2007 Sky Redline Dynometer results

[Vic]

Those are good numbers, definitely in-line with the advertised figures. What's more impressive than the peak figures IMO are the nice flat curves. Unfortunately, the stock turbo looks to be already maxed out at 20 psi, so modders are going to need to install a bigger snail if they're looking for higher numbers. Still, even in stock form, this should be quite the little screamer down at the track. Mid-13's I'd say, if it hooks up right.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: shabby

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
BMW had a 1.5L turbo engine back in the 1980s that put out over 1200hp.

Nice, but what does that have to do with this thread?

It was meant to point out that the two hundred and whatever hp the engine in the sky redline foxtrot bumblebee is putting out is not all that impressive.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: shabby

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
BMW had a 1.5L turbo engine back in the 1980s that put out over 1200hp.

Nice, but what does that have to do with this thread?

It was meant to point out that the two hundred and whatever hp the engine in the sky redline foxtrot bumblebee is putting out is not all that impressive.

160hp from a 1.4 litre engine.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: sniperruff

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: homestarmy
Funny, that thing is so powerful, but the s2000 can beat it in the 1/4 mile?

It will outhandle it in the curves too...

The S2000 doesn the 1/4 in 14.1 (about the same time) and costs $8000 more.

Congratulations! Your $34k S2000 keeps up with a $26k car!

I'd still rather have the S2000.

Me too.

Roadsters are not about 1/4 mile time. Or rather, if you buy a roadster for its 1/4 mile time, you're wasting your money.

pretty much. it's all about feel. like someone else mentioned, if all you care is speed, then go for the mustang GT/350Z convertible by all means. the S2000 is proven to be one of the best handling roadsters.

Beating the SLK320, boxter, audi TT and BMW M roadster

Coming in 2nd behind the lotus elise in a hardcore sportscar comparo... surprise

Beating the new Z4, 350Z, and yet again the boxter and audi TT

and that's only a couple of comparos. if an S2000 beats any BMW Z, MB SLK and TT's... i'm pretty sure any of those cars are better than the sky.

You don't have to convince me about the S2000; I bought mine in 2002

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: shabby

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
BMW had a 1.5L turbo engine back in the 1980s that put out over 1200hp.

Nice, but what does that have to do with this thread?

It was meant to point out that the two hundred and whatever hp the engine in the sky redline foxtrot bumblebee is putting out is not all that impressive.

Yeah, at 400% VE and 18k rpm, you could get over 1200 bhp out of a 1.5L turbo. That'll last, what? 200 miles or so?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: shabby

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
BMW had a 1.5L turbo engine back in the 1980s that put out over 1200hp.

Nice, but what does that have to do with this thread?

It was meant to point out that the two hundred and whatever hp the engine in the sky redline foxtrot bumblebee is putting out is not all that impressive.

160hp from a 1.4 litre engine.

They had that baby up to possibly 350hp too! I remember reading about that car many years ago. Sweet little pocket rocket! :thumbsup:

In all fairness the 1200 hp 1.5 litre BMW engine was in a Formula One racing car. Those engines were the most powerful engines in F1 history...even more powerful than the 3.0 litre V10 engines they ran last season (and can run restricted versions of this year). They probably didn't last very long though.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
Comparing this car to the S2000 is not very fair. Same size engine but turbo vs. non turbo......

Put the same amount of boost to the s2000 engine and it will be fair.

In racing I believe a turbo kicks your engine up 1 liter in class. So it's more like a 2.0 s2000 vs. a 3.0 Sky.

How about the Porsche 935/77 engine? 1.4L at 370HP or the Porsche 937/78 engine 3.2L at 750HP.

That being said the Sky is nice. But I still like the S2000 more, it looks better to me and I love the older 9000 redline engine/exhaust note. J

same type of car for same market? CHECK

roughly same price point? CHECK

it's not about after market mods, it's about what you get out the door. in this case, sky > s2k, at least for hp/tq

 

[Eli]

Very nice torque curve, indeed.

 

[AdamK47]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: AdamK47 3DS

Originally posted by: CVSiN
here ya go if the 2.0 isnt enough for you =)

Mallett to Build 400hp V8 Saturn SKY
March 30, 2006
Mallett Cars plans to build a high-performance version of the Saturn SKY, powered by a 400 horsepower GM LS2 V8 engine. Inside Line reports that the SKY conversion will be identical to the Mallett Solstice. The publication says the modified SKY, which will have a base price of $21,995 over and above the price of the factory-built car, will be offered in very limited quantities.

According to Mallett, "the 400hp GM LS2 engine is an awesome addition to this super slick roadster. Mallett Cars has engineered it as a complete package. Extensive track and street testing has been done to assure that this car handles better than stock on either a Sunday drive or on a road course. The cars are complete from front to back using Genuine & Official Licensed Products of GM with the stock OEM catalytic converters in place to assure state emission compliances. Our package retains stock features such as cruise control, ABS brakes and all OBD-II diagnostics

I heard that the weight balance with that engine in there was so far off that in hard braking the car will roll over nose first. Thats what I heard anyway.

The LS2 has about 100lbs on the Ecotec. Not the end of the world.

I was kidding.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
In all fairness the 1200 hp 1.5 litre BMW engine was in a Formula One racing car. Those engines were the most powerful engines in F1 history...even more powerful than the 3.0 litre V10 engines they ran last season (and can run restricted versions of this year). They probably didn't last very long though.

Was that the one that ran 50 PSI of boost and was nicknamed "The grenade"?

 

[DaiShan]

I don't see why people are excited about getting that amount of power with that much boost? Put that turbo on a lawn mower and you'll get close.

 

[Trikat]

I loved the looks of the Sky when it was shown, but absolutely hated that Pontiac Solstic or whatever it is called. I guess the Sky keeps getting better and I like that.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: DaiShan
I don't see why people are excited about getting that amount of power with that much boost? Put that turbo on a lawn mower and you'll get close.

Except it'll probably corner better! (than the sky!)

 

[shabby]

Originally posted by: Trikat
I loved the looks of the Sky when it was shown, but absolutely hated that Pontiac Solstic or whatever it is called. I guess the Sky keeps getting better and I like that.

I take it you dont like classic cars? The solstice has a lot of similarities to the 50's/60's roadsters, and i prefer it over the modern styling of the sky.

 

[Eli]

Bleh..

Something a lot of you apparently need to realize is that.. basically, it's one thing to get numbers on a dyno...

It's something completely different to be able to get the same numbers with the same individual engine thousands of times.

It's [easier] to build a disposable engine that makes huge HP for its displacement; Massive power but it only lasts a few tens or maybe hundreds of hours before it needs to be overhauled.

If you notice, all throughout automotive history.. the more reliable the engine is in a stock setting, the more HP it can make through modifications before it breaks or needs modifications so significant that it couldn't be considered stock anymore.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
In all fairness the 1200 hp 1.5 litre BMW engine was in a Formula One racing car. Those engines were the most powerful engines in F1 history...even more powerful than the 3.0 litre V10 engines they ran last season (and can run restricted versions of this year). They probably didn't last very long though.

Was that the one that ran 50 PSI of boost and was nicknamed "The grenade"?

I wouldn't be surprised. They ran those engines at 5 bar of boost for qualifying only and ran them at lower boost during the race for durability. Still, an engine was generally expected to last one race and that's about it. It would have been really cool to hear those cars race back then.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: shabby

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
BMW had a 1.5L turbo engine back in the 1980s that put out over 1200hp.

Nice, but what does that have to do with this thread?

It was meant to point out that the two hundred and whatever hp the engine in the sky redline foxtrot bumblebee is putting out is not all that impressive.

160hp from a 1.4 litre engine.

And a Yamaha R1 can put out 170 hp from 1 liter. What does any of this have to do with the thread?

 

[kag]

How come the two curves don't cross at 5252RPM??

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: kag
How come the two curves don't cross at 5252RPM??

Because the scales are slightly different.

The torque curve starts at 25 instead of 0, so it's sligtly offset on the chart.

 

[maziwanka]

wow. that's gonna be a fun car to drive

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: kag
How come the two curves don't cross at 5252RPM??

Look at the HP and Torque scales on the left and right.

 

[Eli]

nm

 

[MikeMike]

i love it.

compare the s2000 vs the sky, but only if the s2k has a turbo on it... which would make it cost about $12k more...

or lets compare random engines.

why dont we throw out GM's 2500 hp Ecotec then into the mix?

anyways, its a nice engine, will be reliable, and hopefully they fixed the diff leakage issue.

other than that, the interior isnt nearly as bad as you say sampson, its actually nice. the one i sat in had good tolerances, good feel, etc.

 

[OS]

you guys need to stop spouting off about the S2000 being 34K, transaction prices for anyone with half a brain is not going to be close to that.

It's an old model, it's not hot anymore, edmunds says market price is basically invoice, which is 30K. Hell honda ran a end of model year special $750 cash back last year which cuts price even more considering it's almost time again this year.

If anything the saturn redline is going to command a premium for being new model thus completely erasing any price benefit for the next 6-12 months, if not actually making the s2000 cheaper.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: OS
you guys need to stop spouting off about the S2000 being 34K, transaction prices for anyone with half a brain is not going to be close to that.

It's an old model, it's not hot anymore, edmunds says market price is basically invoice, which is 30K. Hell honda ran a end of model year special $750 cash back last year which cuts price even more considering it's almost time again this year.

If anything the saturn redline is going to command a premium for being new model thus completely erasing any price benefit for the next 6-12 months, if not actually making the s2000 cheaper.

the red line will sell at MSRP. there are lists of the dealers who are marking them up, and those who arent.

there are hundreds of saturn dealers NOT marking them up.

let us also not forget that the Sky is easier to fit into for someone taller than 6' than the s2000 will be (i cant fit into the s2k)