It’s not uncommon for hi-po’d variants to be introduced after the fact, creating a sense of upgradeability thanks to their aspirational nature. And of course, Super Sport variants are easily recognized by the bold ‘SS’ badging which is emblazoned across their respective grilles, replacing the traditional Chevy ‘bowtie’.īut if Chevy lent such badging to its most inspired performance offering, is giving a relatively uninspired offering like the Cobalt the SS Treatment the automotive equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig? Let’s take a closer look. Some of the most iconic SS offerings include the Camaro, Chevelle, Monte Carlo and Nova. Debuting with the 1961 Impala, a number of Chevy models received the SS treatment earning enhanced sport-inspired exterior and interior features, alongside upgraded powertrain, suspension and tires. Since 1961, the Super Sport moniker was used by Chevy to denote their signature performance package. There would be other powertrain configurations served up across its limited six-year run, but the decision to create an SS variant would prove one of the most inspired attempts to redeem the Cobalt. Under the hood, the Cobalt was introduced with a 2.2-liter EcoTec inline four-cylinder capable of 145 hp and 155 lb-ft of torque, while delivering a competitive fuel economy of 34 mpg highway / 24 mpg city. But what about performance and fuel economy? Considering that the Cobalt existed at a time when crossovers would begin to steal consumer attention thanks to fresh designs and safety features, it would seem the model had its work cut out for it since day one. So, for anyone keeping score, what we had was an underwhelming design that offered little assurance of safety. So it’s no real surprise that, across its first four model years, the Cobalt would earn the highest fatality rate in its class. Adding fuel to the fire, the first two model years would later be subject to a 98,000 vehicle safety recall (which certainly did little to help the Cobalt’s case). When evaluated by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) it would barely measure up, earning such lacking scores as ‘Poor’, ‘Good’ and ‘Acceptable’. But as a whole, the Cobalt never truly felt ‘new’ or ‘exciting’.Īnother failing of the Cobalt came in terms of safety. Average in weight, when compared with class competitors, the only significant differentiator was a slightly longer wheelbase.
Simply put, the Cobalt was ‘nothing to write home about’ from a design perspective. That said, we’re not here to bash the Cobalt from a 2019 perspective, but hindsight is 20/20. Built upon GM’s Delta platform, the Cobalt was largely uninspired and indicative of a somewhat tired design trope that had been marched out repeatedly since the early 1990’s. The Cobalt SS was Chevy’s stab at serving up a hi-powered version of the Cobalt, a compact offering served up in both sedan and coupe styling. Chevy Cobaltįirst things first, the matter of housekeeping. But, in an attempt to give credit where it’s due, let’s place this iteration Cobalt in a vacuum, and take a long, hard look at it, to see where it succeeds (and where it falls short). Is it possible that the Cobalt was simply a victim of timing? Could it have enjoyed a longer and more celebrated life had it been more reflective of changing consumer sensibilities? We could play ‘What-if’ all day long. Largely forgettable, the Cobalt certainly falls into the second category, having only been produced between 2005-2010.īut does the limited nature of the Cobalt’s existence equate to a lack of success on Chevy’s part, in terms of creating a compelling offering? As we’ve seen in recent months, big picture decisions can be made to create room for more timely models. From the iconic Camaro to the stalwart Silverado, they have been successful in serving up tentpole offerings that serve to anchor the lineup while they experiment with other models. In terms of the latter, consider the Chevrolet Cobalt SS.Īs both a global leader and one of the ‘Big Three’ domestic automakers, Chevy seeks no vindication and needs never defend their staying power. On other occasions, however, a particular model might only exist as a proverbial flash-in-the-pan, fading from a lineup as quickly as it first appears. On some occasions, a particular model will prove enduring in its success, transcending generations in its evolving appeal.
To innovators, designers and engineers, employment in the automotive industry must prove a finicky mistress of sorts.
0 kommentar(er)
