GM's new roadsters: Saturn Sky and Pontiac Solstice [Archive] - HP Deals, Computer Coupons And Bargains

ski

05-30-2005, 10:22 AM

Saturn Sky homepage (http://www.saturn.com/saturn/showroom/future_vehicles/sky.jsp?nav=710&flashOK=yes)

http://www.saturn.com/saturn/showroom/future_vehicles/SKY_profile1.jpg

Pontiac Solstice homepage (http://www.pontiac.com/solstice/index.jsp?brand=home)

http://www.pontiac.com/solstice/images/enlarge_image100.jpg

Roadsters (albeit in 2 of GM's least popular brands) under $20k.

I still can't believe it's a Saturn :heh: You don't usually associate sports/roadsters with the name.

Jenny

05-30-2005, 11:52 AM

LOVE the Saturn. wow

DJjeff1080

05-30-2005, 12:12 PM

The Saturn looks even better in person. (I got to see it for work, but I am not supposed to say that...ssshhhh)

ski

05-30-2005, 01:20 PM

I just compared it to a Miata, and it blows it away in specs vs. price.

Model / HP / Torque / MSRP

Miata / 142 / 125 / $22,100
Solstice / 177 / 166 / $19,240

even the MAZDASPEED:
MAZDASPEED / 178 / 168 / $25,780

Showtime

05-30-2005, 01:35 PM

Because the miata is dated and very fem imo, i think that saturn looks much better. I still think the sky looks like some sort of mini vett roadster.

-j

ski

05-30-2005, 02:33 PM

Screw the Scion tC... at $18,150 invoice this thing would be great to have right out of college for a few years (on paper at least) :)

Eugene

05-30-2005, 02:44 PM

the profile pic of the saturn looks a lot better than the other pics of it i've seen... previous pics reminded me of the crossfire, which is butt ugly IMO. Then again, I haven't looked very closely at the saturn...

As for the miata comparison, power may not be everything. The early miatas were loved because they were so balanced and handled like a dream. Haven't read up on these new roadsters, but I'd venture to say the miata would be a better package overall since they've had so much time to refine the model. It'll be interesting to see what all the car mags think once all these cars are released! :)

Realrammstein

05-30-2005, 02:52 PM

Hot looking little car. wish it had more power. Not 1 picture shows a top though....

DankNstickY

05-30-2005, 04:25 PM

they look almost like the honda s2000's little brothers

ArkiStan

05-30-2005, 10:29 PM

That's a SATURN!!?!?! :wow:

Houdini

05-30-2005, 11:15 PM

ufcrusher

05-31-2005, 12:21 AM

Wow...I must say I'm impressed with the Sky. I'll have to test drive one when they are released. It looks like a lot of fun. I'm very glad they didn't make it FWD. A powerful (especially for its size!) RWD American roadster - Who'dathunkit?

Powerful? Where did you get that idea. I am assuming its close in power to the solstice which is just weak. Its less than 200 horses, which is pitiful. Hopefully they will offer engine upgrades/mods that really pull some extra power out of it.

Grubbie

05-31-2005, 12:55 AM

Powerful? Where did you get that idea. I am assuming its close in power to the solstice which is just weak. Its less than 200 horses, which is pitiful. Hopefully they will offer engine upgrades/mods that really pull some extra power out of it.

My mom has the toyota spyder, which has I think like 135 or 146HP, somethign weak like that. And for general purposes, it does well. I mean it weighs nothing compared to most cars. Then again it is good up to about 100mph, you got some quick pick me up below 70mph.

Sometimes, when you think about it, do a light car like that need 250 or 300HP?

Update, it has 170HP on it, just checked the site

DankNstickY

05-31-2005, 02:23 AM

:stupid: when a car is that small, you dont need an enormous amount of power to get that thing moving. take a look at the lotus elise. 190hp and 0-60mph in 4.9 secs. of course it's not as fast or nimble as the elise, but the sky isn't bad IMO.

Merlin

05-31-2005, 05:39 AM

....The early miatas were loved because they were so balanced and handled like a dream...
The early Miatas were loved because they were the first roadster available in well over a decade. There was so much pent up demand for this type of car that it was bound to be successful. And it was cheap - that helped. I remember news stories of people buying the car months before they arrived at dealers. Since that success most car makers have come up with a roadster but the Miata was first.

LegendKiller

05-31-2005, 05:46 AM

Wanting 300hp out of one of these is silly. 170, 200 with some exhaust, pully, and maybe airflow mods would be more than enough to get this going. Keep in mind they weigh much less than say, the Mustang GT at 3600lb.

Pound per pound the MR2 Spider had one of the best HP/LB ratio's of any "normal" production car and it's power isn't that 'great'.

Americas infatuation with sheer power is funny.

As far as the Miata goes, if I wanted a tic tac I would eat them. I think the Miata is the most plain jane, boring, uninspiring, and overrated design out.

These things look great.

Jeffbx

05-31-2005, 06:55 AM

:stupid:

One of the Pontiacs pulled up behind me at a stoplight the other day - I have to say, the pictures don't really do it justice. It's a REALLY nice looking car. GM may have done something right with this one.

Houdini

05-31-2005, 07:08 AM

Powerful? Where did you get that idea. I am assuming its close in power to the solstice which is just weak. Its less than 200 horses, which is pitiful. Hopefully they will offer engine upgrades/mods that really pull some extra power out of it.

It's a tiny car. 200 isn't a magic number, and I was actually impressed that it was that high. 170 or so in a car that small (and well-balanced) would be VERY fun. It's all about the car's size and the torque curve. I've never found engine horsepower numbers to be very useful. The stats state that 90% of the torque is available at 2200 rpm. That's pretty nice. Have they published the performance numbers on this car? I bet its 0-60 is much more impressive than my much more expensive and heavy sports sedan. :shrug:

LegendKiller

05-31-2005, 08:24 AM

It's a tiny car. 200 isn't a magic number, and I was actually impressed that it was that high. 170 or so in a car that small (and well-balanced) would be VERY fun. It's all about the car's size and the torque curve. I've never found engine horsepower numbers to be very useful. The stats state that 90% of the torque is available at 2200 rpm. That's pretty nice. Have they published the performance numbers on this car? I bet its 0-60 is much more impressive than my much more expensive and heavy sports sedan. :shrug:

Agreed. Torque almost always wins out. Although the engine they have in these (Ecotec) are supposed to be well built, reliable, and very modible (is that a word?). I am sure you could slap on a super charger, a few other bolt-ons and you'd have well over 200 easily.

I was planning on getting a G35 coupe with my next pay raise but now I am thinking of one of these with some extra mods on it, see if I can get them factory.

Houdini

05-31-2005, 09:47 AM

Agreed. Torque almost always wins out. Although the engine they have in these (Ecotec) are supposed to be well built, reliable, and very modible (is that a word?). I am sure you could slap on a super charger, a few other bolt-ons and you'd have well over 200 easily.

I was planning on getting a G35 coupe with my next pay raise but now I am thinking of one of these with some extra mods on it, see if I can get them factory.

The G35 is very nice. I didn't care much for the interior compared to some of its competitors, but it has a lot of power for the $$ and it's nice looking. The handling is very predictable as well. I enjoyed test driving it last year when I was car shopping. When will the next generation of the G35 be released? It would be interesting to see the refinements brought by the next iteration of the series.

Like you said, pullies, exhaust, and even a SC would make an already potentially fun car incredibly fun. If you can get by without a back seat, it looks like a performance bargain.

PrObLy

05-31-2005, 10:00 AM

Agreed. Torque almost always wins out. Although the engine they have in these (Ecotec) are supposed to be well built, reliable, and very modible (is that a word?). I am sure you could slap on a super charger, a few other bolt-ons and you'd have well over 200 easily.

I was planning on getting a G35 coupe with my next pay raise but now I am thinking of one of these with some extra mods on it, see if I can get them factory.

Absolutely.

Torque usually has to win out... primarily because horsepower is derived directly from the torque .. i.e. HP = (Torque * RPM) / (5252)

Sure, some cars (let's take an S2000 for instance) pump out a lot of horsepower...but look where it redlines, ~9000 rpms. Its peak horsepower (~240) occurs at 8300 rpms, meaning it's only producing about 152 lb-ft of torque there. Luckily, like you mentioned before, some cars are light enough to make up for their sheer lack of power. Give the S2000 a little clutch dump and you're off and running because its lack of massive torque numbers are made up for by the weight of the car, and also having a pretty consistent torque curve that can produce a lot of torque (relative to its max torque) down low REALLY helps out acceleration.

OK, so maybe the S2000 wasn't a good example because it has all the characteristics you would want in a high performing lightweight car with a lot of horsepower and a well balanced torque curve.

thresher

05-31-2005, 10:56 AM

Powerful? Where did you get that idea. I am assuming its close in power to the solstice which is just weak. Its less than 200 horses, which is pitiful. Hopefully they will offer engine upgrades/mods that really pull some extra power out of it.
This car produced barely *200 ponies and we ALL (that meant me and you, cowboy) thought it was fast! Nothing had been produced that was even remotely quick (Grand National and Corvette excluded) and the Mustang LX 5.0 started out at, gulp, $10,950.
http://mclellansautomotive.com/photos/B24852.jpg

edit - always sight your source! :) 1982-1993 Mustang GT Registry (http://www.mustanggt.org/87gt.htm)

Grubbie

05-31-2005, 02:48 PM

Pound per pound the MR2 Spider had one of the best HP/LB ratio's of any "normal" production car and it's power isn't that 'great'.

And it is GREAT to drive, cept for the damn rear wheel drive and the spinouts that can occur :D. It was the perfect car for my mom, she wanted something sporty and "cute".

My only problem with these cars, is there is NO room in the car. Its hard to actually go on a trip cause you can barely fit your stuff in these cars. That and grocery shopping with 2 people is hard, lol

LegendKiller

05-31-2005, 03:11 PM

I am young with no kids, I can deal with no back seat :). Besides, I always wanted a little two seater for my own. My parents had a 6 cyl Fiero and I loved driving it.

Houdini

05-31-2005, 03:27 PM

I am young with no kids, I can deal with no back seat :). Besides, I always wanted a little two seater for my own. My parents had a 6 cyl Fiero and I loved driving it.

Heh...nice. I'm young without kids as well, but after driving around in an old Camaro for many years (no practical back seat), I've found it's nice to have one in my newer car, especially for hauling friends around or carrying stuff. Still, if I had a second car, I wouldn't mind it being a nice, fast roadster. :)

LegendKiller

05-31-2005, 03:57 PM

My friends can drive their own arses around :)

Grubbie

05-31-2005, 04:56 PM

I am young with no kids, I can deal with no back seat :). Besides, I always wanted a little two seater for my own. My parents had a 6 cyl Fiero and I loved driving it.

Well my mom just drives herself around now(both my bro and I are in/out of college). They are great fun cars, but can be a pain if you have to go to home depot or pick up a ton of grocieries. I remember driving out to montana from seattle, man the car was packed full, and it was a 3 day weekend.

Always weird for me to pop the hood to get to the trunk :D. Another problem I had with the mr2, which might be the same for all convertables, was the HORRIBLE blind spot with the top up. I always hated driving it with the top up, cause I cant see anything on my left, you can turn and look and you just see black(not fun). Besides that, I loved the car.

I like that more of these 2 person small convertables are coming out. I always hated the look of the miata. I remember taking the mr2 out and just getting looks from EVERYBODY. I bet it is the same for the sky and solstice.

thresher

06-01-2005, 09:19 AM

Is it wrong to commit treason for all the right reasons? (Ford driver)
I keep coming back to this thread to stare at that Pontiac. It just might be the best looking convertible Pontiac has built since:
http://ultimategto.com/1972/72_00004_1.jpg

tupacboy

06-01-2005, 09:38 AM

best saturn ever... i can't believe i just said that...

ufcrusher

06-01-2005, 12:48 PM

bachviet

06-01-2005, 02:32 PM

28xx lbs car needs at least 250hp to be considered quick/fast, i.e. Honda S2000 at 2835 lbs with 240hp.

LegendKiller

06-01-2005, 03:06 PM

The key is going to be the weight of the car at 2860 lbs its not that light...but that is also the exact weight of the Solstice. Hmmm.....thats funny.

The lotus for example is 190hp with 1984lbs curb. Almost 1000lbs difference = the world in my opinion.

That is just stupid, a small car like that shouldn't weigh ANYWHERE near that much. Heck, thats about as much as the Mustang GT weighs.

BrewMaster

06-01-2005, 03:09 PM

28xx lbs car needs at least 250hp to be considered quick/fast, i.e. Honda S2000 at 2835 lbs with 240hp.
um, so by your own definition the Honda S2000 should not be considered "quick/fast" since 240 HP < 250 HP. :confused:

Showtime

06-01-2005, 03:54 PM

The weight has to with all the new safety features that are required on all new cars. You could go to exotic materials to lighted it quite a bit, but then the car wouldnt be 20k anymore.

-j

Houdini

06-01-2005, 04:43 PM

um, so by your own definition the Honda S2000 should not be considered "quick/fast" since 240 HP < 250 HP. :confused:

:stupid:

Then again, an engine with a high power output but heavily biased torque curve may not feel that fast. :shrug:

I am disappointed that it is that heavy, though. I wonder if they will release an "SS" version after a year or so. Maybe it could be turboed or SC'd. Hmmm...an SS Saturn? :|

ski

06-01-2005, 05:28 PM

The S2000 is $13,000 more.

I'd rather have a "quick" roadster and an extra $13,000 to blow on anything else than a "fast" roadster and $0 spending money, but that's just me :)

bachviet

06-01-2005, 09:49 PM

um, so by your own definition the Honda S2000 should not be considered "quick/fast" since 240 HP < 250 HP. :confused:
I should have said "around" instead of "at least". I looks at "hp-weight ratio" instead of just hp.

ufcrusher

06-02-2005, 12:22 AM

When I owned my Mustang GT (2003) my step mother drove it one day and was surprised by how "solid" it felt. We ended up looking on the door for the GVW and I swear it was right around 3300lb mark. I tried to look in the brochure but it wasnt listed. I know they claim the Mach 1 was around 3600lbs. Then again, that was 260 horses/310 in the mach 1.