TripleL

Mmarshall,

Well Put!! To me it's the combination of the two that makes us well rounded and very well informed.

Although the R&T reviews are very interesting and filled with good track data, I find your reviews to be very informative with information that hits much more close to home for me.

In my book, CL is lucky to have you as a contributor, so Thanks!

TripleL

mmarshall

Sure...glad to be able to help.

Next car on my review list....when I can get one.....is the Mitsubishi Ralliart (incedentially, one of the 4 cars in that R&T article). Mitsubishi is marketing it as a lower-priced, somewhat lower-powered alternative to the Evo....more or less in line with the Subaru WRX. I have a lot of curiosity about this car myself.

JKA.nyc

Nice review... now only if the car weren't so damned butt ugly a lot more people would probably take it into consideration. There are not many cars (if any) I would choose the cobalt over in terms of exterior styling.

mmarshall

Thanks.

Styling, of course, is a subjective matter and individual opinions (and I respect yours), but I don't think it's ugly at all. I personally don't like bullet-shaped, super-aero stuff with humpback-whale rooflines and headlights/taillights running halfway back up the fenders. The Cobalt, IMO, looks like a car, not something out of Star Wars.

SLegacy99

So this isn't quite Cobalt SS related, but I was thinking. GM is now using the 2.0L turbo alot, which I think is great. With Ford planning a DI 2.0L T as well for their Explorer and so on, wouldn't you think that GM would beat Ford to the punch and offer vehicles like the CTS (rumored?), Malibu, various Saturns, perhaps even the Traverse and so on, you get the point.

mmarshall

Well, there's a couple of problems with this line of thought, although I don't entirely disagree with you.

First, you would run into production problems, especially in an age when GM is severely cash-strapped and is on the verge of closing more plants. GM, even with cutbacks, still markets and sells a huge number of cars (it still pretty much shares first and second place in the auto buisness with Toyota). The more different vehicles you offer this engine in, the more production capacity you have to have to build the engine blocks and ship them to the various final-assembly plants....and the more employees and plant tooling for it. Employees and plant tooling cost money....and take up space. Then, on top of that, your contractors have to be able to supply the needed number of turbos......most manufacturers, except for Mitsubishi, don't build their own turbos; they use experienced turbo/supercharging companies like Garret. And, obviously, if you build vehicle A and engine A on one assembly line, you probably can't build vehicle B and engine B on the same line, unless the two are very similiar, off the same platform. even giant companies like GM and Toyota don't have limiless dollars to spend on new plants and production space.


Second, there is the characteristics of the engine itself. As I've noted in my experience with the Cobalt SS, and other vehicles that use the same engine like the Turbo Solstice/Sky, this is not a turbine-smooth powerplant and, IMO, has significant noise and vibration problems. It's not agricultural-crude, but, IMO, is clearly not suited for a luxury-nameplate vehicle like the CTS or even the mid-grade Malibu, where engineers worked hard to get noise and vibration out of the old models....a powerplant like this would just put some of that right back in again.


Third, turbo engines, for a number of reasons, are generally not suitable for towing. That's why so many trucks and SUV's with gasoline-turbo engines don't have any tow rating by the manufacturers.....Like the old Chevy Cyclone, Ford Lightning, Dodge SRT Ram, etc....they are chiefly designed to be hot-rod trucks for performance, rather than real work trucks. So, you're not likely to see its use in the Traverse, or in any similiar vehicle where the main accent is on people-moving or towing.