Subaru Impreza WRX | Get a Free Price Quote
Points: 374.3
Every once in a while a manufacturer listens to us. Okay, it's more likely Subaru was listening to the scores of enthusiasts who cried out in horror that the completely redesigned 2008 car had lost its fun-to-drive nature. We said the new car had "lost its WRX-ness" in a Road Test report.
So one year after unveiling the new WRX, Subaru reworked it again for 2009. And addressed pretty much every issue we, and all the enthusiast buyers, had: an engine that ran out of steam up high, overly soft suspension and conservative styling (turns out WRX owners want people to know they're driving a WRX, not just an Impreza).
The engine remains the same smooth 2.5-liter horizontally opposed 4-cylinder from last year's car, but now with a larger turbocharger, increased boost (from 11.4 psi to 13.3), an optimized catalytic converter and a larger-diameter exhaust with a 30-percent increase in flow. Power jumps from 224 to 265 bhp, with torque increasing from 226 lb.-ft. to 244. Mated to a fine-shifting 5-speed manual (the only way the WRX comes for 2009 -- last year's WRX becomes this year's Impreza 2.5 GT, with a 4-speed automatic), the WRX's all-wheel drive clawed and pulled its way to 60 mph in a test-stomping 5.1 sec. That's 0.6 sec. quicker than last year's car and 0.3 sec. quicker than the Cobalt SS and the Ralliart. It's also within 0.1 sec. of the mighty STI!
Subaru engineers moved the power a bit higher up the rev range (peak bhp at 6000 rpm, compared to 5200 last year). Kott said the car's newfound power makes it a "sleeper" version of the STI.
Last year's soft suspension was addressed by adding 43-percent-stiffer front springs and 42-percent-stiffer rears, along with front and rear anti-roll bars each increased by 1 millimeter. The Dunlop SP Sport 01 tires are stickier and wider -- 225/45R17s, up from 205/50R-17s. The result is a sure-footed, fine-handling back-road machine, with a ride quality almost as good as last year's marshmallow.
Despite the stiffer suspension, Kim still felt the WRX was "squishier than the Cobalt SS, although it's a competent all-rounder."
Kott agreed, "The WRX has a nice, supple ride that doesn't sacrifice too much handling precision." And although the WRX didn't win any outright handling categories, such as the slalom or skidpad, it posted the best time around the autocross, beating the Cobalt SS by 0.16 sec.
"It feels more settled and relaxed when driven hard compared to the others," said Hong, while Kott, our resident autocross Meister, said, "It felt great through fast slalom sections -- it just flows from one transition to the next, while the other cars weren't as fluid." But if you left-foot-braked too much around the autocross, the pedal went hard and braking ability decreased substantially.
Although the interior is mostly carryover from last year, we're not complaining, as it has the most straightforward controls of the bunch, without the cheap-feeling pieces found on the Cobalt SS. The seats are comfortable for long hauls, but for sporty driving they're substandard: "It seems they were built for a wider person," said Kott, "as I was bouncing off the bolsters during cornering."
So if we like this new WRX so much, why didn't it win? Because in terms of pure dynamics, there's another car in this test that's just a slight bit better.
Chevrolet Cobalt SS | Get a Free Price Quote
Points: 382.6
The Cobalt SS may be the most underrated car in the world. We're about to set it free of that title.
It's no secret GM engineers spent a lot of time tearing around racetracks in the Cobalt SS, fine-tuning the car's FE5 suspension. They did one heckuva job, as how else can you explain a car with a torsion-beam rear axle handling as well as this one does?
And handle it did -- everything we could throw at it, from the racetrack-worthy back roads of California's Central Valley, to a challenging autocross course, to our traditional performance testing. In the last, the Cobalt SS posted test-best numbers in the skidpad and slalom -- a superb 0.92g and 70.0 mph, respectively. And it didn't just win, it dominated the others.
But what surprised us even more than the raw data was how composed and quick the Cobalt SS was on back roads. Its slightly heavy steering has near-perfect weighting, and the car goes exactly where you tell it. "I'm impressed!" said Kott. "It's the rental car that went to hot-rod school. It feels light, turns in like crazy, has lots of grip and only moderate body roll." He admitted the Cobalt SS occasionally displayed an "odd, disjointed feel while cornering -- probably attributable to the torsion-beam rear axle -- but it's sure hard to upset this car."
Another strong point for the Cobalt SS is its 2.0-liter turbocharged and direct-injected 4-cylinder, which makes 260 bhp and 260 lb.-ft. of torque. Not only is this sweet engine virtually lag-free, it's also vice-free, as it's smooth and quiet, and has "right now" power at all times. Torque peaks at just 2000 rpm -- yet it makes usable power all the way to its 6300-rpm redline. It's mated to the most precise gearbox of the group, a 5-speed, "marred only by its cheap-feeling plastic knob," said Kott.
One of the few sore points dynamically for the Cobalt SS is its ability at times to put this wondrous power to its front wheels, because for reasons we can't comprehend, GM gave us a Cobalt without the optional limited-slip front differential. So in tight turns, spinning the inside front wheel was as easy as, well, pressing hard on the throttle pedal. This was especially apparent around the autocross, where exiting slow corners was an exercise in right-foot willpower. But because of its nimble handling, its best time was just 0.16 sec. slower than the all-wheel-drive WRX. Just think what it could have done with the $495 limited-slip diff!
What else is cool about the Cobalt SS? For its $23,510 as-tested price, it comes with forged-alloy wheels, 4-piston Brembo front brakes, a boost gauge and the ability to perform no-lift shifts via an algorithm in the engine controller.
What's not cool about the Cobalt SS? The interior. "It doesn't have the quality feel of the others," said Hong. The plastics, the fabric covering the seats (although the lateral support is quite good) and the lack of proper cubbies are annoying. Obviously, engineering time was spent elsewhere.
Then there's the exterior. Despite those racy wheels and new front air dam, let's face it: it still looks like a Cobalt, which means bland with a capital "B." But maybe that's part of its allure: "It's a sleeper car," said Hong, "and no one will expect it to be so fast."
Read More Great Stories at AOL Autos:
