atomaro Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Alternators go....thats no biggy. I'm not so much concerned about break downs or repairs as I am comparing how well the vehicle holds up in the long term. You can't judge things like brakes, tie rods, tires, shocks, etc. They are based more on individual driving habits than anything else. My father has gotten 150k miles out of original clutch in an F-150....I could never do that if you gave my $5k if I could make it to 150k miles. Too much fun to dump and run..... My personal experience is that the Korean cars are "disposable". With the popularity of lease and people not holding onto cars beyond 5 years...it appears as though that is what they shoot for. 5 or 6 years of ownership or 75k to 85k miles. After that future quality is up in the air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 My personal experience is that the Korean cars are "disposable". With the popularity of lease and people not holding onto cars beyond 5 years...it appears as though that is what they shoot for. 5 or 6 years of ownership or 75k to 85k miles. After that future quality is up in the air. What's up with those 10-year 100K warranties then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaydez Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 What's up with those 10-year 100K warranties then? They are non-transferrable after a certain time perior. I believe it is 36k miles/36 months Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomaro Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 (edited) What's up with those 10-year 100K warranties then? Your guess is as good as mine. I know it has the long duration, but have no ideas about any of the specifics behind them. I know its not a brand new program, but it certainly isn't 10 years old. Statistically speaking where should the bulk of the first year vehicles mileage be? I think it may be too soon to tell. If you use an average of 15k miles per year, you need to have an 8 year old car. The warranty program IIRC is not 8 years old. Edited March 27, 2008 by atomaro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomaro Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 They are non-transferrable after a certain time perior. I believe it is 36k miles/36 months That would cover their butts on the lease return and certainly cover their butts on the "new car every 5 years" theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Your guess is as good as mine. I know it has the long duration, but have no ideas about any of the specifics behind them. I know its not a brand new program, but it certainly isn't 10 years old. Statistically speaking where should the bulk of the first year vehicles mileage be? I think it may be too soon to tell. If you use an average of 15k miles per year, you need to have an 8 year old car. The warranty program IIRC is not 8 years old. What I meant was that the warranties were for either 10 years or 100K, whichever came first. Jaydez just enlightened me as well about the non-transferable part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Eh, I wouldn't call it an ergonomics thing. I know, I was simply paraphrasing a famous PC line from the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regfootball Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 cobalt SS 5/100 pwrtn wty....clutch tested to withstand multiple aggressive launches......cobalt SS records fastest time on the nurburgring of any sport compact by over 13 seconds.....go read edmunds and car and drivers tests on it. cheap interior still but the rest of the car is the real deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 cheap interior still but the rest of the car is the real deal. Just like the Mustang. An interior that could use a little improvement...but overall, a good deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford-150 Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 (edited) someone let me know when P becomes his usual Ford bashing self until then im putting him on my ignore list because it so sarcastic that its really stupid, although it was instigated by some on here... Edited March 28, 2008 by Ford-150 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim kakouris Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 i've driven a few cobalts, from down and dirty rentals to ss models. i agree with the interior being bad, but the car is not all bad. and the ss supercharged cars are downright fun, so the turbo promises to be much more so. ...and i really wish ford had something small with some real horsepower. isn't that what sporty cars are supposed to be? cheap fun? think back about 40 years...all those cars we revere now were stripper versions of popular cars with big engines. the mustangs and camaros and firebirds and chevelles and gto's. most had crappy interiors and all everyone cared about was a gas pedal, a shifter, and what was under the hood. i know this isn't the 60's anymore, but lets put a fun little car into perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moby Vic Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 someone let me know when P becomes his usual Ford bashing selfuntil then im putting him on my ignore list because it so sarcastic that its really stupid, although it was instigated by some on here... And yet these posts are no less pointless than his usual posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomaro Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 someone let me know when P becomes his usual Ford bashing selfuntil then im putting him on my ignore list because it so sarcastic that its really stupid, although it was instigated by some on here... Maybe I need medication, but I think its pretty funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSFan00 Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 It's actually a rip-off at 23k. I would rather take a base GTI. No use for the extra HP when the car is shit to begin with. I think you completely nailed it here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 someone let me know when P becomes his usual Ford bashing selfuntil then im putting him on my ignore list because it so sarcastic that its really stupid, although it was instigated by some on here... There was nothing sarcastic about what I typed. Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass and read for once...rather than bashing someone because they drive a Ford. But...since you can't read this... ME > you WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inteller Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 A 260 hp Cobalt is still a Cobalt. exactly....nothing can polish that turd. my god what an ugly piece of shit. Even uglier than the 2008 Focus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 exactly....nothing can polish that turd. my god what an ugly piece of shit. Even uglier than the 2008 Focus. Eh, I wouldn't call the Cobalt ugly really. It just kinda looks underdone, quite the opposite of the Focus that looks like they kept throwing random styling elements at it until they ran out of sheet metal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Eh, I wouldn't call the Cobalt ugly really. It just kinda looks underdone, quite the opposite of the Focus that looks like they kept throwing random styling elements at it until they ran out of sheet metal. Typically I don't agree with Edmunds, but they had a good point. They likened the styling to something very Cavaileresque and quite frankly I'd have to agree. It just comes across as something VERY dated. It might be slower and slightly heavier, but the MSP3 strikes me as a better buy here. That said GM has to be given credit for sorting out the responsiveness of the archaic rear chassis setup and the launch control feature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Typically I don't agree with Edmunds, but they had a good point. They likened the styling to something very Cavaileresque and quite frankly I'd have to agree. It just comes across as something VERY dated. It might be slower and slightly heavier, but the MSP3 strikes me as a better buy here. That said GM has to be given credit for sorting out the responsiveness of the archaic rear chassis setup and the launch control feature. While the specs are impressive, the styling has never been my cup of tea. In fact, the one thing I don't like about the new Malibu is that the front is very similar to the Cobalt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford-150 Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 how much torque is this engine in the new SS making, the MS3 makes an insane amount of torque for a fwd pocket rocket i honestly do not think it will be faster than the MS3, it will be very fast though and be a great buy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted March 29, 2008 Share Posted March 29, 2008 how much torque is this engine in the new SS making, the MS3 makes an insane amount of torque for a fwd pocket rocket i honestly do not think it will be faster than the MS3, it will be very fast though and be a great buy According to Edmunds it is, but not by much. I think a lot of it has to do with the launch control on the Cobalt. I like the MS3, but both cars strike me as opening acts to Torque-steer-palooza! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGallun Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 According to Edmunds it is, but not by much. I think a lot of it has to do with the launch control on the Cobalt. I like the MS3, but both cars strike me as opening acts to Torque-steer-palooza! meh, take magazine speeds with a grain of salt... these are same people that said my v6 fusion would do 1/4 in what? 15.7 at 91 or someting..? last year i ran 3 straight bone stock runs at 15.3 at 93mph in 62 degree sunny day... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.