2005 Chevrolet Cobalt

[BMWDave]

2005 Chevrolet Cobalt: G.M.'s Small-Car Glass Is Now Half Full

By JEFF SABATINI
Published: June 19, 2005
I HAVE yet to read the headline, "Vultures Circle Renaissance Center," but as the bad news has multiplied with each passing week, certainly a member of the press must have been assigned to bird-watching duty at General Motors' global headquarters in Detroit.


Not a day has gone by in the past month that has not brought some pundit's proclamations of G.M.'s impending demise. A confluence of events - from slowing S.U.V. sales to multiple debt-rating downgrades, the meddling of the financier Kirk Kerkorian and the announcement of more plant closings and layoffs - has darkened skies over Detroit. But if a ray of sunshine exists, it is this: Despite the legions of truly awful products G.M. has built in the past three decades, its newest models are vastly improved and generally likable.

The compact Chevrolet Cobalt, for instance, hints at a brighter future. It will eventually replace the despicable Cavalier in Chevy's lineup (for the time being, 2005 models of both cars are crowding dealer lots), slotting between the subcompact Aveo and midsize Malibu. The Cobalt is a good car, if not a great one, and it is certainly a creditable competitor to the Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic and most other $15,000 cars on the market.

The Cobalt's base price, including shipping, is $14,190, although under G.M.'s current "Employee Discount for Everyone" promotion (which runs through July 5), this number drops to $12,471. As low as those numbers sound, it is possible to push the price of a Cobalt beyond $20,000.

Available as a front-wheel-drive sedan or coupe, the Cobalt is powered by a 2.2-liter version of G.M.'s Ecotec 4-cylinder engine that produces 145 horsepower and 155 pound-feet of torque. Those are good numbers for this segment - Toyota's standard Corolla has a 1.8-liter 4-cylinder with 130 horsepower and 125 pound-feet of torque - and the Cobalt hustles around pretty well, even when equipped with an optional four-speed automatic transmission.

There is a price to be paid for those horses, however, as an automatic Cobalt sedan is rated at 24 miles a gallon in the city and 32 on the highway by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Corolla's numbers are better by six miles a gallon in both situations, in large part because it is lighter; the Corolla weighs in about 275 pounds less than the 2,868-pound Cobalt.

The Cobalt's suspension and steering are better than most cars in this class. G.M. has hit a sweet spot for cheap-car ride, achieving a nice compromise between cushy and responsive. The Cobalt did not sway me from my belief that the Mazda 3 is the best-handling compact car extant, nor was its steering as taut as that of the Ford Focus, but many drivers will prefer the Chevy's softer ride and slightly overassisted steering.

Though both Cobalt body styles are attractive, the coupe is the shapelier car, just as it should be. Its long hood and short trunk lid recall classic muscle car proportions, but this is no exercise in retro styling, as its sloping rear window and wraparound fascias front and rear are thoroughly modern. While its round tail lamps do nod to Chevrolets past, the coupe's tough rear end could just as easily be mistaken for that of a Ferrari 360 Modena. Squint too long at the Cobalt sedan, however, and you might mistake it for a 2005 Volkswagen Jetta.

G.M.'s design team has captured the essence of Chevy styling in the Cobalt, taking an inoffensively generic car shape, making its lines crisp and simple, then ornamenting it with just a few interesting details. The approach carries over to the interior, which is thankfully utilitarian, generally comfortable and only embarrassing when clad with chintzy accents of fake wood. Fortunately, metal-look trim is optional.

Regardless of how the cabin is dressed up, the materials are of good enough quality and seem to be well assembled. All Cobalts have a good-looking gauge package with a display that reports fuel economy and outside temperature among other functions, a nice touch for a car in this price class.

The Cobalt's safety rating is a concern, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration gave the sedan only two stars (out of a maximum of five) for its performance in front-seat side-impact testing. This was an improvement over the Cavalier, which earned only one star in the same test.

In other government tests, the Cobalt did better, scoring fours and fives. But basic safety features like antilock brakes and traction control are optional on base models and side curtain air bags cost extra on all levels of the Cobalt.

My other issues with the car are less serious. Its exhaust tone could be improved; either quieter or louder would be preferable to sounding like a vacuum cleaner. The coupe's trunk opening is too small, a problem that could have been rectified, and should have been, by making the car a hatchback.

When all is said and done, nothing about the Cobalt is truly outstanding, just as nothing is egregiously wrong. In this competitive market segment, it stands as a solid effort, though it is not likely to win any car of the year awards. Still, G.M. has not sold a good small car since it last hawked the Prizm, a Chevy-badged version of the Toyota Corolla that disappeared in 2002. That the Cobalt is a true G.M. product says that this beleaguered company may indeed have a chance.

INSIDE TRACK May Chevy never have to speak of the Cavalier again.

[ifcar]

I disagree, GM sold a good small car in 1995. Like the Cobalt is now, the Cavalier was a good, solid car, just not outstanding.

[BMWDave]

I disagree, GM sold a good small car in 1995. Like the Cobalt is now, the Cavalier was a good, solid car, just not outstanding.

Just because it was cheap doesnt make it a "good" car.  It was put together badly, and its main point was simply a price advantage.

[ifcar]

I disagree. First of all, "put together badly" is extremely vague, what are you trying to say? Secondly, do you remember just how bad small cars were in 1995? To have a fairly roomy interior, decent pep, and reasonable ride and handling was enough to put a vehicle in the top half of the market, and the Cavalier had all that.  

[BMWDave]

I disagree. First of all, "put together badly" is extremely vague, what are you trying to say? Secondly, do you remember just how bad small cars were in 1995? To have a fairly roomy interior, decent pep, and reasonable ride and handling was enough to put a vehicle in the top half of the market, and the Cavalier had all that.

I've been in a Corolla from 95, and it definitely was put together well, and was not at all "bad".  When I say bad for a Cavalier, I mean tremendous gaps, very brittle materials inside, a horrible junky thunk when you closed the doors, etc.  

[ifcar]

Do you consider interior quality to be the only important factor of a car?

[BMWDave]

Do you consider interior quality to be the only important factor of a car?

Not at all, and I mentioned factors other than the interior.  The corolla was also peppy and handled acceptably.  The Cavalier relied on price, not its attributes, to sell itself.

[ifcar]

I never said that the Cavalier was a better car than the Corolla, I specifically said that it was good but not class-leading (as was the 1995 Corolla IMO, but you apparently think otherwise and I don't want to wander further off-topic).

The Cavalier was definitely a cut above such 1995 competitors as the Mitsu Mirage, the Escort, and the Neon, just below cars like the Civic and Protege.

[BMWDave]

I never said that the Cavalier was a better car than the Corolla, I specifically said that it was good but not class-leading (as was the 1995 Corolla IMO, but you apparently think otherwise and I don't want to wander further off-topic).

The Cavalier was definitely a cut above such 1995 competitors as the Mitsu Mirage, the Escort, and the Neon, just below cars like the Civic and Protege.

I misunderstood you...I thought you were trying to say the Cavalier was almost a leader in its class, which it wasnt.  

[ifcar]

Not at all. I'm saying that in 1995, the Cavalier was very capable, but unexceptional, which is exactly what the Cobalt is now. The parallels are remarkable: The 1995 Cavalier replaced a hoplessely aged and outdated vehicle, and was a substantial improvement over it, as was the 2005 Cobalt. By its fifth year in the market, the Cavalier was completely outclassed. Even if Chevrolet follows such a cycle with the Cobalt, I suspect it will be suffering similarly by the 2009 model year, relying on rebates and fleet sales. In fact, I'd predict that by MY 2007 or sooner.

[BMWDave]

Not at all. I'm saying that in 1995, the Cavalier was very capable, but unexceptional, which is exactly what the Cobalt is now. The parallels are remarkable: The 1995 Cavalier replaced a hoplessely aged and outdated vehicle, and was a substantial improvement over it, as was the 2005 Cobalt. By its fifth year in the market, the Cavalier was completely outclassed. Even if Chevrolet follows such a cycle with the Cobalt, I suspect it will be suffering similarly by the 2009 model year, relying on rebates and fleet sales. In fact, I'd predict that by MY 2007 or sooner.

That will probably, and sadly, be the case.

[Run Away]

I'd definitley take a '95 Neon over a '95 Cavalier.
Neons are not as bad as they are made to be. 132hp in base form (more than todays's Civic, 10 years later) and the DOHC model had 150hp. The 5 speed tranny is smooth and precise, not Honda level but still good. The chassis is also quite stiff and handling is definitley above average.
What killed the Neon is things like the very poorly geared 3 speed auto, BHG issues that were not cured until later on and other little quirks such as the rear brakes that squeal no matter what you do to them.

[TBR]

I can only think of two cars that anyone can make a case for being better than the Cobalt and the Cobalt has a good mix of the positive attributes of both of those cars. I consider it to be a class leader, behind only the 3 and Corolla.  

[ifcar]

How is that? In what ways does it stand out? It's quick and refined, but does it have any other ways where it even stands out, much less is best-in-class? It isn't all that well-valued (if that's how you say that you can get its competitors for much less in real-world pricing, at least after July 6), and has awful interior packaging.

It's decidedly midpack, the way I see it.

[TBR]

How is that? In what ways does it stand out? It's quick and refined, but does it have any other ways where it even stands out, much less is best-in-class? It isn't all that well-valued (if that's how you say that you can get its competitors for much less in real-world pricing, at least after July 6), and has awful interior packaging.

It's decidedly midpack, the way I see it.

How many of its competitors are quick and refined besides the Corolla and 3? I can't think of any. And, I never said it was best in class, I said it was a class leader, right behind the 3 amd Corolla. Name a car that is better than it besides those two.  

[ifcar]

How is that? In what ways does it stand out? It's quick and refined, but does it have any other ways where it even stands out, much less is best-in-class? It isn't all that well-valued (if that's how you say that you can get its competitors for much less in real-world pricing, at least after July 6), and has awful interior packaging.

It's decidedly midpack, the way I see it.

How many of its competitors are quick and refined besides the Corolla and 3? I can't think of any. And, I never said it was best in class, I said it was a class leader, right behind the 3 amd Corolla. Name a car that is better than it besides those two.

Focus. Much roomier, can be bought for much less, much more fun to drive.
Elantra and Spectra. Roomier, can be bought for much less, similarly refined.

[R33 GT-R]

Let's put some micro machine wheels on that log I just floated and we'll call it the Cobalt.

[R33 GT-R]

crapalier is good as well.

[TBR]

How is that? In what ways does it stand out? It's quick and refined, but does it have any other ways where it even stands out, much less is best-in-class? It isn't all that well-valued (if that's how you say that you can get its competitors for much less in real-world pricing, at least after July 6), and has awful interior packaging.

It's decidedly midpack, the way I see it.

How many of its competitors are quick and refined besides the Corolla and 3? I can't think of any. And, I never said it was best in class, I said it was a class leader, right behind the 3 amd Corolla. Name a car that is better than it besides those two.

Focus. Much roomier, can be bought for much less, much more fun to drive.
Elantra and Spectra. Roomier, can be bought for much less, similarly refined.

Ok, just curious more than anything. I still consider the Cobalt to be a class leader, especially in the interior department. Not even the 3 has a better interior imho.  

[ifcar]

How is that? In what ways does it stand out? It's quick and refined, but does it have any other ways where it even stands out, much less is best-in-class? It isn't all that well-valued (if that's how you say that you can get its competitors for much less in real-world pricing, at least after July 6), and has awful interior packaging.

It's decidedly midpack, the way I see it.

How many of its competitors are quick and refined besides the Corolla and 3? I can't think of any. And, I never said it was best in class, I said it was a class leader, right behind the 3 amd Corolla. Name a car that is better than it besides those two.

Focus. Much roomier, can be bought for much less, much more fun to drive.
Elantra and Spectra. Roomier, can be bought for much less, similarly refined.

Ok, just curious more than anything. I still consider the Cobalt to be a class leader, especially in the interior department. Not even the 3 has a better interior imho.

It's not so impressive on the base versions though. BTW, if you want to see numerical and other ratings of small sedans (and most have reviews by now),
http://ifcar.net/vehicleinformation.sedans.compacts.htm

The Cobalt only RANKED behind the cars I mentioned and the cars you mentioned, but there's quite a sudden dropoff. (I absolutely hate the Cobalt's seats, front and rear, and I find it hard to believe that other people haven't criticized them as much.)

[TBR]

Seats are very subjective, some people will like a seat that other people hate. And, I think I will trust C/D more than you, the ranked the Cobalt high in refinement and interior (by the way, the car I looked at was a base version, and I was still pretty impressed).  

[ifcar]

There is no doubt whatsoever that the Cobalt has awful rear seats, there's just no space. And while seat comfort is subjective, I don't see what C/D liked about the seats, and they didn't make it very clear either.

What did you like about the Cobalt seats?

[TBR]

There is no doubt whatsoever that the Cobalt has awful rear seats, there's just no space. And while seat comfort is subjective, I don't see what C/D liked about the seats, and they didn't make it very clear either.

What did you like about the Cobalt seats?

I never said I liked them, I didn't spend enough time in them to tell. I was just saying that other reviewers probably didn't say anything because seats are a subjective area. I was refering more to the dashboard than the seats when I said that the Cobalt has the best in class interior.  

[ifcar]

There is no doubt whatsoever that the Cobalt has awful rear seats, there's just no space. And while seat comfort is subjective, I don't see what C/D liked about the seats, and they didn't make it very clear either.

What did you like about the Cobalt seats?

I never said I liked them, I didn't spend enough time in them to tell. I was just saying that other reviewers probably didn't say anything because seats are a subjective area. I was refering more to the dashboard than the seats when I said that the Cobalt has the best in class interior.

Haven't read many reviews lately, have you? They ALL discuss the seats.

And only needed to be in the seats for two seconds to realize that I could never like them. 15 minutes later, I had even more evidence to support that.

And I knew what you meant by interior, I figured you'd been in the car and had some impressions.

[R33 GT-R]

I'm with ifcar the cobalt is a rolling corn eyed lumpfish.

[BMWDave]

I'm with ifcar the cobalt is a rolling corn eyed lumpfish.

well said