Consumer Reports: Saturn

Seamus's Stuff wrote:

> Though the Toyota Prius which had a 100% recall because of software flaws
> that could leave you stranded in the middle of the highway, because of
> engine shutdown, got their highest rating......Think they are not
> biased...think again.

A recall is generally looked upon favorably by CR, when it is voluntary.
It means that the manufacturer is willing to do the right thing, and
fix a known problem. Of course problems like occurred on the Saturn Vue
were so serious that it's hard to overlook them!

OTOH, a manufacturer that stubbornly refuses to do anything about known
problems, problems that even their dealers admit exist, is looked upon
unfavorably. It was very hard to get Saturn to admit the cracked head
issue and fix cars with the problem. They never owned up to the oil
burning problem, even though every dealer knew about it, and most
independent shops were aware of it.

One thing about Toyota and Honda is that they are so concerned about
their image, due to their almost maniacal quest for customer loyalty,
that they tend to not put up a fight when a problem is uncovered. Toyota
has even fixed problems that were a direct result of the owner failing
to abide by the maintenance schedule, because the company had published
conflicting maintenance requirements. Toyota wrote ""misunderstanding of
what constitutes 'normal' versus 'severe' driving conditions may result
in neglecting their vehicle."

no, I am saying "I dont agree with you, you dont agree with me". AFAIK,
nobody on either side had presented facts that either side has agreed upon.
This topic nor this forum is not intended for name calling nor rudeness, so
it is my intention to end this conversation as it seems to be headed in that
direction. fin.

marx404

marx404 sez...

> This topic nor this forum is not intended for name calling nor rudeness

I initiated this thread to discuss what Consumer Reports had to say about
Saturn.

They do not accept ads, so therefully are not swayed one way or another.

When researching for that dream car, I find it helpful to all to discuss
what is available to consumers.

No one wants to get stuck with a lemon! For all the hard earned money, I
want to feel well-informed.

I will follow the advice and buy some other magazines and will start a new
thread about my findings.

Back in the 90's, Saturn had a reputation of quality. Now just looking at
them cars in the showroom, I do not feel it.

My favorite vehicle of the current lineup is the Vue, but that's not saying
much.

There used to be an "L" series.

Saturn has really changed. It's a shame!

--
______________
=====fish=====

marx404 wrote:
> no, I am saying "I dont agree with you, you dont agree with me". AFAIK,
> nobody on either side had presented facts that either side has agreed upon.
> This topic nor this forum is not intended for name calling nor rudeness, so
> it is my intention to end this conversation as it seems to be headed in that
> direction. fin.

I guess that we can't expect you to gracefully admit that you're wrong,
so it's best that you end your participation in this thread.

In article >,
SMS > wrote:


> One thing about Toyota and Honda is that they are so concerned about
> their image, due to their almost maniacal quest for customer loyalty,
> that they tend to not put up a fight when a problem is uncovered.

Right, that's why the flakey transmission in my dad's Oddessey, instead
of getting replaced with a unit that won't lock up suddenly on the
highway, got a 'jet kit' to fix what Honda calls a 'lubrication problem'
inside the gearbox. Where just about everything is drenched in that
magic nonstandard Honda ATF anyway. So, we've got a ticking time bomb
transmission that may/may not fail with who knows what results. Oh
yeah, they're giving us a '100,000 mile' warrenty on it now. Or the EGR
valve that they told us could fail, so as a courtesy, they're extending
the warrenty on the emissions system to 80,000 miles, which they're
legally supposed to be at anyway.

Or, we could talk about Toyota's sludge issues that have been around for
years.

What Honda and Toyota figured out long ago was that a good PR dept and
quietly handling some issues, combined with some slick legal moves, can
give the appearence of them being a warm and fuzzy company.

Of course, look at the Prius, which performs like an 80's Toyota and
gets nowhere near it's sticker mileage. Yet sheep suck it up anyway.

Philip Nasadowski wrote:
> In article >,
> SMS > wrote:
>
>
> > One thing about Toyota and Honda is that they are so concerned about
> > their image, due to their almost maniacal quest for customer loyalty,
> > that they tend to not put up a fight when a problem is uncovered.
>
> Right, that's why the flakey transmission in my dad's Oddessey, instead
> of getting replaced with a unit that won't lock up suddenly on the
> highway, got a 'jet kit' to fix what Honda calls a 'lubrication problem'
> inside the gearbox. Where just about everything is drenched in that
> magic nonstandard Honda ATF anyway. So, we've got a ticking time bomb
> transmission that may/may not fail with who knows what results. Oh
> yeah, they're giving us a '100,000 mile' warrenty on it now. Or the EGR
> valve that they told us could fail, so as a courtesy, they're extending
> the warrenty on the emissions system to 80,000 miles, which they're
> legally supposed to be at anyway.
>
> Or, we could talk about Toyota's sludge issues that have been around for
> years.
>
> What Honda and Toyota figured out long ago was that a good PR dept and
> quietly handling some issues, combined with some slick legal moves, can
> give the appearence of them being a warm and fuzzy company.
>
> Of course, look at the Prius, which performs like an 80's Toyota and
> gets nowhere near it's sticker mileage. Yet sheep suck it up anyway.

Yeah, I sometimes have to chuckle about the transmission and EGR
problems many owners report on the Odyssey forums I visit. Some
threads brought up striking similarities to those about Saturns some
years ago on this newsgroup. I'm sure the Toyota sludge problems
generated the same types of complaints for the many years Toyota denied
these problems and refused to cover them, before consumer advocates
began to apply pressure and generate bad publicity.

I also agree with what fish said in their posts. Back in the 90s, the
Saturn small cars were pretty consistently rated above average in CR's
reliability ratings. They were also at or among the top of the class
in the crash tests and safety ratings available at the time. CR still
didn't recommend them because of their internal test scores. While all
the published, objective measurements and ratings from CR were usually
very similar to the competition, the subjective comments and
considerations resulted in overall scores that were just a hair short
of the rating needed on the bar chart to be "Recommended." Whether
this was fair or not was in the eye of the beholder. A search of the
Google archives will turn up many threads and insightful comments on
these same topics.

Today, most Saturns would be excluded from a recommended pick if only
due to their below average reliability (according to CR). The Ion is
projected as average, but its low crash test results and overall
evaluation keep it from being recommended. I'd have given Saturn
strong consideration when purchasing my last two minivans, based on my
good experiences with the SL2 in the 90s. Unfortunately, the safety,
convenience, performance and features just didn't match Honda and
Toyota, let alone the very reasonable models from Nissan, Ford and
Chrysler.

As a side note, the Ion crash test results are indeed very
disappointing. At a time when most newer models have been designed to
do well in the NHTSA and IIHS crash tests, models like the Ion are not
keeping up with the rest. Saturn didn't even bother to submit a side
curtain airbag equipped Vue for additional IIHS testing. Only the
Nissan Sentra and Kia Spectra rival it for worse-than-average
performance in both the IIHS and NHTSA crash tests. For anyone
interested in overall safety, don't simply trust one or two results or
anecdotes for a vehicle. The website www.informedforlife.org produces
a very good overall rating based on many factors, using published data
to produce a risk rating comparable among all vehicles.

Seems like being absorbed by GM corporate has really taken the
"different" concept to the wrong extreme, lately.

Caviller
www.car-safety.org

In article .com>,
wrote:

> Yeah, I sometimes have to chuckle about the transmission and EGR
> problems many owners report on the Odyssey forums I visit.

The odd thing is apparently a lot of newer cars don't really need EGR,
it just goes in for the secondary effects EGR gives. Don't some GM cars
have no EGR valve at all?

Honda automatics? Junk. Bad enough it's a **** design, they can't pick
a gear either...

> I'm sure the Toyota sludge problems
> generated the same types of complaints for the many years Toyota denied
> these problems and refused to cover them, before consumer advocates
> began to apply pressure and generate bad publicity.

Toyota just blamed the consumer. I'm not aware of 'sludge' issues on
any other motors though. Even my '93 SC2 was darn clean at 200,000+
miles.

> Seems like being absorbed by GM corporate has really taken the
> "different" concept to the wrong extreme, lately.

I dunno, the nonstandard parts were sure a PITA and frankly, GM's
finally getting the trim levels up to par. They need to just get the
styling there and get on the RWD bandwagon. Certainly, the powertrains
are bulletproof - last few GM cars we've had went 200,000+ miles no
problem. The Sarturn's going to it's grave at about 255,000. Not bad
at all.

Though I'm a bit annoyed - we didn't get the cracked head we were
supposed to get. I feel like I'm missing out on something

wrote:

> interested in overall safety, don't simply trust one or two results or
> anecdotes for a vehicle. The website www.informedforlife.org produces
> a very good overall rating based on many factors, using published data
> to produce a risk rating comparable among all vehicles.

Interesting. I did something very similar a few years ago, but I also
included the insurance industries statistical data as a small percentage
of the total score. The reason I did that is because there are factors
that obviously are not factored into the crash testing, because often a
vehicle with lousy crash test results actually had low injury and
fatality rates. Part of this is obviously based on the type of person
that buys a specific vehicle, but part may also be do to handling issues
not taken into account by crash testing.

SMS wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > interested in overall safety, don't simply trust one or two results or
> > anecdotes for a vehicle. The website www.informedforlife.org produces
> > a very good overall rating based on many factors, using published data
> > to produce a risk rating comparable among all vehicles.
>
> Interesting. I did something very similar a few years ago, but I also
> included the insurance industries statistical data as a small percentage
> of the total score. The reason I did that is because there are factors
> that obviously are not factored into the crash testing, because often a
> vehicle with lousy crash test results actually had low injury and
> fatality rates. Part of this is obviously based on the type of person
> that buys a specific vehicle, but part may also be do to handling issues
> not taken into account by crash testing.

Real world injury and fatality rates are useful to some degree. If you
find a vehicle is significantly below average in its class compared to
its competition, that might be a red flag. Hopefully, the driver
demographic for the same class of vehicle doesn't vary as much as it
might from one class to another. It's too bad the real world data is
barely published by the time most vehicles evolve into their next
generation design, making only useful for new vehicles in some cases.
Starting with the latest fatality data released in 2005, the IIHS has
begun to account for some differences in driver characteristics. I
doubt they can completely eliminate the factor of the driver, but it's
good to see that this data will be more meaningful in the future.

It's very difficult to include performance factors like emergency
acceleration, handling and braking into an overall safety rating
comparable across a range of weights and classes. Even if you test
yourself or use numbers from another source, there is more potential
for subjectivity and misleading data based on the element of the
driver. Plus, I don't think I've ever seen any published studies
comparing the benefit of performance features from a crash avoidance
standpoint to the benefit of the vehicle's crashworthiness. Without
that, it would be hard to include them into a composite score in an
objective fashion.

www.informedforlife.org 's approach is very detailed and almost purely
objective. Rather than assigning some seemingly random weighting,
formula or threshold, everything is carefully documented from published
studies. Every other attempt I've seen to make a composite safety
rating has been arbitrary and/or vauge, in some cases perhaps to
intentionally include, exclude or adjust the relative rankings of
specific makes/vehicles. I also like that when a vehicle is missing a
particular result, it is given an average score for that result as a
placeholder. Other publications might assume a top rating to include
such a vehicle in their "Safest" list or omit an otherwise excellent
model because of one missing rating. Consumer Reports tried to make
their own overall safety rating a few years back. As with many of
their ratings, they failed to give the necessary specifics, so it was
hard to say if it was a reasonable effort or not. For whatever
reasons, they no longer publish such a composite, though they do have
safety requirements for recommended models.

This new effort by informedforlife.org is certainly a step in the right
direction, even if it isn't perfect. The IIHS is getting lots of media
attention today with it's brand new top safety picks, while this
unknown website will probably never get a fraction of that publicity.
It seems word of mouth and link exchanges will have to do until the
media takes notice. It's too bad, because using just the IIHS
selections doesn't include the NHTSA crash tests, rollover ratings,
stability control or vehicle weight, all of which are important factors
to an overall safety evaluation as well.

Caviller
http://www.car-safety.org

Philip Nasadowski wrote:

> Honda automatics? Junk. Bad enough it's a **** design, they can't pick
> a gear either...

The automatics in my 2006 and 2001 Odyssey are/were very good, knock on
wood...

> Though I'm a bit annoyed - we didn't get the cracked head we were
> supposed to get. I feel like I'm missing out on something
>
>

Yeah, I didn't have major powertrain issues, either. Other than the
alternator and a wheel bearing, my first SL2 was very reasonable,
especially considering it was a first year model of a brand new
vehicle.

Caviller
http://www.car-safety.org