Saturn throws in the towel N/A

kevin47881

kevin47881

Final Approach
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
6,216
Location
Middle Tennessee
Display Name
Display name:
Time to fly!
I was sad when they pulled production out of middle Tennessee and the sadness now extends to those working in their retail outlets. I have several friends who have been affected by the downturn in the auto market but this adds dozens more. :nonod:

"Saturn, the auto brand that General Motors (MTLQQ) created in 1985 to compete against Japanese automakers, will die out after a deal to sell it collapsed."

Story here: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/default.aspx?feat=1299249&GT1=33009
 
This would explain the funny feeling I had when viewing their latest ad campaign. It seemed so desperate.
 
Dang. Our first car was a Saturn SL1, bought sight-unseen, without even a test drive. We sold it to a friend when it had 150K on it and we didn't want to use it for an 80 mile daily round-trip. Our friend now has it up to about 205K, and last I heard it's still going strong. Heck, we even went to the "reunion" in Spring Hill! It was a culture, and it was really neat touring the plant. All those workers seemed to have so much pride in what they'd accomplished. Sad days. :(
 
My first car was a 1992 Saturn SL2 that I picked up with 113k miles on it in 2001. I drove it until about 162k miles and it had started showing it's age, and I didn't feel it was worth sinking money in to fix it up. But, it took me between St. Louis and Pittsburgh a couple of times, then down to Houston when I moved. It also did a round trip from Houston to St. Louis once as well. Sad that a domestic car company that actually made good cars is going under.
 
Had a friend who bought into the whole "Saturn Culture". He got mad at me one day when he was talking about the "dent resistant polymer sidepannels" and I said "You mean plastic, right?"
 
kevin47881 said:
Saturn throws in the towel N/A
Click to expand...


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 55995420v1_240x240_F.jpg
    55995420v1_240x240_F.jpg
    18 KB · Views: 214
Saturn did make good cars, but did they ever make money?
 
steingar said:
I thought they were just rebranded Audis.
Click to expand...

Here lately, they were mostly rebranded Opels.

Opel was GM's German carmaker (pretty good one, too). They've made a deal to sell it.
 
GM own or owned Opel right?
 
And rebranded Chevys ..... the Aura is a Malibu.

I drive a 93 SW2 and I love it. It's too bad Saturn didn't stick to their initial forumla for success and just make good little cars. But GM had to screw them up. I never understood this thing of making the same dang car under multiple brand names.
 
N5571Q said:
And rebranded Chevys ..... the Aura is a Malibu.

I drive a 93 SW2 and I love it. It's too bad Saturn didn't stick to their initial forumla for success and just make good little cars. But GM had to screw them up. I never understood this thing of making the same dang car under multiple brand names.
Click to expand...

You mean like the Nova Omega Ventura Apollo days? :D
 
gismo said:
I don't think that Audis and Saturns have anything in common with the possible exception of a tiny bit of German heritage.
Click to expand...
They don't. Thanks for pointing that out...

How somebody could think Audi and Saturn are in any way comparable is beyond me. It's like confusing Motel 6 and the Four Seasons.

I'm glad that GM and Ford are doing away with at least some of their badge engineering brands. I guess Hummer and a few others are going, too. Now if they would get rid of Mercury and Buick (along with Volvo, which Ford is planning on selling), they might be close to getting back on track....
 
Last edited:
I'm on my third Saturn and have always had very good luck with them. Had GM continued to allow them the autonomy they had at the start, I think they would have been successful.

-Rich
 
sba55 said:
How somebody could think Audi and Saturn are in any way comparable is beyond me. It's like confusing Motel 6 and the Four Seasons.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Saturns are actually reliable whereas Audis are overpriced rebadged Volkswagens that are as unreliable as it gets (example: friend's 2009 TT that's 9 months old, has 2,500 miles, and has spent 40 days in the shop since December). They do drive nicely, though.
 
SCCutler said:
Here lately, they were mostly rebranded Opels.

Opel was GM's German carmaker (pretty good one, too). They've made a deal to sell it.
Click to expand...

They may have made a deal to sell it. Nothing solid yet. Opel hasn't made money since the GT and Manta days... Saturn was an all American offshoot. The Proof of Concept car was the Pontiac Fiero. I remember when it came out with its "space age polymer panels" (plastic) they set up a door at the car show with a bowling ball set to swing on a cable. You pushed a button, the ball was reeled back a good ways then released. It thwacked with a solid hit, damage less, that would have sent a 80s vintage metal door to the body shop (wouldn't have touched my 72 Cutlass though). I was impressed. For the longest time, GM tried to keep their connection to Saturn under the radar. I'm wondering what's going to happen with the Electric and fuel cell programs that were being run under the Saturn badge....
 
Umm, how can anyone defend Audi? Ever see the Audi 5000? 5 Cylinder Engine, battery under the seat, etc? Makes me embarrassed to admit I was born in Germany.
 
SkyHog said:
Umm, how can anyone defend Audi? Ever see the Audi 5000? 5 Cylinder Engine, battery under the seat, etc? Makes me embarrassed to admit I was born in Germany.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with a 5-cylinder engine? Acura had one some years back, and Chevy/GMC have one currently in their midsize pickups. I think Volvo has one too.


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
What's wrong with a 5-cylinder engine? Acura had one some years back, and Chevy/GMC have one currently in their midsize pickups. I think Volvo has one too.


Trapper John
Click to expand...

Well, considering that the Audi 5000's 5 Cylinder engine was a piece of crap...

Actually, inline 5's are only slightly more torquey than inline 4's, but at a much higher price. They produce less horsepower than the standard inline 6 that Ford used. There was absolutely no reason to use them, aside from the gimmicky "Hey, its an inline 5 cylinder engine!"

Don't forget the whole battery under the seat thing. That was really safe, and good engineering by a great company!
 
SkyHog said:
Umm, how can anyone defend Audi? Ever see the Audi 5000? 5 Cylinder Engine, battery under the seat, etc? Makes me embarrassed to admit I was born in Germany.
Click to expand...

Right now, Audi makes the best car in Europe, they have surpassed Mercedes Benz. Back in the days of the 5000 they were on par with BMW, both spent more time in the shop than out, mostly electronic problems. The 5 cyl Turbo engine was a good strong running engine that I personally flogged the hell out of for a year then stuck in a boat replacing a 1800cc Volvo engine, ran the boat for a year as my daily work commuter (15' inboard convertible) in the CA Delta, 15 minutes by boat or 1.5 hrs minimum by car. They have a 10 cyl 60* Diesel with a phenolic graphite block and aluminum heads. 700hp, 1100ft/lbs of torque, perfect for an airplane for me. I just learned that my cousin is an engineer for Audi...
 
SkyHog said:
Umm, how can anyone defend Audi? Ever see the Audi 5000? 5 Cylinder Engine, battery under the seat, etc? Makes me embarrassed to admit I was born in Germany.
Click to expand...

Remember the Audi Fox?

I'm not sure whether it was worse than a Yugo or not....
 
SkyHog said:
Umm, how can anyone defend Audi? Ever see the Audi 5000? 5 Cylinder Engine, battery under the seat, etc? Makes me embarrassed to admit I was born in Germany.
Click to expand...

I might defend Audi and since I have owned several of them, I think I'm speaking from direct experience. In fact my very first "brand new" car was a 1973 Audi 100LS. I drove that car for about 120,000 miles with nothing more than normal things like tires, brake work, belts, ignition points, spark plugs, and light bulbs. I did have to replace most of the exhaust but that was typical of most cars of that era. Several years later I bought a used Audi Fox (which was indeed pretty much a rebadged VW) and the only unusual issue I had with that car was a leaking heater control valve. My last three cars were S4s. The first of those was a 93 urS4 that I bought when it was 5 years old with 25,000 miles on it. Despite the fact that I boosted the HP by 25% that car never needed anything but tires in the 60,000 miles I put on it. Next was a brand new 2001. This car also received the HP boost from 250 to 310 and it did have some maintenance issues. A rear wheel bearing, (replaced under warranty), a leaking AC pressure sensor (the big cost there was that two expensive hoses were replaced before the real leak was found, and worst of all was the time when the crankcase breather froze up and a few seals blew out. That doesn't sound like a big deal but the repair for that cost me around $1200. I put almost 100k miles on that one. My latest ride is a 2005 that I also bought (slightly) used a few years ago. So far the only major issue was the HID headlight assemblies which were leaking water and replaced under warranty.

Shop rates and parts costs are a bit higher than Ford but consistent with most European brands. And yes I do like the way they drive. I also strongly prefer AWD "sports" cars for their benign behavior at the limits of traction and their ability to deliver gobs of power to the road without spinning tires. The ability to drive through 5 inches of snow in my uphill 1/4 mile driveway is pretty nice too.
 
wsuffa said:
Remember the Audi Fox?
I'm not sure whether it was worse than a Yugo or not....
Click to expand...

Definitely not Audi's best work but it was an OK vehicle until it started to rust. It was a bit underpowered though and the dash seemed to be made out of plastic wrapped cardboard.
 
SkyHog said:
Well, considering that the Audi 5000's 5 Cylinder engine was a piece of crap...

Actually, inline 5's are only slightly more torquey than inline 4's, but at a much higher price. They produce less horsepower than the standard inline 6 that Ford used. There was absolutely no reason to use them, aside from the gimmicky "Hey, its an inline 5 cylinder engine!"
Click to expand...

I must admit that it did seem like the 5 cylinder engine was the result of some engineers getting together and dreaming up something "unique" for uniqueness's sake but Audi claimed is was the only way they could get a relatively smooth running engine to fit under the hood of their cars designed to include a 4 cylinder. In any case, it was a lot smoother than any 4 cylinder I've had and after cranking up the turbo boost it was a pretty good performer. I had one friend who went way beyond my "chiping" of the engine with a bigger turbo, larger exhaust and revised fuel injectors (along with bigger wheels and brakes). His car could do 0-60 in about 4 seconds and he claimed he had doubled the HP. And the rest of the engine and the drivetrain handled the extra strain without any problems so it couldn't have been very fragile.

Don't forget the whole battery under the seat thing. That was really safe, and good engineering by a great company![/quote]
 
gismo said:
Definitely not Audi's best work but it was an OK vehicle until it started to rust. It was a bit underpowered though and the dash seemed to be made out of plastic wrapped cardboard.
Click to expand...

You need this one.
 

Attachments

  • AudiR10.jpeg
    AudiR10.jpeg
    30 KB · Views: 10
SkyHog said:
Umm, how can anyone defend Audi? Ever see the Audi 5000? 5 Cylinder Engine, battery under the seat, etc? Makes me embarrassed to admit I was born in Germany.
Click to expand...

That 5-cylinder wasn't the problem, it was a good engine. Held up to tons of abuse, made good power, was easy to work on. I've seen no shortage of them with well over 200,000 miles, sometimes over the 300,000. The battery under the seat I don't see the problem with. Odd location, sure, but as I understood it it was a weight distribution thing. The battery on my Jaguar is in the trunk.

The cars themselves are good, as are the engines. What I've seen to be extremely unreliable are all the technological gismos. The reason I badge them as very unreliable is because of all the little systems that break, generally not disabling the car but just being a nuisance. Clearly, Lance's experience with Audis is positive, and he's about the only person I can recall knowing who's not had a lot of electrical issues with these cars.

I do still like the way they drive, but I also try to get 200,000+ miles out of my vehicles without having major problems. That's a big reason for owning my Ford truck.
 
Trapper John said:
What's wrong with a 5-cylinder engine? Acura had one some years back, and Chevy/GMC have one currently in their midsize pickups. I think Volvo has one too.
Click to expand...

Yep - I've got an inline 5-cylinder turbo in my Volvo S60. Love it. I get the best of both worlds: Currently averaging 27.7 MPG, but there's 247 ponies in there when I let 'em out. :yes: That was actually the thing that got me to go for the S60 T5 instead of the S80 - I didn't want to feed the V-8. :no:
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Lance's experience with Audis is positive, and he's about the only person I can recall knowing who's not had a lot of electrical issues with these cars.
Click to expand...

If I was a car, and I was parked in Lance's garage, I wouldn't DARE have any electrical problems! :D :rofl:
 
I took my first Audi (a 4000) to something like 150,000 miles, guy I sold it to had it over 225k last I heard (long time ago).

Next Audi was a 100S (what they now call an A6), which was bank-vault solid right up to the day when a kid in a full-size Bronco turned left right in front of me; almost steered out of it (would have but for the wet road), but car delivered me from accident unscathed. Too much damage to economically repair (although I often wish I had, as it had only 93,000 miles). Never let me down. I'd buy another one in a heartbeat, especially like the A5.

OBTW, there is nothing at all odd or "wrong" about an in-line 5 cylinder engine- I am driving a loaner VW (Celia's is in for MX), it has a 5, very smooth.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
That was actually the thing that got me to go for the S60 T5 instead of the S80 - I didn't want to feed the V-8. :no:
Click to expand...

I thought the S80 had an I6? The XC90 has an optional V8 in it. Did they change that in later years?
 
Saturn - Audi; Low wing - high wing; nose dragger - tail dragger; mac - pc ... :)
 
N5571Q said:
Enough, already!!! This is supposed to be a Saturn thread!!

:D
Click to expand...

My fault, I didn't remember that they were rebranded Opels. Pity though, started out as a really good example of American manufacturing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top