Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Variance

Edmunds Evaluation: 2006 Sport Compact Comparison

Recommended Posts

Edmunds Evaluation: 2006 Sport Compact Comparison

Posted Image

1st: 2007 Mazdaspeed3

2nd: 2006 Subaru WRX TR

3rd: 2006 Honda Civic Si

4th: 2006 Mini Cooper S

5th: 2006 VW GTI

6th: 2006 Chevy Cobalt SS S/C

Ask five different people what defines a sport compact car and you'll get five different answers. Look it up on Wikipedia, the everyman's encyclopedia known for its everyman definitions and you get this: "a high-performance version of a compact car...often compromising cargo space, seating, gas mileage, drivability and reliability."

Here's the three-word definition we like: small, sporting, inexpensive. And because these cars are frequently the only transportation their owners have, reality says we should add a fourth: practical.

This test is performed in that spirit. That is, find the best small, sporting, inexpensive and practical car sold in the U.S. today. We narrowed the field to six that we feel are genuine contenders: the 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt SS Supercharged, 2006 Honda Civic Si, 2007 Mazda Mazdaspeed 3, 2006 Mini Cooper S, 2006 Subaru WRX and 2006 Volkswagen GTI.

Edmunds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"OMG!!! They're so biased!!!"

Anyways, while I can just see the massive amounts of complaints there will be by the time I view this thread again, I can't say being 6th in this group is a bad thing. The bottom 5 vehicles seem about equal overall. The only standout is obviously the Mazdaspeed3. It's just a beast without any compromises. Regardless, I would love to own any of the 6. They all bring something unique to the table. I'd be hard pressed to pick one over the others. They're all cool in their own right, and yes Reg, that includes the Civic. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call it biased, but it's definitely flawed. The Subaru and the Mazda are hardly inexpensive, not when they're in the same price bracket as well-equipped trim levels of many mid-sizers. The Cobalt, Civic, and Mini are truer to the sport-compact paradigm and should have received higher ranks than they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the WRX is here, they should've had the EVO as well.

are they going redo thiswhen the SS/T comes out? or should they put the HHR SS in this segment too? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wont bother reading the article, I'll jkust say that personally I'd got with the Mini, then the GTI, then the SS/SC, then the other three in no particular order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MINI isn't realistic for more than two people. Plus, its expensive in comparison. This is very Consumer Reports-like in grouping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the WRX is here, they should've had the EVO as well.

223739[/snapback]

I think you are mistaking a normal WRX with a WRX STI, which is even more powerful and competes with the EVO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares, it's Edmunds. That said, it's all about personal opinion and I can see why some people would pick the other five over the Cobalt. I think BV summed it up pretty well.

What's with the ridiculously slow acceleration times? Those times look like the standard models' times, not the sport models'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is funny. They ranked the Si better than the Cobalt in price. Their Civic was $21,xxx. I picked up a SS/SC for $18,726. For LSD/Recaro seats, it was more, but that's not a 100% necessary option.

They ran a 15.2 @ 93 1/4 mile and 7.1 second 0-60 in the SS/SC. These cars can run mid-6-second 0-60s and low 14 second (I'm talking 14.2) 1/4 miles at damn-near 100 (98 or so). Their driver sucked.

I think this comparison is funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like all of the performance numbers are down. Were they at a significantly high altitude?

They could have had a 4-door Si to make it more practical without losing any performance. They seemed to really hate the Cobalt, despite it performing well.

This is funny. They ranked the Si better than the Cobalt in price. Their Civic was $21,xxx. I picked up a SS/SC for $18,726. For LSD/Recaro seats, it was more, but that's not a 100% necessary option.

223778[/snapback]

Without the optional LSD/Recaro's, the SS would have gotten more points in the price scale, but it would have undoubtedly lost points in the performance, feature content, and personal rating scores. I'm sure the editors were looking for every way to hate the car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The standard seats on the SS are pretty decent. The only reason for getting the silly "Recaro" package is to get the LSD, which GM should have made available separately for cheaper!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are mistaking a normal WRX with a WRX STI, which is even more powerful and competes with the EVO.

223759[/snapback]

ah yeah... just looked... evo's 5k more than the wrx, and the sti is 3k more than the evo.... darn! lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The standard seats on the SS are pretty decent.  The only reason for getting the silly "Recaro" package is to get the LSD, which GM should have made available separately for cheaper!

223880[/snapback]

I disagree......the standard seats could hardly be called "sport" seats. They are exactly the same as the base car seats but in black leather with colored inserts and "SS" embroidery....

The Recaros are VERY nice however....

I don't know if I would have placed it in last place as a result, but I do agree with their assessment of the very cheap and plasticky interior. Even compared to other "economy" cars, the Cobalt is the only one that screams "rental" even in SS trim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again....wait, let me go and masturbate on the dash of the SS in the show room. I'll get back to you on how plasticky the dash feels....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us see how the SS-Turbo will blow off the Mazda3.

Cobalt SS I always believed was a good race car. It is the quality which is killing it from being a really good competitor.

What surprises me are the way these bitches from edmunds get their 0-60 numbers. C & D and Road and Track have seen the Cobalt SS/SC get under 6 (5.9). That is almost 1.2 sec faster than edmunds. But at the same time the Mazdaspeed3 numbers do not look that skewed. 5.6 (C&D) vs. 5.9 edmunds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We  Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×