Pontiac Solstice Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Does anyone know what the expected MPG ratings will be? Not that it will make a difference of whether I buy it but it would be nice if it got over 30.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
Gas Milage

No such luck. At this point in time they are rating the Solstice at 20 city
and 28 hiway.
 

·
Mod Emeritus
Joined
·
7,468 Posts
I don't think the mileage is really that bad, all things considered. The engine is optimized for power, as it is the highest output version of the 2.4L. That is going to cost a little in gas. Roadsters are generally not the most aerodynamic vehicles, which also costs a little in gas. 2860 lbs is not heavy, but its not a featehrweight econobox either. Also, I can find a bunch of cars with similar power figures that get very similar mileage.

Surbaru Imprezza 2.5L N/A, 160 or so HP, 21/28
Mazdaspeeed Miata 1.8L TC, 172 HP 20/26
Ford Focus SVT 2.0L N/A 170 HP, 21/28
Ford Focus ST 2.3L 150 HP (apx) 22/31
Hyundai Tibruon 2.8L V6 178 HP 19/26 (V6)
Lotus Elise 1.8L N/A 190 HP (apx) 23/26
Scion TC 2.4L 160 HP 22/31

I know there are some that are better too. The Accord 4 banger is rated 26/34 for example. However, the Solstice appears to have mileage numbers close compared to many other vehicles with similar engine outputs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,041 Posts
The gas rating for the Sol is almost identical to the actual mileage I get on my 2000 Miata ( as long as I don't push it too much ). :)
 

·
Mod Emeritus
Joined
·
7,468 Posts
Ex-Miata Man said:
The gas rating for the Sol is almost identical to the actual mileage I get on my 2000 Miata ( as long as I don't push it too much ). :)
EPA ratings and actual mileage is a whole topic in itself. A lot of people never get the listed MPG, while others get it reliably. It is so dependent on how you drive (speed), what traffic is like where you drive, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
905 Posts
Fformula88 said:
EPA ratings and actual mileage is a whole topic in itself. A lot of people never get the listed MPG, while others get it reliably. It is so dependent on how you drive (speed), what traffic is like where you drive, etc.
Yeah, I was going to say the same thing, I actually get 3 MPG more then my Sunfire's rated simply because of the way I drive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
Mpg

Here are some mpg numbers to compare for other sports cars.

Solstice 20/28 mpg
Corvette 18/26 mpg
Miata M5 20/26 mpg
BMW Z4 20/29 mpg
Crossfire 17/25 mpg
Toyota MR2 26/32 mpg
Honda S2000 20/25 mpg
 

·
Mod Emeritus
Joined
·
7,468 Posts
Adrenaline said:
Yeah, I was going to say the same thing, I actually get 3 MPG more then my Sunfire's rated simply because of the way I drive.
I find how close I get to the sticker MPG also varies by car. My Fiero is rated 17/24, and I generally get 20-22 with 20 being mostly city, and 22 being a mix. I don't know what it would get with 100% highway on a tank. Overall, it is running close to average.

My Jeep is rated 15-17. However, I generally get 17 city, and up to 20 on the highway. So it is actually running above its average.

My prior daily driver was a 97 Ford Probe, rated 23/30, but I would get about 21-22 city and no better than 28 highway. So it was running below the EPA numbers.

My driving style has been about the same in all three too, and I have driven them all to about the same places on the same roads over the time I have owned each.

EPA numbers are just :willy: :willy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,060 Posts
stang said:
Yeah, the MPG for the Solstice is pretty sad considering other cars with similar HP numbers put out better MPG. I wish it could get 26/32 MPG. I mean, we are talking about a 4-cylinder engine here.
Don't forget now, this is a 2.4 liter! That's practically a muscle car in terms of 4 cylinders. This isn't going to have super great gas mileage because it's not a 1.6L Honda. More displacement = more gas being used for the same process. Simple. Well, tuning and A/F ratios and all sorts of other things play a role in it too... but for the most part, it uses more gas and gets less mileage simply because the engine is bigger.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,901 Posts
rover said:
Here are some mpg numbers to compare for other sports cars.

Solstice 20/28 mpg
Corvette 18/26 mpg
Miata M5 20/26 mpg
BMW Z4 20/29 mpg
Crossfire 17/25 mpg
Toyota MR2 26/32 mpg
Honda S2000 20/25 mpg
Well according to rovers #'s here once the MR2 dies this year, the Solstice is the winner of this batch.


dori-san: Yeah exactly. The only thing bigger is the Nissan 2.5L and the Subaru 2.5L engines. The only i4 engine bigger then that I know of isn't even in production anymore. Porsche 968 had a 3.0L i4 engine that made 236HP and 225 lb-ft of Torque. It got 17/26 MPG. Not bad for a 3.0L made in 1992-1995. They made a Turbo S edition too, made 305HP and 369 lb-ft of Torque while getting 15/23 MPG.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
63 Posts
rover said:
Here are some mpg numbers to compare for other sports cars.

Solstice 20/28 mpg
Corvette 18/26 mpg
Miata M5 20/26 mpg
BMW Z4 20/29 mpg
Crossfire 17/25 mpg
Toyota MR2 26/32 mpg
Honda S2000 20/25 mpg
Acura RSX Base = 160 hp - 27/34
Acura RSX Type S = 200 hp - 23/31

They could still do better if they tried, and realistically i would bet that it wont get over 25/26, and probably an average of 22-24 a tank. depending on where and how you drive.
I dont even care, im still getting one.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
63 Posts
dori-san said:
Don't forget now, this is a 2.4 liter! That's practically a muscle car in terms of 4 cylinders. This isn't going to have super great gas mileage because it's not a 1.6L Honda. More displacement = more gas being used for the same process. Simple. Well, tuning and A/F ratios and all sorts of other things play a role in it too... but for the most part, it uses more gas and gets less mileage simply because the engine is bigger.
Then it should also make more HP, i mean im not saying its a bad engine, and it gets ok gas mileage, but for a 2.4 they could have at least given us 200hp, i mean my RSX has a 2.0 and 200 hp, and it gets 30 consistently on the highway, and its rated at 31. they could have done alot better while still retaining its price.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,901 Posts
The new RSX-S engine actually produces 210HP now. However these are fairly high strung engines that use a lot of advanced VVT combined with very high RPMs and a minimum of 91+ octane to ring out as much HP as possible at the expense of Torque. This is the trade off GM has made it appears. Instead of blistering high HP values they went for a much better, and in my opinion a much more drivable mix of solid HP and Torque values. So cars like the RSX-S at cruising speed in 6th gear are making next to no real Torque or HP values. Where as the 2.4L VVT ECOTEC will be producing solid values for both across it's entire band. So they sacrifice always on power for lower fuel economy instead of having to rev the piss out of it for high HP low Torque.

The RSX-S produces 143 lbs.-ft. @ 7,000. Holy cow, 7000 RPM??? The 2.4L VVT ECOTEC produces 143 lbs.-ft. @ 1500 RPM, and it only gets better from there. Same with the Honda S2000. 162 lbs.-ft. @ 6,500 rpm. Yeah the 2.4L VVT ECOTEC only makes 166 max, but it'll reach it at 4800 RPM. The Celica GTS is another good example. 130 lbs.-ft. @ 6,800 rpm. The new Miata MX-5 is another with it's USA increased 170HP, but only 140 lbs.-ft. @ 5000 RPM.

Instead of 200+ HP but with only 130~140 lb-ft GM has designed an engine with a solid mix of HP and Torque. We'll see if this paid off or not once people get them and start racing.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
63 Posts
brentil said:
The new RSX-S engine actually produces 210HP now. However these are fairly high strung engines that use a lot of advanced VVT combined with very high RPMs and a minimum of 91+ octane to ring out as much HP as possible at the expense of Torque. This is the trade off GM has made it appears. Instead of blistering high HP values they went for a much better, and in my opinion a much more drivable mix of solid HP and Torque values. So cars like the RSX-S at cruising speed in 6th gear are making next to no real Torque or HP values. Where as the 2.4L VVT ECOTEC will be producing solid values for both across it's entire band. So they sacrifice always on power for lower fuel economy instead of having to rev the piss out of it for high HP low Torque.

The RSX-S produces 143 lbs.-ft. @ 7,000. Holy cow, 7000 RPM??? The 2.4L VVT ECOTEC produces 143 lbs.-ft. @ 1500 RPM, and it only gets better from there. Same with the Honda S2000. 162 lbs.-ft. @ 6,500 rpm. Yeah the 2.4L VVT ECOTEC only makes 166 max, but it'll reach it at 4800 RPM. The Celica GTS is another good example. 130 lbs.-ft. @ 6,800 rpm. The new Miata MX-5 is another with it's USA increased 170HP, but only 140 lbs.-ft. @ 5000 RPM.

Instead of 200+ HP but with only 130~140 lb-ft GM has designed an engine with a solid mix of HP and Torque. We'll see if this paid off or not once people get them and start racing.
I completely understand that i drive a low tourqe car, adn i know what you are saying, but to tell you the truth, its not that bad, all im saying is they could have pulled another 20 horses and 5-10 lbs of tourqe out of that easy and we all know it, and they still couldve kept the gas mileage, if pontiac cant do it, then they need to find a better way to build motors.

And if you have never driven an RSX or then i dont think you can comment on its lack of tourqe, that engine is light years ahead of the ecotec, and its a better engine imo in all aspects except tourqe, it is very smooth and very driveable. just to let you konw
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,312 Posts
Steep rear end gear ratio plus higher than everage compression equals less fuel mileage for the Sol. I am making the same sacrifice with my Harley V-Rod.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
63 Posts
PAS22 said:
Steep rear end gear ratio plus higher than everage compression equals less fuel mileage for the Sol. I am making the same sacrifice with my Harley V-Rod.
Thats a sweet motorcycle man, my dad bought one in silver. and it is awesome. great choice ;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,901 Posts
007 DC5 said:
I completely understand that i drive a low tourqe car, adn i know what you are saying, but to tell you the truth, its not that bad, all im saying is they could have pulled another 20 horses and 5-10 lbs of tourqe out of that easy and we all know it, and they still couldve kept the gas mileage, if pontiac cant do it, then they need to find a better way to build omotors.
With engineering you never get anything for free. What I'm trying to point out is that if they had a ~200HP engine with ~180 lb-ft with higher fuel economy like your suggesting it would outclass all the other NA i4 engines on the market. There are next to zero high HP engines WITH high Torque values AND high MPG values (especially ones powering high Coeficient of Drag roadsters). GM would have to make the perfect engine to meet your requirments.

As I was trying to point out Honda/Acura greatly sacrificed Torque values in order to produce high HP values with decent fuel economy. All of those engines also require 91+ octane as well, the 2.4L VVT ECOTEC will still run on 87 with a slight performance hit more then likely. Yes, GM could more then likely make a higher HP 2.4L with better Fuel Economy, but they would have to sacrifice Torque in order to do it. Unless you make some sort of new engineering breakthrough technology to completely change the way a normal engine works you're not going to get all three to go up at once.
 

·
Mod Emeritus
Joined
·
7,468 Posts
007 DC5 said:
I completely understand that i drive a low tourqe car, adn i know what you are saying, but to tell you the truth, its not that bad, all im saying is they could have pulled another 20 horses and 5-10 lbs of tourqe out of that easy and we all know it, and they still couldve kept the gas mileage, if pontiac cant do it, then they need to find a better way to build motors.

And if you have never driven an RSX or then i dont think you can comment on its lack of tourqe, that engine is light years ahead of the ecotec, and its a better engine imo in all aspects except tourqe, it is very smooth and very driveable. just to let you konw
I apologize for my rant right off the bad, but I get so tired of hearing these comments from the Honda enthusiats. To break it down:

all im saying is they could have pulled another 20 horses and 5-10 lbs of tourqe out of that easy and we all know it, and they still couldve kept the gas mileage
Ok, so GM could have easily produced this engine with more power, torque, and better mileage. I am not sure what you mean by easy, but I will take it to mean with little added engineering or cost to the development process of the engine while retaining the desired driving characteristics of the engine. In that context, I doubt they could have because they would have. Obviously, either the cost would have grown exponentially, or the driving characteristics they were shooting for would not have happened.

As for the mileage, its more than a reflection on just the engine. I am sure GM will have versions of this motor that get better mileage. Since the Solstice is not meant to be an economy car, they targeted performance over mileage.

if pontiac cant do it, then they need to find a better way to build motors.
WIth all due respect, the notion that GM cannot design or build engines is a myth, plain and simple.

And if you have never driven an RSX or then i dont think you can comment on its lack of tourqe,
Nobody has driven a 2.4L VVT ecotec yet, since it isn't for sale yet. So I don't think you can really say the following yet:

that engine is light years ahead of the ecotec, and its a better engine imo in all aspects except tourqe, it is very smooth and very driveable. just to let you konw
Now, don't get me wrong. The RSX-S engine, and IMO all Honda engines are very nice. Also, IMO, Honda probably is the standard for getting the most HP out of any given displacement. However, I do not think that makes everyone elses engines junk, just because their priority was not just to get a good specific HP/L figure.

Brentil explained it well. The Solstice ecotec was designed to have a V6 like torque band and decent top end power utilizing VVT technology to do it. Since the Solstice is a performance car and not an economy car, mileage has been sacraficed to squeeze a little extra power out of it.

Comparing the expensive RSX-S engine to the ecotec may be a little unfair, since I am sure it costs more to produce than the ecotec based on its premium position in just the RSX-S. The comparable engine is probably the base RSX motor, which has less power than the 2.4L ecotec, and less torque.

Comparing the mileage is also a little misleading, since the Solstice weighs more than the RSX, will most likely not be as aerodynamic due to the RSX-S fastback wedge body, and may also have less favorable gearing for high mileage. The mileage number of any one car vs any other car is not a direct reflection on the efficiency of the engine alone.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
63 Posts
brentil said:
With engineering you never get anything for free. What I'm trying to point out is that if they had a ~200HP engine with ~180 lb-ft with higher fuel economy like your suggesting it would outclass all the other NA i4 engines on the market. There are next to zero high HP engines WITH high Torque values AND high MPG values (especially ones powering high Coeficient of Drag roadsters). GM would have to make the perfect engine to meet your requirments.

As I was trying to point out Honda/Acura greatly sacrificed Torque values in order to produce high HP values with decent fuel economy. All of those engines also require 91+ octane as well, the 2.4L VVT ECOTEC will still run on 87 with a slight performance hit more then likely. Yes, GM could more then likely make a higher HP 2.4L with better Fuel Economy, but they would have to sacrifice Torque in order to do it. Unless you make some sort of new engineering breakthrough technology to completely change the way a normal engine works you're not going to get all three to go up at once.
So basically what your saying, is that i can't have an engine that i cant have tourqe with that amount of engine capacity and have higher horse power with the same fuel economy right???

Well i got a little suprise for you

YOU'RE WRONG.
I give you the K24A2, this is the 4 cylinder engine that acura uses in the TSX, It's the same size, has more horsepower, the same tourqe, and better fuel economy than the solstice.

K24A2 specs

2.4 liter DOHC i-VTEC
4 cylinder
200hp
166 lbs of tourqe
22/31 mpg

Now as i put in bold up there, you said i could not have all three, so, if my eyes serve me right,
I GOT MORE HP
I GOT NO DROP IN TOURQE
I GOT BETTER FUEL ECONOMY

Now the only thing i can say is that the Solstice will reach its max tourqe lower,
But still...85% of the K24's useable tourqe is available at 2200 rpm, which makes it just about the same when you think about it.
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top