Cobalt SS vs. WRX?? Which one to buy

[Jason M]

WRX over the Cobalt any day of the week. If you're into cool tech check out the MazdaSpeed 3. They did tons of cool little stuff to that car aero wise and such. I'll try to find a link.

[Scottwax]

Originally Posted by Jason M

WRX over the Cobalt any day of the week. If you're into cool tech check out the MazdaSpeed 3. They did tons of cool little stuff to that car aero wise and such. I'll try to find a link.

Speaking specifically as a detailer, I'd never own a Mazda3 simply because the carpet is absolute garbage. In fact, garbage is probably too kind a word. Every try vacuuming one owned by someone with a dog, or who goes to the beach? Spending an hour just vacuuming out normal dirt from one is bad enough....

[TH0001]

The Mazda (while cool and I LOVE the red metallic) just isn't for me. Same with the Mitsu..

I will drive both tomorrow if I can. Hopefully I will fall in love with one or the other.

[NCZ13]

Originally Posted by Scottwax

Speaking specifically as a detailer, I'd never own a Mazda3 simply because the carpet is absolute garbage. In fact, garbage is probably too kind a word. Every try vacuuming one owned by someone with a dog, or who goes to the beach? Spending an hour just vacuuming out normal dirt from one is bad enough....

i know exactly how you feel.

[Denzil]

Originally Posted by Scottwax

Speaking specifically as a detailer, I'd never own a Mazda3 simply because the carpet is absolute garbage. In fact, garbage is probably too kind a word. Every try vacuuming one owned by someone with a dog, or who goes to the beach? Spending an hour just vacuuming out normal dirt from one is bad enough....

I know exactly what you mean there Scott. I detailed my buddy's Mazda3 and it took longer than usual just to vacuum it. Not only that but it was black carpet so every little spec of dirt was noticeable and all sorts of hair loves to thread between the carpet strands. Such a PITA!

[SuperBuick]

i have to disagree on the comment about domestics being up to par in terms of quality.

I lean this more towards interior quality. I have friends with recent fords (05-06) where the interior is just falling apart. One girls focus has to stuff paper inbetween the window and lining to keep her window from falling into the door. Her car makes a sound as if she has an aftermarket exhaust, yet the car is completely stock.

I sat in almost every single domestic during last years auto show. I sat in the dodge caliber, charger, various trucks and SUVs, almost every model from Ford and GM,
For the Dodges, the design was uninspiring, the quality of the parts HIGHLY lacks(monotonous grey plastic with cheap texture)
Ford just felt cheap, all the textures and the way the sounded just felt cheap. This even extends to the luxury models from Lincoln...
Out of the 3, ithink GM is really the one that is raising the bar...

I have to re-disagree, and I stress that I am not posting with any animosity towards your opinion, which you are entitled to, and that my post is just my opinion, that's all...

The cheapest feeling car I've ever sat in was a Dodge Caliber, however a close second is the toyota camry. Does that mean the Caliber and Camry are crap? No. Clearly the Camry is a good car, and while I would never own a caliber personally, it didnt give me the impression it was going to break down, and it drove well enough.

My wife and I own 4 cars; a jeep, a ford truck, a corvette, and a porsche, and the jeep and corvette are MUCH nicer inside than the porsche. Not to mention they are tenfold more reliable, far cheaper to repair, and were a far better value when new. Even if your thing is molesting dashboards, the new stuff, particularly GM, is equal to or better than the imaginary japanese stalwarts of quality (though you can't deny the beauty and wonder of a honda engine revving to the sky and back!). And speaking of stuffing things in cracks to prevent problems, our boxster rattles incessantly (side airbag module is always coming loose) and a friend with a 2005 M3 has cardboard stuck in the back deck between the rear window gap to eliminate the incessant rattling. So should we say all BMW M3s are poor quality? NO! They are a great car (if a little overpriced in my opinion) Did you know the Mazda 3 shares its chassis (and was developed in conjunction) with Ford and Volvo? The bottom line is that one type of car is not always better than another. There is no blanket statement that applies like "american cars are bad". The Hyundai example is a great one. One poster mentioned terrible resale value - why is this? Because so many people THINK Hyundais are crap, based on something that was true YEARS ago.

Lastly, and this coming from someone who still has half of his family back in England, Jeremy Clarkson is blatantly anti-american, and a self-contradicting, blowhard moron. (He is also HILARIOUS, and I love the show) Using his opinions on cars for any reality-based comparison should not be allowed!

[Autofan]

I would take the Cobalt over sooo many over priced under performing cars out there.

Would I take it over a WRX? That is a hard question considering the WRX is AWD making it a lot more function friendly. However considering the Cobalt breaks and handles better and will be cheaper it makes it easy to pick the Cobalt.

Good question though it would really end up being answered after some seat time. On paper the Cobalt has the edge IMO

[Aurora40]

Just my two cents. I've been really amazed by everything I'm reading about the Cobalt SS. I've never driven either, though. But I can't get that SS out of my mind. It sounds like GM hit a home run with it.

Beside performance, the fuel economy numbers are also no-contest, with the WRX registering 18/25 vs the SS's 22/30. If you are talking STi, it's 17/23. The SS also undercuts on price both the WRX and STi (the STi by a substantial margin). For interiors, I'd say a) who cares in a performace car, and b) you are comparing to a Subaru, not a Merc... Do Subies set some bar for interiors that I'm not aware of?

I assume you have seen this by now:
The Lightning Lap, 2008 - Feature/Features/Classic Cars/High Performance/Hot Lists/Reviews/Car and Driver - Car And Driver

[critical_level2]

Originally Posted by Aurora40

Beside performance, the fuel economy numbers are also no-contest, with the WRX registering 18/25 vs the SS's 22/30. If you are talking STi, it's 17/23. The SS also undercuts on price both the WRX and STi (the STi by a substantial margin).

One thing you need to remember is the STI and the Cobalt SS are 2 different leagues. That would be like comparing a Corvette and a V6 Mustang. 2 entirely different vehicles.

If you are set on FWD Turbo, What about the VW GTI. They have always been very good all around and there is tons of aftermarket support for them.

[BigJimZ28]

Originally Posted by critical_level2

One thing you need to remember is the STI and the Cobalt SS are 2 different leagues. That would be like comparing a Corvette and a V6 Mustang. 2 entirely different vehicles.

If you are set on FWD Turbo, What about the VW GTI. They have always been very good all around and there is tons of aftermarket support for them.

you should look @ the results for the link in the post above yours
where the SS ran about the same #'s as the STI for $12,083 less

the new STI is detuned
the new SS is bad azz

[Picus]

Just on the quality thing. I think it is important to make the distinction between a few things.

1) Mechanical reliability.
2) Exterior/interior part/fitment and finish quality.
3) design.

I think a lot of "car guys" talking about cars on forums sort of mish-mash these together, or talk about them interchangeably. For example, someone might say a domestic is "poor quality" and mean that they use low grade plastic on the interior. That doesn't mean the car is of poor quality, it means one material on the interior is. Example: people often comment the 3-series has a "cheap" interior, what they generally mean is the design is spartan, so it looks like plush than competitors. The actual material quality/fitment/finish is quite good. I've had people say Range Rovers are of fantastic quality - which is true in terms of interior materials, but mechanically they tend to suck. I hope this makes sense.

For the Cobalt; in terms of interior quality I am not a huge fan. Fitment is good, but the quality of materials is eh. Mechanically I am sure it is a fine car. The Subaru's interior is more appealing in a design sense to me, and the materials are of slightly better quality (imo), but I don't think it will be any more mechanically reliable than a cobalt.

[NCZ13]

Originally Posted by Picus

Just on the quality thing. I think it is important to make the distinction between a few things.

1) Mechanical reliability.
2) Exterior/interior part/fitment and finish quality.
3) design.

I think a lot of "car guys" talking about cars on forums sort of mish-mash these together, or talk about them interchangeably. For example, someone might say a domestic is "poor quality" and mean that they use low grade plastic on the interior. That doesn't mean the car is of poor quality, it means one material on the interior is. Example: people often comment the 3-series has a "cheap" interior, what they generally mean is the design is spartan, so it looks like plush than competitors. The actual material quality/fitment/finish is quite good. I've had people say Range Rovers are of fantastic quality - which is true in terms of interior materials, but mechanically they tend to suck. I hope this makes sense.

For the Cobalt; in terms of interior quality I am not a huge fan. Fitment is good, but the quality of materials is eh. Mechanically I am sure it is a fine car. The Subaru's interior is more appealing in a design sense to me, and the materials are of slightly better quality (imo), but I don't think it will be any more mechanically reliable than a cobalt.

This was the message i was trying to get across. Its how it feels, not saying the car is just going to fall apart. It just feels/looks cheap.

And to the poster who brought up the 3 sharing ford parts:

Yes, the 3 does share chassis with the Euro Ford market. However, thats not to say that mazda=ford. Ford uses mazdas design and technology for their products (i.e sharing chassis) and mazda uses ford parts to keep their costs down. Its not saying that because they are Ford parts mean that the 3 is a cheap ford car. Im talking specifically about Ford cars with ford design and build that feel cheap to me. (like the new focus)

Because of Fords economic situation, they are actually selling back a marjority of their share back to mazda (they currently hold 33.4 percent) 14% goes back to mazda i believe, while another small percentage goes to various japanese insurance companies. Ford needs mazda to stay afloat IMO.

but comon. who doesnt love that boxer growl?