O.k. I was on the throne and I finally got a chance to read the latest edition of C&D Oct/2006 and after reading already 2 articles on the Solstice GXP, I am like nodding my head and sighed in disbelief.
I hate to bring a topic of bench racing, but the numbers are on the disappointing side compared to others.

Lets start with the good.
-BARGAIN!! That is IF you can get it at MSRP. At a starting price of $26K there are few cars that can match the performance per dollar ratio.
-Styling is subjective of course, IMO look at the front and/or rear dead on, and it looks quite good--stylish. The side profile is cartoonish looking (squished); here the SKY hides that look better.
-The car is quick for what it is.
-The gas mileages is good for a performance car and better then its N/A counterpart.
-At least GM is the game.


But here is where I get a sour taste of this car: Test results...

Per C&D Oct/2006
0-60: 5.6
5-60: 6.7
0-100: 14.9
0-120: 22.4
1/4 mile: 14.2@98 mph
Top Speed (drag limited): 142mph
Braking 70-0: 170ft
Road holding grip @ 0.85g

Compared to the--what many will call (not me)"anemic" S2000 with 237HP and 162ft-lb N/A engine pulls better numbers from the same mag.

Per C&D 7/04
0-60: 5.5 (5.4 11/2003)
5-60: 7.0 (6.9 11/2003)
0-100: -- (15.0 11/2003)
0-120: 23.6
1/4 mile: 14.1@99mph (14.1@97mph 11/2003)
Top Speed (drag limited): 150mph (149mph 11/2003)
Braking 70-0: 161ft (166ft 11/2003)
Road holding grip @ 0.92g (-- 11/2003)

Now we look at Solstice GXP in MT Oct/2006
0-60: 5.5
0-100: 14.3
1/4 mile: 14.1@98.7
Braking 60-0: 121ft
Road holding grip@ 0.89avg
MT’s Figure 8: 26.2sec@0.66g

Now we look at the 2004 S2000 from March/2004, the last test done by them.
0-60: 5.8
0-100: 14.6
1/4 mile: 14.1@99.9
Braking: 118ft
Road holding grip @ 0.90avg
MT’s Figure 8: 26.0sec@0.71g

Now I don’t know on R&T’s #s for the GXP, as I have not gotten it yet. But I do have their last test done on the S2000 done in March 2005

0-60: 5.4
0-100:13.8
1/4 mile: 13.9@100.2
Braking 60-0 115ft
Road holding grip@ 0.91g
Top speed: 156mph

So what is the point of this thread, you may ask? Well, two cars that are competing with each other and one is deficient by 23ponies and 98ft-lbs is either equal or faster then its 18psi Turboed, Inter-cooled, direct injected competitor. Not to forget, that the Solstice's tranny gear is better for 2007 and Sky will only be not as quick, because it weighs in more too. And this is in performance alone.
Then we look at its chassis engineering the sophistication of the S2000 is by far executed better, starting with a 50/50 weight distribution compared at 54.4/45.6 for the GXP, then the weight of 2860lbs for the S2000 while still having the convenience of a power top, while the GXP has to lug 3030lbs and that’s with out a power top. Last but not least the S2000 has a cd coefficient of 0.32cd while the brick like Solstice is at 0.45cd (comparison the 1997-2006 Jeep Wrangler is at 0.51cd).
That is just the performance and engineering and S2000 has it beat. Now we look at everyday practicality. I mentioned the S2000 has a power top, while the GXP is manual. I personally can’t complain on manual tops, but the S2000 has it beat on it convenience, especially when compared the P.I.A. Solstice’s top. Then the trunk; drop the top on the Solstice and you don't have one. Here on S2000 drop/raise the top and you still have a usable one. GM made the trunk look like an afterthought for the Kappa's.
The interior of the S2000 is out of this century better in terms of ergonomics/materials used/ driver's feel then the Solstice and here is where lower MSRP on the Solstice REALLY shows.

I dunno... I was not toooo crazy with the Solstice’s execution when it came out. And when I took it to the track, the first thing I said that 2.4L Ecotec is weak as hell and it’s handling was acceptable but not class leading...fun? Maybe. But I gave it better chance when this LNF (because on GM’s paper it looked damn good) and even though I have not tracked the car yet, test numbers are showing disappointment.

Price.... well, one starts at MSRP $26K and the other is at $34K. Now I have seen the S2000 announced in the local Saturday's paper $30K-$32K. We all know with all the price gauging going on, sadly we will not see a $26K for a new GXP atleast for another year, by then the S2000 may retire.

Does a 7 year old product still beat a brand-new product? Hmmm
I will have to see. As of now, I am like.... meh
No replacement for displacement maybe? 2.2L > 2.0L -- Who would have thought on a GM versus Honda.

What are you thoughts on these two?




Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Friday, September 01, 2006 5:46 PM


>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----

Oh yhea... try to keep the topic mature.



>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----

Yeah just another dissapointment if you ask me...

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
Price.... well, one starts at MSRP $26K and the other is at $34K. Now I have seen the S2000 announced in the local Saturday's paper $30K-$32K. We all know with all the price gauging going on, sadly we will not see a $26K for a new GXP atleast for another year, by then the S2000 may retire.

Does a 7 year old product still beat a brand-new product? Hmmm
I will have to see. As of now, I am like.... meh
No replacement for displacement maybe? 2.2L > 2.0L -- Who would have thought on a GM versus Honda.

What are you thoughts on these two?

Personally I would take the Solstice GXP, just because I prefer GM over Honda, and I think the GXP looks better. As for MSRP, you'd be suprised, there are quite a few people on the GXP forums hat have the GXP on order for MSRP or less from their dealer. Plus I feel that once the GXP is out for a while there will be a lot of parts to upgrade. But that's just my 2 cents.

IMO, they are both nice cars. But i'm not planning on buying either one so.....

S2000 way better

Solstice GXP is of course going to be hot because it's listed at $26K MSRP. So it makes sense that the demand for this vehicle would far exceed it's close competitor S2000 which sells for $4k more. Catch-22, Dealer markup of hot vehicle adds another few thousand, and suddenly it matches the S2000. Now who's fault is this really? Can you blame this on GM for making a $26,000K roadster....or should the blame truly fall on the dealerships for providing this BS markup.

I think GM is in the right here, and did an excellent job, it's a shame what a bunch of crooks the dealers are though....

Sorry, I didn't mean $26,000K roadster. That would be a little expensive now wouldn't it? ($26,000,000)

Id say that ragazine drivers are some of the most inconsistant ever. I can see the after market for the LNF become huge once the turbo version is readilly accessible. Also a tune should really awaken the GXP.

For as much of a difference those numbers in the 1/4 give look at the figure 8 times. Only 2 tenths seperation.



05 M6 YJ GTO 1 of 447

i think the s2000 looks better
the sky is better lookin than the solstice
but im not buyin either one
its a shame they need to do all that to keep up with an n/a roadster

^^^
Funny, thats what people say about the supra and camaros...



05 M6 YJ GTO 1 of 447

Edit: About the supra keeping up w/ camaros. And the Ford GT w/ the zo6.



05 M6 YJ GTO 1 of 447

those quarter mile times for the gxp can obviously be improved. it traps 1 mph less than the s2000 but loses by .8 ? yeah right. Perfect that launch and I'm sure you can see 14 flat no problem.

Also, my view on the s2000 vs the gxp is that the s2000 was a lot more race oriented from the manufaturer than the GXP, am I right ? if so, it's obvious that the s2000 will perform better in lapping than a pleasant looking comfy roadster like the GXP.

And then you've got the price, that much difference means you can't really complain that the s2000 is better. Use that 8k difference and make the GXP handle just as good as the s2000 and much faster in a straight line.

Bottom line I like both cars but I don't think I could stand a car slower than a civic until it reaches 4-5000 rpms.



15.574 @ 89 mph stock without charger. new times with charger coming soon.

Miata for the Win. Better aftermarket, and better styling imo. Plus I love the way they handle, ascompared to other roadsters.

Evil Cavalier wrote:Miata for the Win. Better aftermarket, and better styling imo. Plus I love the way they handle, ascompared to other roadsters.

last time i saw a guy that owned a miata it was an old man on the highway holding his boyfirends hand

I can care less about what a magazine rates a car at, I mean I drive a Cavalier right . I like the way the GXP looks honestly, its much more realistic looking than the base Sol. Let the Honda guys have their S2000, Im waiting on the GXP in my driveway this winter .





Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Friday, September 01, 2006 11:34 PM

sky redline is the better looking of the 3

the s2k looks better with a hard top

performance wise , i think the gxp/redline will have a better edge , if GM did the gearing right , and depening how sensitive the stability control stuff is , and how well it turns off when requested

i think GM shoulda steped up the suspension on the more on the gxp/redline , and increased the front brake size , and shoulda left the engine size at 2.4


either way the gxp/redline are going to be a big hit

I know that the post was about the GXP going up against the S2000, but I've sat and watched a NA Sol be put up against the new Miata in a road test, and guess what, the NA Sol came out on top. Even Motor Trend gave the GXP a blue ribbon against the BMW Z4 3.0si, and the Nissan 350 Z....so the GXP is coming out on top for what it is, just give the aftermarket industry a little time to catch up.

As a matter of fact, Hahn already has in development a stage 4 kit for the NA sol that puts the horsepower to the crank at over 400 and to the wheels at just under, on stock internals...so for the extra 8 grand that people could spend on the S2000, I'll be doing upgrades on the GXP.

I can't say I'm surprised.. GM knows how produce cars that make power but fails (again) in the areas that require any finesse (suspension and braking). Regardless of the mag times I fully expect the GXP to edge out the S2000 on a drag strip with your typical driver. I think GM failed to realize that it takes more than a just a bunch of power to make a car that drivers want to drive. People will want them because they look great and want to be seen in one, people will want it because it has power and will likely be easy to get more power out of it, but I don't think that very many are going to buy it because they plan to drive it the way it's looks and power suggest that it should be driven. GM had the chance to make something that could have shamed the S2000 and even been a cheap boxster alternative and instead have made something that isn't bad per se just not quite what we all would have hoped.

Personally when I drive by a dealership the S2k catches my eye as opposed to the Solstice. Now I like the Redline but for a person who just looks to drive a car for looks and style, then yeah I think the S2K takes the win.

If I ever desired to own one or the other, I'd choose neither because I much prefer the style cues of the Sky. But I think the real edge with the GXP will be its aftermarket. You'll be able to build a great Roadster for a cheaper price than an S2K. In stock form S2000 wins. With some mods and work, though I still think the styling goes to the S2000, the GXP wins IMO.



Proud member of JBOK (J-bodies of Kentucky)

Clipzed Z24,
Yes, you are right... in MT, GXP won. But it won because it was a bargain at $30K vs $50K and not because of the car itself. Personally, standings are a matter of opinions, in which quite frankly I could care less, seen to many discrepancies.

Now lets look at the facts, both Z4 & GXP weighing about the same GXP having 5 more HP & 40lbs-ft advantage was slower at the road course and strait line track.

I mean, am I the only one expecting an all out, balls on the wall performance from the LNF equipped Solstice? We are looking at 3050lbs with a whopping 260HP/260TQ 18psi-Turboed, intercooled, Direct-injected, RWD and it can not whoop its competition. Strait line nor track.

Yhea, the aftermarket might be plentiful in the future. But now you have to spend even more money to better the competition. What ever happened to the theory "out of the box performance," like a SRT-?, Z06, Mustang GT, V8 powered F-body, etc.

Quote:

i think GM shoulda steped up the suspension on the more on the gxp/redline , and increased the front brake size , and shoulda left the engine size at 2.4

And GM did, compared to its base N/A model:
-33.3mm vs 27.2mm front stabilizer bar
-25.4mm vs 24.2mm rear stabilizer bar
-LSD standard
-High performance summer tires compared vs all-season tires
-StabiliTrak (on-off)

Also new for 2007 (Aisin-MA5) 5-speed tranny has a shorter 3rd gear, to remove the large gap from second to third.

On GM's Press release paper, the car looked to be the benchmark on performance--at 3000lbs pounds, RWD traction/fun, 260HP/260TQ, better chassis components all around on a platform that was plenty capable.

With all of that GM put on, I was expecting numbers of:
0-60 5.0
1/4 13.7@ 103mph
Top speed 150mph
0.94 lateral Gs
braking 70-0 160ft

I am glad GM decided to keep the MSRP price at $26K-$30K. Because the track numbers are meh.
Hey at least it gets 21/30 MPGs, which is better then the competition and helpful in today's times.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Saturday, September 02, 2006 8:40 AM


>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----

the only way ill get a GXP is if they do release the rumored hardtop version. I hate convertibles and don't want anything to do with something that could be lighter and have a stiffer structure if it had a full roof.


<~~~~PWN3D!!

I am starting to think that GM doesn't really care about sports car racing, I mean that is what the corvette is for, right? I think GM is just trying to make a good car that sells. GM wanted to make more power out of a small effiecient motor and they did that. Don't believe that magazine garbage. They are never right. Remember the review on the SRT 4 when it first came out? They underated that engine. If they are right about the Soltice and needing help in the 1/4 mile, look into the aftermarket. If I was their marketing director, I would do the same thing. Think about it. Gas is high, a bigger motor with more power drinks a lot of gas. Nobody wants that right now. You do and I do, but we are apart of a rare few right now. My advice, get HP Tuners for that Solstice, upgrade the turbo and drop down to 17" vs. 18" wheels. If this is done, that thing will move. If doesn't do it for you, get a used corvette and HP Tuners. Same price, pretty much.

Hmmmm let's see.

First off.

I hate C&D, I think they miss the point 98% of the time. Espically Csaba Csere. IMO, Automobile, and Winding Road, are alot better Mags, WR is online, and free, David E. Davis Jr, is the editor for that, it is slightly different that a C&D/R&T mag though.

Your comparing a car that has 7 years more development, espically in the engine. Which, from people who have told me, I havn't driven it personally, just doesn't provide the "feeling" that one for expect for the numbers it puts up. Great... it gets 237 HP out of a NA, but if I don't get enjoyment out of driving it... I dont care. What do you think the Solstice can be in 7 more years, and stick 6-8k on the price? I'll bet it would have lost ~250 lbs (just by using Carbon Fibre parts for the hood or whatnot, theres 50 right there) and make 30 more hp.

Lets look at something thats almost the same price!

The Mx-5 Mazda Speed:
MSRP Starting at: $26,340
MECHANICAL

1.8L DOHC 16-valve turbocharged 4-cylinder engine S
Peak horsepower 178 @ 6000
Peak torque (lb-ft) 166 @ 4500
6-speed manual overdrive transmission with short-throw shifter S
Bosch torque sensing limited-slip rear differential S
EPA mileage, city/highway: 6-speed manual 20 / 26
MAZDASPEED tuned suspension w/gas-filled Bilstein® shock absorbers S
Power-assisted 4-wheel ventilated disc brakes S
Anti-lock Brake System (ABS) with Electronic Brakeforce Distribution (EBD) S



0-60: 6.9 s
1/4: 15.1@90mpg
Skidpad: .96g (thats nice)


Those hp numbers SUCK. But thats what not having a stand alone FMS will do to you. Worse gas mileage to boot. Now, that might be more of a logical test for a mag, I havent seen it yet. But given the choise between the 2, I think the Solstice GXP is a better car. At least to me, the cost to upgrade teh solstices suspension vs. the cost to upgrade the mazdas motor, would be cheaper to get the solstice up to handling.


I wrote this post a long time ago, a real long time ago, back in 94.

something to ponder maybe....

is it at all possible that gm tuned this car down from it's real potential?

i mean why would anyone buy a vette if a solstice could perform as well?



** FOR SALE** http://www.j-body.org/forums/read.php?f=24&i=110879&t=110879

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Quote:

i think GM shoulda steped up the suspension on the more on the gxp/redline , and increased the front brake size , and shoulda left the engine size at 2.4

And GM did, compared to its base N/A model:
-33.3mm vs 27.2mm front stabilizer bar
-25.4mm vs 24.2mm rear stabilizer bar
-LSD standard
-High performance summer tires compared vs all-season tires
-StabiliTrak (on-off)

Also new for 2007 (Aisin-MA5) 5-speed tranny has a shorter 3rd gear, to remove the large gap from second to third.

On GM's Press release paper, the car looked to be the benchmark on performance--at 3000lbs pounds, RWD traction/fun, 260HP/260TQ, better chassis components all around on a platform that was plenty capable.

With all of that GM put on, I was expecting numbers of:
0-60 5.0
1/4 13.7@ 103mph
Top speed 150mph
0.94 lateral Gs
braking 70-0 160ft

I am glad GM decided to keep the MSRP price at $26K-$30K. Because the track numbers are meh.
Hey at least it gets 21/30 MPGs, which is better then the competition and helpful in today's times.

i think GM shoulda went a little more than that , which is why i made that comment

also the gxp/redline suspension is avaliable on the regular model , they also got a larger ps cooler than the regular

staggard wheels and tires , or a size wider tire and 1" wider wheels woulda bee nice too



i didnt mention the MT article , since they gave the win to the gxp because of price , the bmw and the gxp need some track time , personally i think the 350z shoulda been left at home

but it is nice to know the 30k gxp will play with a 50k bwm , that alone is worth the admission