Moderator: Beowulf
I test drove a Sky. I wasn't impressed at all. It's a very nice looking car, but the handling was very sluggish, the automatic transmission on the model I drove didn't make any of the right decisions, and the engine overall just didn't do anything for me.Meest wrote:Any reason for getting the Solstice over the Saturn Sky?
You've raised a question which requires much thought...Meest wrote:Any reason for getting the Solstice over the Saturn Sky?
...guzzles gas like a Hummer?Durandal wrote:My Z, on the other hand ...
The Sky Red Line model feels like an almost totally different car than the base model, with most of the running gear upgraded. The turbocharged, DI engine has an almost impossibly flat torque curve (PDF dyno readout), so the power is available at any speed. I still have a few complaints though: I'm still not completely satisfied with the 5-speed manual; the throws are too long, and the low-end ratio spread is less than ideal for a sports car (probably because it originally came from a pickup truck). that Aisin 6-speed they use in the Cadillac CTS would be a much better choice. Additionally, the brakes, while plenty strong, are a little hard to control precisely, and braking hard enough to trigger the ABS tends to pull the car from side to side. I also wish there was a hardtop model available.Durandal wrote:I test drove a Sky. I wasn't impressed at all. It's a very nice looking car, but the handling was very sluggish, the automatic transmission on the model I drove didn't make any of the right decisions, and the engine overall just didn't do anything for me.
Well with an EPA fuel economy rating of 18/25 for the manual, not really, although that's certainly as much as my 4,000+ lb minivan. But it's also only 2 MPG worse than a Sky Red Line.J wrote:...guzzles gas like a Hummer?
Durandal's probably flogging his new ride like a car magazine test driver, so I'm betting his overall fuel mileage is likely in the teens.Ma Deuce wrote:Well with an EPA fuel economy rating of 18/25 for the manual, not really, although that's certainly as much as my 4,000+ lb minivan. But it's also only 2 MPG worse than a Sky Red Line.J wrote:...guzzles gas like a Hummer?
Hmm...so Mike sold you his old car and you had it repainted in green?MKSheppard wrote:I Drive this from time to time, but in green
making it the ultimate sleeper roadster.That's why I wish it had a hardtop model. Theres a "targa top" model coming that's similar in design to the detachable hardtop on the Corvette, but it won't arrive until model-year 2010.Meest wrote:The Sky Redline is my bang for the buck car choice but not practical for Canada.
Hmm... tough choice: Both cars undoubtedly are very good, but have rather different personalities. Both the CTS and G (at least the G35 sedan) have roughly the same room for people and cargo, but the G is definitely faster and sportier than the CTS, while the latter has a somewhat more laid-back personality, though still more than capable of carving corners and accelerating to extra-legal speeds in under 6 seconds if need be (at least with the 304 hp DI engine). If you're looking for a car with AWD, be advised that the G37 coupe doesn't yet offer it, and Nissan has given no solid date as to when it'll be available (only that it will eventually). The G35 sedan (with or without AWD) still has a slight performance edge on the CTS, and is quite possibly the sportiest car in it's class, maybe a bit too sporty for most drivers. My advice? If you drive your steed like a racecar (like I'm sure Durandal does with his Z, which shares it's bones with the G35), than the G is for you. If your normal driving style is more relaxed with less frequent indulgence into sporty driving, then the CTS is probably a better fit. The CTS has one thing going for it: AFAIK it's the only car in it's class whose AWD version doesn't drink more fuel than the RWD model, an advantage compounded by the fact that the CTS drinks regular gas while the G recommends premium.For something more practical I'm looking at the 2008 CTS and the new G37 both hopefully with AWD. But like it's been mentioned as good as the Nissan VQ engine is it's a thirsty one for a six.
)
Holy shit, that has to be the most handsome muscle car I've ever seen. Also the most expensive. The Aston Martin might have a looks edge, but at least the Americans can do a good muscle car without you needing to sell your internal organs to pay for it.wautd wrote:As for pics, I'm trowing in ye 'ol Aston Martin Vantage V8
That was the whole point of the RoadRunner...Adrian Laguna wrote:Holy shit, that has to be the most handsome muscle car I've ever seen. Also the most expensive. The Aston Martin might have a looks edge, but at least the Americans can do a good muscle car without you needing to sell your internal organs to pay for it.wautd wrote:As for pics, I'm trowing in ye 'ol Aston Martin Vantage V8
