Saturn Sky Forum banner

1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Kappaman's specs for the Sky says there's no storage behind the seats and only two cubic feet in the trunk with the top down. Do the math. That's about enough room for one hampster and a squirrel. By comparison, the Chrysler Crossfire, Mazda Miata, and Honda S2000 each offer about five cubic feet of storage.

I want the Sky for destination driving...going to the beach, a trip to the Keys, running errands, tennis, etc. Where's the room for the cooler, clothes, a couple bags of groceries and a case of beer, the tennis racket, or fishing pole? Don't tell me to put it on the seat: somebody will be sitting there.

Seriously, Sky's lack of storage is a big problem for me, particularly when it comes to extra clothes for a trip. Maybe we could get Samsonite to come up with a sporty, weatherproof carrier that locks on the lid of the trunk, but can easily be detached and rolled to the motel room.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
I agree. 2 cubuc feet is ridiculous! Where is the fuel tank located on the other cars, which allow them at least 5 cubic feet trunk storage?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,360 Posts
The Solstice has 3.8 cu.ft. with the top up, and 1.8 cu.ft. with the roof down. The majority of the other cars in the market have a entirely seperate compartment to put the top in which folds into a smaller manor. The Solstice/Sky hide the top from view completely by putting them in the trunk instead of the seperate compartment. You can supposedly still fit a set of clubs in a Sunday gold bag under the top while its down, and two when its up.

The reason the fuel tank takes up so much space is a fairly simple guess too. This is THE cheapest Roadster in production. Being such means it's development was also cheaper in order to keep costs down. It also means parts have to be made cheaper in order to keep costs down. The fuel tank could have been like a Corvette/Z4 design, but that would have raised the car price easily a couple hundred alone. Since these style cars have a high tunnel, they use a fuel tank that forms behind the seats and rounds over the tunnel. This requires an odly shaped tank, along with multiple fuel pumps and electronics to get fuel over the tunnel hump. Instead they went for the simple tank that requires one fuel sender and a basic design. It's probably even a tank from another car too to keep costs even lower.
 

·
First 2000 Sr. Member
Joined
·
4,853 Posts
Florida Skyline said:
That's about enough room for one hampster and a squirrel.
Sounds like quite a weekend to me!

I'm actually already keeping an eye out for a second car for storage / seating capacity and winter weather. I thought about just buying an Audi convertible instead of getting two cars, but I'm in love with the Sky- nothing else evokes the same emotion from me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
We pay more $$$ for less car and call it a good deal!

The only reason these are the cheapest roadsters in production is due to the fact that the base models are completely spartan. I will use the Solstice as an example since it is the cheaper of the two.

I didn't think in this day and age that basic safety & convenience features such as ABS brakes, Air Conditioning, Floor Mats, and KeyLess Entry would be optional equipment. They are a few other options that should be standard (IMHO). But the point is that this car is the cheapest roadster because you basically get a car with good looks, two seats, and relatively no luggage compartment for $20,000. Tell me what's so great about that!

Seems to me that we (consumers) pay more money for less car, and call it a good deal, when it really should be the other way around. Why do two-seaters cost more than your average 4-door, 5 passenger sedan? Does that make sense? There is so much less material used in a two-seater, so why do they cost more?

I'm interested to hear opinions on the subject.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
I was very seriously planning to get the Saturn Sky next year as a replacement for my 2003 BMW Z4.
For 50 -60% of the price of a Z4, I wouldn't expect the Sky to perform or handle as well as my Z4 or to have the build quality, but it's a great looking roadster and should perform sufficiently well to more than hold it's own in the crowded roadster field - particularly at that price point.
That said, there are 2 things the car must have for me to buy:
1. The cabin must have enough head/legroom for me to fit comfortably (I'm 6'5").
2. It must have enough trunk room to allow me to take some luggage for a weekend or weeks vacation (packing very lightly, of course) or to hold 2 small golf bags with 1/2 sets of clubs. My current Z4 will do that and more from a cabin space and trunk room perspective with the top down (see pics below of 2 medium sized golf bags with the top down).
Failing that, I will probably hold on to my puppy for a few years til The General figures out a way to expand trunk space. :D
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
554 Posts
The Kappa platform cars, Solstice/Sky are designed for one thing, driving. Not hauling your junk around with you! If you want these cars to be more than a leisure vehicle than you need to choose something else (you can pack more stuff in a Honda Goldwing). In keeping with the true nature of a roadster, not like Honda, BMW or even Mazda, these cars are design for the driving experience only (you don't hear Lambo or Ferrari owners complaining, this is a poor mans roadster). If you want a weekend get away car to take romatic trips then buy something else! If you want pure driving pleasure of a roadster without the baggage then this is your vehicle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
Delnari said:
The Kappa platform cars, Solstice/Sky are designed for one thing, driving. Not hauling your junk around with you! If you want these cars to be more than a leisure vehicle than you need to choose something else (you can pack more stuff in a Honda Goldwing). In keeping with the true nature of a roadster, not like Honda, BMW or even Mazda, these cars are design for the driving experience only (you don't hear Lambo or Ferrari owners complaining, this is a poor mans roadster). If you want a weekend get away car to take romatic trips then buy something else! If you want pure driving pleasure of a roadster without the baggage then this is your vehicle.
I suspect that this is your first roadster. Kinda like your first date with the opposite sex, eh.? As long as the primary equipment is there you'll be happier than a pig in sh$t forever.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way - at least not for everyone.
You may be correct in that the car was designed for "driving" alone. I would argue that there are many roadsters which will not only provide "driving" fun, but also allow you to drive overnight somewhere, or for a weekend or for a week or to the golf course for a round of golf with bags in the back and with the top down.
But maybe you're right in that GM looked at the marketplace and determined that they would only go after that part of the marketplace which wanted a good looking, low priced roadster which performs reasonably well - and excludes all those who want to occassionally haul "junk" in the trunk.
I don't know how big that part of the market (who, like me, needs a modest amount of storage space in the trunk).
Having had lot's of roadsters and convertibles in my day, I can tell you that the gaa-gaa-goo-goo looks you get from others wears off real quick and while the driving fun will always be there, you'll soon wish for a trunk for your junk.
As for "poor man's roadster", my guess is that by the time you option up a Redline Sky, you're looking at close to $30K USD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
SkyHawk said:
Having had lot's of roadsters and convertibles in my day, I can tell you that the gaa-gaa-goo-goo looks you get from others wears off real quick and while the driving fun will always be there, you'll soon wish for a trunk for your junk.
As for "poor man's roadster", my guess is that by the time you option up a Redline Sky, you're looking at close to $30K USD.
I totally agree. GM needs to figure out a way to add some more trunk space for at least an overnight bag or two. Maybe they should have mounted the engine in the rear and under the hood could be the luggage compartment. But I guess that would have been too complicated a setup.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
I tend to agree with the thought that moving the engine to the rear would not be a cost effective or beneficial means of increasing trunk space. And as far as the gawking that may insue because of its radical design, it will wear off, but I hope that people are not purchasing cars for what other will think of them .. :cool: I still think you're cool.

We need to brainstorm as a group what a good cost effective means to increasing trunk space would be. I like the idea of changing the gas tank position. If the increase in price remained under a couple of hundred bucks it would be well worth it be increase the trunk.

P.S. does this thing have a spare tire.. and if it does.. where is it hiding it.. ??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
You know, up to know I thought that hump in the back had to do with the gas tank. I've since changed my mind from looking at these three pictures.

Trunk Hump

Frame Picture 1

Frame Picture 2

The top one shows the cross member bar on the fram that is the cause of the hump the second one show the placement of the fuel tank which is directly behind the seats.

Any idea why that "hump" could not be redesigned as inverted or something similar to remove it from the trunk all together..

You'd then be able to atleast get a carry on bag in the back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
sky_vue said:
I tend to agree with the thought that moving the engine to the rear would not be a cost effective or beneficial means of increasing trunk space. And as far as the gawking that may insue because of its radical design, it will wear off, but I hope that people are not purchasing cars for what other will think of them .. :cool: I still think you're cool.

We need to brainstorm as a group what a good cost effective means to increasing trunk space would be. I like the idea of changing the gas tank position. If the increase in price remained under a couple of hundred bucks it would be well worth it be increase the trunk.

P.S. does this thing have a spare tire.. and if it does.. where is it hiding it.. ??
Good point sky_vue.
I don't know if the Solstice or Sky have spare tires in the trunk area.
The Z4 was able to get additional trunk space by shoeing the Z4 with runflat tires, thereby eliminating the need for a spare. :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
432 Posts
These rants about the trunk space have been going on on both forums for a while, you as a comsumer have the ability to either buy it (SKY/SOL) or go to a competitor and buy something else.
GM is very much aware of this issue and it is not going to change it, at least for the first year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
432 Posts
SkyHawk said:
Good point sky_vue.
I don't know if the Solstice or Sky have spare tires in the trunk area.
The Z4 was able to get additional trunk space by shoeing the Z4 with runflat tires, thereby eliminating the need for a spare. :confused:
there is no spare tire. no run-flats either. we have a kit meant to re-inflate the tire.

sky_vue said:
You know, up to know I thought that hump in the back had to do with the gas tank. I've since changed my mind from looking at these three pictures.

Trunk Hump

Frame Picture 1

Frame Picture 2

The top one shows the cross member bar on the fram that is the cause of the hump the second one show the placement of the fuel tank which is directly behind the seats.

Any idea why that "hump" could not be redesigned as inverted or something similar to remove it from the trunk all together..

You'd then be able to atleast get a carry on bag in the back.

the "hump" is a gas tank. the reason that it sticks up so much, as earlier mentioned, is that in order to put it below the trunk, it will have to have a very unusual shape. this shape would require multiple fuel pumps, extra wiring, and obviousely, an unusually shaped gas tank.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
LatinVenom said:
These rants about the trunk space have been going on on both forums for a while, you as a comsumer have the ability to either buy it (SKY/SOL) or go to a competitor and buy something else.
GM is very much aware of this issue and it is not going to change it, at least for the first year.

Seems a bit harsh.. you as a poster have the ability to respond or just skip our discussion, you could start a new rant on something else.

We are very much aware that we are ranting and you are not going to change that.. at least not until we've had it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
LatinVenom said:
These rants about the trunk space have been going on on both forums for a while, you as a comsumer have the ability to either buy it (SKY/SOL) or go to a competitor and buy something else.
GM is very much aware of this issue and it is not going to change it, at least for the first year.
On what basis do you claim that you believe "GM is very much aware of this issue"???
Why would GM believe it's an issue. Maybe (as someone posted earlier), GM believes people only want to "drive" this car and have no need or desire to put "junk in the trunk".
Or maybe they're aware of "this issue" through discussions such as we are having on this MB (which you want to suppress). :banghead:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,360 Posts
SkyHawk said:
On what basis do you claim that you believe "GM is very much aware of this issue"???
Why would GM believe it's an issue. Maybe (as someone posted earlier), GM believes people only want to "drive" this car and have no need or desire to put "junk in the trunk".
Or maybe they're aware of "this issue" through discussions such as we are having on this MB (which you want to suppress). :banghead:
It's just like the Mobile on the Run commercials "we're drivers too." This car wasn't built by robots who just sit in offices making designs. It was designed by people who loves cars, and love to drive cars. On many occasions people who work for GM have posted at the Solstice forums and have made comments about the trunk size issue. They've all acknowledged it exists. We've brought it up many times here too. The trunk wasn't designed small because GM doesn't think we need a trunk, it was designed small unfortunately due to fuel tank placement in order to keep costs down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Every design project involves choices and compromises. I don't believe that GM has abandoned the first rule of marketing: Listen to your customers. They just haven't heard us yet; and this is a great forum to get them to.

As I said when I instigated this rant, I want a Sky for destination driving.​
I am not in the market for a 170 hp tractor or a car to use for driving lessons.​


I want to take with me the stuff I'll need when I get where I'm going like clothes or dive gear or golf clubs or a cooler, whatever. (Notice I said "or" - my needs are small, but they're not miniscule.)

My gripe is that the Sky designers' chose a money-saving advantage (use a stock gas tank) instead of a customer-benefit advantage (space for some luggage). I think that was a poor decision. In the scheme of things, trunk space is easily worth $200 or $300 to me. I'll bet if you asked a focus group or took a poll online here that most drivers would agree.
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top