It’s totally stupid.
So what color are you going to get? 
Life is short.
If given the opportunity I would strip naked and rub my greased up body against the whole frikin’ thing, boring or not.
DUH-AM this car melts my butter.
I sort of dig the red with white - it’s sort of General Leeish. I actually saw a race ready one of these in orange. Suffice it to say, if I had that one, I’d never be able to leave the garage to even drive it.
My husband has the '67 that this one is supposedly reminiscent of, but I don’t see it. It doesn’t hold a candle to the old one.
Really? Since when is an employee benefit offered only when convenient?
Speaking of nice cars from domestic car makers…
Porsche Boxter performance (260 HP). $28,000
Yep, nice car. Those Sky roadsters look sleek and classy from just about every angle. And that’s a lot of power in a car weighing less than 3000 pounds and costing less than 30 grand.
…yet still slower than it’s Honda competitor.
It is? You have some specs to back that up? I assume you’re talking about the Honda S2000. Nice car. Really nice. But it’s almost the same weight, has 26 less horsepower and almost 100 lb/ft of torque less (162 vs 260). In addition, the Honda is a screamer - to get the horsepower and torque you have to rev it high. The Honda’s torque peak is at 6300 RPM, the Saturn’s at 2500.
The first published specs of the Sky Redline have it doing 0-60 in 5.5 seconds. The Honda road tests seem to find it between 5.5 and 6. Very close, but I’ll bet to get the fast times in the Honda you have to beat the crap out of it. And I’ll bet you the Sky is much more driveable around town. I have a car with a peaky 2 liter turbo engine, and it’s kind of a pain off the line. Smooth starts are hard, and the only way too get a decent performance launch is to rev it to about 4000 RPM and slip the clutch. That’s hard on clutches. The sky will be more of a, “let the clutch out, then floor it if you want to go fast” car. That useable torque down low makes all the difference in in-town driving.
Really, these are two totally different cars. The S2000 is a pure sports car, made for winding up the engine and tearing up twisty roads. It’s great for that. It’s an excellent club racer, and goes like stink on a track. The Sky is more boulevard/highway cruiser. I’m sure the Honda has better road feel and handling at the limit, but I wonder which car would be more fun to drive at 8/10ths of the limit and below, which is where most of us spend 95% of our driving time, even when we’re driving fast.
Oh, and the base model of the Honda is $6,000-$7,000 more than the Sky.
T
he Sky is the one with the turbo, The S2k is NA.
Yeah, one is a small, two seater 4 cylinder convertible, the other is a small, two seater 4 cylinder convertible WITH A TURBO. I’m not sure most people would agree with your assessment. 
I heard people in town were paying $5k ish above sticker for pre-orders on the Redline which last time I checked hasn’t made it to Canada yet.
Oh, and the Sky/Solstice uses the exact same manual transmission as the Hummer H3 and Chevy Colorado.
Yes I know. The operative word in the sentence was ‘peaky’. My car makes peak torque over 4000 RPM. That makes it a bit sluggish to drive if your revs are low. Wonderful when you can open it up. This is the characteristic it shares with the Honda S2000, except the Honda is worse. If you’re not revving that thing above 5000 RPM, it’s a bit of a dog. And how often do you rev above 5000 in the city? In stop and go traffic?
:rolleyes: Thanks for totally ignoring the meat of my comments and going for the simplistic comparison.
Gee, you’d think people must like them or something.
There are some things to dislike about the redline. It has a top that can’t be opened or closed unless you stop the car and get out and do it. And it has virtually no usable trunk space with the top down. That’s a major deficit. The Honda is a very nice car. I was just disputing your assertion that it was faster. Until I can see some comparisons, I’m going to assume that they are either very close in performance or the Sky is slightly faster, because the specs indicate that it is. The difference between 162 and 260 ft lbs of torque is a pretty big one.
I’m going to have to quit reading your posts while I’m at work alice_in_wonderland. The steam coming out of my cube attracts unwanted attention as does my inablity to walk standing straight up.
Hey, do you like Hyundais? 
Ford = Fix Or Repair it Daily, or it’ll be Found On the Road Dead. 
I’ve always had a soft spot for Corvettes, myself (various models shown):
http://www.zr1netregistry.com/DarkRedMetallic%201991%20Corvette.JPG
http://news.caradisiac.com/IMG/jpg/Corvette-C6_Geiger-1_grande.jpg
Oh settle down gramps. It’s only a car, not your penis. 
I’m not disputing anything you said, The numbers I’ve seen seem to indicate the S2000 is slightly faster but the difference is tiny either way. I imagine the truck transmission (It’s GM, gotta keep the costs down!) is probably the reason why the performance numbers are so close when the turbo on the Solstice adds so much torque. That plus the Honda is 200lbs lighter.
S2k still wins overall IMO.
The new Motor Trend has a 3-way comparo with the Pontiac Soltice GXP (essentially the same car as the Sky), the Nissan 350Z convertible, and the BMW M4. The Pontiac was faster than the Nissan on the track. Not just 0-60, but it posted faster lap times as well, to everyone’s amazement. And it was only a tick behind the BMW. To be fair, the reviewers pointed out the lack of steering feel and slightly unsophisticated transmission. But still… The conclusion was that if money was no object, the M4 was the best car of the three. But since the Pontiac was about HALF the price, it won the comparison.
That’s a really interesting comparison result Sam Stone. I’d love to see a comparison of those same cars 5 and 10 years from now assuming normal daily driving and regular maintenance for each.
While I wouldn’t mind having a sports car my tastes run more towards an overpowered sedan, though I’d be even more likely to get one of these and try to save about 8 grand (plus get more cargo space.) Anyone got thirty grand they can lend me?
Thanks a lot, guy. Since you’ve been discussing the car in this thread, I’ve started to get a little obsessed with it. Looks to be a sharp, snappy, eye-catching vehicle with a remarkably reasonable sticker. I’ve been thinking about the possibility of getting a convertible for a few years, and this finally appears to fill the bill.
(And no, this has nothing to do with the fact that I’m approaching 40. Why do you ask? ;))
Hey, I feel for you. If I didn’t live in Canada, I’d be racking my brain to figure out a way to justify owning one of those.
That goes for cars in general these days. I drove one car through most of the 80’s and 90’s, and didn’t mind a bit. Because the new cars were crap. Every time I’d think, “Man, I should probably dump this 15 year old clunker and get something newer”, I’d look around at the newer stuff and just shrug. Bleh.
But now? The showrooms are just full of great cars. The MX-5 Miata is a fantastic roadster too. Everyone’s making very good vehicles. I also really like all the new Mazdas - the Mazda 3, Mazda 6, and their Mazdaspeed variants are all great. And their new crossovers look awesome. I’ve got a Ford Escape which I’m happy with, but I’d trade it in a second for one of those new [url=http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/11148/2007-mazda-cx-7-awd-sport.html]Mazda CX-7[/ur]'s.
Lots and lots of cool cars to buy now.
I owned a 97 Mustang Cobra for a couple of years. Great car on dry pavement. Lousy everywhere else. I do miss the sound it made above 3000rpm, though. Sold it and got a WRX. Almost as fast in the dry, while the wet and snow barely slow it down. There is nothing like flying through the Coquihalla at double the speed limit in the snow and ice and seeing rooster tails from all 4 tires as you corner. You’d be dead in a Mustang doing that (and actually it ain’t too smart in a Soob, either. But at least you can if you want.). Ugly as sin, though.