1st Oct 2006, 15:18

It's a cheap budget sports convertible. Did you expect a mercedes?

2nd Oct 2006, 06:29

I think that I was pretty clear in the review that the Solstice is not on the level of more expensive sports cars.

I also agree that the interior is not very impressive, but again the base Solstice starts at $20,000. As I said, its interior is "okay", nothing more.

If I were in the market for a two-seat roadster in that price range, the MX-5 Miata would be a better choice for me. However 2 seat roadsters would not be a practical choice for me at this time, and I'm very happy with my 9-3 convertible.

I love the performance & it actually has a usable trunk too!

10th Oct 2006, 13:05

Of course I didn't expect a Mercedes! But what I did expected was a PONTIAC. How come a brand like this can appear in the market with such a toy? The interior is not OK! It is unfinished! The same with the Saturn Sky... Another thing that tells you this car is not a good product: the amount for a lease is a lot bigger than if you are buying. That is telling you that they are expecting that the value of this car is going down quick (not a good quality car). In few years, once you buy it, the depreciation will be huge. Not a good car at all. Just a cheap toy.

10th Oct 2006, 18:16

Reply to 2 posts above...It's a cheap budget sports convertible. Did you expect a mercedes?...Yes, but it is a new car and should not leak. $29,000 is a decent budget and I would not expect it to leak.

11th Oct 2006, 13:01

Am I to understand that you own a Solstice that leaks? Or is it a Sky?

16th Oct 2006, 12:48

I think the Pontiac Solstice is very sleek and easy to drive, and it is very cheap for the performance it gives..

An A star car, when you have a little budget.

14th Nov 2006, 18:17

Pontiac Solstice looks like a great car for its money, but I have never seen the interior of it. I do not know which I would rather purchase a Solstice or a Sky. They both look great, but I'm leaning for a sky. I would definitely purchase one in the future.

7th Feb 2007, 16:11

Saturn Sky is the only way to go! We looked at the Solstice, but as soon as we saw the Sky at a county fair we signed up. We were the first on the list in Portland, OR, and although the dealer took full advantage of marking up our car, we love the car. Recently my wife drove it to Las Vegas. She not only enjoyed the ride, but especially the looks from others. We rode back to Portland together topping out at about 125mph on straight desert roads. The only Con to this car is the lack of storage. We survived a two week trip and were quite creative in our storage methods, shipping some clothing home for the return trip.

7th May 2007, 17:27

29k for a flimsy two seater with no storage space or people space. A better choice would be a Mini Cooper S with sun roof or a Mini Cooper convertible.

7th Mar 2008, 20:41

I've never quite understood the public's willingness to pay more for a small, 2-seat sports car than for a larger 4-place sports car that easily outperforms it. It costs Mazda thousands less to build a Miata than a Mazda 3, and it costs Pontiac thousands less to build a Solstice than a G6 GT. They have fewer materials, less than half the interior to finish out, and use the same drive train components as the company's larger (and cheaper) cars.

I looked at a used 2006 Solstice before buying my 2007 Mustang. For 6 grand less I got a brand new car with leather, upgraded stereo, oversized wheels and tires and all available power options. It is also faster. I like small sporty cars, but they just are not worth what the companies charge for them.

20th Apr 2008, 11:36

After following the comments for this review, I think most of the writers are missing the point of what a sports car is or should be.

Sport cars are SUPPOSED to be impractical. They are not meant to be primary transportation. It's a convertible, what do you need air conditioning for?? What I can't under stand is why someone would pay thousands of $$ for a sports car and not put the top down!

As for the quality of interior, check out the interior of a FIAT 850 Spyder or a 1960's VW Beetle; both are very basic and utilitarian (and they don't have air conditioning) bordering on cheap.

Most of all, a sports car should be fun. And it doesn't have to go fast to be fun. Take a look at a Karmann Ghia.

And the cost. Convertibles cost more to build than sedans as the frame has to be made stiffer to hold the body together. When the top is down, there is nothing holding the front to the back (think about it). And while a Solstice is more $$ than a Mustang, go look at the prices of Mercedes. The most expensive Mercedes are the SL's.

Now, the question is, do I have a sports car? The answer is yes. I have a 1974 Mercedes 450SL. Is it practical? No. Does it have air conditioning? Yes, but not very good. And the top stays down all summer. Would I buy a Solstice? No. I like the looks, but they are too hard for me to get into.

28th Jun 2008, 07:11

I had a 1973 450SL and it was far from reliable and a real pain to own. Putting on the top took 2 people and I left mine off always. It was easy to scratch the paint putting it on. I was also afraid to drive it for yet another mechanical $$$$$$$$$ issue.

I learned to stay away from old german imports, even VW bugs, meaning 69 or older. It's cheaper to have payments and have reliability with new vehicles.

16th Jul 2008, 12:23

I've been curious to read the incoming reviews and/or comments on the Solstice. Apparently few people are buying them, as there are NO new reviews.

Sports cars are, as has been pointed out, totally impractical and fall into the category of adult toys. With that said, I still find the Solstice (and Saturn Sky) to be much more appealing than the rather frumpy Miata. Since no one ever uses the full potential of even a Chevy Aveo, minute differences in performance concern me far less than styling, and the Solstice definitely has it hands down in that area.

With regard to cost and "value", those are such nebulous terms that they make little sense with regard to cars. It amuses me that people regard expensive cars as "better quality" because in reality the overall cost of ownership is usually twice as much as a less expensive car. Does fake wood make the car drive better than "cheap plastic?"

I recently rode in a co-worker's new Lexus. The door panels were all plastic. Whether it was "cheap plastic" or "expensive plastic" was not overtly apparent.

25th Aug 2008, 12:48

1) I would take a Miata over a Solstice or Sky any day.

The convertible top operation is a snap in the Miata, a nightmare on the Solstice & Sky. The Miata also has a bit of usable trunk space where the Solstice/Sky has virtually none.

2) The interior materials used in the most inexpensive Lexus models are volumes better than the flimsy plastic used in these cheaply built GM models.

3) In most cases, don't even bother trying to compare GM to Lexus, as with the exception of a very few high-line GM vehicles (some Saabs & some Cadillac models) very few GM products can come close to measuring-up to the quality & refinement of a Lexus. Just compare the interior of a mid-size GM SUV with the interior of a Lexus

RX 350, then drive both. I'll be shocked if you say the GM SUV was a better ride.. very shocked!