Nice Cobalt...

I guess I feel a little different about the G5. I think the Cobalt SS Supercharged is one of the better looking and is the best performing compact on the market today, sans perhaps Evo and STi, both of which are thousands more. The interior is decent, although there are lots of hard plastics, I never felt it looked or felt particularly cheap.
 
However, the performance brand of GM was not able to get that sportier trim, and only gets the coupe version. The suspension in the lower levels is much more of a soft setup for daily driving, and suffers for it, as the SS Supercharged suspension setup is very unique and well done, and turns exceptionally well in the corners. Despite being down 100 hp, it was able to best the Mustang GT in one recent magazine test around a notable track (despite not getting the "subjective" win).
 
The G5 looks like it was badge engineered from h#%$ though, and it needs a much higher level of differentiation. It looks like the Pontiac dealers did not beg enough for this car! The next generation cars should fix that, although I am not particularly happy this clone made it to production. I can forgive it because GM has made a lot of progress, particularly with the vehicles post 2005, when the Cobalt debuted.

Mike,
 
Interesting that you left the Mazdaspeed3 off your list. Only $1400 more than an Si, too.

Karl,
 
The Cobalt Supercharged is the true competition for the Si, not the G5. I think you already know that. Also, if you wanted a manual tranny in the G5 you could get one and save $850 and leave the Si with a one cog advantage. It makes little sense to compare the manual only Si to a G5 with an optional automatic.
 
For the same real world money the SS supercharged will outgun the Civic and according to C&D its a lot more capable at the track than the Honda. I'll take better handling and acceleration over softer plastics anyday, after all these are performance coupes, not luxury sedans.

TMV for a Cobalt SC with side curtains and 6CD changer is $20,880. I think that is much better deal than the G5 GT and a great value compared to the Si that has 61 less lb-ft of torque.

The G5 is another weak example of poor badge engineering. Of course they will say it is just a temporary solution and just wait and see what is coming in the future.

The G5 GT sounds more like a Sentra SE-R type car. No forced induction, no high revs, just a big 4 cylinder engine meant for larger cars. How do they compare? The G5 seems dated, so it's fair to compare it to the outgoing SE-R.
 
I know it isn't really that old, but GM copied the old Civic's cartoony headlights just as Honda was moving away from that style, and now they look one generation old. Just as in the early '90s, Honda's leading compact car design - but I'm curious to see what post-design-renaissance GM can do. Probably a fancy look with mediocre steering and transmission feel again.

I am normally a GM fan, and I liked the Cobalt that I rented a few weeks back, although it was a base model sedan. The G5 in nothing but a badge engineered Cobalt.
 
In that respect, I feel that the Civic Si is the all around better car than the G5/Cobalt - even the Cobalt Supercharged SS. While the Cobalt SC, is not a bad vehicle in any respect, it does fall short of the Civic. Granted this is GM's first serious foray into the soprt compact segment. The previous attempts with the Z24 Cavalier were a joke. Honda has this sport compact thing down pat. They know how to do it. I am not trying to make excuses for GM, but at least they made a palatable car with the Cobalt....
 
It'll be interesting to see what the next generation does. Even with it's faults, I would still probably buy the Cobalt SS. It is a cool looking car, and solid enough to do what I would want to do with it. If Pontiac had a G5 that could compare, I would also consider it too.

1487,
 
Looking at that TMV number, I think I would spend the extra $1095 and get a Mazdaspeed3 instead (80ft-lbs more torque and 58 more hp than a Cobalt S/C). LSD is standard on the Mazda but a $726(TMV) option on the Chevy, so adding that would reduce the price difference to only $369.
 
BTW, did your TMV calculation include the $500 rebate from GM?

7driver,
 
Let's be realistic. Go try and to find a Speed3 and see what the mark-up will be.

Am I completely hopeless if I say that I prefer the G5's styling inside & out?

Why did we need the G5 again...? Oh right, to give the GMC-Pontiac-Buick dealers a compact car to sell. Sigh.

chavis10,
 
You'll have to take that up with Karl. TMV is his responsibility, not mine :-)

I agree with roar02ram. I prefer the styling of the G5 over the Civic.
 
I'd rather drive the Civic but the G5 is easier on the eyes.

bigal,
 
Actually, I disagree about the civic Si. People seem to be assuming the Cobalt is inferior because the torqueless Si redlines at 8000rpm and its made by Honda. In terms of price and performance the Cobalt is actually superior. Edmunds is the only publication that has compared the CObalt to the Si (which I find interesting) but if you check the performance numbers the Chevy is better in MT and C&D testing than the Honda. I have yet to actually figure out what makes the Si better.
 
7driver,
 
The MS 3 is cheap and has way more power but its barely faster. The Cobalt SC is only about .2-.3 secs slower to 60 in spite of having only 205 hp and having a curb weight that is within a few pounds of the Mazda. The Mazda gives you more practicality due to its body style and honeslty its hard to imagine a wagon buyer even considering a coupe like the Cobalt or Si.

For what it's worth, I like the G5's styling better too (okay, I like the headlights and taillights better...otherwise they are the same car!). If there was an "SS" version of it I'd go with the Pontiac over the Chevy.
 
And considering Pontiac is supposed to be the more "excited/performance-oriented" brand of the two, where is the "GXP" version?

1487,
 
Where do you see that the MS3 is only 0.2-0.3secs faster to 60? Edmund's comparo from last month shows 5.9s vs. 7.1sec. I think you are missing a "1" in front of your decimal point. Even so, 0-60 isn't the only measure of speed. I imagine the MS3 might be even quicker to 60 if it weren't geared for 155mph+ top speed. 1/4 mile times from the same test show 14.2s@100.1mph vs 15.2s@95.6mph, 68.2mph vs 67.5mph slalom, 116ft vs. 121ft braking distance and a 1.25sec advantage around Streets of Willow (which is a pretty short track that favors low speed turns).
 
As for a Cobalt proponent calling the Mazda cheap? Pot. Kettle. Black.

Now Pontiac has a Cobalt SS

1487, the K20 in the Civic actually makes good torque but keep in mind it isnt a stump puller like some of its BOOSTED competition. A short stroke, small displacement, high revving motor isnt going to be a stump puller no matter who produces it. They spread torque accross the WHOLE REV RANGE (Honda torque curves are very FLAT) not just a few thousand RPM. Its really a fun motor and ALOT better when bolt ons and Hondata reflash are added. The Hondata K-pro ( full stand alone, not reflash) actually turns the motor into a whole different animal. Ive seen 240+hp and 180ftlbs of torque to the WHEELS with the light mods listed above on internally stock engines. The torque in the midrange actually jumps around 40lbft depending on application.
As far as speed, the SS only eclipses the Si by maybe 2/10ths in the 1/4 but I think the Civic would be even by 100 or so. In the end, 2 very good cars in a ever growing segment.
LP

Um......Im not sure what happened with my last post. I tried to edit some spelling but it turned out like you see above and I couldnt seem to fix it.
 
LP

Yeah, our "edit" function always does that. No worries. We're working on it.

Personally, I don't get all the ragging on the GM compacts. I haven't actually checked out a Honda or Toyota equivalent, but I have a hard time believing that the GM cars are so terrible that you couldn't stand to be in one after comparing the competition.
  
I have an '07 Saturn Ion 2.4, 5 speed. It's pretty compareable to the Pontiac in question. Sure, the interior has hard plastic in places, and all the standard GM quality gripes, but honestly I don't fondle all the interior parts while I am driving. The places my hands fall feel just fine to me. It's true the steering is numb, but I don't drive on a race track. I have never been in a situation where the acceleration or limits of adhesion have been a factor in my ability to get where I'm going.
  
My Saturn cost less than the Pontiac and the Honda, even given TMV.
  
I wont and can't argue that the Honda isn't a better car in some respects, but articles like this make it seem like only idiots would buy something without a Honda badge.
  
Sorry about the rant, but it seems like John Kerry telling Dan Quail he's no Kennedy!

"I haven't actually checked out a Honda or Toyota equivalent, but I have a hard time believing that the GM cars are so terrible that you couldn't stand to be in one after comparing the competition."
 
You opinion would have more validity if you did check out the competition first. Also, I never said I "...couldn't stand to be in one..." I said it's not as good as the comparable Honda -- because it's not.
 
If car A and B are comparable in terms of price and market segment, and both are "good" at the basic act of getting you from Point A to Point B, but one also has some extra drivetrain refinement, steering feel and soft-touch plastic, why would you buy the other one? As I'm getting sick of saying: Being a "good" car isn't good enough today. Pretty much every car is "good" so now I need something more (like a more advanced transmission or superior ride quality, etc.) to endorse a vehicle. This doubly true if you are a manufacturer trying to overcome decades of lost sales due to (perceived or actual) low-quality product.
 
But that's just me. If a Saturn Ion is "just fine" for you, then I would say you got the right car.

7driver,
 
I was saying the 3 was cheap in terms of price, I thought that was apaprent. I didnt mean it was cheap as in being a piece of crap.
 
As for acceleration, I suggest you check other publications. I dont know what is wrong with Edmuds' testing but perhaps Karl can explain why the Cobalt was so slow. In other tests in various magazines the Cobalt SS/SC was clocked at 6-6.1 secs to 60 while the MS 3 was clocked at 5.8secs. Seems pretty close to me, especially when you consider the Cobalts power deficit. The Cobalt SS with 173hp got to 60 in 7.1secs according to MT so I fail to see how the 205hp version could have the same time. In other magazines the Cobalt SS recording braking and slalom times that were roughly equal to the MS 3. In the first test by MT the numbers were 6secs, 115ft, .89g and 69mph slalom if I remember correctly.

karl,
I dont think the Ion is realistically seen as the equal of the Civic. I do feel the Cobalt SC is more than equal to the Civic Si. If its faster, stops better and corners harder I dont see why anyone would chose the Civic unless it was much cheaper. as for steering feel and drivetrain, the Cobalt SC got great marks for both when it debuted.
BTW, I think its also important to note that the Civic is newer than the Cobalt and thus should be better. Even if it is better, that doesnt mean the Cobalt/G5 are now undesirable. If the Cobalt was a good car in 2004 it's still good now, it's just not best in class due to newer competitors being available. As for ride quality, I'm pretty sure that is something the Cobalt does well. As far as I know the thing the civic does better is offer better fuel economy. Aside from that, it isnt substantially faster, quieter, larger or better riding than the Cobalt. It's pricey and has a spaceship interior, neither of which count as plusses in my book.

hondaacura,
 
I'm well aware that the Cobalt isnt naturally aspirated but part of the reason it isnt is so I can produce plenty of torque down low unlike most powerful four cylinders. Compare the torque in this engine to the Honda 2.4L in the TSX. Hp is about the same, but torque isnt. HOnda choses to go with small displacement, high revving engines with low torque output but the Cobalt offers a high tech 2L alternative that produces healthy low end torque. I sincerely doubt the Cobalt's torque curve is peakier than that of the Honda engine. I know the torque peaks at a far lower rpm than the Honda.
 
I have no beef with the Si, but objectively speaking its really a draw. Some may like the Si better because it has softer plastics on the door panels, but in terms of performance they are very comparable.

I compared the Civix EX (TMV $19,965) to a Cobalt LTZ ($19,217) with optional 6 CD changer, curtains and moonroof.
Advantage Civic: 5 speed auto, side airbags, whiplash protection headrests, rear armrest, rear discs, mileage and telescoping wheel.
Advantage Chevy: 7 Pioneer speakers and more powerful sound system, engine power, 6 CD changer, XM radio, remote start, trip computer, leather, heated seats, auto headlights, fog lights, warranty, traction control, floormats and cargo net. Considering the two are close in price, ride and performance I think the Cobalt makes a case for itself if economy isn't your primary concern. The civic is great and its nice to point out the features it offers not found on the Chevy as long as you do the opposite. I might even be willing to trade one gear in the auto tranny to get the other goodies on the Chevy. If you are willing to give up the leather you can get the Cobalt SS instead and get 33more hp than the civic, 17" wheels and rear disc brakes. When people declare one car to be the unquestioned class leader I think that car has to be the leader all the way around. The civic may be the best small car around, but the margin is relatively small if we look beyond dash plastics.

1487,
 
TCO-
 
Cobalt LTZ: ($38,777)
 
Civic EX: ($34,319)
 
That's without options on the Cobalt. I'll let you do the rest of the math 1487. You can't discount the fact that the Honda maintains its value better than the Chevy. No one can.
 
And also, the Cobalt has .4L more displacement. Maybe that's where the measily 8 HP extra in the Cobalt comes from. And it's definitely where the added torque comes from.
 
I thought you said the LTZ was equal to the EX? Why are you now comparing it to the SS?
 
Unquestioned class leader does not equate to better "all the way around". It means it stands out among the rest and does MORE things better than MOST of the competition. If it was possible to do EVERYTHING better than something else, it wouldn't be much competition, now would it?

I never said the engines are the same size, I am aware than the Chevy has a larger engine. Every car in this class has a larger engine than the civic except the Corolla.
 
I assume TCO is based on estimates for gas usage, insurance and depreciation. If you lease a car that isnt going to make a difference and most of those figures are based on estimates.
 
I was saying the SS gives up some luxury features found on the LTZ in exchange for power, handling and disc brakes. You could compare either to the EX.
 
The civic doesn't stand out from the pack unless you count styling. The Cobalt, 3 and Corolla all have many of the Civic's attributes and each of them offers things not found on the civic. Well, probably not the corolla because it doesnt offer much of anything.

The TCO advantage basically comes down to depreciation and mileage, I looked at the numbers. The whole thing is very speculative and if you ask me the financing part of it is very tenuous because we all know GMAC offers lower financing rates than Honda or private banks and thus there will be additional savings there. The depreciation is valid, but if you are leasing or plan to keep the car for 10 years that isnt much of a big deal.
 
I also want to know why the Civic would be cheaper to insure if its likely stolen more frequently than the cobalt.

The "most stolen" category is bogus in this argument. What? You think that brand new Civic's are most stolen? The Civic's that are stolen are from the early to late 90's. It's virtually impossible to steal a brand new car with an immobilizer, which, if I'm not mistaken, all Hondas/Acuras have them these days. Heck, you can't even steal the head unit out of a Honda these days and have it work again without getting the code for it. The Cobalt isn't stolen for the same reasons... it's brand new. Check the stats for how many Cavaliers are stolen a year compared to older Civic's. There's some better data for you.

Insurance on the Civic Si is ridiculous with certain carriers.

I can't imagine the SS supercharged is much cheaper to insure. Especially if you're a younger driver. The forced induction has to pump the cost quite a bit.

Hondas are typically near the top of any list of most stolen vehicles. I would imagine stolen civics are in more deman than Cobalts. I dont know if the '06 model is less frequently stolen than the older model but that may be true. I just don't see how in the real world it would cost you more to insure a Cobalt than a Civic.
 
Its not a big deal because the difference in inurance prices was small, the big difference was deprection and fuel costs were behind that.

With the Si it's a legacy thing.
The '02-'05 Si wasn't nearly as desireable (plus immobilizers had
become standard) but naturally they based the insurance rates on the
previous models and that'll hound the Si for years.Up until the '01 models, Hondas and Acuras were easy to steal, and they had many more interchangeable parts than afterwards. The Civic Si also got crashed a lot, unsurprisingly. They also make people angry for no good reason, and are vandalized relatively often. The Cobalt SS hasn't made a lot of noise, and largely goes unnoticed - and it hasn't had a chance to convince insurers to jack up the rates.

If you think insurance on a Civic Si or even a Civic coupe I would suggest getting a quote on a MazdaSpeed3. YIKES!
 
The insurance ratings on Civic coupes/hatchbacks is just rediculous, the Acura Integra is also in the group. Theft is probably the major reason for the rates as they are very popular with the tuner market.
 
If you own a Integra Type R I would suggest keeping it in the garage. I know 5 Integra R owners and 3 of the cars have either been stolen or something was stolen off the car. Another worthy car is the Evolution, rates are really exspensive on this car also.
 
LP

I heard that next gen G5 will be based on stretched Solstice platform, i.e. RWD. It does not make sence for Pontiac to clone everything that Chevy does.

Bargain Cobalt SS plain and simple

But remember Karl the G5 is designed to be a performace coupe not a luxury sedan and the materials are not exactly five star material. This is for someone that wants a Cobalt SS at a bargain price If you want a real Civic competitor then go for the Cobalt SS supercharged

I guess $1,000 (or even $2,000) off the price of an Si for fewer gears, less horsepower, less refinment, worse steering and weaker interior design/materials doesn't seem like a bargain to me.

"I haven't actually checked out a Honda or Toyota equivalent, but I have a hard time believing that the GM cars are so terrible that you couldn't stand to be in one after comparing the competition."
   
You opinion would have more validity if you did check out the competition first. Also, I never said I "...couldn't stand to be in one..." I said it's not as good as the comparable Honda -- because it's not.
   
If car A and B are comparable in terms of price and market segment, and both are "good" at the basic act of getting you from Point A to Point B, but one also has some extra drivetrain refinement, steering feel and soft-touch plastic, why would you buy the other one? As I'm getting sick of saying: Being a "good" car isn't good enough today. Pretty much every car is "good" so now I need something more (like a more advanced transmission or superior ride quality, etc.) to endorse a vehicle. This doubly true if you are a manufacturer trying to overcome decades of lost sales due to (perceived or actual) low-quality product.
   
But that's just me. If a Saturn Ion is "just fine" for you, then I would say you got the right car.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
O.K. First, my apologies. I never meant to put words in your mouth. If I could do it all over again, I'd sit on it and and revise my comment before posting it.
I never "checked out" Toyota's & Honda's because I never was interested in a Civic or Corolla. However, I did look at Subaru's and GTI's. The Subaru had absolutely no bragging rights, IMO. The GTI was great, but not to the tune of $6,000 or more extra. Same for the Subaru, but the $$ was even more. In my part of the country, AWD isn't worth paying for, IMO.
  
I have never said that my lowly Saturn is the equal or better than the Honda. I also can't believe that the Honda is > $2,000 better, or more, that's all. Maybe it is, but I'll never know, because I personally have seen no reasons to shop for one. I just don't care for them, that's all.
  
Hard Plastics: yeah, I have them, but how do they affect my day to day use of the car? The parts of the car I come in contact with on a day to day basis, are comfortable.
  
I understand your point about "If car A and B are comparable in terms of price and market segment, and both are "good" at the basic act of getting you from Point A to Point B, but one also has some extra drivetrain refinement, steering feel and soft-touch plastic, why would you buy the other one?" But you already admitted the Pontiac is cheaper. Isn't that a valid reason?
  
   
 I have a hard time believing that the GM cars are so terrible that you couldn't stand to be in one after comparing the competition." I meant the "royal" you... didn't mean to limit that statement to you, Editor_Karl!
  
That said, your "If a Saturn Ion is "just fine" for you, then I would say you got the right car." is just as bad, because you took that comment out of context.
  
If anything, Editor_Karl is a pro, both in writing, and evaluating cars. I am a pro at having to live with what I buy. The vast majority of time i am behind the wheel, it's in mostly a straight line, going somewhere near the speed limit. Highway on ramps and off ramps are about the only time a Model A can't do what I do. (Ignoring speed limitations, of course.)
  
Please take this as intended, not to apologize for GM, just my take on things. I live my whole life in left field, not a test track, why should this be any different?
  
Also, the Saturn, Cobalt & G5 are pretty much the same car, as near as I can tell. They all seem to have similar packages.

"Sorry about the rant, but it seems like John Kerry telling Dan Quail he's no Kennedy!" Kapbot--Not that it's germane to your argument, but it was Lloyd Bentsen (Dukakis' VP running mate) who told Quayle he was no Jack Kennedy in 1988. Just wanted to set the record straight. Gogiboy

karl,
 
Again, I think its been established here than the CObalt supercharged is the true competition for the Si, not the G5. You keep talking about "less gears" but the G5/Cobalt dont need as many gears because they have something known as torque. The Si needs a lot of ratios to maximize its narrow powerband. This is basic stuff.
 
If you bump up to the Cobalt SC you get more power, much more torque, better acceleration, larger wheels and equivalent handling. As for refinement, that is highly subjective and everything I have read about the Cobalt suggests its powertrain and ride and refined. Materials? Honestly, who cares when talking about entry level sports coupes. I notice you didnt mention ergomics when praising the civic. I think the GM cars have the advantage in that department.