Brain Fertilizer

After my commute car was totalled by a motorcycle (while the car was parked for the night), I had the dubious pleasure of driving a Cobalt for about a week.

The Cobalt is a decent car, I guess.

But I don't really understand what GM is thinking.

First, the positives:
It's got plenty of power. It handles nicely. It looks good, and had plenty of room to seat 4 adults easily. Unfortunately, that's about it on the positives. Not enough to even use a bulletized list.

The negatives (all sorts of bullets):
- A severe lack of convenience electronics: No power windows, no key fob lock/unlock function, no in-car All-Lock/Unlock button. I realize I had a rental fleet car. But I have had plenty of other rental fleet cars with convenience electronics. The worst was the lack of any all-lock/unlock function anywhere in the vehicle: even my entry-level 2001 Chevy Prizm (a Toyota design built by Chevy workers) from almost a decade ago has the ability to lock/unlock all the doors from the drivers door; it was a real pain to always have to lock/unlock all doors manually when kids/in-laws were riding with me.
- I have never understood when car reviewers complained about the quality of the plastic inside a car. I really never thought about how the plastic was that I was touching. But this car had a textured plastic covering the door interior; no problem at that point...until it came time to roll down the window. No power windows, so you reach for the handle, and proceed to strip all the skin off of your knuckles on the rough-textured plastic as you crank. They might as well have used a cheese-grater!
- "Plenty of room" should be a positive...but if you want to buy a small car so that you can park easily and zip around, this car is not it. It is a foot longer than the previous model RAV4 (As I noticed in comparing to my neighbor's vehicle from the 2nd-floor balcony). But despite being longer than the RAV4, the Cobalt is not as comfortable for 5 adults, nor does it have anywhere near the cargo space. Being a Sport-Cute, the RAV4 is far more expensive, but is far more efficient with space.
And even worse, despite being 6 inches longer my 2001 Chevy Prizm, than it has approximately the same passenger dimensions except for one: significantly less rear hip room! It seems as if the only way Chevy can compete with Toyota is when it uses Toyota designs!
- Despite having plenty of room, the Cobalt's extremely short rear deck made it very difficult to put anything into the trunk.

In response to noting that Mazda drivers are usually very passionate about loving their cars, I noted that Toyotas are usually best described as "good enough, and that's about it." It almost seems like Chevrolet was attempting to imitate being "just good enough", rather than shooting for making a good car that is "good enough" to compete with everything out there. They missed the mark slightly, and it resulted in a thoroughly mediocre car. Unfortunately, cars are all getting better, and mediocre no longer equates to average. This is clearly a below-average car.

The Cobalt can't even compare to mid-90s sedans like the Mazda 626 or Honda Accord. The power/size/economy may be about the same, but the Japanese offerings are far more luxurious and comfortable. Chevy is about 15 years behind the state-of-the-art, if the Cobalt is any example.

To be honest, I don't even understand why this car is in GM's lineup. It can't compete with any of the Japanese cars on quality, economy, or comfort. It isn't small enough to be a small car (I think the Aero is supposed to fit that segment for Chevy, actually). The base Mazda 3 and Mitsubishi Lancer are just as cheap, but far more fun to drive. And there are many other cars just as cheap and equally as fun to drive, but more reliable (there are 12 total cars at an equivalent size/price point). It really doesn't fit well between the Aero and the Malibu, really.