I was under the impression that the original supercharged Cobalt SS was a handling dream of a car, running great lap time at Nuremberg. It's a car that surpassed many other compact cars, and now I came across this blurb from Car and Driver:

"The 205-hp Cobalt SS Supercharged was somewhat better, but it ultimately lacked the chassis precision to maneuver its way into the competitive circles of the Mazdaspeed 3, the VW GTI, and the rest of the sport-compact gang. For 2008, though, the 2008 Cobalt SS has been thoroughly reengineered and reinvigorated and is at last worthy of the Super Sport label, even if it doesn’t quite look the part. "

Has the 2008 Cobalt SS really been thoroughly re-engineered?

 

I have the 2005 Cobalt SS. It handles fine. But the Turbo SS has better suspension and better breaks, along with a better power plant. It is a better car.

 

I don't recall C/D's original opinions on the s/c, but I've noticed that car magazines like to talk down about the outgoing model of many cars even if they were positive in their original reviews. Maybe it's easier to say bad things about a car at the end of its life cycle (especially when the manufacturers aren't pressuring them for positive reviews). Or maybe they figure their positive reviews of the new model seem more legitimate if they use the old model to show how much the new model has improved.

 

I ran my Ion Redline at a Porsche track day and it did much better than expected. I embarrased a lot of lower end Porsches. Its my understanding that the new SS is supposed to be even better, though.

 

Car & Driver pisses me off sometimes. They talk down the S/C SS and yet it was awarded the win in their first "Lightning Lap" which was supposed to be the definative test of cars by class. This testing was done on a road course where last time I checked turning was required and would therefor call chassis dynamics into play.

 

Didn't the SS/SC smack the crap out of the GTI and Civic Si at the first C&D Lightning Lap? IIRC, it was a couple seconds ahead of both cars -an eternity in racing terms.

 

It seems to depend heavily on who is writing the article. Even though they use the "editorial we," they have quite different opinions (which they often state as facts).

As someone mentioned, in the "Lightning Lap" testing, they basically said the chassis tuning and brakes of the Cobalt blew away those of the GTI and Civic Si that were along for the same testing. The Cobalt SS/SC blew them both away (and actually nipped the Mustang GT for a quicker lap).

I'd say the SS/SC handles just fine, even against the class heavyweights. If the turbo version is even better, well that's great.

But I can't stand it when a new car comes out (or a new competing car) and all of a sudden the writers act like the old, previously highly regarded model is pure rubbish.

 

chassis precision?

I don't know what that is, but I am fairly confident magazine writers don't have the engineering background to critique the design, nor the driving ability to feel the difference between chassis.

 

I don't know about all of the writers, and I realize that no one will even agree with the engineers much of the time, but most of the ranking Editorial staff of Road & Track and Car and Driver are engineers. Many with at least some racing experience. A lot of their contributing writers are also. I believe that Steve Siler who wrote that article actually is an engineer.

 

In short , yes ...the shocks/springs , brakes , rim width/tire size , tire brand and steering ratio was changed from the SS/SC versions as well as the addition of stabilitrak and the competiton settings .

The SS/SC was/is a great handling car and when it was out could outhandle alot of cars it seemingly shouldnt have , but its just not in the same league as the Turbo car .