Pontiac Solstice Forum banner

Do you want more than 170 HP

  • 170 hp is fine by me

    Votes: 21 35.6%
  • I'll pay more for extra power (200-260hp)

    Votes: 38 64.4%

  • Total voters
    59
1 - 20 of 55 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I can honestly say 170hp does not do it for me. If there is not more HP like a S/C or turbo I don’t know if I can bring myself to buy the car. Everything is there for a great car, except the power. I read one thread here that said everything the Solstice has to offer will be available from day one (I don’t know how true that is), but if day one comes and they are still saying that, and there is no S/C or turbo available, I may have to look elsewhere.

Is that wrong??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
151 Posts
i wouldnt say that is wrong, but i will say patience is a virtue

i'll wait for the higher HP version if only to have all the extras
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,206 Posts
No, it's not wrong. Just your opinion.

I'll probably try to buy a stripped 170 HP version. Maybe sell it and buy the faster version in a couple years. Probably won't wait - how long do you think they'll offer a $20,000 base car? How much do you think the extra HP costs?

If perf is approaching Honda S2000 territory, why not just undercut the S2000 by the same amount they are undercutting the base MX-5 (about 4,500) with the base model Solstice. Last I looked, the S2000 is about $33,750.

So, question is: would you pay $29,250 + $750 (for price increase from now to then) or about $30K for the higher HP version, assuming a minimum of 240 HP? Probably, but I'd personally wait a year after that and buy a used +HP Solstice.

'Course, this is a spec, and maybe they'll give the +hp away at 26,000. I somehow doubt it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,210 Posts
I'm a base model kind of guy...looking for a balanced driving experience so 170 hp is fine...20k + options is where I jump in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,570 Posts
If they offer different power options in the first year, I don't really know what I'll do. The low 20k base price is very attractive, but if you're going to do a roadster then why not more power? If they only offer 170 then I'm ok with that, my choice is made. 170 will be fine for scooting around town and commuting, and that's what I'm going todo with it. So no, I won't wait.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,844 Posts
I'm in a position where I have to buy whatever is available at introduction. My daily driver's on it's last legs. Plan is, after two or three years, either trade the 170 hp Solstice in on a higher hp version (and take a $10k hit on trade-in) or possibly spend the money on a LS1 (or, better yet, an LS2) conversion. Talk about an upgrade...From 170hp to 400+!! Figure insurance will be lower on a "highly modified" base model than on a factory SC version(ala Neon and Eclipse). Do you hear me, LS1Source?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Depends. Years ago I had a Sunbird with a V-8 (63 coupes built with 4-speed out of 80,000 cars). When I applied for insurance all they asked was "Does it have a V-6" (standard was the 2.5 l 4 cyl and also available was a 3.8 V-6) and I answered "No." They might just ask if the Solstice has a supercharger...
 

·
Mod Emeritus
Joined
·
7,468 Posts
I will not wait long for more than the 170 HP. If they announce it is on the way, say in 6 months or less of the base model, I could force myself to wait. But really, the 170 HP will be plenty for me to enjoy. The 170 HP version is most likely going to be the fastest car I will have ever personally owned (I have had higher HP vehicles, but they were a lot heavier too). I enjoy my Fiero now, with its 2750 lbs and 140 HP. The Solstice will feel like a nice upgrade! :smile
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
DreamerDave said:
or possibly spend the money on a LS1 (or, better yet, an LS2) conversion.
From what I've heard the LS1 (or any V8) will not fit into the kappa car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
I'm on a budget so if my dreams do come true, then the 170 hp vehicle would be suffice for me. There's always the aftermarket for extra HP
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
Poor Me!

Pajarito is a Squire SS-100 and no she is not a kit car. She was born in Itialy in 1972 and came to this country only to be abandoned after a few years. Her makers claim outragious horse power of 120. I believe it to be closer to 100.

Now add elevation to this issue and my home town is 6750 above sea level. So a normal day in the summer the density alitude can be above 10,000 feet. that drops the power to about 80 and still the mountain roads call for complete attention. A joy to drive but every moment is thrilling.

Well she is still a fun and exciting car to drive, much of the excitement stems from the fact her brakes pull from side to side depending on her mood, some days they pull to the left and draw you into oncoming traffic, others she wants you to go into the ditch. Would I give her up? heck no! she is that thing we guys call a car. I can never be as good a driver as this limited production car deserves.

170 is fine by me. From the mountain twists to the open four lane arrow stright highways of the open desert.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
pajarito69, at your elevation, I would think that you would want a turbo, not a supercharger. At least I was taught that superchargers really suffer with increased elevation. Come to think of it, I'm quite sure of that... The supercharged MINI guys that I chat with in Denver notice a big difference. Heat and altitude are not friendly for maximizing SC efficiency... With RWD, this car can go with big hp and torque of a turbo. If Pontiac doesn't do it, I'm sure the aftermkt will...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
I do seem to recall SC'ing in aircraft, but the exact reason escapes me. The pressurization does make sense though, and 12,000' sounds about the right elevation as well... many helicopters have that as about their max alititude, thus cannnot rescue mountaineers at peeks beyond that...

I know that the MINI Cooper S's are dynoing much less with increased altitude. Turbos seem not to pose the same problem, at least in that regard.

I do recall turbos being used before superchargers in aircraft. I think it was the P-38 Lightening (twin fuselage), or something during that time frame being the first to have a turbo engine. Superchargers work at elevation, just not as efficient. They are parastic of course, needing hp to make hp...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,570 Posts
solsticeman said:
Weren't superchargers originally developed for planes operating above 12,000 feet?

Or maybe it was only for cabin pressurization...
Supercharging was developed for aircraft before turbocharging so they could operate at high altitudes. Most of the famous fighters and bombers of WWII were supercharged. Turbocharging was introduced because it increases engine efficiency by scavanging energy from escaping exhaust gasses to compress the air instead of robbing horsepower from the crankshaft. Greater efficiency means greater range in aircraft and better gas mileage in cars. Supercharging is not used for cabin pressure. Supercharging was used on most planes during the war because they were lighter and thought to be more reliable than turbochargers, an important factor in a single engine fighter.

Those Mini drivers must just have crappy superchargers. Maybe the computer is not programed right or something, I don't know, but forced induction is the same, weather the air is pushed by exhaust gasses or the crankshaft. If the computer doesn't adjust the manifold pressure for altitude, then yes, there will be a decrease in performance. One of the great advantages of forced induction is to be able to produce maximum power at higher altitudes. It's a shame BMW messed that one up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
I just checked several forums on supercharging in general, and also for a couple other makes/models that are supercharged, and the consensus is that there is much more boost generated at sea level than compared to higher elevations. I'll spare you all the links as they are quite easy to find. Basically, with the air being thinner, there is less of it to pack or force. It's packing more than without though, thus allowing for higher altitude flight as AeroDave says.

There is no doubt that the MINI SC is less than ideal. But in a 20k ride, one shouldn't expect a twin screw type. If indeed the Solstice sees a SC, given it's price, it is bound to also be of the Roots type - not highly efficient. This actually brings-up something that has me sitting on the fence at this time...

Yes, I want more HP in my Solstice. But, given that it appears it will be via a SC, and most likely a Roots type, I'm not highly interested (given my MCS experience). Due to its efficiencies (or relative lack of), the upside is nothing near a turbo, nor that of "better" superchargers...

My feeling now would be to get a base or standard Solstice and build from there, assuming the aftermkt will be robust with an ideal SC option, and probably a few turbo choices. I'm hesistant because that approach, while it seems sound, does not work for the MINI. The standard Cooper does not come with forged internals, nor the heftier tranny. So, it is not a viable choice for added power...

Will the standard or base Solstice have such or comparable limiting differences between it and the SC'd one? Gosh, I hope not. I hope the only difference is the SC itself, and it's related components...

To conclude that the Roots blower is bad per se, or that I don't like my MCS would be very wrong though. It's been quite easy and affordable to get 220 hp out of her, and at 2,400 pounds (some weight reduction), it is the most fun I've ever had driving, and this is from a Porsche, kit car, and dune buggy guy! Others with the same blower are getting 220 at the wheels, or around 250hp with just a few more upgrades, albeit expensive ones. I'll be able to achieve my goal of a 10:1 weight to hp ratio with the stock blower, if I want; contemplating (when available) a twin screw SC, turbo replacement, or even a twin charger for more power...

So, I'm sure a Roots on the Solstice will be just fine! But with RWD, I think some will want to go with more power... That's why I'm here, besides its lines, and drop top for Summer fun. The MINI for Fall/Winter, and the Solstice for Spring/Summer :thumbs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
281 Posts
TonyB said:
pajarito69, at your elevation, I would think that you would want a turbo, not a supercharger. At least I was taught that superchargers really suffer with increased elevation. Come to think of it, I'm quite sure of that... The supercharged MINI guys that I chat with in Denver notice a big difference. Heat and altitude are not friendly for maximizing SC efficiency... With RWD, this car can go with big hp and torque of a turbo. If Pontiac doesn't do it, I'm sure the aftermkt will...
all forms of induction wether forced or natural suffer from elevation. there are two basic types of SCs. the roots-type (i.e. Eaton) is like a vacuum cleaner and merely sucks air in and pushes it into the intake. then there is a centrifugal SC which compresses the air as it sucks it in. the CSC is basically a belt driven turbo.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,206 Posts
TonyB said:
I...But, given that it appears it will be via a SC...
What makes you think that? I'm in the minority, but my bet is on TC. Saab's had more success on Ecotec based TC than any of the SC Ecotecs (just now coming out in ION Redline and Cobalt (Maybe? or did I hear wrong...)).

TC can be more package-advantaged in a N/S engine config, allow lower hood... and GM has taken the cue from competition in all the other areas of the car - there's not a single SC roadster (well, there's not many roadsters anyways, but that's 'side the point) out there today, and precious few SC hi-perf cars. The closest competition is the Mazdaspeed - and it's TC. All the hot ones (haven't driven a redline) like WRX, EVO, etc. are TC. JMHO.
 

·
Mod Emeritus
Joined
·
7,468 Posts
solsticeman said:
What makes you think that? I'm in the minority, but my bet is on TC. Saab's had more success on Ecotec based TC than any of the SC Ecotecs (just now coming out in ION Redline and Cobalt (Maybe? or did I hear wrong...)).

TC can be more package-advantaged in a N/S engine config, allow lower hood... and GM has taken the cue from competition in all the other areas of the car - there's not a single SC roadster (well, there's not many roadsters anyways, but that's 'side the point) out there today, and precious few SC hi-perf cars. The closest competition is the Mazdaspeed - and it's TC. All the hot ones (haven't driven a redline) like WRX, EVO, etc. are TC. JMHO.
Since GM has an S/C Ecotec now, I think they will simply build off of that. It must be an economical setup for them to be offering it in Ions and Cobalts. They will also have some limited real world experience with it to help fine tune it and maybe bump power for a Solstice version.

They could go turbo, but I think they chose the S/C for the Ion and Cobalt to help eliminate turbo lag. I don't know if they would do this as a selling point (better acceleration from a stop, such as on a test drive/normal use) or simply to cut down on potential reliability problems from people abusing trannies launching cars at high RPM's to prevent lag.

They could go turbo, but I would expect them to stick with the S/C they are using now with the Ion and Cobalt.
 
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Top