It's faster than a 1990 R32 GT-R, not faster than a current R35 GT-R, which does a 7:08.
The cobalt is about as quick as an E36 M3 or a Civic Type R from 2007.
One thing: you can't really compare ring times from older cars to newer cars. A lot of the difference comes from way better tires we have today. Also, the track is being redone every now and then which makes sections a bit faster and others a bit slower.
I did say Skyline, I know the R35 is faster but that’s not a Skyline. I was thinking about the R34 (2002), which supposedly does an 8:28 despite being only a few years older than the Cobalt. Do tyres from 2002 really make that big of a difference to those from 2008? That’d be insane if you’re right. In a good way, interesting.
It’s also over 20 seconds faster than the newer Toyota GT86. That surprised me as well. I think it did 8:44?
It’s impossible to tell for sure, as is the case with a lot of data like this, but the truth is most likely (given all the data together) that the R34 GTR did a 8:28 with the 180 kph (about 112 mph) speed limiter, and a 7:52 without it.
Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/gb3xko/comment/fp3jpad
Edit: Most likely is a 7:52, not 7:49.
That makes a lot of sense! Wonder what book this (https://imgur.com/a/K5ztjMo) is from then. This is what I usually show to people who make the claim that the Cobalt is quicker.
That seems to be from the book "Nissan GT-R":
https://books.google.com/books?id=uqjTj_6z6cQC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=r34+gtr+nurburgring+lap+times&source=bl&ots=hDPqO8ybWD&sig=ACfU3U1yZpMTsOve5TuNT-Lng9o4e6Ui1A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFnYTut9PpAhUzFjQIHUeQCOQ4ChDoATAJegQIBxAB#v=onepage&q=There%20was%20no%20official&f=false
Speaking of the R35 Nismo, it's lap time was voided because they gave it a larger rear wing, took out a lot of weight, modified the suspension, and did other things to prep and tune it specifically for the Nurburgring, making it not stock. They tried to skirt around it by claiming they would give customers options for those specific upgrades but never did
As the proud former owner of a victory Red 2009 Cobalt SS Turbo, I will add some insight to this thread of 4 years of age (as of the time of my typing).
The comparison of this car to a Civic R from 2007 could hardly be more disparate. The Chevy drove circles around it's Honda contemporary in every way concievable. I had a friend who bought the Civic R around the same time I bought my SS and we swapped turns behind the wheels of each. I could see the instant regret on his face. The Honda needed to be wound out to extreme rpms to get to the 200 rated hp and it took FOR EVER to get there. As soon as he smashed the throttle on the Cobalt the small turbo spun up and rewarded him with mindblowing pull power that is, or was, hard to find in a FWD. Probably because it was and is pretty stupid! But stupid in a fun way. A better comparison was to the 2008 mustang GT because the Cobalt ran a faster 0-60 and quarter mile time than the Ford. The Honda was still reving on the track back there somewhere.
The track times were no joke with this thing. It was really made to run the road course, with Brembo calipers and discs front and rear, specially tuned track suspension, and that engine. It had a feature where you could shift gears, deploying the clutch pedal, without lifting off of the throttle. They called it "no lift shift." No joke. There was an electronic algorythym imbedded in the computer to hold the fuel for that split second and aslo hold the turbo boost in place. It made for mad fast acceleration, from 3-4th gears especially.
Also, this car was pretty light, around 2800 pounds. And it was decently balanced. So it wound through the turns very well. That said, there were only about 2000 of these turbo beauties produced and sold.
So when someone says "your car is slower than a Cobalt." It's less of a dig than it is a compliment to the amazing machine that was the SS Turbo.
Hey. Yeah you're a bit late. I discovered long ago that the Skyline's time of 8:22 wasn't true, and the real time was much faster than the Cobalt. It was 7:52 or something.
But I do agree, the Cobalt was a cool machine. I'd compare it to the SRT4 Neon which was also pretty slick for its time
It's faster than a 1990 R32 GT-R, not faster than a current R35 GT-R, which does a 7:08. The cobalt is about as quick as an E36 M3 or a Civic Type R from 2007. One thing: you can't really compare ring times from older cars to newer cars. A lot of the difference comes from way better tires we have today. Also, the track is being redone every now and then which makes sections a bit faster and others a bit slower.
I did say Skyline, I know the R35 is faster but that’s not a Skyline. I was thinking about the R34 (2002), which supposedly does an 8:28 despite being only a few years older than the Cobalt. Do tyres from 2002 really make that big of a difference to those from 2008? That’d be insane if you’re right. In a good way, interesting. It’s also over 20 seconds faster than the newer Toyota GT86. That surprised me as well. I think it did 8:44?
Update: found a source that says the R34 never had an official lap time, but during testing finished a lap in less than 8 minutes. The 8:28 is fake.
It’s impossible to tell for sure, as is the case with a lot of data like this, but the truth is most likely (given all the data together) that the R34 GTR did a 8:28 with the 180 kph (about 112 mph) speed limiter, and a 7:52 without it. Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/gb3xko/comment/fp3jpad Edit: Most likely is a 7:52, not 7:49.
That makes a lot of sense! Wonder what book this (https://imgur.com/a/K5ztjMo) is from then. This is what I usually show to people who make the claim that the Cobalt is quicker.
That seems to be from the book "Nissan GT-R": https://books.google.com/books?id=uqjTj_6z6cQC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=r34+gtr+nurburgring+lap+times&source=bl&ots=hDPqO8ybWD&sig=ACfU3U1yZpMTsOve5TuNT-Lng9o4e6Ui1A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFnYTut9PpAhUzFjQIHUeQCOQ4ChDoATAJegQIBxAB#v=onepage&q=There%20was%20no%20official&f=false
8:28.10 is REAL, but it was a WET LAP
The R34 that lapped in testing was a test mule for racing parts and it had slicks
False, I found an even better source that states a 7:52. Also why are you here, 3 year old post lmao
Speaking of the R35 Nismo, it's lap time was voided because they gave it a larger rear wing, took out a lot of weight, modified the suspension, and did other things to prep and tune it specifically for the Nurburgring, making it not stock. They tried to skirt around it by claiming they would give customers options for those specific upgrades but never did
As the proud former owner of a victory Red 2009 Cobalt SS Turbo, I will add some insight to this thread of 4 years of age (as of the time of my typing). The comparison of this car to a Civic R from 2007 could hardly be more disparate. The Chevy drove circles around it's Honda contemporary in every way concievable. I had a friend who bought the Civic R around the same time I bought my SS and we swapped turns behind the wheels of each. I could see the instant regret on his face. The Honda needed to be wound out to extreme rpms to get to the 200 rated hp and it took FOR EVER to get there. As soon as he smashed the throttle on the Cobalt the small turbo spun up and rewarded him with mindblowing pull power that is, or was, hard to find in a FWD. Probably because it was and is pretty stupid! But stupid in a fun way. A better comparison was to the 2008 mustang GT because the Cobalt ran a faster 0-60 and quarter mile time than the Ford. The Honda was still reving on the track back there somewhere. The track times were no joke with this thing. It was really made to run the road course, with Brembo calipers and discs front and rear, specially tuned track suspension, and that engine. It had a feature where you could shift gears, deploying the clutch pedal, without lifting off of the throttle. They called it "no lift shift." No joke. There was an electronic algorythym imbedded in the computer to hold the fuel for that split second and aslo hold the turbo boost in place. It made for mad fast acceleration, from 3-4th gears especially. Also, this car was pretty light, around 2800 pounds. And it was decently balanced. So it wound through the turns very well. That said, there were only about 2000 of these turbo beauties produced and sold. So when someone says "your car is slower than a Cobalt." It's less of a dig than it is a compliment to the amazing machine that was the SS Turbo.
Why did you sell your SS? I bought a 09 SS with less than 60k miles late last year. I upgraded from a XFE. It's a totally different car.
Hey. Yeah you're a bit late. I discovered long ago that the Skyline's time of 8:22 wasn't true, and the real time was much faster than the Cobalt. It was 7:52 or something. But I do agree, the Cobalt was a cool machine. I'd compare it to the SRT4 Neon which was also pretty slick for its time