Pontiac Solstice Forum banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
everyone by having a 250-horse power motor in the Solstice when the car is finally launched next year (and for the same projected cost)?

I'm by no means a car expert, but to me it seems like a roadster such a the Solstice would be perfectly matched with that size motor. Also, with regard to the "surprize" aspect, I do seem to recall that GM surprized a lot of people a few years ago -- and much to the dismay of their competitors -- by dropping a Corvette motor in the Camero. So one never knows...........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Well I'm going to surprise you with something!

so without any more delay...

SURPRISE!!!! GM will never "surprize" us with that kind of motor. I know so, and if you want to argue with me go ahead. However, they may "surprise" us with such a thing...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,901 Posts
Dude, don't gotta be so rough on him naoki, he was just posting a hypothetical question. :skep
 

·
Mod Emeritus
Joined
·
7,468 Posts
Were not going to get that big of a surprise. GM has announced the 170 HP motor, and a base price right around $19.9, and that is what they will deliver.

Not all hope is lost however, their 2.0L supercharged is a likely higher output motor for the car (although by no means is it definately heading to the Solstice, there could be others, a turbo, the L850). But if it is, its getting close to your hoped output. Its listed at only 205 HP, 200 Lb-Ft, but it is underrated based on wheel dyno testing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
The Camaro getting the vette motor wasn't really a surprise. Ever since the L98s came out in the 80's, they have shared motors.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,206 Posts
Saab has been doing turbos longer than Saturn has with superchargers on ecotec engines...

James' wish isn't too far from reality.

But, then again, as Austin Powers said,

"...and I want a toilet made of gold, baby, but it's not in the cards, is it?..."

Seriously, tho I am in the minority, my long shot bet is on a turbo. James, lots of discussion on some of the threads regarding supercharger, turbocharging, displacement, etc.

Consensus is a SC, but there are a few that are thinking turbo.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
554 Posts
If I'm not mistaken neighbour or is that neighbor spelling is in the eye of the beholder or the country :jester
 

·
Mod Emeritus
Joined
·
7,468 Posts
The better GM does with this car, the more of a surprise it will be. We are all enthusiastic about it, and GM appears to be doing everything right. However, I am still just a little skeptical based on GM's background that they will still manage to screw something up on this car. Hopefully they do not, and I hate to be pessimistic about it, but its still General Motors! They worry me! :smile
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,206 Posts
Fformula88,

If we act like detectives, I think we can put together the clues and see the area that we should all be concerned about.

It looks like they'll come thru with the price: a model available for $20,000. GM (Lutz) has been very vocal about this. They won't let that slip off the table.

A quick look at the vehicle parameters, GM boasting, and some of the comments on driving and we can be reasonably sure the following areas WON'T be disappointments:
1) Handling (nice wide tires, decent track, SLA front and rear suspension, monotube shocks, quotes of 'around 0.9g skidpad' in C&D article, comments from people who have driven rough Solstices)
2) Steering (comments, looks like all the bits are there, etc.)
3) Seats, which in the past have been a big disappointment for me for most of the GM cars I have owned - I'll have to sit in them but they LOOK like they'll be supportive enough, if the bolsters have enough support and aren't non-supported like the old Beretta GTZ
4) Pedal placement (comments from driving impressions)
5) Shifter/Trans operation and ergonomics [ohhhh, big words, I know] (comments, components used)
6) Power/Acceleration (power-weight ratio, touting and boasting by GM about the ecotec performance, comments from driving impressions, value) Besides, you could strap on solid rocket boosters and some of you still wouldn't have enough power... :lol
7) Braking (looking at rotor sizes quoted, etc.)
8) Overall styling, natch.

Now, what exactly have they been quiet about or been hiding? GM has a tendency to ignore or gloss over things that they consider disadvantages, and hope we won't notice. Let's see if we can tease out this little slight of hand:

Nowhere in official information, either handed out at auto shows or online or talked about in interviews is there mention of exactly what 4 cubic feet/2 cubic feet of storage means. How usable is it? Is it really 4/2 or is it less or more? Hmmm.

Also never mentioned, but brought up in forums and hearsay is the spare tire or lack of it. Hmmm #2.

Which brings me to the elusive convertible top. GM says: *cricket* *cricket* *cricket*. The silence is deafening. Actually they have said that "it stows under the rear decklid" but that's it. What's the deal? The only pics we've seen were obscure angles in the England articles, and the glimpse of a few of the mules if you're one of the lucky ones to live near the GM proving ground. What could this mean? What does the top look like? How easy will it be to operate? Is there a good balance between the styling and the ease of operation? Is it a one-handed operation? Do you have to get out of the car to put it up or down? HMMMMM! [IN CAPS]

If we don't see some model putting the top up and down at the detroit auto show, I'll begin to get very worried.

So, let's sum up the internet detective work. What areas should we be concerned about due to the lack of information - which usually means GM sees they may be deficient:

1) Storage
2) Spare tire, or inflator kit? No run-flats, right?
3) The convertible top.

Guys and gals, am I missing something here, or is this suspicious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
The top has me worried also. I wish they would do away with the speed bumps behind the seats so they could use a coventional top. The bump are cool, but I don't want them if I have to deal with a screwed up top.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
solsticeman said:
What areas should we be concerned about due to the lack of information - which usually means GM sees they may be deficient:

1) Storage
2) Spare tire, or inflator kit? No run-flats, right?
3) The convertible top.

Guys and gals, am I missing something here, or is this suspicious.
I think you're right on the money, it's suspicious. I was discussing the Solstice on another board, and the two biggest areas of concern were the (apparent) lack of storage and the ease of operation of the convertible top. And I think it's no coincidence that the two are related; the design of the top mechanism pretty much determines the size and shape of the space left for storage in the trunk. I imagine they're still working 24/7 on this, trying to get everything to fit without changing the lines of the car.

I wonder if they might add a split across the rear deck. That is, add a trunk that opens conventionally, and have a smaller rear-hinged cover for the top, instead of the one-piece cover shown on the concept. I don't think it would impact the styling that much, and it would make access to the trunk a lot easier.

-Stephen M
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,901 Posts
The bumps are part of the reinforced structure over the internal roll bar, which can be seen [HERE]. The exterior shell extends over the internal roll bar to provide protection to the driver incase of a roll-over. They help prevent the frame from crushing inwards if the car rolled over on the roof. If you were able to tuck yourself into the car in time before it rolled over completely it would keep you from getting crushed in the car. They could have made them look a little different true. If you look at the VX Lightning you can see them there too, but in an angular shape instead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
brentil, I don't think that little hoop will do much to protect you in a roll-over. The size and shape of that hoop lead me to believe that in a roll-over it is going to be crushed like a coke can.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,206 Posts
Inside info says: those bars were oversized and enhanced for the autoshow on the rolling cutaway. The real purpose is strictly to support the double-humped panel and are only about 3/8" in diameter (thick wire).

They are most definitely NOT rollover crush protection. But it looks kool, doesn't it?
 

·
Mod Emeritus
Joined
·
7,468 Posts
Good detective work! Your right, GM has said nothing at all in regards to the convertable top. In some of the articles we have seen, the writers have mentioned it is a bit of a bear, but that GM informed them it still has a lot of development to go. However, if it were going to be as simple as a traditional top (flip the latch and throw it back) I doubt the mules would be equipped with something different. Hopefully they develop some work arounds, but this is definately a concern area.

Trunk space we will be stuck with. The car just is not big, and it needs room for the top in the back, as well as the rear diff underneath the car. Its just not going to be very big back there.
 

·
Mod Emeritus
Joined
·
7,468 Posts
Oops! Crossed in the mail again!! :smile

solsticeman said:
Inside info says: those bars were oversized and enhanced for the autoshow on the rolling cutaway. The real purpose is strictly to support the double-humped panel and are only about 3/8" in diameter (thick wire).

They are most definitely NOT rollover crush protection. But it looks kool, doesn't it?
Its a little dissapointing that they didn't design it stronger to function as a rollover hoop underneath the bodywork. It isn't really high and would not offer ideal protection, but it would be more protection than not having any at all, which is the case now.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,901 Posts
Well damn. Thanks for the correction guys. Maybe a functional roll bar will be an option later. If not the after market will have one of course. I'd like to think those panels on the sides of the bumps would be for a roll bar, but more then likely they'll be for where the roof bars come through more then likely.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top