cobolt lt vs avenger
#1
08-15-2006, 02:41 AM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#2
08-15-2006, 03:37 AM
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 2,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#3
08-15-2006, 03:40 AM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#4
08-15-2006, 03:45 AM
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 2,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: cobolt lt vs avenger
It sucks but what can you do?.....turbo!! lol.
Weight reduction works wonders but you end up having to take out a lot of things before it really does any good in our cars. The back seats don't weigh that much (well, the back rest do). You have to remember to remove the sound deadener from all over the car...then the inside gets loud. Spare tire goes, plastic panels, get a lighter driver's seat, so get rid of the electric driver's seat...and so on.
Weight reduction works wonders but you end up having to take out a lot of things before it really does any good in our cars. The back seats don't weigh that much (well, the back rest do). You have to remember to remove the sound deadener from all over the car...then the inside gets loud. Spare tire goes, plastic panels, get a lighter driver's seat, so get rid of the electric driver's seat...and so on.
#5
08-15-2006, 09:44 PM
RE: cobolt lt vs avenger
If the cobolts curb weight is 2700lbs the 96 venge weights 2800lbs.
Dodge avenger 96 year
Engine Type 2.0 Liter I4 w/MPI*
Engine Size 122 cid/1996 cc
Horsepower 140 @ 6000 RPM
Torque (lb-ft) 130 @ 4800 RPM
Wheelbase/Width/Length 103.7"/68.5"/187.2"
Transmission Five-speed manual
Curb Weight 2879 pounds
PERFORMANCE
0-60 MPH 9.7 seconds
1/4 mile (E.T.) 16.9 seconds @ 83 mph
Not sure on the specs of the Cobolt but I know the 2.2 has 148 hp, and weighs 100 less than the 96 year avenger with a 2.0.
Maybe it would be close.
You could always door him, lol!
Dodge avenger 96 year
Engine Type 2.0 Liter I4 w/MPI*
Engine Size 122 cid/1996 cc
Horsepower 140 @ 6000 RPM
Torque (lb-ft) 130 @ 4800 RPM
Wheelbase/Width/Length 103.7"/68.5"/187.2"
Transmission Five-speed manual
Curb Weight 2879 pounds
PERFORMANCE
0-60 MPH 9.7 seconds
1/4 mile (E.T.) 16.9 seconds @ 83 mph
Not sure on the specs of the Cobolt but I know the 2.2 has 148 hp, and weighs 100 less than the 96 year avenger with a 2.0.
Maybe it would be close.
You could always door him, lol!
#6
08-15-2006, 10:04 PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#7
08-15-2006, 10:14 PM
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 2,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: cobolt lt vs avenger
Motor wise, no. The only difference between the years are options and the 95-96 years have a different front fascia and rear than the 97-00 years.
The Cobalt motor is also stronger than the 420a and given the fact that the Avenger 420a is also old and most likely worn, chances are good that the Avenger will lose....that is on paper and with numbers...put that on the streets and it's all about the driver's then, but I'm pretty sure the Cobalt has the advantage.
The Cobalt motor is also stronger than the 420a and given the fact that the Avenger 420a is also old and most likely worn, chances are good that the Avenger will lose....that is on paper and with numbers...put that on the streets and it's all about the driver's then, but I'm pretty sure the Cobalt has the advantage.
Trending Topics
#8
08-15-2006, 10:29 PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#9
08-16-2006, 08:33 AM
#10
08-16-2006, 08:39 AM
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 2,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts