The trunk area of the Miata is designed much better than the Sky - it actually has a usable trunk. They did this by extending the interior beyond the seatbacks and placed the roof in this space. This allowed them to have a conventional trunk. On the Sky, the interior space ends right behind the seatbacks, forcing the roof to take up all the trunk space. Placing the trunk hinges in the back took up any remaining trunk space. Not a smart design at all. They had a good package design to use - the Miata design - why didn't they use it?
Packaging of Trunk Area
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Joined
·
2,686 Posts
Could be that the engineers at GM were not worried about making a better Miata; they were bringing out their own product with new designs and features that you may not find on the Miata. Try liking the SKY for what it is instead of what it isn't. 
Joined
·
2,360 Posts
:brentil:
Why the Solstice/Kappa sucks compared to car XXX post # 583...
It was a design decision for looks. The Solstice/Sky will have a much better exterior appearance then the Miata due to not having the roof being visible behind the front seat. This gives the car better lines and also protects the roof from the elements when down. Ok, so this eats into your trunk space when it's down. If you really need the extra space keep it up. Also, unless you're one of the 3 people at the Solstice forum, or a GM engineer I don't think any of us are qualified to really state "usable trunk" until we've actually used the car.
Another major issue causing trunk space problems is the fuel tank. That Mayan step temple in the middle of the trunk area is the fuel tank. It's up this high because the drive line runs right underneath it. The car would require a far more complex and FAR more expensive specialty fuel tank like the Z4/Corvette that rounds over the drive line and kisses the back of the seats in order to free up that extra space. The Kappa architecture at least in these first iterations is about being more back-to-basics Roadsters the every day Joe can afford. Which means there's going to be compromises of functionality of cost for certain things.
Why the Solstice/Kappa sucks compared to car XXX post # 583...
It was a design decision for looks. The Solstice/Sky will have a much better exterior appearance then the Miata due to not having the roof being visible behind the front seat. This gives the car better lines and also protects the roof from the elements when down. Ok, so this eats into your trunk space when it's down. If you really need the extra space keep it up. Also, unless you're one of the 3 people at the Solstice forum, or a GM engineer I don't think any of us are qualified to really state "usable trunk" until we've actually used the car.
Another major issue causing trunk space problems is the fuel tank. That Mayan step temple in the middle of the trunk area is the fuel tank. It's up this high because the drive line runs right underneath it. The car would require a far more complex and FAR more expensive specialty fuel tank like the Z4/Corvette that rounds over the drive line and kisses the back of the seats in order to free up that extra space. The Kappa architecture at least in these first iterations is about being more back-to-basics Roadsters the every day Joe can afford. Which means there's going to be compromises of functionality of cost for certain things.
Joined
·
432 Posts
wtxhl said:
in the miata, the trunk is behind the roof; in the sky/sol the trunk is under the roof. and the space is still usable! plus, we have the advantage of the roof being hidden while down. in the miata, it just kinda folds back and is still visible. i, for one, prefer the way they did it in the kappa twins.
edit: again, i am the slow typer
Joined
·
2,686 Posts
brentil said:
This also protects the fuel cell even better from rear end collision. It is up off of the bottom of the car and a considerable distance away from the rear end in comparison to other like styled cars.
Actually, it appears the fuel tank in the new MX-5 is in the proper place for a Z-fold roof - directly under the storage section for the roof and slightly forward of the differential. The MX-5's structure is also considerably different, allowing more flexibility in piecing together the packaging for the rear. Personally, I think they sacrificed too much in structure (unhhh.... that is IF I were to get a ride in the new MX-5 and were to assess it as slightly improved but not to the solid level of structure as in a Honda S2000... Of course, I've never had an official opportunity to evaluate an MX-5.)
There are also fuel tank capacity requirements (like must have more than so many cruising miles). In this case, it seems like about 13.5 gallons give or take is the minimum fuel tank capacity for convenience.
The AFBTS's eat up room on the sides that could have been used for the fuel tank, which created a packaging nightmare.
Piecing together what seems to have happened:
The bottom of the tank was constrained by two things: 1) the need for a single fuel pickup, and 2) the need for a simple fuel tank shape. Both of these were specifically aimed at reduced cost. The corvette has a dual pickup tank that makes that fuel system VERY expensive (having an extra 10" behind the seat and before the differential/trans doesn't hurt either).
The top of the fuel tank, once the plan view shape was established (roughly rectangular/trapezoidal), became a function of how much fuel they required.
Why is it rectangular/trapeziodal? Because there is a need to have two "pockets" on either side of the tank. These "pockets" are NOT for the hinges, they are actually to store the folded-up AFBTS's.
IF they could have had a more traditional roof without the buttresses, then the tank could have spanned the entire trunk width, picked up another 5-8 gallons, and the top of the tank could have been lowered to almost half of the height it is now. It would have been a flat, more rectangular and wider tank, holding 13-14 gallons, and the trunk would have been set up much better.
But alas - everyone says styling sells. Maybe it's true, and form wins out over function. As long as this design exists, however, I suspect we'll still get posts like wtxhl's.
Hope that helps to shed some light on it.
There are also fuel tank capacity requirements (like must have more than so many cruising miles). In this case, it seems like about 13.5 gallons give or take is the minimum fuel tank capacity for convenience.
The AFBTS's eat up room on the sides that could have been used for the fuel tank, which created a packaging nightmare.
Piecing together what seems to have happened:
The bottom of the tank was constrained by two things: 1) the need for a single fuel pickup, and 2) the need for a simple fuel tank shape. Both of these were specifically aimed at reduced cost. The corvette has a dual pickup tank that makes that fuel system VERY expensive (having an extra 10" behind the seat and before the differential/trans doesn't hurt either).
The top of the fuel tank, once the plan view shape was established (roughly rectangular/trapezoidal), became a function of how much fuel they required.
Why is it rectangular/trapeziodal? Because there is a need to have two "pockets" on either side of the tank. These "pockets" are NOT for the hinges, they are actually to store the folded-up AFBTS's.
IF they could have had a more traditional roof without the buttresses, then the tank could have spanned the entire trunk width, picked up another 5-8 gallons, and the top of the tank could have been lowered to almost half of the height it is now. It would have been a flat, more rectangular and wider tank, holding 13-14 gallons, and the trunk would have been set up much better.
But alas - everyone says styling sells. Maybe it's true, and form wins out over function. As long as this design exists, however, I suspect we'll still get posts like wtxhl's.
Hope that helps to shed some light on it.
Joined
·
1,219 Posts
Sky fuel tank
From all the photos I've seen, I don't think that the "hump" is the fuel tank. There are no filler pipes going to the hump. Isn't the tank located behind the seats? That would leave the hump as the resting place for the window when the tops is down (assuming that the glass would hold up better on a flat surface).
From all the photos I've seen, I don't think that the "hump" is the fuel tank. There are no filler pipes going to the hump. Isn't the tank located behind the seats? That would leave the hump as the resting place for the window when the tops is down (assuming that the glass would hold up better on a flat surface).
Joined
·
2,950 Posts
I passed a Miata the other day and it had it;s top down, I was in my truck and could look directly down on the car... the top folded down made the car look unfinished... crude and unrefined...... of course they could have put the boot over the folded top, but that must be too much trouble, most Miatas i have seen never put the boot on....or it just takes too long...wtxhl said:
Joined
·
4,853 Posts
I know in Mother's case it just takes too long. She usually drops her top in under 5 seconds at a stop sign by her house. That's one of the things she loves about it. If she wanted to put the boot on, that would be a whole process that she's not interested in. I won't be able to go topless without getting out of the car, but that's a price I'm willing to pay for beauty.classic66vair said:
only time will tell how much trunk space will have effect on people buying this car. This was the same case w/ Miata vs. Toyota MR2 spyder. No space in Toyota, and the sales were not as high as the Miata... But, oh well. Fun factor vs practicality.
Personally, it'll be my 2nd vehicle, so I'm looking more for the fun factor than practicality.
Personally, it'll be my 2nd vehicle, so I'm looking more for the fun factor than practicality.
Joined
·
2,686 Posts
:lol: We had better be careful this is beginning to sound like a beer commercial. "Great looks! More trunk space!" "Great looks! More trunk space!" "Great looks! More trunk space!" I do enjoy the vivacious conversations here. Many of you do come with a great deal of factual information narrowing down the need for speculation. :cheers:
Joined
·
2,686 Posts
YYYYYYYYYYeeeeeeeeeesssssssssss!!!!!!!! :cheers: Now that is what I am talking about.classic66vair said:
Joined
·
205 Posts
the olny thing i want to put in my trunk is a 5 galon tank 8 valves and pump
Joined
·
2,950 Posts
I don't think Saturn cares too much about how many they can sell, since plans only call for 10,000 a year, I am sure they can sell that many... since Pontiac already has close to that many orders for the Solstice and it has just come out officially the first of August....Whynot said:
Toyota is more of a high volume manufacturer, if they can't sell 50,000 of somethng they will drop it... hmmm anyone see the MR2 listed on the Toyota website?
Joined
·
202 Posts
You're not putting 5 gallons of anything in a trunk with 1.4cubic feet :lol:theirishgonzo said:
Kappaman: what is AFBTS? that's a new abbreviation for me.
Now, if I need trunk space I'll be taking the GTO (never thought I'd be saying that!)
I liked the idea of the fitted luggage that kappasphere was thinking of doing. Didn't Porsche do something like that for the Boxster?
Joined
·
432 Posts
hmmm... its in the FAQs of the solsticeforum, but did it make it over here?GMinTheDriveway said:
artsy fartsy somethine something something
Joined
·
2,360 Posts
http://www.skyroadster.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16349&postcount=8swatthefly said:
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Join the discussion
