Mazda3 Forums banner

1 - 20 of 48 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,337 Posts
Can't direct link from there.

But I've seen the (exterior) pics... the exterior looks great to me, except I don't like the rear lights.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
779 Posts
The coupe doesn't look too bad, sorta reminds me of a Civic/Cavalier cross. The sedan is another story.... something like a reskinned Saturn Ion. Blech. The interior, IMO is this car's best aesthetic feature (it's good to see that Chevy/GM is working on their styling.


SOURCE: www.motortrend.com










Agreed on the ugly taillights for the coupe, and why is it raised like a Corolla?

Chevy and GM want to be pretty competitive with this new model. 4 engine choices including a 170hp I4 and a supercharged I4 making 200 horses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
Sorry, but I don't think that those are good looking cars. At all.

Cobalt & Pursuit (the canadian version of Cobalt, sold by Pontiac) look just as bad as their predecessors (and the coupe looks IDENTICAL to the old one, round taillamps aside). Funny thing is, Chevy says that they won't sell them for cheap anymore, so the only reason left to buy one is gone!

GM still tries to pass lame '90s designs as new in 2004. It's just like Buick's and Saturn's "new" minivans : they took a cheap Venture, chopped the nose, slapped some paint on it and are trying to pass the result as a crossover SUV. Puh-leese.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
779 Posts
Don't believe what you hear about not selling them cheap...

Stickers will be the same, but you'll see a huge array of incentives a couple months down the line, just as they did with the Cavalier. There'e simply too much competition out there for Chevy not to discount the car.

Funny thing is that Chevy expects to sell 230,000 Cobalts once they're released. Cavaliers sold well, but as fleet cars, look for the Cobalt to do the same. They won't reach 230,000 units without discounting tho...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,337 Posts
Other than the rear end (mainly hte lights) I really do like it... the sedans rear end being worse than the coupes.

The coupe has very nice lines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,626 Posts
I like it, but I don't like the big yellow turn signals in the front headlight housing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
If they made the headlights a little more square it would be ok.....the headlights have the most unconventional shape, it's semi square and then teardropped at the top.

I'd take the Mz3 over this GM attempt anyday.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
984 Posts
The sedan back looks like a Neon. The coupe back looks like the Impala. Big improvement over the Cavvy, but still a Chevy POS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,686 Posts
Tru dat. I wonder what the performance spec are like for the SC I-4 engine and suspension.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
thecarconnection.com says :

"The 2005 Cobalt is Chevy's latest salvo in the compact-car wars - but unlike the outgoing Cavalier, the Cobalt won't be competing at the lean end of the pricing spectrum. Though no prices were announced for the new four-door sedan and jazzy two-door coupe, Chevrolet is intent on letting its new Korean-sourced Aveo compete against the cheapest Kias and Hyundais, leaving the upper reaches of the economy class to the new Delta-architecture compacts, which share some components with the Saturn ION."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Actually looks noice - For a Chevy small Sedan...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Wow the snobs come out in full force, "still a Chevy POS", must be nice to be psychic and already know if a car is good or not, how do you know a MZ3 won't be a lemon...

fleecy said:
Cobalt & Pursuit (the canadian version of Cobalt, sold by Pontiac) look just as bad as their predecessors (and the coupe looks IDENTICAL to the old one, round taillamps aside).
Yeah and black is just like white, color difference aside :roll:
This...


looks identical to this??


Hate it's looks if you want, but saying they're identical is just not true, lose the Mazda blinders.

How about we compare this 200+hp, 2-dr coupe, to a Mazda, oh that's right we can't, a shame since not everyone wants 4 doors or fat wagons.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
Well, the 2003 Cavvy front grille is way too ugly (looks dumb)! I like the Cobalt, but the styling looks like they are from some Korean maker (Daewoo??? :shock: ?). Side view of the coupe looks like a Triburon, and the rear headlights for the Sedan looks similar to the Rio. So the styling is uninspirng and looks just like another econobox to get you from point A to point B without fuss, nor fun. The front end looks too common, they should put the Malibu and Truck type grille on the Cobalt as a Chevy. In any case, I wish they are made quieter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
The 2 door coupe picture shows that the Cobalt is unmistakeably a Cavalier derivative, and an evolutionary one at that. Other than restyled headlights and a new rear end, the two cars share much of the same ratios and proportions.




Look at the A/B/C pillars and the overall roofline, they look nearly identical, along with front door and window shape. The rear end has different bevels and edges, but the same basic shape is there. They did shorten the snout quite a bit, gave it some new headlights, but kept the grill and the "gentle arc" shape of the front bumper.

The body contours on the 2-door coupe is adequate for a car designed 4 or 5 years ago. Even if it is a little plain, at least it is clean. But it does not pack the kind of curves necessary to make the Cobalt standout. The car is just so generic looking at all angles. Should do well among major buyers of GM cars, such as car rental companies.

Interior looks nice, but I question the presence of wood inserts in what is supposed to be a car for younger people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Mounty said:
Well, the 2003 Cavvy front grille is way too ugly (looks dumb)! I like the Cobalt, but the styling looks like they are from some Korean maker (Daewoo??? ?). Side view of the coupe looks like a Triburon, and the rear headlights for the Sedan looks similar to the Rio. So the styling is uninspirng and looks just like another econobox to get you from point A to point B without fuss, nor fun. The front end looks too common, they should put the Malibu and Truck type grille on the Cobalt as a Chevy. In any case, I wish they are made quieter.
Mounty, I don't know what a Triburon is, but I can tell you that the Cobalt looks nothing like a Tiburon, apart from the fact that they're both 2 dr compact sports cars with sleek, hatchback styling. You must also think that the RSX, Integra and Celica all look identical as well??

LeeLee said:
The 2 door coupe picture shows that the Cobalt is unmistakeably a Cavalier derivative, and an evolutionary one at that. Other than restyled headlights and a new rear end, the two cars share much of the same ratios and proportions.

Look at the A/B/C pillars and the overall roofline, they look nearly identical, along with front door and window shape. The rear end has different bevels and edges, but the same basic shape is there. They did shorten the snout quite a bit, gave it some new headlights, but kept the grill and the "gentle arc" shape of the front bumper.

The body contours on the 2-door coupe is adequate for a car designed 4 or 5 years ago. Even if it is a little plain, at least it is clean. But it does not pack the kind of curves necessary to make the Cobalt standout. The car is just so generic looking at all angles. Should do well among major buyers of GM cars, such as car rental companies.

Interior looks nice, but I question the presence of wood inserts in what is supposed to be a car for younger people.
LeeLee, saying something is derivative of a Cavalier and saying it is identical are two ENTIRELY different things. Celicas, RSXs, Integras and Tiburons all have sport compact fastback proportions it's par for the course for a car in this segment. The Cobalt shares more with the RSX and Integra than it does with any Cavalier. BTW the coupe you see there has no wood inside it, that's the sedan...

The Cobalt SS is COMPLETELY different than a Z24, the ratios and proportions are NOT the same at all. Notice the Cobalt's straight lines/edges, nothing's rounded off like it is in the Cavalier. On the Cobalt, the rear of the car (looking from the side) starts off at a high point and tapers gradually down to the front. Do you not see that? It's similar to the new Accord coupe and previous Mercury Cougar, that pouncing look, the Cobalt has it, the Cavalier doesn't it's just a straight flat line, from back to front, throughout the body. Look at the profile shot I posted and you'll see it.

The greenhouse on the Cobalt is significantly larger and higher, the side window is taller and the B pillar is tilted towards the rear whereas on the Cavy the B pillar is 90 degrees perfectly upright. And the rear side pasenger window is completely different, in size (it's much smaller) and shape. Pronounced bulging wheel wells are apparent on the Cobalt whereas on the Cavalier it's entirely slab sided, no definition.

I haven't even mentioned the most obvious differences and there's no need to since the entire car is different not just the front and back, it's not just a shorter snout (I think you mean hood), new headlights, and front bumper, nothing on this car is interchangeable with a Cavalier.

I couldn't make out what you typed here:

The body contours on the 2-door coupe is adequate for a car designed 4 or 5 years ago. Even if it is a little plain, at least it is clean. But it does not pack the kind of curves necessary to make the Cobalt standout. The car is just so generic looking at all angles. Should do well among major buyers of GM cars, such as car rental companies.

Can't tell if you're just talking about the SS or regular sedan or both.... Let's assume, SS.

If you think the SS is plain, does not have the kind of curves to make it stand out and is generic looking, that's fine since that's your opinion. So what 2dr car does have the curves and stands out?? The Celica, with those drastic lines and equally poor sales, or the RSX? The RSX is certainly more toned down in appearance, reviewers have even said it has plain jane looks in reference to it, so it can't be that, hmm wonder what it is.....

Ah the ever popular rental company jab, do you honestly believe that the "major" buyers of GM cars are to rental companies?? I've heard anywhere from 15-20% of certain models, not even close to all models, and certainly not the majority of buyers. The truth is you have no clue how many Cavaliers were sold to rental companies, BUT if you do, post proof and I gladly retract my statement. But if you don't know, don't reference it as an exaggerated fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
NCMZ3 said:
Mounty said:
Well, the 2003 Cavvy front grille is way too ugly (looks dumb)! I like the Cobalt, but the styling looks like they are from some Korean maker (Daewoo??? ?). Side view of the coupe looks like a Triburon, and the rear headlights for the Sedan looks similar to the Rio. So the styling is uninspirng and looks just like another econobox to get you from point A to point B without fuss, nor fun. The front end looks too common, they should put the Malibu and Truck type grille on the Cobalt as a Chevy. In any case, I wish they are made quieter.
Mounty, I don't know what a Triburon is, but I can tell you that the Cobalt looks nothing like a Tiburon, apart from the fact that they're both 2 dr compact sports cars with sleek, hatchback styling. You must also think that the RSX, Integra and Celica all look identical as well??

No, that's not what I meant. Just by looking at the picture, and subjectively, that's what the Cobalt remind me of, the Tiburon from the side view. I don't want to dissect the panels piece by piece, nor do I have to prove it to you. If you don't agree, that's fine. It's all subjective. Please don't attack my spelling or a typo in this case, it doesn't help your argument a tiny bit. And no, I don't think the RSX, Integra and Celica all look identical, apart from the fact that they're all coupe or offer a coupe version with a sleek, liftback styling!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
NCMZ3 said:
LeeLee, saying something is derivative of a Cavalier and saying it is identical are two ENTIRELY different things.
Well, I don't agree that they are identical. Certainly manythings were changed. I am just saying that the changes are evolutionary and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they ride on the same basic chassis dating back to whenever.

NCMZ3 said:
Celicas, RSXs, Integras and Tiburons all have sport compact fastback proportions it's par for the course for a car in this segment. The Cobalt shares more with the RSX and Integra than it does with any Cavalier. BTW the coupe you see there has no wood inside it, that's the sedan...
Nope, I disagree. While all 2-door fastbacks, there are significantly different styling cues for each car. Celica has sharp edges and tons of tacky ground effects. RSX has a simple understated look. And the Tiburon has hefty fender bulges and flares and plenty of Typical Sports Car Styling Element (tm) thrown in.

NCMZ3 said:
The Cobalt SS is COMPLETELY different than a Z24, the ratios and proportions are NOT the same at all. Notice the Cobalt's straight lines/edges, nothing's rounded off like it is in the Cavalier.
On the Cobalt, the rear of the car (looking from the side) starts off at a high point and tapers gradually down to the front. Do you not see that? It's similar to the new Accord coupe and previous Mercury Cougar, that pouncing look, the Cobalt has it, the Cavalier doesn't it's just a straight flat line, from back to front, throughout the body. Look at the profile shot I posted and you'll see it.

The greenhouse on the Cobalt is significantly larger and higher, the side window is taller and the B pillar is tilted towards the rear whereas on the Cavy the B pillar is 90 degrees perfectly upright. And the rear side pasenger window is completely different, in size (it's much smaller) and shape. Pronounced bulging wheel wells are apparent on the Cobalt whereas on the Cavalier it's entirely slab sided, no definition.
I must disagree with the pillars and roofling being different between the two cars. The tilt in the B-pillar is very minor, and the rear triangle window is smaller mainly due to the way the roof rolls down a bit more. The shape of the greenhouses are very similar between both cars. This coupled with flat-slab bodies (even if the Cobalt is tilted), gives the two cars very similar general proportions. Yes, you get some sharp bevels on the Cobalt, along with fender flares, but that's rather decorative than substantive.

NCMZ3 said:
I haven't even mentioned the most obvious differences and there's no need to since the entire car is different not just the front and back, it's not just a shorter snout (I think you mean hood), new headlights, and front bumper, nothing on this car is interchangeable with a Cavalier.
If the Cobalt is truely a completely new car, then that's a good move on GM's part. However, they need to distance their new offerings from the old school GM stuff that relied on incentives to sell. Styling the Cobalt so closely to the Cavalier casts doubt on the progress that GM is making. Compare a Mazda3/6 to a Protege/626 - vastly different vehicles that are styled to reflect this fact.

NCMZ3 said:
I couldn't make out what you typed here:

The body contours on the 2-door coupe is adequate for a car designed 4 or 5 years ago. Even if it is a little plain, at least it is clean. But it does not pack the kind of curves necessary to make the Cobalt standout. The car is just so generic looking at all angles. Should do well among major buyers of GM cars, such as car rental companies.

Can't tell if you're just talking about the SS or regular sedan or both.... Let's assume, SS.
I was referring to the 2-door. 4-door cars can stand to be plain. Just look at a Civic or Corolla. However, I must say that the rear cluster of the 4-door Cobalt reminds me of a Kia.

NCMZ3 said:
If you think the SS is plain, does not have the kind of curves to make it stand out and is generic looking, that's fine since that's your opinion. So what 2dr car does have the curves and stands out?? The Celica, with those drastic lines and equally poor sales, or the RSX? The RSX is certainly more toned down in appearance, reviewers have even said it has plain jane looks in reference to it, so it can't be that, hmm wonder what it is.....
Even though the RSX's design is "plain", the car isn't one slab front to back. There is a line from the rear hip to the top of the front wheels, then another line from the bottom of the windshield to the nose. There are compound curves on the car, especially around the rear quarter panels, that gives the design some richness. This is why the car looks especially nice from the rear corners.

Even though I don't find the Celica's styling cues appealing, it does have one of the most aggressively styled exterior. The Tiburon looks nice (even if it is a Hyundai). The Eclipse is also very sporty looking. VW GTI has always managed to look sweet despite flat body panels. Just goes to show that simple and generic are not the same.

NCMZ3 said:
Ah the ever popular rental company jab, do you honestly believe that the "major" buyers of GM cars are to rental companies?? I've heard anywhere from 15-20% of certain models, not even close to all models, and certainly not the majority of buyers. The truth is you have no clue how many Cavaliers were sold to rental companies, BUT if you do, post proof and I gladly retract my statement. But if you don't know, don't reference it as an exaggerated fact.
Why do you pretend to know what I do or do not have a clue about. I didn't say majority of Cavaliers are sold to rental cars fleets. But fleet sales makes up a significant portion of GM sales. I didn't say "majority of buyers", I said "major buyers". And if you had a buyer who purchased 15 to 20% of your total volume, that's a major buyer.

The point of my comment about the fleet sales is this: The purchase considerations of private buyers are vastly different from that of a fleet buyer. The former is a complex combination of quality, price, utility, economy, and image, among others. Fleet purchasers care about upfront costs, maintenance costs over a 2-year period, and residual value after 2-years. As a private buyer looking at the Cobalt, the question becomes "what does this car give me that I care about and how does it compare to other cars in the market." For the Cobalt, the value proposition is not there. "Well you get a big engine", few people care about power beyond adequate; how many of those turbo Neons do you see versus hundreds of thousands of 130HP or weaker Civic and Corollas? "This is a high quality car!", takes time to tell, and styling that resemble old GM cars doesn't boost confidence. "Great utility!", no more than any other car on the market in this class. "Great economy!", didn't you mention a big engine? "Cheap price!" Well... we are back to square 1.

Where is the value proposition? What is going to make me want to go out and test drive a Cobalt aside from my morbid curiosity to see what GM considers to be the key to their small-car business revival? If I purchase a Cobalt, what do I get that is better than any other car aside from a big fat rebate check?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
...

LeeLee said:
Well, I don't agree that they are identical. Certainly manythings were changed. I am just saying that the changes are evolutionary and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they ride on the same basic chassis dating back to whenever.
Actually the Cobalt is completely new from the ground up but you're last statement is telling. You seem to have alot of unfounded pre-conceived notions about GMs, did you have a bad experience with one? GMs have a bad reputation, but RIGHT NOW they consistently rank right up there in terms of quality and reliability with the likes of Toyota and Honda, this isn't the 80s anymore.

LeeLee] Nope said:
I must disagree with the pillars and roofling being different between the two cars. The tilt in the B-pillar is very minor, and the rear triangle window is smaller mainly due to the way the roof rolls down a bit more. The shape of the greenhouses are very similar between both cars. This coupled with flat-slab bodies (even if the Cobalt is tilted), gives the two cars very similar general proportions. Yes, you get some sharp bevels on the Cobalt, along with fender flares, but that's rather decorative than substantive.
We'll agree to disagree, this car I see before me doesn't evoke the old Z24 at all, in fact when I first saw it, I couldn't see the logo and assumed it was Japanese, seriously, the larger headlights, clean refined lines, just sharp and refined looking.

LeeLee said:
If the Cobalt is truely a completely new car, then that's a good move on GM's part.
Yes it is completely new, again why the low expectations?

LeeLee said:
However, they need to distance their new offerings from the old school GM stuff that relied on incentives to sell. Styling the Cobalt so closely to the Cavalier casts doubt on the progress that GM is making. Compare a Mazda3/6 to a Protege/626 - vastly different vehicles that are styled to reflect this fact.
I can barely see where the Coupe looks like a Z24 but the sedan looks even less like a Cavalier from any view IMO. So the difference is there, along with the new name and platform. It's more than skin deep which is more improtant to me. That's not to say the 3 is like a Protege, as I have no idea what, if anything at all a 3 shares with a Protege.And for a while now the Impala and previous gen Malibu, have looked completely different from any Chevy prior, as did the Venture from the previous minivan, they've been changing they're look for a while now, Mazda's have looked the same for a lot longer, until their renaissance with newly styled the 6 and 3 of course.

LeeLee said:
I was referring to the 2-door. 4-door cars can stand to be plain. Just look at a Civic or Corolla. However, I must say that the rear cluster of the 4-door Cobalt reminds me of a Kia.
Me too, not a good thing, the MZ3 is certainly the most distinctively styled sporty looking car in its class IMO. But its stubby/pudginess still takes some getting used to.

LeeLee said:
Even though the RSX's design is "plain", the car isn't one slab front to back. There is a line from the rear hip to the top of the front wheels, then another line from the bottom of the windshield to the nose. There are compound curves on the car, especially around the rear quarter panels, that gives the design some richness. This is why the car looks especially nice from the rear corners.

Even though I don't find the Celica's styling cues appealing, it does have one of the most aggressively styled exterior. The Tiburon looks nice (even if it is a Hyundai). The Eclipse is also very sporty looking. VW GTI has always managed to look sweet despite flat body panels. Just goes to show that simple and generic are not the same.
The SS is definitely not plain and generic compared to the cars you posted, it's understated but still very sporty, sportier than an RSX, less tacky than a Celica or Eclipse (which is a larger coupe at this point), the SS doesn't pretend to be a Ferrari like the Tiburon and the GTI is the definition of plain and generic but to each their own. And it will probably outpower them all, hp isn't the end all be all, but for this segment, it matters to some extent to be able to back up the sporty looks and at 220+ hp it should do fine.

LeeLee said:
Why do you pretend to know what I do or do not have a clue about. I didn't say majority of Cavaliers are sold to rental cars fleets. But fleet sales makes up a significant portion of GM sales. I didn't say "majority of buyers", I said "major buyers". And if you had a buyer who purchased 15 to 20% of your total volume, that's a major buyer.
I said you have no clue as to how many Cavys were sold to rental companies, until you can prove otherwise, the statement stands.

BTW that 15-20% is of certain models, not even close to all, so that 15-20% is not of total volume, the major buyers of GM cars are still everyday people, not corporations.

LeeLee said:
The point of my comment about the fleet sales is this: The purchase considerations of private buyers are vastly different from that of a fleet buyer. The former is a complex combination of quality, price, utility, economy, and image, among others. Fleet purchasers care about upfront costs, maintenance costs over a 2-year period, and residual value after 2-years. As a private buyer looking at the Cobalt, the question becomes "what does this car give me that I care about and how does it compare to other cars in the market." For the Cobalt, the value proposition is not there. "Well you get a big engine", few people care about power beyond adequate; how many of those turbo Neons do you see versus hundreds of thousands of 130HP or weaker Civic and Corollas? "This is a high quality car!", takes time to tell, and styling that resemble old GM cars doesn't boost confidence. "Great utility!", no more than any other car on the market in this class. "Great economy!", didn't you mention a big engine? "Cheap price!" Well... we are back to square 1.

Where is the value proposition? What is going to make me want to go out and test drive a Cobalt aside from my morbid curiosity to see what GM considers to be the key to their small-car business revival? If I purchase a Cobalt, what do I get that is better than any other car aside from a big fat rebate check?
I'm glad you expained this point as I took it as a jab at the Cobalt, as to what the Cobalt offers that differentiates it, I don't know, maybe you should test drive one with an open mind and it'll surprise you, or it could be crap, never know 'til you try. That being said it isn't being targeted at the MZ3, it's the Civics, Corollas and Jettas that GM is looking at, so it probably won't apeal to much to MZ drivers.

Personally, from a driving perspective I can't say, but it does offer alot choices, sedan coupe, 8 trim levels, for every price range, 3 engines (the Ecotec is as solid and reliable as they come): 2.2L engine in the base, a new 2.4L engine in the SS coupe and sedan and the supercharged 2.0L in the uplevel SS coupe. 4 wheel choices, standard 15-inch wheels w/ available 16, 17, and 18-inch wheels lots of choice and customization to budgets and tastes. A VW like interior in terms of quality, fit and finish, soft to the touch plastics, heated leather seats, overall an interior that surpasses the Corolla/Civic (at a less expensive price) but definitely not as sporty or stylish as a MZ3, but again different market.

And to Mounty, I apologize.
 
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
Top