 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Pontiac / Pontiac Fiero / May 2005Any thoughts on the Solstice? other new Pontiacs?
I'm just trying to bring a little life back to the group, so forgive me if this has been discussed to death in other forums. I don't go to other Fiero forums, so I wouldn't know. Anyway, I like that Pontiac has been given a new sporty car, but I'm not completly sold on the Solstice. My problem isn't with the car itself but more with it's timing. It looks to me like Pontiac could have had something but they waited until the "roadster" market was already flooded. This isn't forward thinking. If there weren't so many other cars just like it, I'd love one. As for the firebird, I think that car needed radical changes but it didn't get them. The modern market just will not tolerate a car that is a battleship on the outside but cramped on the inside. People want a car that is like the tardis, small and sporty outside but unbeleivably huge inside. A cars useable space must be as high a percentage of total space as possible, which leaves little room for giant sweeping windshields and rear decks that are half the length of the total car. I didn't dislike the firebird, but to me it wasn't as good as the fiero no matter what engine they put in it. The GTO is nice. I'd like to see someone do a chop top on it. The car looks good now but if you chopped the top to make it a few inches shorter and then parked it near normal GTOs I bet you'd have some heads turning. Maybe someone here can photoshop a picture to see. > The GTO is nice. I'd like to see someone do a chop top on it. The car > looks good now but if you chopped the top to make it a few inches > shorter and then parked it near normal GTOs I bet you'd have some > heads turning. Maybe someone here can photoshop a picture to see. On second thought maybe sectioning would be better for the GTO. That's when part of the car is removed from the middle instead of higher. It's next to impossible and only completely custom cars have it. All I've ever wanted an American car company to do is build a small two seater roadster style sportscar. If GM would have continued the Fiero line with applied engineering and technology it probably could've rivaled the Europeans with no problem. America is too caught up in the big horsepowered 'Vettes and whatever. Sure, now the market has a bunch of two seaters so the Solstice will probably go ash-can quickly. I plan on taking my 2M4 silver Fiero to my local Pontiac dealership when they get one and tell the guy I want to trade. >> The GTO is nice. I'd like to see someone do a chop top on it. The car >> looks good now but if you chopped the top to make it a few inches [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > part of the car is removed from the middle instead of higher. It's next to > impossible and only completely custom cars have it. > All I've ever wanted an American car company to do is build a small > two seater roadster style sportscar. If GM would have continued the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > quickly. I plan on taking my 2M4 silver Fiero to my local Pontiac > dealership when they get one and tell the guy I want to trade. I hope you're kidding about the trade. Car lots always screw you on the trade. They give you a grand, mark up the cost of what you buy 800 dollars (even if it means just having it stickered higher, don't let the no haggle fool you) then auction off the trades for 500 dollars. They make money comming and going that way. Sell it on Ebay motors. Being a 4 it's probably a notch back and those go for much less than the fast backs, but there is a market. I agree with you about one thing, big horsepower in big cars was the way america wanted to be. I love big cars myself, but everyone knows a lighter car is faster with the same HP. Personally I don't need something that goes 200 mph and I'm certainly not willing to pay for it. IMHO, Solstice = convertible jellybean = fugly. The Solstice is nothing more than a slightly bigger Miata, and they were fugly jellybeans when they first came out, too. The Saturn Sky is basically the same car but with better design cues. Also, for the first time since 1982, they got the Firebird/TransAm *right* again, sold it for a couple of years, and then they killed it. Way to go, GM. Good riddance, Camaro, but it didn't need to take the Firebird with it. > IMHO, > Solstice = convertible jellybean = fugly. The Solstice is nothing more > than a slightly bigger Miata, and they were fugly jellybeans when they > first came out, too. > > The Saturn Sky is basically the same car but with better design cues. I might have to agree with you on that one. the Sky has a meaner look. I want to see them in person though since good looking cars often look boring in pictures and extravagant cars that look good on the web look silly in person (caugh***new mustang***caugh***looks like an 80s toyota***caugh) > Also, for the first time since 1982, they got the Firebird/TransAm > *right* again, sold it for a couple of years, and then they killed it. > Way to go, GM. > > Good riddance, Camaro, but it didn't need to take the Firebird with it. The Camaro needed better headlight treatment. Why the holes there, all other cars have clear covers that are flush but the sporty car can't? Although the prices sort of killed it. If you were willing to spend that much on a Chevy you'd get a vette. As for the firebird I have to disagree. Rather than make it better they made it worse. The firebird has always been too big and too cramped inside. In the 80's that was okay, the new body however intensified that. They bubbled out all the lines to reduce visibility to a dangerous level and increase overall mass, altered the hood lines to keep you from seeing the car in front making driving awkward, and layed the windshield back so far that small children could get lost on your dashboard. I liked the 80's version better. > > IMHO, > > Solstice = convertible jellybean = fugly. The Solstice is nothing more [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > silly in person (caugh***new mustang***caugh***looks like an 80s > toyota***caugh) ::chuckle:: Now it's my turn to disagree... :-) I loved the 1968 fastback Mustangs, and I think the new design captures and updates the whole feel of that bodystyle... funny how different aesthetics strike different people. :-) > I liked the > 80's version better. Oh, I did too - I think the '82 TransAm was the perfect Firebird. But I'd buy a 2000 Firebird in a heartbeat... :-) >::chuckle:: Now it's my turn to disagree... :-) I loved the 1968 > fastback Mustangs, and I think the new design captures and updates the > whole feel of that bodystyle... funny how different aesthetics strike > different people. :-) I'm so close to liking the new one, but something doesn't fit. It's hard for me to put my finger on it. My first impression was that the classic front end didn't fit the rounded hood and greenhouse. It needed a more aerodynamic front or perhaps a grill that was less set in and more flush with the front. A friend of mine who eats sleeps and breaths mustangs said it isn't the roundness and the front but the lack of a hood scoop. He thinks the rounded hood needs something to cap it off like a small ram air set up similar to that on the GTO. I'd like to see someone do some mods and see what happens. >> I liked the >> 80's version better. > > Oh, I did too - I think the '82 TransAm was the perfect Firebird. But > I'd buy a 2000 Firebird in a heartbeat... :-) I was thinking about the new Firebirds since you mentioned it. I think my biggest complaint is with the excessive head clearance. The green house is too tall and the driver sits too far back, making for a huge dash. I'd like to photoshop one chopped. I also wonder why the driver has to sit so far back. With a windshield like that I'd think the persons head should be under the end of it and not so far back. Perhaps that would hinder visibility in some way though, maybe the sun would blind you? I have an 03 grand am it also has a tall greenhouse and a big rear end. It fits more on a sedan though, but who are they making these Pontiacs for? The NBA I guess. Heck if you're that tall you'd buy a cadilac. > ::chuckle:: Now it's my turn to disagree... :-) I loved the 1968 > fastback Mustangs, and I think the new design captures and updates the > whole feel of that bodystyle... funny how different aesthetics strike > different people. :-) I liked the 60's Mustangs to. But Ford perfectly recaptured the nostalgic look of the 70's Mustang II (ICK, cough...) with the current one, not quite the version they were aiming for. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.