(First posted 10/3/2017) Even by today’s standards, the original concept for Saturn was highly innovative and revolutionary. Despite it being a new brand from a large automaker known for its high degree of product and part sharing among brands, Saturn was different in being its own corporation (though still a GM-owned subsidiary), sharing virtually nothing with other GM brands with regards to product, production, sales and service.
Starting at the core, with the product itself, Saturn was treated to an exclusive line of compact cars, based on an all new platform not used by any other GM division. Utilizing spaceframe design, side body panels did not carry load and were largely plastic versus steel, making them mostly dent-resistant and inexpensive to produce and repair.
Saturn also gained new 1.9L inline-4, along with two 4-speed automatics and 5-speed manuals each. Available in single overhead cam and double overhead cam (with cars featuring the latter displaying prominent “Twin Cam” exterior badging), this engine featured aluminum block and cylinder heads that were formed by a “lost foam” technique, in one of its first such large scale production applications.
Saturn produced its full-line of vehicles (ultimately designated the “S-Series”), engines, and transmissions separate from other GMs, in its very own factory in Spring Hill, Tennessee. Employees of this plant even had their own contract with the United Autoworkers Union, and Saturns were sold through their own dealer network, separate of other GM brands.
Given the massive undertaking of launching Saturn and the billions of dollars sunken in (much to the dismay of other GM brands) to fund GM’s ambitious goals for Saturn, it’s nothing short of impressive that the automaker saw the Saturn venture through and made it a reality, with sales beginning at the very end of the 1990 calendar year, nearly six years after the corporation’s official founding in January 1985.
Saturn’s early years were indeed met with success, strong sales, high level of customer satisfaction and retention, high ratings in initial quality and reliability, and acclaim for many of its innovative production and sales practices that began trickling down to other brands. That being said, Saturn never achieved the profitability and ROI that GM had hoped for.
Despite consistent cosmetic updates to its S-Series line of compact sedans, coupes, and wagons, by the late 1990s, amidst falling sales, it was clear that Saturn couldn’t go on much further with just one line of vehicles with aging underpinnings that was becoming rapidly stale in the eyes of consumers. Enter the L-Series.
Conceived as a logical vehicle for current S-Series owners to move up into, as well as draw new buyers for whom the S-Series was too small for, the L-Series at last provided Saturn with an ever-important midsize car to sell alongside the S-Series.
By the time the L-Series came along, however, the tables had turned for both Saturn and GM. As the 1990s progressed, GM faced continuous decline in market share, falling profits and even massive losses, with some of its brands, such as Oldsmobile, vastly struggling in particular. Saturn, amidst its relative “success” wasn’t paying the bills nor continuing its growth.
Unlike the S-Series, which in every way was about as “un-GM” as a GM product could be, the L-Series was based on a global GM platform originally developed for Opel, but also used by Saab, Vauxhall, Holden, and the Latin American Chevrolet Vectra. Furthermore, the L-Series used common GM engines, transmissions, switchgear, and was assembled in a “regular” GM factory with employees having a more traditional contract.
The L-Series did get distinctive styling inside and out, and featured Saturn’s signature plastic polymer body panels, but in terms of what the Saturn Corporation stood for, it was a huge concession and step backwards to the old ways of GM. It’s no surprise that in lacking the S-Series’ “isolated” production process, the L-Series was plagued with far more quality and reliability issues.
On paper, it may have looked like a fairly competitive midsize sedan (and wagon), but in reality, the Saturn L-Series was cursed with all of the negative qualities often associated with American cars of the early-2000s. As most can recall, this was an era when American automakers were increasingly focused on higher-profit SUVs. This resulted in less investment in their passenger cars, which ultimately translated to less competitive, poorer quality offerings in any given segment.
Its iffier build quality, cheaper looking and feeling interiors, and overall lack of refinement when compared to foreign competitors such as the Honda Accord and Volkswagen Passat were somewhat expected; more alarmingly, the L-Series was commonly inflicted with transmission failures, engine failures of the 2.2L inline-4 due to defective timing chains, and severe NVH caused by a design flaw in the suspension, the latter which resulted in a retrofit kit being made available.
Sales of the L-Series were no saving grace either, with 2000 and 2001, its best two years, 94,000 and 98,000 units, respectively, or about half the volume of the S-Series those same two years. While these numbers sound reasonable, like most other value-oriented GM brands, a significant amount of them came from fleet sales.
L-Series sales dipped by about 20% in 2002, and again in 2003, upon which the manufacturer increased already substantial rebates to as much as $3,000 ($4,053, adjusted as of 9/2017 USD) on the L-Series and even threw in a free Dell personal computer worth $800 on the purchase or lease of any new Saturn.
None of this helped, with sales nosediving to less than 20,000 units in 2004, a result of the model’s publicized quality issues, competitors stepping up their game, and a general lack of faith in the brand’s future. The L-Series’ extremely ugly facelift for the 2003 model year likely didn’t help. After a limited run of 2005 models, the L-Series production was quietly halted in June 2004, with no immediate successor.
While the original concept of Saturn was equally unprecedented, ingenious, refreshing, and promising, by the late-1990s it was becoming clear that there was a serious question of “where do we go from here?”. Rapidly becoming yesterday’s news, without a clear outlook on the future or “VUE” for growth, Saturn sales began trailing off. The ho-hum, run-of-the-mill L-Series signaled an end to this “Different kind of car company”, and was the vehicle for Saturn to become just another brand in the convoluted, overcrowded GM hierarchy.
Photographed: BMW West Coast Performance Center – Thermal, California – February 2017
Related Reading:
It made sense to release a larger Saturn but clearly they bungled it.
They sure uglied up the interior vis-a-vis the Opel Vectra. Yet, while Americanizing it, they didn’t make it more reliable. At the time, Opel wasn’t exactly at the top of JD Power or any other reliability surveys. Although, interestingly, I recall the Opel Sintra (Chevrolet Venture) was the lowest ranked Opel in the JD Power survey.
Although the mid-size segment has often malingered here in Australia, I recall the Vectra getting a bit of a sketchy reputation for reliability, but I think that was mostly due to the timing chain (and the timing chain failed catastrophically on my Astra, too).
The merits of investing so much in the Saturn start-up were always dubious. Personally, I think GM should have invested in a new Cavalier and better dealership training instead. But this L-Series, the ION, and the first VUE just seemed so cheap. If they were going to start abandoning their uniqueness, they should have just skipped right ahead to cars like the Outlook and Aura which shared so much componentry with other GM cars but came a lot closer to tackling Honda and Toyota head on.
I seem to remember that they had a large ad campaign for these.
As someone who was in my early car buying years in the 70s, the Saturn ad campaign mirrored the push that the Vega got prior to it’s launch. Strange that both cars were such ground breakers (well, at least in the design and building of their engines) and both quickly faded from the showrooms of America.
Saturn brand was around nearly 20 years, 1990-2009. Vega was gone by fall 1977, 6 years.
Saturn had some success when it was a nimble, standalone outfit (in the way like the GM Divisions of old). But this car represented The Blob that was GM in the 90s swallowing Saturn like they had swallowed the others 10 or 20 years earlier.
Nobody needed another normal “brand” of GM car. Especially one that was below average. Really, was there ever anything appealing about these?
The Blob 🙂
Sounds like something out of a horror movie, which in fact is perfect.
My previous car was a 1995 Saturn SL1. If Saturn had still made something similar to that I totally would have bought another one. But around the time they replaced the S-Series with the Ion Saturn started to feel like just another GM brand. The Ion didn’t appeal to me at all. They had lost everything that made them unique. I did kind of like the Astra, their short lived badge engineered Opel, enough to sort of consider a used one the last time I was car shopping, but ultimately ended up buying a Corolla.
The Ion is a weird car. My sister/brother in law have one that they seem to love, but I really find it just utterly unappealing and crude. It’s loud, the interior is awkward and it hasn’t aged well. I always thought the exterior was just ugly as all get out from the moment they were introduced. I notice with them, as the years have gone by, the plastic at the top of the outer door sills warps from the heat and sun and contracts and looks cheap and terrible, exposing the bare metal underneath. I don’t even think the gas mileage is that stellar and driving it with that weird off center instrument cluster was strange to me. Just not my cup of tea, but it does run and they have had it for almost 8 years. I wouldn’t spend my money on one, but I guess they are serving someone, somewhere.
Another great piece, Brendan.
I also didn’t care for the 2003 restyle. The Saturn commercial I remember from that time period is below. I thought it was ironic that the commercial depicted other cars as boxes, when the boxy, frontal restyle of the L-Series was so unfortunate.
I’m surprised at the hate for the front end styling. It looks quite contemporary for 2003 and I would argue it doesn’t look boxy or ugly like Brendan says. Headlights were getting bigger and bigger in the early and mid 2000s, after all.
To be fair though, I do prefer the original frontend styling. But overall, the Vectra looked a lot better.
Hah! I remember that commercial too, and how ironic it was the very boxy Scion xB came out right after it!
The reasons I dislike the ’03 facelift is that it looks way too much like a tacked-on afterthought. The headlights are far too oversized and don’t line up with any body lines, and the grille is uninspired being just black mesh with the Saturn logo in the middle.
To me, the shape and angle of the headlights along with the open grille make it look like an angry fish with its mouth open.
Right!! And not even in a cool-for-the-day, “Pokemon” sort of way.
I am with the “facelift was awful” vote–I thought it looked terrible when introduced, and I still do. It simply didn’t fit the car and was half-baked at best. At least the original front looked “Saturn-like” in the way it related to the S-Series face, but the facelift served-up a generic “Kar” front like something that would be used in an insurance commercial where the brand identity was supposed to be hidden.
The mesh on the 03’s grill was actually made up of dozens of small Saturn emblems molded together. Look at the actual center grill emblem and then look at the shape of the holes in the grill. Look on the left side of the grill as the right side is a mirror image of the left.
That actually is pretty cool! I never noticed. Too bad the overall shape of the grill was so plain and poorly integrated with the rest of the design.
Here’s a closeup for all to see.
When the refreshed models came out, they reminded me of a modern take on the Peugeot 505 from a couple of decades before. The oversized, flared-up headlights were similar in concept, and an unusual design feature, I thought. Neither iteration of the L-Series excited me at all, but I also didn’t think either was ugly…just kind of generic.
Excellent summary of that hideous front end, Brendan. Front fenders look chopped off to fit the headlights. An arbitrary and random mess.
Like the front of the 74 Matador sedan [the worst of the Matador sedan model years].
fwiw, the updated front end looks, more than anything else, like an updated Ford Contour of five years earlier.
Steve, I thought the same thing! And it didn’t work on the Contour either.
This front style looks like a Subaru. The Vectra B was released aesthetically unchanged around the world, it would be a nice Chevrolet Cobalt or Cavalier for US, and a nice move for a global J-Car descendant.
Welcome to my nightmare. I bought a 2004, the same shade of ice blue as the one pictured in April of this year. By June it was scrapped. From a timing belt that needed a four hundred dollar tool to replace it to a fuel pump, it was two months of hell.
Yet I was and still am disappointed when I had to give it up.
I really did like the car. I drove a friends back when they were fairly new and had fond memories. When I drove this one at the dealership, those memories came back.
I am a big guy and it was a comfortable fit. The handling had to me a European flair that seemed different than comparable models, and that v-6 would scoot. I even liked the styling.
I have had cars that were 4 wheeled Titanics before and have cursed anytime one was seen on the street. This one was different. I actually would stop and think if one came along again.
As an engineer who worked on the headlamps of the first generation L-series, I have a little bit of a soft spot for them. Would be nice to include a picture of the L-series wagon, I think that body style looked a little better than the sedan.
Saturn posts are better than cardio training to get my blood pumping. There are so many things about the whole escapade that just leave me cringing:
1) As Will notes, imagine if the money and effort of Saturn had simply been invested in Chevrolet instead. Rather than a half-dozen mediocre subcompact nameplates GM could have had one great one.
2) The original S-Series was good but not outstanding, and in no way was best-in-class or even better than competitors. Keep in mind that the Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla were both in the last year of their design cycle for 1991 when the S-Series was introduced, and the Saturn still couldn’t beat them. “As good as” another brand’s existing, aging product is no way to claim leadership (Hello, Cadillac?).
3) Saturn’s retail model frankly was an indictment of the entire car business. The fact that a new franchise needed to be created to treat customers decently is just mind boggling. This was not a GM issue either–Toyota had to establish new franchise agreements for Lexus just to ensure that the high quality customer service parameters would be met. I cannot think of another franchise business where the franchiser is so limited in its ability to get the franchisee to follow basic sound business practices. Smart dealers of course know how to do things right for their market, but practices are inconsistent at best.
4) How could GM’s product planning launch a division without thinking about where those customers would migrate next? Did they seriously think they would keep buying economy cars forever? The L-Series didn’t even arrive until 8(!!!!) model years after the S-Series! Poor Oldsmobile, under the stewardship of outspoken General Manager John Rock, tried to become the “next step” for Saturn buyers, and even tried “no dicker stickers” at least with the dealers who would participate (see #3 above), but to no avail. Corporate GM didn’t seem to have a clue about where Saturn buyers would go, nor did they seem to care.
5) The saddest thing of all about Saturn was that the American market was actually hungry for a high quality American-made car with charisma. There were even Saturn Homecomings in Spring Hill, Tennessee for a few years where enthusiastic owners gathered to celebrate their cars. It fizzled quickly, but could have been the start of a genuine resurgence if it had been managed properly.
Whew! This was better than a StairMaster!
Saturn took so loooooong from when Roger Smith announced the project to showroom ready. GM again expected customers to wait and in meantime, but a J car.
Also, expected SL buyers to get a Cutlass Supreme or Lumina W body when “moving up”. But really, when saying it’s a ‘different car company’ apart from mainline GM? Then another looong time to get the LS ‘step up’ model.
GM couldn’t run all the divisions by the 2000’s and first Olds, then others got cut.
Leave it to GM to screw up a good thing. They couldn’t succeed at competing with or building Toyotas.
I liked the wagons and was OK with the facelift. I remember looking at them at a dealer, and thinking “I don’t want a V6 or timing-belt, but at least the four has a timing chain”.
I knew these had reliability issues, but not about the timing-chain, until now.
I wound up buying a used Altima – with a timing-chain – still running today with over 200K.
Happy Motoring, Mark
Neither of the L-Series engine options were “good” engines. The 3.0L DOHC V-6 was a castrated, transverse version of the ill-fated Catera boat anchor, prone to both head gasket failures(from the Death-Kill extended sludge antifreeze) amd timing belt tensioner failures.
And it was already covered how the Scrap-O-Tecs were known for timing chain problems, so no further statements will be made on that note.
The L-Series was good for one thing: Making salvage yard owners rich in used engine sales volume……
Salvage yard owners didn’t get rich in used L series engine volume because it was just as likely that car came in because of a bad engine as it was to come in as a wreck. That limited availability was what made them good money because they could ask insane prices for the rare good engine and get it because it was the only one around at that point in time.
Like I said, they were a great money maker for my family. We got rich off of those cars, and many others(mostly from Chrysler since engines weren’t the only thing known for going “bad” on a Chrysler drivetrain)
Finally, a very accurate and well-written article about GM’s corporate, money-hungry business practices ultimately leading to the demise of this brand. I concur, that producing junky, breakdown-prone vehicles is why GM and the “other” two American manufacturers went bankrupt. And they deserved it.
Ask any Saturn S-Series owner, if the L-Series or the Ion was a good car. It is about the equivalent of going into the Ford Mustang forums, and asking the users there; “Is the Chevy Camaro a ‘good’ car?”
However, as I have watched the small car market shift over the last 20 years, the Saturn S-Series was “ahead” of its time. While young buyers typically look for fuel efficient, small cars that are reasonably quick in performance, as well as reliability, the Saturn S-Series would have been a more practical release in the early 2000s.
But, I have seen that GM tends to release a lot of “great” ideas, that never seem to take hold at the time they release, only to later become more popular by other brands later on down the road.
I will say that there are two things the Saturn S-Series had, about them, that likely added to their eventual decline in market shares too.
Oil Consumption & Automatic Transmission Issues
The piston design was flawed, as the oil control ring landings lacked drain back holes for adequate oil flow. This caused the oil to collect on the cylinder walls and cook into a varnish, that would cause the ring pack to seize. Most engines began using trace amounts of oil around 70,000-80,000 miles. And GM KNEW this was a problem, because the S-Series Owner’s manual tells you to check your oil level EVERYTIME you refuel the vehicle.
Every other vehicle I have ever owned, has stated that the oil should only need to be checked about every week or 250 miles of driving.
As far as the automatics, the cast-aluminum valve body bores would wear out, and begin internally leaking for both the pressure regulator valve & the booster valve. When this happened, the line pressure solenoid would overheat and get destroyed, which would make the transmission delay and slam into reverse. When left unrepaired, it would eventually loosen the input shaft nut(which was Torque-To-Yield, so you couldn’t just re-torque it), and then all your gears would start slamming and you would lose reverse.
Not sure if GM was aware of that flaw, as the seals on the valves are steel, because I never found any TSBs from Saturn on that issue. The automatic transmission would usually begin this, around 60,000-70,000 miles.
Although, GM has always liked the idea of cars that begin failing just out of their warranty periods, and now most automakers(especially Chrysler) are using the same business model.
“…. the “other” two American manufacturers went bankrupt ….”
FYI: Ford didn’t not declare bankruptcy in the 2009 Great Recession. They have their issues, but don’t put things that did not occur on them.
FYI: Ford took BAILOUT LOANS from the U.S. Department of Energy, for that Eco-Scrap turbo boat anchor they keep putting up recalls on…..
But, this wouldn’t be the first time Ford has lied in their marketing, to the public.
https://asavagefactory.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/ford-got-the-largest-government-bailout-in-history/
https://parts.olathetoyota.com/blog/4383/ford-sued-ecoboost-problems
Save gas. Buy a Ford. They only run half of the time…….
That first link is to a pathetic piece of “fake news”. Not even vaguely accurate. The Ford transmission issue was a lot more complicated, and bounced around in courts for much of the 80s. It was not resolved by “the CEO of Ford visiting Reagan to get the recall undone”.
https://www.thebalance.com/auto-industry-bailout-gm-ford-chrysler-3305670
Here, more “fake news” for you, Paul. By the way, Motor Trend magazine did an article, about Ford taking bailout loans, back in their Feb/March 2012/2013 era of releases.
It is a FACT, that Ford got bailed out, just like the rest.
I’m quite aware thta Ford took out loans during 2009 or so. They were not TARP loans, which is what was used to bail out other companies. they were loans available for new technology/efficiency development. And Ford paid them back.
Sorry; that’s not a “bailout” by any stretch. these loans were available to anyone qualified to take them.
GM and Chrysler had to be genuinely “bailed out”, meaning the government became debtor in possession, and injected large amounts of capital into the new entities. Very different.
The government-subsidies, regardless of which Department hand s them out, are ONLY possible by taking money in TAX REVENUE. The government doesn’t generate its own resources.
Therefore, it doesn’t matter WHERE Ford got the money from, if it came from ANY government loan, it came from TAXPAYER MONEY.
And IF Ford did NOT need that money to stay afloat amd competitive, then WHY did they take it?
Why put yourself into DEBT, when you have none, unless of course you are facing your own bankruptcy…….
But, then again, maybe if Ford built higher-quality vehicles, they wouldn’t need taxpayer bailout loans to survive, because more people would buy their vehicles, which would make sense. The only brands ranking lower than Ford, in reliability ratings, are FCA brands(which are, NOT SURPRISINGLY, the LOWEST-RANKED brands in the U.S.)
Your ignorance is unbounded.
The government was able to borrow money back then for almost zero interest. Even today, its borrowing rates are extremely low. around 1%. The loans Ford took amount to a grain of sand in the government’s total borrowing and spending. And Ford paid it back. You tax dollars were not affected. to the extent it could be actually measured.
Of course Ford was glad to take those loans. It was suffering under the recession like most businesses, and had taken out billions in loans against its properties. It was indebted up to its eyeballs. But it was able to borrow enough (the great majority in private/commercial loans) that it avoided bankruptcy.
Joshua, this is my last response to you. You deal in fake news and mangled news, and are not knowledgeable about how the world really works. And since I know people like you will not change their minds, as they’ve already made them up, it’s a total waste of time.
But I warn you: Our commenting policy does not allow for overt politics nor the purposeful dissemination of fake news (politically twisted arguments, etc.) So if you keep this line of commenting up, they are at risk of being deleted. And you are at risk of losing your commenting privileges.
I guess only the rules of the policy only apply to those that don’t write the articles, considering that your last comment has included personal insults as well as your very first reply making the accusation that “fake” news was posted by me, when clearly that is not the case.
Ford got bailed out, just like the other two did. They just didn’t use TARP funds. They still used tax dollars, point and case.
But, as Socrates once said: “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
Since my commenting privileges will likely be suspended or revoked, by the time this posts, I guess we can clearly see what is “allowable” around here. Guess you’ll have to give warnings to those commenting about how NAFTA was a player in destroying Saturn, since afterall, that would also be “politicization” in the comment, since NAFTA was a government trade deal, thus bringing politics into it.
Oh, wait, so was Ford, GM, and Chrysler taking bailout loans to avoid bankruptcy, since the money came from the government, so I guess anyone mentioning those facts are to be warned as well.
Have a nice day.
Don’t you understand there’s a world of difference between essentially taking ownership of a company (being the debtor in possession), which involves injecting many billions in capital (NOT LOANS) into the new corporation, in order to make it healthy and ready to be functional and competitive again (in the case of GM and Chrysler) vs. giving a loan for some hundreds of millions for developing advanced technology, a loan that would have potentially available to other companies too (in the case of Ford)?
The difference is like day and night. If you can’t see it, than you’re either incapable of understanding the vast difference, or unwilling to.
This is not a matter of opinion; it’s a matter of fact. Ford was not “bailed out”; they rejected offers of “bail out loans”, and only took a loan under an existing program that other companies could have taken too. And the loans were repaid.
GM and Chrysler/FCA never “repaid” the billions in capital injected into them. When the government sold its stock in GM, it lost billions compared to the capital it had injected into the new GM company.
Don’t think I was against the GM/Chrysler bankruptcy/bailouts; I was in favor of them. But understanding them and how they were structured is essential if you want to talk about the subject. I strongly suggest you do some reading, but from main stream objective sources, not the wacko right-wing site you linked to earlier. You’re not going to learn anything factual there; just their political spin based on a lack of facts (which I call fake news).
I’m happy to debate political issues germane to the auto industry, but only with folks who have their facts straight. You don’t.
You really need to get out and do more reading. GM and FCA have paid back all their bailout money, and the U.S. Treasury Department has sold all remaining shares of GM stock.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/09/news/companies/gm-bailout-stock-sale/index.html
Don’t get huffy and threaten me, because you are not informed of facts. That problem does not lie on me, but rather you.
None of anything, on HOW a bunch of rich, greedy, multi-billionaire CEOs taking money they don’t need from the government matters, because if you take money from any form of government handouts, you are essentially taking money from the tax payers.
The government’s borrowing power is still tax payer money, as the money used to repay the $20 trillion of debt we have will eventually come from those of us that pay taxes.
The government can only give out resources, that they TAKE from somebody else, because a body of government does not produce resources.
Oh, and about the borrowing power of the government? My credit score happens to be higher than the U.S. Government. At about $20 trillion in debt, I would speculate that their borrowing power is about to be reduced quite drastically.
Don’t worry, when my credit score shows to be the highest in the United States, I will make sure to call Congress and let them know that I can do something they can’t do, with only a high school diploma, called PAYING MY BILLS ON TIME.
Funny how “I don’t know how the world really works,”, yet my responsibilities are handled every month. And you can Google the bailout repayment stories, anytime. It is not FAKE NEWS. The bailouts were paid back, in full, and with interest. GM even used the TARP funds they borrowed, to pay back their own loans, because they really didn’t need it(like I previously stated).
I do not follow your statement that GM and FCA have “paid back all their bailout money.” The CNN story you cite says right up front that the government lost $10 billion on the GM bailout and $1.3 billion on the one for Chrysler. Chrysler paid back all of its “bailout money” from 1980-81 (which was not actual bailout money but federal guarantees of private loans) and that whole affair cost the government exactly $0. The 2008-09 GM and Chrysler bailouts were another sort of thing entirely which involved a politicized abuse of bankruptcy laws in both cases and mucho cash being injected onto both companies.
I was just about to delete this whole thread, because I’m sick and tired of his perpetual ignorance, but I see you’ve taken up the baton and tried to educate him. Unfortunately, it appears to be a waste of time and energy. If he continues with his rant, that’s what will happen.
He doesn’t even vaguely understand how the world actually works. Or show any indication of being willing to learn. He just regurgitates other folks’ misinformation/propaganda.
The cognitive dissonance being displayed here is absolutely phenomenal, out of you two. The fact that neither of you can cite sources, and Paul has already resorted to both threats of removing my comments and personal insults towards me is merely proof that I have the upper hand in the debate.
But, go ahead and remove my content, because then we can all see how the site’s commenting policy only applies to those that don’t write for the web page, thus further showing that anyone with factual information or opinions that do not agree with the authors of this page will be removed.
They call that “censorship”, which seems to be a growing trend in our “information era”.
It really is ok to disagree with me, you two. I can’t force each of you to be right about the subject.
Joshua is right about the oil consumption. I had a 99 SC2 and once it got to around 75k miles I was pretty much adding oil every time I stopped for gas. It was ridiculous. Got rid of the car shortly after that.
And in TYPICAL GM fashion, the 14th floor knew about the issues with the oil control rings, in 1990. GM released them, anyway, because of their typical greed and wanting people to buy a new car every so many years.
One of Saturn’s biggest oversights, by management: The Polymer Body panels(my FAVORITE feature, living in Ohio).
When you create a car that can retain its showroom finish, for 40 years, there are always going to be owners that wish to keep a car in that condition.
GM needed Saturn, to regain credibility, but the bean counters didn’t want to lose profit margins(Saturn S-Series had the highest overall margin-per-unit than any other division).
So, they ignored the oil consumption issues with the pistons, as their million-dollar-per-year, college-educated engineers couldn’t figure out that drilling 6 3/32″ holes in each piston corrected the problem(a technological design of various engine pistons since the early 1900s).
It is thought that the death knell for Saturn was on the day that Roger Smith drove the first one off the line, sporting a GM chiclet on the front fender. The idea was to have a “stealth” GM line that appealed to those who would NEVER purchase a GM product, yet they ended up touting the GM connection to appease their inept Chairman.
I don’t remember seeing any GM tags on 1991 Saturns. This is why many who bought them at first didn’t know they were GM owned.
So much so that I saw the brand categorized as ‘import’ in some places like newspaper classified ads [pre internet] and parts stores.
The GM chiclet was not added until 2006 model year. They were removed in 2009.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_of_Excellence
I never understood Saturn. GM spent billions on a new division that never made any money, a giant boondoggle. Why not just focus obsessively on on the other 5 divisions and making their cars better, more reliable and competitive? Nobody need “a different kind of car, a different kind of car company”. What we needed was for the rest of GM shit to be much much better.
Well part of it was the recognized the dysfunction of the rest of the company and felt it was to ingrained to be able to change it. Frankly they didn’t know how to change it in a meaningful way in a meaningful amount of time. So the idea was this new company could start fresh w/o all that baggage and once it was perfected apply that to the rest of GM.
Roger Smith thought GM would be “rich forever”, and just threw money at problems.
The demise of Saturn is a fitting tribute to Roger Smith.
I had a 99 SL2. It was loaded. I really liked the car except for the NVH of that rubber-band engine. It made my Merkur XR4Ti’s 2.3l turbo engine seem to be an example of a smooth engine. I was looking into the second generation Vue, specifically the hybrid when they pulled the plug on them.
The dealer experience was phenomenal. One time they took a little longer than they said to fix the ignition switch that wouldn’t release the key, and they left an apology card with a $50 gift card along with it.
Saturn was needed by GM, the other divisions were not going to win over any Japanese import customers, but they blew it with the lack of refinement.
Two brands that can share one side of a case study are Lexus and Saturn. They both hail from the same time period, they both aimed to produce- nearly carte blanch- products their makers were thought to be incapable of producing, they both initially succeeded in their stated goal, and they both ultimately failed to do what their parents wanted, because the parents didn’t understand the nature of competitive products.
Toyota aimed to build a superior Mercedes E-class competitor (their sizing matrix makes me assume they were never seriously aiming at the S) to demonstrate they could build a no compromise competitor- they succeeded
GM set out to build a serious competitor to the Japanese outside their Hyde-bound corporate disfunction. The Saturn was not as perfect as the Lexus in meeting its goal, but it solidly made the point that GM was 95% of the way to making a uniquely American, non copy-cat serious Civic competitor. If the engines were more refined, I would have called it a full success intact.
And then they both sat back and awaited the applause. Which is where they failed, and continued to fail.
GM should have picked one of the BOP divisions to carry the Ameriboat flag and ditched the other two, consigned Chevy to the bargain car segment, with limited resources to each, and understood that Saturn was their future, and dumped all their non-luxury resources into establishing a Civic, Accord, and eventually cross over and minivan lineup, aimed at a 4 year compete product cycle, and a full understanding that doing what the Japanese did in those segments was a relentless pursuit of the having the best product on the market for the price, even if the margins are low. They didn’t, and at the time, I’m quite sure they probably couldn’t.
But I’m not GM bashing, because Lexus suffered EXACTLY the same fate. Each generation of Mercedes represents very expensively engineered cars which move the bar substantially further along in its segment. Each new C-class is the engineering pinnacle of the compact segment, every E-class the pinnacle of the midsize, almost every S-class the finest Sedan in the world on its debut. They never stop working to fulfil that with each model. And BMW and Audi are not far behind in their own work to achieve those goals.
The second generation LS was just a mild refinement of the first. The third was a bloated Asian copy of the nature (but not the engineering excess) of the W140, largely Broghaming the bad parts of the W140, without copying the good parts much, and apparently forgetting that the W140 was not the most celebrated MB effort. The forth generation of LS brought Lexus onto a nearly competitive footing with the W220… even as Mercedes realized the W220 was not their best work and shortly their after knocked the ball out of the park with the W221. Lexus then proceeded to let the LS languish for 12 long years in this uncompetive state even as sales became less than a quarter of their peak, while they let Lexus become a better Acura competitor more than a MB competitor.
Just like Saturn, they failed to truly commit to their undertaking. And just like Saturn, the enterprise ultimately failed to do what was intended. Not really because of initial misguidence but for lack of understanding the commitment required.
I would beg to differ very strongly with your assessment of Lexus. It may not be exactly your vision of what it should be, but it’s been very successful and highly profitable. And it’s made a big impact on the market.
The reality is that the large luxury sedan market has become an ever smaller portion of the pie. One which Toyota decided not to chase so aggressively. Clearly there were missteps in the second and third generation LS styling.
Meanwhile, the hot segment of the market is crossovers. And who invented the format of the modern crossover…the Lexus RX. And it took quite a while for Mercedes to compete effectively with it. And even when they got theirs out, the ML Class was very poorly built, and quickly got a bad rep.
Frankly, a lot of the Mercedes sedans you wax eloquently about weren’t all that wonderful either. Mercedes was just as guilty in not being able to follow up on the W124/W126 than was Lexus. The difference is that the subsequent Mercedes W210/W140 were significantly lower in quality. You can’t say that about the Lexus LS, of any generation. They are considered paragons of long term reliability.
With regards to both your comments, I guess I’d say my opinions of Lexus and Mercedes and how they relate to this subject fall somewhere in the middle.
I don’t think all of the aforementioned models by GML were always the best vehicles in their class at the time of their introductions, but it is very true that Mercedes typically introduces a high level of innovative technologies and engineering feats with each successive generation of its vehicles, though this generally skews larger. The C-Class usually receives what trickles down from the S-Class and E-Class.
German cars by nature have always been very “over-engineered” with very complex mechanics. The result is that long-term reliability is a lot more of a game of luck, as there is so much more that can go wrong. Mercedes had a particularly rough spot in the late-1990s/early-2000s, though they have improved significantly, with their latest generations of cars back to being at or near the top of their respective classes. Still, as far as long-term reliability, from experience I’ve found 10-year old Audis or BMWs to be a safer bet than a similar-vintage Mercedes-Benz
Lexus’ cars, on the other hand, tend to be a lot simpler in terms of their mechanics and technology, resulting in their generally better reputation for long-term reliability.
Part of the reason for this, of course, is that Lexus is very slow to update its vehicles’ underpinnings. Lexus’ best-selling vehicle, the RX, is based on a 17-year old platform, with its V6 little-changed from when it originally was introduced back in 2002.
The same goes for many other components of most Lexus products. I recently was in a pre-owned 2014 LS and found a number of familiar controls and switch gear to my 2004 Highlander. So yes, tried-and-true, but at what cost?
Based on personal experience the W126 was the highwater mark of M-B build quality for the S Class which was equaled/exceeded in build quality by the initial Lexus LS400 in 1989/1990. The second series of the LS400 represented by the 1999 LS, known to us, was evolutionary with maintenance of high build quality standards with great reliability.
The M-B W220 S Class that followed had many frustrating build quality issues with less subjective refinement and significantly less reliability compared to the 2008 LS460L that finally followed and happily replaced the W220.
The overall reliability of the Lexus products in our experience has been outstanding compared to the MB products. The W220 S class was a particularly frustrating vehicle after reaching 50K+ miles with multiple electronic issues that couldn’t be solved by MB dealerships. The replacement vehicle, a 2008 fourth generation LS, the LS460L on the other hand has been a paragon of reliability for the past 9 years compared to the Benz..
Similarly a 2005 Lexus LX470, based on the Toyota Land Cruiser, well known to us, has had exemplary performance and reliability, surviving beautifully for 12 years in the salty rustbelt, what’s not to like about that. This has been an amazing keeper of a truck.
A fundamental difference between M-B and Lexus has been the consistently comparative better Lexus dealership service experience compared to the M-B experience observed over the past three decades plus, besides being more consistently more reliable, requiring fewer service visits, and each Lexus service visit was more agreeable, especially to my wife, compared to her MB experiences, so much so that my wife refuses to own or consider ownership of a MB again.
The comment about Toyota/Lexus staying with vehicle platforms longer likely has contributed to the higher long term unit reliability, but electronic reliability is another matter where Asian standards are in practice greater than German standards which contributed to our M-B ownership frustrations.
So I agree with Paul N with his disagreement with the assessment of Gml. Maybe Gml is correct about the excellence of M-B designs but, in our hands, the Lexus ownership experience and reliability trumped “M-B engineering” extolled by Gml.
Regarding Saturn, the initial S may not have matched the refinement of the concurrent Honda Civic, but two of the women that worked for me, who each owned an S, loved their cars and the Saturn dealership service experience. Both of them traveled to Spring Hill, Tenn with their families for the Saturn family experiences. They were not car people but felt tremendous loyalty to Saturn. I was impressed with their enthusiasm for the Saturn. Too bad GM didn’t learn from Saturn and apply the dealership lessons throughout the other divisions of the Corporation. Chevy once had that type of customer product enthusiasm especially in the 1950’s and 1960s extending into the 1970’s. This same thought applies to the NUMMI experience. When you don’t learn or are unable to learn and change, you are doomed, as was GM ultimately (and possibly, likely still is).
So yes, tried-and-true, but at what cost?
None, to the owners, who don’t have to pay for repeated repairs to their Lexi. Which pretty much sums up the appeal and the success of Lexus: it speaks to the same kind of buyers that chose Toyotas, meaning not those looking for an extremely reliable ownership experience over the latest gimmicks/technology, except for being more upscale.
Mercedes, BMW and Audi appeal to a somewhat different cross section of buyers; these are mostly folks looking to make a statement/and or more brand-conscious, or just more into certain specific features of their cars. Lexus buyers tend to be older and more interested in an absolutely no-fuss experience. Which makes comparing the two somewhat difficult.
As to technology, Toyota certainly nailed the hybrid tech, and it’s also an selling feature to a pretty good number of Lexus buyers.
But then again, what is the per million death rate of Mercedes drivers vs Lexus? Never looked it up, so it isn’t a rhetorical question, and would have to also factor in that Mercedes are generally driven by more aggressive drivers than Lexi, but I would generally say that one must process the cost of life into their equation.
More oddly, a while ago a CC comtributer had posted on here their 47k mile cost of ownership for a Prius and I was utterly astonished to find that not only was it only a few hundred dollars less than my Mercedes Metris @45k but all of that and more is erased when you factor in that I had a full four wheel brake job and had replaced all four tires in that total… which can easily be explained by my vans vastly greater weight. (Note: this comparison dismisses fuel- obviously a Prius will beat my 28mpg at pump average.)
I had blindly assumed MBs were more expensive to maintain, and have long considered that part of the cost of owning the best. It was, needless to say, an eye opener.
And while I am at it, I stumbled into MB ownership, so maybe I am weird, but my brand conciousness is strictly my belief in their durability, safety, and uncanny ability to arrive at the garage for repair under their own power. The statement the brand makes to others is “I am an arschloch”, and it is my least favorite part of Benz ownership.
But while Lexus sells a lot of cars (no dispute) it sells less than Mercedes at a 30% lower average transaction price. Success is often dependent on how it is defined.
In case you hadn’t noticed, Toyota has been by far the most profitable auto manufacturer for the past some decades. If you can show me evidence that the profit margin on Mercedes are higher than on Lexus, than we have something to talk about. ATP is irrelevant, as Lexus’ average MSRP’s are lower. They compete at a somewhat lower rung of the market with many of their models.
And yes, I know you’re a smitten MB owner, so debating with you is a lost cause.
Saturn failed miserably because of that initial misguidance. They set out to build a car as good as the 85 Civic or Corolla but the problem was that they failed to realize that was a moving target and they would be competing against the 90 Civic and Corolla once their vehicle hit the lots.
The biggest problem was they fact that they decided that every nut and bolt on the vehicle had to be a Saturn nut and bolt. Sure GM was doing a lot wrong at the time but many divisions were industry leaders producing industry standard parts that were sold outside of GM in massive numbers. Delco-Remey didn’t dominate the starter and alternator markets for AG, MD and HD trucking because they built crap. Ditto for the Harrison, Rochester Products, Packard Electric and Guide divisions. But no they couldn’t us an alternator that shared parts with a lowly Chev, so an engineer had to draw up a “Saturn” alternator and they had to tool up for that new alternator. Meanwhile they were just throwing money down the toilet and making sure that they couldn’t get the car to market by its sell by date.
They didn’t necessarily want to let the S-series get even more out of date but since they wasted so much money designing and tooling all those Saturn nuts and bolts they simply could not afford to update the customer facing side.
Once they realized that it wasn’t sustainable and couldn’t produce another car from scratch like that it seemed they purposely chose the worst parts and pieces they had in the bin to create the L-series.
The entire premise of the mid size offering was also a fatal flaw. Saturn did gain some loyal followers early on and because they didn’t cultivate new customers into the fold they essentially were stuck trying to cater to that same handful of customers. Yeah the guy that bought a compact came back to us when he needed a midsize! However with nothing to bring new people into the S-series their sales were essentially flat, only now they were being spread across many models insuring that they would never be able to amortize the costs for any of them and thus never be able to keep any of their products competitive and viable.
I do wonder how much of it was a deliberate way to try and kill it off? Dealers and loyal customers screaming for new product in new segments, toss them this to make them go away, literally.
I kind of doubt this, since I vaguely remember seeing a GM factory A/C compressor under the hood of SL.
If one has proof that “every nut and bolt” on a Saturn SL was unique, show the work. Same with Alternators or spark plugs, etc.
1995 SL1 alternator part number:
334-2400A
1995 Cavalier 2.2 alternator part number:
334-2442A
These are AC Delco. This stuff is fairly well recognized already…
Yes I was exaggerating a bit with the every nut and bolt, but not that much. Visit napaonline.com for all the proof you need. Select virtually any part for a 1991 Saturn, go to the bottom of the page and click on the buyer’s guide to see all the vehicles that part fits. Come back when you can find 5 parts that are shared with another vehicle that aren’t things like belts, lug nuts, gas/radiator caps, spark plugs, valve stems or relays. Don’t worry I won’t wait up for you or hold my breath.
Seriously, they threw away money by the handful so that a Saturn didn’t have to share part numbers with any other GM car for the alternator, starter, intake/coolant temp sensors, ignition coils and switches, abs sensors, wheel bearings (and I’m not talking about hub and bearing assemblies the actual bearing where they could choose an industry standard size).
Basically any switch, again there was nothing wrong with the brake light switches used on the other GM cars and no buyer was ever going to see that and run from the vehicle because they got up under the dash and noticed the brake light switch was the same one used in a Chevy.
Oxygen sensor, which is a universal part, but no they couldn’t use the same connector as any other car.
Even the Saturn S-Series hub bearings were unique, to Saturn, and do not interchange with any other division models.
The braking system, struts, EVERYTHING, on a Saturn is unique, except nuts, bolts, studs, welds, and rivets.
Very good point IMO. Saturn did not have to design and build every part of their cars when GM parts divisions had as good or better parts available cheaper than Saturn could. In the 30’s through the 60’s independent auto makers bought parts from GM owned parts manufacturers. My V8 ’63 Rambler had the same 10″ D-R brake system as a Chevrolet and the same D-R distributor as a SBC. The rear shocks were the same as a tri five Chevrolet. GM Hydramatics were used in Hudsons, Nashes, K-F’s, Willys and even Lincolns. And you could go on and on. They wasted a lot of time and money by doing this. Had they used the best parts of GM’s extensive parts supply chain and designed only the new parts that were absolutely necessary they would have saved both a lot of money and time. The changing of the dealer culture was probably the least costly item in terms of dollar investmentof the whole agenda
Other mfgs using GM division, OK many former GM division parts.
I for one am so glad that all of the GM parts divisions were happy to sell their gold standard parts to anyone and everyone. Plain and simple more of the parts on my International Harvesters were made by GM divisions than by IH. Delco-Remey, Rochester Products, Packard Electric, Saginaw, and Guide all provided parts. Meanwhile IH made the engine, springs, assembled the stamping into a body, built the wiring harness(with a fair sprinkling of Packard Electric connectors) and bolted all those GM parts together.
Meanwhile so many of the parts are still on the shelf at any local auto parts store.
I think a more apple to apples comparison would be Saturn and Scion. Both brands were designed to appeal to younger buyers who saw their parent brands as old and boring. Both brands found some form of success early on, like the S-series and the xB. Then both brands ended up disappearing. Both brands had redesigned models that contributed to their demise. The S-series replacement called the Ion was not well received, nor was the redesigned 2nd gen xB. When Scion folded, some models were brought back as rebadged Toyotas, the xB was not one of them.
The Saturn-Scion comparison is hardly apples-to-apples. Scions were always technically/legally Toyotas; it was a sub-brand, which is a very different ball game than Saturn, which was even a different corporation (owned by GM).
You can say what you want about Scion, and they did have a mixed record, but it never cost Toyota any real money, as they were just Toyotas with a different badge, and sold out of Toyota dealers. Scions were sold profitably, as there were no material extra costs associated in building or selling them.
That’s a huge difference from Saturn, which racked up some $17 billion (2017) dollars in losses.
Towards the end of both brands, they became more and more similar. It’s true at the beginning GM had much more ambitious (expensive) plans for Saturn than Toyota did for Scion, but their goals were similar and in the end their execution was similar. They also obviously had the same result.
Scion started out with a few JDM Toyota models that were different than anything Toyota sold in the states at the time. Saturn sold the S-series which did not share parts with other GM models.
Towards the end of Saturn, they became just rebadged Opels, some like the Saturn Astra were imported from Europe. Towards the end of Scion, they had a hodge podge of rebadged models, that weren’t nearly as unique as the models they started with. Some weren’t even really Toyotas, like the Mazda2 based iA and the Subaru based FR-S.
No, their goals were not similar. GM’s goal was to show the world it could create a small car that could truly compete with the Civic and Corolla. And that the only way they could create a car to do that was to create a whole new company. And get folks to think (hopefully) that the new company had nothing to do with GM, which had a bad rep with the import buying crowd. I can’t tell you how many folks I met that had no idea GM owned/was Saturn.
That goal has essentially zero overlap with Toyota’s goals for Scion. Toyota was already the darling of the Japanese/import loving crowd. It was a very successful and strongly growing company, especially in the US. Toyota’s only issue was that they had market research that showed that some of the new generation coming up saw the Toyota brand as very good, but a bit stodgy, as in the cars their parents drove.
Scion was a marketing tactic to rebrand a few small and cheap Toyotas in the hopes that they would enhance the Toyota brand overall, since of course everyone knew these were actually and legally Toyotas. There was no investment in manufacturing, dealers, etc. It was just a sub-brand, which really is very different.
Yes, the gen2 xB was not as successful as the original, but otherwise they just kept doing what they started out to do: brand a few small and sport Toyotas as Scions. They did not waver from that.
At the end, Scion had two small cars and two sporty coupes. At the beginning, Scion had two small cars and one sport coupe.
On the other hand, towards the end Saturn became a full-line brand, with ever larger sedans, CUVs, minivans, etc.. How is that Towards the end of both brands, they became more and more similar.?? I’m not seeing it.
In a very rare point, I actually agree with Paul on this one. I own a Saturn SC2. I have read up on the history of the company and Smith’s visions for what Saturn was “supposed” to be. And it dod work for the first 4-5 years, as Saturn sales began slipping in 1995(1994 was the highest sales volume year for Saturn Corporation).
Scion was created to appeal to a specific criteria of young buyers, and those xB models were VERY successful at first. I remember seeing bunches of them, around NE Ohio. They never appealed to me, because I prefer lower drag coefficient of sporty models(like my ’92 Camaro and my ’95 SC2).
Toyota wasn’t trying to re-image their company reputation. They were merely trying something bold, and new. GM NEEDED Saturn, because the X-Bodies, the Vega 2.3L engine debacle, and the Chevette(among many other 1970s flops) had all but destroyed their credibility.
Saturn revitalized GM, around my parts. Everybody I know, at one point(including myself), has owned a Saturn model.
Both Scion and Saturn were designed to appeal to compact car buyers who normally would not consider cars from their parent brands. Again it’s true GM dumped a lot more money into Saturn, but Scion had a similar massive marketing campaign when it debuted. Of course being an import brand, Toyota would appeal to import buyers, but I disagree with the assertion it was the darling of the import compact car crowd. Toyota did not have the same reputation that the Civic had with the younger import “tuner” crowd. You didn’t see too many Corollas being lusted after by the fast and furious crowd which was popular at the time Scion debuted. It was seen as the car their parents or grandparents drove.
Like Saturn, Scion was designed to help reinvigorate the company to market more interesting and competitive cars. Scion was arguably more successful than Saturn at doing that. While controversial, the new Camry for example is an attempt to reverse the boring car image that Toyota has had.
I understand that while Scion may have been legally just a sub-brand or trim level, I don’t think that is the way the majority of people perceived it, nor was that the way Toyota marketed it. I cannot find any marketing material that said Scion by Toyota. However, I agree that Toyota did not go to anywhere near the length that GM did to differentiate the brand from Toyota.
While Saturn racked up impressive debt, I take issue with the way the Toyota marketed the Scion brand. At least Saturn did make an attempt to cloak it’s relationship with GM for better or worse. Toyota’s attempt was easily as cynical as any effort the US car makers foisted, even worse, as there were no standalone facilities and the whole thing seemed to be done “on the cheap”. Maybe FCA aped MINIs sales model a little too closely, but at least they did keep separation between the Italian cars and the domestic Mopar offerings.
There is a clear separation between the FCA brands, even in locations that carry all the whole line. Toyota never bothered with this kind of delineation. One might say that this would bolster confidence in the Scion brand, but by the same token, it reminds one of the unhappy pairings of Chrysler-Plymouth, AMC-Renault or Lincoln-Mercury, where one brand is destined to get the lesser offerings of the parent company.
In the end, Scion’s lineup died due to the same negligence that Saturn suffered. The “second-coming” FT-86/BRZ was a flop, the bB was a flop, and the only Scion car of any note, the tC was only slightly refreshed and long in the tooth by the time the experiment ended.
Fine; so you don’t like Scion. But stop trying to compare it to Saturn, as there’s almost no point of comparison. Of course it was done “on the cheap”; that was the whole point of the exercise. Scion was just a way to brand a few Toyota models in a way that would make them hopefully appeal to a different demographic. And it sort of worked for a while. And when it became relavant, it cost essentially nothing to rebadge them as Toyotas.
In retrospect, it wasn’t worth it, but it had no negative financial impact, and Scions sold better than projected for the first few years.
There was never any “neglect” of Scion. Scions were always just certain Toyota models rebranded, and right to the end. The FR-S would not have sold any better than if it had been branded a Toyota. The demand for it and the Subaru just weren’t all that great. It has nothing to do with Scion.
From my POV, Scion was closer to AMG, in that they were just rebranded cars targeted to a specific type of customer. EVERYBODY knew that a Scion was a Toyota.
I’m not sure where you live, but when Scion debuted, I was living in the Twin Cities. All but one of the Scion dealers here were standalone operations on their own lots. Now, I am aware that wasn’t required, but I feel that falls more so on the franchisees than it would Toyota if you want to point fingers. Regardless of that, I hardly feel the “issue” with the cars was the badge on the hood. Every single Scion product, bar the first tC, was sold elsewhere as the main priority (the second generation reverted and was a global product called Zelas). Hell, even the widely panned second generation xB was meant to be the Corolla Rumion before it was decontented into what we received, first and foremost. They were left field Toyota products that the company thought wisely to market as different due to the specific relative failures from project Genesis (Echo, final Celica, MR2 Spyder). The Scions were wildly more successful than any of those, and it would be ignorant to ignore that. If the products were the real problem, the FR-S, iA, and iM wouldn’t have been rebadged back into Toyotas for 2017.
It is true that people knew Scion was made by Toyota, but it is also true that people know that Lexus is made by Toyota.
This does not mean that people think they are the same car. If people thought that Lexuses were just Toyotas with inflated prices, then nobody would buy them. People buy Lexuses because they think they are better than regular Toyotas. Brands do matter to people. Just reading CC is proof that of. It seems that GM and Toyota are the most controversial brands on CC, probably because they are the biggest and they are brands that people have loyalty too. I find it strange that such boring cars like the Prius or Cavalier elicit such emotional responses, even though they are such unemotional cars.
cjiguy, I live in the Grand Rapids, Michigan area. The closest Toyota store to me was twinned with Scion. I believe the other store in town was also. I rarely have to go on that side of town, so I don’t really recall.
TBH, I stopped paying attention to car dealers after having worked in auto sales.
cjiguy, I live in the Grand Rapids, Michigan area. The closest Toyota store to me was twinned with Scion.
The Toyota store in my Motown burb was also dualed with Scion.
FCA originally decreed that Fiat stores had to be in separate buildings from the other FCA lines. This raised costs significantly for existing FCA dealers and probably played a significant role in the small number of Fiat stores vs the number of Mopar stores with a resulting low sales performance.
In March of last year, FCA tried to stem the attrition of Fiat dealers by dropping the separate showroom requirement as well as eliminating a lot of paperwork complexity to cut costs, a lot, for FCA dealers wishing to carry Fiat. With the loss of the Dart/200, I have read that some FCA dealers are trying to use Fiats as their price leaders. Judging by the continually dropping Fiat sales, down 24% y/y last month, that strategy does not seem to be working.
Now, the free standing Fiat “studios” in the area are dualed with Alfa as that brand’s rollout continues.
My sense is that Saturn had a completely separate dealer network because GM wanted to run the experiment for enforced sticker pricing and better customer service, rather than repeating what they did when they stuck Geo signs in front of Chevy dealers, with no culture change within the dealer.
imho, if there is no agenda to change the dealer experience, there is no need to build extra dealers. Merkur probably would have failed worse if the dealers were required to be free standing as there would have been fewer dealers. Same with Scion if they were required to build separate stores. Would Opel have enjoyed it’s several years of success in the US, if they were not piggybacked on Buick? FCA finally figured out the free standing Fiat “studios” were hurting them, but by that time, the excitement about the 500 had long since dissipated.
Guys, every Scion store was “twinned” with a Toyota store. There was never a stand-alone Scion dealership, since that wouldn’t have worked since every Scion was legally a Toyota, as it says right on their VIN and on every title/registration. I drive a Toyota Scion xB.
A not-so-little postscript to Saturn: Best estimates are that GM ‘s cumulative losses on their Saturn misadventure were in the neighborhood of $12 billion. Or about $17 billion in today’s dollars.
In dollar terms, likely GM’s biggest single Deadly Sin.
One of my tenants, right next door, has a V6 version. I keep wondering how long it’s going to last…
In 2001, I accompanied a friend of mine on a test drive of a Saturn L Series. He had a high-mileage Cavalier and was looking to upgrade to something nicer, preferably an American-made car.
We both test drove the L Series — it was OK. But afterwards my friend (who was not at all a car guy) said “You know, that’s a really boring car.” Keep in mind, this was coming from someone who drove a Cavalier for 6 years.
A comment above poses the question whether there ever anything appealing about these cars? Based on my limited experience: No.
My friend, incidentally, bought an Acura. He hasn’t bought a domestic car since.
We had an ’03 L200 as a rental in Florida for a few days on a trip back in 2003. Obviously I wasn’t driving then, but as a passenger I can only recall how boring riding in that sea of cheap gray interior was, with all of its hard plastics and sandpaper-like cloth seats were. The excessive heat of being in Florida in June tended to enhance the plasticy smell of the interior.
The naming convention was awful too. First year called LS, a common trim level and was a same new model Lincoln. Also used as Chevy’s entry trim level.
Then L-Series, L-100, 200, 300, sort of better, but still no image. Just another Saturn.
Finally all were called ‘L300’, but still had trim levels of L300-1, -2, -3. Really didn’t help at all!
Interestingly I still occasionally seen old S-series on the road, I almost never see the L-series around anymore. Which unusual because people are generally more willing to put more money into keeping a larger car on the road than a smaller one.
True, SL’s are ‘cockroaches’ very popular with working class. Due to no rusty panels for one advantage here in snow belt.
I think that the Saturn dealers were not supposed to negotiate on the price. However, what I always wonder about is how trade in’s get valued, as that has to be somewhat negotiable. My understanding of Saturn is that the marketing model was different from the rest of GM. However, I also remember that Buick at least had a market version of the LeSabre, which was priced at market with supposedly no negotiation on price (except trade in?).
Regarding Saturn’s “no negotiations”, I do know of a co-worker who managed to get $500 off sticker of a new 2000 LS, so some were ‘dickering’. Probably since the L was a slow starter?
My impression of Saturn was that it was a laboratory. GM got concessions from the union for Spring Hill and it got people to swallow the hype and pay sticker for the cars. Both of those were profit enhancers that would appeal to a beancounter like Smith. I would suspect Smith’s plan was that, as Saturn grew, competing cars from other GM brands would be withdrawn, so that, ultimately, Saturn’s business model, with the union concessions and enforced sticker pricing, would take over GM.
Thing was, Smith retired in 90, just as Saturn production started. I suspect his successors had a different “vision thing” and did not follow through with Smith’s plan, so Saturn went to seed.
I think we have a winner… Imagine if Roger had retired in 2000 instead of 1990; there would have been 10 years to truly establish Saturn as a company by executive privilege if necessary. Leaving when he did left the “orphan” division prey to other divisions looking to gain back sales from Saturn.
Imagine if Roger had retired in 2000 instead of 1990; there would have been 10 years to truly establish Saturn as a company by executive privilege if necessary.
Smith started the laboratory with NUMMI, where GM could steal Toyota’s management systems and practices. What GM learned at NUMMI was transplanted to Spring Hill.
To expand the Saturn line would have required a second plant, so buy out Toyota’s share of NUMMI, or build another new plant, operating under the Saturn contract, while reducing the models offered by the legacy GM brands and closing their plants.
Ultimately, all that would remain of GM would be Buick and Cadillac, while Saturn had replaced Chevy and Pontiac with it’s low labor cost, high profit “no haggle” model.
Of course, NAFTA was established in 94, reducing the need for the concessions the union had made for Saturn as it was a lot cheaper to simply build the new plants in Mexico: Toluca Assembly, 1994, Silao Transmission, 2008, Silao Engine, 2001, Silao Assembly, 1994. San Luis Potosí Assembly, 2008.
It could be NAFTA, that, with a stroke of a pen, rendered Saturn irrelevant.
I think you’re right about NAFTA. So was Ross Perot.
Cannot disagree, Steve.
This entry pins some of the blame for the L series’ shortcomings on assembly quality. I think this is incorrect. I toured the Delaware plant in which these cars were produced in early 2001 as an MBA student and was stunned by the attitudes and efforts of the people building the cars. They were extremely motivated and their facility had successfully adopted all of the elements of TPS. They knew that their facility was living on borrowed time and that they had to compete *hard* internally with other plants to survive future downsizings.
The content of the vehicles may have been junk, but it was assembled as designed by people who genuinely wanted to build a top quality product and were incentivized to do so. If the line had been moved to Spring Hill or even to a Toyota plant, it wouldn’t have made a bit of difference. The cars would have come out just the same.
I’ve related on here before that I have a brother in law who bought the whole Saturn spiel – hook, line and sinker. It was a nice little car, but I felt it aped the Honda far too much. I wasn’t a fan of the old Hondas “sitting on the floor with your legs splayed ahead of you” seating position. I have a 43″ outseam, very few Japanese cars of the day felt like they fit.
He even went to the homecomings, had a grand old time. When his first S-series was damaged in a minor accident, he was given a contemporary Cavalier as a rental car. In all honesty, I thought the Cavalier was a better car. It seemed to me that it had more convenient features in the interior and I actually felt like I was off of the ground. My BIL was not impressed; he was as happy as a clam to get his S-series back. More power to him.
I seriously thought about buying one when I had my epic (80 miles round-trip) commute in Atlanta. The plant manager where I worked at the time had a two year old 2nd gen S-series for sale, but he wanted nearly new money for it. I could have done better with purchasing new. I just hung on to my old Lancer instead.
About the time of the L-Series, I got the feeling the marque had jumped the shark. Oldsmobile was no longer the upgrade path that was intended, as it was faltering. The mid-sized Euro mobile that they were offering left me cold. I’d rather a contemporary Malibu, if that tells you anything. By the time of the Astra, Aura, Sky, Relay, Outlook and Vue it was already over for Saturn. Without it’s guiding light (Roger Smith) it was left to rot.
Too bad, because at least the “Lutz” Saturn, the Epsilon bodied Aura XR, was a great ride. My daughter had one several years ago. I took it for a drive to my niece’s wedding in Cleveland, which is five hours away. With the 3.6L High Feature V6 and the six speed trans, the car was a locomotive in the rainy/snowy Great Lakes weather. Had the L-series been more like this car, I think Saturn may have had a shot at survival.
Add Saturn to the list of US companies that believed that the future was in small cars. Hudson made a Jet. Kaiser made a Henry J. Nash made the Metropolitian. Willys made Aero/Americar. Crosley. Studebaker had a Lark. Ford. GM. They all believed in the small car future. Saturn is one of the recent ones.
There is just something about making a small car, that seems to give guys a sense that it would be easier than a large car. There has always been this logic that buyers want a small car. During high fuel prices, which happens now and then, there are plenty of times when folks looked around and said, “the future is small”.
Well – every single stinking time a great deal of effort was made to create a small car, everyone who said “the future is small”, ends up saying, “no thanks”.
Saturn would still be around today if they didn’t believe that the future was with small cars. If, in 1990, the new Saturn was a competitor in the SUV market, say, a good working and reliable Suzuki Samarai, it would have ended up growing along with the Ford Escape, Jeep Liberty, Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV-4, and Kia Sportage. The Saturn VUE became their best selling vehicle by 2004 and it was a last ditch effort. Imagine if the first Saturns were in the growing small SUV market, instead of the small car market.
So, bottom line – you need to target a small, but growing market where your product could dominate. Saturn failed because it chose the wrong target market. There were too many small cars with iffy profits by 1985 – but few small SUVs. GM sunk their billions into a competitive market with an unproven brand. They should have had better marketing staffers to point out what future target market was growing, and that would have worked.
Saturn could have been perfect – but they would still be gone today. Just like most passenger cars.
My wife had both a 1996 SL (with no numbers after it) and a 2002 L100 and neither are as craptastic as a lot of folks make them out to be. Instant respect that her SL was a manual so she knew how to drive one. It wasn’t ever going to top the smooth heap but Korea wasn’t quite there yet to compete. We regularly got mileage approaching 40. As for the L100, again, not a carp-box but certainly not as well-executed as the 2000 Prelude I had at that time. Only thing we truly hated was the console mounted window switches and that a neighbor’s ‘sizable’ M.I.L. came along for a ride once and the seat cushion was never again the same.
My favorite part was the ultra-convenient oil filter element you could unscrew from the top, balanced out by where Mazda’s giggling engineers decided to put the one on my 2007 Miata.
I’m sure it’s been mentioned before, but as a man who sold Chevys in the 80s and owned a Toyota van, Datsun 620 and Suzuki gt750, I saw Saturn as a one-trick pony in spite of the technical innovations (on a poor- quality car). That pony was known as “No-Hassle Pricing”, and it appealed to anyone who hated haggling with salesmen like me. What was also obvious to me was that it really meant “No Negotiating Whatsoever”, and since the MSRP was set by the manufacturer it was a no-brainer to control sale prices across the board. Those that hated the new car buying experience flocked to Saturn dealers and quickly became full-price converts to a stress-free slam dunk into just another GM junk-mobile. Because the quality never matched the hype, as quickly as it came, the Saturn went.