(first posted 5/30/23) They called it Cobalt because it’s dangerous. They didn’t intend it to mean the car was dangerous to drive, of course. More like lock-up-your-daughters dangerous. Don’t-bet-your-pink-slips dangerous. One-rhinestone-glove dangerous. Toxic to the uninitiated. Radioactive to the unwary. Intense and colorful. Hazardous if you disrespect it, yet healthy and life-giving in the right form. Something to take seriously.
Well, maybe not. Maybe the name just sounded good, but the name came to be associated with more danger than GM knew at the time. Read on and we’ll see if Cobalt really is dangerous and if their SS version should be taken seriously.
This article starts what I plan to be an occasional series on Chevrolet’s modern-era SSs, or M.E.SSs for short. Chevy’s SS models from the ’60s and early ’70s are esteemed and coveted by muscle car fans. The SS moniker fell out of use after 1973, which at least showed respect for the brand since any SS released in the next 10 years would have been weak sauce indeed compared to their tire-smoking predecessors, to which I’ll give the not-at-all-tortured title Before Emission Attenuations SS Touchstones (B.E.A.SST.s for short. Every English teacher I ever had should be cursing me now).
Chevy dipped their toe back into the muscle car game with the 1983 Monte Carlo SS, which I would consider the first M.E.SS. It wouldn’t win a drag race with a B.E.A.SST.ly 71 Chevelle SS454, but by the (low) standards of the time it was reasonably hot. A few more SS models came in the ’90s, but the 2000s is when Chevy decided it needed to SS all things. From 2000 to 2009, an SS model was added to most of the cars (and even trucks) Chevy offered. An SStravaganza!
Some of these were more successful in execution and/or sales than others, but all of them had at the very least somewhat improved performance and image. The fact that Chevy offered performance versions across almost their entire lineup is rather remarkable, so I think it’s worthwhile for us car enthusiasts to look at them, see what was on offer, and consider if they were worthy of their SS heritage. I have found and photographed examples of most of them, though there are a few that have eluded me to date. Hopefully in time I can get all of them.
We’ll start with one of the better ones, the first (and last) real attempt by GM at a high performance compact car, the aforementioned dangerous Cobalt.
In standard form, the Cobalt doesn’t look very dangerous.
Whose Cobalt is it? Miss Sassy Welltanned’s or Mr. Toocoolforschool Doorag’s? Regardless, neither of them could manage to make this Cobalt look even a little intense or hip.
“Might want to park me closer to the pump, bro.”
Despite the name, I’ve always subconsciously thought of the base Cobalt as the real-life version of one of those Chevron cartoon cars from the commercials. A benign and friendly thing, like a puppy or a bag of marshmallows.
Unlike a puppy or marshmallows, the element Cobalt can be quite dangerous. Cobalt in its basic form as found in the earth is a metal. As part of a compound, it’s been used as rich blue dye since ancient times. A form of the Cobalt molecule makes Vitamin B12 (a.k.a. cobalamin), essential for life. That doesn’t sound too scary, but this element is not always so friendly.
Cobalt has a number of industrial uses. When it’s finely divided, as it often is in industrial settings, it’s officially a hazardous substance. It’s flammable and can ignite spontaneously. Without proper respiratory protection, it can cause lung scarring and if ingested can disrupt multiple organs. Cobalt is also a carcinogen and should only be touched with protection.
Cobalt is perhaps better known for its radioactivity. It has several man-made radioactive isotopes, Cobalt-60 being the most common and useful for industrial radiography and medical radiotherapy, among other purposes. Used properly, it ideally only harms cancer cells. Handled improperly, the intense gamma rays it emits, in increasing doses, will cause skin burns, radiation sickness, and death.
Even in its basic form as mined from the earth, danger follows Cobalt. Cobalt is a crucial component of lithium-ion batteries, which of course are used in our ubiquitous electronic devices and the burgeoning choices of HEV/PHEV/BEVs. Sourcing of the raw materials is troublesome as a majority of the cobalt used comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) as well as Cuba, Zambia, and other third-world areas. In the DRC particularly, mining operations work with little regulation or oversight from the notoriously corrupt government, so miners—including children, in many cases—generally work with no safety equipment and mines contaminate the environment in surrounding areas. Cobalt demand undoubtedly helps the economies of the DRC and other struggling countries, but not without abuse and danger.
A recent book,Cobalt Red, details the controversy. I really don’t think Chevrolet had all that in mind when they named the car!
So what’s in a name? Chevrolet wanted their all-new car to rehabilitate their image in the compact market. The Cavalier had been a lackluster product for so many years, the name would be a handicap no matter how good the new car was. GM marketing, through their scientific ministrations, determined that young people associated the word Cobalt with power, strength and dependability. Since those are qualities one definitely wants in a car, what could go wrong? The Cobalt was released as a 2005 model and built in the Lordstown, Ohio plant (same plant as made the Vega, Monza, Cavalier and subsequent Cruze).
The Cobalt was built on GM’s new Delta platform, which also underpinned the HHR; Pontiac G5, and Saturn Ion. Reviews for the car were not bad. Reviewers found the structure solid; fit and finish quite good, and value high. On the other hand, the 145hp 2.2L Ecotec DOHC engine (used in the Cavalier since 2002) was pretty good but without the refinement and power of some Asian competitors, and the interior was still infected with a cheapness of look and feel foreign to the owners of those foreign makes. Unlike the portly and pricy early Cavalier, it was of similar weight to its foreign counterparts and was price-competitive.
The Cavalier had long offered a Z24 performance model, but it never got respect from the growing compact “tuner” crowd who drove cars like the Subaru WRX, Honda Civic Si, and the top samurai Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution. Ford and Dodge had taken on this crowd with their 2002-04 Focus SVT and 2003-05 Neon SRT4. The Focus SVT earned points with its sharp handling, good balance and a host of substantial engine enhancements getting 170hp from a naturally-aspirated 2.0L Zetec engine. The Neon cast itself as the modern-day musclecar of front-drive compacts. Its turbocharged 2.4L made 215 hp initially, then 230 hp (and 250 lb·ft) in an overall pretty crude package in 2004-05.
With their new and improved compact, Chevy wanted to get in on some of this action. First things first, with 18-inch polished wheels; a lowered stance; ground effects, and big trunk wing, it looked the part. Chevy sold the SS Supercharged as a coupe only, which followed conventional wisdom but was out of step in the new millennium when the hot compacts from Subaru, Mitsubishi and Dodge were available only as 4-door sedans and Ford offered the SVT as a 4-door hatch. As with the regular Cobalt, prices were similar to the domestic competition and significantly less than any foreign models that could match its performance.
Thinking of the base Cobalt pictures earlier, it’s amazing what an improved stance and the right set of wheels will do for the look of a car!
2006 Ecotec SC 2.0L engine for the Chevrolet Cobalt SS
The Cobalt SS was actually a very competent performer. The transmission was a 5-speed manual; automatic drivers need not apply. Under the hood, customers found a 2.0L supercharged version of the DOHC Ecotec engine making 205 hp and 200 lb·ft. Not quite Evo or SRT4 levels of power, but pretty lively for a 2900-lb car. Owners could get dealer-installed, warranty-preserving Stage packs that would raise power up to 241 hp. Magazines testing the car got around 6-second 0-60 mph and 14.5-second quarter-miles at 99mph. It was also quite competitive in handling.
The Cobalt performed very well in Car and Driver’s Lightning Lap test, where they annually run every newly introduced or significantly upgraded performance car, divided in price categories (LL1-LL5), through timed laps around Virginia International Raceway’s 4.1-mile Grand Course and rank them. Check out the list of all the cars run from 2006 to 2022. The Cobalt comes in № 281 in 2006 and № 232 in 2008, but the impressive part is to look at all the cars it beat both in its price range and even some above, especially in 2008. Even through 2022, there are only a few LL1 cars that beat it.
The pic above is the summary from C&D’s 2008 LL article. As GM does, it substantially improved the car in the years after its introduction, then canceled it not long after getting it right. For 2008, the SS traded in its supercharger for a turbocharger and found 55 new horsepower (and 60 more lb·ft!). Along with tire; suspension, and brake upgrades, the 2008-2010 Cobalt SS is one of the quickest, best-handling front-drive cars ever produced. The plucky Chevy was indeed dangerous to the pride of owners who didn’t keep up on current events with U.S. carmakers. I’m sure many of them were surprised they had such a good view of a Cobalt’s Corvettelike taillights.
If you like rear doors, 2009 was the one and only year a turbocharged SS sedan was made. Note the sedan’s different tail treatment.
The seat and shifter boot of our subject car haven’t aged well.
In late 2005, I was in the market for a car and seriously considered a new SS Supercharged. After reading about its surprising competence and reasonable price, I took a bit of a shine to the idea. Being rather old-school, I would not have even considered it as a sedan. I went so far as to test drive a 2006 and confirmed it was an impressively speedy little car with ample power from the smooth-idling (indeed!) engine; tight handling, and a very firm but not punishing ride. At the time, I was finally established in my career; had bought my first house that year, and was in a position for the first time ever to consider a brand-new car. In the end, though, I just couldn’t justify spending that much money on a vehicle, even for the relative performance bargain of the SS. Instead, I bought a nice 1999 Pontiac Firebird Formula for less than 1/3 the price. I believe avoidable debt should be avoided when possible; I still have yet to finance the purchase of a car.
Brooke Melton’s 2005 Cobalt
Beyond the name’s image of danger, sadly, some Cobalts turned out to be actually dangerous to their drivers and passengers. Through the fatal 2010 accident of 29-year-old nurse Brooke Melton, it came to light that the ignition switch on the first few years of Cobalts was poorly designed and with wear could slip out of its detent, causing the car to turn off and lose engine power; power steering; power brakes, and current to airbags. A long court case ensued, in which some callous and detestable 1960s and ’70s-style corporate behavior by GM was uncovered. The civil case was settled: the U.S. Justice Department fined GM $900 million; 1.37 million cars were recalled, and GM set up a $525 million victims’ fund out of which 399 claims were awarded including 124 for fatalities. It seems the car was also dangerous to GM’s public image and finances.
Several years ago, a friend of mine at work drove a 2006 Cobalt sedan. I was aware of the Cobalt ignition recall, so I asked him if he had taken his car in. Jake said, “A recall? Nah, I’m not worried about it.” He recounted that sometimes his car would turn off in traffic, but he was able to restart it right away. He found that if he took all the keys and keychains off his key, that he never had a problem. I said, “But still, they’ll fix it for free…”. I don’t work with Jake anymore, but I contacted him recently to ask about the car. Yes, he survived! He said he sold the car a while ago never having got it fixed (big surprise), but that it was a really good car for him, and he would buy another if they still made them.
Chevrolet sold approximately 37k SSs (Supercharged and Turbocharged) over six years*, out of just over 1 million Cobalts. Both of those figures seem respectable to me. The regular Cobalt was not a game-changer, but it marginally improved GM’s image in the low end of the market, at least until the ignition fiasco. It outsold the Ford Focus most years, and scored about 2/3 of what the benchmark Civic and Corolla sold, though it fell just short of what the Cavalier had been averaging. The SS absolutely earned GM some surprising respect from the automotive press and owners of other performance cars. It was a reminder that when GM wants to, especially on specialty cars, it can execute.
The SS was ultimately irrelevant to the future of GM’s small cars, though. When the Cobalt’s first generation ended in 2010, rather than a second generation, its all-new replacement was called the Cruze, a name and vehicle dangerous only to good spelling. No performance model was offered, all the better to conjure a simple image of safe and carefree cruzing cruising.
The mid and late aughts turned out to be the high water mark for hot compacts. Never since then have there been so many models for enthusiast buyers on a limited budget to choose from. Many of the SS’ Asian and European competitors are still being made**, but none of the U.S. makers offer a speedy compact car. In fact, you’ve probably noticed that no U.S. maker builds a compact car at all anymore. The Cobalt SS, in both supercharged and turbocharged variants, may be dangerous, but it’s a fine M.E.SS and a worthy addition to Chevrolet’s SS legacy. The B.E.A.SST.s are proud to call it family.
**Addendum on hot compacts in the U.S.: Several of the Cobalt SS’ competitors have also left us. The Focus SVT only lasted through 2004 and a milder ST version through 2007, but serious performance returned in 2013 with the ST model and 2016 with the insane 350hp AWD RS, which lasted until all Focus was lost in 2018. The Neon went dim in 2005, the SRT4 transferred to the Caliber for 2007 which only lasted through 2009. There never was a hot Dart. Mitsubishi offered their Lancer Evolution through 2015, when evolution gave way to extinction. From 2007 to 2013 Mazda offered the Mazdaspeed 3, a very competitive hot hatch, but has not offered a true high performance version of their 3 to zoom zoom in since.
There’s still a fair number of hot compacts available to those who long for big power in a small package. Hyundai offered a mild performance GT version of their Tiburon from 2003-08, then developed a more serious performance Turbo version of the Veloster from 2013-16, then again with the new generation from 2019-22. The Veloster was discontinued in 2022, then the Elantra picked up the baton with a pretty legit N version currently. Honda offered their Civic Si 1999-2015, which were relatively mild in stock form. Honda finally entered the true hot hatch market in the U.S. in 2017 by endowing their Civic Type R with 306 turbocharged horses and every external ‘tuner’ affectation known to fast and furious street racers. The Subaru WRX has been a constant with hotter STI models intermittently available (but not currently). VW has also had consistent offerings with the Golf GTI and R models. Surprising the world, the Toyota Corolla—the poster child for appliance cars since the 1960s—gained a performance model for 2023. The GR Corolla has a 300-hp 3 cylinder, AWD, and a 6 speed manual is the only transmission available. OMG.
*Production breakdown: researched by Soundjunky on CobaltSS.net forum. 2.4 and Sport are the non-supercharged/non-turbo models also offered.
2005 SS/SC = 3,093
2006 SS/SC = 17,464
2006 SS/2.4 (coupe) = 21,688
2006 SS/2.4 (sedan) = 9,068
2007 SS/SC = 10,566
2007 SS/2.4 (coupe) = 12,469
2007 SS/2.4 (sedan) = 3,397
2008 SS = 1,766
2008 Sport (coupe) = 6,259
2008 Sport (sedan) = 4,427
2009 SS (coupe) = 3,040
2009 SS (sedan) = 759
2010 SS= unable to obtain, est. 1500-2000
All Cobalts by calender year from Carsalesbase.com
| 2004 | 4,959 |
| 2005 | 212,667 |
| 2006 | 211,449 |
| 2007 | 200,620 |
| 2008 | 188,045 |
| 2009 | 104,724 |
| 2010 | 97,376 |
Related reading:
CC For Sale: 2007 Chevy Cobalt SS – A Somewhat Compelling Performance Compact by Edward Snitkoff
Curbside Outtake: Chevrolet Cobalt On Wood Blocks – A GM Deadly Sin Awaiting Its Judgement Day by PN
Further reading about GM ignition switch recall:
GM Ignition-Switch Review Complete: 124 Fatalities, 274 Injuries Car and Driver – Short summary of events
No Accident: Inside GM’s deadly ignition switch scandal Atlanta Magazine – Interesting long form article on the debacle
GM: We encourage employees, dealers to tattle after ignition switch crisis Detroit Free Press – Laudatory look at GM’s post-ignition safety culture
But wait there’s more!:
Cannot resist! 😉. Love Chevy 70S Caprice and Monte Carlo. Great names for Great cars. Cars like Volt and this Cobalt are indeed a MESS! 👎
A few years ago at a stoplight, I was in my company issue Chevy SS. One of these pulled up next to me. When the light changed, I took off a bit faster than normal because I needed to change lanes to enter a highway. A Cobalt one lane over took that as a challenge and blasted by me. As it did so, I caught an image of a personalized license tag that read “SLOBALT”.
The unusual tag number and impressive acceleration loaded the Cobalt SS into my memory as a car to be reckoned with. Can’t say I ever noticed another though. They just didn’t catch my eye.
BTW, the SS moniker didn’t always translate between cultures very well. Once I had to pick up a visiting Dutch colleague at our airport. Driving to the factory, he fingered the SS letters on the dash and asked what kind of car it was. When I answered, he shook his head and remarked that he couldn’t understand why Americans would name a car after the SS.
“SS”, a bit more info please?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjwwI2pm53_AhXNFlkFHaz3BqEQFnoECA4QAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fencyclopedia.ushmm.org%2Fcontent%2Fen%2Farticle%2Fss&usg=AOvVaw1Si3C4D-GIDNP3k5PBbfUe
Thank you (I am of a generation that, while not remembering personally, is painfully aware of those years of tragic Teutonic excess) for the reminder to those who are blissfully unaware.
May we never forget.
I guess that was a bit cryptic as to the car. My company car until last year was a 2014 Chevy SS. No other series name like most Chevy SSs. Just the SS. The SS was the US rebadge of a Holden Commodore, but with a US spec 6.2 V8 engine.
The car replaced a Dodge Caravan – which was much more typical of our company cars. Our fleet manager got a special buy on a left-over 2014 and I was the lucky recipient. The SS was the absolute nicest company car I ever had.
While I’m not a slow driver, most of my miles are long stretches of open road in western states. Other company cars went about 60-70k on a set of tires. Not this one. The front and rear tires were different sizes. They couldn’t be rotated. I drove the SS about 150k. It needed a 6th set of tires when I turned it in.
I thought about buying the SS when it came time to turn it in. This was a good reliable car, but expensive to properly maintain. I decided it made a better memory than a practical keeper.
Quite a sweet arrangement. What was it replaced by?
Chrysler Pacifica. A comfortable enough long distance road car, but hardly a vehicle to inspire motoring passion.
I didn’t really need the power of the SS or handling of the SS, but it invited carving blue highways (little used 2-lane roads) in preference to the interstate. That car sure did instill confidence passing on 2 lane roads – plus I know I could have taken the SLOBALT had I tried.
Couldn’t do that with a minivan.
Wow, I never thought of that cultural take on it! To certain European points of view it would be like calling it the Chevrolet Cobalt Most Evil And Nefarious Nazis Ever Existed.
I mean, William Lyons changed the name of his company from S.S. Cars to Jaguar in March 1945 for that reason.
Jon Stephenson, Chevy wasn’t the only marque to have to deal with the implication of the SS label; in 1922, William Lyons started out building motorcycle sidecars and named his company Swallow Sidecars. In 1938, he developed the SS100, a Jaguar in all but name, that became a Pre-War sensation. During WWII the SS label took on a completely different and sinister connotation, and in deference to the stain of this identity, Lyons, after V-Day, changed the name of his company to Jaguar. He was later knighted for his contribution to the British motor industry.
That’s one of those times being made to change worked out well. Jaguar is a fantastic car name and it’s hard to imagine those beautiful autos being called anything else, certainly not Swallow Sidecars or S.S.
Some review I read years ago compared the Cobalt and G3 coupes to a rotten peach: an appealing shape from a distance that on closer inspection is not in a state you’d want to eat. It IS a great improvement, stylistically, on the sedan, but the exterior detailing is blah and the interior has the usual built-by-the-lowest-bidder cheapness. It’s too bad because the SS coupe was pretty competitive for the time; the Scion tC wasn’t really any better-looking and didn’t have the power of the supercharged Ecotec, and the Civic Si was expensive and had to really be thrashed to extract serious performance from it.
I think you mean G5/Pursuit, rather than G3, haha.
And I agree; it was your typical “not-quite” pre-bankruptcy effort from GM. I’m sure their bloated management structure, overpopulous and disparate dealership/brand verticals, and unfavorable UAW obligations had a lot to do with it. It seemed that it just plain cost GM far more to make a particular segment of car than any of its competitors…which meant the beancounters had to come in and gut the hell out of it however they could.
Yes, G5 coupe, thank you. The Pontiac version of this car.
The Cobalt is a GM Deadly Sin I haven’t yet written up. It was literally deadly; how many died due to that faulty ignition switch GM kept using, despite the evidence? A genuine deadly sin; maybe GM’s worst.
Not only that, my understanding is that one of GM’s engineers okayed redesigning the ignition switch design without changing the part number. I’m not sure how this was allowed to happen. GM also never informed NHTSA of the issue, despite knowing as early as 2005 that these switches were slipping out of position while people were driving.
I was a GM service advisor when the whole key debacle was happening.
It was caused by excessive weight on the key, for example, a big wad of keys. We knew all about it long before the recall happened. We’d even warn customers to use the key with nothing else dangling from it.
We complained repeatedly to the zone rep about it. In pre-belly-up GM the zone rep was pretty much a god. His reply was, “Tell them to take the extra keys off the fob.”
The updated lock cylinder had the same part number as the old one for some nefarious reason.
We actually had one near miss with a customer. We were horrified GM let it continue as long as they did.
This destroyed what was actually a pretty good little car. They drove well and got reasonable fuel economy.
I sat in one in a car show. I thought the footwells were to narrow, windshield was too low, forward and side visibility poor, interior fabrics and plastics were subpar. The exterior styling was Toyota like, bland yet ugly, but without the Toyota quality.
I highly doubt this was actually a pretty good little car.
I drove a lot of Cobalts and I stand by my opinion: they were pretty good, especially when compared to the horrid Cavalier it replaced!
Well, yes. At the time, GM had an internal standard that ignition switches needed to sustain between 10 and 20 Nm of torque before the key could turn. Internal testing during development in 2002 revealed that the torque rating was far below 10 Nm; yet GM approved the design anyway.
So they actually knew as early as 2002, which makes it extremely irresponsible that they never did anything about it.
Yes, from the standpoint of a human person with a shred of decency. But from a corporate standpoint of maximum shareholder value right this instant and nothing else even comes close to mattering, their decision to stare at the sky and go “Problem? What problem? Oh, yeah, I guess it does look like it might rain later on” was just packed with responsibility.
DeLorean’s book On A Clear Day You Can See GM contemplates this dynamic. He has a whole chapter, talking about the Corvair as I recall, about how seemingly decent moral people can make decisions in their capacity as part of a company with an amoral ruthlessness that they would never think is appropriate in their personal life, then go home and sleep soundly.
Hubris And The Yes Men is certainly my workplace’s favorite band now and forever.
(and the one before that, and the one before that, ad nauseam)
My work life is a constant 1984/Twilight Zone mashup.
Maybe the worst aspect of it is that GM knew about the danger long before the car ever reached production.
I was shocked to learn that GM *hadn’t* been using the same ignition lock mechanism on everything since 1968.
As I recall, there were customer complaints about some earlier ignitions being hard to turn. My sister’s ’93 Saturn’s was after a couple of years. She had it replaced, it was that bad. As she keeps a pile of stuff on her keychain, it was probably good that it was bad.
What they do on the recall of my DTS is fill in most of the key’s hole so that the weight of the fob is centered when the key is turned.
I recall at the time that these laid down an unbelievable gauntlet when it came to performance. The Cobalt might not have been a game changer in the market, but the SS brought respect. It was ‘for real.’
The milder Cobalts were quite common out here on the left coast of the US. In rental and city government fleets, that is. The Cobalt SS was something I read about in magazines but I doubt I’ve seen more than a handful. WRX, Civic Si, GTI, and even Focus ST and RS were/are far more common. The most visible late model Chevy here now is the Bolt; I think a Bolt SS performance software upgrade, a la “Ludicrous Mode” would be a hit I bet.
I always got the impression that the biggest problem with the Cobalt was that, by the aughts, GM had a firmly established reputation of building cheap crap suitable only for (mostly rental) fleet sales.
So, while the Cobalt was an improvement over the Cavalier, that was a low bar and they were still nowhere near the class-leading Corolla or Civic.
In effect, it was still the same old GM from the craptacular Roger Smith years, and it would take a bankruptcy filing and a truly competitive Cruze to begin to get auto consumers back to believing GM made (relatively) decent small cars.
Ironically, just like those bad old GM cars that had a reputation of the old adage, “GM cars continue to run badly when other cars stop running, at all”, to this day, it’s not all that uncommon to see an old Cobalt continuing to keep chugging along. Not quite as easy to say the same of an old Focus or Caliber.
Here (Harrisburg, Pa.) it’s the reverse. One is more likely to see a pre-2012 Focus than any Cobalt. I can’t remember the last time I saw a Cobalt on the road around here.
The problem with that “GM cars continue to run badly when other cars stop running, at all” adage is that it doesn’t take into account resale value or desirability.
Never mind that a 2006 Chevrolet Impala is exactly the sort of cockroach that will last until the end of time; it’s a car that exactly no one wants and it’s worth peanuts. So if one gets into an accident or gets hail damaged, it’s likelier to be totaled than a contemporary Honda or Toyota, even if it’s still perfectly serviceable. Likewise, if something big *does* break, even if it’s an affordable fix, the car is likelier to be scrapped.
In other words, all cars eventually need some kind of care, and the GM cockroaches simply stop becoming worth preserving. Sadly, I’m starting to see this happen to some of their later cars, too (some of which did have serious mechanical defects), like the Lambda SUVs, and the 2010-era Equinox and Terrain.
That’s true, but, based on my experience, people who drive these cars into the ground don’t care about resale value or desirability. They want cheap transportation.
Another thing I’ve noticed – many people who own old GM cars do their own maintenance and repair work. They thus don’t necessarily consider a failed major component to be a big deal – as long as the nearby scrap yard has rebuilt ones, or they can remove one from a wreck.
I’ve always liked the looks of the Cobalt SS in both 2 and 4 doors. Just nice looking cars. But I think Chevrolet make a huge mistake when they changed the name from Cavalier to Cobalt. Of course, GM in their (not so) infinite wisdom just can’t seem to understand that keeping a name is important. Changing a name only makes things confusing for customers and drives them away.
Anyhow, for the faults these Cobalts had, they had a lot of good too.
Paul’s Deadly Sin #23 is about exactly that, GM’s model-name inconsistency.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/gm-deadly-sin-2/gm-deadly-sin-23-name-and-form/
Still, I’m not sure the name changes were necessarily the worst option. After all, the reason Honda and Toyota have been able to keep Civic and Corolla alive, respectively, is because they’ve given relatively good service over the years. GM would typically release some kind of new compact or intermediate car (to great fanfare) that was either mediocre or subpar, and essentially run that name into the ground. So, the frequent name changes are almost necessary, if you’re not going to produce a holistically good series of cars.
Even the names themselves often weren’t very forward-thinking, and likely wouldn’t have aged well. Can you picture driving buying a new car called the Citation in 2019 (2019 being the final year the Cruze was made)?
There worse names out there. They could have gone alphabet-number soup and called it the xCBzxZzX2.
I guess I would say the root sin isn’t the name changes so much as not making cars that are worthy of keeping a consistent name.
They haven’t had that problem as much with larger cars and trucks. Many of those models have had a lot of brand value and were used for decades.
That’s a good looking car in that bright blue color. Too bad they don’t offer that color on a good number of cars nowadays. I remember I test drove one of these new back in the day with the 5 speed and it was a very nice driver. Don’t know why I didn’t buy it, guess they were asking too much.
I think the blue was that car’s best color.
Well, considering that color is Cobalt Blue (whether or not Chevy called it that, I have no idea), I would think that would be its signature color for obvious reasons. That color and the Arrest Me Red were probably the Cobalt SS’s best colors.
That being said, charcoal gray, silver or even the more muted blue that was on offer, on a 4-door Cobalt SS Supercharged would be the ultimate sleeper then and now.
The young guy down the street had one of these, bought slightly used after a long search. He kept it up very nicely for a couple of years and then one day it appeared in the driveway with a badly smashed front end and deployed airbags. I’m assuming the ignition was “on” at impact due to the bags going off, but I never asked him about it. It was a nice little car and would have interested me if I had been the right age when they appeared.
BTW, Chevy kept the “SS” moniker in the Nova line until the end of the “76 model year. It was indeed weak sauce though….
I do remember something about that Nova now that you mention it. No special engines and Strictly an option package and not a real model right? The 68-70 (I think) Nova SS was a pretty good budget musclecar.
GM has a whole, bloody history of subpar cars with surprisingly good powertrains and suspensions bolted to them, some of which were endearing because of it. I can’t wait to read more of your M.E.SSs series, and I’m particularly excited about the LS4 W-body Impala and Monte Carlo SSes, which I’m sure you’ll get to.
Thanks! I have photos in the can and they are on my [long] list.
Also, why *did* GM have two versions of the Cobalt SS, as you pointed out?
In 2006, they had the SS 2.4, which was a middle ground between the 2.2 in the LS and LT and the 2.0 S/C in the proper SS, and that was available on both Coupe and Sedan. It had the SS badges and similar wheels to the S/C model, along with similar ground effects…so to the untrained eye, a Cobalt SS 2.4 Coupe might be mistaken for a 2.0 S/C Coupe.
At least they renamed the 2.4 version it to the Sport for 2008, and then dropped it for 2009.
Yeah, it’s a head scratcher. Confusing customers is never a good thing and it would have been less confusing to just call it Sport from the beginning. I think they really wanted to build the SS name, witness the proliferation of SS models over that period. In the 60s and 70s there were often SS versions from mild to wild in the same model, so it was kind of like that.
Maybe Chevy was hoping the Supercharged would have a halo effect and inspire large sales of the non-SC SS. Despite being significantly cheaper, the sales weren’t that good. If that was the idea, it didn’t work well.
Or to make people think it was really, truly, actually gonna be totally like way better than the Cavalier.
And I thought it was named after the mining town in northern Ontario, which was itself named Cobalt after what they mined there.
Regular Cobalts were common in central Indiana – there was still a decent presence of GM employees/retirees/family members who got good discounts on new GM cars, so one of these made a lot of sense when grandpa wanted Amber or Jayden to have a good new car for going off to community college.
I had forgotten all about the SS. These came out when this kind of car was so far away from the realities of my life it wasn’t funny. What is funny is that I would kind of like one of these now.
Rob alluded to it in his comment above, but I’ll play the pedant and point out that there have only been (to my knowledge) two Chevrolets offered under the model name “SS.” I’ll quote from my own CC article on the Chev SS sport sedan:
“As happened with the GTO, the SS model name sometimes raises an eyebrow with those who remember the ground-pounding SS trim level cars from years ago – never mind that today’s SS would best them in many metrics. The SS designation first appeared on a 1957 Corvette prototype race car built for the Le Mans 24-hour race, and was first used on a production vehicle as an option package for the 1961 Impala. SS has subsequently been used on quite a few Chevrolet cars and trucks, but always as an option or trim package. However, during a short period in the early 1970s, Holden sold 1,182 units of a version of the HG Monaro in South Africa as the Chevrolet SS (model name, not trim level), and Chevrolet itself displayed a Chevrolet SS concept car at the 2003 North American International Auto Show, which was never intended to go to production. So today’s SS is the only volume production Chevrolet sold to date as a full SS model, as opposed to an option package.”
Well, the site keeps dumping the longer comment I tried to write, but I’ll just point out that there have only been two Chevrolets offered under the SS model name – the 2014-17 SS sport sedan mentioned by Rob above, and a captive import Holden Monaro offered in South Africa as a knock-down kit in the early 1970s as a Chevrolet SS (only 1,182 units sold).
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-capsule/curbside-expatriot-2017-chevrolet-ss-shes-the-last-of-the-four-door-rwd-manual-v8s/
I think sometimes the site will “embargo” comments, delaying them long enough to make you think they’re lost, then they pop up later after you’ve rewritten you comment. Fun times!
A correction to an otherwise great read; Chevy offered an SS package on the Nova through 76 and never stopped offering it on the El Camino.
Thanks for this. I always assumed those were Opel Astra Hs. I vaguely remember the lock scandal and at the time could not understand why this was an issue, given that I did not recall similar problems with “our Cobalts”.
And by the way, here in Austria too that generation Astras have all but disappeared.
I remember when these first debuted they had the option of these fantastic Recaro seats. They were just great, at least when I sat in them at the Detroit Auto Show that year. I think by the time it rolled around for me to buy a car they were gone from the option list, I’m pretty sure after only one year of availability.
https://www.automotivehalloffame.org/honoree/mary-barra/
“In 2004, she(Mary Barra) became Executive Director of Vehicle Manufacturing Engineering at GM, where she integrated six independent groups into one operation in order to streamline product development.”
2004 was the year that it became known that the ignitions were faulty, and the decision was made to put them into production anyway. Always fail upwards. With any luck, you’ll be able to fire a bunch of underlings for atrocities that may well have resulted from your own ineptness.