DOES ANYONE KNOW ANYTHING (GOOD OR BAD0 ABOUT THE PONTIAC SOLSTICE? THANKS
The Solstice is nice looking. They're also going to sell a Saturn Sky version.
You can read Autoweek information for this calendar year at the link below.
However, IMO, it's just another GM (Gross Mis-management) 4-banger... :-(
Here is a link that might be useful: Autoweek.com / Search / Pontiac Solstice
I know that Saturn is also coming out with their version soon. So you'll have two copies to choose from. Base is around $19,000.
What is wrong with the use of a 4-cylinder engine in this vehicle? It's competition, the Miata, also uses a 4-cylinder engine.
This engine is, without a doubt, an Ecotec DOHC 4-cylinder engine. It's certainly no Quad-4, if that's what you're trying to get at. I have heard of no problems with the Ecotec 4-cylinder engine and they have been around for 5 years in this country, longer in Europe.
that solstice/sky/lightning/speedster looks like a sweet car!
"What is wrong with the use of a 4-cylinder engine in this vehicle? It's competition, the Miata, also uses a 4-cylinder engine."
Yes, and I'll bet the GM engine is burning oil within a few years. Take a look at the Cavalier 4-banger. Of course, I'm not sure where this engine/drivetrain is coming from. Maybe one of their outside-America plants?
IMO, *quality* manufacturing isn't a job at GM, sad to say...
I'll bet against you.
2001 Saturn with the 2.2L ecotec, 60,000 miles on it, oil change extended WELL PAST recommended interval, it was still full.
A Google search will tell you where the Ecotec is built: Kleinslautern Germany (not sure of the spelling on that one!), Tonawanda, NY, and Spring Hill, TN.
It was first used on Opels in Europe.
I find that the plant a particular car is built in has little to do with much of anything.
As far as "quality" goes, keep in mind that quality is nothing more or less than how well the finished product meets the engineering specifications used to build it.
Most reliability problems, in my experience, stem from inadequate or poor engineering, NOT poor assembly. I have never ever had a single problem with a car that was caused by poor assembly.
RE: pontiac solstice
Posted by: AKAsTJ_Northern_CA (My Page) on Wed, Apr 20, 05 at 8:00
"What is wrong with the use of a 4-cylinder engine in this vehicle? It's competition, the Miata, also uses a 4-cylinder engine."
Have you had a problem with a Cavalier 4 cylinder engine burning oil?I have had several Cavaliers and none burned oil.Including my first that was a 87 with 140000 miles on it.I bought it used and that reliabilty record was the reason I have had a 91 94 99 and 02 since then.Now I trade them at around 50000 sometimes more sometimes less.But I have never had a burning oil problem.Hardly any problems at all as far as that goes.
Also several friends and relatives have owned Cavaliers including my neice who had a 90 with over 150000 miles a nephew had a 87 with more then that and I still see it being driven by a different owner to this day.Also the 94 I owned I see it from time to time and I asked the lady who now has it and she said it is the best most trouble free car she has ever owned.
No, I don't have one.
However, I've been stuck behind some in traffic! All burning oil... :-(
The only vehicles I see on a regular basis with oil burning problems are Mitsubishis and the Chrysler vehicles with Mitsubishi engines (Caravan).
They don't last long in this area..visible smoke means you fail the emissions test. You can't get a waiver for that, either. So the end result is a vehicle you cannot register until you get it fixed.
I was going to type are you sure it was not the Dodge Caravan in front of it.But Brian beat me to it.I do not think I have ever seen a Cavalier that was smoking at a light in front of me?I have seen several that were highly neglected and often thought they must be the Timex of small cars.
Nope. I saw the tailpipes the smoke was coming from. Cavalier, all the way.
"They don't last long in this area..visible smoke means you fail the emissions test."
Nice thought, if everyone would actually register their vehicles! Ever check how many expired license plates there are on the streets? Of course, this applies to all types of vehicles.
IMO, it's a lot like thinking everyone has auto insurance... :-(
I will remember not to never move to California.Around here we do not have all the car testing BS.Maybe in the big cities.But they have not decided to cash in on that nonsense around here.I still dought there burning oil however.If they burn oil it would need oil added and every one I have ever owned never uses a drop between changes.I change it at 3000 miles.Im sure in California there more of a 7500 mile change.To make the tree huggers happy and probably use synthetic to save the earth and all that sort of BS.
Also I here you can not smoke in public places outside in California?I would not last long out there.I like the other 49 non comunistic states however.
The police here are pretty good at enforcing the laws against driving a car with expired tags.
According to some study done by a group associated with the Quick-Lube industry, the average driver gets the oil changed every 9000 miles!
I've decided to change mine at 4500 miles. Ford recommends 5000 miles for non-severe service (highway driving) and 3000 miles for severe service (city driving).
You can figure out about when you should change your oil by figuring out your average fuel economy (easy with a trip computer, or just write it down at the pump). If it's closer to the EPA city estimate, you want to use an interval closer to the 3000-mile severe service interval. If it's closer to the EPA highway estimate, you can use an interval closer to the non-severe service interval (5000 miles for Ford, 7500 miles for GM).
Since the fuel economy I get is much closer to the EPA highway rating than it is the city rating, I decided that 4500 miles is a good interval to use based on my driving.
You could actually do a little math to figure it out:
5000 minus 3000 equals 2000 miles
31 EPA highway minus 21 EPA city equals 10
2000 / 10 = 200
Then subtract EPA city rating (21MPG) from your actual mileage: I get 28MPG so I end up with 7.
Multiply 7 times 200, come up with 1400, add that to 3000 and 4400 miles is the interval. Pretty close to the 4500 miles I guesstimated!
If I were getting 31MPG, I'd multiply 10 times 200, come up with 2000, add that to 3000 and 5000 miles is the interval.
If I were getting 22MPG, first I'd think about moving, and then I'd multiply 1 times 200, come up with 200, add that to 3000 and 3200 miles is the interval.
"Im sure in California there more of a 7500 mile change.To make the tree huggers happy and probably use synthetic to save the earth and all that sort of BS."
I use synthetic in my Z3/2.8L, but it has nothing to do with California. With multiple vehicles, I rarely put 5K miles on this one in any given year.
Also, you can smoke outside, just not everywhere. We try to respect everyone. With your attitude, I doubt you'd last here anyway.
FWIW. I've never hugged a tree, but certainly enjoy their beauty and air quality functionality... :-)
I used to use synthetic, but came to the conclusion that the newer API specs (API SM) have so improved oil that synthetics are not as much of an improvement over conventional oil as they once were.
In fact many "conventional" oils now have synthetic components..Conoco is now advertising their standard API SM oil as a semi-synthetic..and Mobil Clean 5000 ($1.69/quart) would be a full synthetic by the standards of other oil companies (like Castrol).
This is because the API SM specifications have set performance criteria that can't be met with conventional oil.
Your right I would not last there.I have heard that California respect every one.Thats why we send all are fruits and nuts out there to live.
Well you certainly seem to qualify as one or both of those!
Actually, I'm surprised even Illinois allows you to stay within the state... ROFLOL
Ha!!! I think you have been breathing to many car fumes again.Better get your Califonia meter out and take a reading?While your at it better check your spark arrestor.Jethro called and is looking for you down by the cement pond.
Either you're illiterate, drunk/stoned or both. You can't spell. I won't even attempt to point out the grammatical errors, or most of them, for fear you wouldn't know what I'm referring to.
"breathing to many" should be "breathing too many".
"Califonia" should be "California"
"While your at it" should be "While you're at it"
I don't know anyone named Jethro and never have. He/she/it must be one of your relatives... LOL
That's cause the engineers have to design things such that they can be assembled perfectly by Joe Sixpack line worker 'cause Joe wouldn't get anything more complicated assembled properly.
Thanks for pointing that out to me AKA.Your such a good speller you win the Bozo button.I bet you did good in school?Probably got beat up alot however?
"That's cause the engineers have to design things such that they can be assembled perfectly by Joe Sixpack line worker 'cause Joe wouldn't get anything more complicated assembled properly."
No, it's not. For example, how does specifying a wire gauge that's too small for a headlight circuit help Joe Sixpack line worker assemble the harness correctly? He could assemble it just as well with the correct wire size.
How does specifying that the ignition module be mounted on the distributor help assembly? It could just as easily be mounted elsewhere, where it wouldn't suffer from heat-related failures.
How does specifying a certain type of plastic for a waterpump impeller help assembly? It could just as easily be made of another material that won't suffer from premature breakage.
How does specifying a blade-terminal for an alternator output help assembly? It could just as easily be a bolt terminal, which isn't prone to overheating due to a high-resistance connection.
All of the above are real engineering failures I've seen in various cars.
Ya missed the point. The point was that the engineers have managed to make the assembly process largely idiot proof, so the failures are going to have to come from some other source.
Now, to the rest of your post....
Wire guage...that's a problem....probably a cheapness issue.
Ignition module on the dizzy? That's easy...one less thing to bolt into place, and hook up....less wiring and connectors to burn up/break/corrode as well. If its all one module, stab the whole thing in, plug in the connector, and move along.
Plastic for a w/p impeller....who knows....probably that cheapness issue agian.
Alternator blade terminal....DURRR...how long does it take to connect a blade connector? About 3 seconds. How long does it take to attach a wire to a bolt terminal, screw it down and tighten it? 30-40 seconds at best....what happens if the nut isn't tight enough? Loose connection, and overheating.
Don't hold your breath for Solstice! There are already fit and finish problems.
See the Autoweek article linked below...
Here is a link that might be useful: Autoweek.com / See you in September: Production snafus may delay launch of Pontiac Solstice roadster until fall
The failures are engineering failures.
Anything else are just excuses attempting to place blame for the engineering failures on other parties. Beancounters and the assembly line are frequent targets. Saying that the engineering failures exist because they had to dumb it down for the assembly line is the ultimate in responsibility-shifting.
Are you, perhaps, an engineer?
I mentioned were corrected in subsequent model years, by the way. Apparently the assembly plant had no issue with assembling the vehicle with the corrected (as opposed to the original flawed) design.
"Alternator blade terminal....DURRR...how long does it take to connect a blade connector? About 3 seconds."
A bit longer than that if you figure that someone had to first assemble the blade terminal into the connector shell.
"what happens if the nut isn't tight enough? Loose connection, and overheating."
The power tool used to tighten the bolt should have a mechanism to ensure proper torque.
And there are two blade terminals and a splice, so there are two crimps required as opposed to the one crimp if they had used a ring terminal. (The useage of two blade terminals indicates that they knew the current carrying capacity of the blade terminal is limited).
How long does it take to crimp a terminal and solder a splice?
Well, I dunno the specifics of the exact design you reference, but could that not be automated by a relatively inexpensive machine?
Connecting the harness to the alternator can't be automated for any reasonable price, so doesn't it make sense to make the operation take as little time as possible?
Who cares how long it takes if its being done by cheap labor in Mexico. :)
Nope, never have been, never will be. Are you, perhaps, an assembly line worker?
"Well, I dunno the specifics of the exact design you reference, but could that not be automated by a relatively inexpensive machine?"
Not any more than the process of tightening a nut on a ring terminal.
"Who cares how long it takes if its being done by cheap labor in Mexico. :)"
Likewise for the process of tightening a nut on a ring terminal. Both can be done in Mexico. But it's easy to mess up a solder job, and crimping a terminal, too. In fact, tightening a nut on a ring terminal is a much simpler operation.
"Nope, never have been, never will be."
"Are you, perhaps, an assembly line worker?"
No..just someone who can discern between engineering and assembly problems. It doesn't matter how well it's assembled if the product isn't engineered correctly. One clue that you're dealing with an engineering problem and not an assembly problem is when it's a pattern failure--where many of the same model suffer from the same problem.
In addition, part of engineering's job is to design something that can be assembled easily...without compromising the design. I do not accept the idea that engineering has to compromise their design to make it easier for the assembly line worker to assemble it. An engineer that does is probably just not a very good engineer.
A Solstice test drive review from The Car Connection, which includes a comparison against the new Miata...
Here is a link that might be useful: TheCarConnection.com / Vehicle Reviews / Sport Convertibles / 2006 Pontiac Solstice
Here's a comparison of the Solstice and MX-5 Miata from AutoWeek...
Here is a link that might be useful: AutoWeek.com / Double Take: 2006 Pontiac Solstice VS 2006 Mazda MX-5
"Both cars are powered by four-cylinder enginesÂa 2.4-liter in the Pontiac and a 2.0-liter in the MazdaÂbut the Solstice weighs 362 pounds more than the Miata. "
from AutoWeek's article
This is the achilles heel of American cars.
i have been thinking about buying a 2 seat sports car for a couple of years now, and i got to take a good look at the solstice finally, and compare it to the miata. havent driven them yet. the solstice is a nice car, but the top isnt as user friendly as the miata, and it has no trunk room with the top down, and fit and finish just isnt as good as the miata. so if i were spending my hard earned bucks today, i would go with the miata.