Interesting post here that I happen to agree with:
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache....com/archives/003660.html+solstice+"v8"&hl=en
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache....com/archives/003660.html+solstice+"v8"&hl=en
When I say I agree with it, I'm referring to the comments about GMs decision making in the past & present. Whether anyone is gay or not is their business and I could care less--I am strictly focusing on comments regarding GMs decision making and execution.brentil said:What in particular do you agree with about this?
I read this and I'm appalled at what I read. This person sounds like an uneducated homophobe.
radtech said:Interesting post here that I happen to agree with:
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache....com/archives/003660.html+solstice+"v8"&hl=en
They could have offered 3 engines: 170HP 2.4L, 253HP 2.0L Turbo, or 400HP LS2 6.0L. No one would be pissin and moanin because they would have a choice. Also, according to Mallet the stock tranny and rear can withstand +600HP. But leave it to GM to dictate what we get as usual.SkyHawk said:Had GM come out with that up front as their base model, everyone would be pissin and moanin about the price.
So the base model is a Wolf in cheap clothing :lol:
To come out with those 3 versions at the same time would significantly delayed launch of the vehicle (by at least a year or 2). It takes considerable time, effort and moolah to develop different versions of the same base vehicle.radtech said:They could have offered 3 engines: 170HP 2.4L, 253HP 2.0L Turbo, or 400HP LS2 6.0L. No one would be pissin and moanin because they would have a choice. Also, according to Mallet the stock tranny and rear can withstand +600HP. But leave it to GM to dictate what we get as usual.
lol...you're right except it would take Der General at least 5 years. Case in point...how long did it take for the Concept to go to production?SkyHawk said:To come out with those 3 versions at the same time would significantly delayed launch of the vehicle (by at least a year or 2). It takes considerable time, effort and moolah to develop different versions of the same base vehicle.
And time and moolah are no friends of Der General...![]()
Actually GM gets praise for the Solstice development cycle. The Solstice has one of the shortest development cycles of pretty much any car in the last 20 years. It went from pure concept to saleable in less then 3 years. Most cars take anywahere from 4-8 years of development time. It doesn't matter if it's GM or Toyota. Cars in general take a long time to design and make.radtech said:lol...you're right except it would take Der General at least 5 years. Case in point...how long did it take for the Concept to go to production?
It may be a bit of a stretch to say that it the Solstice went from concept to saleable in LT 3 yrs. It was introduced as a concept at the NAIAS on Jan 6th, 2002 (exactly 3.5 years ago tomorrow) - see URL below - and we can assume that the concept was developed before introduction and we're still not close to when you can say the Solstice is truly "saleable".brentil said:Actually GM gets praise for the Solstice development cycle. The Solstice has one of the shortest development cycles of pretty much any car in the last 20 years. It went from pure concept to saleable in less then 3 years. Most cars take anywahere from 4-8 years of development time. It doesn't matter if it's GM or Toyota. Cars in general take a long time to design and make.
If they had put all three engine choices in it would have easily taken 5 years instead of 3. The quick design time was due to focusing on one engine to start with. Then one year more of development after that arrives the GXP/RL versions. You also get the benefits of the previous years worth of cars issues being fixed by then to provide an even better car.
Since performance and sports cars began we have heard this same argument for more power right from the start... Way back in 1953 when the Corvette came out with a 6 cylinder engine they said it was underpowered... the muscle cars of the 60's started out as family sedans... before they dropped in the big engines...radtech said:They could have offered 3 engines: 170HP 2.4L, 253HP 2.0L Turbo, or 400HP LS2 6.0L. No one would be pissin and moanin because they would have a choice. Also, according to Mallet the stock tranny and rear can withstand +600HP. But leave it to GM to dictate what we get as usual.
When the soldiers returning from England after WWII brought over 50hp MG's they started beating full-sized V8's on road courses because they had handling. This car handles as evidenced by one of the highest lateral g numbers outside of dedicated racecar engineering. Don't race for pink slips in the 1/4 mile but instead on a road course.classic66vair said:Since performance and sports cars began we have heard this same argument for more power right from the start... Way back in 1953 when the Corvette came out with a 6 cylinder engine they said it was underpowered... the muscle cars of the 60's started out as family sedans... before they dropped in the big engines...
Ok I will probably ruffel some feathers, but these small sports roadsters were not being designed for breakneck 0-60 times, or 1/4 mile times or top speed, they were designed to be the best handling most fun to drive cars for less money than you would have to spend elsewhere. thats why you se near 50/50 weight distribution, double wishbone front and rear suspension with bilstine shocks, a.9g skidpad rating, which with true performance tires will probably be 1g+... It's ok to want more power, but be patient, it will come with time.. besides these are right in the ballpark with the other small roadsters in this class...