I was referring to the SS supercharged as well. I thought the SS and the SS supercharged were one in the same. Silly me...

 

Yeah there is a difference the ss is a 2.4 with 171 hp, the ss supercharged to a 2.0 with 205 hp. I didn't drive the ss but I was a lil impressed with the ss supercharged. I wouldn't buy it though.

 

ok the 2.4 ss has 171hp and 165 tor....the ss s/c 2.0 has 240hp and 195 tor....the 205 rating is wrong most ss s/c dyno 217 stock... the 2.2 has 145hp and 155 tor.....
the ss 2.4 ss runs low to mid 15's...the 2.0 ss s/c runs low to high 14's depending on driver experience...the 2.2 5 speeds run high 15's depending on driver ::ive already showed the video of my sedan with intake doing a 15.7:: ....and yes the civic and the cobalt are in the same category...the civic has always had better dependablility b/c of its long history....the cobalt though has just been recently released for the last 2 years and just coming up on its third....also compared to the neons the cobalts are better i dont even see that comparsion there....also i dont see a civic dynoing 16fwhp from just adding a intake and exhaust...most civics only dyno around 7-10fwhp with both

 

all comments about "platforms" aside, you DO understand that your car is nothing more than the new cavalier, right? you made the comment about it only being out for a few years, yet with the exception of the SS/SC model, the ecotec is anything but new...

 

i was meaning the car not the ecotec....but the cobalt is not a cavalier....we have already discussed this b4....the cobalt has nothing in common with the cavalier except for the ecotec motor and meant for fuel economy..... there is alot of differences that show the cobalt is not a cavalier...styling for one....and u talk about interior...the new civic's arent that much nicer on the interior....and talk about plastic? the new civics have plastic dashes and etc just like the cobalt does

 

its the same as the cavvy in that it is their base line "sport compact"...there is no reason that they coudlnt have called it the cavalier, if not for the fact that they were trying to shed the hardcore girl-car image....also, GM is in such deep s*** financially, they are doing everything in their power to generate sales...like the "First ever G6" is actually just another grand am.

 

So at what point Patrick does car warrant a new name? Change the engine, platform, interior/exterior styling obviously does not warrant a name change, so what does? Hell why call it an Acura, when it is just a fancy Honda? Why call it an RSX, when it is the same platform as the Civic? Differant engine sure, more pricey yea, but the base RSX is still a low horsepower subcompact same as a civic.

the cobalt to me is an entirely new car, just cause it shares the price range and target market, does not mean it is the same as a previous car. Again with the g6, differant platform, differant engine, differant styling, differant car.

 

Any Acura IS a Honda in countries where Acura doesn't exist (read: everywhere but the U.S. and possibly Canada). And you can't call an RSX a Civic because they AREN'T NEARLY on the same platform, and are being produced side by side (again, unlike the Cobalt and Cavalier). Now, everyone already KNOWS the RSX is just an Integra, so we can spare everyone that whole schpiel (once again, it's being produced under the Honda badge overseas, as is the NSX, etc.).

 

who knows where the sunfire and the cavaliers were built??

now, who knows where the cobalts and the Ions are built?

 

hmm, all cars change visually and mechanically among generations. You don't see them change names though. Acorrding to your logic: A new civic doesn't look like the previous gen civic, so it must be a totally different car and should be re-named accordingly.