead of 197, but that car would be faster, and would pull much stronger in the low rpm than the stock Si.

280Z1977

The powertrains are different in lots of ways, so does that make you a ricer for not knowing a damn thing?? And gearing DOES a lot for power or sometimes lack there of.

Civic SI weighs less then the SS/SC and RSX also.

Still waiting for proof that torque is more important then horsepower, especially in a FWD car.

TXRLU

I have your proof, how many times have you seen diesel trucks at a stop light pull like a mother ****** despite their generally low HP (well 300 HP to get a big 1 ton dually to move like that)? They have about the same torque as some high end Italian cars. Don't believe me? Chevy's Duramax diesel has 650 lb/ft of torque, while the Lamborghini Murcielago has 660 lb/ft of torque. HP is good for sustaining speed, but torque is what gets you accelerating. All these are related to some extent, but each contributes to how a car accelerates, and how fast it can go. Oh and even gearing (transmission as well as tire/wheel size) has a play in it as well as an Engine's max RPM, which is probably one of the few areas the SI/RSX-S out shines the Cobalt SS, of course Stage I and II put us only 1000 RPM shy of their 8000.........

CobaltBurst

the more torque you have the faster you can move weight around, meaning more torque the faster you can get things moving..... god i thought this was common sense...

Tomtwtwtw

Well you know what they say...if common sense was so common, why don't more people have it?

CobaltBurst

nowadays it seems its giong out the window..... especially with all the *******'s having kids...

280Z1977

Gearing and their 300hp make them pull like that, torque allows them to move their 5000lbs at all.

Torque and gearing is more important for towing and tractor pulling. Horsepower, gearing and RPMs is more important for accelerating.

Still waiting for proof, trucks are not going to help you.

Of course tuning for RSX puts them at 9000rpm redline.

TXRLU

Its almost the difference between a running back that can run through a hole (in the line you perverts!) quicker than a running back that can get out into the wide open field and out-run everyone else.

But I will say this, they're both related and yes they're all good, a good car has a combination of all these characteristics.

280Z1977

It is a common misconception.

Did you read that link I posted?

mi6_

Complaints also involved the chassis tunning on the Ion Redline. Many mags felt it wasn't communicative or easy to drive with. They seem to like the tunning on the Cobalt SS with its FE5 suspension better than the FE3 on the IOR. Haven't driven a Redline, so I couldn't compare.

The reviews are from different magazines. The pocket-rocket comparison was by C&D where the RSX won. The RSX vs. Cobalt SS was Road & Track. They were written and reviewed by different people.

Tomtwtwtw

Not that I disagree with you, because I don't, but the Lambo doesn't come close to that torque number. They made about 480 lb, and now I think a little more with their 640 hp version. It's still a ton of tq, and the reason they're so fast is because the tq is available early and often in the rpm range.

I think what 280Z is failing to realize is that hp is nothing without tq. A car with 0 tq makes 0 hp. Hp is merely a derivative of tq and rpm. To have a high hp, you have to have some measure of tq with a high rpm. At any specific rpm, the more tq you have, the more hp you have. You can tout hp all you want, but without tq, you would have none.

280Z1977

And what you are failing to realize is that torque is useless, unless towing and tractor pulling without horsepower.

What is the point of calculating horsepower from a dyno if torque is all that you need??????

G5GT2007

i have to agree with torque helping the car win. like my car has 115hp 135 torque. my car is a 2001 so a 2001 civic EX came with 127hp 114 torque. i have raced enough civic in my sunfire to know that the torque on my car can keep me infront of them. and the civic is lighter then my car. my car dynoed 93hp to the wheels 108 wtq. good old OHV made to put out good torque