I'd take every other car in that test over a Cobalt. But I'm still blown away by well it performs against car's with seemingly far better technology and much, much higher prices. And its FWD to boot. This bodes extremely well for the Cruze which looks to be far better built than the Cobalt.

 

At least GM's making advances.... they also need to seriously cut down on the fleet sales. Ford and Chrysler seem to be slow to make the any notable advances in their subcompacts. GM shouldn't focus any less on their performance division since it's doing great for their marketing, but they also need to improve on their interior design.

 

I live in the world of sub sub sub compacts here (the Kei-Car, which have engines at 660 cc and under), and GM sells the Cruze here, which is a badge engineered Suzuki. It's not terrible, but they are starting to get the idea. They need to put out quality. The Caddy was an original design, as was the Vette years ago. The Sky/Solstice was also an original design (someone correct me if I'm wrong). They could take a lesson from some of the companies here, like Daihatsu (a Toyota company). They make small, quality cars that sell pretty well.

Like I said, they're going in the right direction. If they can make a quality product that can be competitive with Honda/Toyota/Nissan, they'll be OK.

 

Cobalt did it again.

Beat the 09 WRX, MazdaSpeed3 and the Lancer Ralliart in an R&T comparison test. The Cobalt was a 4 door as well.

It was 0.16 sec slower than the WRX around a ~45 sec autocross, but had the best handling according to the writers. It also lacked the optional limited slip which would probably have put it first overall in the autocross.

Acceleration wasn't too shabby either. 0-60 in 5.4 and the 1/4 mile in 13.9 @ 104. Only car quicker was the WRX at 5.1 and 13.8.

 

I read an article in R&T or Car and Driver where the CTS-V took out the M5.

 

http://www.roadandtrack.com/video/in...tid=1711766812