Holy $hit! Is that a Saturn? Wtf mate... [NO 56k]

[Jason C]

Guys wtf is going on? Saturns are not suppose to look this good...

Yes, these are production pics. Actual. Not concept.

2007 Saturn Sky (Sky is to Solstice as Firebird is to Camaro)

http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/05detroit/images/07sky_1.jpg

http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/05detroit/images/07sky_2.jpg

http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/05detroit/images/07sky_3.jpg

http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/05detroit/images/07sky_4.jpg

http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/05detroit/images/07sky_5.jpg

http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/05detroit/images/07sky_6.jpg

http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/05detroit/images/07sky_7.jpg

Saturn Sky sports car slated for 2006 production

Detroit, Michigan - Saturn will reveal a new two-seat sports car, slated for production in 2006, at the 2005 North American International Auto Show. The Sky roadster was inspired by the Vauxhall VX Lightning Concept designed by GM's Advanced Design Studio in Birmingham, England.

The Sky's low-slung design features a wide stance with short overhangs and 18-inch wheels pushed to the corners. The convertible top disappears beneath a hard rear tonneau cover with raised tunnels behind the driver and passenger.

"The Sky's performance matches its impressive styling," said Lori Queen, vehicle line executive for GM's small cars. "Powertrain, suspension and handling components were carefully selected to provide quick and agile performance."

The Sky is equipped with a 170-horsepower 2.4 litre 4 cylinder Ecotec engine with variable valve timing mated to a five-speed Aisin manual transmission with a short throw shifter. A five-speed automatic will be optional.

Other technical highlights include:

• Near 50/50 weight distribution for balanced handling feel
• Four-wheel independent short/long arm suspension
• Coil-over Bilstein monotube shocks
• Hydraulically assisted rack-and-pinion power steering
• Four-wheel disc brakes with ABS
• Structural tunnel design and hydroformed longitudinal rails for a stiff body that results in greater vehicle responsiveness
• Hydraulic engine mounts for a smoother engine feel

The Sky roadster will influence other Saturn vehicle designs, said the division's Vice-President of Design, Ed Welburn.

"The vehicle's strong front end is the new face of Saturn, with a pronounced fender peak and a bold, chrome bar that carries an integrated Saturn badge," said Welburn.

The starting price for the Sky is expected to be less than U.S.$25,000. It will be built at GM's Wilmington, Delaware assembly facility.

[Jason C]

But wait! There's more!

Saturn Aura Concept (This, supposedly previews the future of the division)

http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/05detroit/images/aura_1.jpg

http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/05detroit/images/aura_2.jpg

http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/05detroit/images/aura_3.jpg

http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/05detroit/images/aura_4.jpg

http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/05detroit/images/aura_5.jpg

http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/05detroit/images/aura_6.jpg

Saturn Aura concept car a preview of future Saturn sedans

Detroit, Michigan - The Saturn Aura concept car provides a clear preview of Saturn's future design strategy, says the company.

"The Aura is a sneak peak at a new generation of emotionally compelling Saturn vehicles," said Jill Lajdziak, Saturn general manager.

"The Saturn Aura epitomizes GM's global design approach to brand revitalization. Seven GM Design studios from around the world used technology that allowed them to contribute to product designs that will make up Saturn's new portfolio," said Clay Dean, GM director of vehicle design.

The Saturn Aura features a long wheelbase that provides a comfortable, smooth ride and a great deal of passenger room, especially in the rear seat. "The interior of the Saturn Aura reflects our vision of future Saturn vehicles, combining sophisticated elegance with plenty of passenger comfort," said Dave Rand, GM executive director of interiors.

Backing up its sporty appearance is a 250-horsepower 3.6 litre DOHC V-6 engine with variable valve timing. It's mated to a six-speed automatic transmission with manual tap up/tap down shift controls. The Aura features an independent suspension, four wheel disc brakes, and 19-inch tires and wheels.

Safety features include roof rail-mounted head curtain side-impact air bags, side-impact thorax air bags, four-wheel ABS with traction control and StabiliTrak, GM's electronic stability control system.



One thing should be clear by now: Future Opels in USA = Future Saturns.

EDITED: I can't really find out if the Aura is based on the G6 platform or what. :dunno:

[operknockity]

http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/05detroit/images/07sky_1.jpg

Front end is kinda busy looking, but otherwise not bad at all (especially for a Saturn).

[Jason C]

And more pics!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/dave22222/aura3_1024x768.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/dave22222/aura2_1024x768.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/dave22222/aura1_1024x768.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/dave22222/aura4_1024x768.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/dave22222/X05CC_ST017.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/dave22222/aura5_1024x768.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/dave22222/X05CC_ST016.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/dave22222/SKY_closeup_1024.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/dave22222/SKY_eyes_1024.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/dave22222/SKY_guages_1024.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/dave22222/SKY_profile1_1024.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/dave22222/SKY_stance_1024.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/dave22222/SKY_curves_1024.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/dave22222/X07ST_SK026.jpg

[Jason C]

Yes... even more pics. God damn, this must kill bandwidth.

http://saturn.com/saturn/showroom/future_vehicles/SKY_logo.jpg

http://saturn.com/saturn/showroom/future_vehicles/SKY_beauty.jpg

http://saturn.com/saturn/showroom/future_vehicles/SKY_overhead.jpg

http://saturn.com/saturn/showroom/future_vehicles/SKY_cockpit.jpg

http://saturn.com/saturn/showroom/future_vehicles/SKY_hwy1.jpg

http://saturn.com/saturn/showroom/future_vehicles/SKY_scenic.jpg

http://saturn.com/saturn/showroom/future_vehicles/SKY_scenic2.jpg

http://saturn.com/saturn/showroom/future_vehicles/SKY_lavender.jpg


I really am speechless. What else can I say? :speechle:

[lemming]

i really like the Sky!

whoa!

i wonder if that means they'll even put the opel VX220 engine into that thing or use the supercharged ecotec, as found in the cobalt SS and solstice?

170hp is quick. not fast, though.

:lol:

the aura looks cool, too. i hate chrome wheels, however.

[JST]

i really like the Sky!

whoa!

i wonder if that means they'll even put the opel VX220 engine into that thing or use the supercharged ecotec, as found in the cobalt SS and solstice?

170hp is quick. not fast, though.

:lol:

the aura looks cool, too. i hate chrome wheels, however.

I would almost guarantee that the supercharged Ecotec would make an appearance at some point.

[JST]

Wow. Apparently that leather used in the Aura's show-car interior has actually been approved for production.

Nice.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=7925&sid=175&n=156

[blee]

I think the Ecotec will at least be the first powerplant in that car, if not the only powerplant. Perhaps future models will use new engines if the boost can't be raised safely. Damn, that looks good.

[killerdeck]

WOW! The Sky is really nice! I never thought I would say that about a Saturn! Hmmm...if they work in a more powerful engine at some point, it would get my vote over an S2000.

[ff]

Very nice! I'd probably get rid of some of the chrome on the car's nose. Otherwise, very exotic-looking. And under $25K makes that car extremely attractive, provided they don't change the interior/exterior looks before its release to production.

The only downside I see, is that it uses the dreaded 2.4 from the Cadavalier. Tuned for more power, but still the same basic engine. The seats could use a bit more lateral support as well.

Otherwise, I'm very curious to see this car arrive. Kudos to Saturn :thumbup:

[ff]

I didn't notice... is it RWD?

[Autarch]

The only thing that the newest 170+hp ecotech shares with the Cavalier is the same basic block and a few ancillary parts.

That's it.

That said though that's a great looking Saturn Elise at the top. Do you guys see the Lotus themes in that thing? In order for it to get a 50/50 weight balance it would have to be RWD or AWD, ff.

That midsize looks good too though. If they could actually pull that interior off without the beancounters getting in the way Saturn might be put back on the map. I still think it's a shame to kill Olds and put it into Saturn. Oldsmobile actually had a heritage to work with.

[ff]

That said though that's a great looking Saturn Elise at the top. Do you guys see the Lotus themes in that thing? In order for it to get a 50/50 weight balance it would have to be RWD or AWD, ff.

That's what I'm thinking. Although it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility to develop a FWD transmission that places the 1/2 shafts in front of the motor, leaving the entire drivetrain behind the front axle.

[JST]

I didn't notice... is it RWD?

The Sky? Without a doubt--the Kappa architecture (used by the Solstice, as well) is RWD.

The Aura is almost certainly FWD, but I suppose AWD may be an option.

[BahnBaum]

Why does GM dumb everything down for us? Aren't we good enough for the Opel products?


http://alextbaum.smugmug.com/photos/13856617-L.jpg

Alex

[JST]

Why does GM dumb everything down for us? Aren't we good enough for the Opel products?


http://alextbaum.smugmug.com/photos/13856617-L.jpg

Alex

Same problem that Ford has--what people will pay for a small car in Europe is radically different from what people will pay for a small car here. That means that so-called "world cars" fare relatively poorly over here, and that either a) we don't get the fanciest models because the market for them is too small (e.g., Focus RS) or b) we don't get the European cars at all because the economies simply don't work (e.g., the new Cobalt v. the Opel Vectra).

FWIW, though, C/D's review of the new Cobalt SS was amazingly complimentary. They haven't fully vetted one, but it sounds like it has the pieces to at least make it an intriguing choice vz. the GTI. The fact that you can get a Quaife and Recaros is *very* interesting. It's heavier and bigger than the Cooper S, and certainly won't handle as well, but it's got a relatively big engine and a Roots blower that should give it a lot of punch down low. I wonder where it will be classed for Solo II purposes?

[SCA]

The Sky isn't bad at all, but not it does not enough drivetrain power.

Edit: I've been spoiled for the last 10 years with BMW straight sixes (exception, the M3).

[ayn]

Nice! The Sky got Eagle F1's, nice!

[Autarch]

That engine is fine for a base engine as long as they also offer a more high end version. That engine will please most buyers of that type of car and the hardcore can go for the high performance variant.

[hockeynut]

Sky from the front sure reminds me of the Elise...

[TD]

Except the Sky is less garish. I like it.

[bren]

http://alextbaum.smugmug.com/photos/13856617-L.jpg

I'd buy this before either of those Saturns.

[Plaz]

I just wish this thread would spill over to a second page already, so I don't get a seizure from watching the page jump around every time I view it with all these images loading... :D

[Autarch]

Let me help you with that effort, then ;)

[FC]

Let me help you with that effort, then ;)

I like the Saturn. :paranoid:

:D

[Rob]

A. Why does EVERY new car that comes out deserve a "it looks like this or that?"

B. At under 25k, this car is a no brainer for a lot of people. An affordable weekend roadster that looks like this with rwd and a manual transmission? If it handles decently at all, it will sell.

C. I saw my first elise on the road this morning. It was orange. And the nose looked very similar to the nose of the Sky. :lol:

[Jason C]

I just wish this thread would spill over to a second page already, so I don't get a seizure from watching the page jump around every time I view it with all these images loading... :D
Let me help you with that effort, then ;)

^^What he said. :twisted:

I like Chicken! (And the new Saturns)

[lemming]

so cool.

the Sky looks awesome.

[Jason C]

I'd have to say the interior of both, especially the Aura, kicks the ass of any Bangled BMW. The steering wheel, most noticeably. I'll concede this much to Stuka - I really like a tidy 3-spoke.

I mean, come on! Look at the difference here!

http://www.autoweek.com/files/specials/galleries/06_3series/images/P0016986US.jpg

http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/05detroit/images/aura_4.jpg

Granted, the Aura is a "concept" - as much as the 300C was a concept recently. That should be how close the production is to the above pics, minus the blingin' crome rimz, of course.

[FC]

I'd have to say the interior of both, especially the Aura, kicks the ass of any Bangled BMW. The steering wheel, most noticeably. I'll concede this much to Stuka - I really like a tidy 3-spoke.

I mean, come on! Look at the difference here!

Granted, the Aura is a "concept" - as much as the 300C was a concept recently. That should be how close the production is to the above pics, minus the blingin' crome rimz, of course.

That is the new C6 wheel also.

EDIT: Woo-hoo! New page! :music:

[Jason C]

I'd have to say the interior of both, especially the Aura, kicks the ass of any Bangled BMW. The steering wheel, most noticeably. I'll concede this much to Stuka - I really like a tidy 3-spoke.

I mean, come on! Look at the difference here!

Granted, the Aura is a "concept" - as much as the 300C was a concept recently. That should be how close the production is to the above pics, minus the blingin' crome rimz, of course.

That is the new C6 wheel also.

YESSSSS, PAGE 2 WE DID IT!!!!111111111111! :twisted:

[We now return to your regularly scheduled flaming]

[Autarch]

No bling bling on the production model no peace!

No bling no peace! No bling no peace!

[Plaz]

No bling bling on the production model no peace!

No bling no peace! No bling no peace!

:lol:

[Jason C]

No bling bling on the production model no peace!

No bling no peace! No bling no peace!

:lol:

Not a chance. The fairly conservative 17-18ish chromes on the LaCrosse *production/concept* were the only things taken off when it went to the showroom. I'd expect something similar for the Aura. As well they should. Put some sporty 17 or 18 non-chrome on the production one, please.

[Autarch]

No bling makes baby fanbois cry :traurig2:

[Jason C]

No bling makes baby fanbois cry :traurig2:

Don't worry! The dash is now stroke-able! A fine consolation prize, you must admit. :angel:

[Autarch]

The dash is now strokeable? Who cares how they drive. THAT'S SO EXCITING!

Escuse me - I have to change my shorts.

[lemming]

the miata-niche is going to be quite full, i think, by this time next year. the VW roadster is coming online soon, the solstice and sky will be out and the new redesigned miata will be out then, also.

makes one feel really deeply for those "afflicted" with z4 ownership.

[FC]

the miata-niche is going to be quite full, i think, by this time next year. the VW roadster is coming online soon, the solstice and sky will be out and the new redesigned miata will be out then, also.

makes one feel really deeply for those "afflicted" with z4 ownership.

Indeed. That is a highly undesirable car. :vomit:

[Rob]

the miata-niche is going to be quite full, i think, by this time next year. the VW roadster is coming online soon, the solstice and sky will be out and the new redesigned miata will be out then, also.

makes one feel really deeply for those "afflicted" with z4 ownership.

Indeed. That is a highly undesirable car. :vomit:

:roll:

The people that bought them probably love them. Even if you expect that GM has improved quality recently, there is NO WAY the new roadsters will ride, feel, handle, sound anywhere near as good as the Z4 does. Besides, lots of people love the way they look.

Personally, I can't see the price difference, but lots of people can't see the price difference between a 325 and a Malibu.

[lemming]

the miata-niche is going to be quite full, i think, by this time next year. the VW roadster is coming online soon, the solstice and sky will be out and the new redesigned miata will be out then, also.

makes one feel really deeply for those "afflicted" with z4 ownership.

Indeed. That is a highly undesirable car. :vomit:

:roll:

The people that bought them probably love them. Even if you expect that GM has improved quality recently, there is NO WAY the new roadsters will ride, feel, handle, sound anywhere near as good as the Z4 does. Besides, lots of people love the way they look.

Personally, I can't see the price difference, but lots of people can't see the price difference between a 325 and a Malibu.

z4 = BMW's saabmobile.

they depreciate like falling rocks.

people HAVE to love them because they take bloodbaths on them upon trade-in --the other ones who are leasing won't get new z4s when their leases are up.

i'll bet that i will be able to find good data to support this in the near future. "we" were all right about the soft and then abyssmal sales numbers for the z4 and the e65, after all.

some things are so obvious that empirical data is almost unnecessary.

[Plaz]

Even if you expect that GM has improved quality recently, there is NO WAY the new roadsters will ride, feel, handle, sound anywhere near as good as the Z4 does. Besides, lots of people love the way they look.

:wink2:

[FC]

some things are so obvious that empirical data is almost unnecessary.

Exactly.

I am a self-proclaimed yuppie. And ceteris paribus, I'd rather drive BMW's, MB's, P-cars, Lotuses, etc rather than value japanese cars. But sometimes one has to be a bit more open-minded. This forum (and the fest before it jumped the shark) has opened my eyes over time.

I wish I were wealthy enough to buy fancy german cas on a whim and afford to junk them at the first sign of unreliability or displeasure of any sort. Sadly, that isn't the case and it wont be for a WHILE, if ever.

Therefore value plays a big role. Zum Beisspiel: It would be nice to buy a 997S over a C6 because the P-car has better feel, steering, refinement, allure, etc. But I can't swing the $35k+ difference, plus maintenace repair differential. I would consider myself very lucky to be able to get the C6 at all.

That is but one example, but there are similar scenarios in several price segments.

Hopefully, in my twisted, secular mentality, one day I wont have to care for value.

I made one "irresponsible" splurge on my 330i to realize my dream of driving an awesome new car in Europe. Next time I disregard value, I would like to be very financially solvent.

[TD]

Even if you expect that GM has improved quality recently, there is NO WAY the new roadsters will ride, feel, handle, sound anywhere near as good as the Z4 does. Besides, lots of people love the way they look.

:wink2:

:loco:

[Plaz]

Even if you expect that GM has improved quality recently, there is NO WAY the new roadsters will ride, feel, handle, sound anywhere near as good as the Z4 does. Besides, lots of people love the way they look.

:wink2:

:loco:

:lol:

Just curious... do you like the looks of the M Coupe?

[Rob]

I need a bigger :roll: smiley. The inability of car guys to appreciate that other car guys have different tastes than they do never ceases to amaze me.

[Plaz]

I need a bigger :roll: smiley. The inability of car guys to appreciate that other car guys have different tastes than they do never ceases to amaze me.

I think TD and I both appreciate that. We just have an ongoing good-natured stickpokefest over the Z4.

[Rob]

I wasn't talking just about TD (although he tends to see car design in black and white and thinks everyone should agree with him), I was talking in general. It's kind of like the "low tech power sucks" argument.

[TD]

Even if you expect that GM has improved quality recently, there is NO WAY the new roadsters will ride, feel, handle, sound anywhere near as good as the Z4 does. Besides, lots of people love the way they look.

:wink2:

:loco:

:lol:

Just curious... do you like the looks of the M Coupe?

Um, yes.

But I never really liked the front of any of the Z3s (too Bangled), M Coupe included. But I do like the M Coupe. I guess the peculiar look of the rest of the car (and that is peculiar in a non-Bangle sort of way) plus the fact that the car is what it is makes me not notice the front end as much.

[TD]

I wasn't talking just about TD (although he tends to see car design in black and white and thinks everyone should agree with him), I was talking in general. It's kind of like the "low tech power sucks" argument.

Actually, not really.

I HATE the new BMWs. Period. I suppost *that* is black and white. But my views on just about everything in the world aren't black and white, cars included.

My hard-line stance on certain topics is sort of a characteritured role I found myself playing. And I genuinely do not want people to agree with me.

[TD]

I need a bigger :roll: smiley. The inability of car guys to appreciate that other car guys have different tastes than they do never ceases to amaze me.

I think TD and I both appreciate that. We just have an ongoing good-natured stickpokefest over the Z4.

It's good-natured, yes.

Although I cannot fathom how anyone could find it attractive.

Then again, I think Britney Spears is pretty nasty too.

[rumatt]

Then again, I think Britney Spears is pretty nasty too.

Oh no, not this again. :shock:

[Rob]

Yeah, but I agree with you about Britney Spears. And you are right - my opinion about your black and white car views have come from your comments about Bangled cars. When it's a black and white line about something else, you probably are expecting people to disagree with you. Probably for fun. And I wasn't trying to make a personal or character attack on TD. It was an attack on close mindedness in general.

[lemming]

Yeah, but I agree with you about Britney Spears. And you are right - my opinion about your black and white car views have come from your comments about Bangled cars. When it's a black and white line about something else, you probably are expecting people to disagree with you. Probably for fun. And I wasn't trying to make a personal or character attack on TD. It was an attack on close mindedness in general.

closedmindedness dismisses the Sky because it is a Saturn, ignoring that most of its development was handled by Opel, who have a very nice car in the VX220.

i've driven both versions of the z4 and it's still not enough to get me over the subjective downsides of owning that car. it's completely subjective. whereas you can make quantifiable arguments about what "low tech" is and how it competes with "hi tech", you can't with styling.

all i can say is: the z4 doesn't do anything particularly well. it have zero in it, either subjectively or performance wise that would draw me in --the Sky will be as quick as the z4 if not faster once it gets the entry engine pluse the turbo/supercharger.

i've driven the z4 and i owned an M coupe. i never said the M coupe was pretty, but at least it did something well. it had a mission. to be brutal and fast. in my opinion, the z4 is one of those effete cars that i will never understand. too much was put into its styling and not enough to make it quantitatively better than the boxster, which was already long in the tooth and it was still chosen by most professional autowriters over the z4.

[Rob]

ahem. Close mindedness is dismissing the Z4 b/c you don't have a use for it and saying anybody that has one is "afflicted with Z4 ownership." Like I said, I am sure some people love them. In face, I have a cousin twice second - uhhh, my dad has a cousin whose wife absolutely loves her z4. It's automatic. It probably has a 2.5 (I didn't get a chance to see it so I am not sure), and it is everything she wants in a car. She doesn't think she is afflicted with the z4 ownership disease. She loves driving it (I know b/c I UNDERSTOOD and therefore heard all about it over the holidays).

I like them less now than than I used to and I was never wild about them, but I can understand that some people love them. Stuka thinks my engine (and yours) is worthless b/c it's pushrods, but I am very happy with the torque and I really don't car how it's generated. Closed mindedness. IMO. And that's the only way to interpret the statement. :lol:

[lemming]

ahem. Close mindedness is dismissing the Z4 b/c you don't have a use for it and saying anybody that has one is "afflicted with Z4 ownership." Like I said, I am sure some people love them. In face, I have a cousin twice second - uhhh, my dad has a cousin whose wife absolutely loves her z4. It's automatic. It probably has a 2.5 (I didn't get a chance to see it so I am not sure), and it is everything she wants in a car. She doesn't think she is afflicted with the z4 ownership disease. She loves driving it (I know b/c I UNDERSTOOD and therefore heard all about it over the holidays).

I like them less now than than I used to and I was never wild about them, but I can understand that some people love them. Stuka thinks my engine (and yours) is worthless b/c it's pushrods, but I am very happy with the torque and I really don't car how it's generated. Closed mindedness. IMO. And that's the only way to interpret the statement. :lol:

unlike stuka, i've actually driven the car that i'm impaling and i don't just have to justify my dislike of it simply on superficial logic. demonstrate to me an area where it is the definitive car in its class.

you can't. because BMW has gone to "intangibles" and subjective things like styling to move the metal.

that's why i dislike it, truly. but it's another form over function deal. piping in sound from the engine. whoopee. DSC instead of simplicity and a mechanical LSD.

that isn't closedmindedness. that's a rational assessment of the car. it's more than just the styling. raising the bar from the z3 is nothing to hand one's hat on --and back to your own argument.

i do not see the pushrod versus OHC engine as useful because there is plenty of empirical evidence that suggests that ohv engines are still equitable with ohc engines. no better example than endurance racing series. that goes beyond the bounds of semantics or technical snobbery. that's proof. in fact, i need stuka to defend why the prodrive 575 sucks so badly in endurance racing and why it doesn't have decent specific output. or why he doesn't put his money where his mouth is and drive a naturally aspirated engined car with greater than 100hp/litre for power.

further, when you have a car like the solstice or the Sky which can be easily defended as more stylistically cohesive and more attractive than the z4 and outperform it to boot, what is one left with defending in terms of the z4? that it's more expensive and therefore better when in fact expense is because it is from a carmaker from a socialist country with rock solid unions that cost the car maker more to produce vehicles? whoever wants to embrace that argument and admit to it is a brave person, especially in this forum.

[Jason C]

CHICAGO TRIBUNE
Jim Mateja
For Saturn, Sky's the limit on wait-until-next-year plea

Published January 7, 2005

Saturn has begged people for so long to wait until next year for something good to happen that it should move its headquarters from Detroit to Wrigley Field.

Saturn made a name for itself in the 1990s with the "no-dicker sticker" approach to selling cars and the "customer is always right" method of servicing those cars.

While easy to buy and service, there hasn't been much in the way of new cars to make buying or servicing worth the effort.

Things should change, but you'll have to wait until next year.

A few weeks ago Saturn assembled the media for an early look at its Sky roadster and concept Aura sedan that debut at the Detroit Auto Show next week. The pair were greeted with a thumbs up rather than the digit the media has lifted at Saturn in recent years.

"We're committed to revitalizing and building all of our brands, and Sky is going to be the signature vehicle for Saturn," beamed Bob Lutz, vice chairman of General Motors and head of advance product planning.

Sky is a head-turning roadster built off the same compact, rear-wheel-drive platform as the Pontiac Solstice that goes on sale this fall as a 2006. Sky comes out in the first quarter of '06 as an '07.

Sky sports a front end reminiscent of the Pontiac Firebird as well as door and fender scoops similar to the Chevrolet Corvette, prompting a journalist to ask whether it might be a future Bond car.

The GM executive replied: "The studio hasn't asked us--yet."

The drawback is that Sky, like Solstice, initially will offer only a 2.4-liter 4-cylinder that achieves 170 horsepower with 5-speed manual. So, while 007 has license to whack antagonists, he couldn't do it from the passing lane.

"Ultimately there will be different engines and ways for Sky and Solstice to differ even more from one another," Lutz said.

Automatic eventually will be offered in both, but not until after Sky appears.

"Sky moves Saturn up a notch into a more luxury, refined market," Lutz insists, adding that means it will be higher priced than the sportier Solstice.

"Solstice will be a little under $20,000, Sky a little over, but not by much. We see it as the second or third car in the family for the son or daughter to drive to college."

Lutz said Sky and Solstice combined are expected to account for about 30,000 annual sales. "Though I think that's a conservative, low-ball figure."

With low volume, don't expect Sky to make Saturn rich.

Lutz acknowledges that roadsters aren't profitable and that there's a limited market for two seaters.

But he said he wants to attract shoppers who ordinarily don't give the brand a second thought. "We're counting on Sky to build new spirit in Saturn," Lutz said.

The other vehicle bowing in Detroit is a concept of the Aura sedan that will come out in mid-2006 as a 2007 model and succeed the recently discontinued and woefully bland Saturn LS Series.

Lutz confides that the concept is "about 98 percent" true to the final product. Sources said the concept, with its 19-inch, speed-rated radial tires, hints at a high-performance version of Aura.

Here's hoping the 2 percent in changes coming include replacing the granite seat with something softer.

Aura shares platforms with the front-wheel-drive Pontiac G6 and Chevy Malibu Maxx sedans.

It's also an attention grabber with its projector beam headlamps, jewel-like taillamps, mesh grille, circular fog lamps and deck lid spoiler.

Aura is powered by a 3.6-liter V-6 teamed with a 6-speed automatic with manual mode.

The car should be premium priced because such features as StabiliTrak stability control system with four-wheel anti-lock brakes and traction control, side air-bag curtains and a four-panel, sliding glass sunroof will be standard.

[clyde]

I need a bigger :roll: smiley. The inability of car guys to appreciate that other car guys have different tastes than they do never ceases to amaze me.

To a certain exten to be a "real" car guy, you need to be opionated to the point of being thought of as a crackpot by like minded enthusiasts that happen to disagree with you. If you aren't quite there, you aren't a "real" car guy. It's just a part of the deal.

[clyde]

I need a bigger :roll: smiley. The inability of car guys to appreciate that other car guys have different tastes than they do never ceases to amaze me.

I think TD and I both appreciate that. We just have an ongoing good-natured stickpokefest over the Z4.

It's good-natured, yes.

Although I cannot fathom how anyone could find it attractive.

Then again, I think Britney Spears is pretty nasty too.

But sometimes you want a woman that's into letting you grab her by her hair, bend her over a table and...then whne it's over, she'll go to the fridge and get you a beer, leftover pizza and then leave...without being asked.

There's the women you date and the ones you bring home to meet mother. Nasty has its place.

[Jason C]

I need a bigger :roll: smiley. The inability of car guys to appreciate that other car guys have different tastes than they do never ceases to amaze me.

I think TD and I both appreciate that. We just have an ongoing good-natured stickpokefest over the Z4.

It's good-natured, yes.

Although I cannot fathom how anyone could find it attractive.

Then again, I think Britney Spears is pretty nasty too.

But sometimes you want a woman that's into letting you grab her by her hair, bend her over a table and...then whne it's over, she'll go to the fridge and get you a beer, leftover pizza and then leave...without being asked.

There's the women you date and the ones you bring home to meet mother. Nasty has its place.

I think clyde needs a well-deserved break with wifey. :paranoid: :speechle: :thumbup:

[Plaz]

I need a bigger :roll: smiley. The inability of car guys to appreciate that other car guys have different tastes than they do never ceases to amaze me.

I think TD and I both appreciate that. We just have an ongoing good-natured stickpokefest over the Z4.

It's good-natured, yes.

Although I cannot fathom how anyone could find it attractive.

Then again, I think Britney Spears is pretty nasty too.

But sometimes you want a woman that's into letting you grab her by her hair, bend her over a table and...then whne it's over, she'll go to the fridge and get you a beer, leftover pizza and then leave...without being asked.

There's the women you date and the ones you bring home to meet mother. Nasty has its place.

:lol: :thumbup:

[rumatt]

But sometimes you want a woman that's into letting you grab her by her hair, bend her over a table and...then whne it's over, she'll go to the fridge and get you a beer, leftover pizza and then leave...without being asked.

There's the women you date and the ones you bring home to meet mother. Nasty has its place.

OMG. :lol: :lol:

[Melissa]

:kekeke:

[Rob]

unlike stuka, i've actually driven the car that i'm impaling and i don't just have to justify my dislike of it simply on superficial logic. demonstrate to me an area where it is the definitive car in its class.

you can't. because BMW has gone to "intangibles" and subjective things like styling to move the metal.

that's why i dislike it, truly. but it's another form over function deal. piping in sound from the engine. whoopee. DSC instead of simplicity and a mechanical LSD.

that isn't closedmindedness. that's a rational assessment of the car. it's more than just the styling. raising the bar from the z3 is nothing to hand one's hat on --and back to your own argument.

i do not see the pushrod versus OHC engine as useful because there is plenty of empirical evidence that suggests that ohv engines are still equitable with ohc engines. no better example than endurance racing series. that goes beyond the bounds of semantics or technical snobbery. that's proof. in fact, i need stuka to defend why the prodrive 575 sucks so badly in endurance racing and why it doesn't have decent specific output. or why he doesn't put his money where his mouth is and drive a naturally aspirated engined car with greater than 100hp/litre for power.

further, when you have a car like the solstice or the Sky which can be easily defended as more stylistically cohesive and more attractive than the z4 and outperform it to boot, what is one left with defending in terms of the z4? that it's more expensive and therefore better when in fact expense is because it is from a carmaker from a socialist country with rock solid unions that cost the car maker more to produce vehicles? whoever wants to embrace that argument and admit to it is a brave person, especially in this forum.

Well, you made the point I was trying to make yourself - you don't like it. You have found tons of empirical evidence suggesting that, by your criteria, you can't defend the Z4. But other people have other standards. To simply say anyone that bought one and enjoys it is an idiot who probably has a hard time brushing their teeth is not very rationale.

Let's use a different example (b/c I can't really defend the Z4 - and anyone that has one is afflicted and should see their doctor!). Take the PT Cruiser. Lots of people have said lots of the same kind of things about the PT Cruiser that you did about the Z4. But the hoardes of people that buy the PT Cruiser love them. They mod the hell out of them, they have their own clubs, the car developed it's own cottage industries for decorations . . . and I don't see the point. To me, the car is a goofy, odd looking, bad handling attention machine. But I don't dismiss their habits as an affliction, I think it's great they have a car they can have fun with. Even my brother, with his surboard rear view mirror.

I see a lot of similarities in the Z4 crowd and the PT Cruiser crowd, although they come at their cars from very different angles. I don't understand either one of them, so I can't say how you defend their choices. I can say that a lot of Z4 owners will not be upset by the entrance of the Sky. I might buy one though. The Sky, I mean. not the Z4.

[lemming]

unlike stuka, i've actually driven the car that i'm impaling and i don't just have to justify my dislike of it simply on superficial logic. demonstrate to me an area where it is the definitive car in its class.

you can't. because BMW has gone to "intangibles" and subjective things like styling to move the metal.

that's why i dislike it, truly. but it's another form over function deal. piping in sound from the engine. whoopee. DSC instead of simplicity and a mechanical LSD.

that isn't closedmindedness. that's a rational assessment of the car. it's more than just the styling. raising the bar from the z3 is nothing to hand one's hat on --and back to your own argument.

i do not see the pushrod versus OHC engine as useful because there is plenty of empirical evidence that suggests that ohv engines are still equitable with ohc engines. no better example than endurance racing series. that goes beyond the bounds of semantics or technical snobbery. that's proof. in fact, i need stuka to defend why the prodrive 575 sucks so badly in endurance racing and why it doesn't have decent specific output. or why he doesn't put his money where his mouth is and drive a naturally aspirated engined car with greater than 100hp/litre for power.

further, when you have a car like the solstice or the Sky which can be easily defended as more stylistically cohesive and more attractive than the z4 and outperform it to boot, what is one left with defending in terms of the z4? that it's more expensive and therefore better when in fact expense is because it is from a carmaker from a socialist country with rock solid unions that cost the car maker more to produce vehicles? whoever wants to embrace that argument and admit to it is a brave person, especially in this forum.

Well, you made the point I was trying to make yourself - you don't like it. You have found tons of empirical evidence suggesting that, by your criteria, you can't defend the Z4. But other people have other standards. To simply say anyone that bought one and enjoys it is an idiot who probably has a hard time brushing their teeth is not very rationale.

Let's use a different example (b/c I can't really defend the Z4 - and anyone that has one is afflicted and should see their doctor!). Take the PT Cruiser. Lots of people have said lots of the same kind of things about the PT Cruiser that you did about the Z4. But the hoardes of people that buy the PT Cruiser love them. They mod the hell out of them, they have their own clubs, the car developed it's own cottage industries for decorations . . . and I don't see the point. To me, the car is a goofy, odd looking, bad handling attention machine. But I don't dismiss their habits as an affliction, I think it's great they have a car they can have fun with. Even my brother, with his surboard rear view mirror.

I see a lot of similarities in the Z4 crowd and the PT Cruiser crowd, although they come at their cars from very different angles. I don't understand either one of them, so I can't say how you defend their choices. I can say that a lot of Z4 owners will not be upset by the entrance of the Sky. I might buy one though. The Sky, I mean. not the Z4.

the PT cruiser is an even odder duck than the z4, but widely embraced by the masses as its sales numbers would bear out. they are softening, which means it needs some updating. but by sheer numbers, it means the PT cruiser and the upcoming GM HHR resonate with people in a way that the z4 flat out has NOT.

furthermore, it has taken at least 2 years for you see the sales of the PT cruiser sagging. we almost saw that right away with the first 6 months of the z4.

people can bring up the M coupe argument, but look: the M coupe is an M vehicle, priced accordingly and it was never made for mass consumption. on the other hand, the z4 is mainstream BMW convertible gravy. and it's doing a lot of nothing.

at least with the M coupe, you could say that it ate boxster S vehicles for lunch and SLKs for breakfast and it was one focused vehicle that handled with an edge.

the z4 is not even a sports car. it's a GT (by price, by weight and by performance) and has not been able to steal sales from a stale SLK (just redesigned) and a stale boxster (just redesigned).

so now BMW is up against the wall. their all new styling-language experiment failed. miserably. it couldn't even sell well while the competitors were busy retooling. now that they've retooled, they're in a world of trouble. and i agree with the public. there is not a single reason to buy the z4 except to be an incredible emperor with zero clothing.

i agree with you, of course, but at least the PT cruiser people are defendable. it harks back to another era where woodie wagons roamed the earth. it's inexpensive and highly modd-able. it's useful. it's why it sells. i wonder if the top kit PT cruiser Turbo goes faster than the z4 3.0.........

[clyde]

the car developed it's own cottage industries for decorations

PT Cruiser, E36 Angel Eyes, wings, whathaveyou...I never thought of them that way. How cool is that description? :thumbup:

[Autarch]

I read my wife that "Nasty has it's place" line and at first her jaw dropped then she just burst out laughing and said "Ouch!".

Her next comment? "I guess that's true, though" :twisted:

[clyde]

the z4 is not even a sports car. it's a GT (by price, by weight and by performance)

Please define "sports car"

Open? Yes.
Two seater? Yes.
Relatively small exterior dimensions? Compared to what else is on the market, sort of.
Relatively lightweight? Compared to what else is on the market, sort of(when optioned properly).

It may not be a good sports car, but it's much more of a sports car than a whole host of non-sports cars that people think are sports cars (modern Corvettes being one that I'm thinking of).

[FC]

the z4 is not even a sports car. it's a GT (by price, by weight and by performance)

Please define "sports car"

Open? Yes.
Two seater? Yes.
Relatively small exterior dimensions? Compared to what else is on the market, sort of.
Relatively lightweight? Compared to what else is on the market, sort of(when optioned properly).

It may not be a good sports car, but it's much more of a sports car than a whole host of non-sports cars that people think are sports cars (modern Corvettes being one that I'm thinking of).

FWIW, as much as I don't like the Z4, I would consider it a sports car.

[Doug]

Hopefully they will make their drivetrain more reliable

[lemming]

the z4 is not even a sports car. it's a GT (by price, by weight and by performance)

Please define "sports car"

Open? Yes.
Two seater? Yes.
Relatively small exterior dimensions? Compared to what else is on the market, sort of.
Relatively lightweight? Compared to what else is on the market, sort of(when optioned properly).

It may not be a good sports car, but it's much more of a sports car than a whole host of non-sports cars that people think are sports cars (modern Corvettes being one that I'm thinking of).

my own definition of sports car has never included roadsters because of the pyrrhic cost to rigidity as well as the need for additional weight and complexity for the top (more weight) as well as the added weight to go back and add a hardbar or whatever.

it's always been about cars you can take directly to the track out of the box without any modification. i usually append the condition that there is also a racing version of the street car. in the modern sense, that already precludes a lot of roadsters, even though many use the term to include roadsters.

there, in my own definition, are very few roadsters historically that are sports cars. unless you're talking about megabuck racing like F1 or IRL, you also pay a huge cost in aero to be topless. but because of their megabucks, they can do aero to be topless. here, however, you can see that with the exception of the Radical, there are none of these cars that are streetable, ergo no sports car equivalent.

i try to keep the criteria defined enough, as my encounter with r'gal on this issue demonstrated, so that it is defensible. i would disagree with you because i think the z06 is a sports car. it has a racing equivalent, it is light, it is fast and it can be taken directly to the track and it can dominate completely OEM. autocross or SCCA racing. even the SCCA T1 car is about $3000 in suspension and brakes. no engine work.

i do not include miata as a sports car because it is not fast enough to take to the track and to dominate any track school or DE in OEM form.

[FC]

the z4 is not even a sports car. it's a GT (by price, by weight and by performance)

Please define "sports car"

Open? Yes.
Two seater? Yes.
Relatively small exterior dimensions? Compared to what else is on the market, sort of.
Relatively lightweight? Compared to what else is on the market, sort of(when optioned properly).

It may not be a good sports car, but it's much more of a sports car than a whole host of non-sports cars that people think are sports cars (modern Corvettes being one that I'm thinking of).

my own definition of sports car has never included roadsters because of the pyrrhic cost to rigidity as well as the need for additional weight and complexity for the top (more weight) as well as the added weight to go back and add a hardbar or whatever.

it's always been about cars you can take directly to the track out of the box without any modification. i usually append the condition that there is also a racing version of the street car. in the modern sense, that already precludes a lot of roadsters, even though many use the term to include roadsters.

there, in my own definition, are very few roadsters historically that are sports cars. unless you're talking about megabuck racing like F1 or IRL, you also pay a huge cost in aero to be topless. but because of their megabucks, they can do aero to be topless. here, however, you can see that with the exception of the Radical, there are none of these cars that are streetable, ergo no sports car equivalent.

i try to keep the criteria defined enough, as my encounter with r'gal on this issue demonstrated, so that it is defensible. i would disagree with you because i think the z06 is a sports car. it has a racing equivalent, it is light, it is fast and it can be taken directly to the track and it can dominate completely OEM. autocross or SCCA racing. even the SCCA T1 car is about $3000 in suspension and brakes. no engine work.

i do not include miata as a sports car because it is not fast enough to take to the track and to dominate any track school or DE in OEM form.

That is one hardcore sports car definition, but an understandable one.

[dan]

i think the z06 is a sports car. ... it is light

:?

didn't you just say the Z4 is too heavy to be a sports car?

[clyde]

the z4 is not even a sports car. it's a GT (by price, by weight and by performance)

Please define "sports car"

Open? Yes.
Two seater? Yes.
Relatively small exterior dimensions? Compared to what else is on the market, sort of.
Relatively lightweight? Compared to what else is on the market, sort of(when optioned properly).

It may not be a good sports car, but it's much more of a sports car than a whole host of non-sports cars that people think are sports cars (modern Corvettes being one that I'm thinking of).

my own definition of sports car has never included roadsters because of the pyrrhic cost to rigidity as well as the need for additional weight and complexity for the top (more weight) as well as the added weight to go back and add a hardbar or whatever.

it's always been about cars you can take directly to the track out of the box without any modification. i usually append the condition that there is also a racing version of the street car. in the modern sense, that already precludes a lot of roadsters, even though many use the term to include roadsters.

there, in my own definition, are very few roadsters historically that are sports cars. unless you're talking about megabuck racing like F1 or IRL, you also pay a huge cost in aero to be topless. but because of their megabucks, they can do aero to be topless. here, however, you can see that with the exception of the Radical, there are none of these cars that are streetable, ergo no sports car equivalent.

i try to keep the criteria defined enough, as my encounter with r'gal on this issue demonstrated, so that it is defensible. i would disagree with you because i think the z06 is a sports car. it has a racing equivalent, it is light, it is fast and it can be taken directly to the track and it can dominate completely OEM. autocross or SCCA racing. even the SCCA T1 car is about $3000 in suspension and brakes. no engine work.

i do not include miata as a sports car because it is not fast enough to take to the track and to dominate any track school or DE in OEM form.

Seems like we've been here before. "Race car" ≠ "sports car."

[clyde]

i think the z06 is a sports car. ... it is light

:?

didn't you just say the Z4 is too heavy to be a sports car?

I think that he also said price

[dan]

I think that he also said price

ahh yes...the Z4 is also too expensive to be a sports car

:|

[lemming]

i think the z06 is a sports car. ... it is light

:?

didn't you just say the Z4 is too heavy to be a sports car?

the z4 is a great GT car. it's no sports car. i apologize if power to weight ratio wasn't explicit.

[FC]

i think the z06 is a sports car. ... it is light

:?

didn't you just say the Z4 is too heavy to be a sports car?

the z4 is a great GT car. it's no sports car. i apologize if power to weight ratio wasn't explicit.

I think I know the answer, but is a base C6 coupe a sports car?

[Rob]

so now BMW is up against the wall. their all new styling-language experiment failed. miserably. it couldn't even sell well while the competitors were busy retooling. now that they've retooled, they're in a world of trouble. and i agree with the public. there is not a single reason to buy the z4 except to be an incredible emperor with zero clothing.

That is a different issue entirely. If you had made the original statement around BMW and the trouble it is going to have with it's quirky, under powered compared to the competition, good handling, but not as good as the competition and fun to drive, but not as fun as the competition roadster, I would have agreed. But like everything else, some people are going to love them and will continue to love them even after the Sky comes out. BMW, however, will not.

[lemming]

i think the z06 is a sports car. ... it is light

:?

didn't you just say the Z4 is too heavy to be a sports car?

the z4 is a great GT car. it's no sports car. i apologize if power to weight ratio wasn't explicit.

I think I know the answer, but is a base C6 coupe a sports car?

if you could take the c6 to a DE and not need any modifications to make it ultracompetitive any run group....wouldn't that answer the question for you? (hint: it's basically a c5z06) --the car already has aero work incorporated from a racing vehicle, got power to weight.....the c6 z51 package lapped the 'ring under 8 minutes.

again, contrary to clyde's analysis, i would, in my own opinion, define it as a sports car. it went head to head with the 911 S on a track and was faster.

now, being faster than a GT car on a track isn't definitive, but some people think the 911 is a sports car........ :lol:

[lemming]

so now BMW is up against the wall. their all new styling-language experiment failed. miserably. it couldn't even sell well while the competitors were busy retooling. now that they've retooled, they're in a world of trouble. and i agree with the public. there is not a single reason to buy the z4 except to be an incredible emperor with zero clothing.

That is a different issue entirely. If you had made the original statement around BMW and the trouble it is going to have with it's quirky, under powered compared to the competition, good handling, but not as good as the competition and fun to drive, but not as fun as the competition roadster, I would have agreed. But like everything else, some people are going to love them and will continue to love them even after the Sky comes out. BMW, however, will not.

there are many issues around the z4 that i do not understand and this has its roots in the z3. i never liked the z3. the M coupe was a nice experience, but i don't own one anymore.

the M coupe was, in 1999 money, $40,000. do you know what the cost of the z4 3.0 is/was? about $45,000.

i was never one to defend the styling of the M coupe and i certainly wouldn't of the STi (another one i owned briefly) or the z4. but BMW has time during the z4's gestation to make the car about more than its styling. it could have taken apart the boxster and come up with a fundamentally superior vehicle. it didn't. there were head to head comparisons where the z4 3.0 was going against the BASE boxster and people who write articles for a living about cars (this is key, because these people have sufficient sampling size to be discriminative) still chose the ancient "creaky" boxster.

so, superficially, the car turned me off. BMW turned me off of the car by raising the price so much. but then, they didn't even justify a reason for me to even consider the car because it really offered what dynamically? something barely equal to its dated competitors.

that was the first point i was trying to make.

the second one is a neverending tangential argument we will always have about who considers what a sports car. and i do not consider the z4 a sports car.

[FC]

there are many issues around the z4 that i do not understand and this has its roots in the z3. i never liked the z3. the M coupe was a nice experience, but i don't own one anymore.

the M coupe was, in 1999 money, $40,000. do you know what the cost of the z4 3.0 is/was? about $45,000.

i was never one to defend the styling of the M coupe and i certainly wouldn't of the STi (another one i owned briefly) or the z4. but BMW has time during the z4's gestation to make the car about more than its styling. it could have taken apart the boxster and come up with a fundamentally superior vehicle. it didn't. there were head to head comparisons where the z4 3.0 was going against the BASE boxster and people who write articles for a living about cars (this is key, because these people have sufficient sampling size to be discriminative) still chose the ancient "creaky" boxster.

so, superficially, the car turned me off. BMW turned me off of the car by raising the price so much. but then, they didn't even justify a reason for me to even consider the car because it really offered what dynamically? something barely equal to its dated competitors.

that was the first point i was trying to make.

the second one is a neverending tangential argument we will always have about who considers what a sports car. and i do not consider the z4 a sports car.

I agree with this post.

That said, I think a lot of people consider a GT (i.e. 911, E46 M3, Z4) to be a subset of of "sports car." With more hard-core models like the Z06 or GT3 or even to some degree an Exige to be a yet-to-be-named category of racing-derived sports cars. That is how I group them at least.

Therefore, the Z4, Boxster, S2000, and even a manual SLK350 are, in varying degrees, roadster sports cars to me.

[dan]

the z4 is a great GT car. it's no sports car. i apologize if power to weight ratio wasn't explicit.

definitely wasn't explicit

you might need to further explain your "price" criterion to clyde too

[clyde]

I think I know the answer, but is a base C6 coupe a sports car?

if you could take the c6 to a DE and not need any modifications to make it ultracompetitive any run group....wouldn't that answer the question for you? (hint: it's basically a c5z06) --the car already has aero work incorporated from a racing vehicle, got power to weight.....the c6 z51 package lapped the 'ring under 8 minutes.

Thanks for highlighting a few of the problems with your race car definition or sports car. It boggles my mind that you can categorize a car as a sports car or not a sports car based on what other cars are capable of. You're saying that it has nothing to do with how a specific car performs by itself, but how it performs compared to other cars. The next part, which is still part of the first part, is that what car may or may not be competitive somewhere is based on how a sanctioning body chooses to class a particular car. Third, eventually pretty much all race cars become uncompetitive at some point, being surpassed by newer models.

Under your definition, a car could be a sports car one day but not the next day. That just leaves me :scratch:

[lemming]

I think I know the answer, but is a base C6 coupe a sports car?

if you could take the c6 to a DE and not need any modifications to make it ultracompetitive any run group....wouldn't that answer the question for you? (hint: it's basically a c5z06) --the car already has aero work incorporated from a racing vehicle, got power to weight.....the c6 z51 package lapped the 'ring under 8 minutes.

Thanks for highlighting a few of the problems with your race car definition or sports car. It boggles my mind that you can categorize a car as a sports car or not a sports car based on what other cars are capable of. You're saying that it has nothing to do with how a specific car performs by itself, but how it performs compared to other cars. The next part, which is still part of the first part, is that what car may or may not be competitive somewhere is based on how a sanctioning body chooses to class a particular car. Third, eventually pretty much all race cars become uncompetitive at some point, being surpassed by newer models.

Under your definition, a car could be a sports car one day but not the next day. That just leaves me :scratch:

the way that i defined it was: why would i want a sports car?

speed.

but not just live-axle big block v8 speed. i could have bought a fully restored buick GN for that.

power, handling and competitive.

the notion being that eventually i would make time in my life to do SCCA level racing. the first 80% of that is driver ability. that's inherent ability plus money (spending on track days and professional driving school) plus time. the last 20% is a competitive car. you could argue from r'gal POV that why don't i just buy a radical or westie and be done with it? i could. but it'd be nice to be legal and streetable. given this 20%, do you think it's competitive on a regional or national level to be in an e46m3 given the rules of SCCA racing? i would strongly suggest that while it's a fine handling car, to modify it to be competitive would place it in an outrageous unlimited category where even then it's competitiveness would be in question. OTOH, take a car like the GT3 or z06 in pure OEM form with harnesses and you'd be pretty darn competitive. from here my definition of sports car was born. plenty of sporty cars. sports car is the holy grail.

you can get brilliant handling in a slow car. you can get brilliant braking in a slow car. but it's really difficult to get brilliant handling, brilliant braking and shocking speed in one car. that's a sports car to me.

it's slightly easier to define because i try to set up criteria, but still amorphous. is the viper a sports car or the 996tt? by weight, it's difficult to say. but proof is in what they can achieve. handling and outright speed out of the box. so, "unfortunately", they are sports cars to me, despite being rather portly (both damn close to my arbitrary limit of 3500lbs).

i certainly don't impose this on anyone else because i don't control how other people spend their money. but you can see from my track record the direction that i'm going. i put my money where my mind and mouth are. it's a bonus that i could meet my criteria spending only a fourth or a fifth of what an F430 costs...but in the future, if i need to spend that money to attain automotive nirvana, that just means i need to work harder and longer to get there.

[FC]

***Maybe this should get its own "What is sports car?" thread***

To me, a sports car is any 2-door vehicle that is purchased primarily for being driven spiritedly or having fun while driving it. Sports sedans, and sports wagons have their own categories and usually are a compromise between wanting a "sports car" and having other necessities. I also see sports cars with auto trannys as ugly stepchildren, unless that non-classical manual tranny (ie SMG) was designed in the spirit of making the car more sporty. Cleary there are levels of sportiness within the sports car category. And a Z06 and GT3 are just shy of being a race car.

A sports car description a la lemming is a bit "car-nazi" in that it tries to get true meaning out of the word "sport." But I don't see many "true" athletes (this is a whole oter topic) competing in sports jackets.

That is my opinion.

[lemming]

ah......but the Sky and Solstice, if they have decent power to weight ratios, in base or GT form, would be a fair bit closer to being sports car than the z4.

no word on their curb weights, but i'm guessing a good bit less than 3000 pounds.

(back on topic).

and you know this will be a comparison anyway. the new miata v. z4 2.5 v. sky/solstice v. whatever else. the headline will be something like, "do the new roadsters make the expensive luxo-roadsters irrelevant?"

[dan]

no word on their curb weights, but i'm guessing a good bit less than 3000 pounds.
supposedly right around 2800 or 2900--close to the Z4

[FC]

... "do the new roadsters make the expensive luxo-roadsters irrelevant?"


If the Z4 were good-looking (to me) and and a 3.0 went for 40K (given the 225hp engine), I would be very interested. I would not trip over myself to get one, but it would certainly get my attention.

[lemming]

... "do the new roadsters make the expensive luxo-roadsters irrelevant?"


If the Z4 were good-looking (to me) and and a 3.0 went for 40K (given the 225hp engine), I would be very interested. I would not trip over myself to get one, but it would certainly get my attention.

my personal bias was even before i say the finalized styling in person and drove one: the fact that it costs more than my M coupe put me off.

i could for myself revisit the issue when it gets the magnesium block valvetronic inline six. by then, they would have also reworked the styling (c'mon guys and gals, you know this is coming --i'll put money on this one).

[clyde]

To me, a sports car is any vehicle that is purchased primarily for being driven spiritedly or having fun while driving it.

Even if I don't agree with it entirely, I can certainly see the logic in your definition. I don't see it in lemming's, though.

Am I just blind? :dunno:

[Rob]

To me, a sports car is any vehicle that is purchased primarily for being driven spiritedly or having fun while driving it.

Even if I don't agree with it entirely, I can certainly see the logic in your definition. I don't see it in lemming's, though.

Am I just blind? :dunno:

Since when does a carmudgeonly opinion have to be based on logic? I think lemming's definition of sports care is completely whacked. But it works for him, so I just decided not to argue about it. I really can't get all excited about debates on how to classify cars. It's just a label, after all. I suppose if I cared about what other people thought about what I was driving it might matter more, but I don't really think anyone here cares about a car in terms of poser ability.

[clyde]

I just decided not to argue about it. I really can't get all excited about debates on how to classify cars.

Then what are you doing participating on a car message board? That's what it's ALL about, after all. :D

[dan]

but I don't really think anyone here cares about a car in terms of poser ability.

:paranoid:






:eek:

[lemming]

To me, a sports car is any vehicle that is purchased primarily for being driven spiritedly or having fun while driving it.

Even if I don't agree with it entirely, I can certainly see the logic in your definition. I don't see it in lemming's, though.

Am I just blind? :dunno:

would you like a less soft and more quantitative definition?

that's easy. boring for the rest.

and the second half is: a lot easier to 'try' to find circular logic than it is to define what yours is.

:D

[Rob]

I just decided not to argue about it. I really can't get all excited about debates on how to classify cars.

Then what are you doing participating on a car message board? That's what it's ALL about, after all. :D

Bah!! It's all about debating which color is best! Hmm. What colors are acceptable for a sports car? If a car is otherwise a sports car, but comes in the wrong color, does that make it not a sports car?

[clyde]

Well, "All Corvettes are red. The rest are mistakes."

(not my quote)

[lemming]

I just decided not to argue about it. I really can't get all excited about debates on how to classify cars.

Then what are you doing participating on a car message board? That's what it's ALL about, after all. :D

Bah!! It's all about debating which color is best! Hmm. What colors are acceptable for a sports car? If a car is otherwise a sports car, but comes in the wrong color, does that make it not a sports car?

someone could have written a thesis on that, for sure.

for example: automobile magazine laid out its all-stars for this year. the evo was considered the "best sports sedan"; the m3 was consider the "best sport coupe"; the corvette was considered the best sports car.

yeah, you could argue that to heck, but i agree with it, and it certainly validates my own notion that the m3 is a GT and the corvette is a sports car. while i am sure someone could amass a database to demonstrate "red" as a key correlative of sports car categorization, my actual criteria are pretty simple and straightforwad.

how is this inconsistent or not well understood? an 8 minute nurburgring lap plus or minus 15 seconds; a sub 4.5 second 0-60mph time; a manual transmission; z rated tires OEM; braking that falls into the top 10% of all cars; lateral g's within the top 10% of all cars; it should be in the fastest run group classification or racing class if you wanted to compete in the vehicle. weight is a tangential parameter, but it factors in because it affects acceleration and lateral g's; price is irrelevant to the discussion but there is the expectation that in paying x amount of dollars you at least get y% coverage of the parameters; roadster can certainly fit into this, but it is also irrelevant --the parameters do not care if the hardtop is fixed, removable or foldable --however, is likely that have a removable hardtop or foldable hardtop impacts chassis structural rigidity or weight.

like moore's law or lipinski's rule of 5, they are not set in stone, but pretty much stay consistent so in the end, the automobiles that meet these criteria are pretty much sports cars. the set also does not take into account historical cars which may have less favorable power to weight ratios.

[Jason C]

Nay, I think that writing up a thesis with specific criteria loses sight of what really matters.

A bone-stock Miata would surely lose to a sport-packaged slushie 645Ci in your performance figures analysis. Yet, which one do you think responds to your commands more like a sports car should?

[lemming]

Nay, I think that writing up a thesis with specific criteria loses sight of what really matters.

A bone-stock Miata would surely lose to a sport-packaged slushie 645Ci in your performance figures analysis. Yet, which one do you think responds to your commands more like a sports car should?

but both are sporty.

:D

i personally would not consider either a sports car, is all.

EDIT ADDITION: one lacks a manual, one lacks z rated tires and neither is even within a galaxy of a sub-5 second 60mph time......much as i loathe the 645Ci, i would still say it 'could' be down to the driver and how the roadcourse is laidout in a race with a mazdaspeed miata.