If anyone tells you torque doesn't mean anything, Then explain this Options

[darksecret]

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?se...4&page_number=1

For the stock RSX owners here, unless you plan on running around at 7,000rpm I wouldn't try running the new Cobalt SS.

[Akimbo]

a greddy turbo kit will solve that.

[darksecret]

Yeah but this is stock for stock, tuning the Cobalts suspension a little would make it easily walk all over the RSX-S anywhere, but then it wouldn't be stock.

[Consynx]

eh, cobalt is all right
i'd def take a RSX over it

rsxs have high potential, and i'm sure a SS does too, but rsx just looks much hotter IMO, i can't believe that they rated the cobalt to be better exterior wise.

[darksecret]

Yeah it suprised me also, especially seeing how they talked about the SS looks.

[FallenHero]

well, lets face it, while the SS looks like a chevy, the RSX Really doesn't look that sporting... I mean, put one by a 6th gen and ask a novice which is faster... you know?

[ArizonaRed]

does anybody know what the Scion Tc will put out when its supercharged? Also the SS cant be turbocharged also right?

[FallenHero]

turbocharged,,, another supercharger... put NOS on that thing and it'll run 10's! (if chevy wants an import car, we might as well treat it as such, lol)

[Galcobar]

The funny thing is, horsepower is a calculation based on torque and gearing -- you dyno your car, you're not actually measuring horsepower.

http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html

[Kwanza26]

Gotta understand what horsepower is before you try to make an argument on torque. Torque does mean nothing when you're trying to build a fast car and it's in the wrong rpm range (ala Toyota 5SFE)...

As for the article... remember the RSX is a 4 year old car. The Chevy cobalt is brand spanking new and is built to out compete the RSX in terms of power. I say GM got lazy and threw in an econo motor with a supercharger on it (Toyota anyone?). I'm willing to bet the RSX will still win pretty easily on a road course. Also, driving a car with torque or no torque is a matter of taste. A big torque car won't neccesarily turn everyone's clock, on the other hand, driving a high rpm car might not generate enough neck jerking force for others. Sometimes people just prefer instant thrust when they smash the throttle, but that comes at the cost of top-end pull... while other folk prefer screaming top-end power and are willing to achieve this at the cost of low-end grunt. All a matter of taste... and one being faster than the other depends on greater variables than how much power such and such makes and how much torque such and such makes...

[darksecret]

Yeah weight, traction, blah, blah, blah even R&T said the Cobalt isn't much worse than the RSX on handling and pulling out of the curves makes up for that. Now they are close enough that one mistake in the Cobalt and you'll be passed, but it's funny how the king of muscle car manufacturers and probably the originator of the mullet (most people blame Dodge) is the only company to go for the RSX instead of the Civic (Dodge has the SRT-4 but come on peope it's still a straight line car and was suppose to be the Evo and STi competition).

[bonzaisushi]

K series motor is an incredible motor built by honda..... the ecotec, motor is a ****ty motor built by GM..... GM is all about parts bin, the interior is lame, the car doesnt feel as secure as the Rsx, and if looks to me like a 5yr old designed the interior of the cobalt, where as the rsx interior is more refined and smooth..... rsx> Cobalt anyday.

[97sccelica]

i'd take a cobalt SS/SC over an RSX type S anyday

[ArizonaRed]

i think chevy cavalier/ pontiac sunfire is garbage. driven them and they suck. also driven a new malibu. sucks. I dont think the cobalt is gonna be any different. i'd take an rsx over the cobalt without a thought.

[FallenHero]

K series motor is an incredible motor built by honda..... the ecotec, motor is a ****ty motor built by GM..... GM is all about parts bin, the interior is lame, the car doesnt feel as secure as the Rsx, and if looks to me like a 5yr old designed the interior of the cobalt, where as the rsx interior is more refined and smooth..... rsx> Cobalt anyday.
[right][snapback]338430[/snapback][/right]

I agree with most of this. The ecotec, however, is one hell of an engine.

[darksecret]

Yeah the Ecotec sucks huh, tell that to John Lingenfelter and his 6 second stock block Ecotec Cavalier pushing over 1,000hp, or So-Cal's 700+ hp Ion, wait did I hear an iVTEC (wonder what the "i" is for) screaming to make 600 hp, oh wait thats normal. I will say the RSX is more refined but the Cobalt isn't running the standard Chevy Tupperware interior like the rest and when you consider the RSX can easily hit in the high $20's after a few options, i'll choose the underdog.

[Kwanza26]

Yeah weight, traction, blah, blah, blah even R&T said the Cobalt isn't much worse than the RSX on handling and pulling out of the curves makes up for that. Now they are close enough that one mistake in the Cobalt and you'll be passed, but it's funny how the king of muscle car manufacturers and probably the originator of the mullet (most people blame Dodge) is the only company to go for the RSX instead of the Civic (Dodge has the SRT-4 but come on peope it's still a straight line car and was suppose to be the Evo and STi competition).
[right][snapback]338402[/snapback][/right]

If that's your argument... "pulling out after a curve"... the RSX still holds the advantage. When entering a corner, typically on an FF car, you brake/downshift, make the turn, then accelerate out at the apex on a lower gear. This is where laggy turbos and poor torque curves can hurt a track car. Given the RSX has a high revving engine and peaks its torque somewhere around 7000 rpms, even though the car slows down to make the turn, the downshift places the engine right back into its sweet spot. It'll make the turn without losing a beat (not even mentioning its better suspension than the Cobalt's torsen beam rear). Notice in the article even the R&T reviewers say the RSX catches up with its top-end VTEC pull... same thing will happen coming out of a corner. The torque advantage is nullified especially since it peaks and most likely drops off significantly in the 4000-5000 rpm range... why? Because when the torque is located mostly down low, the downshift during corner entry will pop the engine back into the higher rpm band. The 200 ft lbs of torque suddenly becomes something more mild, and since the Cobalt's Ecotec doesn't rev anywhere as high as the RSX's K20... the RSX can hold its acceleration longer (refer to galcobar's link). If torque were the deal... take the 7gc Celica GT and 7gc Celica GTS as a comparison. The GT makes more torque, but is definately not faster because its torque doesn't maintain as deep into the rpm band.

[Kwanza26]

Yeah the Ecotec sucks huh, tell that to John Lingenfelter and his 6 second stock block Ecotec Cavalier pushing over 1,000hp, or So-Cal's 700+ hp Ion, wait did I hear an iVTEC (wonder what the "i" is for) screaming to make 600 hp, oh wait thats normal. I will say the RSX is more refined but the Cobalt isn't running the standard Chevy Tupperware interior like the rest and when you consider the RSX can easily hit in the high $20's after a few options, i'll choose the underdog.
[right][snapback]338557[/snapback][/right]

The ecotec is a very solid motor. A nice peice of GM engineering to say the least... but it's still more or less an economy designed motor originally making 140-145 hp in the 2.2 liter trim. Like I said previously... an econo motor with a supercharger slapped on. Luckily the ecotec is quite beefy...

Your argument against the Honda cars however seem more bias than anything based on knowledge or facts. FYI... there are several people at clubrsx running 12-15 psi of boost on the K20's stock internals (with stock 11:1 compression). I have a set of K20 rods... and comparatively speaking, these rods rival those of SR20's and such. Also note... don't compare an n/a "screaming" Honda motor to a force induced motor. Obviously the motor has to scream if it's a true sports n/a motor. Just look at the F1 racecars... screaming at 20,000 rpms n/a. Even our shop's K20A powered EP3 Civic can run in the mid 13 second range on a mild street tune.

This post has been edited by Kwanza26: Sep 26, 2005 - 8:10 PM

[Consynx]

only thing i see a SC being better than a turbo on the track is the starting 0-60, and maybe a hairpin if both ars are FF and have to slow way down.


boo SS.
i'm impressed w/ what's been done to them, but not the way them and the SRT-4s were thrown into the market.

2.4L making 220hp or w/e...come on
at least beat the 100hp/Liter in this day and age.

[FallenHero]

only thing i see a SC being better than a turbo on the track is the starting 0-60, and maybe a hairpin if both ars are FF and have to slow way down.


boo SS.
i'm impressed w/ what's been done to them, but not the way them and the SRT-4s were thrown into the market.

2.4L making 220hp or w/e...come on
at least beat the 100hp/Liter in this day and age.
[right][snapback]338580[/snapback][/right]

are you talking about the SRT-4 engine? man, nobody here doubts it beastily power and Rompin Stompin torque.