saturns attempt at a sports car

[phyregod]

Originally posted by Battle Pope@Jul 27 2005, 11:26 AM
Like it or not it's still gonna be faster than most Hondas.

[post=531918]Quoted post[/post]​

Lol, true that! Everyone is bitching about 170 hp sucking.. take a look around folks.


I believe that is the first saturn I have ever seen that didn't churn my stomach. It still needs work, and they do need to come up with their own style.. I see alot of styling cue copies on that thing. But hey, I'll give em a solid E for effort. At least it isn't another puke inducing 30HP shitbox.

 

[MikeBergy]

Originally posted by sLuShBoXtEgGy+Jul 26 2005, 09:37 PM-->

VTECPOWER

@Jul 26 2005, 10:10 PM
Repost.........

[post=531627]Quoted post[/post]​

really, i dont remember seeing it.

and yea, out of a 2.4 i would want more than 170hp

[post=531731]Quoted post[/post]​

C'mon, we're talking GM here.... I'd rock it, especially because it is RWD, finally GM is starting to do something right. When I first saw the Solstice, I was disgusted that they would even make a roadster with FWD, then I heard it was RWD, and my ears perked. WTF happened at the GM design board? I'm glad they are taking a step in the right direction now. I'd rock either the sky or the solstice, both nice looking cars, and better imo than an mr2, at least better looking. With the size of the 2, I'd rock it, all 170 hp of it. Considering a stock miata puts out 160ish? from it's 2.0l, the saturn falls into the same market. I think GM is going to do well with that platform.

 

[SlushboxTeggy]

Originally posted by phyregod+Jul 27 2005, 12:51 PM-->

Battle Pope

@Jul 27 2005, 11:26 AM
Like it or not it's still gonna be faster than most Hondas.

[post=531918]Quoted post[/post]​

Lol, true that! Everyone is bitching about 170 hp sucking.. take a look around folks.


I believe that is the first saturn I have ever seen that didn't churn my stomach. It still needs work, and they do need to come up with their own style.. I see alot of styling cue copies on that thing. But hey, I'll give em a solid E for effort. At least it isn't another puke inducing 30HP shitbox.

[post=531938]Quoted post[/post]​

yea i agree. and for saturn 170 out of a 4 is a good starting point.

and i wonder if the dent resistant side panels make it lighter or heavier

however the saturn clutch sucks, IMO

 

[92civicb18b1]

i liked saturns clutches, light, relaible and holds plenty of torque.

The 2.4 with 170 HP is detuned, I'm sure there's plenty to free up. It's probably still tuned to be economical and get 30 mpg.

 

[MikeBergy]

Sky Spec Sheet

162lb-ft of torque, is something my 1.8 is probably not going to see for a while.
Good looking car, its drive train looks to be set up in a similar way to the corvette's with a transaxle in the rear of the car rather than a normal transmission. cool. Not to mention bilstien monotube dampers. It is looking real good as far as spec sheet is concerned.

 

[Battle Pope]

That's what I was thinking. IMO it's targeted at the same market as the Miata.

And more than 170 out of a factory 2.4? look at the 240SX! 2.4 DOHC making what? 150ish? 170 is pretty good for what the car is.

Hopefully they've designed it with handling in mind.

 

[CdnCRXsi]

Originally posted by 92b16vx+Jul 27 2005, 09:42 AM-->

CdnCRXsi

@Jul 27 2005, 02:00 PM
It sort of looks like an S2k imo, or maybe like a bmw Z4 cross with something.

[post=531826]Quoted post[/post]​

Your opinion forming abilities are hereby revoked.

[post=531872]Quoted post[/post]​

Point taken, and Denied.

And you're being an ignorant prick..why?!
Get some imagination..

The sky...

The S2000..

And the Z4...

They seem similar to me?!

 

[Celerity]

What the hell is a "Solid E" ?!

Also, GM's new design principle is peak fuel use / power. Beyond those hp figures the mileage prolly started to go down.

Also, 170 in a lightweight body is a great idea.

 

[MikeBergy]

Originally posted by CdnCRXsi+Jul 27 2005, 10:51 AM-->

Originally posted by 92b16vx@Jul 27 2005, 09:42 AM
CdnCRXsi

@Jul 27 2005, 02:00 PM
It sort of looks like an S2k imo, or maybe like a bmw Z4 cross with something.

[post=531826]Quoted post[/post]​

Your opinion forming abilities are hereby revoked.

[post=531872]Quoted post[/post]​

Point taken, and Denied.

And you're being an ignorant prick..why?!
Get some imagination..

The sky...

The S2000..

And the Z4...

They seem similar to me?!

[post=531981]Quoted post[/post]​

Aside from them all being roadsters, having headlights, a few openings in the front of the car for the radiator and such, I fail to see how they look similar. Plus, the s2000 and z4 are NOT in the same category, they are a bit higher on the food chain.

 

[CdnCRXsi]

Originally posted by MikeBergy+Jul 27 2005, 12:58 PM-->

Originally posted by CdnCRXsi@Jul 27 2005, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by 92b16vx@Jul 27 2005, 09:42 AM
CdnCRXsi

@Jul 27 2005, 02:00 PM
It sort of looks like an S2k imo, or maybe like a bmw Z4 cross with something.

[post=531826]Quoted post[/post]​

Your opinion forming abilities are hereby revoked.

[post=531872]Quoted post[/post]​

Point taken, and Denied.

And you're being an ignorant prick..why?!
Get some imagination..

The sky...

The S2000..

And the Z4...

They seem similar to me?!

[post=531981]Quoted post[/post]​

Aside from them all being roadsters, having headlights, a few openings in the front of the car for the radiator and such, I fail to see how they look similar. Plus, the s2000 and z4 are NOT in the same category, they are a bit higher on the food chain.

[post=531987]Quoted post[/post]​

Who cares about where they are on the engineering chain. I said they look similar, as in the same basic body shape and design. Pure and simple.

 

[driverunknown]

170 hp is piss poor from a car that weighs 2860 lbs. and is rwd, since there will be more drivetrain loss as the power gets to the wheels. At least on the turbo'd miata you can simply turn up the boost.

Now I wonder which will be the release, because

looks better than the one on this link. http://www.saturn.com/saturn/showroom/futu...710&flashOK=yes
They look different. One looks wider than the other.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by CdnCRXsi+Jul 27 2005, 06:51 PM-->

Originally posted by 92b16vx@Jul 27 2005, 09:42 AM
CdnCRXsi

@Jul 27 2005, 02:00 PM
It sort of looks like an S2k imo, or maybe like a bmw Z4 cross with something.

[post=531826]Quoted post[/post]​

Your opinion forming abilities are hereby revoked.

[post=531872]Quoted post[/post]​

Point taken, and Denied.

And you're being an ignorant prick..why?!
Get some imagination..

The sky...

The S2000..


And the Z4...



They seem similar to me?!

[post=531981]Quoted post[/post]​

First off, learn how to resize pictures moron. Second, as already stated, aside from being roadsters, they look NOTHING alike not even close. There's three cars out there that it actually does bare a striking resemblence to, and guess what numbnuts? Niether of those are them.

You use your imagination, and imagine yourself hitting the logout button.

HAHAHA, I showed my wife this, she said you need glasses

 

[phyregod]

Opel Speedster Concept, Anyone?

I KNEW i'd seen that car before. LOL!

 

[E_SolSi]

Originally posted by CdnCRXsi+Jul 27 2005, 02:05 PM-->

Originally posted by MikeBergy@Jul 27 2005, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by CdnCRXsi@Jul 27 2005, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by 92b16vx@Jul 27 2005, 09:42 AM
CdnCRXsi

@Jul 27 2005, 02:00 PM
It sort of looks like an S2k imo, or maybe like a bmw Z4 cross with something.

[post=531826]Quoted post[/post]​

Your opinion forming abilities are hereby revoked.

[post=531872]Quoted post[/post]​

Point taken, and Denied.

And you're being an ignorant prick..why?!
Get some imagination..

The sky...

The S2000..

And the Z4...

They seem similar to me?!

[post=531981]Quoted post[/post]​

Aside from them all being roadsters, having headlights, a few openings in the front of the car for the radiator and such, I fail to see how they look similar. Plus, the s2000 and z4 are NOT in the same category, they are a bit higher on the food chain.

[post=531987]Quoted post[/post]​

Who cares about where they are on the engineering chain. I said they look similar, as in the same basic body shape and design. Pure and simple.

[post=531991]Quoted post[/post]​

yes and what they are pointing out is that aside from the fact that they are all FR roadsters, they look nothing alike
the headlights are completly different
the front bumper area and air inlets are completly different
the sides / doors / mirrors are completly different
the windsheild is about the only thing that looks even remotly similar, and thats just because from the angle of the pictures you cant really tell what the curve and pitch is like
aside from that they all have 4 wheels/tires, but alas, those look different as well (aside from the sky and the s2000 both haveing 5 spoke wheels)

 

[E_SolSi]

Originally posted by phyregod@Jul 27 2005, 02:38 PM
Opel Speedster Concept, Anyone?

I KNEW i'd seen that car before. LOL!

[post=532001]Quoted post[/post]​

now THAT looks the same

 

[Celerity]

Sorry, I'm with CDN on this one. I think they all look alike, and even with the mild differences in grilles / headlight sizes (I hate them all) and window lines - It's the same damned car.

You want differences? Look at the Miata compared to the Sky. Those are different. Lotus Elan vs sky. Different.

All of these cars, even if they don't look EXACT, certainly follow the same design formula.

And that's boring. That's like arguing on and on about how different a Camry is to an Accord. Yeah, different... but the same goddam thing.

 

[Guy]

Seems like a step in the right direction for gm, though im eager to see how well they handle relative to miatas. Then again i cant wait to get into the new generation of miata to give it a shot.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by Celerity@Jul 27 2005, 07:50 PM
Sorry, I'm with CDN on this one. I think they all look alike, and even with the mild differences in grilles / headlight sizes (I hate them all) and window lines - It's the same damned car.

[post=532009]Quoted post[/post]​

Yes, it is, in the same way a Coupe DeVille, and a M5 are the same.

 

[E_SolSi]

Originally posted by Celerity+Jul 27 2005, 02:50 PM-->

Sorry, I'm with CDN on this one. I think they all look alike, and even with the mild differences in grilles / headlight sizes (I hate them all) and window lines - It's the same damned car.

[post=532009]Quoted post[/post]​

and you can also be wrong

Originally posted by Celerity@Jul 27 2005, 02:50 PM
You want differences? Look at the Miata compared to the Sky. Those are different. Lotus Elan vs sky. Different.

[post=532009]Quoted post[/post]​

ok we will start with the original elan from the 60s...

no shit it looks different theres over 40 years of styling between them...
the elan of the 90s doesnt really count because its not even a true roadster (its FWD) and there is still 15 years of design differance...

as for the miata im sure you are refering to the old ones with the poop up headlights

once again 15 years design differences and the lights are about all that seperates those miatas from anything else in this list
but the new ones with the regular lights fall into the same basic design area

Originally posted by Celerity@Jul 27 2005, 02:50 PM
All of these cars, even if they don't look EXACT, certainly follow the same design formula.

[post=532009]Quoted post[/post]​

yeah its called front engine, rear wheel drive, 2 door, 2 seater, convertable.... doesnt exactly lend itself to a whole lot of wild differences

Celerity@Jul 27 2005, 02:50 PM
And that's boring. That's like arguing on and on about how different a Camry is to an Accord. Yeah, different... but the same goddam thing.

[post=532009]Quoted post[/post]​

yup both are front engine, front wheel drive, four door, sedans... a little more space for styling differences, but still going to follow the same basic design cues

 

[smooth_criminal]

Just contact mallett racing, they are putting the new LS2 in them, with 400hp and 400lbs trq, with a six speed. For 18grand on top of the purchase price, Thats one sweet swap.