Saturn Sky Forum banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
337 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
IF no one has read the new artical from "ROAD & TRACK" on the SKY there are several things I think all of you should know about...

First off You all should know that the SKY is 175 pounds heavier compared to the Solstice however the Sky is faster on 0-60 times and runs the 1/4 in the same time...

Does anyone have any ideas why this is????? :confused:
This confuses me because the Sky should be slower in both if it is almost 200 pounds heavier...

Second of all...There have been posts on this forum about trunk space some have posted that the SKY has less space than the Solstice....I FOUND OUT WHY in the R&T artical...The TOP on the SKY is double lined making the top thicker meaning less trunk space.....This double lined top comes standard on the Sky but is AN OPTION on the Solstice and it seems many dont have this option on the Solstice giving the Solstice a little more trunk space.

I would think this option/standard on Sky is simply for insulation for colder months/days of the year. The Sky top also fits better and snugger than the Solstice top.

There is much more on the Sky in this artical in fact they give the car an over all thumbs up and take it clearly over the Solstice.:thumbs:

Enjoy the artical all,

RedSky
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
388 Posts
There's also a good article in June issue of Automobile magazine (the one with the Bugatti Veyron on it). They loved how it hugged the road and handled curves. They didn't drive a Solstice so couldn't compare it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Interesting I had always heard the Sol. was about 200lbs heavier then the Sky. Thought that would explain the slight speed advantage. Maybe it's just cause it looks faster:D The double lined top is new info to me as well I'll have to pick up the mag and read the article.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
REDSKY said:
IF no one has read the new artical from "ROAD & TRACK" on the SKY there are several things I think all of you should know about...

First off You all should know that the SKY is 175 pounds heavier compared to the Solstice however the Sky is faster on 0-60 times and runs the 1/4 in the same time...

Does anyone have any ideas why this is????? :confused:
This confuses me because the Sky should be slower in both if it is almost 200 pounds heavier...

Second of all...There have been posts on this forum about trunk space some have posted that the SKY has less space than the Solstice....I FOUND OUT WHY in the R&T artical...The TOP on the SKY is double lined making the top thicker meaning less trunk space.....This double lined top comes standard on the Sky but is AN OPTION on the Solstice and it seems many dont have this option on the Solstice giving the Solstice a little more trunk space.

I would think this option/standard on Sky is simply for insulation for colder months/days of the year. The Sky top also fits better and snugger than the Solstice top.

There is much more on the Sky in this artical in fact they give the car an over all thumbs up and take it clearly over the Solstice.:thumbs:

Enjoy the artical all,

RedSky
Thanks for the heads up...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,421 Posts
Thanks...good stuff to know. I had recently inquired here on this forum about the "Premium Acoustic Headliner" offered on the Sol and was told that our SKYs have this as a standard option...this must be the "double roof lining" that the Road & Track article was referring to. It only makes sense that with a double-lined roof, it would be thicker and require a bit more trunk space. :thumbs:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,381 Posts
REDSKY said:
The TOP on the SKY is double lined making the top thicker meaning less trunk space.....This double lined top comes standard on the Sky but is AN OPTION on the Solstice and it seems many dont have this option on the Solstice giving the Solstice a little more trunk space.

I would think this option/standard on Sky is simply for insulation for colder months/days of the year. The Sky top also fits better and snugger than the Solstice top.

RedSky

It's called a headliner. It has nothing to do with colder months. The reason it's standard on the Sky is because Onstar is standard. You need the headliner if you have onstar.Onstar is a option for Solstice.

Alot of us Solstice owners didn't get onstar. First there was a constraint for months if you had ordered the onstar, so alot of people dropped it. And I just didn't want it. This is our toy car, it comes out in April and back in the garage for November. But we also have 3 other cars so were not daily driver's with the Solstice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
as for the sky being faster thing, it could be the gearing, can anyone verify one way or another whether the gearing is the same or different in the cars?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
eh?

deluke said:
It's called a headliner. It has nothing to do with colder months. The reason it's standard on the Sky is because Onstar is standard. You need the headliner if you have onstar.Onstar is a option for Solstice.

Alot of us Solstice owners didn't get onstar. First there was a constraint for months if you had ordered the onstar, so alot of people dropped it. And I just didn't want it. This is our toy car, it comes out in April and back in the garage for November. But we also have 3 other cars so were not daily driver's with the Solstice.
I know you're part of the "Solstice Camp," hence the justification for its lacks, but are you speaking for A LOT/ALL of them? Next time, if ever, I see a Solstice I must remember to ask the owner if he/she imprisons his/her car from November to April! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Nice fold out poster of the SKY REDLINE in the June Automobile mag. It is a poster from Saturn, and on the poster is said it will be available this SUMMER !!! Go check it out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,381 Posts
Magna Sky said:
I know you're part of the "Solstice Camp," hence the justification for its lacks, but are you speaking for A LOT/ALL of them? Next time, if ever, I see a Solstice I must remember to ask the owner if he/she imprisons his/her car from November to April! :D
Maybe you don't understand ???? When I said WE I'm talking about my husband and I !!! I thought it was obvious when I said we had three other car's. Or maybe you think every Solstice owner has 3 other Car's.

I came to the "Sky forum camp " to give any info I can share, But this is the attitude I was talking about in earlier post.

If you guy's don't want any info from sources I have, I won't give any. The only thing that "LACK's" around here is your common sence! Now when I say "Your" I mean you, "Magna Sky" Not the whole Sky forum. Just so you don't misunderstand !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,876 Posts
deluke said:
Maybe you don't understand ???? When I said WE I'm talking about my husband and I !!! I thought it was obvious when I said we had three other car's. Or maybe you think every Solstice owner has 3 other Car's.

I came to the "Sky forum camp " to give any info I can share, But this is the attitude I was talking about in earlier post.

If you guy's don't want any info from sources I have, I won't give any.
Come on that was an out and out joke!... No one was Sol bashing -- I can find other posts that you might get your dander up but certainly not that one...

Remember :D = :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,677 Posts
Just a few corrections:

Most of the first 1000 solstices weighed in at about 2900 lbs curb (some were down around 2860 or so).

Many of the SKY's weights are coming in at around 2950-2975 per the articles coming out about it now. That's only 75 more, NOT 175 lbs more.

The 0-60's are within measurement error between the SKY and Solstice. For all practical purposes, the 1/4 mile times are in the mid-hi 15 seconds. That's not really significantly "different" per se.

The SKY and Solstice, (having seen them now back to back) have essentially the same trunk, and same layout. They are essentially the same capacity (a bit above 4 cubic feet with top up, a bit over 2 cubic feet top down). The SKY, however, appears to have two brackets from the decklid hinge to the trunk floor that breaks up the storage area under the little "shelf" area behind the gas tank hump. So, you may not be able to store as many LONG items as a Solstice, but in terms of most small soft-sided luggage, they are pretty much, again, the same.

Road and Track's testing of the Solstice vs. Sky shows the SKY is faster, but C&D is the opposite. Motor Trend did not yet evaluate 0-60, but they got a smokin' time for the Solstice last year (<7 seconds). Edmunds, I haven't looked in detail at the article, but I think they got the SKY slower than the Solstice.

For all practical purposes, they are the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,381 Posts
Rick Tinley Park said:
Come on that was an out and out joke!... No one was Sol bashing -- I can find other posts that you might get your dander up but certainly not that one...

Remember :D = :D
I personally think his post was a joke. expecially his little " Solstice Camp". That was uncalled for !! As far as I'm concern.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
KappaMan said:
Just a few corrections:

Most of the first 1000 solstices weighed in at about 2900 lbs curb (some were down around 2860 or so).

Many of the SKY's weights are coming in at around 2950-2975 per the articles coming out about it now. That's only 75 more, NOT 175 lbs more.

The 0-60's are within measurement error between the SKY and Solstice. For all practical purposes, the 1/4 mile times are in the mid-hi 15 seconds. That's not really significantly "different" per se.

The SKY and Solstice, (having seen them now back to back) have essentially the same trunk, and same layout. They are essentially the same capacity (a bit above 4 cubic feet with top up, a bit over 2 cubic feet top down). The SKY, however, appears to have two brackets from the decklid hinge to the trunk floor that breaks up the storage area under the little "shelf" area behind the gas tank hump. So, you may not be able to store as many LONG items as a Solstice, but in terms of most small soft-sided luggage, they are pretty much, again, the same.

Road and Track's testing of the Solstice vs. Sky shows the SKY is faster, but C&D is the opposite. Motor Trend did not yet evaluate 0-60, but they got a smokin' time for the Solstice last year (<7 seconds). Edmunds, I haven't looked in detail at the article, but I think they got the SKY slower than the Solstice.

For all practical purposes, they are the same.


trust me this debate will never end, NEVER :p the IRL/SS debate has been goig on for 2 years, and it won't stop until the IRL is discontinued. They are the same cars, that's the end of it any slight differences between the 2 can easily be affected by driver error..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,677 Posts
Freakazoid said:
trust me this debate will never end, NEVER :p the IRL/SS debate has been goig on for 2 years, and it won't stop until the IRL is discontinued. They are the same cars, that's the end of it any slight differences between the 2 can easily be affected by driver error..
No, correcting claims with facts (see my posts with actual weights not "relative" XXX lbs heavier junk) will damp down the argument.

Fact: The Sky is only 50#-75# heavier than a Solstice. Not sure if this is due to actual strucutural differences, or the difference in average outfitment/options on the SKY vs. more "bare boned" Solstices.

Fact: magazines that measured the Solstice from Fall and Winter of 2005 articles had the 0-60 measured at 6.5 seconds to 7.4 seconds, depending on the article, magazine, and car.

Fact: C&D and R&T measured the 0-60 at 7.3 & 7.2 respectively.

Fact: some magazines do not account for "rollout" and some do. This can vary the measurement by 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.

Fact: magazines that measured the Solstice in same time period pegged the 1/4 mile somewhere between 15.3 and 15.8 seconds.

Fact - C&D and R&T measured 0-60 times on a SKY at 15.9 and 15.8 seconds respectively.


To see how much this matters:

MX-5 ranges 0-60 from 6.5-7.0 seconds, 1/4 mile 15.0 - 15.4 seconds. This is prolly significant, meaning the MX-5 has more power to weight (CALL IN CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!!!). The small difference in 0-60 implies that in overall normal driving, it may not even matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,950 Posts
0-60 and !/4 mile times

Ok the only true time you can compare acceleration times is running them at the same time by the same driver with the same gasoline, and all the same equipment in both cars... even then production tolerances can give one engine more power than another...
when they rate an engine for horsepower they will take several engines and test them and then take an average of all those and that will be the Advertized rating... If you test the Solstice with an engine on the high side, and a Sky with an engine on the low side you could get a vast difference in acceleration... then you also have to include aerodynamics into it.. did they run the cars one with the top up and one with the top down? does the Solstice have better areo numbers than the Sky, and how was each car equipped? how many miles were on each car?
Even a difference in drivers from one magazine to another can make a difference, one may be heavier than another, one may be able to shift faster than the other... best thing to do is get the numbers from all the tests and then average them out at least that would give a better Idea..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
KappaMan said:
No, correcting claims with facts (see my posts with actual weights not "relative" XXX lbs heavier junk) will damp down the argument.

Fact: The Sky is only 50#-75# heavier than a Solstice. Not sure if this is due to actual strucutural differences, or the difference in average outfitment/options on the SKY vs. more "bare boned" Solstices.

Fact: magazines that measured the Solstice from Fall and Winter of 2005 articles had the 0-60 measured at 6.5 seconds to 7.4 seconds, depending on the article, magazine, and car.

Fact: C&D and R&T measured the 0-60 at 7.3 & 7.2 respectively.

Fact: some magazines do not account for "rollout" and some do. This can vary the measurement by 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.

Fact: magazines that measured the Solstice in same time period pegged the 1/4 mile somewhere between 15.3 and 15.8 seconds.

Fact - C&D and R&T measured 0-60 times on a SKY at 15.9 and 15.8 seconds respectively.


To see how much this matters:

MX-5 ranges 0-60 from 6.5-7.0 seconds, 1/4 mile 15.0 - 15.4 seconds. This is prolly significant, meaning the MX-5 has more power to weight (CALL IN CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!!!). The small difference in 0-60 implies that in overall normal driving, it may not even matter.

I agree fully, the only problem is the facts differ from place to place, review to review, etc etc, and that's why the 'debate' never ends. Facts help, but it's amazing how blind some people can be.

For example with the SS/IRL. People have gone to the same scale, on the same day and a concrete difference of weight was given, both stock, and the debate STILL doesn't end. Simply because there are 'official' reviews that have different weights posted. and people pick and choose what reviews they want to use to base their arguments.
And in terms of track times, the main reason that will never end is simply because, as everyone knows, times vary a LOT from driver to driver, and there is NO way of doing an end all with that. Why? because of all the minor differences between the cars, one persons technique can make the difference for that .1 second difference. And then you have the reviews that give extremely different times from place to place (the whole elevation thing is a LARGE reason for that).
But for example, say you're an unbiased driver, driving both cars. You're used to a slightly heavier car so you drop the clutch at a slightly higher rpm. The heavier car will have a bit of advantage there, and all of a sudden whatever MINOR difference has been negated. Plus mileage, breakin, etc etc. When you're getting in tenths and hundreds of seconds all the tiny itty bitty things start to matter.

They ARE the same car, but it's amazing the amount of people that refuse to admit that and will only say that 'their particular car is the fastest'. eventually you just get too frustrated with the blind ones :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
337 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
What a waste of a THREAD!

What I learned from posting this Thread is that peoples own views are the only right views...and if they are challenged on their views they fly into an arrogant childish fit! HOW SAD!:nono:

The other thing I learned from all you experts is that what you read in Magazines and on paper are a bunch of mis-guided facts, lies and opinions...

THIS POST WAS A WASTE OF MY Frigging time!

:mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,547 Posts
REDSKY said:
What I learned from posting this Thread is that peoples own views are the only right views...and if they are challenged on their views they fly into an arrogant childish fit! HOW SAD!:nono:

The other thing I learned from all you experts is that what you read in Magazines and on paper are a bunch of mis-guided facts, lies and opinions...

THIS POST WAS A WASTE OF MY Frigging time!

:mad:
Sorry you didn't learn that the Acoustic Headliner has nothing to do with extra insulation for during the colder months (as you thought) and everything to do with the interior of the car being quieter so the OnStar service is usable.

Sorry you also didn't learn that what you read in some Magazine about the Sky weighing 175 lbs. more than the Solstice is simply not true.

And sorry you didn't learn that when comparing times, there is something called a margin of error in the measurments and that comparing the results of runs under different conditions is meaningless.

Please don't waste any more of your valuable time here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
REDSKY said:
What I learned from posting this Thread is that peoples own views are the only right views...and if they are challenged on their views they fly into an arrogant childish fit! HOW SAD!:nono:

The other thing I learned from all you experts is that what you read in Magazines and on paper are a bunch of mis-guided facts, lies and opinions...

THIS POST WAS A WASTE OF MY Frigging time!

:mad:
C'mon, RedSky. Your original post that began this thread asked some valid questions, and people contributed valid feedback. This latest post of yours has taken a tone for the worse. Please lighten up !
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top