S2K IN TROUBLE PART 2
11-17-2008 | 07:34 AM
#91
Former Sponsor
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 28,698
Likes: 38
From: Mooresville, NC
Originally Posted by KonaMan,Nov 17 2008, 10:59 AM
Ref. Cobalt... typical GM (American car) approach to performance... stuff a bunch of motor in a so so chasis, throw some springs and shocks, and oh yeah, a look at me wing... instant classic! Right.
I would stack my "anemic" wheezer of a sports car against anything in it's class... yeah, there's faster stuff and even flashier stuff if plastic aero add ons melt your butter but the final answer lies in the fact that these are great cars, they're fun to drive, and I would bet you a paycheck most of them will be around and running strong at 50, 60, even 80+ thousand miles and we won't even know the name of our service advisor... I don't think a Cobalt will be looking (or running) so good when the odo hits 40 or so thousand miles,
I would stack my "anemic" wheezer of a sports car against anything in it's class... yeah, there's faster stuff and even flashier stuff if plastic aero add ons melt your butter but the final answer lies in the fact that these are great cars, they're fun to drive, and I would bet you a paycheck most of them will be around and running strong at 50, 60, even 80+ thousand miles and we won't even know the name of our service advisor... I don't think a Cobalt will be looking (or running) so good when the odo hits 40 or so thousand miles,
11-17-2008 | 08:45 AM
#92
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 1
From: The Beach
Kill this one and another thread will pop-up comparing the S2000 with
2010 350Z and how it kills the s2000 in every category
Audi TT and how it kills the s2000 in every category
etc etc....
The S2000 is a car that one must drive on a long twisty road to get the true purpose of this car. The S2000 was never meant to be a super fast car...but rather a car that reward drivers that posses patience and skill in spades...
2010 350Z and how it kills the s2000 in every category
Audi TT and how it kills the s2000 in every category
etc etc....
The S2000 is a car that one must drive on a long twisty road to get the true purpose of this car. The S2000 was never meant to be a super fast car...but rather a car that reward drivers that posses patience and skill in spades...
11-17-2008 | 10:27 AM
#93
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
From: SoCal
S2000 is an instant classic still offered brand new 9 years later. You don't get that prestige with a cobalt cavalier z24 evolution SS. The cobalt will go down in history as a fast but ugly car with no heritage, made during a time when GM is sucking wind with no end in sight. It will go down like a fast version of the AMC Pacer.
there, you can close the thread now.
there, you can close the thread now.
11-17-2008 | 12:35 PM
#94
Registered User
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,223
Likes: 1
From: Charlotte, NC
Originally Posted by aCab,Nov 14 2008, 10:21 AM
I don't know about you guys, but I feel ashamed. I'm constantly being beaten on the street by guys in the new Cobalt SS. It's really quite pathetic. I bought my S2k to race in a straight line after seeing the pink one in 2 Fast 2 Furious. I thought it was going to be fast right out of the box. It's not any fun to drive in the mountains - I want to have to keep a turbo spooled and have fwd. I wish now that I would have bought an EVO or STi.
11-17-2008 | 12:57 PM
#96
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,569
Likes: 17
From: Second City
Originally Posted by DougEFresh,Nov 17 2008, 03:35 PM
you might want to second guess this post... somebody is about to have a field day with that response. If you bought the car to perform like the pink one in fast and furious install a 150 shot of Nitrous, it should be fast...for alittle while...
11-17-2008 | 01:53 PM
#97
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by 2003s2k2003,Nov 17 2008, 08:34 AM
40k miles what are you talking about? Saying the s will be good at 40,50 and 60k miles?? Of course it will. If your trying to make the S sound reliable don't say running strong at 50k miles, more like 150k miles. Don't care if you don't like the cobalt, I don't either but saying it won't be good at 40k miles? Come on!
Think I heard that the average UAW workers gets around 70 to 75 bucks and hour while folks working for Honda America make around 40 to 45... seriously, would you rather own a new Accord or Civic or a new Cobalt or Malibu?
11-17-2008 | 06:12 PM
#98
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
From: phoenix
I used to see this kind of thread on the RX-8 board all of the time, I didn't think I would find them over here.
Instead of being upset that the Cobalt SS is faster than an s2k, give GM props for making an inexpensive fast FWD car. I was impressed with it's performance in the C&D lightining lap.
It sure doesn't bother me if it's faster than my S. I drove several cars that were faster than the s2k before buying one but none were as fun to drive and thats what counts in the end.
Instead of being upset that the Cobalt SS is faster than an s2k, give GM props for making an inexpensive fast FWD car. I was impressed with it's performance in the C&D lightining lap.
It sure doesn't bother me if it's faster than my S. I drove several cars that were faster than the s2k before buying one but none were as fun to drive and thats what counts in the end.
11-17-2008 | 08:34 PM
#99
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,678
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by boofer,Nov 17 2008, 04:53 AM
so if these minivans get these 270 hp 250 lb/ft V6 engines and they end up running the 0-60 jaunt in 6.5 seconds, but none of them can do it any faster, why would we S2000 owners care again? also, why would you want to compare 5-30 times either? do you do that when you're comparing your S2000 to a Z4 or a boxster?
i'm just confused, because these minivans are still about a full second slower than the S2000, but you're all saying that they basically hang with the S2000, in a straight line. let's not even try to think how much slower a Sienna would be on a track.
but, when you're comparing the S2000 to what the 370Z will do or any other car that runs 0-60 in like...4.9 seconds, you're saying how the S is so slow and how you all need more HP. we lag behind by a few tenths of a second, and we're "slow," and minivans lag behind us by over a second, and...they still "rival" us, and we're still slow.
4.9 < 5.5 (S2000) < almost 7 seconds (minivan).
i'm just confused, because these minivans are still about a full second slower than the S2000, but you're all saying that they basically hang with the S2000, in a straight line. let's not even try to think how much slower a Sienna would be on a track.
but, when you're comparing the S2000 to what the 370Z will do or any other car that runs 0-60 in like...4.9 seconds, you're saying how the S is so slow and how you all need more HP. we lag behind by a few tenths of a second, and we're "slow," and minivans lag behind us by over a second, and...they still "rival" us, and we're still slow.
4.9 < 5.5 (S2000) < almost 7 seconds (minivan).
