Do you agree with the results? 5. Saturn Ion Redline 4. Chevrolet Cobalt SS/SC 3. Dodge SRT4 ACR 2. Subaru Impreza WRX 1. Acura RSX Type S I do love the sound of those SRT's http://www.dpccars.com/car-movies/11-06-06page-Fast-cars-for-low-money.htm
Well the WRX definatlly beats the RSX. I dont even consider the RSX to be in the same leauge as any of these cars. even the ecotec twins make big power for cheap. The SRT-4 is the classic example of a gem hidden inside a peice of shit. that turbo 4 is truly an amazing eningine when it comes to ease to make power.
The RSX Type-S is a great all-around car. If you care about bragging rights, feel free to get the Neon and impress all the ladies with the sound of your Blow off Valve when you roll up wit yo hat tilted on da siiide.
how does the slowest/ almost most expensive car of the bunch win a test called cheap speed ... Car and driver is soo in love with Honda/Acura
neither is the SS ...in fact its a really nice daily driver with all its torque low down ... the RSX you have to beat on to feel like your going average pace
if you give me interior bullshit ..the difference of materials is not justified for the price (though marginally better [leather]) ...and particularly irrelivant in a comparo for cheap SPEED
Yes, but the SS sounds like a blender chewing on marbles, and the interior is fashioned from tupperware. And the gearbox is uninspring compared to the RSX. Not once in the past three or so years has C/D ever claimed that top performance figures will yield a winning car. With the exception of the super-tuner shootouts, they always choose the best all-rounder.
if in a performance vs price comparo you pick a winner based on tangible reasons there is probably something more to it ..say advertising dollars ... I did the same test for myself when buying and the RSX is nothing to brag about ... I dont care if you like it more it shouldn’t win a cheap speed test its interior is just as bland and Tupperwareish but it has better leather ... all the cars of the bunch arn't noteworthy for interior ...so what C&D picked the winner of a Speed test based on interior ...LOL car and driver seemed to like the cobalt gear box when they tested it in Novembers issue (lightning laps) "the cobalt SS supercharged ecotec engine collaborated with an excellent gearbox... “ If you were wondering it was the cheapest car tested and beat everything in its classs and some things out (GT mustang) LL1 - Under $30k LL2 - $30k-$60k LL3 - $60k-$120k LL4 - $120k-$240k LL5 - $240k+ The results are posted in lap time/avg speed. LL1 in Finishing order: 1. Nissan 350Z Track - 3:12.5/78.5 2. Mitsu EVO MR - 3:13.5/78.1 3. Mazda RX8 - 3:19.0/76.0 4. Chevy Cobalt SS - 3:20.6/75.4 5. Ford Mustang GT - 3:20.9/75.3 6. Volkswagen GTI - 3:25.1/73.7 7. Honda Civic Si - 3:26.5/73.2 8. Mazda MX5 - 3:29.3/72.2 LL2 in Finishing order: 1. Lotus Elise - 3:09.2/79.9 2. Chevy Corvette - 3:09.3/79.9 3. Porsche Cayman S - 3:09.5/79.8 4. Ford Shelby GT500 - 3:11.0/79.2 5. Charger SRT8 - 3:18.2/76.3 LL3 in Finishing order: 1. Corvette Z06 - 3:01.1/83.5 2. Viper SRT10 Coupe - 3:01.6/83.3 3. BMW M6 - 3:10.0/79.6 LL4 in Finishing order: 1. Ford GT - 3:00.7/83.7
The Eco LSJ is a very underrated engine ...most stock dynos show in the range of 210 whp ...instead of the advertised 205 Bhp the only one with more power in the test is the SRT ...
It wasn't a performance vs price comparo, idiot. It was a comparison of five inexpensive sporty vehicles. "Cheap Speed" was just a title. C/D, being a responsible automotive publication picks the BEST OVERALL VEHICLE. I don't know how much clearer I can make this. Also of note, GM spends much more on advertising in C/D than Honda. You are not a major automotive publication, you are not five editors reaching a consensus, your INDIVIDUAL tastes and opinions can influence your decision. C/D likes to be a bit more reasonable and provide a better vehicle for the consumer. It wasn't a speed test. You are an idiot though. The Acura was the best daily driver of the bunch, it also happened to be sporty. The fastest vehicle isn't always the most fun, the Mazda MX-5 from the performance figures you listed is a prime example. At the time C/D didn't have an Acura at hand to compare it to. As for the last statement you make, I can only assume you refer to the Cobalt SS. However, that table was not a comparison test, it only serves as a performance benchmark, it has little to do with ranking a car in a comparison, much like the TopGear lapboard.
I must be an idiot since in a test dubbed cheap speed a slow expensive car won ... I dont see how you can justify that ... I read the article and have seen the video a few times, I just dont agree ... the cars were selected with the criteria of cheap speed and the slowest car won ...these cars aren't suposed to be luxury cars why weight that soo heavily. I realize its a test to see the best vehicle but they obviously had cost and speed in mind hense why the picked the title. Just becasue you agree with how they conducted the test's dosn't mean everyone has to. I think this issues was right around the time when the ridgeline won Truck of the year ...if not the same issue lol
I've justified it already. The Acura is a nicer car. And it isn't slow. Nowhere in any C/D comparison test does it say that speed wins comparison tests. Infact, I believe they even explained why in that article as they named the winner. And in the end, no one cares what you think, you aren't being paid to judge the best car in afield of inexpensive sporty cars. Don't even get me started on the fact that the Ridgeline rightly deserved to be opn the 5 Best Trucks list.
it better be nicer ...hell it should be faster too considering how much more it is ..they should take that into account ... if they had called the test something else I wouln't have as much of an issue with it, however when you dubb a test cheep speed those better be heavy factors for chosing a winner. I just optioned a RSX similar to my cobalt and got a price of $42,287 plus tax ... I paid $22,300 plus tax... how can you not take price into consideration wehn picking the best vehicle for people looking to BUY... yeah a car almost twice the price is going to be nicer ... 20 grand nicer ... ummm hell no ...
It has a comparable amount of HP. Ignore the title, and try to soak up some of the meaning of test from the actual TEXT next time. Also, speed is always a factor, but it is only ONE factor among MANY others. They take price into...you know what, read the #$%#ing article over again, and this time try actually reading instead of gazing at pictures and skimming data tables.
haha comparable ammount of HP ...lol Maybe stop gazing at the brochure's for a while and see what kind of power they actually put down ..(and the curve) ..the cobalt has allot more power ...and dont get me started on Torque Speed is one factor cost is another ...cobalt took those both what kind of 20 grand advantage does the Type S have? its got a nicer sounding engine than the sack of marbles with a supercharger that embarrasses it performance wise... and a 6 speed gearbox that feels nice but forces you to constantly row around to keep any of the for mentioned "power" usable I dont need to read data tables and look at pictures again ... I have done the research ... I have driven the cars ... the RSX didnt deserve to win this test and its not a 20 grand nicer car...