CarSPIN Forums

Auto Talk => The Fast Lane => Topic started by: ifcar on August 03, 2005, 02:52:33 PM

Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: ifcar on August 03, 2005, 02:52:33 PM
5th Place: Ion RedLine (182 points, $22,115, 6.0 seconds to 60)
Highs: Confident chassis, strong brakes, manageable price.
Lows: Thrashy above 4k RPM, plasticky interior, say-nothing steering.
What they said (their Verdict requires too much explanation): A mix of niggling complaints to more-serious ones about the steering and shifter brought it out of the running.

4th Place: Cobalt SS (189 points, $24,580, 6.1 seconds to 60)
Highs: Solid and rattle-free, 3-passenger rear seat, accomplished long-distance cruiser.
Lows: See Ion.
The Verdict: Competent and fun but not likely to launch a cult.
What they said: "Nothing to hate here, nothing to love." That's usually reserved for Toyotas in their reviews.

3rd Place: SRT4 ACR (193 points, $24,085, 5.6 seconds to 60)
Highs: Big dirty speed, astounding brakes, an autocrosser ready for tire immolation.
Lows: Noisy at all speeds, overly aggressive front seats.
The Verdict: A one-trick pony you'll want to save for SCCA weekends.
What they said: It's a great sporty car that's hard to live with.

2nd Place: WRX (202 points, $26,364 , 6.0 seconds to 60)
Highs: Long-travel suspension, four-wheel grip, superior sightlines.
Lows: Wait-till-tomorrow turbo lag.
The Verdict: An endearing confidence-inspiring hunting dog that never lets you down.
What they said: A great car hindered by its turbo lag.

1st Place: RSX (215 points, $24,240, 6.4 seconds to 60)
Highs: Luxurious cockpit, world's slickest FWD shifter, balance and agility of a ballerina.
Lows: Always revving, always shifting, always busy.
The Verdict: A showcase of engineering, style, speed, and grace.
What they said: The lightest and the most precise, the S2000 of its class.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: TBR on August 03, 2005, 02:54:10 PM
The WRX should've won imho, their only complaint was the torque lag while they complained about the ride and wind noise of the RSX (which was in last place in all of the performance tests).  
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Tom on August 03, 2005, 02:57:26 PM
Their comparo is called "cheap speed," and the slowest, most expensive car wins :o  
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: giant_mtb on August 03, 2005, 02:59:00 PM
I also think the WRX should have won.  It's faster than the RSX, regardless of turbo lag.  I think "wait-till-tomorrow turbo lag" is less of a quibble than "Always revving, always shifting, always busy."

Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: TBR on August 03, 2005, 03:00:13 PM
The WRX was considerably more expensive and the SS was a tad bit more expensive (only because their tester had the performance package).
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: ifcar on August 03, 2005, 03:05:49 PM
QuoteThe WRX was considerably more expensive and the SS was a tad bit more expensive (only because their tester had the performance package).
It's a very common option though, most of them have it. I hadn't seen an SS coupe without the Recaro seats.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Raza on August 03, 2005, 05:11:56 PM
This is ifcar's definition of all rounders winning...The RSX isn't the fastest, cheapest, best, or best handling, but it wins.  

And the RSX's interior is really that much better than the WRX's.  

How I'd rate them:

WRX
SRT4
RSX
Cobalt SS
Ion Red Line
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: giant_mtb on August 03, 2005, 06:26:48 PM
QuoteThis is ifcar's definition of all rounders winning...The RSX isn't the fastest, cheapest, best, or best handling, but it wins.  

And the RSX's interior is really that much better than the WRX's.  

How I'd rate them:

WRX
SRT4
RSX
Cobalt SS
Ion Red Line
I agree with your order.  
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: R33 GT-R on August 03, 2005, 06:33:47 PM
I think the SRT 4 should have won and they lable it hard to live with.  The WRX should have been second with the RSX and SS following with Sat at rear.  The title represents apples to apples the conclusion eludes to apples to oranges.  
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: giant_mtb on August 03, 2005, 06:37:37 PM
The WRX is the most practical of the bunch, IMO.  
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Raza on August 03, 2005, 06:47:07 PM
QuoteThe WRX is the most practical of the bunch, IMO.
Not in your opinion, it is.  It's got a decent size trunk and it's got four doors.  It might even be a little more practical than the SRT-4 because of the AWD and rally like suspension.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: giant_mtb on August 03, 2005, 06:48:19 PM
Quote
QuoteThe WRX is the most practical of the bunch, IMO.
Not in your opinion, it is.  It's got a decent size trunk and it's got four doors.  It might even be a little more practical than the SRT-4 because of the AWD and rally like suspension.
:blink:   That's what I said...that the WRX is the most practical of the bunch, in my opinion... :blink:  :blink:  
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Raza on August 03, 2005, 06:48:46 PM
Quote
Quote
QuoteThe WRX is the most practical of the bunch, IMO.
Not in your opinion, it is.  It's got a decent size trunk and it's got four doors.  It might even be a little more practical than the SRT-4 because of the AWD and rally like suspension.
:blink:   That's what I said...that the WRX is the most practical of the bunch, in my opinion... :blink:  :blink:
There's fact, and there's opinion.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: R33 GT-R on August 03, 2005, 06:51:19 PM
but somewhere in that gray area is where we find ourselves at an impass
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Raza on August 03, 2005, 06:52:13 PM
Quotebut somewhere in that gray area is where we find ourselves at an impass
Impasse.  

We agree, but I'm stating my opinion as fact, and he is stating his opinion as opinion.  My way is better.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: giant_mtb on August 03, 2005, 06:52:25 PM
Quote
Quote
Quote
QuoteThe WRX is the most practical of the bunch, IMO.
Not in your opinion, it is.  It's got a decent size trunk and it's got four doors.  It might even be a little more practical than the SRT-4 because of the AWD and rally like suspension.
:blink:   That's what I said...that the WRX is the most practical of the bunch, in my opinion... :blink:  :blink:
There's fact, and there's opinion.
Well I'm pretty positive the WRX is the most practical of the bunch, by fact, and not just opinion.

(I got confused because you said "Not in your opinion, it is...")
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: giant_mtb on August 03, 2005, 06:52:56 PM
Quote
Quotebut somewhere in that gray area is where we find ourselves at an impass
Impasse.  

We agree, but I'm stating my opinion as fact, and he is stating his opinion as opinion.  My way is better.
I would have given those same reasons, but I figured that a bunch of car guys reading it could figure out my reasons for themselves.  ;)  B)  
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Raza on August 03, 2005, 06:55:01 PM
I should have said "not just in your opinion"
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Tom on August 03, 2005, 07:08:10 PM
Quote
QuoteThis is ifcar's definition of all rounders winning...The RSX isn't the fastest, cheapest, best, or best handling, but it wins. 

And the RSX's interior is really that much better than the WRX's. 

How I'd rate them:

WRX
SRT4
RSX
Cobalt SS
Ion Red Line
I agree with your order.
Me too.  It would be a tough choice between the SRT and WRX.  But you gotta love the AWD.  A relative heavily modded an SRT.  Apparantly the drivetrain couldn't handle it, and the half shaft broke :rolleyes:  
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Raza on August 03, 2005, 07:14:53 PM
Quote
Quote
QuoteThis is ifcar's definition of all rounders winning...The RSX isn't the fastest, cheapest, best, or best handling, but it wins. 

And the RSX's interior is really that much better than the WRX's. 

How I'd rate them:

WRX
SRT4
RSX
Cobalt SS
Ion Red Line
I agree with your order.
Me too.  It would be a tough choice between the SRT and WRX.  But you gotta love the AWD.  A relative heavily modded an SRT.  Apparantly the drivetrain couldn't handle it, and the half shaft broke :rolleyes:
If you mod a WRX out enough, you'll blow the trans...it's the only weak part on the car.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Tom on August 03, 2005, 07:19:36 PM
Quote
Quote
Quote
QuoteThis is ifcar's definition of all rounders winning...The RSX isn't the fastest, cheapest, best, or best handling, but it wins.?

And the RSX's interior is really that much better than the WRX's.?

How I'd rate them:

WRX
SRT4
RSX
Cobalt SS
Ion Red Line
I agree with your order.
Me too.  It would be a tough choice between the SRT and WRX.  But you gotta love the AWD.  A relative heavily modded an SRT.  Apparantly the drivetrain couldn't handle it, and the half shaft broke :rolleyes:
If you mod a WRX out enough, you'll blow the trans...it's the only weak part on the car.
Well thats not a good thing if the trans is responsible for sending power to 4 wheels.  Sounds like an expensive fix.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: TBR on August 03, 2005, 07:20:08 PM
Quote
QuoteThe WRX is the most practical of the bunch, IMO.
Not in your opinion, it is.  It's got a decent size trunk and it's got four doors.  It might even be a little more practical than the SRT-4 because of the AWD and rally like suspension.
And the fact that it actually has a suspension (I am convinced that the SRT4's axles are welded straight to the frame ;) ) as well as a muffler. The SRT4 would be next to impossible to live with as a daily driver.

And, this is my order:
WRX
Ion
SS
RSX
SRT4
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Tom on August 03, 2005, 07:21:20 PM
Quote
Quote
QuoteThe WRX is the most practical of the bunch, IMO.
Not in your opinion, it is.  It's got a decent size trunk and it's got four doors.  It might even be a little more practical than the SRT-4 because of the AWD and rally like suspension.
And the fact that it actually has a suspension (I am convinced that the SRT4's axles are welded straight to the frame ;) ) as well as a muffler. The SRT4 would be next to impossible to live with as a daily driver.

And, this is my order:
WRX
Ion
SS
RSX
SRT4
Ion :wacko:  :blink:  You just indicated you don't like crappy cars.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Raza on August 03, 2005, 07:21:34 PM
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
QuoteThis is ifcar's definition of all rounders winning...The RSX isn't the fastest, cheapest, best, or best handling, but it wins. 

And the RSX's interior is really that much better than the WRX's. 

How I'd rate them:

WRX
SRT4
RSX
Cobalt SS
Ion Red Line
I agree with your order.
Me too.  It would be a tough choice between the SRT and WRX.  But you gotta love the AWD.  A relative heavily modded an SRT.  Apparantly the drivetrain couldn't handle it, and the half shaft broke :rolleyes:
If you mod a WRX out enough, you'll blow the trans...it's the only weak part on the car.
Well thats not a good thing if the trans is responsible for sending power to 4 wheels.  Sounds like an expensive fix.
At that point you replace it with an STi trans, which can handle the power.  Not too expensive.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: giant_mtb on August 03, 2005, 07:23:21 PM
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
QuoteThis is ifcar's definition of all rounders winning...The RSX isn't the fastest, cheapest, best, or best handling, but it wins. 

And the RSX's interior is really that much better than the WRX's. 

How I'd rate them:

WRX
SRT4
RSX
Cobalt SS
Ion Red Line
I agree with your order.
Me too.  It would be a tough choice between the SRT and WRX.  But you gotta love the AWD.  A relative heavily modded an SRT.  Apparantly the drivetrain couldn't handle it, and the half shaft broke :rolleyes:
If you mod a WRX out enough, you'll blow the trans...it's the only weak part on the car.
Well thats not a good thing if the trans is responsible for sending power to 4 wheels.  Sounds like an expensive fix.
Well it isn't designed to have to handle a whole lot more HP than stock.  ;)  
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: R33 GT-R on August 03, 2005, 07:23:51 PM
Quote
Quotebut somewhere in that gray area is where we find ourselves at an impass
Impasse.  

We agree, but I'm stating my opinion as fact, and he is stating his opinion as opinion.  My way is better.
I'm typing fast soup nazi, forgive me
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: ifcar on August 03, 2005, 07:25:14 PM
My order:

1. WRX
2. Cobalt
3. RSX
4. SRT-4
5. Ion
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Raza on August 03, 2005, 07:25:38 PM
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
QuoteThis is ifcar's definition of all rounders winning...The RSX isn't the fastest, cheapest, best, or best handling, but it wins. 

And the RSX's interior is really that much better than the WRX's. 

How I'd rate them:

WRX
SRT4
RSX
Cobalt SS
Ion Red Line
I agree with your order.
Me too.  It would be a tough choice between the SRT and WRX.  But you gotta love the AWD.  A relative heavily modded an SRT.  Apparantly the drivetrain couldn't handle it, and the half shaft broke :rolleyes:
If you mod a WRX out enough, you'll blow the trans...it's the only weak part on the car.
Well thats not a good thing if the trans is responsible for sending power to 4 wheels.  Sounds like an expensive fix.
Well it isn't designed to have to handle a whole lot more HP than stock.  ;)
The stock trans can handle roughly 400-425bhp.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Raza on August 03, 2005, 07:25:59 PM
Quote
Quote
Quotebut somewhere in that gray area is where we find ourselves at an impass
Impasse.  

We agree, but I'm stating my opinion as fact, and he is stating his opinion as opinion.  My way is better.
I'm typing fast soup nazi, forgive me
Look...I'm sorry I'm such an asshole
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: giant_mtb on August 03, 2005, 07:26:31 PM
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
QuoteThis is ifcar's definition of all rounders winning...The RSX isn't the fastest, cheapest, best, or best handling, but it wins. 

And the RSX's interior is really that much better than the WRX's. 

How I'd rate them:

WRX
SRT4
RSX
Cobalt SS
Ion Red Line
I agree with your order.
Me too.  It would be a tough choice between the SRT and WRX.  But you gotta love the AWD.  A relative heavily modded an SRT.  Apparantly the drivetrain couldn't handle it, and the half shaft broke :rolleyes:
If you mod a WRX out enough, you'll blow the trans...it's the only weak part on the car.
Well thats not a good thing if the trans is responsible for sending power to 4 wheels.  Sounds like an expensive fix.
Well it isn't designed to have to handle a whole lot more HP than stock.  ;)
The stock trans can handle roughly 400-425bhp.
That's not weak at all...  :o  :blink:  B)  
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: TBR on August 03, 2005, 09:23:41 PM
Quote
Quote
Quote
QuoteThe WRX is the most practical of the bunch, IMO.
Not in your opinion, it is.  It's got a decent size trunk and it's got four doors.  It might even be a little more practical than the SRT-4 because of the AWD and rally like suspension.
And the fact that it actually has a suspension (I am convinced that the SRT4's axles are welded straight to the frame ;) ) as well as a muffler. The SRT4 would be next to impossible to live with as a daily driver.

And, this is my order:
WRX
Ion
SS
RSX
SRT4
Ion :wacko:  :blink:  You just indicated you don't like crappy cars.
That isn't my personal buying order, that is how I think the comparo should have played out using the rest of their comments, this is my buying order:

1. WRX
2. Ss
3. RSX
4. SRT4
5. Ion
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Colonel Cadillac on August 03, 2005, 09:45:42 PM
I think the SS should be higher in the comparo than the SRT-4. The SRT-4 is too rough around the edges to be so high. The SS does better overall while the SRT-4 only accels (although to the top) in a few departments.  
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Raza on August 04, 2005, 06:05:25 AM
QuoteI think the SS should be higher in the comparo than the SRT-4. The SRT-4 is too rough around the edges to be so high. The SS does better overall while the SRT-4 only accels (although to the top) in a few departments.
The thing is, that the title is "cheap speed".  Not "cheap cars that may also go fast!".  While stock the car is roughly the same as the WRX (6.0 seconds is a slow 0-60) it is cheaper--and that edges it out above many of the others.  The WRX wins for me because of looks, speed, handling, AWD, practicality, liveabilitiy, and modability.  Yes, liveability and practicality are important--but not necessarily that important.  Then again, if you're got a sensitive bum, then go buy a Continental.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: R33 GT-R on August 04, 2005, 09:00:47 AM
I still think the SRT 4 wins because it excels where it matters, speed.  So what if it's a bit rough.  The WRX however is a solid second.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Tom on August 04, 2005, 09:47:38 AM
It's really not that rough around the edges.  Maybe a bit loud, but it has comfy leather seats.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Raza on August 04, 2005, 10:00:05 AM
QuoteIt's really not that rough around the edges.  Maybe a bit loud, but it has comfy leather seats.
Leather is available on the WRX as well, but you have to ask really nicely.  I sat in a leather WRX...it was nice!
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Run Away on August 04, 2005, 10:07:23 AM
I for one agree with the results exactly the way they are. How many of you actually read the full article and not just the High/Lows that iffy pasted?

However, if I were to have one of the cars for my own purposes at this point in my life, I'd probably take an SRT-4.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: MrH on August 04, 2005, 10:19:31 AM
QuoteI for one agree with the results exactly the way they are. How many of you actually read the full article and not just the High/Lows that iffy pasted?

However, if I were to have one of the cars for my own purposes at this point in my life, I'd probably take an SRT-4.
Hooray.  Someone who actually read the article chimed in.  I read it too, and agree as well.

Though I personally wouldn't take the SRT4.  RSX-S or WRX for me.

As for the WRX being the most practical, and stating that as a fact, is bullshit.  It had the smallest trunk in the entire comparison, and the Neon beat it in rear seat space.  The WRX only had the Neon by one cubic foot up front.  It seems the Neon is the most spacious of all them, by a fair amount.

The WRX also died for worst gas mileage of the whole group.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Raza on August 04, 2005, 10:20:52 AM
Quote
QuoteI for one agree with the results exactly the way they are. How many of you actually read the full article and not just the High/Lows that iffy pasted?

However, if I were to have one of the cars for my own purposes at this point in my life, I'd probably take an SRT-4.
Hooray.  Someone who actually read the article chimed in.  I read it too, and agree as well.

Though I personally wouldn't take the SRT4.  RSX-S or WRX for me.

As for the WRX being the most practical, and stating that as a fact, is bullshit.  It had the smallest trunk in the entire comparison, and the Neon beat it in rear seat space.  The WRX only had the Neon by one cubic foot up front.  It seems the Neon is the most spacious of all them, by a fair amount.

The WRX also died for worst gas mileage of the whole group.
AWD cars are always going to get worse gas mileage.  That argument is as stupid as "the 350Z is as practical as the RX-8, so the RX-8 is a better 'sports car'."
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: TBR on August 04, 2005, 10:36:31 AM
QuoteI for one agree with the results exactly the way they are. How many of you actually read the full article and not just the High/Lows that iffy pasted?

However, if I were to have one of the cars for my own purposes at this point in my life, I'd probably take an SRT-4.
I have read the article and they had plenty of bad stuff to say about the RSX-S, more bad stuff than they had to say about the WRX for sure. The SRT-4 shouldn't have won, it isn't well rounded enough.  
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: MrH on August 04, 2005, 10:56:03 AM
Quote
Quote
QuoteI for one agree with the results exactly the way they are. How many of you actually read the full article and not just the High/Lows that iffy pasted?

However, if I were to have one of the cars for my own purposes at this point in my life, I'd probably take an SRT-4.
Hooray.  Someone who actually read the article chimed in.  I read it too, and agree as well.

Though I personally wouldn't take the SRT4.  RSX-S or WRX for me.

As for the WRX being the most practical, and stating that as a fact, is bullshit.  It had the smallest trunk in the entire comparison, and the Neon beat it in rear seat space.  The WRX only had the Neon by one cubic foot up front.  It seems the Neon is the most spacious of all them, by a fair amount.

The WRX also died for worst gas mileage of the whole group.
AWD cars are always going to get worse gas mileage.  That argument is as stupid as "the 350Z is as practical as the RX-8, so the RX-8 is a better 'sports car'."
So what if AWD are going to always get worse gas mileage.  You can't ignore that fact, and treat it as if it's not a disadvantage because of AWD.  That's just a con I'm pointing out in the WRX.

And that analogy was butchered so badly, I won't even try to respond to it.  I'll let you think it over instead.  B)  
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Raza on August 04, 2005, 10:57:56 AM
Quote
Quote
Quote
QuoteI for one agree with the results exactly the way they are. How many of you actually read the full article and not just the High/Lows that iffy pasted?

However, if I were to have one of the cars for my own purposes at this point in my life, I'd probably take an SRT-4.
Hooray.  Someone who actually read the article chimed in.  I read it too, and agree as well.

Though I personally wouldn't take the SRT4.  RSX-S or WRX for me.

As for the WRX being the most practical, and stating that as a fact, is bullshit.  It had the smallest trunk in the entire comparison, and the Neon beat it in rear seat space.  The WRX only had the Neon by one cubic foot up front.  It seems the Neon is the most spacious of all them, by a fair amount.

The WRX also died for worst gas mileage of the whole group.
AWD cars are always going to get worse gas mileage.  That argument is as stupid as "the 350Z is as practical as the RX-8, so the RX-8 is a better 'sports car'."
So what if AWD are going to always get worse gas mileage.  You can't ignore that fact, and treat it as if it's not a disadvantage because of AWD.  That's just a con I'm pointing out in the WRX.

And that analogy was butchered so badly, I won't even try to respond to it.  I'll let you think it over instead.  B)
Wasn't it C&D that compared the RX-8, S2000, and 350Z and chose the RX-8 because it was the most practical?  

Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: ifcar on August 04, 2005, 11:09:14 AM
Nope.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Tom on August 04, 2005, 11:14:22 AM
Every one of these cars will rape you in insurance, especially if you are young and/or have a bad record :(  
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Raza on August 04, 2005, 11:16:38 AM
QuoteEvery one of these cars will rape you in insurance, especially if you are young and/or have a bad record :(
The RSX will probably be the gentlest.

if:  It must have been some other rag then...probably Edmunds.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Speed_Racer on August 04, 2005, 11:19:40 AM
The RSX is quite bad actually. It has a high theft rating. I would expect the Cobalt SS to be lowest.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Tom on August 04, 2005, 11:20:37 AM
QuoteThe RSX is quite bad actually. It has a high theft rating. I would expect the Cobalt SS to be lowest.
That's what I was thinking.  Most RSX drivers I see have pretty bad road manners too.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: ifcar on August 04, 2005, 11:21:41 AM
Raza, Edmunds compared the RX8, Mustang, and 350Z, no S2000.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Raza on August 04, 2005, 11:21:43 AM
QuoteThe RSX is quite bad actually. It has a high theft rating. I would expect the Cobalt SS to be lowest.
I didn't think of theft...good point.  

And the road manners of most RSX drivers I've met have been pretty shitty.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Raza on August 04, 2005, 11:21:58 AM
QuoteEdmunds compared the RX8, Mustang, and 350Z, no S2000.
That might be it.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: R33 GT-R on August 04, 2005, 01:05:06 PM
the SRT 4 is the class of this bunch for sure.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: FlatBlackCaddy on August 04, 2005, 01:21:10 PM
I read it and i would probobly take a WRX.

If the biggest downside is turbo lag that can be fixed, pretty easily, in the future.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: R33 GT-R on August 04, 2005, 01:24:15 PM
Of course you would Party Pooper and I would wave as I dusted you in the SRT 4.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: FlatBlackCaddy on August 04, 2005, 02:50:21 PM
Just don't torque steer into me. The SRT is a nice car but in the hands of a inexperienced driver(like yourself) it can be a handful.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Raza on August 04, 2005, 05:57:30 PM
QuoteI read it and i would probobly take a WRX.

If the biggest downside is turbo lag that can be fixed, pretty easily, in the future.
A little nitrous spray should fix it!
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: Run Away on August 04, 2005, 09:40:20 PM
Quote
QuoteI for one agree with the results exactly the way they are. How many of you actually read the full article and not just the High/Lows that iffy pasted?

However, if I were to have one of the cars for my own purposes at this point in my life, I'd probably take an SRT-4.
I have read the article and they had plenty of bad stuff to say about the RSX-S, more bad stuff than they had to say about the WRX for sure. The SRT-4 shouldn't have won, it isn't well rounded enough.
The SRT-4 didn't win...

I just stated that it would be my preferance of them all because I hold a very low priority on comfort, but I agree with C&D's rankings given their criteria.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: TBR on August 04, 2005, 09:45:45 PM
Quote
Quote
QuoteI for one agree with the results exactly the way they are. How many of you actually read the full article and not just the High/Lows that iffy pasted?

However, if I were to have one of the cars for my own purposes at this point in my life, I'd probably take an SRT-4.
I have read the article and they had plenty of bad stuff to say about the RSX-S, more bad stuff than they had to say about the WRX for sure. The SRT-4 shouldn't have won, it isn't well rounded enough.
The SRT-4 didn't win...

I just stated that it would be my preferance of them all because I hold a very low priority on comfort, but I agree with C&D's rankings given their criteria.
I know, I was just saying why it shouldn't have.
Title: C/D Comparo: "Cheap Speed"
Post by: R33 GT-R on August 04, 2005, 09:55:23 PM
QuoteJust don't torque steer into me. The SRT is a nice car but in the hands of a inexperienced driver(like yourself) it can be a handful.
Don't worry about me Flats I'll keep it between the lines just the way your mother likes it.