MT Solstice comparo (S2000 not included WTF?)
08-30-2006, 07:27 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
MT Solstice comparo (S2000 not included WTF?)
Well MT (rag) had a comparo of 3 roadsters listed in title.
Solstice was mid-pack in lap times (Z4 quickest). Same goes with all the acceleration times 350Z slowest; Z4 quickest
Here are the 1/4 mile times:
Z4 13.8s@100.1 mph
Solstice 14.1s@98.7 mph
350Z 14.3s@98.7 mph
I don't want to dwell too much ont the actual times b/c the S2000 was not there so who knows what times it would have got, I can't say if the Solstice is quicker or slower or about the same.
My beef is that the S2000 is the ONE car that you should compare to the Solstise GXP on price, power and weight.
The 350Z vert weighs 3576 lbs vs 3040 lbs for the GXP.
The Z4 (as tested) was $50K (starts at $43K) vs the GXP as tested $29K (starts at $27K) the 350Z vert price as tested was $39K
Not that the Z4 isn't a nice car, but why not have a S2000 in the test and/or leave out the 350Z vert (weight) or the Z4 (price)?
Solstice was mid-pack in lap times (Z4 quickest). Same goes with all the acceleration times 350Z slowest; Z4 quickest
Here are the 1/4 mile times:
Z4 13.8s@100.1 mph
Solstice 14.1s@98.7 mph
350Z 14.3s@98.7 mph
I don't want to dwell too much ont the actual times b/c the S2000 was not there so who knows what times it would have got, I can't say if the Solstice is quicker or slower or about the same.
My beef is that the S2000 is the ONE car that you should compare to the Solstise GXP on price, power and weight.
The 350Z vert weighs 3576 lbs vs 3040 lbs for the GXP.
The Z4 (as tested) was $50K (starts at $43K) vs the GXP as tested $29K (starts at $27K) the 350Z vert price as tested was $39K
Not that the Z4 isn't a nice car, but why not have a S2000 in the test and/or leave out the 350Z vert (weight) or the Z4 (price)?
08-30-2006, 07:30 AM
#3
I have no idea why they didn't include an '06 S2000 in the test. Maybe, because it would have won the comparo and MT wanted to throw a bone to GM and the Solstice GXP?
08-30-2006, 07:37 AM
#4
Registered User
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by PLYRS 3,Aug 30 2006, 07:29 AM
they probably thought the S2000 has been played out already....
The Solstice has to beat the S2000 (or the Miata for the NA solstice).
The Solstice does not have to beat the Boxster or Boxster S or Z4 or SLK350 (etc..) if it does that's fine, but still need to face the car priced closest to it with same/similar power/weight/acceleration (no?)
08-30-2006, 07:41 AM
#5
Registered User
true, based on prior comparos. but has the '06/'07 been tested by anyone????
someone should send a letter to the editor and ask...they'll prolly respond too.
someone should send a letter to the editor and ask...they'll prolly respond too.
08-30-2006, 07:43 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They def. should have booted the 350ZR and replaced it with the S2000 for a couple reasons.
1. S2K is a better comparison.
2. I'm sick of them testing the over-weight ZR...it makes the Z seem like less of a performer than it is. It wasn't built as a convt. where the other two, and the S, were.
1. S2K is a better comparison.
2. I'm sick of them testing the over-weight ZR...it makes the Z seem like less of a performer than it is. It wasn't built as a convt. where the other two, and the S, were.
08-30-2006, 07:50 AM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by harshfury,Aug 30 2006, 07:43 AM
They def. should have booted the 350ZR and replaced it with the S2000 for a couple reasons.
1. S2K is a better comparison.
2. I'm sick of them testing the over-weight ZR...it makes the Z seem like less of a performer than it is. It wasn't built as a convt. where the other two, and the S, were.
1. S2K is a better comparison.
2. I'm sick of them testing the over-weight ZR...it makes the Z seem like less of a performer than it is. It wasn't built as a convt. where the other two, and the S, were.
FACT: The Z vert IS what the Z stands for.
FACT: It is a slow pig.
FACT: Even though I don't care for the Solstice GXP, I'd take the BASE model solstice, OVER the Z 'vert.
...Oh wait... *whispers*.. you mean it wasn't meant to be a 'vert? Oh....
j/k
I would be glad that the S wasn't in there. MT would say that the S is aging, still no torque and that it's a solid car but the radio sucks even with the headrest speakers.
Personally I think the S is aging well and is way better than the Solstice, but I can see where MT wouldn't.
Trending Topics
08-30-2006, 07:57 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Easton
Posts: 5,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, there's every chance they would have picked the S last. 
And for that matter, who cares? I don't need MT or CD or RT or anyone else to validate my purchase. I'm sure they are all fine cars each with very good qualities, but for the money my (used) S kicked the ever living shit out of them when it comes to an overall combination of looks, quality, sounds, speed, and fun.
And for that matter, who cares? I don't need MT or CD or RT or anyone else to validate my purchase. I'm sure they are all fine cars each with very good qualities, but for the money my (used) S kicked the ever living shit out of them when it comes to an overall combination of looks, quality, sounds, speed, and fun.
The best trips are those without a destination 