Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
The base Aura should do 0-60 in about 7.7 secs (Edmunds times are always slow) which is considerably faster than the Automatic versions of 4 banger Accords and Camrys. A camry 4 would do 0-60 in about 9-9.5 secs so I'm not sure how much of a dog that would be considered compared to the "slow" Aura.
Who am I going to believe, my lying senses or you?
If I didn't know any better I would say you're blowing a bunch a GM press release smoke my way. When the smoke clears away the 3.6 is still far superior to the 3.5.
What I do think people are saying, is that the 6 cyl base in the Aura is technologically and value based superior to that of the competition in the same price range.
With todays HP and fuel economy ratings, it seems that an OHV cannot make that kind of power, or at least GM is not willing to invest is a v6 that makes that kind of power, due to this 'perseption' that it is low tech.
It has alot less power than the 3.6L v6 or camry or altimas v6's, but the 3.5 has more power than anyone elses 4 cylinder, and coems in at a four cylinder price. The VVT and other features added to the engine have made it more than a match for these pathetic (by comparison) 4's.
If the sales come out 10% OHV and 90% DOHC you will see the OHV's gone within a year. Bt from my experience they will probably sell 70% of your "lo tech " engines and 30% of the DOHC.
I don't think the 3.5 is technologically superior to an 4 cylinder Accord though. Honda can blow a lot of press release smoke at you too on their 2.4.
I also don't think too many drivers feel their 4 cylinder Accords, Altimas and Camrys are underpowered or unrefined. It wasn't too long ago that their power and torque numbers would be considered good for a V6. True, they're no match for the 3.5 but many drivers would be more than happy with an economical 4 cylinder like what's in the Accord. GM's four bangers have the power to match a Honda 4 but they're definitely not on par in refinement.
I just think an Aura with a top notch 4 cylinder would appeal to a lot of people who are not power hungry (that wouldn't include me by the way). If someone does a lot of highway traveling then you're going to get 4 cylinder like mileage but it's all that stop and go traffic where a V6 will come up short.
The hybrid really doesn't count. Don't get me wrong, it a worthy trim level but it's probably going to have a premium price tag.
I hope when clean burning diesels come out people will realize that's the way to go for fuel economy.
Maybe this car is intended only for people 5'9" or shorter. "
This is so TRUE! I was very enthusiastic about the Aura. To me its a great car with the features i want and an affordable price. I went to my local dealer, opened the Aura's driver door and proceeded to get inside when BANG! Yep, I hit my head on the roofline. Now I'm 6'0-6'1 and I have no problems getting in/out of my 10 year old Buick Regal (a smaller car but with a boxier profile), but the Saturn Aura was a nightmare. admittidely after a few repeated attempts I learned to duck and contort my body, but that should be something reserved for Italian exotics, not a mainstream American sedan.
Two thumbs down to Saturn for excluding this percentile of the population
Bottom line is: This is the most comfortable car I have ever owned since an old beloved SAAB 900 many years ago. I suppose it is not too surprising since the platform is shared with the new smaller SAAB. The Aura has a nearly perfect blend of handling, performance and luxury for my tastes. My old SAAB was very under powered and had a fair amount of body roll but was a beautiful highway cruiser and had very good handling with the right tires. The Aura raises the level by a good margin. It feels very strong and solid, yet handles much more nimbly even with the standard tires. I would characterize the feel as being in between the ultra precise handling of a BMW and the softer handling of my old 900. I love this machine, and that is the first time I have been able to say that for a very long time. Way to go, Saturn!
That said, Aura in its price range, is GMs best effort to date, and appears to be a car to consider. Saturn finally has a car.
-Loren
Very low priced relative to the Toyotas system.
People are going to come up to you all the time and say "does that car have a Hemi?" Don't you want to say "Damn right it does"?
Have you driven a GM car with the 2.4L engine? I dont think it's giving up much to the Honda four cylinder. It has all the bells and whistles expected in a four in this class. Reviews of the Solstice and HHR have indicated the engine is smooth and relatively quiet. Is the the quietest out there? probably not, but that doesn't mean it's not competitive.
Yes sir.
Be it because of perception or reality, the Accord and Camry are considered the premium sedans in the mid-size segment. Just because the Aura is more upscale than the Malibu and G6 shouldn't preclude it from having a great 4 cylinder engine. If the car was bigger and heavier like an Impala I could see forgoing the 4 banger.
I'm looking at it from the point of view of getting conquest sales from Honda and Toyota. The Aura is better positioned than the Malibu and G6 in that regard.
Changing subjects, I saw my first Aura commercial. Which made me wonder why this car hasn't been advertised more. Is it becuase I'm not watching the right shows or is it because this car really hasn't been promoted very much? If so, why?
The 3.5L in the Aura has VVT also and while I have not driven a 3.5L with the VVT, I do know the low end torque on the engine is excellent and would assume the VVT added will give it much better passing grunt.
Personally, I would take a 3.5L over any 4 banger available in a midsize sedan. GM just has to make sure people know that this V6 is efficient in these time of gas price anxiety.
And Me doesn't think GM's 2.4 is competitive with Honda's 2.4. I've driven both and that's how I see it.
There's nothing really special about the fuel economy of the 3.5 either. It's not any better than the Accord's 3.0. And it's certainly not as fuel efficient as the Accord's 2.4. And we're not talking about the difference in a couple a miles per gallon either.
You may not consider a 4 banger over the 3.5 but many other people would. Especially if gas goes back up again (does anybody doubt this isn't going to happen).
Uhh, yea. That is the point of Saturn and the data shows that a huge percentage of those who consider Saturn do not consider other GM makes and are predominately japanese owners. As far as the 4 goes it HAS been announced and as I stated above will be in the car next year. It will also be a mild hybrid. This means for a nominal price increase there will be a MPG advantage over those other 4 cyl engined vehicles.
So the person who is really worried about MPG will have a choice between a low cost, high MPG, 4 cylinder or the high cost , slightly higher MPG 4 cylinder vehicles. I for one would go for the lower cost version because it gets real good mileage and has a payback period less than 5 years (which is the longest 75% of new car buyers keep their cars). Those other ones, with gas under $3 (its $2.10 here now) will take longer than 10 years to payback.
Rather, where's the turbo DOHC 6 and the AWD to handle the power? Let's see a Red Line version with some state of the art technology to show Saturn is serious about taking it to the imports instead of just being content with being in the same ballpark.
From Toyota itself:
http://www.toyota.com/html/hybridsynergyview/2005/fall/future.html
A comparison of Prius to a non-hybrid vehicle reveals how Prius' Hybrid Synergy Drive® delivers economy and performance. The 2005 Prius is a midsize car with a 4-cylinder 1.5-liter 76-hp gasoline engine mated to a 67-hp electric motor and 21kW hybrid battery. It has an EPA fuel economy rating of 60/51 city/highway mpg[1] and a 0-60 mph time of 10.3 seconds. By comparison, the 2005 midsize Camry's 4-cylinder automatic has a 2.4-liter 154-hp engine. Its 0-60 acceleration equals Prius', but with a lower fuel economy rating of 24/34 city/highway[1]. However, the starting price of Prius is $2000 higher than the Camry, so the Prius buyer pays more for the initial purchase.
Inadequate for you and me perhaps but not for more sane people. The 4 cylinder Camry is more than up to the task in the power department.
Truth be told, the Mazda 6i with manual transmission can run circles around and is more enjoyable to drive than any of these V6 competitors.
The Vue Greenline is actually a few pounds lighter than the Aura XE (per Edmunds specs). The Aura Greenline may lose a few pounds because it's losing the six cylinder but it won't be much if anything at all. The Aura Greenline will be a slug just like the Toyotas and the Vue.
Accord 3.0 = 20/29, 2.3L = 24/34
Aura is VERY competitive to me here considering it's got only a 4 speed auto and hey, if an extra few (4 max) MPG are going to kill your budget then maybe you should be buying a used Echo. I also suspect the Aura Greenline will be about the same price as a Accord EX auto ($22-23K). Don't tell me the Aura line is not competitive just because they don't sell stripped LX "value package" models.
Regardless of what you say about the GM 4 cylinder it is advanced, quiet and comparable to Toyota and Honda engines.
If you insist on having a four cylinder the G6 has one and contrary to what the press would have you believe it is very similar to the Aura.
Has anyone checked out the pricing of the new Altima compared to the Aura? The Altima has a lot of nice features but they are all optional. A 3.5SE can go over $29k without navigation and for that you only get a few features not found on the Aura. I think it's safe to say the Aura has about a $2k-$3k advantage on a comparably equipped Altima SE. The Aura I want it equipped with leather and XM radio would cost $26,394 while a similar altima with the Premium Package would cost $29,515(and that doesnt include VSC) which is a significant difference even if you factor in the ability to deal with the Nissan dealer.
"The 6 only has 215 hp and the fastest time I have seen for a 6 with 5sp manual is 6.8secs. C&D clocked the Aura at 6.2secs which seems about right to me. I dont see how the 6 is smoking the Aura or the Camry for that matter."
When I said the Mazda 6i w/manual would run circles around and be more fun to drive than the Aura I was not not talking about outright acceleration. Gee, you would think if that was the case I would of least picked the Mazda with the V6.
Weight over the front wheels is the enemy of handling in a front wheel drive car. Add the control you get with a manual tranny and you can understand how the mazda 6i would be the better handling, more fun to drive car. Honda doesn't put a V6 in the TSX because of cost but for better balance. The less expensive V6 Accord will smoke a TSX w/manual in outright acceleration but would lose on a road course to the TSX.
Automobile Magazine had a comparison test a while back of the best FWD sports sedans. The Grand Prix supercharger and Maxima finished dead last while the TSX and Mazda finished at the top.
I guess in GM land where there are FWD V8 sedans this concept is foreign. OK, that was a cheap shot as this has also been discussed in the TSX vs Accord board among Honda people.
I'm suggesting people who normally drive 4 cylinder Accords and Camrys may not consider the Aura. A 4 cylinder Aura would be more enticing to those people than a Malibu or G6. I guess what I'm trying to say is GM could cast a larger net with the 4 cylinder. Perhaps the hybrid will be the answer.
"Regardless of what you say about the GM 4 cylinder it is advanced, quiet and comparable to Toyota and Honda engines."
I don't think drivers of the current 4 cyl. Accord would agree with you. I'm not saying GM's 4 cylinder is not good but the difference is quite noticeable.
Acura has no six in the TSX because they don't have one on offer in the Euro Accord that the TSX is based on and it wouldn't make financial sense to produce one specially for the TSX. I've driven the TSX and its lack of torque is a much bigger deal to me than any 9/10ths edge it has in handling vs. many other cars.
For me, handling and responsiveness are part of performance too. I agree about the TSX, it needs more torque. But the engines does comes alive when equipped with the manual.
Unfortunately, the minute I sat in it, I knew it would never work out. I just felt hopelessly cramped and claustrophobic in there. Not much headroom and a surprisingly small feeling overall. I noticed the side windows were trendily short not unlike a Chrysler 300; this is not a good trend and the backseat headroom suffers from the roofline besides. Far less airy than my old Olds Alero which was quite comparably sized overall. Maybe it was just perception but it seemed less roomy than a G6 I rented previously. Speaking of the G6, the cheap inside door trim from it didn't help the Aura's case any either.
Such a disappointment, didn't even drive it.
Sales people (who had remembered me from 3 years ago - I did not remember them at all) kept urging me to drive it. I declined - the car left me cold. Maybe next year Saturn will get serious about build quality.
The polite sales people (Saturn still does well here) also could not explain how the traction control worked (my concern was it's the cheap "power cut" version used on most GM cars and worthless if you get one wheel on glare ice - if I am wrong, please feel free to enlighten me !!)
Should also add this Gangsta look the Chrysler 300 started is infecting a lot of cars, like the 2008 Mailbu with likewise higher beltline and smaller windows.
Judging by the last two posts I have to wonder what I'm going to think of the Aura's interior. Being accustomed to my Audi, my last car, 03 Accord V6, now comes across as down scale in comparison.
I agree, but I have not read these kinds of harsh comments in the professional reviews. In fact quite the opposite. BUT, I will try and take a look at one myself!
The Aura is promising (its ext. paint easilly surpassed a $44K BMW I looked at that day), but Saturn has a distressing tendency to release cars with unfinished interiors. The '03 ION was a rattletrap, and it took them 3 years to tighten things up. Hopefully the Aura won't have to wait so long. Then again, the VUE, per Edmunds review, hasn't improved much in that area over its years.
People who are used to, and content with, average American or lower-end Asian interiors and don't find it cramped as I did should have their expectations met with the Aura, but it's not a quantum leap forward as some reviewers would have you believe.
I have test driven both the XR and the XE. I liked both and thought they are an excellent value. An for the first time in my life I'm now considering an American car. As far as the XR, I found the ride a little thumpy. Has anyone else commented on that? Or, maybe the tires were overinflated; it was a warm day, and dealerships don't keep check of tire pressure when cars are sitting on the lot. I sure did like the larger 6, and the 6 speed tranny. Like the quiet, the seating--perf for me with the more forgiving cloth seats.
I found the ride of the XE a little softer, but very good. The power was plenty adequate. Wished it had at least a 5speed automatic. Loved the looks of the Aura. VERY handsome. Really, a car I'm considering in either trim, after driving Accord 4 cylinders for over 12 years. I certainly am a little concerned about the reliability. But, I really like the Aura alot. Great value. Like it alot better than the Sonata V6.
They have to stop using "good value" argument as an excuse and start making really good value cars. The hard plastic all around in Aura has to go and be replaced with non-shiny high quality well made soft plastic, we are not asking leather or something exotic here. Even Ford Fusion has higher quality and better fit materials, let alone Milan.
Aura is no Impala or 300 inside, but cramped does not come to my mind in an Aura?
Given the Audi costs at least $5-10K more than the Aura, I would expect interior improvements.
I did find my Audi cramped coming from an Accord. Thankfully I got accustomed to the car and no longer feel closed in.
All German vehicles have "hard" seats. They're made for long term comfort. There's no brushed trim but there's real aluminum trim however.
If the interior is black of course it's going to be dark. And I don't know what you're talking about with the hard plastic. The attention to detail in this car is fantastic.
This is not a matter of opinion, more the ability to see craftsmanship when it's in front of you. Styling is a different matter though. Some my find it it too stern.
And, a Saab 9-3 is hardly a cramped car vs. its competitition by the way. It's no Intrigue (I used to have one as well as an Alero) and you will be likely be disappointed if you really use the room of the Intrigue going to an Aura as it felt sub-Alero. let alone Intrigue, to me, room-wise). But, if you are not sensitive to those riduculous tiny side windows like I am then maybe it will be OK for you. You have to see for your self.