Sunfire Vs Colbalt

Home  \  Domestic Cars  \  Sunfire Vs Colbalt

Which is better in everyones eyes. I'm talking about performance not looks.

posted by  master.mw@gmail

The Cobalt.

posted by  chris_knows

It sounds to me like someone's Mommy and Daddy bought him a Sunfire, and he just figured out it's a bitchmobile.

posted by  vwhobo

actually i'm 14 and trying to figure out a good car to get for my first, so I can save up.

posted by  master.mw@gmail

what with the hateful comment?

posted by  Andrew0261

He was assumeing I have a sunfire and then found out it was a chick car because I asked why it was considered that. But maybe people should stop assuming because all you do when you assume is make an ass out of you and me.

posted by  master.mw@gmail

Newsflash! It was not a hateful comment.

"Your mother is fat and smells funny."

THAT is a hateful comment. I know nothing about your mother so I have no basis for anything stated above and it would be completely uncalled for.

"It sounds to me like someone's Mommy and Daddy bought him a Sunfire, and he just figured out it's a bitchmobile."

THAT is an observation based on his post history. Incorrect? Apparently, but based on fact and years of experience.



The only assumptions here are being made by you. Proof is in your post. You are assuming that I was assuming, which I wasn't. I was making an observation. Don't they teach critical thinking skills in school anymore?

P.S. You've been doing a fine job of making an ass out of yourself on this forum entirely without my help.

Have a nice day kiddies.

posted by  vwhobo

A good first car for someone who's only worried about performance would be something that doesn't perform well at all. Unless you think good involves the words "wrapped" and "tree".

posted by  jedimario

i'm not only worried about performance of all the cas i've looked at only these two. I can see the body, but I don't know jack about car specs when it comes to the performance.

posted by  master.mw@gmail

The Cobalt is the replacement for the Sunfire/Cavalier. Shouldn't be hard to figure out which is better.

posted by  PontiacFan27

Really? Is that how it works? Remember the Trans-Am SD-455 with 290 to 400 horsepower (depending on if you believe official deflated factory numbers or real world numbers) and a real 4-speed transmission? GM replaced that a few years later with a Trans-Am that had a Crossfire Injected 305 with 145 hp and an automatic trans. So since it was the replacement (or certainly newer model) the newer car must also be "better". Right? That's how it works out using your logic.

Or could your pretzel logic be confused? :doh:

posted by  vwhobo

ah i see i didnt see his other posts my bad then

posted by  Andrew0261

yea newer isnt alway better that like saying a new meto could out run a good old muscle car

posted by  Andrew0261

"1982: 305 4 barrel, 305 Cross-Fire Injection (First year for fuel injection in Trans Am)"
If so than that would be seen as better in terms how the EPA see's the world. "Better" is a relative term, trying to make a more fuel efficient car that is more reliable across a wider temperature range might be better, however in terms of performance, I don't think that would be the first car I would want to drive. Usually when something is replaced, there is a reason, normally people don't waste time, money, and labor to make a change without a sought after outcome. Whether or not the change is "good" or "better" depends on how you define it.

Back to the question, both are good first cars, reasonably priced, relatively safe (unless you play chicken with a Dodge Ram) and run well. I would say go for the cheaper to begin and the money saved between the two apply towards college :thumbs:

posted by  Voda48

I think you're missing the point there, lol. I believe he was saying that certain car companies' replacements for outgoing models aren't always better than what they're going to be replacing. Like the Sierra/Mondeo here in the UK (couldn't think of a US example....:ohcrap: ). Of course I could be wrong, in which case I'll shut up now, lol.

posted by  Cliffy

Their are exceptions to every rule. But those Trans Ams were better for the time they came out, when the oil shortage was going on and stricter environmental protection restrictions were put into place.

posted by  PontiacFan27

Parroting someone elses uninformed response only makes you look ignorant... And unable to think for yourself. Shocking. The '82 T/A performed worse than the '74, met the same emissions standards and saw decreased fuel economy even with a smaller engine. So tell me, how does that make them better? A short list will be fine.


P.S. Better check your history books. Yes, I know some of the words will be too big for you to read. The "oil shortage" in the US took place in conjunction with the oil embargo of 1973, the first year of the SD-455 and also the national 55 mph speed limit "when the oil shortage was going on and stricter environmental protection restrictions were put into place". By 1982 the US was swimming in cheap crude oil and I was paying 89.9 cents a gallon in Southern California for leaded premium (for my '76 T/A). So once again your only valid point is on the top of your head.

You have the option of shutting up at any time.

posted by  vwhobo

Got back from work and wanted to look into this:

So if we are using the 1982 as a reference point for the release of the 305 4 barrel, 305 Cross-Fire, than I have a few question I was hoping someone could clarify for me (as I was just born in ‘82). Yes the oil embargo was simmering down, or so I hear, however the effects of something to that scale do not fade so fast. It could be assumed that a car released in 1982 would have entered into concept, say one year earlier for arguments sake. So, let’s say in 1981 we are planning a new car, what is life like?
1. The Iran-Iraq War officially began on Sept. 22, 1980 (would continue till 1988)
2. Gasoline prices (real and nominal) reached a peak in 1981 (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/sld004.htm)
3. Average US Household income: $19,074 (median) Equal to ~$39,125 in 2005 (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h05.html)
4. Cost of Gas in 1981-1982 (via the http://www.bls.gov/data/sa.htm)
US Ave. Leaded Premium:
http://img452.imageshack.us/img452/510/usleadaveba6.jpg

Western US Ave Leaded Premium:
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/3057/caleadavelv3.jpg

US Ave Unleaded Premium:
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/2845/usavegx2.jpg

Western US Ave. Unleaded Premium:
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/8808/caavejc1.jpg



$0.899? in SoCal

Let’s call the ave. for gas $1.45. If we tried to apply an inflation rate to this price to get a value for today’s lifestyle… (~132%)
(http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/InflationCalculator.asp# results) best resource I could find short notice

$1.45+($1.45x1.32) = $3.36/ gallon via a 01 Jan07 inflation rate adjustment.

To me, it sounds like we weren’t swimming in gas, crude oil maybe, but we need to refine it. I think that the 4 barrel, 305 Cross-Fire with a 145 hp and an automatic trans was a “better” car in terms of planning ahead. Now I don’t know what the MPG difference between the 145hp auto vs. the Trans-Am SD-455 with 290 to 400 horsepower, but with the future not so certain, I do think it was an attempt at designing a better car.

posted by  Voda48

thanks, I'll go with your seggestion.

posted by  master.mw@gmail

cobalt!!!

posted by  Ki2AY

why the cobalt? because its a newer release?

posted by  master.mw@gmail

tell me more about this 4 barrel cross fire...

posted by  dodger65

Haha nice. Carb'd and crossfire injected, sweet.

posted by  PontiacFan27

They Are The Same Car - They Are Both Considered A General Motors J-body. Chassis And Engine Are Identical.

posted by  eaglehead18

here is where I C&P the info from, talk to them:
http://en.allexperts.com/e/p/po/pontiac_trans_am.htm

posted by  Voda48

yeah, even they say that they're 2 different engines...

posted by  dodger65

Do you remember the word I used earlier... Uninformed? There ya have it. :doh:

posted by  vwhobo

Well an unfortunate copying error happens, nobody is perfect. Fabricating facts on prices per one's recollection seems like a much "better" way to support your argument

posted by  Voda48

both are IMO girly cars. Unless its the SS SC..thats a machine

posted by  newyorker

Not you again...

posted by  jedimario

Ok first off, I don't care weather there considered girly. a body kit can change the look of a car. Plus it will be my first car, as long as it has 4 wheels and it can be driven I guess thats what counts.

posted by  master.mw@gmail

I like the cobalt more either way...duno about performance because I havent driven or raced either one.

posted by  newyorker

I have a cobalt . . 2005 2.2 . . . i had a 99 cavalier 2.2 . .. and i think they started the new ecotecs in the 2003 cavaliers and sunfires (which are the same thing) ive been told that the difference between the 05 cobalt engine and the 04 cavalier engine is fuel injection . . like how its ported . . . if i had to go back i would have kept my 99 cavalier . . . over my cobalt . . neitehr is a race car (no S*it) but i sold my cavalier in 2005, with 205, 000 miles on it . . NEVER had a problem . . just wear and tear isues and i drive cars hard). I just saw someone driving it a week ago LOL. I dont know how they drive it . . or how many miles it has now . . but i was kinda impressed and regretful heh.

BUt i dont know what year sunfire youre talking about . . . i know now pontiac has a G5 which is a cobalt . . basically liek the cavy - Sunfire.

THough my cobalt is nicer and quicker then my old cavy . . my cavalier seemed to be *tougher* than the cobalt. and more simple to diagnose and work on :) so hindsite and experience driving both . . i miss my old standby lol


so yeah . . .

posted by  Spartan3c79

It depends; if your talking about a Sunfire GT and a Base Cobalt, both are pretty simillar and offer about 148hp.

If you want performance, skip the base model Cobalt and go the SS or SS Supercharged route.

posted by  cav_rider666

...and this was almost a year ago...

posted by  dodger65

He's on a roll....:laughing:

posted by  Cliffy

Your Message