Jump to content

Talk:Saturn Sky

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pricing

[edit]

SFoskett, if you don't mind, where did you find that pricing info? Considering it was originally slated for a $25k base, those numbers are pleasant (especially since I find the Sky much nicer, aesthetically, than the Solstice). Ayocee 02:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC) The Solstice was originally supposed to be priced under $20K i.e. $19,999.99 for base model with no options.[reply]

Got it here. Looks official, and I agree that the Sky is sweeter than the Solstice. Of course, my car is on this page...  :) --SFoskett 03:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice indeed. Were it not for the fifth-generation Camaro concept, a Sky Redline would be on my short list of cars I really want to buy when I finally get myself something made this decade ;) Ayocee 16:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those prices are the exact ones I heard at a dealership today from the "spokesmodel."D-Clancy 00:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC) I own a Sky redline and it is much more of a "sports car" than the Camaro. The Camaro is beautiful as well but it is a "Muscle car" and the weight is very noticable when cornering and braking. The Sky also does very well in a straight line. With the tires being similar in size to the Camaro but on a much smaller car makes for Incredible performance. On a track I can't see the Camaro competing with the turbocharged Kappa.[reply]

I just added a link to the pricing information on their website.

."ronstock 12:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specs

[edit]

Those specs seem a bit odd. 5-60 is longer than 0-60? And over gas mileage is worse than both highway and city.

That's actually fairly typical for 5-60 to be slower. On the 5-60, you can't employ any tricks to make the car launch harder - you can't slip the clutch and launch at 5000RPM, like you might from a stop, nor could you brake-torque an automatic. The overall economy number seems like it's likely pulled from a magazine review, where they drive it considerably harder than you'd drive to get EPA numbers. Ayocee 16:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I missed it, but is there source on the claim that the Pontiac Solstice is quicker than the Saturn Sky? They share the same platform and engine, so I'm perplexed as to how one could be faster than the other, especially given that I know I've read they had the same times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.113.11 (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that the stated "0-100" time is incongruent with the data given for 1/4 mile. If the trap speed is 100mph, the 1/4 mile should be the same as the 0-100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.97.243 (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit(11/1/08): How is the top speed of the base saturn sky only 70mph? LOL! Oh yeah, and how can it take the base model 21 seconds to do 0-100, yet it's 1/4 mile time is 15.9 seconds @ 123mph! This is just so WRONG! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.57.65 (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit (08/1/10): I've gone 146mph in a stock Redline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.31.3.197 (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit (07/09/12): GMPP Stage 2 software ECU upgrade 0-60 times should be posted. With the Stage 2 I get 10% better gas milage than posted and my top-speed is over 150 mph. -Mikecronis 10:32, 9 July 2012 (MST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecronis (talk • contribs)

Production future vs present

[edit]

Technically, 2007 is future, but just like GM did with the new Tahoe / Suburban / Yukon / Escalade, the Sky has been released as a 2007 model. Production is already well underway. 'Forthcoming' would not make much sense to the Sky owners who have already taken delivery of their cars! Ayocee 16:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! :) However, the model year 2007 has therefore started production in 2006 and the infobox should reflect this for the benefit of the average reader of the article. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No VX Lightning

[edit]

Wail!

Anyway, the article says there is going to be a VX Lightning version of the Sky in Britain, but sadly that's not true, (so I'll edit that out) we English have to make do with limited imports of the Opel-badged, wrong-hand drive GT.

Gawd, I loved my VX......

[edit]

Ok...I want to readd a link to a website that I believe should be included in the external links. For some reason it was removed after being on the Saturn Sky page for around 8 months. The page has been edited by multiple Wikipedia editors multiple times. At one point an editor removed all other links except for this site and one other. I see no reason why this site is considered "link spam" because it provides useful information about the Saturn Sky all in one place.

The site is www.saturnskyredline.net.

jaeysson April 8, 2007

Looking at the link, it seems to provide no new information that cannot be found on saturn.com or a auto journalism site like edmunds. It also has an extreme bias towards the car, and links only articles that praise the car rather than mention its downsides. For those reasons it seems inappropriate to include the link. --Denimmonkey 12:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Denimmonkey, Thanks for the response.

I'll be the first to admit the site is a little bias towards the car but that is because it is a "fan site". It is not an official site but it does offer reviews about the car from many different sources...some good and some bad. Saturn Sky Reviews. I honestly think that this site is a good resource for a potential Sky buyer to get all the information they need about the car in one place. Thoughts?

Jaeysson April 9, 2007

As I posted on your talk page
Hi Jaeysson, per WP:EL 1: it does not provide a unique resource beyond the article or even the official website. 2: the link is there to promote that website which is commercial. 3: has an online store that sells commercially accessories for the car. 4: the link is a forum also. 5: the link contains a blog not written by a recognised authority. It simply ticks too many boxes to be considered for inclusion. Also if it is a website that you own, maintain, or represent then it is also a clear conflict of interest. It is clearly not an appropriate link for inclusion in wikipedia.
There's many many links that are included in wikipedia that should not be there. That does not make it ok for more to be included. skyskraper 13:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response Skyskraper.

I think a lot of whether a link should be included is personal preference. This site has been on this page since July of last year so it has seen many editors and has survived them all until now. I understand your points but don't believe they are followed around the board. Some of the sites I see listed currently do not provide any information that the official website does not contain. Also, there are sites listed that have commercial/money making intentions behind them. I also see a blog. Like I said, I think a lot of whether a link is included is the editors personal preference. But thats ok and I respect that. To each his own.

jaeysson April 10, 2007

Yes there is more cleaning up to be done undoubtedly, I just haven't had an opportunity to look in depth at all the links so I culled the ones that most obviously do not belong. It's not a personal thing. It's just an attempt to improve this resource. Because it's survived editors until recently does not mean that it is worthy of inclusion, per the guidelines. Especially when I see that it was you who initially included it and on the site itself you're shown as being an Admin (of the forums at the least, I suspect the site as a whole is yours) and SHOULD NOT have been added in that manner at all to begin with. If it was truly a unique resource that provided much additional information and contained fewer aspects of what is to be avoided then it may be worthy of consideration but unfortunately it doesn't.
This is nothing personal, there are many sites I know of that I'd like to add to wikipedia but they are of a similar format and thus preclude them from being added to the external links. skyskraper 03:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising tag for the Mallett conversion

[edit]

The tag is completely inappropriate. The section is factual and of interest to enthusiasts. It was undoubtedly applied by an overzealous wikipedian with no understanding or affinity for cars. Remove it immediately. And no, I do not work for Mallett, Opel, Saturn, GM or any other bloody car company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.34.79 (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. The tag is inappropriate and should be removed. Aftermarket models of cars have existed for decades and presented as such. Claiming this is advertising would be the same as saying a description of a Roush Mustang or a Ruf Porsche was in some way advertising. The section is informational and completely warrented. Ringthree (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2010

[edit]

To whoever thinks they're so smart because they found a GM production report stating they produced 8 2010 model Saturn Skys.. I am leaving production year and model year end at 2009. If they did produce 2010 models, they were never sold as such. They may have only been produced for certification (e.g. EPA) before Saturn announced shutdown. There's no need to confuse readers with peculiarities and yeah-but-did-you-know trivia. --Vossanova o< 15:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early Concept

[edit]

Has there been any thought on adding information about the original concept of the car? It was done in 2002, and while similar in several ways to the final car and the solstice concept the same year, it had several features that were obviously drawn from the Saturn train of thought and other Saturn cars (second row of seating, third door, etc.). Information is rather hard to come by, as of yet I have found: www.welovesaturns.com/concepts/2002sky.html. Still looking for some official GM documentation on it, but I know it is out there, I read it in 2002 or 2003. -AJClements (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also here, although the text there is for the production launch. Yes, anyone is welcome to add a Concept section. --Vossanova o< 20:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Saturn Sky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Saturn Sky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saturn_Sky&oldid=1205201679"