Jump to content

2005 Chevy Cobalt SS ...


Empfohlene Beiträge

2005 Chevy Cobalt SS Supercharged ...

I thought I would mention this new offering from Chevrolet. It's called the Cobalt SS Supercharged. The Cobalt, available in 145 horsepower coupe or sedan form, and starting at under $14,000 is Chevy's new small car, replacing the Cavalier and Sunfire, designed to attract "high end" buyers to the small car market - a recent recall of over 1,000 Cobalt's doesn't help that prospect. The top of the line model being the SS Supercharged coupe, a product of the GM Performance Division.


The SS Supercharged sports a 2.0 liter four-cylinder engine making 205 hp. @ 5,600 and 200 lb.ft. @ 4,400 - which personally I find rather paltry for a 2 liter unit, with a supercharger. Strangely, this engine is smaller than the 2.2 liter found in the base car. These numbers are a far cry from the SS concept which made 270.

This model is clearly targeting the SRT-4 from Dodge, but I think they miss the mark a little. The Cobalt SS seems "softer" than the Dodge. This is okay, but the price doesn't reflect it. The Dodge offers most, of the applicable features that the Cobalt offers, and in the case of a limited slip differential, actually offers more, as the Chevy hasn't one. and in some cases And as far as power goes, the SRT-4 blows the Chevy into the weeds. Add to this the powertrain warranty that Dodge offers which is 10,000 miles and 2 years longer than that offered for the Cobalt, and the value for dollar is questionable.

Here is a run down of the basic stats for the Cobalt SS and the SRT-4 ...

................ 2005 Cobalt SS Supercharged ......... 2005 Dodge SRT-4

Type .............. FF, 5-passenger coupe .............. FF, 5-passenger sedan

MSRP ....................... $21,430 ................................... $20,560

Engine ................ 2.0 16V - 4 SC ......................... 2.4 16V - 4 Turbo

Power ............... 205 hp. - 200 lb.ft. ..................... 230 hp. 250 lb.ft.

Fuel Mileage .............. 23 / 25 ..................................... 22 / 30 ( ! )

Curb Weight ............ 2,991 lbs. .................................. 2,990 lbs.

GM Performance Division has to have something better than this up their sleeves. The Dodge is a screaming performance bargain, especially now that the Cobalt SS is here. We shall see. 8)

Jetzt registrieren, um Themenwerbung zu deaktivieren »
  • Antworten 67
  • Erstellt
  • Letzte Antwort

<set tone=sarcasm>its amazing how it looks nothing like a cavalier with civic headlights<end sarcasm>

funny how its a wannabe srt4 but it gets worse mpg and less power and costs more. :puke: retarded. i really thought the numbers would be better since it is coming out after the srt4. maybe the power ratings are underrated like the srt4s are... o wait that wont help either. the only thing this car has going for it is that its probably easier to upgrade, just change pulleys and there will be a decent amount of power to gain. maybe thats their intent?

whatever. honda has no problem making a 2.0l with 220hp in a fwd car. poor dumbestic

Even if the Cobalt is underrated, it's still quite obvious that it lags behind the SRT-4 in a major way. Even factory claims are not that off.

And as for changing pulleys and what not, you shouldn't have to. It's funny though, on the Cobalt website, there is an animated movie of the SS dusting a Neon, but I don't think it was an SRT-4. :wink:

The true 0-60 time of the Dodge is like 5.4, so Chevy better hope their numbers are underrated.

everything i've heard about the cobalt SS is that it is pretty well refined, something that SRT4 is not at all. I see the cars as equals. First off, the SS has no turbo lag, a flatter torque curve, and drives more naturally around town. The SRT4 is faster, that's a given. Which handles better, hard to say. Just the same, one you trade refinement for more performance, the other you trade some performance for better refinement. The SS is, I'm sure, a much more pleasant car to commute and cruise around in. If it loses at the stoplight to the SRT4, that's why. I'd call them solid equals. Then again, last time I talked about SRT4, someone told me the SRT4 was a better car than a boxster, so go figure.

I'd call the SRT4 and Cobalt SS equals. It's like the corvette vs. M3 thing. One has more performance at the limits, the other is more refined. Both are great cars, just different.

This is the impression that I've also had. The SS is a "softer" car as I mentioned above, and the SRT-4 is more hardcore.

But I really think it's a sign of uncertainty on the part of GM Performance Division. They're not sure which way to go - should they compete for top dog in performance, or vie for a safer, more marketable route?

The SS has no turbo lag, but don't think the SC isn't lagging on that 2 liter. That is probably accountable for the less than leading gas mileage at least partly.

It's (Cobalt SS) suppose to do mid-high 14's in the 1/4.

BTW the SRT-4's power is extremely underrated. Guys dynoing the cars were pushing over 230whp to the wheels and not crank. Sport Compact Car dyno'd a stock '04 SRT-4 234whp and 246wlb/ft of torque. Which is around 270hp and 285lb/ft of torque to the crank.

I don't know why Dodge grossly underrated the hp #'s like that.

What's sad is the Cobalt SS concept would be perfect for the car because it actually looks pretty good.
:???: its got a nice highknee. ill give it that, but i really dont think it looks that great.

high 14s, thats just a little faster than my territory. so given that they probably wont be the best drivers in the world i cant wait to meet one 8)

Anzeige eBay

Hallo LateNightCable,


schau doch mal hier zum Thema Zubehör für US Cars (Anzeige)? Eventuell gibt es dort etwas Passendes.

  • Gefällt Carpassion.com 1

Chevy has been putting the legendary SS badge on some dubious things as of late. The Cobalt SS could very well be Japanese if not for the bow-tie on the nose and tail, it doesn't say much for American style.

There is probably not a lot of lost power between the crank and wheels in a front wheel drive SRT-4, not as much as a rear driver, but if those independent test figures are accurate, the Dodge is underated like a mofo.

You know how it is, just like in the 60's, they fudged the power numbers like mad to help keep the insurance costs down. And thats a very important consideration when we're talking budget performance cars.

thats a good point about insurance costs.

all cars lose a decent amount of power when you are talking bout wheel to crank. the only real difference between rwd and fwd cars is the drive shaft. the difference lost going to the wheels on a fwd car is much greater than the difference between fwd and rwd wheel power difference.

to make a gross generaliztion: i always hypothesized that each part of the drive train took up a tad of power. axles, driveshaft, flywheel/clutch/tranny, brakes, wheels/tires. minimizing one element helps, but not that much. i remember reading somewhere a few years ago that the average expected power lost through the drive train were: fwd 13-14% rwd 15-18% awd 18-20%

i also remember that the reason that rwd had the largest span was because of the muscle cars and big old nasty heaviness. that is why some awd systems lose as much as some rwd systems.

this really varies from car to car though, so in anticipation of an argument and probably flames, again i state that it is a generalization and is very far from true in some circumstances.

I'm not a guru on front drive, so I figured it was a tad more direct than rear drive. That's an interesting note about the percentage of power lost. It brings to mind the EPA claim that only about %15 of the energy from your fuel is used to move the car, or run accessories like air conditioning. Everything else is lost to idleing, breaking, rolling resistance, driveline losses, drag, etc. They have it down to a science.

you can find a specimen of every car that gets a better dyno number than it's rated too, there is some variation from specific car to car. They rate a fairly safe and specific number that they know their average car will produce, and typically, they rate a little under average for safety. No car company is going to under rate their car. What would be the point of that? Would they seriously go "lets make our car less competitive and sell less!" doubtful.

But the thing is, they do underrate the numbers for some of the very reasons mentioned above. Mostly to represent every car in production.

Between the SRT-4 and the Cobalt, the Chevy is the practical softy of the two, so why is the Cobalt SS a two door coupe I'm wondering? And 205 hp. and 200 lb.ft. just seems so tepid for a 2.0 SC engine, it's incredible, and gas mileage isn't that great. Anyone can strap on a blower, it would be nice if GM showed some brains behind their engine mods. Perhaps they did with the suspension.

The SRT-4 is rough and ready, but it's headed for greatness. So far it's been getting better every year, and as long as it keeps selling, Dodge will invest in it's improvement. With this car, I see the " American ricer " stigma being left in the dust. It's no longer a joke. I wonder what a rear-drive conversion SRT would be like.

now if i was a tuner what would i do to this.... turbo, of course, although it would suck making a new intake manifold, but hell thats not that hard to do when you have a friend who makes composites. set the internal waste gate of the cheap turbo to 12psi. now why 12 psi? cus thats what the blower is doing. only the turbo will be much more efficient:) i know someone will say something about that.

and the most important thing that they forgot to do to a fwd car: put on an LSD

They need to make the SRT-4 with an AWD system. But since the only AWD anyone see's in a Dodge is in the trucks they should create some mean ass RWD system. Only then will the SRT-4 be an extremely competitive little shit.

i dont think the rwd will really help. the car is not balanced(weight distribution that is). it would be a drag only car with rwd.

the only real answer to something like that would be to create an entirely different car.

What are you talking about? The SRT-4 is great at the drag strip. When it comes to the track its so-so.

The SRT-4 has an LSD now.

The numbers are really underrated. It is in fact 230 fwhp and 240 fwhp on average.

The SRT-4 has an LSD, but the Cobalt SS does not. We've been discussing these two cars in relation to one another.

AWD in a performance car is overrated, it just adds weight. One of the vurtues of a car like this is it's low weight. Converting the SRT-4 to RWD would be close to making it a different car, unless the standard Neon was converted as such, which would be pretty cool.

I think there is still a lot of room in the SRT-4 to make it a handling machine as well, with enough development.

Has anyone seen a road test of the Cobalt SS?

the standard neon has one selling point, it's cheap. AWD doesn't fit there. If you don't want the SRT4 to be running 0-60 sprints that are close to 7 seconds, i wouldn't put AWD on that car. It would be too expensive to do anyhow, you'd have to change too much. The SRT works because it is cheap. it doesn't have too many unique parts from neon (driveline aside), and didn't cost much to develop. AWD would only break that. SRT4 is first and foremost a straightline car. If you want to spend up to get a more versatile car, there is the WRX which is an able track car too, but for the money, getting a car as fast as SRT4 isn't bad, even if it isn't the best handling car.

I heard some guys at srtforums discussing this exact same dealie. The answer is that you would have to do a whole re-do of the car. Some guy said he'd do it for 7000 dollars. Basically its not worth it. I doubt there will be AWD from DCX untill the SRT-4 and Evo are one and the same.

By the way, the Cobalt does look pretty refined.

Edit: the Cobalt supposedly has a suspension tuned on Nurburgring.


Dieses Thema ist archiviert und für weitere Antworten gesperrt. Erstelle doch dein eigenes Thema im passenden Forum.

  • Neu erstellen...