Is this vehicle the same as what Lutz and his team showed you a few months back? Just curious.
Woah -- I don't remember anything looking like that. Most of what Lutz showed us were final production versions, so they all looked more "produce-able" than this vehicle. I can't remember exactly what the Vue photo looked like...except I remember it was much better looking than the current model. Some of the basic lines/proportions on this car look familiar, so a production Vue based off this platform seems right to me.
This week a report hit the net claiming Mazda execs decided the gearing on the Mazdaspeed6 was too high (geared for mileage) so they changed the gearing to a lower final drive ratio. The car's listed at 20/26 mpg (http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/pdf/specs_features/veh_specs_MS6.pdf).
The Mazdaspeed6 only comes with a 6 speed manual. Mazda claims the final drive ratio needed to be lower to give the car more sporting character.
The BMW 3 series, A4 2.0, A3 2.0 and Acura TL with manuals get at least 20/29 mpg and I doubt anyone would say these NA and turbocharged cars aren't sporting.
Am I the only one who thinks Mazda has made yet another mistake with the Mazdaspeed6 (beyond the car's obscene weight)?
WoW!! I'm really looking forward to reading the American supercar comparison. I predict the Ford GT wins, second Viper and third Corvette. Either way they all seem like great cars.
Your Frankfurt coverage is btw great. I wish for a few more pics, but other sites have them also.
Like you, I also hope the Gladiator makes into production. I know a lot of people are interested in it, despite the rising gas prices.
"Kept by the OEM indefinitely (one of the two Ford GT-40 concepts)"
I say, if price is taken into consideration ... Z06 gets first (based on the reviews I've read so far that put its performance numbers VERY close to the GT for about a third of the price).
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Well, the biggest reason I had the Z06 just behind the Ford GT was for looks. Only real car guys would be able to immediately recognize the Z06 as something special, otherwise it's yet another C6 Corvette on the roads. Yeah, the performance is spectacular, but 99.9% of the time, you wouldn't be USING any more performance than you'd get out of a regular C6.
Besides, if one were in the market for a supercar, price is probably a few pegs down on the criteria scale.
You guys are all making great points. The Z06 is by far the best performance-for-the-dollar car of these three, but it's not particularly "exotic" in either it's looks or it's design (no mid-engine layout, and no V10).
Both wins were due to the same situation: Beats Viper because: almost as fast in a straightline, as fast or faster around a track (thank you Competition Driving mode), much easier to live with, costs much less Beats SVT Mustang because: faster in straight line and around a track, easier to live with, doesn't cost that much more
Basically, the Vette was the least compromised car of the three. You can drive it everyday and not feel beat up in the least (the slight exhuast drone on the Z06 at highway speeds was the only thing that could remotely be called a "bother," and it was still better in this regard than either the Viper or SVT Mustang).
Now I'm going to be brutally honest: I will probably never own a Chevrolet Corvette -- at least not until it receives a major makeover (both in terms of design and philosophy). Anyone who reads this discussion already knows I'm a stickler for steering feel, and if I have to drive a manual shift vehicle than the shifter's feel and action is also crucial to me. The Vette, in spite of all it's performance, has never delivered in these areas. Finally, the C6 is better on interior quality, but it's still not up to standards for this price range.
The Boxster, M3 and TT all have better interiors, better steering feedback and better shifter action than a 'Vette, and they all cost less, too. Yes, the Corvette (especially in Z06 form) will smoke them in a straightline -- and probably around a track, too. But I rarely go to a track, and I don't drag race people...very often. :P But EVERY TIME I drive somewhere I have to sit in a car, shift a car (if it's a manual), and guide a car by holding the steering wheel. I get no joy from a Corvette while doing any of these things.
So, to sum up, in my "professional" opinion (in other words, not thinking in terms of whether I want to buy it or not) the Corvette is a fabulous car. I don't begrudge people who like them or buy them, and I think the new Z06 will likely win the upcoming American Exotics test for the same reasons it's already won twice before.
In my personal opinion, the car hasn't appealed to me since 1967 (and I was born in 1969 :surprise: ). If I'm in the market for a $65,000 to $75,000 sports car today I'm looking at loaded Boxsters and M3s (and having money left over) or a stripped 911 (or a clean, certified used one) or maybe a Lotus Elise (with A LOT of money left over).
If I'm looking for a true $100,000-plus exotic that justifies the price in terms of not only performance but ALSO looks, design philosophy, interior quality AND driving dynamics/feedback. Well...I think you already know what I'm going to say.
Obviously I need to drive the newest Z06 to be absolutely sure, but every report I've seen says the same thing: "Great performance on paper, interior still not up to class standards, steering feel and shifter action still lacking."
I have never driven a M3 (I am confident it is a great vehicle), but, I do not see the Vette or Boxter being cross-shopped with it.
To me it does not seem that a coupe and two seat vehicles are in the same class - even though performance wise they match up.
I guess I am saying that I would be surprised that someone considering a Vette would even look at a M3 or vise versa.
I have not driven a new C6 - is the steering really that bad?? How can GM nail the steering on the $20,000 Solstice but not on the Vette? How does GM continually miss the details?????
Karl, curious as to how you like the steering feel in your Bu? My dad has an 04 and the lack of feel is my biggest complaint. Of course, he thinks it is just fine.
The majority of Vette's sold are automatics so the complaints about the shift quality on the 6M dont matter to most buyers. You seem to be hard on the vette's steering feel and I'm sure the older ones werent that great, but I havent seen many complaints about the C6's steering. As for interior quality. I dont see what's so great about the plasticky, button rich interior of a boxter. Porsche interior designs just came into the 21st century (barely) with the latest generation 911 and boxter. The old boxter's interior was nothing but black plastic and tiny controls on the center stack. It was far from luxurious and that was generally excused because the Porshe is a performance car, not a luxury sedan. I doubt the TT is ever cross shopped with the Vette, but the M3 may be occasionally. I will agree that the M3 has a better interior, but the vette matches it in terms of technology and has more usable power in everyday situations.
"If I'm looking for a true $100,000-plus exotic that justifies the price in terms of not only performance but ALSO looks, design philosophy, interior quality AND driving dynamics/feedback. Well...I think you already know what I'm going to say. "
You are the first I've heard praise the interior quality of the GT. The GT (interior) may have a distinctive design but I dont know that it would be called quality or appealing to the eye. On top of that a car that expensive should offer the lates technology. Does the GT even have Navigation or stability? Do you think interior design counts for anything? I bet Lambos and Ferrari's have better materials than the vette but their interior designs are horrible. It's a good things those cars are fast because otherwise you might take time to look at their 80s era interiors. I dont understand why the interiors of those cars has to look so bad.
"Great performance on paper, interior still not up to class standards,...."
I think you meant to say great performance on paper and in the real world. I dont think there is anything in the Z06's class. If we consider expensive italians and the Ford Gt to be it's class than I think it's interior is up to snuff. If we consider Aston Martins or SL500s to be it's class than the vette is likely to come up short. Since we know which car you own already, I dont see the Z06 getting a ringing endorsement from you anytime soon.
If you havent driven the vette or seen this complaint in prior reviews, how do you know for a fact that the vette has poor steering feel.
The Malibu has electronic steering and that is why it has poor feedback. GM's electric steering needs work and the Malibu and G6 have been widely criticized for this problem. Thats one reason why the SS and GTP have hydraulic steering.
It's really bizarre to me, too. The steering in the Solstice is not quite as good as the Miata's, but as I keep saying, we are talking very small differences. If you didn't drive a Miata and Solstice back-to-back you'd probably have trouble telling which has better steering. It's sort of like the A4 vs 3 Series issue. The A4 is the coolest sport sedan ever produced in terms of driving dynamics...unless you've just driven a 3 Series. The Solstice is the best sub-$25,000 convertible you've ever driven...unless you've just driven the Miata. But I'd call Miata/Solstice much closer than even A4/3 Series (and those two sport sedans are pretty close, too). They're certianly close enough for me not to care about the difference, and embrace the Solstice's other advantages (comfort, roominess, ride quality, looks, sound system, price).
BUT, with the Corvette, it's competing against things like the Boxster/911, Elise, SLK55 and, in my opinion, the M3. The new SLK has much better steering than the previous version, and the M3 and Boxster have always had great steering. The Elise is awesome. The Corvette's steering isn't horrible, but if you drive any of these other cars and then drive the Corvette you'll be like, "Woah, what just happened?" I'd also consider the NSX somewhat a competitor, even though I know it costs more. You can pick these cars up on the used market for $60,000 or less pretty easily, and they also have very good steering. And while they certainly don't compete directly with the Corvette, the 5 Series and A6 also have better steering -- which is arguably insane because they are luxury sedans.
I could excuse this up until a few years ago, but today it's just nuts to pay over $50,000 for a vehicle and not have really good steering and shifting (and let's not even get into the interior).
The steering on my Malibu is easily its worst trait. Not only is it lifeless, but on my model there is an annoying "clunk" that is both heard and felt as you steer past "center" going either direction. It's due for a service, so I'm going to ask them to check it, but I'm already prepared for the "Can't repeat problem" and/or "That's just the way it is." response (which, in a 22,000-mile Malibu, is probably true...).
Here's hoping the Solstice is an omen, rather than an enigma.
"How can GM nail the steering on the $20,000 Solstice but not on the Vette?"
I don't want to put words in Karl's mouth, but you have to consider that when reviewers praise the steering in a $20k like the Solstice, this is in comparison to other cars in this class. The exact same steering feel may not cut the mustard for a supercar.
Another aspect I don't think you are considering is the role the tires play in steering feel. Great big meats like you'll find on the C6 (and certainly on the Z06) may be great at generating terrific skidpad numbers or speeds in a lane change, but if they don't communicate well to the driver that he is approaching the traction limits (like increasing slip angles prior to tire breakaway), then the steering feel is compromised. However, with a car intended more for day-to-day driveability like the Solstice, Pontiac may be able to use steering geometry and tire design which isn't necessarily geared towards huge numbers but provides good steering feel instead.
So in this case, it isn't necessarily the GM didn't sweat the details, it's just that they might be aiming more towards generating impressive numbers for things that can be quantified (and used for ammo in chatrooms) like lateral g's and lane-change times, while sacrificing things which CAN'T be quantified like steering feel.
Or, it could be that GM managed both great numbers and great feel. I guess we won't know until a head-head comparison test is done.
"The majority of Vette's sold are automatics so the complaints about the shift quality on the 6M dont matter to most buyers."
Wrong attitude.
In other words, since most people don't chose an option, the fact that this option has quality issues is not a problem?
If GM intends to get folks OUT of Porsches and M3s and into Corvettes, they need to pay attention to what a large portion of those people look for in a car. One of those things is a good manual transmission.
Of course, if GM only wants to be the Corvette to be the car of choice for guys undergoing a mid-life crisis but still have all the comforts of their Impala, then I guess they can continue to ignore the shift quality in their manuals....
Just to let you know, Karl, my Malibu Maxx has the same steering clunking yours does, and there is a TSB out regarding it.
Incidently, CU ripped the Lotus Elise to shreds while C&D praised it to the skies. Yet both mags got similar results, both said it was a great track car, and both suggested it was not a good everyday car.
Just out of curiousity, how many cars do you own currently?
2005 Ford GT 2004 Chevrolet Malibu 1973 Saab Sonett 1970 Plymouth GTX
Notice that I have all three domestics represented in my "fleet" -- despite my anti-domestic bias. :P And even the Saab uses a Ford engine (1.7-liter V4).
Also two motorcycles: 1975 Triumph Trident T160 1973 Triumph Hurricane TRX75
I have a question - why did you buy a Malibu? Like, what made you buy it when there are much better sedans out there in terms of power, styling, interior, refinement etc? I'm not saying Malibu is a terrible car, I just want to know your reasoning behind owning it.
And also, didn't you say you had a Mini Cooper S a while back? What happened to that?
I dont think GM has to get a lot of people out of Porshe's to make the vette successful. The vette outsells most, if not all, comparable cars as it is. I dont know why the shifter in the vette isnt as sweet as it should be, but I do know that most owners opt for the auto anyway so the shifter issue isnt a major turn off to most prospective buyers. I would guess that the price difference between the vette and it's nearest competitors is enough for most people to accept a slightly less accurate shifter. Hopefully this will be something Chevy improves before the C7 comes out. The whole notion that the Vette is for under educated guys going through a "mid-life crisis" is outdated. The current vetter looks good, goes fast, has excellent handling and plenty of cutting edge technology. Personally, I look a car for it's merits, not for the perceived image of it's buyers. If a vette costs between $45K and $60K I would say most vette owners are well off and somewhat sophisticated. If shift quality was the only quality sports car drivers cared about they could save money and buy an RSX or civic Si and call it a day.
A couple of things, most auto writers like old domestic producst from the 60s and early 70s, just not anything they have made in the last three decades. Secondly, I dont think a '73 Saab counts as a domestic unless I am missing something. Third of all, the Ford Gt is a one of a kind Ford that has little to do with anything else Ford makes. I'm sure lots of people who would never have been caught dead in a Ford are drolling over the GT. I do give you points for the malibu, although I cant imagine what made you purchase that vehicle. I often wonder what writers for magazines drive, I would be shocked if more than a handful drive anything domestic unless it's a muscle car.
What do you think about the interiors of Italitan exotics? Agree or disagree that their designs are pretty dated?
some are so focused on ranting that they ignore karl's posts. he explained why he bought the malibu. it was not long ago, and it made a lot of sense. maybe some people could scroll back to their last rant to see if has karl posted anything since then. me, i'm a mustang guy. traditionally, 90% of the capability of a vette at half the price. can fit four people too.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Depends how much weight they give "value." Weighed heavily, I think the Z06 stomps all 3. Even on its own, the car turns in a world class performance in all departments and is no doubt the most pleasant to drive daily. It also gets the best mileage, by a fair amount.
me, i'm a mustang guy. traditionally, 90% of the capability of a vette at half the price. can fit four people too.
It also has a better shifter and better steering than the Corvette, which I wouldn't have believed if I hadn't driven a new Mustang and a C6 back-to-back, but it's true.
While the Ford GT is a bit of a one-off example of Ford's product line (though still an amazing product in terms of development time and performance and value), the Mustang is a great example of an everyday Ford that anyone can buy and enjoy.
Love or hate the Mustang, a 300-horsepower V8 for $25,000 is tough to deny.
I have not driven a new C6 - is the steering really that bad??
I've driven a C5 Z06 and I liked the steering. I recognize it's not Porsche steering and the car has less approachable limits than the same, but it's not like it's "bad." Actually I thought it was good...
And regarding interiors. Just last week I got a ride in an Audi TT Quattro 225. One of the things I was sure to critique was the interior, as many say that car has one of the best interiors ever. You know what? It did NOTHING for me. Yeah the materials were soft to the touch and the dash had an "artistic" design but come ON! How could you put THAT much weighting on an interior??? I'm sorry, I don't see what the fuss is about, and I think I never will.
Hopefully this will be something Chevy improves before the C7 comes out.
Little chance of that. The Vette still uses that Tremec T56 transmission, with insides dating back to the 1992 Dodge Viper. It's not going to get much better until they change suppliers. If I were GM, I'd see what ZF could do for me. But the cost of the transmission would probably triple. Worth it?
Even on its own, the car turns in a world class performance in all departments and is no doubt the most pleasant to drive daily. It also gets the best mileage, by a fair amount.
Not sure if it's the most pleasant to drive daily. When it was fighting against Vipers and hot-rodded Mustangs (based on the Fox platform) that was the case. But the Ford GT is pretty darn easy/pleasant to drive/live with. The new Z06 will have more available amenities (you can actually get Nav and memory seats on it, which is cool in a bizarre sort of way).
I'm thinking the Z06 will still be considerably easier to live with than a Viper (for instance, you won't have to watch out for burning your legs when you get in/out), but against the Ford GT it could be close. On the GT the only "exotic" penalties are rear visibility and entry/exit because of the door design. Neither has proven much of an issue for me (it's pretty surprising how quickly I've mastered sliding the GT into a parking space and sliding into/out of the cabin). Otherwise the GT is like driving a really fast, extremely stable and super buttoned-down Mustang -- meaning very easy to live with. For instance, shifter use/clutch pressure is absolutely a breeze. Steering is also extremely precise without being darty. I'd put Ferrari and Porsche steering better than Ford GT, but that's about it (BMW's may offer slightly better "feel," but not quite as good of "precision" -- so I'd call it a wash). Viper and Corvette steering are about the same -- both being cleary below the GT's. To me, good steering isn't just great at a racetrack, it's also nice when commuting along grooved and/or expansion-jointed freeways, so it plays a key role in "daily live-ability."
It will be interesting to measure things like interior noise levels (both at idle and while cruising at 70), and seat comfort, as neither has ever been stellar in the previous Z06s. I know that Car & Driver's recent shoot out with the Ford GT against the F430, Gallardo, 911 Turbo, etc. listed "noisy at highway speeds" as one of the GT's major issues. I drove mine 600 miles at 70-plus (sometimes very "plus" :surprise: ) two weeks ago and thought it was fine. I know Ford had a lot of problems with early GT door seals. Maybe C&D had a press car that was still using the old seals.
the Ford GT is pretty darn easy/pleasant to drive/live with.
That surprises me. I guess I just assumed. Then again, you have to admit there's a least a teeny tiny bias here :P
interior noise levels (both at idle and while cruising at 70), and seat comfort, as neither has ever been stellar in the previous Z06s.
Agreed. There was an aftermarket divider that someone came up with for the Z06 that divides the trunk area from the passenger cabin. Reportedly it made quite a difference in noise. Seats in the C5 Z06, while fine for me, definitely don't have the support required in a car that can pull damn near a G on the skidpad. I believe this has been addressed with the C6 Z06. My cousin (owner of the Z06) says that the seats remind him very much of Camaro seats (as in the 95 Z28). They are good in a Camaro, but inadequate in a Z06. The annoying thing is, the regular C5 had available sport seats and I believe they did NOT use these in the Z06 due to weight.
How about my mileage comment? You can tell me all day long that it doesn't matter to you, but these days, I think it matters to everyone. And I suspect the C6 Z06 will out-do the others for fuel economy, just like the C5 Z06 used to do (that was a high 20s to 30mpg car, no kidding).
To me mileage is so much a factor of driving style, particularly in cars like this.
When I was breaking in my GT I never went above 3,500 rpm (meaning I rarely had the supercharger in "boost" mode), which is good for mileage. But I was also constantly varying the RPMs for break in purposes, which is bad for mileage. I'd be cruising at 80 mph in sixth gear at 2,000 rpm, but then I'd shift to fourth just to keep the revs changing, and now I'm revving at 3,500.
Regardless, even with this driving style I was averaging between 17-18 mpg, which on a car rated at 13/21 (and offering 550 horsepower and a 205 mph top speed) was pretty impressive to me. Who knows what it will do when I stop jamming it into fourth gear on the freeway?
However, your original guess on my response definitely stands -- If you're buying any of these cars and also thinking "gas mileage" you may have your priorities confused.
"Acceleration numbers are very close between the Solstice and the MX-5. Yet, the Solstice has a sluggish engine and lazy acceleration?"
You have to look back a paragraph: ...the Ecotec revs slower than Mazda's four and crudely hangs on to revs when you back off the throttle.
Sounds like the flywheel is too heavy to suit the 2.4L. Also, the rear end is only a 3.9 gear. Limitations of the parts bin perhaps? Something like a 4.6 gear and a lighter flywheel would do wonders for Lutz's baby. If GM was on the ball, they'd already be available as dealer-installed upgrades.
I remember there being a section of the website that explained the background of each editor and a listing of what vehicles they drive. Does that still exist? I found that very interesting because I was surprised at some of the vehicles the editors owned. Also, can you explain how Edmunds finds editors? I always wonder how people get these sweet jobs.
Hopefully you can respond to this, if not anything else I post.
Automobile mag had the 0-60 times differing by 0.1 second. They didn't discuss the rear ends in any of the 3 or 4 mags I read in the doctor's waiting room today. A little better rear end should help the vim and vigor feel.
It is a really carefully written factual review. I found it interesting to read. It's a car I'll never buy, but it's like my 67 and 70 Mustangs somehow when I read about it.
Just asking...but why exactly did you buy a 2004 Malibu over the other numerous midsize sedans out there? What appealed to you, was it value, feature content, or styling?
Also...didn't you once mention you had a 2002 Mini Cooper and a Honda Odyssey? What happened to them, did you sell them?
One more question...what vehicle do you use for road trips?
I read your Solstice review, and it looks like GM has a legitimate homerun. GM has a lot of goodies coming out, the DTS, Lucerne, Aura, STS-V, XLR-V plus the new full size trucks and SUVs.
Sounds like the flywheel is too heavy to suit the 2.4L. Also, the rear end is only a 3.9 gear. Limitations of the parts bin perhaps? Something like a 4.6 gear and a lighter flywheel would do wonders for Lutz's baby. If GM was on the ball, they'd already be available as dealer-installed upgrades.
You basically nailed it. Here's where the spec sheet (once again) doesn't tell the whole story. The gearing in the Solstice makes it harder to get the engine in its sweet zone compared to the Miata. This means that when you're in the canyons you can readily pick a gear in the Miata and fling the engine up into it's power curve, but in the Solstice you're often trying to figure out which gear to use, and neither feels particularly strong (2nd is too low, but 3rd is too high).
So if you're hammering both cars around a race track, or on a canyon road, they pull similar numbers, but the Miata feels "sprightlier."
Just asking...but why exactly did you buy a 2004 Malibu over the other numerous midsize sedans out there? What appealed to you, was it value, feature content, or styling?
Like juice said, I bought it because I was able to get a pretty good deal on the car as a former long-term test vehicle. Also, it gets really good gas mileage and has good safety features (this one has the optional side-curtain airbags).
Also...didn't you once mention you had a 2002 Mini Cooper and a Honda Odyssey? What happened to them, did you sell them? I sold them both. I sold the Odyssey in the summer of 2001 because I knew the 2002s were coming with more power, rear disc brakes, side airbags, etc. I was able to sell it for $1,500 less than I paid, so not a bad rate for a year's worth of use. I sold the Mini last January for basically the same reason (new Mini coming with automatic for Cooper S and more power, etc.). I had a loaded Mini Cooper with CVT, and also got a great price for it.
One more question...what vehicle do you use for road trips? I always use an Edmunds.com long-term car. The gas is paid for and road trips provide great information for the updates.
I read your Solstice review, and it looks like GM has a legitimate homerun. GM has a lot of goodies coming out, the DTS, Lucerne, Aura, STS-V, XLR-V plus the new full size trucks and SUVs. The Aura looks to have a lot of potential. I'm hoping the production version delivers on the show car's promise.
i don't think priorities are confused if a performance car buyer is concerned about mpg. to each his own opinion. it's not a big financial difference but i am "all about" figuring whether my cars do as well with 87 octane compared to 91+, and driving for best mpg while still enjoying the performance. i find that JACKRABBIT hammering up to speed on the highway does not hurt mpg and have heard some reports that back that up. goal is to get the car up to highway speed and into the tall gear asap, even if that means hammering it to get there. this is very enjoyable in my midlife-crisis cop-magnet 6-speed GTO. results in the GTO show me that the car gets close to 24 mpg on the highway with 91+ octane, but closer to 21 mpg with 87 octane. now i'm trying 89.. you can call it 'confused priorities' but apparently i'm obsessive about this stuff. i'll keep running tests so as to get confirmation of the results... i'm heading out now to drive my goat another 90 miles on the highway... it is so much of a blast to drive!
Karl i'd be curious if you ever were to try 87 octane in your GT. i bet you'll never try that however! you are probably aware that any car sold in USA can be run on 87 octane all the time with no ill effect - they are all designed to run fine on 87 - maybe with reduced performance - but with no warranty issues - as far as i understand. do you concur?
Karl's GT is supercharged. I think it'd be a mistake to run any forced induction setup on low octane gas regardless of what the manual says, particularly if you indulge in "hammering" it.
didnt GM show final production models/pictures of the Aura to journalists during that sneak preview a few months back? I got the impression that they revealed that car to the press. I thought I read that except for the huge wheels and other minor details it looks just like the show car from last year.
Karl could you enlighten us to what the ford GT manual says about fuel requirements? hypothetically if a GT owner ran 87 octane for 30k or 47k miles or so, before the warranty was done, do you think that ford would honor the warranty if something went wrong with the engine? i understand that this question really isn't very important for actual GT owners but the answer might be more relevant/useful to those with other cars.
i note that the percentage price difference between regular & premium has shrunk as the price has increased - premium remains about 20 cents more than regular now with 87 octane at $2.77 locally. the 20 cent difference is the same as it was a few winters ago when regular unleaded was about $1.
Intersting point about the percentage shrink. I hadn't thought of that, and I bet most others hadn't, either. But you're right, the difference between premium and regular is now lower, on a percentage basis of the total cost of filling up, than it used to be. Probably won't change anyone's opinion about wanting to use regular whenever possible to cut costs, but interesting nonetheless.
The Ford GT's fuel cap (pretty cool design -- pops up on the passenger-side front fender) has a sticker right on the underside that says "91+" and it has a picture of a gas pump next to that.
I've had several interviews with various media organizations over the years (usually right after gas prices take another spike up) and they always ask the same thing:
"Do people really have to use premium if their manual says to?"
I always answer the same way:
"Any car built after about 1990 will be 'smart enough' to adjust for lower octane fuel to avoid hurting itself...in the short term. And on many cars, like say a 2001 Honda Odyssey minivan, you could use regular for 100,000 miles and very likely see no ill effects. However, on performance cars, especially those with forced induction engines, the possibility for engine damage is higher if you don't use premium -- though it's still pretty low -- and certainly the performance penalty for using regular in these cars will be higher."
I honestly don't know what Ford would do if, say, at 20,000 miles I bring my GT in and say, "It's making a weird noise in the engine. I think there's a damaged piston ring." And they say, "Well, you've been putting only premium in it, right?" And I say, "No way, that stuff costs too much. I've been using 87 regular." It's a very good question...but one I'd simply prefer to ask them, rather than doing an actual litmus test with...
thanks Karl. i'm glad my idea was interesting to you. your always-answer makes sense of course. and if (when) i ever get a 'supercar' i doubt i'll ever put 87 octane in it, especially if it's supercharged. but for my low-$ Z28s & my new goat, i'll surely try it now and then, just to satisfy my engineer-curiosity about any noticeable/measurable mpg or power loss. i use 87 especially in very cold weather: i drove all my Z28s through new england & upstate-NY winters... in my 96 Z i did not have traction control, so i called 87 octane as "poor man's traction control", since probably it reduced torque slightly... hotrod magazine has an online article about a bench-test they did with a modern V8 crate motor with knock sensor. their results were surprising even to me. they saw something like 396 hp with 87 octane, and not much more than 404 hp with 93 octane, or even with race fuel. minimal torque difference too. btw, check out the hybrids/diesel forum for "my second theory", ahem ahem. any monty python fans out there? well, my 2nd theory is this: to best reduce pollution and reduce fuel usage, hybrid cars should be prohibited from carpool lanes and restricted to stay in the stop-and-go non-carpool portions of Cali freeways! i lived in Cali / north bay / santa cruz from 91-95 and was a "wicked" carpool lane cheater the whole time - i used the carpool lane quite often to get around traffic jams. never got bagged... i don't think a carpool lane violation goes on cali insurance or as cali drivers license 'points' but i luckily never got to test that idea... carpool lanes bug me. i think they wasted fuel & caused more pollution even before hybrids hit the scene!
My car "recommends" premium gas, and I look at it this way: No matter what the price of gas is, Premium will cost about $0.20 more per gallon than Regular. So, since my car takes 15 gals to fill up, we're talking only $3.00 per fill-up more, no matter what price the gas is. So switching to regular isn't going to buy me much (maybe $150/year), and may hurt my engine over the long haul. Plus, my gas mileage may be hurt by the engine compensating for the inferior octane, eating into the $150 savings.
So for me it's a no-brainer - if the manufacturer says premium, use premium. You ain't gonna save very much using regular.
but I had to comment. Karl mentioned that the ability to put the top up from inside a roadster is a recent development and I have to disagree. The Miata has been around since '89, and Alfa Romeo has had the trick down since at least '66, with the same basic design continuing from '71 all the way to 1994. My '74 Spider has a soft top that seals well and can be raised in 20 seconds from inside the car, and dropped in maybe 10. I've done it at stop lights plenty of times. I have a book with old comparison tests between the Alfa Spiders and the competition of the time - Lotii, MGs, Triumphs, Jensen Healeys, etc. - and they always mention the top operation as a big plus for the Spiders.
Interestingly, the Alfa outlived all of its original competition. Was it because it had a better top design? Maybe not, but it couldn't have hurt. I really like the Solstice, but as a guy who has lived with a roadster for a daily driver the top would be a big issue for me.
for me it's a no-brainer too. since my gasser cars' manuals both say 87 will work with *maybe* a loss in performance or mpg, i like to try it. it doesn't matter what is the cost - i won't pay money for something which gains me nothing. so i benchmark each of my cars myself to determine whether the high-octane gives any benefit, and how much benefit in either mpg or seat-of-the-pants power/toqrue. i'd do the same with 'premium diesel' for my tdi if i could actually find any such higher-cetane diesel around here. i'm a cheap bastid with regard to cellphone minutes too - if i don't recognize the #, i don't answer the phone during "peak hours" ! mirth, as for your calculation of $150 per year, yow, $150 here, $150 there, and soon you are talking real money!
Comments
shown here -
http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=103166
Is this vehicle the same as what Lutz and his team showed you a few months back? Just curious.
Woah -- I don't remember anything looking like that. Most of what Lutz showed us were final production versions, so they all looked more "produce-able" than this vehicle. I can't remember exactly what the Vue photo looked like...except I remember it was much better looking than the current model. Some of the basic lines/proportions on this car look familiar, so a production Vue based off this platform seems right to me.
it is an absolutely beautiful convertible night tonight.
The Mazdaspeed6 only comes with a 6 speed manual. Mazda claims the final drive ratio needed to be lower to give the car more sporting character.
The BMW 3 series, A4 2.0, A3 2.0 and Acura TL with manuals get at least 20/29 mpg and I doubt anyone would say these NA and turbocharged cars aren't sporting.
Am I the only one who thinks Mazda has made yet another mistake with the Mazdaspeed6 (beyond the car's obscene weight)?
Your Frankfurt coverage is btw great. I wish for a few more pics, but other sites have them also.
Like you, I also hope the Gladiator makes into production. I know a lot of people are interested in it, despite the rising gas prices.
"Kept by the OEM indefinitely (one of the two Ford GT-40 concepts)"
What exactly is an OEM?
just my .02
OEM = Original Equipment Manufacturer
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Besides, if one were in the market for a supercar, price is probably a few pegs down on the criteria scale.
But I should point out that the last two times we did an "American Exotics" shootout the 'Vette won both:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=45197
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=89505
Both wins were due to the same situation:
Beats Viper because: almost as fast in a straightline, as fast or faster around a track (thank you Competition Driving mode), much easier to live with, costs much less
Beats SVT Mustang because: faster in straight line and around a track, easier to live with, doesn't cost that much more
Basically, the Vette was the least compromised car of the three. You can drive it everyday and not feel beat up in the least (the slight exhuast drone on the Z06 at highway speeds was the only thing that could remotely be called a "bother," and it was still better in this regard than either the Viper or SVT Mustang).
Now I'm going to be brutally honest: I will probably never own a Chevrolet Corvette -- at least not until it receives a major makeover (both in terms of design and philosophy). Anyone who reads this discussion already knows I'm a stickler for steering feel, and if I have to drive a manual shift vehicle than the shifter's feel and action is also crucial to me. The Vette, in spite of all it's performance, has never delivered in these areas. Finally, the C6 is better on interior quality, but it's still not up to standards for this price range.
The Boxster, M3 and TT all have better interiors, better steering feedback and better shifter action than a 'Vette, and they all cost less, too. Yes, the Corvette (especially in Z06 form) will smoke them in a straightline -- and probably around a track, too. But I rarely go to a track, and I don't drag race people...very often. :P But EVERY TIME I drive somewhere I have to sit in a car, shift a car (if it's a manual), and guide a car by holding the steering wheel. I get no joy from a Corvette while doing any of these things.
So, to sum up, in my "professional" opinion (in other words, not thinking in terms of whether I want to buy it or not) the Corvette is a fabulous car. I don't begrudge people who like them or buy them, and I think the new Z06 will likely win the upcoming American Exotics test for the same reasons it's already won twice before.
In my personal opinion, the car hasn't appealed to me since 1967 (and I was born in 1969 :surprise: ). If I'm in the market for a $65,000 to $75,000 sports car today I'm looking at loaded Boxsters and M3s (and having money left over) or a stripped 911 (or a clean, certified used one) or maybe a Lotus Elise (with A LOT of money left over).
If I'm looking for a true $100,000-plus exotic that justifies the price in terms of not only performance but ALSO looks, design philosophy, interior quality AND driving dynamics/feedback. Well...I think you already know what I'm going to say.
Obviously I need to drive the newest Z06 to be absolutely sure, but every report I've seen says the same thing: "Great performance on paper, interior still not up to class standards, steering feel and shifter action still lacking."
I guess I'll know first hand soon enough...
To me it does not seem that a coupe and two seat vehicles are in the same class - even though performance wise they match up.
I guess I am saying that I would be surprised that someone considering a Vette would even look at a M3 or vise versa.
I have not driven a new C6 - is the steering really that bad?? How can GM nail the steering on the $20,000 Solstice but not on the Vette? How does GM continually miss the details?????
Karl, curious as to how you like the steering feel in your Bu? My dad has an 04 and the lack of feel is my biggest complaint. Of course, he thinks it is just fine.
"If I'm looking for a true $100,000-plus exotic that justifies the price in terms of not only performance but ALSO looks, design philosophy, interior quality AND driving dynamics/feedback. Well...I think you already know what I'm going to say. "
You are the first I've heard praise the interior quality of the GT. The GT (interior) may have a distinctive design but I dont know that it would be called quality or appealing to the eye. On top of that a car that expensive should offer the lates technology. Does the GT even have Navigation or stability? Do you think interior design counts for anything? I bet Lambos and Ferrari's have better materials than the vette but their interior designs are horrible. It's a good things those cars are fast because otherwise you might take time to look at their 80s era interiors. I dont understand why the interiors of those cars has to look so bad.
"Great performance on paper, interior still not up to class standards,...."
I think you meant to say great performance on paper and in the real world. I dont think there is anything in the Z06's class. If we consider expensive italians and the Ford Gt to be it's class than I think it's interior is up to snuff. If we consider Aston Martins or SL500s to be it's class than the vette is likely to come up short. Since we know which car you own already, I dont see the Z06 getting a ringing endorsement from you anytime soon.
If you havent driven the vette or seen this complaint in prior reviews, how do you know for a fact that the vette has poor steering feel.
The Malibu has electronic steering and that is why it has poor feedback. GM's electric steering needs work and the Malibu and G6 have been widely criticized for this problem. Thats one reason why the SS and GTP have hydraulic steering.
BUT, with the Corvette, it's competing against things like the Boxster/911, Elise, SLK55 and, in my opinion, the M3. The new SLK has much better steering than the previous version, and the M3 and Boxster have always had great steering. The Elise is awesome. The Corvette's steering isn't horrible, but if you drive any of these other cars and then drive the Corvette you'll be like, "Woah, what just happened?" I'd also consider the NSX somewhat a competitor, even though I know it costs more. You can pick these cars up on the used market for $60,000 or less pretty easily, and they also have very good steering. And while they certainly don't compete directly with the Corvette, the 5 Series and A6 also have better steering -- which is arguably insane because they are luxury sedans.
And again, the shifter in the C6 is still very disappointing. It was actually more of an issue for me than the steering in the last road test I did:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=105925
I could excuse this up until a few years ago, but today it's just nuts to pay over $50,000 for a vehicle and not have really good steering and shifting (and let's not even get into the interior).
The steering on my Malibu is easily its worst trait. Not only is it lifeless, but on my model there is an annoying "clunk" that is both heard and felt as you steer past "center" going either direction. It's due for a service, so I'm going to ask them to check it, but I'm already prepared for the "Can't repeat problem" and/or "That's just the way it is." response (which, in a 22,000-mile Malibu, is probably true...).
Here's hoping the Solstice is an omen, rather than an enigma.
I don't want to put words in Karl's mouth, but you have to consider that when reviewers praise the steering in a $20k like the Solstice, this is in comparison to other cars in this class. The exact same steering feel may not cut the mustard for a supercar.
Another aspect I don't think you are considering is the role the tires play in steering feel. Great big meats like you'll find on the C6 (and certainly on the Z06) may be great at generating terrific skidpad numbers or speeds in a lane change, but if they don't communicate well to the driver that he is approaching the traction limits (like increasing slip angles prior to tire breakaway), then the steering feel is compromised. However, with a car intended more for day-to-day driveability like the Solstice, Pontiac may be able to use steering geometry and tire design which isn't necessarily geared towards huge numbers but provides good steering feel instead.
So in this case, it isn't necessarily the GM didn't sweat the details, it's just that they might be aiming more towards generating impressive numbers for things that can be quantified (and used for ammo in chatrooms) like lateral g's and lane-change times, while sacrificing things which CAN'T be quantified like steering feel.
Or, it could be that GM managed both great numbers and great feel. I guess we won't know until a head-head comparison test is done.
Wrong attitude.
In other words, since most people don't chose an option, the fact that this option has quality issues is not a problem?
If GM intends to get folks OUT of Porsches and M3s and into Corvettes, they need to pay attention to what a large portion of those people look for in a car. One of those things is a good manual transmission.
Of course, if GM only wants to be the Corvette to be the car of choice for guys undergoing a mid-life crisis but still have all the comforts of their Impala, then I guess they can continue to ignore the shift quality in their manuals....
Incidently, CU ripped the Lotus Elise to shreds while C&D praised it to the skies. Yet both mags got similar results, both said it was a great track car, and both suggested it was not a good everyday car.
2005 Ford GT
2004 Chevrolet Malibu
1973 Saab Sonett
1970 Plymouth GTX
Notice that I have all three domestics represented in my "fleet" -- despite my anti-domestic bias. :P And even the Saab uses a Ford engine (1.7-liter V4).
Also two motorcycles:
1975 Triumph Trident T160
1973 Triumph Hurricane TRX75
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I have a question - why did you buy a Malibu? Like, what made you buy it when there are much better sedans out there in terms of power, styling, interior, refinement etc? I'm not saying Malibu is a terrible car, I just want to know your reasoning behind owning it.
And also, didn't you say you had a Mini Cooper S a while back? What happened to that?
What do you think about the interiors of Italitan exotics? Agree or disagree that their designs are pretty dated?
me, i'm a mustang guy. traditionally, 90% of the capability of a vette at half the price. can fit four people too.
It also has a better shifter and better steering than the Corvette, which I wouldn't have believed if I hadn't driven a new Mustang and a C6 back-to-back, but it's true.
While the Ford GT is a bit of a one-off example of Ford's product line (though still an amazing product in terms of development time and performance and value), the Mustang is a great example of an everyday Ford that anyone can buy and enjoy.
Love or hate the Mustang, a 300-horsepower V8 for $25,000 is tough to deny.
I've driven a C5 Z06 and I liked the steering. I recognize it's not Porsche steering and the car has less approachable limits than the same, but it's not like it's "bad." Actually I thought it was good...
And regarding interiors. Just last week I got a ride in an Audi TT Quattro 225. One of the things I was sure to critique was the interior, as many say that car has one of the best interiors ever. You know what? It did NOTHING for me. Yeah the materials were soft to the touch and the dash had an "artistic" design but come ON! How could you put THAT much weighting on an interior??? I'm sorry, I don't see what the fuss is about, and I think I never will.
Little chance of that. The Vette still uses that Tremec T56 transmission, with insides dating back to the 1992 Dodge Viper. It's not going to get much better until they change suppliers. If I were GM, I'd see what ZF could do for me. But the cost of the transmission would probably triple. Worth it?
Not sure if it's the most pleasant to drive daily. When it was fighting against Vipers and hot-rodded Mustangs (based on the Fox platform) that was the case. But the Ford GT is pretty darn easy/pleasant to drive/live with. The new Z06 will have more available amenities (you can actually get Nav and memory seats on it, which is cool in a bizarre sort of way).
I'm thinking the Z06 will still be considerably easier to live with than a Viper (for instance, you won't have to watch out for burning your legs when you get in/out), but against the Ford GT it could be close. On the GT the only "exotic" penalties are rear visibility and entry/exit because of the door design. Neither has proven much of an issue for me (it's pretty surprising how quickly I've mastered sliding the GT into a parking space and sliding into/out of the cabin). Otherwise the GT is like driving a really fast, extremely stable and super buttoned-down Mustang -- meaning very easy to live with. For instance, shifter use/clutch pressure is absolutely a breeze. Steering is also extremely precise without being darty. I'd put Ferrari and Porsche steering better than Ford GT, but that's about it (BMW's may offer slightly better "feel," but not quite as good of "precision" -- so I'd call it a wash). Viper and Corvette steering are about the same -- both being cleary below the GT's. To me, good steering isn't just great at a racetrack, it's also nice when commuting along grooved and/or expansion-jointed freeways, so it plays a key role in "daily live-ability."
It will be interesting to measure things like interior noise levels (both at idle and while cruising at 70), and seat comfort, as neither has ever been stellar in the previous Z06s. I know that Car & Driver's recent shoot out with the Ford GT against the F430, Gallardo, 911 Turbo, etc. listed "noisy at highway speeds" as one of the GT's major issues. I drove mine 600 miles at 70-plus (sometimes very "plus" :surprise: ) two weeks ago and thought it was fine. I know Ford had a lot of problems with early GT door seals. Maybe C&D had a press car that was still using the old seals.
That surprises me. I guess I just assumed. Then again, you have to admit there's a least a teeny tiny bias here :P
interior noise levels (both at idle and while cruising at 70), and seat comfort, as neither has ever been stellar in the previous Z06s.
Agreed. There was an aftermarket divider that someone came up with for the Z06 that divides the trunk area from the passenger cabin. Reportedly it made quite a difference in noise. Seats in the C5 Z06, while fine for me, definitely don't have the support required in a car that can pull damn near a G on the skidpad. I believe this has been addressed with the C6 Z06. My cousin (owner of the Z06) says that the seats remind him very much of Camaro seats (as in the 95 Z28). They are good in a Camaro, but inadequate in a Z06. The annoying thing is, the regular C5 had available sport seats and I believe they did NOT use these in the Z06 due to weight.
How about my mileage comment? You can tell me all day long that it doesn't matter to you, but these days, I think it matters to everyone. And I suspect the C6 Z06 will out-do the others for fuel economy, just like the C5 Z06 used to do (that was a high 20s to 30mpg car, no kidding).
When I was breaking in my GT I never went above 3,500 rpm (meaning I rarely had the supercharger in "boost" mode), which is good for mileage. But I was also constantly varying the RPMs for break in purposes, which is bad for mileage. I'd be cruising at 80 mph in sixth gear at 2,000 rpm, but then I'd shift to fourth just to keep the revs changing, and now I'm revving at 3,500.
Regardless, even with this driving style I was averaging between 17-18 mpg, which on a car rated at 13/21 (and offering 550 horsepower and a 205 mph top speed) was pretty impressive to me. Who knows what it will do when I stop jamming it into fourth gear on the freeway?
However, your original guess on my response definitely stands -- If you're buying any of these cars and also thinking "gas mileage" you may have your priorities confused.
"What needs work - Sluggish engine"
"Gear spacing in the transmission is also very wide, which exacerbates the engine's lazy acceleration"
Acceleration numbers are very close between the Solstice and the MX-5. Yet, the Solstice has a sluggish engine and lazy acceleration?
How come no mention of lazy acceleration in the Mazda MX-5 review? Oh, my bad, it does blaze .2 sec. quicker to 60mph.
You have to look back a paragraph:
...the Ecotec revs slower than Mazda's four and crudely hangs on to revs when you back off the throttle.
Sounds like the flywheel is too heavy to suit the 2.4L. Also, the rear end is only a 3.9 gear. Limitations of the parts bin perhaps? Something like a 4.6 gear and a lighter flywheel would do wonders for Lutz's baby. If GM was on the ball, they'd already be available as dealer-installed upgrades.
Hopefully you can respond to this, if not anything else I post.
I don't think I've seen this linked here:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=107244?mktcat=insideline&k- w=HTML&mktid=NL990455&DARTmail
It is a really carefully written factual review. I found it interesting to read. It's a car I'll never buy, but it's like my 67 and 70 Mustangs somehow when I read about it.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Also...didn't you once mention you had a 2002 Mini Cooper and a Honda Odyssey? What happened to them, did you sell them?
One more question...what vehicle do you use for road trips?
I read your Solstice review, and it looks like GM has a legitimate homerun. GM has a lot of goodies coming out, the DTS, Lucerne, Aura, STS-V, XLR-V plus the new full size trucks and SUVs.
You can get a lightly used Maxx V6 with a DVD player for less than a new Accord with a 4 banger.
-juice
You basically nailed it. Here's where the spec sheet (once again) doesn't tell the whole story. The gearing in the Solstice makes it harder to get the engine in its sweet zone compared to the Miata. This means that when you're in the canyons you can readily pick a gear in the Miata and fling the engine up into it's power curve, but in the Solstice you're often trying to figure out which gear to use, and neither feels particularly strong (2nd is too low, but 3rd is too high).
So if you're hammering both cars around a race track, or on a canyon road, they pull similar numbers, but the Miata feels "sprightlier."
Like juice said, I bought it because I was able to get a pretty good deal on the car as a former long-term test vehicle. Also, it gets really good gas mileage and has good safety features (this one has the optional side-curtain airbags).
Also...didn't you once mention you had a 2002 Mini Cooper and a Honda Odyssey? What happened to them, did you sell them? I sold them both. I sold the Odyssey in the summer of 2001 because I knew the 2002s were coming with more power, rear disc brakes, side airbags, etc. I was able to sell it for $1,500 less than I paid, so not a bad rate for a year's worth of use. I sold the Mini last January for basically the same reason (new Mini coming with automatic for Cooper S and more power, etc.). I had a loaded Mini Cooper with CVT, and also got a great price for it.
One more question...what vehicle do you use for road trips? I always use an Edmunds.com long-term car. The gas is paid for and road trips provide great information for the updates.
I read your Solstice review, and it looks like GM has a legitimate homerun. GM has a lot of goodies coming out, the DTS, Lucerne, Aura, STS-V, XLR-V plus the new full size trucks and SUVs. The Aura looks to have a lot of potential. I'm hoping the production version delivers on the show car's promise.
I gotta question - do you know when the Tokyo Auto Show is?
results in the GTO show me that the car gets close to 24 mpg on the highway with 91+ octane, but closer to 21 mpg with 87 octane. now i'm trying 89.. you can call it 'confused priorities' but apparently i'm obsessive about this stuff. i'll keep running tests so as to get confirmation of the results... i'm heading out now to drive my goat another 90 miles on the highway... it is so much of a blast to drive!
Karl i'd be curious if you ever were to try 87 octane in your GT. i bet you'll never try that however! you are probably aware that any car sold in USA can be run on 87 octane all the time with no ill effect - they are all designed to run fine on 87 - maybe with reduced performance - but with no warranty issues - as far as i understand. do you concur?
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
i note that the percentage price difference between regular & premium has shrunk as the price has increased - premium remains about 20 cents more than regular now with 87 octane at $2.77 locally. the 20 cent difference is the same as it was a few winters ago when regular unleaded was about $1.
The Ford GT's fuel cap (pretty cool design -- pops up on the passenger-side front fender) has a sticker right on the underside that says "91+" and it has a picture of a gas pump next to that.
I've had several interviews with various media organizations over the years (usually right after gas prices take another spike up) and they always ask the same thing:
"Do people really have to use premium if their manual says to?"
I always answer the same way:
"Any car built after about 1990 will be 'smart enough' to adjust for lower octane fuel to avoid hurting itself...in the short term. And on many cars, like say a 2001 Honda Odyssey minivan, you could use regular for 100,000 miles and very likely see no ill effects. However, on performance cars, especially those with forced induction engines, the possibility for engine damage is higher if you don't use premium -- though it's still pretty low -- and certainly the performance penalty for using regular in these cars will be higher."
I honestly don't know what Ford would do if, say, at 20,000 miles I bring my GT in and say, "It's making a weird noise in the engine. I think there's a damaged piston ring." And they say, "Well, you've been putting only premium in it, right?" And I say, "No way, that stuff costs too much. I've been using 87 regular." It's a very good question...but one I'd simply prefer to ask them, rather than doing an actual litmus test with...
btw, check out the hybrids/diesel forum for "my second theory", ahem ahem. any monty python fans out there?
i lived in Cali / north bay / santa cruz from 91-95 and was a "wicked" carpool lane cheater the whole time - i used the carpool lane quite often to get around traffic jams. never got bagged... i don't think a carpool lane violation goes on cali insurance or as cali drivers license 'points' but i luckily never got to test that idea... carpool lanes bug me. i think they wasted fuel & caused more pollution even before hybrids hit the scene!
So for me it's a no-brainer - if the manufacturer says premium, use premium. You ain't gonna save very much using regular.
Interestingly, the Alfa outlived all of its original competition. Was it because it had a better top design? Maybe not, but it couldn't have hurt. I really like the Solstice, but as a guy who has lived with a roadster for a daily driver the top would be a big issue for me.
-Jason
Look at it this way. Is Ford going to require him to produce receipts showing he purchased only premium?
i'm a cheap bastid with regard to cellphone minutes too - if i don't recognize the #, i don't answer the phone during "peak hours" !
mirth, as for your calculation of $150 per year, yow, $150 here, $150 there, and soon you are talking real money!