I think I'm going to wait for the power top. I test drove an s2000 the other day and it was pretty sweet. Two latches released and one button without even having to move from your seat. At first, in the infatuation phase, you may not mind the manual top, but after a year or so, it may get old. Even the mags have commented on how it is a chore to lower the top. If you have any conflicting responses, just go test drive an s2000 and you will understand.
GM, we need a power top!!!
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Joined
·
1,287 Posts
Tried It
Tried an s2000. IMO.
Wait till you Actually drive the Sky.
I've been enjoying mine since day one
The lack of a power top just helps keep the cost down.
And it has fewer mechanical parts or motors to weight the car down or break
Simplicity.
Besides the top is down most of the time anyway.
Tried an s2000. IMO.
Wait till you Actually drive the Sky.
I've been enjoying mine since day one
The lack of a power top just helps keep the cost down.
And it has fewer mechanical parts or motors to weight the car down or break
Simplicity.
Besides the top is down most of the time anyway.
Owners on this forum have debunked the top "problem". The uninformed would think that it is a bigger nuisance than it really is... instead of focusing on price, looks, power, & handling.
The ugliest top in the business when down has to be the S2000! Nobody bothers with the snap-on tonneau cover, and the result is a big case of the uglies… can’t compare to the Solstice, Sky, MX-5, Crossfire, SLK… you name it. Honda is the one that needs to get with the program!! But Honda, alas, will probably discontinue the S2K after this run... their own Civic is catching up to it in power..lol (Same fate for their Acura RSX-S).
That S2000 ugly top when down, the lack of torque, and the cramped interior (smallest amongst the popular sports cars) were the primary reasons I passed up buying one… but I love the sounds that engine puts out, the reasonable price, the amazing shifter… etc.
Skyfell, if your main focus of a convertible is how easy/quick it is to put the top up & down, buy a Miata! Nothing quicker.
The only thing negative about the Sky Red Line that can't be debunked IMO is the total lack of storage... it doesn't bother me in the least, but it might some potential customers. To give up a little storage (mostly with the top down) and gain that look and that engine is a no brainer for me.
Anyone considering this car as their ONLY vehicle is a little crazy... they must hardly ever shop, or they leave the top up when they do and try to squeeze a few bags around the tank, or they shop alone and throw some bags in the passenger seat.
Taking this car across the country isn't my idea of a good time either. Virtually no luggage capacity even with the top up, not the smoothest ride in the world, etc. Many ppl WILL drive long distances in it... many to attend Kappa rallys, etc.
For me, it will be an around town commuter, cruiser, stoplight accelerator, and day trip fun machine, par excellence! Great power, decent mpg, amazing looks, fair price. Should be a keeper for many years.
The ugliest top in the business when down has to be the S2000! Nobody bothers with the snap-on tonneau cover, and the result is a big case of the uglies… can’t compare to the Solstice, Sky, MX-5, Crossfire, SLK… you name it. Honda is the one that needs to get with the program!! But Honda, alas, will probably discontinue the S2K after this run... their own Civic is catching up to it in power..lol (Same fate for their Acura RSX-S).
That S2000 ugly top when down, the lack of torque, and the cramped interior (smallest amongst the popular sports cars) were the primary reasons I passed up buying one… but I love the sounds that engine puts out, the reasonable price, the amazing shifter… etc.
Skyfell, if your main focus of a convertible is how easy/quick it is to put the top up & down, buy a Miata! Nothing quicker.
The only thing negative about the Sky Red Line that can't be debunked IMO is the total lack of storage... it doesn't bother me in the least, but it might some potential customers. To give up a little storage (mostly with the top down) and gain that look and that engine is a no brainer for me.
Anyone considering this car as their ONLY vehicle is a little crazy... they must hardly ever shop, or they leave the top up when they do and try to squeeze a few bags around the tank, or they shop alone and throw some bags in the passenger seat.
Taking this car across the country isn't my idea of a good time either. Virtually no luggage capacity even with the top up, not the smoothest ride in the world, etc. Many ppl WILL drive long distances in it... many to attend Kappa rallys, etc.
For me, it will be an around town commuter, cruiser, stoplight accelerator, and day trip fun machine, par excellence! Great power, decent mpg, amazing looks, fair price. Should be a keeper for many years.
Joined
·
2,238 Posts
I think after a year or so I'd be tired of paying for those extra toys. In Canada the S2000 starts at around $48k as apposed to the Sky which starts at $31k. If you want the extra toys get an S2000.
This car was designed to compete with the Miata. They are both in the same price range! Same features (for the most part). The Miata's roof is easier to put down but I think you still have to get out of the car to put it back up.
If you are going to compair cars compair the Miata and the Sky. If you want lots of toys go with some style and get a Z4 or a Mercedes.
The toys would be nice but most of us have ordered a Sky because of the looks and the price. Add another 10k to the price and I wouldn't have ordered one.
This car was designed to compete with the Miata. They are both in the same price range! Same features (for the most part). The Miata's roof is easier to put down but I think you still have to get out of the car to put it back up.
If you are going to compair cars compair the Miata and the Sky. If you want lots of toys go with some style and get a Z4 or a Mercedes.
The toys would be nice but most of us have ordered a Sky because of the looks and the price. Add another 10k to the price and I wouldn't have ordered one.
I would definitely pay a grand for a power top. With a power top, you tend to use it more so then without, especially on short commutes. I'm a single 25 yr. old with no kids, so I think I can manage without a back seat. Another thing is the huge blind spot. I would prefer driving with the top down just to eliminate the expansive black void. I just feel that after a while, people are going to see it my way, and with Honda entering the world of turbocharging(the new Acura SUV) a replacement for the s2000 is not too far off, with gobs of torque. As for the miata, I have tried very hard to appreciate it for what it is, but in the end, one thing pops in to my mind=CHICK CAR.
I've also got a Sunfire Convertible and the convenience of the power top is awesome. Press a button and secure a single latch in the front middle. I've opened and closed it at many a red light.
But I've got to say the Sky is an incredible bargain relative to the Honda. Overall its a much better purchase compared to the Honda and the Miata and I think it looks a lot nicer than the Solstice, too.
Another car that offers a relative bargain--but at a much higher price is the Mercedes 280 Convertible which starts at $43,800. Thats how far up the price ladder I have to go to beat the Sky.
But I've got to say the Sky is an incredible bargain relative to the Honda. Overall its a much better purchase compared to the Honda and the Miata and I think it looks a lot nicer than the Solstice, too.
Another car that offers a relative bargain--but at a much higher price is the Mercedes 280 Convertible which starts at $43,800. Thats how far up the price ladder I have to go to beat the Sky.
Skyfell, thats interesting your characterization of the Miata as a "chick car".
I think thats pretty much the concensus, but it was NOT when the car first came out. The Miata was one of the hottest new cars to ever be released and impossible to get.
Do you fear that over time, the "solstice/sky" kappas could be "chick cars". I've talked to a few people who think that. I personally think the Solstice has definite chick car potential, especially if they push the envelope on production which I think GM will be tempted to do. I don't think the Sky will become a chick car because of its edgier design..at worst its a Corvette-light. Maybe a "boys" car someday (you know someday when I grow up for $20 K more I'll get my 400 horses?)--but not a "chick" car.
I think thats pretty much the concensus, but it was NOT when the car first came out. The Miata was one of the hottest new cars to ever be released and impossible to get.
Do you fear that over time, the "solstice/sky" kappas could be "chick cars". I've talked to a few people who think that. I personally think the Solstice has definite chick car potential, especially if they push the envelope on production which I think GM will be tempted to do. I don't think the Sky will become a chick car because of its edgier design..at worst its a Corvette-light. Maybe a "boys" car someday (you know someday when I grow up for $20 K more I'll get my 400 horses?)--but not a "chick" car.
I would love for it to have a power top. I traded in a mustang convertible for the SKY, and with the mustang, I could be stuck in traffic and raise or lower the top going under 10 mph, it was very convenient with a push of a button.
Yesterday I was stuck in the center lane of the Washington beltway, bumper to bumper traffic. I had my top down as when I left work it was a sunny day. I storm came through though and it started pouring, while traffic was moving at about 10mph. It took me about 5 minutes to get over to the shoulder (DC drivers are mean). Once I pulled over, the top was up in less than 30 seconds and I was back on my way.
That being said, big deal. I love the look of the car with the top down, love that it stows in the trunk and you cant see it, and dont mind this inconvenience enough to not want the car. I do agree though, a power top would be nice though I think it would probably add quite a bit more than 1K to the price tag.
Yesterday I was stuck in the center lane of the Washington beltway, bumper to bumper traffic. I had my top down as when I left work it was a sunny day. I storm came through though and it started pouring, while traffic was moving at about 10mph. It took me about 5 minutes to get over to the shoulder (DC drivers are mean). Once I pulled over, the top was up in less than 30 seconds and I was back on my way.
That being said, big deal. I love the look of the car with the top down, love that it stows in the trunk and you cant see it, and dont mind this inconvenience enough to not want the car. I do agree though, a power top would be nice though I think it would probably add quite a bit more than 1K to the price tag.
Joined
·
2,950 Posts
I have no problem with the top at all, even my wife stricken with terminal cancer can pu tthe top up and down now.... those magazines and exagerating the top problems, once you get used to it there is no problems... power tops add more cost , complexity, weight, and REPAIR COSTS!!!Skyfell said:
I will gladly keep my manual top just for thise reasons alone...
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
The difference between a Roadster and a Convertible
The Roadster Tradition is that they have tops to keep your head semi-dry when it rains. But they are designed as top-down cars for the most part. And the SKY has impeccable lines with the top down - better than just about any other car ever built.
Convertibles are more comfort cars where you can drop the top on a nice day - but with heavy, padded tops they tend to be quite comfortable with the top up. The SKY is pretty miserable with the top up due to visibility, and getting in and out of the car.
Roadsters had manual tops, usually with snaps. Many of them had crank-up windows, too. (No need for the expense/weight of power windows on true Roadsters.) Hard-Core Roadsters had "removable" side windows that you left at home much to your regret when caught on the road in the rain.
Convertibles had power tops, power windows, power locks, power everything. The Saab is a convertible. The Chrysler Sebring is a convertible. Notice, too, that the term is usually "Convertible Hard-Top" not "Roadster Hard-Top".
If you want to push a button, get a convertible.
If you want to stash the top and go with the top down in a driving experience (not a "convenience" experience) get a roadster.
The SKY, with power windows and locks and A/C is awfully darned close to the edge of Roadster territory. Give it a power top, and it's just a two-seat convertible.
No thanks, GM. Keep the power top for the luxo-mobiles. As for me, I like getting out and stowing it away myself. And, thanks for having no snaps, no boot, and a completely invisible top when it's down.
By the way - people have talked about the weight, cost, and mechanical unreliability of motors. What about the extra space required for them, and the beefier top construction that would be required? Who here wants to sacrifice trunk space for motors and a heavier frame? Anybody? I don't see any hands coming up...
The Roadster Tradition is that they have tops to keep your head semi-dry when it rains. But they are designed as top-down cars for the most part. And the SKY has impeccable lines with the top down - better than just about any other car ever built.
Convertibles are more comfort cars where you can drop the top on a nice day - but with heavy, padded tops they tend to be quite comfortable with the top up. The SKY is pretty miserable with the top up due to visibility, and getting in and out of the car.
Roadsters had manual tops, usually with snaps. Many of them had crank-up windows, too. (No need for the expense/weight of power windows on true Roadsters.) Hard-Core Roadsters had "removable" side windows that you left at home much to your regret when caught on the road in the rain.
Convertibles had power tops, power windows, power locks, power everything. The Saab is a convertible. The Chrysler Sebring is a convertible. Notice, too, that the term is usually "Convertible Hard-Top" not "Roadster Hard-Top".
If you want to push a button, get a convertible.
If you want to stash the top and go with the top down in a driving experience (not a "convenience" experience) get a roadster.
The SKY, with power windows and locks and A/C is awfully darned close to the edge of Roadster territory. Give it a power top, and it's just a two-seat convertible.
No thanks, GM. Keep the power top for the luxo-mobiles. As for me, I like getting out and stowing it away myself. And, thanks for having no snaps, no boot, and a completely invisible top when it's down.
By the way - people have talked about the weight, cost, and mechanical unreliability of motors. What about the extra space required for them, and the beefier top construction that would be required? Who here wants to sacrifice trunk space for motors and a heavier frame? Anybody? I don't see any hands coming up...
Joined
·
176 Posts
Thank you for this post. I can now go argue with a co-worker who insisted that the Sky is NOT a roadster. Mr. know-it-all also told me that Roadsters do not have a top PERIOD.jdigiant said:
Skyfell said:
I know first hand what a Roadster is...Our 92 viper is just that....The top is removeable(usually need 2 people), it must be folder twice to fit in the trunk...Its takes roughly 5 minutes from start to finish, unless you would want to place it in its fancy leather pouch, that takes a nother couple of minutes.......primitive yes! But fun, and alot of power....V-10 of course...:thumbs: So the is nothin compared to that...Also I had a Sebring (a convertible)not the same........A Crossfire too expensive besides the styling not appealing to me...:nonod:
A power top simply would not fit this car. It would add FAR too much weight and take away from the driving experience. The added cost also would hurt the car quite a bit. If GM decided to start adding accoutrements such as a power top to the car and pricing it around $27k+ the demand would drop to nil. Right now it's priced right and if it takes the lack of a power top to keep it at that price then so be it.
Joined
·
104 Posts
HEY Skyfell has a right to his opinions. What we really need is for GM or SATURN TO FIRE rube goldberg, WHO OBVIOUSLY DESIGNED THIS AWFUL TOP
and hire the guys who designed the Honda and Miata tops, Alfa Romeo spiders had great tops way before the Japs had sports cars.
and hire the guys who designed the Honda and Miata tops, Alfa Romeo spiders had great tops way before the Japs had sports cars.
Joined
·
104 Posts
Ok skyfell, I just defended your right to your opinions but then you refer to the mx5 Miata as a "CHICKS CAR". To quote Monte Burns: "you've just made a powerful enemy" Cars have no genitals and people who think they do, just might be having a sexual identity crisis.
I still defend your rights, but don't be stupid.
I still defend your rights, but don't be stupid.
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!