Another reason I don't really like Car & Driver

msot of thsoe are NEW models in the lineup for the 2008 model, ms3 came out in 2007 so that is why they didnt test it, they test the new not the old...
 
said the Cobalt SS beat the MS3's time by 3 seconds from last year

I had a Cavalier before my MS3. Although the SS is much improved from the lax Cavalier, the MS3 is above and beyond any quality in the 'sport compact' segment from GM. Also, our engines seem to respond quite well to mods, whereas the SS and any ECOtec are a bit tapped out. Lots of work needs to be done for some decent power.
 
^^agreed ... not doubting quality or performance of our cars. Just a comment why they may not have included our car ... they put new cars in... personally I think the cobalt is ugly as sin. Performance looks good. But for me GM has a long way to go in this group of competition.

Don't get me wrong I'd buy a corvette any day.
 
^^agreed ... not doubting quality or performance of our cars. Just a comment why they may not have included our car ... they put new cars in... personally I think the cobalt is ugly as sin. Performance looks good. But for me GM has a long way to go in this group of competition.

Don't get me wrong I'd buy a corvette any day.

Agree, that wing is horrendous, especially for a FWD car. I have to say, I'm finally glad they are going with a turbo and not the supercharger. Still doesn't do it for me. I've been in love with the MS3 since I first saw it and am continually impressed with the potential of this car.

Ha, speaking of Vettes... my pops has both an 04 Vette and 07 Trailblazer SS. He loves those LSx's!
 
MS3 wasn't included because it'd have taken the number 1 spot again.... regardless of the 3 second lap the cobalt took.... MS3 wins by default...lol
 


Exactly. I wanted to see what all the Ms3 people would say, but then i clicked through a little more and saw they tested it last year.

Even without this article's influence, I'm not a big fan of C&D. They seem too biased and their "Fun to drive" factor plays too big of a role in their choice. Sure different cars are more fun to drive then others, but when your an automotive magazine, that shouldn't have a 0-10 score that's factored in with power, grip, etc.

Automobile & Ezra Dyer FTW
 
Exactly. I wanted to see what all the Ms3 people would say, but then i clicked through a little more and saw they tested it last year.

Even without this article's influence, I'm not a big fan of C&D. They seem too biased and their "Fun to drive" factor plays too big of a role in their choice. Sure different cars are more fun to drive then others, but when your an automotive magazine, that shouldn't have a 0-10 score that's factored in with power, grip, etc.

Automobile & Ezra Dyer FTW

I think road & track owns them now...? Could be wrong but they link to them alot online. I personally believe r&t put out the best reviews. Esp their tech sheets. Can't beat 'em.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/mazdaspeed3.pdf
 
Those are by far the worst #'s I've seen on the MS3! .83gs and 63mph slalom?? lol

but unless you can prove them wrong... they may be the most accurate.
dodgyrunup4.gif
 
I only buy magazines that show the MS3 as the winner of all shoot outs.

MS3 vs. Caliber SRT 4 vs. Cobalt SS vs. Civic SI = MS3

MS3 vs. Porsche 911 vs. Z06 vs. GTR vs. Viper ACR = MS3

MS3 vs. Chuck Norris vs. Mike Ditka vs. Steven Segal = MS3

MS3 vs. achieved absolute zero vs. anti-matter vs. successful division by zero = MS3
 
I think we should all keep in mind several things when looking at these results:

1. It's the same track, but the track conditions, surface temperature, atmospheric temperature, barometric pressure and other such variables may hold for comparisons between vehicles tested at the same time, but VEHICLES TESTED A YEAR OR TWO APART, are likely to have been tested under very different conditions both on the track and regarding weather.

2. Do we know who was driving each vehicle? Differences in drivers on a road course can make a huge difference. Did the same driver drive the Cobalt SS as previously tested the MS3?

3. They are posting the single best lap for each vehicle. Would the result have been different had they averaged the laps? Might be best to throw out the best and worst laps and average the others. Road races aren't won by the single "best" lap.

4. Little adjustable variables with the vehicle like changes in tire pressure can make big differences too. Were they optimizing tire pressure for each vehicle, or just using whatever the factory put in the owner's manual?

I think the best that can be said about these comparisions is that the results may be valid for the group of cars tested on that particular day, and only if the same drivers are involved and if the weather did not change during the course of the day. Take a "hot lap" in a turbocharged or supercharged vehicle on a 50 degree cool fall morning and compare that with a lap in the same car on the same course on an 85 degree afternoon, or a 90 degree summer day. The cool weather makes a huge difference. Sun or shade on the track makes a huge difference.

Having said these things, there are probably enough built in variables in all of this that on a different day, same track, with same driver, the MS3 could just as easily be three seconds faster than the Cobalt SS. Unless they are tested under identical circumstances, we will not know. Example: why did the Subie STI perform well below expectation? Did they happen to get a bad example for the test? Did they happen to get an especially good Cobalt?

So, enjoy the comparisions, but we probably shouldn't take them too literally. C&D probably got as close as they could to keeping conditions equal, but there are just too many variables. C&D did dragstrip testing of the MS3 on at least three different times and reported 14.4 one time, 14.2 another time and 14.0 on another. There's that much variation right there. Driver skill in launch technique and small variations in engine output and temperature at test time easily account for these differences. Driver skill on a road course is even more complicated that getting a dragstrip launch right.

Finally, look at the identities of the cars that ran slower than 3:16. There are some pretty impressive vehicles there, many of which are a good bit more expensive than our Speed 3's.
 
Last edited:
Back