If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Direction GM's taking Saturn
|
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Direction GM's taking Saturn
BlaBla wrote: "This is kind of a trollish thread."
Blame me I guess since I started it. I was just curious what you guys on here thought. And I'm glad I did because I've read some interesting posts. I have to admit I didn't pay real close attention to what Saturn had to offer until I bought my SW2 from my friend in 2003. The quality of the car surprised me, although I wish it had a 6-cyl. instead of a 4. The inside is set up nice for a wagon, and is a comfortable ride, especially on the highway. After reading what that saleslady had posted on SaturnFans, it made me aware that some folks don't like the changes being made. Some of which I didn't even realize were happening. Interesting posts...Thanks, Jeff About another week and I should be able to get my new tires. Can't wait to get the Affinity's off the car since they don't have alot of tread left. I'm leaning towards the Allegra's but the Goodrich Touring T/S Pro's they have at Sam's Club look pretty nice also. Probably can't go wrong with either one. And there's only a $4/tire difference with the Allegra's being the more expensive of the two. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Direction GM's taking Saturn
SnoMan wrote:
> 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. They want to exploit the relatively positive image that Saturn had at the beginning. Saturn is no longer "different," it's just another GM division. They don't even stick to the one-price policy any more. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Direction GM's taking Saturn
Steve wrote:
> 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> The problem is that they didn't lure nearly enough people away from the Japanese products (most of which are not even imports any more). The reliability turned out to be a myth, the crashworthiness wasn't there, and the prices, while okay in terms of comparative MSRPs, were high compared to actual street prices. Saturn got a bad reputation for reliability with the oil burning and cracked head issues on the S series. It's hard to overcome all this. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Direction GM's taking Saturn
BläBlä wrote: >> > A car that makes 400hp and probably will get 28 mpg highway is far from > a gas guzzler. Find me something else making that much power and getting > better gas mileage. There wouldnt be any notable difference in gas > mileage between it and a 6cyl Honda powered Vue. It probably wouldnt > hurt gas mileage the slightest bit to put a 300hp rated LS2 in the > Saturn Vue and gear it taller since it doesnt tow anything anyway. The > latest V8's from GM are downright indestructible and amazingly > efficient. Next time you jab at gas mileage look at the power output. Sure, you might have the facts on your side, but it doesn't mean much when the public perception is different. SUV's are dead by the way, 10 more years, people will be looking at the and asking what were they thinking? like those veneer wood panel stationwagonsof the 60s and 70s Also, those mileage stats don't hold up in the real world, just corporate propoganda because some executive fool at gm said, hey, why don't we bring back the camaro ? instead of really using his brain and saying, why don't we just develop the polymer panel technology a bit more and build better cars than anyone else with it ? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Direction GM's taking Saturn
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:20:46 +0000, SnoMan took a five-minute break from
flipping burgers to boot the etch-a-sketch and scribble out: > 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 I thought that was Saturn was designed for from the beginning. -- kai - www.perfectreign.com || www.livebeans.com Wo ist der Ort für den ehrlichsten Kuss Ich weiss, dass ich ihn für uns finden muss Auf 'ner Strasse im Regen, auf 'nem Berg nah beim Mond Oder kann man ihn nur vom Totenbett holen |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Direction GM's taking Saturn
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:30:14 GMT, BläBlä
. S!RCRE4P.C0M> wrote: >A car that makes 400hp and probably will get 28 mpg highway is far from >a gas guzzler. Maybe in your dreams it will get 28 MPG (with a tail wind at 55 MPH) It will likely average about half that or less in town and that is a gas guzzler. There are speed limits and you do not need anything never 400 HP to exceed them in a car nor do you need 400 HP to get there. GM should spend research money on better MPG cars, not trendy cars to make a few fast bucks. I drove a old Cmaary with a 4cyl and a 5 speed for years that would easily exceed 100 MPH with no real effort aand it got about 30 MPG in town and around 40 on highway running 65 to70. It had a bad day when it only got 35 or 36 on a trip. Drove it well over 200K miles and its mileage was always consistant and never varied more than a few MPG in its life. It can be done but GM is not interested in it. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Direction GM's taking Saturn
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:33:10 -0700, SMS >
wrote: >The problem is that they didn't lure nearly enough people away from the >Japanese products (most of which are not even imports any more). The >reliability turned out to be a myth, the crashworthiness wasn't there, >and the prices, while okay in terms of comparative MSRPs, were high >compared to actual street prices. Saturn got a bad reputation for >reliability with the oil burning and cracked head issues on the S >series. It's hard to overcome all this. Part of the reason for the lack of lure was GM np haggle price that chased away a lot of sales. They had a interesting concept but lacked the guts to follow it through. Saturn prior to about 2000 were pretty well built overall and there is a lot of high mileage mid 90's ones out there. Now Saturn are getting to be just like other GM cars with just a different label on them but the same quality and parts under the skin which will kill Saturn long term. Dumping the plastic body parts that were a corner stone for its rust resitance. durabilty and there resitance to bumps and dings will hasen its fall because it will no longer be different than any other GM car other than styling. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Direction GM's taking Saturn
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 21:14:45 -0700, PerfectReign
> wrote: >On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:20:46 +0000, SnoMan took a five-minute break from >flipping burgers to boot the etch-a-sketch and scribble out: > >> 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 > > >I thought that was Saturn was designed for from the beginning. THat was the original intent but it has been abandoned now. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Direction GM's taking Saturn
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A mostly fond farewell to Saturn (for now) | [email protected] | Saturn | 1 | December 14th 05 08:14 AM |
Problems with my Saturn Vue | Arnold Howard | Saturn | 2 | October 27th 05 10:40 PM |
Saturn rear-ended at low speed, but back still hurts | Rich Wales | Saturn | 0 | October 27th 04 07:42 PM |
Saturn - No different | Arkal | Saturn | 8 | June 28th 04 12:23 PM |
How to buy a new or used SATURN | misterfact | General | 0 | February 19th 04 12:58 AM |