How is the Saturn Sky?

[DVad3r]

I never really paid too much attention to that car, after all it is a Saturn lol. I saw one in the parking lot at the gym today, brand new, Redline edition and thought it looked pretty nice upon closer inspection. Been looking at some youtube reviews and most are generally pretty positive.

Thoughts? Opinions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2zzTLHqs6w

lol

 

[zerocool84]

I really like the car. It looks a million times better than the Solstace. The Redline version is decently quick and it's a definite head-turner. I just looked at the KBB on these cars and they seem to be holding their value pretty well but I wonder how cheap you can get one.

 

[yhelothar]

Looks sexy as hell, and the redline is probably the fastest roadster you can get out there, short of the z4 m roadster.
I heard the feel and handling ain't as great as competitors though. Didn't they use a tranny that came out of one of their trucks?

 

[CurseTheSky]

2.0L 260 HP turbo Ecotec I4, around 2950 lbs curb weight. The manual transmission is a Aisin AR-5, also used in the Colorado, Canyon, and H3, but it has a shorter 3rd gear in the Sky. Estimated 0-60 in 5.5 and 1/4 mile in 13.9 @ 100 MPH.

Like zerocool said, the Sky looks loads better than the Pontiac Solstice (the Solstice's front end looks too rolled in my opinion, and reminds me a bit of the newer retro Thunderbird, which I also hate).

I've heard the engine is easily mod-able, and can put down some impressive numbers.

 

[jlee]

I wouldn't be ashamed to drive one.

 

[SparkyJJO]

That's one of the few small cars with a 4 banger I'd be willing to own. Cool little car.

 

[Mermaidman]

I hardly see the Skystice twins with the top down--It's because of the stupid top mechanism, isn't it? I am not a GM hater, but what were they thinking?!

 

[sindows]

You've been missing out as GM has been producing some great designs lately. The newest being the Buick Lacrosse. It looks much better than any of it's competitors.

Back on topic, the Sky is pretty good from a design perspective but doesn't deliver on the driving experience. However I'm sure it would be great fun with an lsx engine. It has been done with the Solstice so I'm assuming the same could be done with the Sky.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: CurseTheSky
2.0L 260 HP turbo Ecotec I4, around 2950 lbs curb weight. The manual transmission is a Aisin AR-5, also used in the Colorado, Canyon, and H3, but it has a shorter 3rd gear in the Sky. Estimated 0-60 in 5.5 and 1/4 mile in 13.9 @ 100 MPH.

Like zerocool said, the Sky looks loads better than the Pontiac Solstice (the Solstice's front end looks too rolled in my opinion, and reminds me a bit of the newer retro Thunderbird, which I also hate).

I've heard the engine is easily mod-able, and can put down some impressive numbers.

There's an upgrade that the dealer can do for about $500 that involves a sensor and computer flash to get it to about 290HP, a friend did it in his Solstice and is very pleased. Doesn't void the warranty either.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: Mermaidman
I hardly see the Skystice twins with the top down--It's because of the stupid top mechanism, isn't it? I am not a GM hater, but what were they thinking?!

?
I see them with the tops down all the time (unless it is bad weather of course)

 

[Viper GTS]

The general consensus on the Kappa vehicles seems to be that they don't do anything well enough to justify their existence. Too bad, really, as they're gorgeous little cars. It's sad to see them die without ever reaching v2.0, they could have been so much better.

Having driven a couple Solstices and about as many CPO Boxsters I'd take a CPO Boxster over a GXP/Redline any day. MUCH better car overall, & the driving experience is light years ahead of the GM twins.

Viper GTS

 

[RichieZ]

Originally posted by: astroidea
Looks sexy as hell, and the redline is probably the fastest roadster you can get out there, short of the z4 m roadster.
I heard the feel and handling ain't as great as competitors though. Didn't they use a tranny that came out of one of their trucks?

boxster s anybody?

 

[CurseTheSky]

For a Boxster S, you'd be looking at a 2003ish to get it down into the price range of the Sky Redline. That's using KBB values as a very loose suggestion.

2003 Boxster S - 3.2L 258 HP H6, 6 speed manual, around 3130 lbs curb weight. Estimated 0-60 in 5.4s, 1/4 mile somewhere in the ballpark of 13.7-14.1.

Don't get me wrong, being able to say you drive a Porsche carries more "weight" than a Saturn (even the Sky), but performance wise, for the money, you're not doing bad at all with the Red Line.

 

[DVad3r]

Originally posted by: JLee
I wouldn't be ashamed to drive one.

Yea those are exactly my thoughts when it comes to driving a Saturn, but I'd give this sucker a spin no problem It's even got amazing fuel mileage lol.

Apperently the top isn't a big deal and takes 20 seconds to take down, obviously the downside is you need to be out of the car, but who cares. Also the only negative thing I've seen written about it is it's cargo space which is virtually non-existant.

 

[thomsbrain]

The Sky is a good-looking car and one of the more compelling cars from GM in a long time. That said, I'd rather have an S2000 and I put my money where my mouth is. Here's why:

200 pounds lighter, vastly better drivetrain, fastest top in the industry IIRC, much better handling, perfect 50/50 weight distribution with front/mid-engined design, better exhaust note, much larger aftermarket. According to Car and Driver, the S2000 is 0.1 second quicker to 60 and 0.2 second/2 MPH faster through the quarter, and stops from 70 MPH in 17 fewer feet. Available bolt-ons will take you close to 400 HP at the wheels. Huge international community following with regional clubs. Race series devoted to car. Very easy to work on at home. Manufacturer is not bankrupt. And so on...

The Sky has... more relaxed driving in town. Which is about 1,387 on my list of things I care about in a car like this.

It's an easy choice unless you've got a "built in america" chip on your shoulder.

 

[RichieZ]

Originally posted by: CurseTheSky
For a Boxster S, you'd be looking at a 2003ish to get it down into the price range of the Sky Redline. That's using KBB values as a very loose suggestion.

2003 Boxster S - 3.2L 258 HP H6, 6 speed manual, around 3130 lbs curb weight. Estimated 0-60 in 5.4s, 1/4 mile somewhere in the ballpark of 13.7-14.1.

Don't get me wrong, being able to say you drive a Porsche carries more "weight" than a Saturn (even the Sky), but performance wise, for the money, you're not doing bad at all with the Red Line.

i'm not saying they are comparable cars, i'm just responding and saying the boxster s is a better/faster car than the Z4M.

For the record I have a 08 boxster (base) and used to drive a 05 Z4.

 

[Pliablemoose]

The Miata is a better car and has massive aftermarket support.

I think the thing that really defines the Sky/Solstice is that they use the Colorado transmission in it. Consumer Reports called it the worst car of 09 IIRC...

 

[IcePickFreak]

The Saturn sky is mostly hydrogen and helium I thought??

 

[mc866]

I think I'm in the minority here but I think it's fugly. That's just my personal opinion, if I were looking for something similar I would probably go for a S2K and maybe the miata.

 

[Byblyk]

If you bought a Sky Redline with the LNF turbo upgrade from the factory then your already 0-60 in 4.9s which is faster than the boxter S and you have a compareable skid pad. It's a good car the honda guys hate it because it competes(a little too well) with the S2000.

Edit: The 4.9 is a conservitave 0-60 time some claim 4.7, either way this puts you with the SLK 55 AMG and the porsche carrera for $25,000USD

 

[mztykal]

I would buy another MR2 Spyder or a S2000.

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: mztykal
I would buy another MR2 Spyder or a S2000.

I actually wouldn't mind getting the Sky. I hate the overuse of chrome though.

 

[RichieZ]

Originally posted by: Byblyk
If you bought a Sky Redline with the LNF turbo upgrade from the factory then your already 0-60 in 4.9s which is faster than the boxter S and you have a compareable skid pad. It's a good car the honda guys hate it because it competes(a little too well) with the S2000.

Edit: The 4.9 is a conservitave 0-60 time some claim 4.7, either way this puts you with the SLK 55 AMG and the porsche carrera for $25,000USD

2009 Boxster S (DFI) w/ PDK:
"The dual-clutch PDK drops the acceleration time to just 4.7 seconds thanks to its "launch control" mode."

no doubt the sky is a fast car, but if i was looking in that price range the s2k would be my choice.

how many of you guys have actually owned a roadster/vert? I don't understand why they would design a top the requires you to do so many things to put it down. if you don't want a power top why not go with the design on the miata?

 

[scott916]

My dad's gf just bought one, and I drove it the other day. The engine was a bit buzzy and not extremely powerful, but it handled wonderfully. I took a sharp right at about 30mph and not even a tire chirp.

 

[EightySix Four]

I have a Sky RL. It has been tuned and a few small modifications that nicely affect the handling. The motor is very strong, the turbo is fun, and the interior is far superior to the Solstice. The top mechanism is not as bad as they say but it's no where near as good as other modern convertibles. Avoid the early 2008 models, they don't have the electric vacuum booster the others do and it has some weird effects on the brakes. Shoot me a PM if you'd like me to show you how to tell the diff. Gas mileage is good. There is NO trunk. None. Seriously.

Any specific questions?