2007 Sky Redline Dynometer results

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: Dunbar

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
C&D has been doing some retarded comparison tests lately.

Actually, the Boxster comparison was a side-story tacked on to the end of the road test. Just because a car has better numbers does not mean it is more enjoyable to own and drive. The Boxster is the benchmark in the class, it is more expensive, but it's the better drivers car. A dedicated autocross package is likely to be stripped down on options and have an incredibly stiff ride. And the Neon isn't a terribly refined car to start with. As far as the Z06, they gave it props for being outrageously fast for the mony. But that was really the only positive attribute they could think of after driving it. You need to understand that the fastest car is not always the most enjoyable to own and drive...

In the case of the SRT4, they chose the HASHEST package, then complained about it being too harsh. DUH. In the case of the Boxster and Z06, they were comparing cars that cost twice as much. It'd be the equivilent of comparing a 7900GT with a 7950GX2 card. No ****** the GX2 card is gonna win.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

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!

Luckily, most of us don't live a qtr mile at a time...

My point being, compare cars that are about the same price. Would it be fair to compare the S2000 to say... a Mustang GT500? The GT500's base is only $42k.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: Dunbar

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
C&D has been doing some retarded comparison tests lately.

Actually, the Boxster comparison was a side-story tacked on to the end of the road test. Just because a car has better numbers does not mean it is more enjoyable to own and drive. The Boxster is the benchmark in the class, it is more expensive, but it's the better drivers car. A dedicated autocross package is likely to be stripped down on options and have an incredibly stiff ride. And the Neon isn't a terribly refined car to start with. As far as the Z06, they gave it props for being outrageously fast for the mony. But that was really the only positive attribute they could think of after driving it. You need to understand that the fastest car is not always the most enjoyable to own and drive...

In the case of the SRT4, they chose the HASHEST package, then complained about it being too harsh. DUH. In the case of the Boxster and Z06, they were comparing cars that cost twice as much. It'd be the equivilent of comparing a 7900GT with a 7950GX2 card. No ****** the GX2 card is gonna win.

so, with the hash package, did they say, dude, man, and wow this is fast, even though they were going slow, a lot?

 

[Horus]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2821912

gist: 200lbft of trq available from 2000 rpm to about 6000 rpm

228hp, and 248 lb-ft of trq.

thats some power

o yea, this is from a 2.0l engine, highest specific output/liter of any GM engine ever.

Congrats. You can do that with a 1.6L Miata. And it won't be made by GM.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: Horus

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2821912

gist: 200lbft of trq available from 2000 rpm to about 6000 rpm

228hp, and 248 lb-ft of trq.

thats some power

o yea, this is from a 2.0l engine, highest specific output/liter of any GM engine ever.

Congrats. You can do that with a 1.6L Miata. And it won't be made by GM.

and it wont be warranited either.

 

[RichUK]

It?s not that impressive

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: Horus

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2821912

gist: 200lbft of trq available from 2000 rpm to about 6000 rpm

228hp, and 248 lb-ft of trq.

thats some power

o yea, this is from a 2.0l engine, highest specific output/liter of any GM engine ever.

Congrats. You can do that with a 1.6L Miata. And it won't be made by GM.

and it wont be warranited either.

It won't need it! :laugh:

 

[Whisper]

The Sky and Solstice are two cars I'd definitely consider getting for my next vehicle...

...if I ever actually finish school and find a job that pays more than a graduate stipend.

 

[OS]

other material i skimmed says the turbo boosts 18 psi, i wonder if the car was a press ringer.

 

[Unheard]

Originally posted by: Horus

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2821912

gist: 200lbft of trq available from 2000 rpm to about 6000 rpm

228hp, and 248 lb-ft of trq.

thats some power

o yea, this is from a 2.0l engine, highest specific output/liter of any GM engine ever.

Congrats. You can do that with a 1.6L Miata. And it won't be made by GM.

I'll take a GM over a Ford any day.

 

[iversonyin]

Originally posted by: Unheard

Originally posted by: Horus

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2821912

gist: 200lbft of trq available from 2000 rpm to about 6000 rpm

228hp, and 248 lb-ft of trq.

thats some power

o yea, this is from a 2.0l engine, highest specific output/liter of any GM engine ever.

Congrats. You can do that with a 1.6L Miata. And it won't be made by GM.

I'll take a GM over a Ford any day.

Ford own parts of Mazda. I believe Mazda vehicles arent produce in Ford plants.

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
That's a pretty flat curve. It weighs about 2600LBs iirc.

thats about the same as a stock 1986-1993 mustang 5.0 to put that into perspective..
and the power/torque is almost exact.. that should be a prtty peppy little fun to drive car.. specially at the pricepoint it is at.

I believe the 1/4 mile time is 14.2. C&D did a test on a road course with a Solstice GXP against a Boxster and the Solstice GXP was faster, but as C&D has been doing lately, the slower, way more expensive car won with the reasoning "You can buy a used Boxster for only $10k more than a new GXP" (note that the MSRP on a new Boxster is about twice of what the Solstice GXP is)

C&D has been doing some retarded comparison tests lately.
4 Cylinder sports coupes: complained that the SRT4 w/ the ACR package was so well suited for autocrossing and awarded the win to the slowest car in the 5 car comparison (RSX)
Sports car shootout: Compared a $75k Z06 'vette against a $120k Porche and a $150k Ferrari. The Z06 was fastest, but they gave the win to the Ferrari.

14.2 is very respectable for a stock car... thats faster than my 1988 mustang GT ran it in before mods...

and im sure there are othe toys you can throw on the car to wake it up..

 

[YBS1]

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!

Stock S2000's have ran as fast as 13.7 through the quarter (though it wouldn't suprise me at all if the redline/gxp dips into the 13's as well as more tests filter in). Also the Redline isn't a $26K car, the base price is $28,895 + any options. The total cost of ownership isn't likely to be very different at all between the two cars, and that is not implying that I believe the Sky will be unreliable and higher in maintenance (hint: resale value). I'm of the opinion you will get what you pay for from either choice. At this point the S2000 does seem to be slightly better all around (as it should be since it costs more). I pass a lady going the opposite direction driving a white Sky (non redline) with tan top/interior just about every day, they are some sharp looking cars, particularly that color combo.

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: YBS1

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!

Stock S2000's have ran as fast as 13.7 through the quarter (though it wouldn't suprise me at all if the redline/gxp dips into the 13's as well as more tests filter in). Also the Redline isn't a $26K car, the base price is $28,895 + any options. The total cost of ownership isn't likely to be very different at all between the two cars, and that is not implying that I believe the Sky will be unreliable and higher in maintenance (hint: resale value). I'm of the opinion you will get what you pay for from either choice. At this point the S2000 does seem to be slightly better all around (as it should be since it costs more). I pass a lady going the opposite direction driving a white Sky (non redline) with tan top/interior just about every day, they are some sharp looking cars, particularly that color combo.

Um ok but id take a 2006 mustang GT convert for the same pricepoint with a V8 and its a 4 seater that will run the 1/4 in mid 13s stock so basically its a what you prefer type of thing..
hell for the same price you can also get an 2004 Aniversary Cobra that has over 400 hp stock in convertable form..

there are always choices people are partial to.. cars are largley about personal taste... so there isnt alaways an answer that just makes sence is my point.

 

[YBS1]

Originally posted by: CVSiN


Um ok but id take a 2006 mustang GT convert for the same pricepoint with a V8 and its a 4 seater that will run the 1/4 in mid 13s stock so basically its a what you prefer type of thing..
hell for the same price you can also get an 2004 Aniversary Cobra that has over 400 hp stock in convertable form..

there are always choices people are partial to.. cars are largley about personal taste... so there isnt alaways an answer that just makes sence is my point.

What does any of this have to do with my post?

 

[DougK62]

Typical. If this was a Japanese car everyone in this thread would be swinging from its sack.

 

[YBS1]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

prove that the s2k will outhandle it in the curves, no seriously, do it.

the redline outhandles the 350z, and cant quite keep up with the Z4.

Well, considering the S2000 is usually considered a tic ahead of the Z4, you already did, didn't you?

 

[Apex]

Very nice, I wouldn't mind driving around one of these.

 

[batmang]

20lbs of boost... thats a smalllllll turbo. must be similar in size as the k03 vw turbo. thats what my 1.8t has. its small, but fun to drive.

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: YBS1

Originally posted by: CVSiN


Um ok but id take a 2006 mustang GT convert for the same pricepoint with a V8 and its a 4 seater that will run the 1/4 in mid 13s stock so basically its a what you prefer type of thing..
hell for the same price you can also get an 2004 Aniversary Cobra that has over 400 hp stock in convertable form..

there are always choices people are partial to.. cars are largley about personal taste... so there isnt alaways an answer that just makes sence is my point.

What does any of this have to do with my post?

the point is that for the same price you think an S2000 is a better car.. well to other people the Sky/Solstice may be more attractive the same way the mustang at the same price point is to me..
basically different strokes.. different folks..

 

[YBS1]

Originally posted by: DougK62
Typical. If this was a Japanese car everyone in this thread would be swinging from its sack.

Hell, I love the Sky. Awesome looks, good performance, and a good price point. I'm a bit disappointed by it's performance numbers though, I was expecting it to measurably (even if somewhat slight) handle the S2000 in most performance categories given GM usually over performs their "paper numbers".

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: deadlyapp
That's a beast. It weighs similar to the S2000 but the S has no torque and hp peaks at like 8 grand at somewhere around 200whp.

The S2000 is still faster. C/D noted this in their test. Not bad considering Honda does it with the same size engine (ok, a little bigger in the later models, but not any faster) and no boost.

The ecotech is hardly a model of reliability, though it's not the worst. With 20 lb. of boost, I expect to see a lot of these stranded on the highway.

 

[AdamK47]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

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!

Luckily, most of us don't live a qtr mile at a time...

You just invalidated your post with a Fast and Furious reference.

 

[thirdeye]

Impressive for a cheap car. I'll wait till they work the bugs out. Does the Redline still rub under hard launches like Edmunds experienced with the base model?

 

[CombatChuk]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: deadlyapp
That's a beast. It weighs similar to the S2000 but the S has no torque and hp peaks at like 8 grand at somewhere around 200whp.

The S2000 is still faster. C/D noted this in their test. Not bad considering Honda does it with the same size engine (ok, a little bigger in the later models, but not any faster) and no boost.

The ecotech is hardly a model of reliability, though it's not the worst. With 20 lb. of boost, I expect to see a lot of these stranded on the highway.

What are the 5-60MPH times on the S2000 since it has a little more than half the torque of the redline?