score one for the general

[prontostar]

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?se...article_id=9969

"Handling: Both have handling limits that are substantial yet easy to probe. Approach the limits in the MX-5, and the softer suspension never quite settles down. The light-footed ride gives the MX-5 a delicate character. The Solstice trades that featheriness for a secure, buttoned-down feel at the limit. Comparatively narrow summer tires on the MX-5 stick and then break away; the Solstice's wider all-season rubber loses grip more gradually. Advantage: Solstice."


"THE VERDICT
The frenetic and lightweight MX-5 is a single-minded sports car. The heavier Solstice has two personalities: cruiser and sports car—it excels at both. In this purely subjective evaluation, the Solstice scores higher. When we do a formal and objective comparison, the result might change. But we'd say the General has won this skirmish." Edited October 5, 2005 by prontostar

[HarleyEarl]

In just looks alone the Solstice wins. The MX-5 has that odd Japanese look to it...especially the front end. Definitely not an improvement over the previous model.

[prinzSD]

Finally saw a black Solstice in front of a Honda S2000 on highway 4 in Antioch, ca and I say it look gorgeous moving down the road. The S2000 looked like a brick.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

In this purely subjective evaluation, the Solstice scores higher. When we do a formal and objective comparison, the result might change. But we'd say the General has won this skirmish."

As they carefully, in typical Car & Driver fashion, open the door for the Solstice to take a fall in the REAL comparison.

WOW, what a built in liability release statement! Did they get their lawyers to write that for them?!?!?!?!

SUBJECTIVE because we all know that logically and objectively the import is the better car... To bad their disentary of the mouth about imports besting domestics for the past 20 years hasn't held the SUBJECTIVE liability release statement..... I guess they're just assumed better and assumed it is accepted that way.

Reasons for this:

1) Built in safety net so they can reverse their opinion if there is too much backlash from readers.
2) To toy with domestic fans and give them a kick in the teeth for being rednecks and liking lowly cars.
3) To see how pissed off their "Asian friends" get so that they have a chance to recant.
4) To give GM false hope (Throw 'em a bone) and hook a few more of it's fans into import minded bliss.
5) Just for the drama of "the story"

[Diognes56]

I FINALLY saw a Solstice recently on the highway, and it definitely stood out. I saw a MX-5 at the Mazda dealership and well, it looks like something aliens would use on cows. David

[I hope GMRULES again]

Went by a dealer today and saw a Solstice for the first time in person (not counting car shows) and the car is just incredible. You can look at pictures of any car on the net or in magizines but not until you see it in person can you really get a feel for it. The Solstice just looked so amazing sitting there next to all these other generic cars. Too bad Pontiac couldn't build a 100k of these cause they could easily sell every one of them. A great car at a fantasic price. <_<

[caddycruiser]

One question about the car--nearly every one I've seen in pictures so far suffers from sort of a bunched up/big wrinkles in the fabric behind the doors. Just doesn't look like the material was cut too precisely--any comments?

Here's a few examples:





Now I have seen some that look to fit a little better and not have as bad of wrinkles, but this just made me wonder.

[Croc]

The top has to be like that for the folding motion so it has some give to it. With moving parts, you're gonna get that.

Even the Sebring has it, just not to as noticeable a degree:

[caddycruiser]

The top has to be like that for the folding motion so it has some give to it.  With moving parts, you're gonna get that.

Even the Sebring has it, just not to as noticeable a degree:

[post="24994"][/post]

I understand that, but it really seems like it was an installation issue, because the earliest cars look like they have defective or already stretched out roofs, but as the build dates have increased, the defects/creases/folds in the roof seem to have gotten less and less noticeable.

I guess what I was asking is why a QC issue like that wasn't taken care of immediately, rather than just let a natural learning curve "smooth things out" as more cars went down the line. Edited October 7, 2005 by caddycruiser

[prinzSD]

The top has to be like that for the folding motion so it has some give to it.  With moving parts, you're gonna get that.

Even the Sebring has it, just not to as noticeable a degree:

[post="24994"][/post]

But I have seen Ferarris with flying butresses as part of the folding top and they did not have the wrinkles. Maybe I was not looking hard enough.

[CaddyXLR-V]

But I have seen Ferarris with flying butresses as part of the folding top and they did not have the wrinkles. Maybe I was not looking hard enough.

[post="25264"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

But your talking about a $100+ car that can support the engineering to have no wrinkles. The Solstice costs $20,000.

[caddycruiser]

Like I said, a lot of the "later" builds that I've seen look to have better fitting/laying canvas, but I just wonder why it was ever a problem in the first place. Convertible tops are complicated, but things like that should have been ironed out with car #1.

[C.H.U.D.]

"Nevertheless, the growling Solstice sounds better. Advantage: Draw." This, I don't get...

[ToniCipriani]

Think it this way... Magazines are for entertainment. A good laugh is entertainment. So you buy mags and laugh at them.