Saturn Sky Forum banner

What engine would you like for your Sky?

  • Ecotec (177 HP 2.4L)

    Votes: 23 28.4%
  • Ecotec (253 HP 2.0L Turbo)

    Votes: 38 46.9%
  • LS2 V8 (400 HP 6.0L)

    Votes: 9 11.1%
  • LS7 V8 (500 HP 7.0L)

    Votes: 6 7.4%
  • Doesn't matter!

    Votes: 5 6.2%
1 - 20 of 61 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Hah

I'm the one vote for the "weak" engine. My Escort has about half that power so I think I'll be plenty happy with 177hp for now (I just graduated from school and this will be the first car I buy). Car forum people tend to be obsessed and willing to pay more for what they want. The price is one of the things I like best about the Solstice/Sky. A base Sky is only more expensive because it includes the items you need on the Solstice anyway (like A/C!!!... I live in Texas).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
Actually at 170 hp it's still going to go fast (7.5 secs) but that number gets closer to 8 if you weigh more.. so big people need more power (insert grunt here).

And yeah.. it would be a great first car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
sky_vue said:
Actually at 170 hp it's still going to go fast (7.5 secs) but that number gets closer to 8 if you weigh more.. so big people need more power (insert grunt here).

And yeah.. it would be a great first car.
If they wouldn't do a Turbo Set Up I'd have to add up a 6000 Vorktec anyway... so why not get the extra HP from the Turbo and then play with the engine? :cool:

This car is made for a 300HP under the hood! Let's face it :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,950 Posts
well I have owned cars with anything from 95 horsepower to 325 horsepower, and it really depends on how you want to drive the car, in my case I will be using the car to commute to work and back and for crusing in the mountians of East Tennessee and western NC, and I am sure tha 170 or 177 Hp will be completely satisfactory to do that task and last for a long time...
I do want to Caution anyone that wants a Turbo to be sure to research the maintenance requirements and replacement costs before purchasing one... the initial investment may just be the tip of the iceberg so to speak when it comes to cost of ownership...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
actuley a turbo setup just needs good oil and you must change it. a good turbo will last 200k as long you dont hat to rip apart the car to do a tuneup you will be ok. the most expencive things will be tires. the run 800 for a set of 245/40/17z rated. but if you put the 130 rated tires they are about 600 for a set.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,360 Posts
The Sky/Solstice have 245/45/18 tires. Unless you're talking about replacing the rims toos.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
Another vote for the "weaker" engine. 170 is fine for me, I plan on driving it to work and for fun, not racing it. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
waywyrd said:
Another vote for the "weaker" engine. 170 is fine for me, I plan on driving it to work and for fun, not racing it. :)
Guess... I always want more...

It will be my pleasure to pass you on the boulevard or the highway! :willy:

Just kidding! :cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,950 Posts
I have been doing a little research into the "weak"versions and "Strong" versions of some small cars. Instead of going into detail because the info is out there if you want to look it up yourself.
Starting with cars that have no turbo/supercharger and 170 hp(+or- 5 hp), the same cars with turbos and an average of 220 hp(+ or - 10 hp) the average 0-60 times was 1.2 seconds faster with the turbo... the prices of the non-turbo/supercharged compaired to the turbo/supercharged ranged from a low of $2.500 to a high of $5,000.
The question I have is How much are you willing to spend to pick up a little over a second on your 0-60 times.

Todays drivers are so spoiled on power they need to go back and fine themselves a stock Datsun b-210, or a stock Pinto, or Vega, Cars I grew up with, ones with the amazing 0-60 times you had to measure with a calendar... I mean in the 18 to 20 second range...
Just for a little reference here are some figures for a 1974 Camaro A performance car of the times.... and if some of these enviro wackos have their way we may go back to these performance figures..

Engines:
250 I6 100 bhp @ 3600 rpm, 175 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm.
307 V8 115 bhp @ 3600 rpm, 205 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm.
L-65 350 V8 145 bhp @ 4000 rpm, 255 lb-ft @ 2400 rpm.
California only: LM-1 350 V8 160 bhp @ 3800 rpm, 250 lb-ft @ 2400 rpm.
L48 350 V8 175 bhp @ 4000 rpm, 260 lb-ft @ 2800 rpm.
Z28: 350 V8 245 bhp @ 5200 rpm, 280 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm. :banghead:


So guys don't complain about a measily 170 hp from a 4 cylinder 2,860 pound car that goes from 0-60 in around 7 seconds, we could go back to the "good old days" :cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
classic66vair said:
So guys don't complain about a measily 170 hp from a 4 cylinder 2,860 pound car that goes from 0-60 in around 7 seconds, we could go back to the "good old days" :cheers:
I'm not complainning... it's just... I always wanted to fly! :D

And it's with a 300 HP Sky that I will :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,950 Posts
Snowy_Beast said:
I'm not complainning... it's just... I always wanted to fly! :D

And it's with a 300 HP Sky that I will :rolleyes:
If you want to fly get an airplane, the roads are meant for driving not flying...

Power is like money, your never satisfied with what you have, you always want more....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
Although you draw a good comparison, the eco tech engine is going to give you and extra two seconds off the line (7.5 to <5.5). This has been designed as a roadster, not a race car, but if you look at todays race cars, hell if you look at todays sedans (i.e the Subaru Legacy GT 0-60 in 5.2) people expect that their vehicle will improve on the performace.

That is why I want the turbo, because I can go at a liesurely pace in my mitsubishi.. and I can already run the 0-60 in 7 using my Saturn Vue, if this car is for driving fun it's got to have more kick.

And as a final note, power is not always used for speed. Using the pedal on turns and what not doesn't always mean you have to get there fast, but you have the acceleration you want from the of ramps. I don't know about your ramps up there, but in Orlando, we've got some short ramps into fast traffic..

P.S. people get spoiled because we make progress.. how happy would you be if it took you 8 weeks to go from New York to San Fransisco, you still can.. get a horse. Or maybe you are checking this forum using dialup, if you aren't be thankful someone somewhere wanted more speed, if you are.. you need to see it go on broadband.. Eitherway it's hard to believe that anyone would suggest a comparison between a 1974 Camaro and a 2006 Sky, it ridiculous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
classic66vair said:
Power is like money, your never satisfied with what you have, you always want more....
:confused: Nah.... power is like money... when you have more, you are satisfied :lol:

sky_vue said:
And as a final note, power is not always used for speed. Using the pedal on turns and what not doesn't always mean you have to get there fast, but you have the acceleration you want from the of ramps. I don't know about your ramps up there, but in Orlando, we've got some short ramps into fast traffic..
Right on! :cheers:

I'm so much tired of beeing blow off from BMW... now it's gonna be pay back time. And I already do 0-60 in 7sec.... now it's time for more fun!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
But let me ask the stupid question...how much higher will your insurance premium be with the turbo? I know Nissan used to make a "240" something (NO, not the Z you people) - which although sporty in appearance and handling, purposefully had a smallish engine for that very reason...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
432 Posts
This car is a roadster young lads, not a freaking 1/4 mile deamon, by the time you put all those HP($$$) into this car, you can very easily buy a 2005 GTO 400HP that will give you that 0 to 60 feeling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,950 Posts
sky_vue said:
Although you draw a good comparison, the eco tech engine is going to give you and extra two seconds off the line (7.5 to <5.5). This has been designed as a roadster, not a race car, but if you look at todays race cars, hell if you look at todays sedans (i.e the Subaru Legacy GT 0-60 in 5.2) people expect that their vehicle will improve on the performace.

That is why I want the turbo, because I can go at a liesurely pace in my mitsubishi.. and I can already run the 0-60 in 7 using my Saturn Vue, if this car is for driving fun it's got to have more kick.

And as a final note, power is not always used for speed. Using the pedal on turns and what not doesn't always mean you have to get there fast, but you have the acceleration you want from the of ramps. I don't know about your ramps up there, but in Orlando, we've got some short ramps into fast traffic..

P.S. people get spoiled because we make progress.. how happy would you be if it took you 8 weeks to go from New York to San Fransisco, you still can.. get a horse. Or maybe you are checking this forum using dialup, if you aren't be thankful someone somewhere wanted more speed, if you are.. you need to see it go on broadband.. Eitherway it's hard to believe that anyone would suggest a comparison between a 1974 Camaro and a 2006 Sky, it ridiculous.
I was using the comparison to show how far we have come since 1974, not actually comparing a 74 Camaro with a Sky...

Back in the late 60's early 70's we had non existant on ramps and 70-75 mph speed limits, heavy traffic was a problem then because there were not as many good highways around... you had to learn how to get up to speed and merge with what you had... an art that people seem to have forgotten how to do... they think they have to have mega Hp to be able to get up to speed, then is alot mor to driving that hitting the petal and steering, you learn to use your gears and your horsepower to its peak...
170HP is plenty to get up to speed on any on ramp in a car this size... how short are your ramps anyway... Do you have a problem merging in your VUE? Is it an Auto or manual?

besides a Sky should be driven the backroads to get MAX enjoyment, not the interstate...

One more point, back in the 60's we had cars with over 400 horsepower as a norm, and then the insurance industry and government got into it and killed all the High Horsepower cars... along with emissions regulations, Now we have most all cars with decent HP and you want more, next thing you know they will kill it again with insurance hikes and government intervention...
Just like with people wanting more money cause they will never be satisfied with what they have, people will never be satisfied with the power they have in their cars, even though they have more than enough to do the job...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
432 Posts
SWQ said:
But let me ask the stupid question...how much higher will your insurance premium be with the turbo?
obviousely the insurance companies dont have any info on the turbo yet, however, I know typically it would be about 10-30% more for a turbo, depending on what car it is.

if you want an example, you could try getting a quote with a base miata, then stepping up to the mazdaspeed miata. figure out what percent difference that is. that will help you with how much a turbo solstice should affect you over a base sol.
 
1 - 20 of 61 Posts
Top