Is the Solstice going to be an S2000 Competitor?

Seems like it to me. Both are 4 cylinder 2 seat coupes/Conv.'s, look about the same size from what we've seen of the Solstice. The only thing is that the Solstice will be 10,000$ less and have ALMOST as much performance. I think this thing will blow the S2000 out of the water if the 2000 is still around in 2005.

If they keep the weight down, it should easily be an S2000 competitor. I believe that the s2000 weighs 2700ish lbs with 250ish hp. If they could release the solstice at 240hp like they want to, and keep it to 2400 lbs, it would be pretty awesome. I'm definately watching this one to see how it turns out.

In the hands of an average driver, the S2000 isn't fast at all. You have to rev the living daylights out of it to get any torque, so I think even if Solstice has substantially less horsepower, it should still be able to take one on in the freeway or stoplight grand prix.

I think it should, and will.

It'll be interesting to see how they compare.

The S2000 has a well developed, purpose built chassis....the Solstice's will be pieced together from the parts bin. The S2000 has an extremely high revving engine, but little low end torque.....the Solstice's supercharged Ecotec will have plenty of low end torque but be relatively low revving.

BTW, Guion is right about needing a delicate touch with the S2000.

Three S2000s were entered in a local autocross I was running in. Two were being driven by younger drivers with excess testosterone. They both broke completely loose and spun out...one almost got totalled.

The third was driven by a more mature driver who manipulated the gas,clutch, brakes and steering wheel like a surgeon would a scalpel........and, let me tell you, he was FAST!

Originally posted by guionM
In the hands of an average driver, the S2000 isn't fast at all. You have to rev the living daylights out of it to get any torque, so I think even if Solstice has substantially less horsepower, it should still be able to take one on in the freeway or stoplight grand prix.

I seriously doubt that "average drivers" would see the appeal of the S2000. (There again, some unlucky dopes have probably purchased their cars straight from the showroom floor. With the limited allocation, alot of Honda dealers didn't allow ANY test drives.)
To get the best out of one of these cars you need to keep it in the lower gears and keep the revs past the VTEC cutoff. The all-or-nothing nature of the old school VTEC system really kept me from seriously considering a S2000. I personally like the idea of powershifting a 9000rpm capable drivetrain - I just don't think that the clutch would last very long with my driving style.

The Solistice is an altogether different beast. A supercharger removes the potential for insane RPMs, not that the Ecotec was ever designed for that sort of service. Without a doubt the Pontiac will be a more tractible car, probably with a torque converter in mind. It will also be much heavier.
The Honda was a specialist vehicle, with low production in mind. The production Solistice is a parts-bin-special, with bigger
potential volumes.

Will the Subaru steering rack give exceptional feel? Will the Versatrak rear suspension from the Rendevous/Aztec yield ideal geometry? I'll reserve judgement until I see the production example.

I just hope that the Solistice is $10k cheaper than the S2000, with a sub-Miata sticker price. In any case, the S2000 isn't the sports car bench mark it could have been. It's much too flawed in conception, let alone exectution. The best thing I can say about it is that it was designed as a sports car, from the ground up, just like the Miata and the last generation Mercedes SL.

Considering that the current SL is based on E-class components, maybe GM isn't too far off by starting in the corporate parts bin.

Originally posted by redzed
I seriously doubt that "average drivers" would see the appeal of the S2000. (There again, some unlucky dopes have probably purchased their cars straight from the showroom floor.....

In a day when guys in WRXs pull up and attempt to race me on the freeway (twice in 2 months), nothing surprises me anymore.

Guess some people never heard of torque. :D

I think a Solstice that is done right would be very nice. I have owned two LS1's and an LT1 and I now own an S2000. I am somewhat surprised how poorly the car is perceived here. Yes, it has low torque on paper, but the gearing makes up for it. Don't knock it until you drive it, there is more pull than you think. It is no V8, but that is not the point. BTW, I also own a WRX, another favorite target on this board for criticism. I think it is probably faster than the S in many circumstances, but that is mostly due to the unbelievable AWD launches. I look forward to another Camaro as much as anyone else, but in the meantime, I am exploring my options. And I am finding them quite favorable actually. I advise others to do the same. The new 350Z looks awesome, I can't wait to see the convertible.

What's the weight of S2000?

Having read recent post by Branden, Solstice with 240 HP will weigh more than 3000 pounds.

On another note, I checked fuel consumption data on S2000. :eek: My goodness, it is very close to LS1 in Corvettes! On the highway, Vette gets better milage.
I guess the engine is built from the factory, and its little 2.0 liter 4-cylinder engine drinks fuel like a fish.

The S2000 is a GREAT-looking car, and a great concept, but the execution is disappointing. 2800 lb. is HEAVY for this class of automobile, and 2.0 liters just ain't enough for the mass. VTEC is truly a paradox. I thought the idea of having two sets of cam lobes was to allow for low end torque AND high-end horsepower. The fact that you can FEEL it "kick in" indicates it's not optimally tuned for performance. It should go from low-rpm lobes to high-rpm lobes at the point when torque is equal with either profile (on the downside of the low-rpm lobes, upside of the high-rpm lobes). The car looks so kick-ass, I could almost live with it, though. But realistically, a turbo'd, rotaried, or turbo-rotaried Miata should be quite a bit quicker for similar $$$. As has been noted, it looks as though GM has decided it doesn't have to do any better than anybody else in the weight department, hence a less-than-3000lb weight target for the Solstice. At that weight range, they can count me OUT.

Dan Baldwin
'95 Z28 M6 convertible
'71 240Z 3.1 (FTD at Lime Rock, 11/19/02!)

Originally posted by RobC
I think a Solstice that is done right would be very nice. I have owned two LS1's and an LT1 and I now own an S2000. I am somewhat surprised how poorly the car is perceived here. Yes, it has low torque on paper, but the gearing makes up for it. Don't knock it until you drive it, there is more pull than you think. It is no V8, but that is not the point. BTW, I also own a WRX, another favorite target on this board for criticism. I think it is probably faster than the S in many circumstances, but that is mostly due to the unbelievable AWD launches. I look forward to another Camaro as much as anyone else, but in the meantime, I am exploring my options. And I am finding them quite favorable actually. I advise others to do the same. The new 350Z looks awesome, I can't wait to see the convertible.

Rob, I'm not knocking WRXs. I think they are fantastic little rockets. Some of it's buyers have some pretty big misconceptions as to what it can & can't do, and it's those few I'm picking on.

But, although I haven't personally driven a S2000 and have to rely on others who have, it just doesn't seem to be all it's cracked up to be. It's a small high tech, high revving 4 cylinder convertible that get's at best the same mileage as, and yet is slower than a big, seemingly low tech, relatively slow revving Corvette.

But then again, they cost $13,000 less than a Corvette, so maybe that's an unfair comparison. ;)

The general concensus seems to be that the S2000 is underpowered, overweight, has no torque, and gets poor gas mileage. Since I own one, I will try to offer some insight. the car is quite fast, but like I said it is no V8. It has very low (numerically high) gears and does 0-60 in the mid 5's and the quarter in the high 13's with a GOOD driver. I drive mine very gently because it is still very new, but it is pretty fast and the handling is absolutely incredible. I think it is so heavy because it is not only a bigger car than the Miata and the MR2, but it is also much more substantially braced. There is a huge frame running up the middle and there are braces everywhere, as well as the roll bars that the other two lack. The torque thing is no big deal, but the 9000 rpm redline takes a bit of getting used to. I get around 27 mpg in mixed driving vs. 14 or so in my LT1 Camaro, so don't know about the EPA mileage figures. I guess if you drive an LS1 in sixth everywhere you go, you can get those numbers, but who actually drives like that? I bought the S because I wanted a convertible, that was reasonably safe, quick, reliable, and I was looking for something different after my numerous F-bodies. I got the car for about $29,000, and for that money it was an awesome buy. The MR2 was about $25,000, but lacked power, the roll bars, the awesome interior (seats), double wishbone suspension, and any storage space whatsoever. It is substantially lighter, but not as stiff, or in my opinion as safe. The Miata just lacks power and was a bit too small for me too get comfortable, although it was nice inside. I think if the Solstice offers as as much or more than the S, and is priced under $30,000 in fully loaded trim, then it will be a good competitor. Anyway, this is all just my opinion, and hopefully I was able to help some people understand the S a little better, as a point of comparison for the Solstice.

I am completely, totally, and sincerely unimpressed with the S2000 after having driven a couple and raced against a couple of others.

It's not the car that's doing it, either - it's the motor. The car itself is kinda nifty.

In spite of all the wonderous praise given that motor by automotive journalists for specific output, I find it to be be stunningly less than optimal.

It's heavy when compared to power output, as long as an LS1 (but taller), relatively wide, returns miserable fuel economy for a car that weighs 700 lbs. less than an F-car and has less than half of the displacement. I find a 9000 rpm redline useless if I have to constantly be over 5000 rpm to get any real response out of it.

I found the powertrain (even with the gearing) far more sensitive to gear selection than an LS1 (obviously due to torque issues), and the car generally needy when trying to move fast.

If you like shifting a lot, it may be the car for you. That might be part of the appeal...

Were the world of automotive journalists capable of truly being objective, some Honda powertrain engineers ought to out looking for jobs - in a different industry. It looks like they might be better suited to building turbines for power plants than engines for automobiles (you know.... 100,000 rpm and no torque).

Originally posted by PacerX
I am completely, totally, and sincerely unimpressed with the S2000 after having driven a couple and raced against a couple of others.

It's not the car that's doing it, either - it's the motor. The car itself is kinda nifty.

In spite of all the wonderous praise given that motor by automotive journalists for specific output, I find it to be be stunningly less than optimal.

It's heavy when compared to power output, as long as an LS1 (but taller), relatively wide, returns miserable fuel economy for a car that weighs 700 lbs. less than an F-car and has less than half of the displacement. I find a 9000 rpm redline useless if I have to constantly be over 5000 rpm to get any real response out of it.

I found the powertrain (even with the gearing) far more sensitive to gear selection than an LS1 (obviously due to torque issues), and the car generally needy when trying to move fast.

If you like shifting a lot, it may be the car for you. That might be part of the appeal...

Were the world of automotive journalists capable of truly being objective, some Honda powertrain engineers ought to out looking for jobs - in a different industry. It looks like they might be better suited to building turbines for power plants than engines for automobiles (you know.... 100,000 rpm and no torque).

People see 9000 rpm redline and that's all they need... along with that Honda badge.

That 'marvel' , like you said, doesn't hold a torch to LS1 in many many ways, IMHO. Power, Torque, fuel economy, as well as relative weight, size and sound all factor into my reasoning.

I talked to a solstice rep at one of the auto shows I have seen it at (eather Ignace, or Woodward...I forget which) and they said it should be somewhere in the neighborhood of 2800-2900lbs. This isn't incredibly light, but the S2000 weighs just 100lbs less on average, and Solstice will serve up a lot more torque, and low end power.

The S2000 (from my observations) takes a really good driver to get anything out of it. In terms of acceleration, I have yet to see better than 14.3 in stock form. I have heard claims of high 13's, but with the 94-96mph traps I see them pulling that would take a *really* good launch.

The solstice appears to have a slightly better power to weight ratio than LT1 F-bods. So it should have no problem with regular low 14's, and maybe high 13's.

The S2000's engine is built well, but its mostly tapped out in NA form.
Since the Solstice is supercharged, it will probably take very little (pulley, chip) to get a lot more power out of it. We will have to see if it breaths well.

My first car was a 1967 Camaro. I have rebuilt several chevys and I have a 1998 Z-28 LS-1 motor in my 250 GTO Ferrari kit car. My everyday driver is a 2001 S-2000. If you want to compare the Supercharged Solstice to the S-2000 then compare it to my supercharged S-2000 with 275 rear wheel HP. You may have to rev it but the motor can take it and get you 21 mpg in the city. There are cars that are faster and handle better but take 5 seconds to put the top down and you can't beat the whole package. I have had well over 50 cars including 2 Camaros and 2 Corvettes but this is by far the funnest car I have ever driven. Put you bias aside and go drive one. Better yet see if you can find a turbo or supercharged one. It isn't even close to the stock one.

No offense to you man, but you gotta compare stock to stock. Its the same thing LS1 guys were saying when the 03 Cobra came out... well compare it to a supercharged LS1. That never really changed anyone's opinion.

I can say that my friend Greg drove one and he's more an "american muscle till I die" type of guy than I am, and he was floored by the car. He said it was the most fun car he's ever driven and would give body parts to have one. Id love to get my hands on one.

It has the fact going that its not ass ugly like the Solstice. But thats pretty objective I reckon.

Originally posted by Chuck!


It has the fact going that its not ass ugly like the Solstice. But thats pretty objective I reckon.

Yea it is objective...I think the Solstice is a cool looking car and the S2000 is ass ugly. :D ;)

Oh, cut me a break. All you guys can talk about is torque. Your big ole pushrod V-8s have more torque than a Ferrari F1 car. Would you care to race one??? You obviously have no idea about power. The camaro is dissapearing because it uses old technology and has horrid build quality. A big powerful engine doesn't make a car great. Can a camaro or corvette outrun an S2000/350Z/Boxster at the drag strip? Of course! That proves nothing. I've spent a fair amount of time in the V-8 Camaros. That car is an abomination-and is going away. Hopefully when GM brings it back (and they will) they will fix all the problems and produce a high quality V-8 muscle car America can be proud of. I dreamed of owning a Camaro as a high school kid but now cringe at the thought. I'm sure S2000 owners wish they had more low-end torque, but that is an amazing car anyways. By the way, I found this site while searching for a 69 Camaro-if you have one (in great condition)you'd like to part with, let me know

"Oh, cut me a break. All you guys can talk about is torque. Your big ole pushrod V-8s have more torque than a Ferrari F1 car. Would you care to race one???"

Sure thingy. Standing quarter mile, and I get an equivalent amount of money to build the Camaro as that spent on the F1 car.

Which tire would you like sucked off that Ferrari first?


"You obviously have no idea about power."

Yeah, you're right. So I come to a message board to have you educate me. Any guesses on the amount of power that F1 Ferrari is putting to the wheels? 800? 900? I can link a half dozen old-style small block V8's that out-power (and out-torque) any Ferrari you care to pick.


"A big powerful engine doesn't make a car great."

True, but it's a damned good start. Too bad the Germans and Japanese haven't figured that one out yet.


"Can a camaro or corvette outrun an S2000/350Z/Boxster at the drag strip? Of course!"

Oooops.... you forgot something.... Camaro and Corvette can outrun any of the three on a ROAD COURSE too.


"By the way, I found this site while searching for a 69 Camaro-if you have one (in great condition)you'd like to part with, let me know."

I vote that no one tells the troll anything. It will lower the average IQ of Camaro owners, and we don't want to scare him with a car that actually has some power. :death:

Originally posted by PacerX


I vote that no one tells the troll anything. It will lower the average IQ of Camaro owners, and we don't want to scare him with a car that actually has some power. :death:

I 2nd that...

[i]The camaro is dissapearing because it uses old technology and has horrid build quality. A big powerful engine doesn't make a car great. Can a camaro or corvette outrun an S2000/350Z/Boxster at the drag strip? Of course! That proves nothing.[/B]

Too many non-technically inclined people view OHV V8s as inferior to DOHC engines. Actually, a large-displacement OHV V8 is a very elegant solution to the problem of building a small, lightweight, powerful engine, as long as displacement is not limited. Which do you think has more power/weight, an LS1 or a DOHC Mustang Cobra engine? How 'bout an LS6 power/weight vs. the supercharged Cobra engine? It would also be interesting to see how the LS6 compares with the S2000 engine in this regard.

Anyway, in racing classes where displacement is limited, then DOHC, 4-valves/cyl, unobtanium connecting rods become very important if not crucial to have. This has nothing to do with street or informal road course events, though.

To say that one car beating another at a dragstrip proves nothing is obviously wrong. It proves that one is faster in the most important aspect of street performance! A high power/weight ratio is also extremely important in roadracing, where the S2000, 350Z, and Boxster, despite their more sophisticated underpinnings, suffer from being OVERWEIGHT for what they are.

All that said, I love the Z28 (despite its excessive mass, numb steering, and rear suspension monkey-motion), hate to see it go. I like the S2000 and Boxster, but wish they were each about 400 lb lighter. I don't like the 350Z, too ugly and WAY too heavy. The Solstice would've been my favorite new car in a long time, AT ~2400 LB! At 3000 lb, I don't really care for it.

Summary: vehicle power/weight is a MUCH bigger determining factor in vehicle performance (drag/roadrace/etc.) than perceived engine "technology".

Dan Baldwin
'95 Z28 M6 convertible
'71 240Z 3.1 (Vipers for breakfast, Z06s for lunch, 911 turbos for dinner)

You guys amaze me. You sit here bashing someone elses car but can't take one word of criticism about your car without calling him a troll. I own '99 C5 and '01 S2000. I like the vette despite the realitively poor quality because the positives outweigh the negatives. I'll never put 20,000 miles a year on the car so I'm not overly worried about things falling apart. And the engine is awesome-nothing like dropping the peddle on a big V-8. The camaro is a different story. While the Corvette has kept up with the times, the Camaro hasn't. It was time for it to go away because it needed to be completely redone. It will be back.

Why do I own an S2000? Because it is an awesome car. It is not redundent to own a vette and s2000. They are completely different cars. I have an awesome time driving both cars. For $32800 there is no better roadster. And You can't beat the Vettes performance versus cost.

And for those who think their Camaro SS is better than a Ferrari I'll just say that you really are delusional. If someone offered to trade his 360 Modena for the vette and S2000 I wouldn't give him a second to change his mind. Heck, I'd even throw in the wifes SUV and my winter beater.

Originally posted by tcampbel1965
You guys amaze me. You sit here bashing someone elses car but can't take one word of criticism about your car without calling him a troll. I own '99 C5 and '01 S2000. I like the vette despite the realitively poor quality because the positives outweigh the negatives. I'll never put 20,000 miles a year on the car so I'm not overly worried about things falling apart. And the engine is awesome-nothing like dropping the peddle on a big V-8. The camaro is a different story. While the Corvette has kept up with the times, the Camaro hasn't. It was time for it to go away because it needed to be completely redone. It will be back.

Why do I own an S2000? Because it is an awesome car. It is not redundent to own a vette and s2000. They are completely different cars. I have an awesome time driving both cars. For $32800 there is no better roadster. And You can't beat the Vettes performance versus cost.

And for those who think their Camaro SS is better than a Ferrari I'll just say that you really are dellusional. If someone offered to trade his 360 Modena for the vette and S2000 I wouldn't give him a second to change his mind. Heck, I'd even throw in the wifes SUV and my winter beater.

Now that you are here, can you please give first hand input to those few strange people who refuse to believe that Corvette buyers simply want a Corvette as opposed to GTO, BMW M5s, CTSs, and lord knows what else, and those really ridiculous people that thinks GM secretly fools Corvette buyers by not letting them think Z28s have the same engine

"I like the vette despite the realitively poor quality because the positives outweigh the negatives."

And these negatives are the load of horsesh!t that needs to be stamped out. You can quote some personal experience if you like, but the statistics say, and have said for years, that Corvette is the #1 car in its class for quality.

Numero uno.

I am sick and tired of hearing this categorical bu!!sh!t about "superior Japanese quality". Had it up to my ears. Honda's flagship gets soundly trounced in the quality department by that Chevrolet of yours.

You're in Detroit, eh? I'd be happy to meet ya somewhere and go over your S2000's interior and exterior for fit and finish and provide you with the laundry list of bad fits, exposed parting lines, exposed fasteners, color mismatches, grain wash-out, etc...

Originally posted by PacerX
"I like the vette despite the realitively poor quality because the positives outweigh the negatives."

And these negatives are the load of horsesh!t that needs to be stamped out. You can quote some personal experience if you like, but the statistics say, and have said for years, that Corvette is the #1 car in its class for quality.

Numero uno.

I am sick and tired of hearing this categorical bu!!sh!t about "superior Japanese quality". Had it up to my ears. Honda's flagship gets soundly trounced in the quality department by that Chevrolet of yours.



Amen brother. Corvette has been heralded for it's best in class quality since C5 came out.

You are kidding about the Corvette having better reliability right? Have you ever looked at Consumer Reports? The Corvette got that absolute worst rating and the S2000 got the highest out of six possible ratings. I have never owned a Corvette, but I have owned a new 99 TA and it was a piece of junk. Lets see bad rear end, U-joints, and needed the tranny rebuilt because I lost second gear, all within the first year. Probably would have had engine problems too if I didn't trade it in. Of course everyone will have there own ideas based on personal experience, rumors, or whatever, but CR is pretty thorough with their statistics. They don't even publish the results if the sample size is too small. I am not trying to get into an argument about this with anyone, but since it is impossible to accurately quantify reliability, and anyone can have good or bad experiences that are not exactly representative, let's just leave this one alone. I know what I believe, and we just happen to disagree.

"Of course everyone will have there own ideas based on personal experience, rumors, or whatever, but CR is pretty thorough with their statistics."


I spent a few years doing quality for a living, actual real-deal quality, and Consumer's Reports couldn't find their a$$ with either hand. Too many times I have opened up that worthless rag to find that two mechanically IDENTICAL cars have different reliability ratings. Example? 1994 Pontiac Bonneville SE and 1994 Buick LeSabre.

CR claimed that the brakes on the Bonneville are better than the brakes on the LeSabre, and that the LeSabre had a better HVAC system.

NEWSFLASH: They're identical. I identical brakes, identical master cylinders, boosters, calipers, pads, shoes and drums. Oh yeah, and apart from the actual HVAC controls, the HVAC systems are identical also.

Another example? Corolla vs. Prism.

Look it up and you tell me how good those clowns are.


Making an asinine claim like:
"You are kidding about the Corvette having better reliability right? Have you ever looked at Consumer Reports?"

And then saying:

"let's just leave this one alone"

I think not.

I was offerring CR as another point of reference, but one that is in favor of the S2000. But then I went on to say that there is really no good way to say for sure which is reliable, so let's forget it. Believe what you want to believe, I made my desicion with my wallet. I really don't care what you guys think anyway. Besides the Vette is way more expensive, so it should be faster, better built, etc. Just the fact that the two are being compared at all in any context speaks volumes about the S.

Originally posted by RobC
You are kidding about the Corvette having better reliability right? Have you ever looked at Consumer Reports? The Corvette got that absolute worst rating and the S2000 got the highest out of six possible ratings. I have never owned a Corvette, but I have owned a new 99 TA and it was a piece of junk. Lets see bad rear end, U-joints, and needed the tranny rebuilt because I lost second gear, all within the first year. Probably would have had engine problems too if I didn't trade it in. Of course everyone will have there own ideas based on personal experience, rumors, or whatever, but CR is pretty thorough with their statistics. They don't even publish the results if the sample size is too small. I am not trying to get into an argument about this with anyone, but since it is impossible to accurately quantify reliability, and anyone can have good or bad experiences that are not exactly representative, let's just leave this one alone. I know what I believe, and we just happen to disagree.

SO you judged CORVETTES quality based on your ownership of a TRANS AM ?!?

And even on that you "assume" your engine would "probably have problems if you didn't trade it in"?

Sorry if you had trouble with the T/A, and I believe you, but you are so far off base, I don't even see how you can make those statements.

I only used the TA as a comparison because it was GM's offering in that price range. I am not saying that TA=Corvette, but they both are GM. I have never owned a Corvette, they are too expensive for me right now. I just think that you are the only people that would ever think that anything GM could be more reliable than a Honda, and it is because you own them. I have owned both. None of us has millions to do huge studies over what is actually true, so I think the whole thing is pointless. The original post was to compare the Solstice to the S2000, and I don't think they will compare because while the Solstice may be faster, the Honda will be better built. It is all speculation on everyone's part, the Solstice isn't even out yet. So why does everyone get so upset? I have been an F-body owner since I got my license in 1991 and I still own one. I know where you guys are coming from, but my opinion is just that Honda makes better cars.

Originally posted by RobC
I only used the TA as a comparison because it was GM's offering in that price range. I am not saying that TA=Corvette, but they both are GM. I have never owned a Corvette, they are too expensive for me right now. I just think that you are the only people that would ever think that anything GM could be more reliable than a Honda, and it is because you own them. I have owned both. None of us has millions to do huge studies over what is actually true, so I think the whole thing is pointless. The original post was to compare the Solstice to the S2000, and I don't think they will compare because while the Solstice may be faster, the Honda will be better built. It is all speculation on everyone's part, the Solstice isn't even out yet. So why does everyone get so upset? I have been an F-body owner since I got my license in 1991 and I still own one. I know where you guys are coming from, but my opinion is just that Honda makes better cars.

Remember that the F-Body is on a platform that dates back to a 1982 debut!!! It was GM oldest platform still being used for 02 if I am correct.

The C5 was an ALL NEW platform in 1997, and a damn good one at that. Groundbreaking, frankly.

The logic that All Hondas Quality > All GM Quality is mindnumbing.

I am not slapping Honda quality at all, but don't judge C5 until you drive or at least ride in one, let alone own one.