I've had my pursuit since july, and I absolutely love it. The one I have is like the cobalt in the test, absolute base model. It rides so smooth and quiet, it is terrific on fuel. I don't particularly care what the car will do on a track, or how many g it will pull on a skid pad etc. It's an economy car, I want it to be comfortable and cheap. It is peppy enough for what it is. Just about everyone who has been in my car has commented on how much they like the interior, particularly the dash. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, good job GM!

 

Why do a lot of people call the interior cheap on the Cobalts? A friend has one, and I love it. I like it a lot more than my Camaro SS (00), and any other car I've owned or seen, except mom's 00 Accord. And even her seats are the most uncomfortable seats ever, just everything else is nice. What's the deal?

 

Perhaps you missed my point...my point was that it isn't proper or fair to compare a $19K+ vehicle's interior to a $14K interior..........compare apples to apples.......not apples to oranges........an LT Leather interior would have been the proper comparison in terms of price range.

 

Agreed....an increase of 30+% in purchase price should warrant a better interior.

 

You said "For those who feel the Cobalt Interior is cheap" so I assumed you were talking about those of us who feel the interior feels cheap.

 

I agree that this particular comparison is unfair. $5K is a lot in this segment.

FWIW, I still prefer the Mazda3 S interior over the Cobalt LT/SS. While the SS is a large improvement over the base model, the e-brake and other points of contact with the driver (glove box included) deliver a "cheap-to-the-touch" feeling. The Cobalt shifter and sedan's awkward exterior styling are also detractors.

This is all MHO of course and not to pick on GM alone, I feel the other vehicles in this segment are also a few steps behind the Mazda for similar reasons. That also seems to be a sentiment shared by most publications.

 

The difference in sticker price between the cobalt and civic that they tested was $2,225. Not 5,000.

The cobalt wasn't the cheapest stickered car in the comparison, either (though it was close).

If you guys are going to complain about a 2200 dollar price difference then you might as well complain that they're comparing the newest Chevy economy car to a Civic that is only a month away from being replaced by a ground-up redesign.

 

We were comparing the Mazda 3 interior (MSRP of Test Vehicle: $19,750) to the Cobalt interior (MSRP of Test Vehicle: $16,435). That's a pretty big jump in price for that segment.

 

As was mentioned, they were comparing the Mazda 3 price...

Plus, if it is ok to have such a big disparity in price in this economy car comparo, maybe they should redo it and use the Cobalt SS Supercharged... I mean, it'd be nothing to complain about, right? It'd just have the Chevy on the opposite end of the price disparity...

 

While I could care less about economy cars, I do agree that this comparison is totally screwed up, as already mentioned. The Mazda 3 is 20% higher in cost than the Cobalt, and others in the test. They should do a little up front planning before they just go out and pick a few econo cars for a comparison. In this price range ($15k-$20k), a few thousand dollars is a HUGE difference. Shame on them for comparing vehicles with such varying costs, especially when they have trim levels on some of the vehicles to get them all similarly priced.

Engineers would get laughed at if they ever did comparisons like this and based decisions off of it.

Dan

 

They were comparing comparably equipped models, not necessarily comparably priced.

Almost any comparison test I've seen from any magazine tries to get comparably equipped cars, not necessarily comparably priced. The last comparison I saw of mid-priced luxury sports sedans had the new Acura RL, GS300, STS V6, and a few other models... all were equipped as similarly as possible and all with 6 cylinder motors. There was still a 15k dollar price disparity between all of them and one could argue that the ones who were 15k dollars cheaper should have been allowed to be upgraded with more options, a V8 (if available), etc, etc. But that's just a editorial decision. Do you compare apples to apples and talk about their respective qualities and value for the dollar, or do you talk about apples to oranges and talk about which is better if they're priced about the same?

I'm not saying one is necessarily right and one is necessarily wrong, but it sure does make for an easier comparison when all of the cars in your lineup are intended for the same duty - comfortable and economical transportation. If you went with a Cobalt SS then your disparity between the highest priced and lowest priced models in that comparo would have increased even more than it already was (albeit to the Cobalt's 'advantage' which is all most of you would care about), and furthermore you'd be comparing the sports version of the Cobalt to the 'standard' version of the other cars, so comments like "well the Cobalt rides rougher and is louder but it's also faster" would be kind of taken for granted instead of being insightful.

 

Some good comments Threxx, but in this case it doesn't look like they did either one(base comparo on price, or options). The price is obvisouly very different between the cars, and they complained about the lack of power windows in the Cobalt, which other cars had, so it doen't seem that neither case for a copmaro was used here.

It's a bad comparo, and I'm not compaining that the Mazda 3 is ranked high. It might very well be a great car, but it's also high priced, which is unfair to others in the comparo, especially when they don't have similar features either.

Dan

 

How about we do this. F*** the tests and go out there and drive them yourself so you don't have to take one guy or a few guys' opinions on the models. Then we'll all know how they compare.

 

The Mazda 3 at 197xx grand had better not be comparably equipped with the Cobalt at 164xx. They praised the Cobalt's ride and quiet interior, but were not crazy about its handling feel. On the standard 15" tires. A move up to the LT (with 16s) or the non-supercharged SS Sedan (on 18s) would have sharpened up the handling a bit while still likely being among the quieter cars in the test. I'm not talking about the Cobalt SS Supercharged (coupe) at $22-$23k. I'm referring to the N/A SS (17x hp), which would probably still have been cheaper than, or equal to, the Mazda 3.

It is one thing to have a big difference in price when testing luxury cars, especially when some (like BMW) have notoriously high starting prices for a comparable model (compare a 3 Series to an IS, for example). But here, in the $15k to $20k range, most of these models come similarly equipped and priced. And price matters big time in the world of econocars. There is less room for inflated egos. The bottom line is that they tested a much more modestly optioned Cobalt (which was still probably decently equipped, but they didn't even get power windows, for crying out loud - and then they complained about it), while the 3 was more highly optioned - and/or way overpriced. As has been said, when the cars are under $20k, a $3500 dollar difference in price is HUGE.

Someone (Mecca?) referred to the Cobalt as a "sport compact" in this test. Well, it was a test of economy cars, not "sport compacts". Most of them were of a non-sporty nature, with the 3 probably being the sportiest, at least in the tested configurations. Even with that being the premise, the Cobalt was still the quickest, and I think its handling numbers (even on the 15s) were pretty decent, too. I'll have to look at the link again to see where it stood.

 

Now that's a little unfair bringing brains and common sense into this.

The bottom line is that Edmunds is hardly what I would call the end-all be-all of automotive insight. And you said it, don't just take someone else's opinion. Let's be honest, if you're making purchase decisions in the $20K-range, based on the opinions of others, you need help and possibly a financial advisor.