Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
Chevy Cobalt vs. Ford Focus

Let's discuss these all new (Chevy) and refreshed (Ford) domestic sedans.
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
~alpha
The Cobalt's interior looks promising, if a bit generic. The 05 Focus interior is just embarrassing - bland, and with HORRIBLE seat fabrics. Ford uses decent fabric in the Escape XLS, and they should have used it here. I'm also NOT a fan of the Focus' pot-bellied dashboard stereo. If it stick out that far, make it into a flow-through console.
On the outside, the cobalt reminds me a little of the direction Nissan took the maxima when it lost its way in the 90's. Kind of round, but not really inspired by much. The doors, especially around the C pillar, really really emphasize the globular nature of the Cobalt. The Focus fares better, but still has a few to many lines and bumps IMO.
Also, the interior of the Cobalt is smaller in size.
Now if the other Cobolts are done with the same degree of success, and GM can get the reliability of these cars to be somewhat close to the Japanese, then they might have something.
The recent recall of over 300K Focuses still makes me question their reliability.
If you put a Cobalt and Cavalier next to eachother (without name tags) on a lot and asked someone who cares nothing about cars but knows of the Cavalier would most likely think the Cobalt is an updated Cavalier.
And as far as im concerned the interior of the Cobalt looks nothing like that of the Focus. Where the hell did you get that from?
1. More headroom: Cobalt front 38.7 inches Cavalier front 37.6 inches. Not too much of a difference to be a big deal.
2. More horsepower: Cobalt 2.2L 145HP Cavalier 2.2L 140HP. Not too big of a deal since the Cobalt weighs about 374 pounds more than the Cavalier. You'll need the extra HP.
3. Both vehicles have almost the same interior volume and cargo space. Both vehicles are about the same in overall length.
4. If the Cobalt is supposed to be in the economy class, than why is it $3300 more than the Cavalier?
I've owned three Cavaliers and enjoyed all of them. In fact, I still drive a 1998 Z24. Looks and runs great. I cannot say that I like the Cobalt as a replacement for the Cavalier. This is my opinion. I know that some others just love their Cobalts. Everyone has their own likes. I just don't see the big deal about the Cobalt.
explorex4 - I'm sure someone in an explorer has killed someone in just about every car out there, don't single out the Cobalt.
ambull - I didn't really understand that comparison. The base Cobalt is not meant to compete with the Corolla XRS or the Focus ST. It competes with the regular Corolla and the regular Focus. If they're going to take the top of the line 'sport' models of these cars, why not use the Cobalt SS? If there is no sport-sedan version of the Cobalt, why include it, just makes it look bad.
The sportiest model would be the 2006 SS? sedan with the forthcoming 2.4 Ecotech, but that's not available yet.
exporerx4 - Even a 5-star rating doesn't buy you much safety against a 4500+ pound truck. It's very unfortunate.
Good luck!
Here are a few stats and comments from Car & Driver magazine regarding your Cobalt and my Mazda3:
Cobalt: 2.2-liter, DOHC 16-valve inline four with twin balance shafts: 145 hp
Mazda3: 2.3-liter, DOHC, 16-valve inline four with twin balance shafts and variable valve timing: 160 hp
Acceleration, seconds:
Cobalt, 0-60 mph: 8.4
Mazda3, 0-60 mph: 7.4
(Both had manual transmissions)
And acceleration isn't everything. What did C&D think of that old-fashioned twist-beam rear axle in the Cobalt?
"Still, extra body roll and softer helm responses—there's a reason twist-beam axles aren't on F1 cars—mean less entertainment for the Cobalt driver than for drivers in some other value cars, notably the Focus and Mazda 3."
Hmmm.
Some other stats they measured:
Braking, 70-0 mph @ impending lockup:
Cobalt, 188 ft
Mazda3, 169 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad:
Cobalt, 0.77 g
Mazda3, 0.87 g
Now, get an SS and maybe we'll have something here -- but keep in mind that it's no longer in the same pricing league as the Mazda3 -- C&D reports the base price of the Cobalt SS is $21,995, and the SS it tested had a sticker of $24,560. My 2005 Mazda3s hatch had a sticker of just over $17.5K.
I guess the moral to the story is, bring some numbers with you next time. There are too many variables in traffic-light drag races (including a big one -- the honesty of the reporting party) for them to be very reputable against actual measurements taken by the automotive press under much more controlled conditions with people who know how to drive cars.
Meade
P.S. Styling is very subjective. But since you went there, we had a '95 Cavalier in our driveway for five years and the Cobalt looks WAY too much like it 10 years later.
Meade
Mazda 3i [2.0 liter] 144hp/135tq
Cobalt [2.2 liter] 145hp/155tq (obviously a big advantage here)
Mazda 3s [2.3 liter] 160hp/150tq (less than the base Cobalt)
Cobalt SS[2.4 liter] 170hp/170tq (to be released)
Mazdaspeed 3 [???] ???hp (to be released)
Cobalt SS S/C [2.0 liter] 205hp/200tq
So there are the numbers - the Cobalt wins on power easily (it also weighs an extra hundred pounds). Is it the better car or the better performer - different discussion. These are just the numbers.
The forgotten domestic subcompact seems to be the Ion. It's a little cheaper than the Cobalt with the same drivetrain on the same platform. I think it looks better than the Cobalt, but you do have to contend with the center mounted instruments. Sadly, when the introduced it in '03 it was only half-baked. Improvements for '05 has actually made it competitive but no one really seems to notice.
I like the lines of the Cobalt better than those of the Focus, except perhaps the wing. Of course, the wing was a part of the sport (or whatever it was being called at the time) package, so I had little choice. The Recaro racing seats are really comfortable, though I have read complaints about the regular stock seats. Backseat room and comfort in the Cobalt is great. I have had friends repeatedly comment on the back seats being more comfortable than other coup rear seats.
I have loved the XM radio, and plan on renewing it when the trial expires.
The trunk is surpisingly spacious, at least to me. I have been able to haul a Server, couple of desktops, and their monitors, cords, etc in the trunk with some room to spare.
Fuel economy has been great at 25mpg city and 28 to 30 on the highway. Of course, those figures go up or down depending on how aggressively I drive. I would expect that the non-supercharged and/or non SS flavors of the Cobalt would get even better milage.
Insurance is only slightly higher on the Cobalt than on my previous vehicle, a 1985 Ford Tempo 2-door.
----------
Of course, I have never owned or driven a Ford Focus, so I can't do a legitimate comparison. Just my take on the Cobalt.
Your insurance compared to the Tempo is suprising.
Has anybody out there driven the SS non-supercharged? I'm curious how much it differs from the regular coupe.