Happy New Year, sports car people! GM has released pictures of the Solstice GXP ahead of its debut at next week's Los Angeles Auto Show. The GXP is powered by GM's 2-liter turbocharged Ecotec inline four, good for 260 hp and 260 lb-ft of torque, making it the power leader in the Ecotec engine family. The new 4-valve per cylinder Ecotec turbo features direct injection (a first for GM North America) and piston oil spray cooling. Other features include 18-inch wheels, a limited slip differential, and a choice of 5-speed manual or automatic. 0-60 times are said to be less than 5.5 seconds. The GXP should appear in dealerships in the fall.
We can't wait to see this little jewel in L.A.! . Many more pictures after the jump, and still more later this week from our L.A. Auto Show team.
[Source: GM]
BREAKING: GM and Chrysler talking about merger
Spy Shots: Nissan 370Z again, with interior shots
2010 Mazda3 unveiled ahead of LA Auto Show
Spy Shots: Nissan 370Z caught undisguised
GM on Corvette ZR1 cancellation rumor: "Not true."
Knight Rider: The Liveblog -- Season 1, Episode 3
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Mazda RX-8 R3, return of the "hummer"
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Chevy Corvette Z06
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
Paris 2008: Le Day 1 Wrapup
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
MattB @ Jan 1st 2006 1:39AM
Hm... it's pretty.... erm... pretty. I love it.
But I'd never buy one because of the whole License plate thing.
Scott Eaton @ Jan 1st 2006 1:45AM
I don't think I've seen a California car (here in SF) yet with a front plate affixed. There's just nowhere to put it.
Tim @ Jan 1st 2006 1:52AM
Big deal, it still weighs 800lbs more than it should. Add power by losing some weight, porky-the-pig.
Scott @ Jan 1st 2006 2:51AM
The base Solstice weighs 400 lbs more than the MX5. (Or does being a Solstice-basher mean you get to automatically double it?)
Anyway, 260 hp should quite easily make up for and exceed that difference.
Ville @ Jan 1st 2006 3:35AM
#3 wasn't comparing the Solstice to the MX-5. He just said the Solstice is 800 lbs too heavy. Presumably he also means that the MX-5 is 400 lbs and that's hard to argue against. After all, the new MX-5 might only have gained 25 lbs compared to the previous model, but over the years it has gained almost 200 lbs compared to the original MX-5. And some manufacturers don't seem to have trouble creating two-seater sportcars that weigh less than 2000lbs.
Gundar @ Jan 1st 2006 3:40AM
Bah. Just another pathetic attempt from a dying company. Honda gets 250 odd horses from the 4-cylinder in its S2000...not turbochargers needed - and it's faster and will run circles around this POS.
Carlos @ Jan 1st 2006 4:02AM
I'm a Miata person (I'm one of those people who think the new MX-5 is "soft"), but the limited-slip differential here is very encouraging. Direct injection - very nice to see that too.
Big wheels often take away the fun though, even if it's good for performance.
Warpdude @ Jan 1st 2006 4:43AM
The S2000 will not run circles around the Solstice GXP. In a straight line, the Solstice will most certainly be faster. The twisties are up for grabs I think - the LSD in the Solstice is a good addition, but Pontiac are probably going to tune the suspension to make for more compliant day-to-day driving (the same goes with the OEM tires), whereas the S2000 has an incredibly firm suspension and is shod with high-performance summer tires.
Pat Morita @ Jan 1st 2006 5:40AM
the MX-5 will still outsell this chow-chow.
Robert @ Jan 1st 2006 6:25AM
I love it!
#6 you completely overlook that the Solstice is FASTER then the torqueless S2000. No one has test driven it so everything else is conjecture.
#3 and #5 I'd love for all vehicles to loose weight. Unless there is an ingenious shift in building materials there's no way we'll see a 2000 lb vehicle from any major manufacturer. Buy yourself a Porsche 914 and stop whining.
Sid Ghosh @ Jan 1st 2006 8:16AM
WOW. Looks awesome.
Being a Mazda guy, I'd take the MX-5 over the Solstice GXP, but I have to give credit where it's due. GM has done a great job.
Paul @ Jan 1st 2006 8:53AM
more poorly made american junk. why would any intelligent american buy an american made product. its heavy, front plate problem, cheap plastic, poorly assembled, bad trunk design, amd engineered by stupid american engineers
Stefan @ Jan 1st 2006 9:06AM
Can't wait to see the Saturn Sky Redline with that engine too.
Peter @ Jan 1st 2006 9:15AM
"1. Hm... it's pretty.... erm... pretty. I love it.
But I'd never buy one because of the whole License plate thing."
Odd for me it is the whole not actually having a trunk thing. I like 2 seaters (used to own a miata), but this car is strictly a two without a trunk.
For the uninitiated, the opening on the back is really a place to store the top, not a trunk. There is precious little space to store anything there with top up, absolutely none with it down. See the Edmunds review for some pictures that show the "trunk" top up and down. A shame, because this car is literally gorgeous.
Peter @ Jan 1st 2006 9:21AM
#1.
"Hm... it's pretty.... erm... pretty. I love it.
But I'd never buy one because of the whole License plate thing."
Odd for me it is the whole not actually having a
trunk thing. I like 2 seaters (used to own a miata), but this car is strictly a toy without a trunk. For the uninitiated, the opening on the back is really a place to store the top, not a trunk.
There is precious little space to store anything there with top up, absolutely none with it down. See the Edmunds review for some pictures that show the "trunk" top up and down. A shame, because this car is gorgeous. And road tests so far have shown it to not suck.
Ville @ Jan 1st 2006 9:41AM
Yeah, it does look good. A lot better than the new MX-5 with it's Saturn headlights and tuning kit fenders. Too bad it's an otherwise inferior product. It is possible that good looks and more power will make it a decent seller.
Merkidemis @ Jan 1st 2006 10:03AM
I just wish the Solstice was a wee bit more practical. The top is a huge pain in the ass (affixing those buttresses sucks, and simply getting into the trunk requires a ton of actions). It looks cool, the GXP should go like a bat out of hell, but it would be a really, really hard streach to be a primary car for most people, even most people who don't have kids or haul a lot of stuff like me.
Eric @ Jan 1st 2006 10:35AM
Speaking of weight gain as many of you have, there is an interesting discussion over at the URL I posted along with this comment. I agree in general, weight gain is a big issue for sports car enthusiasts, but with some proper tuning of the suspension and enough power it can be "dealt" with. This particular Solstice is a keeper. I see a great many of them roaming around the area here and they catch my eye everytime.
Bambino @ Jan 1st 2006 10:41AM
#5: After all, the new MX-5 might only have gained 25 lbs compared to the previous model, but over the years it has gained almost 200 lbs compared to the original MX-5.
Well, with advances comes disadvantages but... would you have kept the Roadster's first generation's engine and put it into the third generation? Would you have considered buying a 2006 MX-5 that didn't come even with a cd player, faster convertible top and a few ponies more? Didn't think so either.
#10: "I'd love for all vehicles to loose weight. Unless there is an ingenious shift in building materials there's no way we'll see a 2000 lb vehicle from any major manufacturer. Buy yourself a Porsche 914 and stop whining."
Don't lose your patience or faith. This will come... lighter, stronger materials. Heck! There's gonna be tires made of plastic! (That one was quite interesting)
As for a vehicle that weights less than 2000 lbs... well... there's the Lotus Elise. Five of it's six versions have kept the body weight under the 2000 lb mark (Series 1, 1635 lbs; Series 2 111, 1720 lbs; Series 2 111S, 1720 lbs; Series 2 111R, 1940 lbs; Series 2 (the one Stateside), 1975 lbs; only the Series 2 Exige went over with 2019 lbs).
Not saying all this to diss you, by the way. Just adding comments to the conversation. :)
Kathy Gee @ Jan 1st 2006 10:44AM
# 16 - I don't know of too many roadsters that are practical. But I didn't buy the 2006 for practicality! I bought it for fun. The top operation is not a pain in the a**. It takes me a matter of moments only to either lower or raise the top - including affixing those buttresses! I have to say that I have had many people make comments regarding my car - most ask: is that a Porsche? A BMW? Wow, what did that cost you, $35k - $40k?
Oh and BTW, this IS my primary drive - not a hard stretch at all, and TONS OF FUN!