Rsx Vs Cobalt
02-16-2005, 11:54 PM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: 10-20-04
Location: USaaayyyy
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why would i even be talking about the bases anyways? i mean, i know people with bases that have the cybernation kit stage one kit on there. literally...like we're friends, he used to live here. but yeah, anytime i mention a rsx, i mean the type s...jeebus. and the one that had 7psi and dynoed at 320...it must have been using kpro...lol...HardcoreRsxS is boosting 11lbs and is making 320whp...and that IS a tuned car...Scud who is boosting 9lbs makes 290whp also tuned...and both of them are using k-pro as well...maybe you should let whoever tuned that 7psi that made 320whp talk to them so they can figure out what they are evidently doing wrong. i mean, i have seen 9psi make around 310...it does happen, i just cant see 7psi making 320...got a link or something so i can read it? (not trying to be a dick, just wanna see...)
02-17-2005, 12:31 PM
#27
New Member
Join Date: 02-17-05
Location: Washington State
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not taking sides here, just speaking from experience. I come from a chevy family and worked for a chevy dealership for a couple years. I've driven, owned, and tricked out chevy's before. Granted I haven't driven the cobalt ss or a redline, but I have driven against them. Well the redlines anyway. I have an '02 RSX Type-S, moderately modified, intake, suspension mostly, and I've yet to be beat by a saturn of any sort let alone a redline. I haven't taken mine to the track, stop light and freeway racing. But honestly when do you get challenged the most. I've yet to have somebody ask me to race then offer to go to the track. I don't do it often, it's dangerous and not worth the possible consequences if you get caught or caught up. And I'm not saying I flat out smoked the redlines, they're good competition.
But point being, I've raced them, I've won, and I don't think most of you guys are giving the NA engine the credit it deserves.
But point being, I've raced them, I've won, and I don't think most of you guys are giving the NA engine the credit it deserves.
02-17-2005, 12:59 PM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: 10-20-04
Location: USaaayyyy
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i hope that comment wasnt aimed at me. i know its a great engine, im not doubting that at all. i dont understand why you guys are being so hostile. and as far as beating a redline, thats a back and forth battle. they say they've beat mod'ed rsx-s' and yall say that yall've beat them. ive yet to see one video, and numbers would prove otherwise, on both parts. so we dont really know till it actually happens. this is why a video camera should be standard issue in the passenger seat of any vehicle. so, my point being, lets just drop this, and when the car finally comes out, (ive already got plans to race one of my friends who has a rsx-s, video camera in hand) we shall see.
02-21-2005, 02:24 PM
#29
New Member
Join Date: 02-15-05
Location: cali
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
did you edit your post? because i distinctly remember sitting and starring at your post for a couple minutes wondering why you would say 200whp. i have no reason to lie, i havent even attacked the cobalt. i've only supporte it, along with the rsx. who's being hostile? i never attacked anyone. maybe you're just taking it hostile? 
i just realized the the 320whp car was a k20a, my mistake. even then a car with more aggressive n/a cams and other misc parts shouldnt be gaining TOO much more than from a type-s. but i'm still positive your post read 200whp, maybe you made a typo? if you read scud's post, he has a 5zigen catback which really isnt free flowing at all. he even states its holding him back 20-30whp. (i'm assuming you just read the turbo dyno thread) and just because theres a thread for turbo dynos does not mean everyone posted there. 9psi is good for over 310whp meaning 7psi isnt too far behind. turbo setups are dependent on the car and you hardly find exact same outputs for the same setups. just because not too many people have a hp range closer 300whp doesnt mean its not possible. and my purpose for stating 275-300whp doesnt mean every car is going to have 300whp i'm stating its possible for some cars to get very CLOSE to that number if they have a "factory freak."
i just realized the the 320whp car was a k20a, my mistake. even then a car with more aggressive n/a cams and other misc parts shouldnt be gaining TOO much more than from a type-s. but i'm still positive your post read 200whp, maybe you made a typo? if you read scud's post, he has a 5zigen catback which really isnt free flowing at all. he even states its holding him back 20-30whp. (i'm assuming you just read the turbo dyno thread) and just because theres a thread for turbo dynos does not mean everyone posted there. 9psi is good for over 310whp meaning 7psi isnt too far behind. turbo setups are dependent on the car and you hardly find exact same outputs for the same setups. just because not too many people have a hp range closer 300whp doesnt mean its not possible. and my purpose for stating 275-300whp doesnt mean every car is going to have 300whp i'm stating its possible for some cars to get very CLOSE to that number if they have a "factory freak."
02-21-2005, 02:48 PM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: 10-20-04
Location: USaaayyyy
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
first off, my definition of hostile = overly defensive; i have total respect for the rsx and had even planned on getting one till i found out about the cobalt...(i can get it at invoice, aka: my reasoning behind getting it). i didnt say anyone was attacking the cobalt either, just that you guys are being way to defensive. its just a (or was supposed to be) a comparison of the cars, not a heated debate. pro vs con...ya know?
i also know about the sticky on the dynos...ive read that one upon countless others in that thread category...its not like im new to that place and started going through it a week ago...most of the 7psi set ups ive seen have only made 275 to 280. if it does have 300hp then that is some very well done tuning. which is why i asked you and will now ask you again for a link or something, cause i just wanna see...(Read My Post Before Last.)
and yeah, it did say 200, but i fixed it after i re-read it before u posted evidently, apologies...
i also know about the sticky on the dynos...ive read that one upon countless others in that thread category...its not like im new to that place and started going through it a week ago...most of the 7psi set ups ive seen have only made 275 to 280. if it does have 300hp then that is some very well done tuning. which is why i asked you and will now ask you again for a link or something, cause i just wanna see...(Read My Post Before Last.)
and yeah, it did say 200, but i fixed it after i re-read it before u posted evidently, apologies...
02-22-2005, 12:46 PM
#31
New Member
Join Date: 02-15-05
Location: cali
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry if you took the post wrong, but hostile i've always understood to be "showing ill will". i was being defensive simply because the (rsx) car was being under guessed. i'm not going to provide a link because i dont need to prove something i already know. (clubrsx is HUGE and would take forever to find one particular thread) remember, i already said 300whp is not likely at all but peopel can just get close to it. i'm not saying a turbo rsx at 7lbs is going to put out 300whp. obviously with turbo setups around 275whp its likely to have a 10-20 whp difference among different cars with the same motor. i dont know how any of my posts give off a "heated" vibe. you guys wanted to compare cars, i've provided proper information on one of the cars that most of you do not own or have studied as much as i have. i've already shown my respect for the cobalt, even gave it a superior title compared to the rsx. if i seem "way too defensive" thats only because i'm trying to help you guys out with a realistic comparison so you dont get surprised one day when an rsx competes somewhat better than you thought.
02-26-2005, 10:41 PM
#35
New Member
Join Date: 02-26-05
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok all this talk about the RSX and Cobalt has me wondering....
Which would be more likely to win in a race between the base's? The Cobalt 2.2L Ecotec 5-Speed or the Base RSX 5-Speed??
I have yet to see any 1/4 mile times for the 2.2L Ecotec Cobalt in the 5-Speed
Thanks,
-Joe
Which would be more likely to win in a race between the base's? The Cobalt 2.2L Ecotec 5-Speed or the Base RSX 5-Speed??
I have yet to see any 1/4 mile times for the 2.2L Ecotec Cobalt in the 5-Speed
Thanks,
-Joe
03-09-2005, 11:50 PM
#39
New Member
Join Date: 02-03-05
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dc5
what are the specs of the base cobalt?
Here's a summary:
145 HP @ 5600 RPM
155 lb-ft @ 4000 RPM
Curb weight of coupe (also includes SS/SC) = 2991 lbs
Curb weight of sedan = 3216 lbs
A base RSX should be a good match for the base Cobalt with advantage to the more powerful & lighter RSX. With RSX Type S vs Cobalt SS/SC, advantage to Cobalt SS/SC.
03-14-2005, 01:48 PM
#43
New Member
Join Date: 03-13-05
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dc5
i own an 02 rsx and its true that many people have hit a 14 sec ET stock, but thats the rsx at its best. i'm sure not every cobalt driver is a pro racer so it would actually be a pretty even match up with the cobalt having the advantage. the thing is, not many rsx's stay stock. with just an intake ($200+?), 1/4 mile times are near identical.
ABP i dont really think its fair to say "what if the rsx had a turbo" because thats not what it has stock. cybernation kit is like what, $3k? of course 3k in modification will make it faster, but to make it even you need to invest 3k in the cobalt and then compare it. with i/h/e/Ecu i'm actually able to beat most borderline 14/13 second cars. people with my similar setup dyno 210whp +/- and run very high 13's with 100+mph traps.just the other night i raced an 04 6sp g35 from 50-130 and was able to put 3 cars or more on it. a big problem with the rsx is traction. with new polyurethane motor mounts (30 bucks) and new tires an rsx can easily drop its time by .3 or so. what i guess i'm trying to say overall is, yes cobalt would win stock for stock but an rsx responds very well for a naturally aspirated motor so be careful racing any modified rsx.
about the 05's, acura underrates it with only a 10hp increase. if you search around www.clubrsx.com you'd see that tons of 05 owners are in the 14's COMPLETELY stock. and let me tell you, with the ITR IM and more aggressive cams they gave it stock, they respond VERY well to basic bolt ons. just with an intake and race header ($500) people are running mid-low 14's.
the best way to learn about an rsx is not to ask cobalt owners, go do some searching on an rsx based website.
ABP i dont really think its fair to say "what if the rsx had a turbo" because thats not what it has stock. cybernation kit is like what, $3k? of course 3k in modification will make it faster, but to make it even you need to invest 3k in the cobalt and then compare it. with i/h/e/Ecu i'm actually able to beat most borderline 14/13 second cars. people with my similar setup dyno 210whp +/- and run very high 13's with 100+mph traps.just the other night i raced an 04 6sp g35 from 50-130 and was able to put 3 cars or more on it. a big problem with the rsx is traction. with new polyurethane motor mounts (30 bucks) and new tires an rsx can easily drop its time by .3 or so. what i guess i'm trying to say overall is, yes cobalt would win stock for stock but an rsx responds very well for a naturally aspirated motor so be careful racing any modified rsx.
about the 05's, acura underrates it with only a 10hp increase. if you search around www.clubrsx.com you'd see that tons of 05 owners are in the 14's COMPLETELY stock. and let me tell you, with the ITR IM and more aggressive cams they gave it stock, they respond VERY well to basic bolt ons. just with an intake and race header ($500) people are running mid-low 14's.
the best way to learn about an rsx is not to ask cobalt owners, go do some searching on an rsx based website.
03-14-2005, 02:14 PM
#44
New Member
Join Date: 03-06-05
Location: Dallas
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only reason the RSX makes 210 HP all motor is because it revs so damn high..
3 ways to make power..
Rev high
Big engine
Blower, turbo..
I would rather make my power at a lower RPM if possible..
This is why HP per liter is all BS..
3 ways to make power..
Rev high
Big engine
Blower, turbo..
I would rather make my power at a lower RPM if possible..
This is why HP per liter is all BS..
03-14-2005, 02:17 PM
#45
New Member
Join Date: 03-06-05
Location: Dallas
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
im sure chevy could make a higher reving engine also, but chevy is an american company.. And americans are smart and know that fast cars need torque not high rpms.. its not american to make high RPM power because its useless in everyday driving.. haha..
?
03-16-2005, 11:04 PM
#49
New Member
Join Date: 02-15-05
Location: cali
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hayes351
Ok so people are saying that a naturally aspirated engine doesnt do bad in comparison to the cobalt's supercharger... but how about bang for the buck. If Acura is so concerned in flaunting its base 210 hp without the s/c or the t/c... why the extra 1G? I am not an owner of either car and consider myself unbiased, so when I'm considering spending that extra 1G what am I paying for besides the Acura tag. Obviously Chevrolet felt the need to add the supercharger to compete with the RSX... so if the RSX did in fact have the s/c or the t/c... a) it would be out of the target market's price range and b) maybe the Cobalt SS would use a V6 as opposed to the Ecotec.
the car isnt also all about speed and performance. an rsx is an entry level luxury car. you should compare the features of both cars. a type-s comes with stock leather interior, 6 speed transmission, 6cd changer, stock 10" sub, and an overall eye pleasing interior IMO.
03-16-2005, 11:09 PM
#50
New Member
Join Date: 02-15-05
Location: cali
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tooleman
lets run a stock LS1 vs a stock NSX..
hahaha, thats funny..
or a C6 vs a NSX.. honda sucks..
hahaha, thats funny..
or a C6 vs a NSX.. honda sucks..
dont give me any bs about racing in a straight line. twisties really show the true character of a car.
but yes i'll give it to you, an nsx isnt going to beat an ls1 stock in a STRAIGHT LINE. but what idiot would buy an nsx and not drive it like it was meant to be driven.