Saturn Sky Forum banner

21 - 40 of 53 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
I looked at the pics more. Perhaps there is a chance it could be the fuel tank. The gray box behind the seats doesn't seem to exist on the trunk pics, unless it's just not visible in them. And unless the spare was angled, I wonder if you could fit even a small one in there? No spare tire?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
If you ask me a roadster is definetely the kind of car where a tire fit makes sense (don't even know if this is the right term for it). Having it instead of a spare tire will reduce weight and give you more space.

There's another argument against the temple being the fuel tank: a gas tank can be formed into most shapes.

It makes not much sense to palce it there. It would be great to have the engineers talking about that. Not always only the marketing people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
432 Posts
-Tj- said:
I looked at the pics more. Perhaps there is a chance it could be the fuel tank. The gray box behind the seats doesn't seem to exist on the trunk pics, unless it's just not visible in them. And unless the spare was angled, I wonder if you could fit even a small one in there? No spare tire?
there will be no spare tire. just a patch kit.

the temple has been discussed widely on the solstice forums. the widely accepted thought is that it is the fuel tank. ill admit, we could be wrong, but thats where we are at currently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
More on Trunk Space

I am an avid golfer and I hope to put my clubs in the "storage" area with the top down. That would be my first choice. If the top has to be up, then so be it. If I have to leave my wife at home and put the clubs in the passenger seat, I sure will miss her!

I am going to check out the Solstice as soon as one gets to my local dealer with my clubs. then I will know for sure.

Marc
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,360 Posts
swatthefly is correct. We've had many long drawn out debates at the solsticeforum.com, it's the fuel tank. The rolling chasis pics you made refrence to a very old.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,677 Posts
Rumors on the rolling chassis is that the production-intent fuel tank was removed from its location for visibility, and the grey box is indeed a small "just to move it around" fuel tank (<3 gallons, no evap cannister, etc.). It is NOT the final production fuel tank - which all evidence points to "inside the FUGTMPL".

Swat', it's not a patch kit, it is a container of non-pressurized fix-a-flat, with a cig lighter powered pneumatic pump - called an "inflator kit". In the event of a flat, you pull the kit out, hook it to your flat tire vlave stem, plug it in and pump the goo into the tire, then let the inflator inflate the tire up to running pressure. Then you have to drive it for a while to distribute the goo, then re-plug the inflator back in to put it back up to your placard pressure.

If you puncture the sidewall, you're S.O.L.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
304 Posts
-Tj- said:
Hi all, I was looking at the trunk pics and I was thinking the same thing as 101jinx101. I have my doubts about it being the fuel tank.

If you look at the fuel tank fill up position on the pics and compare them to the height of the 'tank', it doesn't make much sense for it to raise up that high. On every car I've ever seen, the tank is always lower than the fill up. It also seems weird that they'd mount such a heavy item that high up on the car.

Also take a look at the pics of the bare Kappa chassis. (here's a good pic: http://fp.images.autos.msn.com/merismus/as/autoshow2004/photos/l_4_gm_chass_02.jpg)
That dark gray box near the back of the seats... I could be wrong, but couldn't that be the fuel tank? From several angles it seems that would be it, and it kinda makes sense for it to be there, since it's a) a variable weight item that would throw off the 50/50 balance of the car as it empties if it were further towards the ends, and b) it's lower than the fill nozzle. I know I wouldn't want fuel sloshing around any further to the rear than it needs to be on a sporty car.

I would guess that the hump could be the spare tire and hardware. It doesn't change weight, and the cover seems readily removable, which suggests that it's meant to come off. I don't see anywhere else it could go, either. Just my $0.02 :)
There is not a spare tire in the Sky or Sol, just a can of Fix-a-Flat. Seriously! First tire upgrade you should consider is runflats. Despite the tank being under the hump the real culprit under the hump that requires said placement of tank is the IRS with chassis mounted diff and "swing arms". Not really swing arms in the truest sense but taking all teh trunk space nonetheless. Another problem is the solid glass rear window. If these cars had traditional roadster style soft vinyl r.w. you could stuff the top into the small amount of space directly in front of the hump, IMHO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
achieftain said:
There is not a spare tire in the Sky or Sol, just a can of Fix-a-Flat. Seriously! First tire upgrade you should consider is runflats.
I think knowing there's no spare, and having heard runflats have a rougher ride, I'm going to see about getting runflats as soon as the rears run low on tread (probably within the first 2 or 3 years... less if turboed).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
432 Posts
kappaman said:
Swat', it's not a patch kit, .... called an "inflator kit".
yeah, had a brain fart and couldnt remember what it was called. y'all got the picture though. :cheers:


i think maybe a year or so after i get the car, ill debate getting run-flats
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
101jinx101 said:
... what are runflats?
Basically tires that, once punctured, don't go flat for like 50 or 100 miles I think...not sure exactly on the milage, but most Corvettes require them so you don't f-up the wheels. They aren't cheap though. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
432 Posts
Tazz2000 said:
Basically tires that, once punctured, don't go flat for like 50 or 100 miles I think...not sure exactly on the milage, but most Corvettes require them so you don't f-up the wheels. They aren't cheap though. :(
no they arent cheap and it kinda makes the ride a little more rough because the tires dont give as much when you hit bumps, but for a car that doesnt have a spare, this isnt a bad idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,677 Posts
They are called "self-supporting" run flats.

If punctured, they can run for about 50 miles (100 on the 'vette tires) at zero pressure.

They achieve this by increasing the sidewall rubber by about 4X, adding weight (about 5-8 lbs PER TIRE over the non-runflat version of same size tire), and resulting in a VERY hard ride.

The harsh ride also highly dependent on the load rating of your tire versus the actual load that your car operates at, coupled with the sidewall height (aspect ratio X section width). Self-supporting run flats work best if the sidewall height is low (<105mm or so).

Example: if you work out that your car SHOULD have a load rating tire of about 88-90, going to a run-flat would work for a tire with that load rating and a sidewall height of 104mm or less. If you want a tire between 225 and 245 wide, you could chose a 225/45, MAYBE a 235/45, or a 245/40. Tie in the wheel size and you can narrow down the choices by using the load rating.

However, if you have a tire with a large sidewall (>105mm), AND your tire load rating is many points higher than what you need (like a 96 instead of 90 or so) you'll have a punishing ride and possibly steering and other effects. I could almost guarantee that a 245/45 would be a nasty choice for any car that operates at a point significantly lower than the load rating.

Just would like to save you the cost and trouble of trying to do a straight replacement into something that might f*$k up your car pretty bad.

I know this because I know.... unhhhh... someone that tried to upgrade their tires on a car with an available run flat... $500+ later, that "someone" replaced their car back to non-runflats. And learned that there is more than just a straight substitution. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
432 Posts
kappaman said:
They are called "self-supporting" run flats.

If punctured, they can run for about 50 miles (100 on the 'vette tires) at zero pressure.

They achieve this by increasing the sidewall rubber by about 4X, adding weight (about 5-8 lbs PER TIRE over the non-runflat version of same size tire), and resulting in a VERY hard ride.

The harsh ride also highly dependent on the load rating of your tire versus the actual load that your car operates at, coupled with the sidewall height (aspect ratio X section width). Self-supporting run flats work best if the sidewall height is low (<105mm or so).

Example: if you work out that your car SHOULD have a load rating tire of about 88-90, going to a run-flat would work for a tire with that load rating and a sidewall height of 104mm or less. If you want a tire between 225 and 245 wide, you could chose a 225/45, MAYBE a 235/45, or a 245/40. Tie in the wheel size and you can narrow down the choices by using the load rating.

However, if you have a tire with a large sidewall (>105mm), AND your tire load rating is many points higher than what you need (like a 96 instead of 90 or so) you'll have a punishing ride and possibly steering and other effects. I could almost guarantee that a 245/45 would be a nasty choice for any car that operates at a point significantly lower than the load rating.

Just would like to save you the cost and trouble of trying to do a straight replacement into something that might f*$k up your car pretty bad.

I know this because I know.... unhhhh... someone that tried to upgrade their tires on a car with an available run flat... $500+ later, that "someone" replaced their car back to non-runflats. And learned that there is more than just a straight substitution. :)
good info. ill have to take that into consideration.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,360 Posts
browndawgdude said:
My guess is 2 sets of clubs for sure! and...the top doesn't take up trunk storage...mark my words. :cool:
I hope you're not being serious about the roof in the trunk. Because it goes into the trunk, so to takes up trunk space for sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
mdlestat said:
Jesus God.

What is it with people and TRUNK SPACE.


It's a two-seat convertible roadster!!

It is stunning to me that people seem so manically concerned with what they can carry in the trunk.

Don't take it personally bcboy-- I'm glad you're here!-- I just can't for the life of me understand why cargo space is such a prominent part of the questioning regarding what is clearly a car meant for everything BUT delightful cargo capacity.

I've said it before-- and I'll keep saying it:

If cargo space is ANY significant part of your decision to buy the Sky or the Solstice, you're probably not the kind of customer the designers had in mind when they created these cars... :)

Too Funny
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
according to the solstice site... cargo volume with top down is 1.4 cubic feet... and a whopping 3.8 cubic feet with the top up... so i don't think this is the car for people looking to buy a trunk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
432 Posts
skyby said:
according to the solstice site... cargo volume with top down is 1.4 cubic feet... and a whopping 3.8 cubic feet with the top up... so i don't think this is the car for people looking to buy a trunk.
solution: buy an old mazda miata from the junkyard. paint it the same color as your car. take the motor out. lay a sheet of plywood where the motor used to be. presto! ******* towable trunk!

wait... wouldnt that qualify it as a 2X2 convertable(s)?
 
21 - 40 of 53 Posts
Top