Mallard

The specs have been out for a while, but the magazine tests are finally coming in. This car is a steal at the price it's offered at! While this article has no test numbers I can tell you that it runs about mid 12's and pulls over 1 lateral g in both directions. http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=103737 http://www.autoweek.com/images/articles/103737 If I had a Hammer: Mallett forges a beast out of the Pontiac Solstice NATALIE NEFF Published Date: 12/19/05 2006 Mallett Pontiac Solstice V8 On sale: Now Base price: $37,995 (including $19,995 for the Solstice) Powertrain: 6.0-liter, 400-hp, 395-lb-ft V8; rwd, five-speed manual Curb weight: 3010 lbs 0 to 60 mph: 4.2 seconds (mfr.) Website: mallettcars.com The readout on the dashboard might have indicated 32 degrees F, but the wind tearing at our faces felt colder. Much colder. So when the radio guy announced a wind chill factor of just 10 degrees, we had no reason to doubt him. Not exactly what one might consider ideal convertible weather, but the Mallett Solstice V8 isn’t your everyday convertible, and a little arctic air wasn’t going to keep us from at least getting a taste of the shiny black two-seater. Besides, snug within the confines of its cabin and with the heat cranked full tilt, it felt nearly 32. Nearly. The car’s last name tells the story, obviously, but only part of it. The V8 squeezed under the hood of this other-wise benign-looking Solstice is none other than the mighty LS2 sourced from the Chevrolet Corvette. And with almost 500 pounds less heft curbside than the bow-tied beast, the LS2’s 400 horses and 395 lb-ft of torque make for one monstrously fast little roadster. But lest you think the Mallett Solstice V8 is only about speed, think again: Throw a few cones in front of it and the car really comes to life. To achieve such superior agility, the car is ballasted such that a 200-pound person sitting behind the wheel gives it perfect 50:50 lateral weight distribution. And with a full tank of gas, the weight split fore and aft is near that, at 52:48. Achieving such good balance involved shoving the engine rearward to within millimeters of the tolerances set by GM for crash-worthiness. In fact, the LS2 sits so far back within the engine bay that you would be correct in calling the car a mid-engine vehicle. While the ice and snow prevented us from seriously exploring the limits of the car’s dexterity, we did get a sense of its power, which is more than enough to break the tires loose up to third gear. Indeed, putting the power down effectively and efficiently requires a judicious modulation of the throttle. Too much right pedal too quickly won’t holeshot anyone, but it may win a burnout contest. Get it right and the car is quick. So quick, in fact, the Mallett Solstice V8 will beat a C6 Corvette through the quarter-mile—just don’t tell that to Chevy. “Yeah, I’m still taking heat over that,” says Chuck Mallett, founder of Mallett Cars. “I’ve always worked with Chevy, and now I’m taking their premium engine and putting it in a Pontiac.” Mallett, the man, forged his reputation out of cranking ungodly amounts of performance from a whole slate of bow-tie-badged vehicles, finding power, speed and agility where most engineers don’t bother even looking. One might think cramming a small-block underhood would add a lot of mass to an otherwise svelt-ish Solstice (at 2860 pounds), but Mallett says its car weighs roughly 150 pounds more than the stock roadster. Drawing upon his family’s five-decade involvement in professional motorsports—including his own racing background—Mallett has developed cars for Chevrolet racing, for everything from Trans-Am to NASCAR to endurance racing. His best-known street car to date may be the twin-turbo Corvette ZR1 from 1996, which ran a top speed of 273 mph. Today the company spends much of its energy turning otherwise fast and mean cars into faster and meaner ones—not unlike a certain AutoWeek Lifetime Achievement Award winner. Despite the grumblings at Chevy, the folks in the excitement division are tickled to get their hands on a Mallett car. Dealers have been scrambling to get allotments. “I’ve got dealers interested in scooping up the whole run,” says Mallett, which, with just 100 cars slated for build through next October, will ensure the scrambling remains fierce. All that performance, however, doesn’t come cheaply. The standard package will set you back $18,000, but for that cash you not only get that meaty small-block, Mallett also augments the drivetrain using a Luk Gold clutch and short-throw shifter; throws on a set of Mallett-Penske non*adjustable shocks, high-performance brake pads and stainless-steel brake lines; and dresses the car with signature Mallett graphics, embroidered headrests and a serial number plaque. For the particularly speed hungry, Mallett offers a host of add-ons to pile on the performance, in an a la carte fashion or via additional options packages. The top-end supercharged conversion package, for example, includes a six-speed Tremac transmission with three gear-ratio options; 19-inch alloy wheels and tires; Mallett-Penske double adjustable shocks, coilovers and antiroll bars; transmission and differential coolers; a stainless-steel high-flow exhaust; a 3.73 limited-slip differential; heavy-duty four-core radiator; and a supercharger. That whole shebang turns the Solstice into a screaming 600-hp beast while adding a whopping $38,995 to the price tag of a standard Solstice, which itself starts at less than $20,000. That’s a lot of coin for such a little car, a full $14,000 more than a base C6 Corvette coupe. But 600 horses? That’s compelling stuff, no doubt. Want more? Mallett will also wedge a 402-cid “stroker” motor into your Solstice if you’ve got another spare $9,000 burning a hole in your pocket, or for the seriously speed-addicted, a supercharged 7.0-liter upgrade for another $18,761. The kicker: It all comes with a two-year, 24,000-mile warranty.

Infinity x 0 Infinity^0 next please.

Most plants will do that now. They'll sort parts depending on where they fall withing the spec. (low, high or middle) The first place you'll see the 'world engine' is in the new Dodge Caliber. ..."designed to be turbocharged and supercharged" Hmmm... :devil:

I remember watching the build up of this car on the guys internet site. Right after it was finished it was put on eBay. Not sure if the guy that built it is still the original owner. There is a ton of custom work to this car.

The Trailblazer has nothing on the Jeep except price.

It's cooler watching them go up Pikes Peak.

yeah, what you describe sounds like lift-throttle oversteer. (initiated by lifting throttle or tapping the brakes causing wieght transfer to the font tires) The 'turn in' you're talking about is caused by the ass end rotating out aka oversteer. Yes, in FWD this is recoverable by just getting back on the gas to pull through the turn. The problem is the computer doesn't know your intention. It only sees your yaw rate jump past what it knows to be allowable so it hits the brakes in order to put you back on your intended path. You're best not breaking mid-turn ESC or not. As you know, smooth is always faster. With ESC on as you go faster around that on ramp the computer whould see you start to push and start applying the rear inside brake to counteract it. This allows you to go around it faster with system on while not attracting the attention of Johnny Law because your drifting the on ramp. Tires make a big difference, so if you think the system is sensitive that could be the reason. If your car has a 'sport mode' try that instead of full off. The thresholds should be greater.

In that case, wake her up and tell her it's Monday morning and she has to leave before she's late for school.

The system only allows a certain amount of slip angle before it comes in. If you're oversteering (I'm guessing that's what you want it to do when you say 'nose dig in' and 'ass end lift') it will apply the outside front brake. This might make it feel like the car is pushing since it's doing it's best to keep the ass end in line. Tires also have a HUGE effect. If your tires area lot grippier then stock you might find the system intrusive since it doesn't expect you to have that much grip. In the end though you're still best leaving it on in case you find yourself in a situation where it saves your ass.

Empty your fridge so it looks like you have no food. Fat girls don't like that.

Nope. In a situation like this a properly tuned stability control system would have kept Jesse straight instead of the ~6 fishtails he did. It would have caught him before he got too out of hand on the first one and would have kept him straight after that. Turning your stability control off for normal driving is about the dumbest thing I can think of. In an avoidance maneuver you will have much better chances with it on. For a car to pass NHTSA standards it has to go through a double lane change at 105% of the speed it can make it through with system off. You will make it through faster with system on, period. One of the Testing magazines I read at work had an interview with a manager at one of the car companies (I think it was Audi, not positive though) who said he challenged all his test drivers to make it around Nurburgring faster with system off and not one could do it. If your car felt like dead weight in your incident, then with system off you probably would have swapped ends. I work on these systems daily. It's my job to test and tune stability control on new cars. As a result, I've driven a great variety of vehicles into ESC events and I can tell you that 'superior driving' will always lose to the system.

Stability Control ownz. If something like this doesn't sell you on that option I don't know what will. I'll never own another car without it. (at least my daily)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051211/ap_on_en_mo/obit_pryor

It's called the Challanger and it's an '09 model. http://www.thecarconnection.com/images/gallery/10429_VZXKXHPOWHZRB.jpg http://www.thecarconnection.com/images/gallery/10430_CMDHFGBHDXWPH.jpg

I had no intent of steering this thread off topic, but Eric I can't let you get off the hook this easy. To me it sounds as if you're fairly un-informed about the issue's GM faces that have driven it to where it is today. Basically you sound like you're riding Michael Moore's nuts after he spouted off nonsense on the radio the other week. GM has lost money this year, but it's not for making shitty products. They have some very highly rated cars and trucks on the market, some models even win quality awards over Honda and Toyota. Marketing has a hand in it, yes, but the major impact are the "legacy costs" and the cost of manufacturing in NA due to UAW demands. The auto industry is like any other business and it must be run in order to make a profit. That means consolidating manufacturing and running plants more efficiently. GM alone employs more then 1 million people in the US. While the 30,000 that are being cuts is sad, you have to realize that it's necessary in order for the company to be around and support the rest of the employees. While the cuts are a sign of a hurting company, they are also moves that should allow the company become profitable again, and in turn create more jobs from future growth. So go ahead, bash a company that employs over a million Americans. Try to hurt more people's perception of the company, even though they are making the highest quality cars they've ever produced. Marketing may be part of what hurts them, but they have a hard time marketing when people spout off BS 'facts' to everyone they know, instead of actually knowing anything abut the cars they make. Rick Wagoner had a letter in the Wall Street Journel on Tuesday. Maybe you should read it. They'll have it out 4 years later?? Do you know the development cycle of a vehicle line? Four years (actually 3 if it's an '09 model year) is pretty fast for everything that goes into it. You got me in a cranky mood. /offtopic.

try hosting the pics somewhere else

Considering some of the stuff we have at work is an '08 and there's talk of '09's I wouldn't say it's far off. BTW, I only see red x's

The Jeep SRT is awesome. I've driven and ridden in quite a few of them and they are a hell of a lot of fun. Everyone that's ever been in the car gets out and immediately asks, "How much is it?" IMO it's a hell of a deal.

Rumor says it's a stretched Kappa

When did you get a tattoo?

Supposedly there's a Camaro concept at this years Detroit Auto Show.

It means your roommates passed out on the floor again

The riddle is a trick question and the number of idiots that populate the internet turn trick questions into 20 page posts arguing over their stupidity. How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? It's doesn't fucking matter because it's can't happen.

engineers own

Not if the engine is producing enough thrust to counteract the force in the treadmill exerts on the wheels, which for the amount of power a jet liner has would probably be a hair over idle. Yes if my stomach touches the treadmill I would be pulled backwards. But my stomach is not like the wheels of the plane. My stomach is rock hard and does not roll on bearings like the airplane's wheels do. If I were swimming, and had wheels attached to my body that rode on low friction bearings, then the speed of the tread mill would not keep me swimming in the same place. You would have to put me in a stream or river and have me swim against the current. They actually have pools that simulate this. The pool analogy is applicable in this situation because the jet engine's thrust is much like a stroke in the pool. Neither the swimmer or the jet care how fast the ground is moving because their thrust relies on the fluid they operate within (air/water). The drag of the wheels on the ground is tiny in comparison to the thrust of the engine.