Pontiac Solstice Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi guys,
I have been watching the forum for 1 or 2 months, and like you I am eager to try the solstice... :thumbs

From the Canadian (GM) site, they changed their page about the solstice and it is written:
Engage the throttle and you summon a supercharged 240 hp engine :party . It packs a wallop, but legendary Pontiac handling puts control and intuition in the palms of your hands
I have read elsewhere (from the beginning, I think) it was suppose to be 170hp... I am no power fanatic, but when I remember my 86 corvette had 230 hp, I can only smile about this new (4 cylinders!) car!

Just before someone throws stone at me about this news (I think it is...) here is the official link : GM Canada Solstice link
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
That you see there would be the 2002 concept vehicle. It has the 6 speed tranny from the vette and a 240hp supercharged engine. I would love that from the production solstice but we may have to wait a while to get it. The base solstice will come with the 170 hp engine. go to the US site and it has more up to date details.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,901 Posts
Yeah, we've had this discussion before with several people finding the Canadian info and thinking it's for the production Solstice. We all wish we got the 240HP Supercharged engine, but we don't as of current official news. Who knows, GM might be holding out on us, but probably not.
 

·
Mod Emeritus
Joined
·
7,468 Posts
Darkhamr said:
Legendary Pontiac handling? I must have slept through that period in history. LOL
More like infamous! :lol

A 240 HP S/C motor would be nice, but so far GM has not shown it in anything other than concepts. No announcement for its production of any kind, or in any application... as of yet!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
I'm really hoping that we'll hear at the NAIAS that at least a 200HP version will be available the first year. The 170 car will run 15's in the quarter which to me is just as slow as my V6 camaro. For me the car needs to be in the 14's. Not that handling isn't important but to me it's worthless without respectable acceleration.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
533 Posts
Darkhamr said:
Legendary Pontiac handling? I must have slept through that period in history. LOL
There may be some basis for the above statement. In the 1980's, Road & Track said this about the Pontiac 6000 STE: "It rides and handles as well as any sedan its size made anywhere".

Source: Road & Track's Road Test Annual & Buyers Guide 1986.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
My 1978 Sunbird was twice Florida state champion and So-West divisional Champion in C-Stock (American Iron) SCCA Solo II. Performance was not popular in the late-70s/early 80s but it was there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
533 Posts
padgett said:
My 1978 Sunbird was twice Florida state champion and So-West divisional Champion in C-Stock (American Iron) SCCA Solo II. Performance was not popular in the late-70s/early 80s but it was there.
You mentioned a Sunbird beating Porsche's times in a tire thread. Your Sunbird? How did the Porsche drivers feel about that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Mostly pretended I wasn't there (different class and all that). Car never lost an autocross but the driver did occasionally. Also broke nearly everything possible from wheels (averaged one cracked hub per weekend), transmissions (Saginaw by Muncie) - still have two spares, limited slip rear ends (kept craking spiders), shock mounts, spring towers, even separated the right lower A-Arm completely from the frame (same one that kept breaking wheels).

Not quite Colin Chapman school (his philosophy was that a proper race car was supposed to disintegrate ten feet past the finish line) but often close.

Did win a lot of autocrosses. Always started in second gear because was faster (2.98:1 first gear was just good for max tire smoke even with sticky tires and LSD - saved a shift out of the gate that way).

However with the SBC in the nose and limited slip it had all wheel steering at will. Car basically oversteered under power, could just plant the nose on a pylon and pivot around it.

Think a lot of it was the size - short and narrow for an American car so did not have to slow as much for gates as a Z-28 or even a Mustang and my odd theories of tire pressure: went from 40 to 50 psi in front and began hitting inside pylons.

Pontiac only built 63 1978 coupes with V-8 and 4-speed. Doubt that many survived but was a car that may have been rare but no one cared.

Car and Driver had an article on the '79 version in their July 1979 issue. That car had 10 less HP than the '78 and they still got excited.
 

·
Mod Emeritus
Joined
·
7,468 Posts
tcl said:
There may be some basis for the above statement. In the 1980's, Road & Track said this about the Pontiac 6000 STE: "It rides and handles as well as any sedan its size made anywhere".

Source: Road & Track's Road Test Annual & Buyers Guide 1986.
There is an exception to every rule, and this 6000 was an exception to Pontiac's usual handling!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
533 Posts
Fformula88 said:
There is an exception to every rule, and this 6000 was an exception to Pontiac's usual handling!
I can't disagree since I've only owned 3 Pontiacs, and 2 of them were 6000's with the sport tuned suspension. Were there no other good handling Pontiacs besides padgett's rare Sunbird?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
281 Posts
tcl said:
I can't disagree since I've only owned 3 Pontiacs, and 2 of them were 6000's with the sport tuned suspension. Were there no other good handling Pontiacs besides padgett's rare Sunbird?
the fiero GT was a baller if you knew how to drive it. the limit was spooky and heeded by the wise. if ignored, it would bite you. then, "pontiac excitement" was defined as simply saving the car and yourself.

the late model TA was no slouch either. worse thing about that car was visibilty.

with only a tire-wheel upgrade on the GP, i finished midpack in an all vette autoX. beat several C5s, but no Z06s. and all but one C4.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,206 Posts
The 88 Fiero Formula, with properly-sized front and rear tires is a great handling car. Not outstanding for acceleration (and as we know, races are won in the straights), but I've easily gotten mine above 1g lateral in a parking lot.

Combined with the great brake upgrade in 1988 MY, it kept very well with the Civics, RX-7's on the backsides of tracks with lots of concentrated turns. Just the engine was a boat anchor. It was frustrating to be all over someone with twice your power (like an A-sedan Camaro), just to have them step away on the straightaways...

...then you have to dive deep into braking, make up 70% of the distance between you in the first turn, then get all over them in the corners until they pull away on the straight again... AAAARRRRGGGHHH!!! Frustrating!

The only hope was to stay on them and "will" them to make a mistake so you could sidestep and pass... then the car gets reeeaaalllly wide ;)

I always thought with about 220 HP and a lighter engine, this car would have been an OUTSTANDING racer. I once drove a Quad-4 upgraded fiero (albiet an 86), and have always wanted a hi-power 4 cylinder in my 88 Fiero Formula. If only that Quad-4 was made as an aluminum block *sigh*.

BTW, forget the 350 small block upgrades - talk about upsetting the balance of the car!!! The only one of these I drove that was worth a fart in the wind had 275 rear tires and 185 front tires - that's how much the balance was mucked up. And if it rained, that fiero became a top.
 

·
Mod Emeritus
Joined
·
7,468 Posts
I agree, the 88 Fiero Formula is a great handling car (at least it was in its day, these days it is probably fairly average for sports cars, but still not bad. Better with 17’s and sticky rubber instead of the OE 60 series tires), but like that 6000 it is also an exception.

Now my point wasn’t that GM has not built any cars that handle well, but as a rule the majority of their cars do not handle well compared to other companies. Take Mazda for example. They try and instill good handling and road feel into all their cars these days. Honda also carries a good reputation for making cars that handle well across its vehicle line. GM’s reputation is for making cars that are a little more sloppy in the handling department.

I remember the Car and Driver review of the latest Buick Century when it debuted in 1997. The headline read something to the effect of “The Last of the Cloud-Mobiles” which epitomizes what domestic handling characteristics were generally like. Soft suspensions to create a ride like riding on a cloud, which is not the best thing for handling.

PS, my mom has one of those cloud mobiles, and it does ride extremely softly. Nice on the highway and bumpy roads, hell on any road with curves!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
535 Posts
Fformula88 said:
Now my point wasn’t that GM has not built any cars that handle well, but as a rule the majority of their cars do not handle well compared to other companies. Take Mazda for example. They try and instill good handling and road feel into all their cars these days. Honda also carries a good reputation for making cars that handle well across its vehicle line. GM’s reputation is for making cars that are a little more sloppy in the handling department.
Good example. All Mazda's handle well stock. Like a budget BMW.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top