Direction GM's taking Saturn
I was poking around the SaturnFans website to see threads regarding
tires, and noticed another thread: "The Death of Saturn". It was started by what appears to be a fairly new saleslady who was tired of seeing negative posts lamenting the direction GM has Saturn going in. Even though I thought she came across as a bit arrogant, I understand she's defending her (new) employer. She's excited about working there and is defensive. That was my take anyways. It started a debate that was interesting to read from some of the long-time Saturn owners. For one thing I didn't realize Saturn was doing away with the Polymer side panels that help prevent dents. According to the saleslady it was a "division that was losing money" and the owners who don't like the change are basically crybabies. hah. Some of the owners seem to believe that GM is ruining Saturn. I bought my car 2nd hand from a friend because he gave me the trade-in price he was offered for it when he bought a new VUE in 2003. I had always said I wouldn't have another 4-cylinder but the deal was too good to pass up and I needed a better car at the time. Once I started driving the SW2 I enjoyed having it. As much as I hated (and still hate) how low the wagon sits, I still have really enjoyed having it. It's roomier than it looks from the outside. And to me the Polymer is a bigger draw than that lady seems to think. It set Saturn apart I thought. And Saturn's prices seemed competitive at least. Me personally, I'm waiting for a new American car company to start up that'll give people the opportunity to buy a very reliable car, that's very affordable, and is simple for an owner to work on without everything under the hood being crammed together, and still be one that's stylish and attractive. I'm not crazy about having computers run things in cars either. I'd like to see a car being sold for $8,000 - $10,000 that a family could feel safe in and have it not be a piece of junk. With the exportation of American jobs overseas there there's a bigger market than ever for a really affordable car. Whenever I see on tv the old American cars from the 50's still being worked on and driven by Cubans on the island, I wonder if that could happen with today's cars in a similar situation. I got a little sidetracked, but I'm curious about what you all think about how GM is running Saturn. Thanks, Jeff |
Direction GM's taking Saturn
J B wrote:
> For one thing I didn't realize Saturn was doing away with the Polymer > side panels that help prevent dents. According to the saleslady it was a > "division that was losing money" and the owners who don't like the > change are basically crybabies. hah. The saleslady has a point. GM is not an unlimited source of money for ventures that never generate any return for the corporation. It simply isn't financially possible for a small division to do it's own unique designs for low volume products. The polymer panels have been problematic from the very beginning, and were much more expensive to manufacture, even though the raw material was marginally cheaper. They may also have contributed to Saturn's relatively poor crash test performance. > With the exportation of American jobs overseas there there's a > bigger market than ever for a really affordable car. Yes, this is why Honda and Toyota are successfully building affordable cars in the U.S.. The styling may not be exciting, but they are reliable, fuel efficient, and relatively inexpensive. You can still get an entry-level Camry or Accord for around $16,000, and it will easily last 15 years with minimal maintenance. |
Direction GM's taking Saturn
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:38:51 -0700, SMS >
wrote: > >Yes, this is why Honda and Toyota are successfully building affordable >cars in the U.S.. The styling may not be exciting, but they are >reliable, fuel efficient, and relatively inexpensive. You can still get >an entry-level Camry or Accord for around $16,000, and it will easily >last 15 years with minimal maintenance. THe main reason they have been successfull is QUALITY. THey are not strapped with GM's labor costs and philosphy which will destroy Saturn eventually. The only chance the Saturn has to servive is to split from GM management on labor rules and vehicle philosphy because they are abondoning the low end market they started in and focusing on higher dollar and less fuel efficent model that tend to be more trouble prone too. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Direction GM's taking Saturn
I can speak from both sides of the fence as a Saturn owner, former Saturn
salesman and still a Saturn fan although I work for Chevy now. Most will bash Saturn w/o knowing the history of the company nor knowing that GM had been cutting their funding prior to them fully joining the GM family. This caused a lack of improvement for Saturn and arrested growth for years. Considering that GM has fully funded Buick and Pontiac and has lost money on them as well, this has to be taken into consideration as well. It was only a short while ago that GM was considering which of the 3 to close and Saturn was seen as the most profitable to keep of the three. Quality and fit and finish are some of the many reasons that polymer must go. I love my polymer personally, but I have no qualm with perfect fit and finish, and hydroformed steel panels are better looking anyways. Just look at the SKY. As far as safety and crash testing, I'm not sure anymore that to believe in what I read. Recent crash testing says that the Aveo has a 5 star rating while the ION is much lower. That's US ratings. In Europe, the Aveo, otherwise known as the Kalos, and many other names all over the world has miserably failed crash ratings. Why? Perhaps our tests weigh against any car without standard side air bags. ION doesn't have them standard. Do I believe that? Heck no. What I do believe in is the many customers and people that I have met across the years who have survived major car crashes in a Saturn. Nuff said. Real life experience speaks louder than lab controlled tests. I also survived what might have been a serious accident if I hadn't been in my old trusty SL2. Change is good sometimes, if this means that GM will make better fitting panels and still retain or increase safety, great. If thes means that Saturn will become a mainstream name when people see the Aura or the SKY or Outlook on the street and this means Saturn will finally become synonymous with quality and luxury, Im all for that too. Can't wait to see what the future brings for Saturn. But I'm not ready to trade in my SC2 yet. ;-) marx404 |
Direction GM's taking Saturn
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:56:30 -0400, "marx404" > wrote:
>Change is good sometimes, if this means that GM will make better fitting >panels and still retain or increase safety, great. If thes means that Saturn >will become a mainstream name when people see the Aura or the SKY or Outlook >on the street and this means Saturn will finally become synonymous with >quality and luxury, Im all for that too. Can't wait to see what the future >brings for Saturn. Change at GM is mostly about cutting costs to boost profits, not make a better product.With GM having 70% of cost of building a car going to labor, quality will suffer. Unless they start spending less money on labor and more on car parts and quality, they will slowing go down the toilet as Toyota is nipping at their heals now after overtaking Ford. The future is not bright for GM unless they can get labor cost in check. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Direction GM's taking Saturn
the whole thing about saturn and the polymer panels was innovation. gm and saturn have forgotten that, if you innovate, you can lead, but if you follow, you will always follow and never win. the consumer is the one who the saturn is made for, not gm. gm is making the mistake of it's life by bankrolling a comeback of an outdated gas guzzler camaro. theres quite a number of fast muscle cars, but few cars that provide the owner with superior quality and reliability. that's where the market is. |
Direction GM's taking Saturn
SnoMan wrote:
> THe main reason they have been successfull is QUALITY. THey are not > strapped with GM's labor costs and philosphy which will destroy Saturn > eventually. The only chance the Saturn has to servive is to split from > GM management on labor rules and vehicle philosphy because they are > abondoning the low end market they started in and focusing on higher > dollar and less fuel efficent model that tend to be more trouble prone > too. They can't split on vehicle philosophy because Saturn can't sell enough vehicles to justify the design and tooling costs for a line of unique vehicles. Remember, Saturn sells only in the U.S. and Canada, despite abortive attempts to sell in Taiwan and Japan. Contrast this with Toyota, who sells (and manufactures) their mass market cars like the Camry and Corolla, all over the world, amortizing the design and tooling costs. |
Direction GM's taking Saturn
|
Direction GM's taking Saturn
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 07:30:26 -0700, SMS >
wrote: >They can't split on vehicle philosophy because Saturn can't sell enough >vehicles to justify the design and tooling costs for a line of unique >vehicles. Remember, Saturn sells only in the U.S. and Canada, despite >abortive attempts to sell in Taiwan and Japan. Contrast this with >Toyota, who sells (and manufactures) their mass market cars like the >Camry and Corolla, all over the world, amortizing the design and tooling >costs. They started Saturn out to be different but if they just want it to be another cow in the herd not they might as well kill it now. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Direction GM's taking Saturn
"SnoMan" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 07:30:26 -0700, SMS > > wrote: > >>They can't split on vehicle philosophy because Saturn can't sell enough >>vehicles to justify the design and tooling costs for a line of unique >>vehicles. Remember, Saturn sells only in the U.S. and Canada, despite >>abortive attempts to sell in Taiwan and Japan. Contrast this with >>Toyota, who sells (and manufactures) their mass market cars like the >>Camry and Corolla, all over the world, amortizing the design and tooling >>costs. > > > They started Saturn out to be different but if they just want it to be > another cow in the herd not they might as well kill it now. > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com This discussion prompts me to think about the question, why did GM start Saturn in the first place? Remember "a different kind of car; a different kind of car company?" The early marketing would seem to suggest that GM wasn't as much concerned with the fact that they wouldn't be able to "sell enough vehicles to justify the design and tooling costs for a line of unique vehicles" (to quote scharf.steven). If this was true and what steven says is now true, then I would say that GM has pulled (even if without having intended it, originally) something similar to a "bait and switch." They lured us away from Japanese product with the SL, SC and SW lines (polymer panels, reliable, inexpensive, fun, [relatively] powerful 4-cylinder OHC engines) and now offer products that are completely different but with synergies to other GM product. Well, I guess it's back to Asian imports .... :( <frown> |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
AutoBanter.com