What is funny is how when anyone posts something against an "import" (god I hate that name) or something good about an American car, you feel it necessary to bring up bias or the circle jerk thing.

It seems you don't like it when things get turned around and everyone isn't circle jerking around a Toyota.

 

Sneaky Evil, I'm not NEARLY as pro-Toyota on Toyota boards, in fact I defend GM whenever they come up in a conversation because those guys are just about as circle-jerkish about Toyotas as you guys are about GMs. It gets annoying either way. You just see me defend Toyota/Lexus and Honda/Acura around here because they don't get nearly as much respect and voice in this community as they should.

Oh God... keep going, he's almost "there". Just a little more and he's gonna blow and then it'll be your turn!!

 

I realize that Toyota/Honda/ect. don't have a loud voice here for obvious reasons. What you have to realize is that there definatly are people who do not care for the vehicles made by those manufacturers for one reason or another and it seems like to some outsiders that this is just a totally alien concept, liking American cars. I think most of the regular posters in here have a good sense of all vehicles and keep a pretty open mind but we all have preferences and those preferences lead to a bias of some sort.

 

Everyone should've seen this coming...

According to C&D (And the rest of the media for that matter) if it's asian, it's BY DEFAULT better than Detroit cars..

And even if the facts don't show that (like in this case) the story will be skewed to show it, because afterall, that's pretty much all american media is these days; biased opinion.

I don't think GM will ever get a fair shake. GM builds better cars, and the 'subjective' aspect comes into play. It'll always be something... Just like the big argument went from "quality" to "Interior refinement" to "My import has smaller panel gaps" to "My import has a smoother motor" to now, "My import portrays a better, more intelligent image than your domestic" Each time the excuse gets dumber and dumber and each time more americans fall for it.

 

GM full-size G-vans were built using this technique through the 70s, 80s, and early 90s. I'm not sure if the newer generation still using this construction technique. Very little in the auto industry nowadays can be considered truly "new".

The funny thing about Bill O'Reilly... I mean SCNGENNFTHGEN's criticism of Car And Driver is that he wants to frame everything into a right-vs.-left perspective, and yet C&D's editorial staff is blatantly conservative (with the exception of John Phillips, who did indeed write the compact comparo article).

Criticism of GM's platform reuse isn't entirely unjustified. How long did the J-car go? N-car? The GM10? Oh, wait, they're still using that one. Slamming the H3 for being built off the GMT355 just a year after the platform's introduction probably wasn't fair. In fact, I'd be more inclined to pick on GM for creating the 355 platform instead of finding some way to reuse the GMT360.

With regards to the Cobalt, I think it's a neat little car, and the SS version is obviously a performer. I can easily see how it might come up short against the Acura RSX if all-out performance isn't the goal, and if all-out performance is the goal, then the SRT4 ACR becomes the obvious choice. For those looking for a compromise, then the Cobalt SS is probably the right choice.

I wonder how it would have done in C&D's autocross test had it been wearing a reasonable set of 17s instead of those goofy 18s.

 

Now I gotta be O'rielly! I'll admit, I have my problems with the far left, and I do agree on a few things with Bill, but certainly not on everything he says! Not even close. Nor have I ever heard him make any statements, to tie those loons to GM's troubles in the press.......That's all me! In fact, I have even heard a few derrogatory statements about GM on FNC, so they are not innocent either. I have made no bones about my Bias toward GM, however IMO this is what makes me notice when something is said about GM good or bad. I notice it, wether it be, one of stern's cronnies, saying "maybe GM made the bad sensors on the shuttle", or any other *** like this. No.......Mike is My name not Bill, and I have come up with this theory all on my own. It is MY belief that this Anti-American, anti-GM thing stems from many of the same ppl. So you can disagree that it exists, either way Bill O'rielly doesn't have anything to do with it. I get ppl who couldn't tell you where the oil goes in thier cars, tell me GM sucks. Where did they get this? IMHO, its from years of snide remarks, and cheap pot shots at GM here and there. You hear things over and over for years, and all of the sudden ppl start to buy into it........Exactly the same way they, are buying into the America sucks theory, and many ppl are buying into that too. Oh, and my bias against the anusses in the media goes back to way before I ever discovered Bill's show or FNC, so I just got tired of the same old tired a** BS, from the other networks. I used to get C&D, and I can't give you specific examples, but I can recall many times getting pissed about little rubs here & there, from everyone else as well too, that IMHO were uncalled for. You can choose to disagree if you want, you are entitled.

 

Maybe the Neon should have taken it away, but it didn't, it just backs me up more. Future of GM got it right, they will always (unless someone with power pressures them, or calls them out on it) stick it to detriot, and especially GM. So if "we" build a better vehicle, they will figure out a way to downplay it, or twist things to fit their thesis. Just like the great propagandist MM. "Detroit can't build cars anymore", Yes I've heard ppl say this! Again C&D is not alone in this view, after years of this, it's spread pretty well all over. I just want them to judge ALL the domestic cars fairly that's it. No bias either way, just the straight facts in a performance comparison. I'm just trying to understand, what the hell they are doing, and the "french connection" works for me. They would love to see one of the American giants taken down, IMO of course. First there was the GTO/Mustang thing, now this. If anyone else has any theories on why they are doing this, I'd love to hear it! Otherwise, I'm sticking to my story.

 

What's funny is Road & Track had a two car comparo between the Cobalt and the RSX and guess who won...the Coboalt SS.

 

That's what I have been saying. It is the gradual, but relentless BS comments that get into people's minds and turn them into thinking a certain way. The point is, this is very noticeable in C&D. They will even make shots at GM when not even testing a GM car. There is no call for that and it adds nothing to the article except to spread thier bias.

 

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Every single one of those reasons indicate a better product, and a very important factor when putting out over $20K on a car. And the more you spending, the higher the importance of these 'subjective' qualityies. So what then is a 'good excuse' for the car you or I buy?

'Dumb excuses'.....

 

I guess it's hard for some people to understand; particularly those who see 0-60 and 1/4-mile times as the only thing that matters in a car. The other 95% of the population has quite a few other factors that they judge first and perceived quality is usually wayyyyy ahead on the list for most people, than ***** to the wall acceleration. Heck... I'd tend to guess that most people don't even floor a car when they test drive it, just because they don't really ever expect to have to do that.

You wanna know a really quirky group when it comes to cars that none of us can predict? Women. Or most of them, at least. Suddenly things like 'cuteness', 'does it have enough sunglass holders and other cubbies for storing stuff?', 'is it my favorite color?', and then a myriad of other factors which they can't seem to describe but seem to make an impact. But hardly ever do I hear 'what kind of engine does it have?', 'is it fast?

 

OK, except that it isn't like the RSX is an STS or LS430, and the Cobalt (SS or not) is not a Cavalier. It has been praised since it came out for currently being the most solid, quiet, refined car in the class.

The comparison was a little weird in that the Cobalt, Ion, and Neon (and, basically, the WRX) are the highest performing "muscle car" versions of respectable compact economy cars, while the RSX is a standalone sports coupe (it doesn't base at 13 or 14 grand like the Cobalt/Ion/Neon). Even so, I'm sure the Cobalt was plenty refined enough, AND mopped the floor with the RSX in the performance categories. And it isn't just speed, either. In the very previous issue (August of '05), they praised the Cobalt for its ride/handling/overall dynamics. They said there was nothing to complain about dynamically. They said that the shifter, while maybe not quite as slick (of course not, ) as the RSX, was fun to use. The only other minor quibble I can recall was a slight tugging at the wheel under full power exciting a turn, as the limited slip diff did its thing to keep the front wheel from spinning. It isn't like they just took a Cavalier and boosted it, with its cruder chassis, super cheesy, cheapo, noisier interior, and called it SS. The Cobalt is a very competent car to begin with, but then they upgraded the engine and transmission, the brakes, the suspension, and tuned it all lap after lap on the Nurburgring in Germany. It's a legit car.

Beyond all that, though, is the fact that the whole point of the article was "pocket rockets" (I think that was the title). The Neon, Cobalt, and Ion both filled that niche more accurately than the perhaps slightly more refined (and rarer), but much slower, RSX. As others have mentioned, in a direct head to head, Road&Track found the Cobalt to be the winner (haven't seen the article myself). But in this five way comparo, with pocket rockets as the theme, the three "rockets" were relegated to the last three spots.



BTW, I fully understand the difference between outright speed and the nuances of a car that "feels" good/right to drive. I have an LT1 Camaro and a Miata, for crying out loud. In this case (as in many with Car and Driver), I think the Chevy, Dodge, and Saturn cars got a bum deal. IMHO.

 

I agree with everyone that with the theme of the test the results don't jive. Hence, part of the reason I started this thread.

My problem with that post is his opinion that things like panel gaps, interior quality, motor smoothness, and general quality are 'dumber and dumber excuses that Americans keep falling for'.

To me that's a completely blind and ignorant point of view. All those qualities lead to a belief (and for the better part of ther past 20 years) that that car entire car is built better and will last. A motor that thrashes to most people doesn't sound like it'll last 100K miles let alone running that hard at all. If you see uneven panel gaps you have to wonder how well the rest of the car is put together.

I remember (vaguely albeit) my Dad's 1973 Chevy 3/4 ton P/U. That thing wouldn't hold synthetic oil to save it's life and the bed rusted out in 6 months. Now I look at my 1994 GP, the glove box and airbag cover overlap the dash panel clumsily, where the dash meets the A-pillar is a wide gap (again on purpose, all the W-cars were designed that way because they couldn't build them tight), and if you're joe average on the street you're not thinking GM has come a long way in 20 years.

As a whole package today those things are very, very important, especially if that car is you're daily driver.

(I think I just hijacked my own thread....... )

 

This is true, however not everyone has millions of clueless readers, waiting to be told what to buy! I agree with dream 94 z, in that I do not want GM to get a free pass, to the point they start to slack. I'm just sick to of all the bs comments.

 

Honestly, I do find it a bit odd how "quality" (or perceived quality) has become a moving target that the domestics can apparently never hit. 15 years ago did anyone reeeeally care about interior appearance? Not from what I can recall. And no one gave a hoot about interior materials and textures either, certainly not in a then-$10,000 runabout like a Civic or Cavalier or Escort or whatever. Now people want to practically break out the micrometers and measure panel gaps to the nearest .0001 of an inch. Yeah, that's probably because the Japanese started the trend by tightening up those tolerances first...but I honestly don't judge how long my car is going to last by how many significant digits are in the glove box gap.

Did they make synthetic oil for the general public in 1973? Synthetic oil is not recommended on high milage/older engines because it can leak through worn seals much easier than regular oil.