sky review

[haypops]

click here

While the suspension and brakes are willing performers, the unfortunate weak link in G.M.’s would-be sports car package is the engine — it builds revs with all the alacrity of Katrina reconstruction. Power output occurs at a high engine speed, as maximum torque of 166 pound-feet is created at 4,800 r.p.m

Seems unfair or perhaps asinine. Roadsters through the years have featured economy car engines. Not to many people/reviewers belittle the ecotec, nor is the power limited to high RPM?

[PurdueGuy]

Well, the 2.4L is rather underpowered for reviewers expecting a sports car (gee, why would they think that?). Just wait for Sky Red Line reviews, when they all say

...when we reviewed the base sky 6 months ago, the only thing we just couldn't love was the engine - it just didn't give us enough power.  Problem solved.

[andretti]

The 2.4 175 HP engine is fine. The Sky is just about 300 lbs too heavy!

[tmp]

They even liked the manual top:

While some find the buttresses annoying, I think they are a cool design element, reminiscent of the Ferrari Mondial cabriolet and perfectly fitting the Sky’s image as a budget exotic. That you must walk around the car to fasten them down only means that you will be spending that much more time curbside, showing off your car to jealous onlookers. Who needs to make a quick getaway when you look this good?

Edited August 14, 2006 by tmp

[GMTruckGuy74]

QUOTE

While some find the buttresses annoying, I think they are a cool design element, reminiscent of the Ferrari Mondial cabriolet and perfectly fitting the Sky’s image as a budget exotic. That you must walk around the car to fasten them down only means that you will be spending that much more time curbside, showing off your car to jealous onlookers. Who needs to make a quick getaway when you look this good?

Edited August 14, 2006 by GMTruckGuy74