[fielderLS3]

The problem with the Sky was that while it was very nice looking, the rest of the car wasn't very good. The inside was an ergonomic disaster. I sat in one once on a dealer lot, and it was so uncomfortable and awkward, I didn't even want to drive it. Arm rests where all in the wrong places and at the wrong level, your elbow would hit the center console when pulling the shifter downward, the cup-holders slide out sideways into the space where your legs are supposed to go, buttons and controls where placed in weird locations....like I said, interior was a disaster. When sitting in one, you feel like a cartoon character who sat in a bucket and got stuck.

The performance numbers were also mediocre for the NA 2.4L volume engine, and the fuel economy was just plain terrible for a 4-cylinder two-seater. (It was actually less efficient than the larger, heavier, and almost twice as powerful V6 Camaro). The ridiculously oversized wheels and tires meant a lot of unspung weight and rotational interia for such a small car with a 4-cyl as well.

Basically, what I'm saying is to have kept it around longer as something else, it would have needed A LOT of redesigning. It also didn't share enough parts/a platform with anything else, and I believe it even had a production facility all to itself. The economics weren't even close, and GM should never have built it to begin with just from a business sense.