Saturn puts out 1/4 mile estimate for Sky Redline
05-03-2006, 08:10 AM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Corn Country
Posts: 5,881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IIGQ4U,May 3 2006, 10:44 AM
I really need to get gears now... I can't be getting beat by a stock Saturn... I don't care if it is their sports car. Lol, it just sounds funny a Saturn sportscar. I must admit however that it does look pretty nice.
05-03-2006, 08:45 AM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 2,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by QUIKAG,May 3 2006, 09:54 AM
To get a sub-14 second time in an S2000 requires some clutch and shifting heroics. Not to mention, a chip or pulley swap and the Turbo Sky will smoke the S2000.
I'm sure GM will sell a butt load of these. Why? They're new, they're fresh, they're American and they're cheap (without the price gouging at least). They'll be quick in a straight line and that's pretty much all most people care about. How many people take their cars on a road course? Dealers will get rich off price gouging for a while and then demand will plummet. GM will start giving them away because they'll make too many of them and they'll wind up in your local Budget or Enterprise rental lot, but that's just my prediction.
05-03-2006, 08:45 AM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interior: I like the Saturn interior. It's not as nice as the S2000 but it's stylish and overall not bad. It does have a lot of hard plastic but that's not uncommon these days and each new car I see has more hard plastic than the last. The radio and climate controls are actually very nice.
The 2.4L motor isn't that smooth. However, as installed in the SAAB 93 the Ecotec turbo is quite smooth and refined. It seems the extra displacement of the 2.4L is a likely culprit. The 2L SC Ecotec made it to Wards 10 best list. Based on that I would hold out hope that this motor may be OK.
As for driving the car, well I drove a standard Sky. It feels very much like driving a Vette with a better shifting gear box and a motor wanting for refinement. The handling is very responsive and VERY sure footed if a bit numb.
The 2.4L motor isn't that smooth. However, as installed in the SAAB 93 the Ecotec turbo is quite smooth and refined. It seems the extra displacement of the 2.4L is a likely culprit. The 2L SC Ecotec made it to Wards 10 best list. Based on that I would hold out hope that this motor may be OK.
As for driving the car, well I drove a standard Sky. It feels very much like driving a Vette with a better shifting gear box and a motor wanting for refinement. The handling is very responsive and VERY sure footed if a bit numb.
05-03-2006, 08:50 AM
#25
Originally Posted by PilotKD,May 3 2006, 08:45 AM
I don't think a pulley swap will do much for a turbocharged car.
05-03-2006, 08:59 AM
#26
Former Moderator
If the redline does 13.9-14.1 in the 1/4, it just proves what all of us fanbois have been saying about american car companies in the past 253635 threads.
They are making in 2006/2007 what the European/Japanese car makers did in 1999.
Nothing impressive, and they are always YEARS behind.
P.S. I actually like the Sky AND the Solstice (lookswise) but for the money, the MX-5 is a MUCH nicer car (everything but looks)
They are making in 2006/2007 what the European/Japanese car makers did in 1999.
Nothing impressive, and they are always YEARS behind.
P.S. I actually like the Sky AND the Solstice (lookswise) but for the money, the MX-5 is a MUCH nicer car (everything but looks)
05-03-2006, 09:10 AM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Plano
Posts: 1,906
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NFRs2000NYC,May 3 2006, 10:59 AM
If the redline does 13.9-14.1 in the 1/4, it just proves what all of us fanbois have been saying about american car companies in the past 253635 threads.
They are making in 2006/2007 what the European/Japanese car makers did in 1999.
Nothing impressive, and they are always YEARS behind.
P.S. I actually like the Sky AND the Solstice (lookswise) but for the money, the MX-5 is a MUCH nicer car (everything but looks)
They are making in 2006/2007 what the European/Japanese car makers did in 1999.
Nothing impressive, and they are always YEARS behind.
P.S. I actually like the Sky AND the Solstice (lookswise) but for the money, the MX-5 is a MUCH nicer car (everything but looks)
I, too, would prefer the MX5 to the standard Solstice/Sky, but I'd take the Red Line over the MX5, just for the extra punch, even though I'm giving up a little in the handling dept. Life is full of compromises.
05-03-2006, 09:24 AM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bay Area,CA
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Clayman,May 3 2006, 06:35 AM
Huh, that's a pretty decent time, but I thought it would've been faster with the added torque. No matter, with a turbo, it's just a couple of mods away from being a low 13- high 12 second car.
. Besides, we all know american cars are known for underrating their cars.
05-03-2006, 09:27 AM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bay Area,CA
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NFRs2000NYC,May 3 2006, 08:59 AM
If the redline does 13.9-14.1 in the 1/4, it just proves what all of us fanbois have been saying about american car companies in the past 253635 threads.
They are making in 2006/2007 what the European/Japanese car makers did in 1999.
Nothing impressive, and they are always YEARS behind.
P.S. I actually like the Sky AND the Solstice (lookswise) but for the money, the MX-5 is a MUCH nicer car (everything but looks)
They are making in 2006/2007 what the European/Japanese car makers did in 1999.
Nothing impressive, and they are always YEARS behind.
P.S. I actually like the Sky AND the Solstice (lookswise) but for the money, the MX-5 is a MUCH nicer car (everything but looks)