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.
Options

Saturn Aura

1568101130

Comments

  • froggersjcfroggersjc Member Posts: 51
    Wow, if 18/27 EPA is correct, that is awful. If this holds true it will definitely wipe this car off my list! I was hoping for some competitive fuel economy with the high tech engine/tranny.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    I think it's time to give the plastic panel issue a rest. The panels were a good idea but they made Saturns more expensive to produce and guaranteed that Saturns had worse fit and finish than competing models. Most buyers arent smart enough to know that the polymer panels need space to expand and thus Saturns couldn't have the same gap tolerances as models with steel fenders.

    As for the mileage, it isnt class leading but 2pmg isnt going to be noticable in the long run. If the Aura is cheaper than the slightly lower mileage may be an acceptable trade off for most people. As with most models in this class, the base trim will make up the majority of the sales. I don't know enough about final drive ratios and gearing to understand why the Aura's mileage is below average, but my guess would be it's geared to accelerate quickly.
  • lzclzc Member Posts: 483
    The mpg difference isn't 2 mpg, it's 4 mpg, or 20+% for city driving. The Aura will cost the average driver about $250 more per year for gas. Yep, if the Aura is priced significantly less than say an Avalon, well, OK. But is this where GM wants to be?

    I suspect you are right about the Aura likely being geared for acceleration, although Toyota's new V6 is quick and still delivers suprising gas mileage.
  • froggersjcfroggersjc Member Posts: 51
    I think the mileage is a big deal, especially for a midsized car like this. Heck I was looking around at a multidealer car event today and the subaru foresterXT (automatic turbo) gets similar if not better mileage than that. I gurantee the forester will probably smoke it in acceleration times as well from what I read. The sube is even all wheel drive. The Chevy Impala V8 gets EPA 28 highway. The Rav4 V6 with 269 HP 22/29 and more cargo space. You could go on and on. I don't see where the benefit of all the technology is at that rate. A corvette can get 18/28, and I don't think any gearing of the 3.6 will ever approach that performance =). Bascially my point is the real numbers better beat those quoted above or GM has lost another sale.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    I also liked the two new SUV's that Chevy and GMC are offering but with the way fuel is going I didn't want to get it. Plus I wanted something that maneuvered like a car. The Outlook falls into this catergory very well.

    Did you look into the Ford Freestyle? The Freestyle is not as wide or tall then the Outlook, but has more legroom and cargo space behind the 3rd row. The mpg is good too. But it doesn't tow as much, so if you really need a big towing capacity, then the Freestyle isn't for you.
  • chrisl0chrisl0 Member Posts: 114
    I looked at it and I hated it. The styling is only so so, it has a ugly mast antenna instead of a window grid antenna (hate Ford for all the penny pinching they do), and the engine is underpowered. Plus I wanted a SUV with a big third row and a power liftgate. The Outlook does it for me in all those areas. Plus with decent gas mileage that is about the same as a Honda Pilot. Finally I like the fact that the Outlook is higher off the ground or at least looks it.
  • chrisl0chrisl0 Member Posts: 114
    I am not 100% on this but don't most Subaru's require or recommend premium fuel?
  • froggersjcfroggersjc Member Posts: 51
    agreed, the Turbo Boxter engine recommends 91 octane. The Non-turbos recommend regular. Just for argument's sake, premium is usually on 20c a gallon more. If gas is at $3, and $3.20 respectively. That's a 6% difference, which is a difference but you gain more acceleration, AWD, cargo capacity, and impeccable safety record. Obviously the Rav4 comparison proved the point more, I'm just hoping the Aura fuel economy is better than stated b/c I like the vehicle overall.

    A little off topic, but interesting... Compare the parts origin content on some Toyotas vs some amercian cars like the Ford Fusion. The fusion is 30% Amercian, the Camry 85%. This is the final straw than may make me give up my "big 3" loyalties.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    I guess the way you're describing it, the Outlook is more SUV-like vs the Freestyle being more car-light, and you're more interested in the former. When you say that you wanted a big 3rd row, what is your definition of "big?" If you mean seating for 3, then you're right that the Outlook is bigger, because it's as wide as a full-sized minivan. But the Freestyle has more legroom in the 2nd & 3rd rows, although can only seat 2 in the 3rd row.

    BTW the Freestyle isn't underpowered unless you want to tow a lot. I won't comment on styling or the antenna, because those are just subjective comments. I guess the Freestyle leans more towards the car end of the spectrum and the Outlook leans more towards the SUV end, but the Outlook is pretty similar to the current Freestyle in many ways.
  • chrisl0chrisl0 Member Posts: 114
    Well I didn't see it like that, but I guess it makes sense. I have a 94' Accord and it was built and designed here and I consider it to be American even if it has a foreign nameplate. The Aura will probably come out with a 4 cylinder eventually or get a V6 with better mileage. Overall I can live with the gas mileage as long as they add AWD and a Nav system.
  • chrisl0chrisl0 Member Posts: 114
    They said the Outlook is suppose to have a huge amount of legroom compared to its competitors. It will also have a usable space behind the 3rd row. I will have a normal car also so when I don't need the suv I will use that. I don't tow but for a crossover of that size I think it should have 250-270 HP. I keep hearing about this Duratec 35 that is suppose to do that for many models if they added that it might make it more attractive but I would still lean more for the Outlook just because of the styling and features it offers. I don't deny the Freestyle is a good crossover just that it doesn't suit my needs. Plus things like a Mast Antenna scream penny pinching. I need to complement my aging Honda Accord soon and I am considering either a Subaru, the Aura (if it offers AWD and a navigation system), or the Ford Five Hundred (Once the redesign comes out with the 250 HP engine and as long as it doesn't come with the mast antenna).
  • froggersjcfroggersjc Member Posts: 51
    So much hate for the mast antenna :D
  • chrisl0chrisl0 Member Posts: 114
    I hate them, they make the car look ugly and the car wash and vandals break them. It's the 21st century they got power antenna's, window grid antenna's, and all other kinds of concealed antennas and still they make vehicles with mast antenna's. Even my Accord has a power antenna and its a 12 year old car but they still put the mast antennas on some 2005-2006 vehicles. They can easily make all cars with some sort of concealed antenna but they want to save money and put the cheapest antenna's on. It makes me sick.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    The Outlook is supposed to be roomy compared to most SUVs, which is true. I’m just pointing out that the Freestyle is already out there and while it’s not as wide or tall as the Outlook, it has comparable space inside…at least for people. I pulled the info for the Freestyle from Ford’s webpage. On the Saturn webpage, they didn’t provide any specs, so it’s really hard to know what they’ll be exactly, but from http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7701 this is what I found for the Outlook.

    Freestyle/Outlook:

    Length (in.) 200.1/200.7
    Width (in.) 74.9/78.2
    Height w/rack (in.) 68.2/72.8
    Head room (in.)
    First row 39.4/40.4
    Second row 39.8/39.3
    Third row 38.6/38.4
    Leg room (in.)
    First row 41.1/41.3
    Second row 40.4/36.9
    Third row 33.3/33.2
    Shoulder room (in.)
    First row 58.4/61.9
    Second row 58/61.1
    Third row 50.8/57.8
    Hip room (in.)
    First row 55.5/57.8
    Second row 56/ 57.9
    Third row 45.9/48.3
    Cargo volume (cu. ft.),
    Behind 1st row 86.1/117
    2nd row (cu. ft.) 47.9/68.9
    Behind 3rd row (cu. ft.) 20.8/19.7

    From the specs, you can see that the Outlook is a few inches wider and taller, but head room is about the same. Shoulder & hip room is greater in the Outlook by a few inches, but then so is the overall vehicle width. An exception is the 3rd row of the Outlook, which is a lot wider, but then it’s rated for three across where the Freesyle is only two across in the 2nd row. So if you must has capacity for 8, then don’t get the Freestyle. The legroom is actually better for the Freestyle in the 2nd row by 4”, which is a lot. Cargo space behind the 3rd row is a little better for the Freestyle, but that’s probably because it counts the well where the 3rd row folds into. In the Outlook, the 3rd row just folds forward, but in the Freestyle, it folds forward and flips back, like minivans do. And in overall cargo room, the Outlook wins, but again it’s 4 ½ inches taller and about 3 ½ inches wider, so that’s where the extra cargo space comes from…packing stuff to the ceiling.

    Bottom line is that the Outlook is wider and taller and more SUV-like, where-as the Freestyle is more car-like. You can look at the specs to see which ones mean more to you. For me, the extra legroom in the 2nd row is important, plus I wanted more of a car-like height for climbing in and out. I didn’t need the space of a full sized minivan either, and the Freestyle’s more car-like characteristics are what I like about it. But for those who need more SUV characteristics, then the Outlook seems pretty good. If I needed that much interior space though, I’d just get an Toyota Sienna with a 2nd row bench and AWD if I needed it, since it’s smaller than the Outlook, but has a whole lot more interior room:
    Sienna:
    Rows 1/2/3
    Head room 42.0/40.2/38.1
    Shoulder room 63.8/64.9/61.1
    Hip room 58.4/67.5/51.8
    Leg room 42.9/39.6/39.5
    Cargo behind rows 1/2/3 148.9/94.5/43.6

    As far as mast antenna's, I don't like power antannas because they go up and down every time you use the radio, so that's just one more thing to break. I've read that grid antennas don't get as good reception, nor do those little post antennas. They put some grooves in the Freestyle's mast antenna to make it quieter too (ie...less wind noise), so I'm satisfied with it. Plus I wash my own car, so the carwash issue isn't a problem with me (and there are no vandals where I live breaking antennas).
  • chrisl0chrisl0 Member Posts: 114
    Well that is what I am after a more SUV like traits. Plus for me the Freestyle lacks other things that are important to me. The thing about the antenna, my first two cars had these antennas and they constantly broke. Where I live people like to break them. I take my car to the car wash most of the time and they broke the antennas on my first two cars and I don't want to be bothered taking off the antenna. So I would never buy a car with one ever again. Again not to mention they make the car look ugly. I have my Accord for 12 years and it comes with a power antenna. I used it in both hot and below freezing weather and the antenna never failed me and never cost me a dime. I don't mind it going up and down. My friend has a Nissan Altima I think its a 2003 and it has the window grid antenna and the radio picked up AM and FM as well as my power antenna. I rather spend a few extra dollars up front than to cheap on on features I want. Finally my next car will probably have Sat radio so I will rarely use my AM/FM radio after that.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    I think you are taking a worst case Big 3 example and comparing it to a best case Toyota example. I doubt most Toyotas have 85% domestic content. The Fusion is built in Mexico on a platform developed by Mazda so I'm not surprised it has low domestic content. The Fusion isnt representative of most big 3 vehicles.

    The Aura's mileage isnt great, but no GM cars with the 3.6 get class leading mileage. The Camry offers best in class mileage so the Aura (nor any other V6 car) are going to beat it in that regard. There arent a lot of objective reasons to get the Aura over the camry but I personally don't want a camry and thus it will never be on my shopping list. The new camry looks OK, but I like the Aura and G6 better. It also has nice features, but most of them are only on the XLE version which can get pricey with options. I also hate that you cant get wheels larger than 16" on the XLE. The 16s look too small on the car, especially comapred to GM midsizers with 18s.

    Aura is supposed to be on sale by July 24th.
  • froggersjcfroggersjc Member Posts: 51
    I only rember looking at the camry, avalon, and sienna. All 3 of them were at 85% North American content. I'm sure the trucks are high as well as they are built in my homestate of Indiana. I don't have stats for many other cars, but GM is currently looking at Mexico for another plant while Toyota is planning another Texas plant, Kia is building one in Georgia, and Honda is looking at Indiana and Ohio for another plant. Toyota will be building more Camrys at the Indiana Subaru plant later this year. My father's new dodge ram was also built in Mexico and the parts content was lower.

    To me the "Japanese" companies are becoming more "American" than the "big 3". My gist was if I was comparing buying a Fusion or Camry and needed a tiebreaker, I would definitely buy the Camry due to all the American jobs it was supporting. At least the Aura is to be built in the US.
  • titojermainetitojermaine Member Posts: 2
    The vehicle is a 1998 GMC Sierra. This problem developed last summer and has started back now that it's warming up. Whenever the temperature is in the high 70s or above outside, the power windows will not go down (I would assume they don't go up either, but they're always up when I've got in and tried). There is no hum like a motor trying to operate or anything. I tried the switches on both the driver and passenger side and none of the switches will cause the windows to go down. After the temperature goes down outside, the windows work fine again. I haven't had any trouble out of them otherwise, so I wouldn't think it would be the switch being dirty. I'm wondering what components would be affected to the point of failure at around 80 degrees outside. I think there was a fusable link put on the power windows a couple of years ago due to a recall (it's questionable whether the dealership actually did the work). It seems like that might be related, but wouldn't a fusable link fail completely if overheated and not start working again when it cools down outside. Any suggestions are appreciated.
  • navigator89navigator89 Member Posts: 1,080
    Exactly what does this have to do with the Saturn Aura?
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    Maybe it has to do with the import tax. GM & Ford don't have to pay import tax as American companies, so it's cheaper for them to build the cars in Mexico. Toyota pays less import tax if they build them in the USA, so that's what they do. But a Toyota is still engineered in Japan, while a Ford is engineered in Detroit, and I think that makes the difference...not necessarily where they're put together.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    Buying more toyotas will help GM and Ford lose more share which will lead to more job cuts. I dont see how buying Toyota is somehow more American. This is the first time I have heard that most of Toyotas models have 85% domestic content, but they can afford to do that because they have non union wages and get huge tax breaks when they build new factories. GM and Ford have to build plants in Mexico to balance the high wage plants they have in the US. If GM and Ford were mostly buidling vehicles in the nonunion south they wouldn't have to look to Mexico for new plants. Personally I dont care how much American content the camry has, I still dont want one. Saying you should buy Japanese to support Americans is just as silly as saying it's your patriotic duty to buy from the Big 3.
  • chrisl0chrisl0 Member Posts: 114
    I know you would think domestic companies would keep all the jobs in this country. Now Japanese cars are more American (Designed, build, and components made here). Oh I always wondered are European cars made here i.e. VW, Mercades, BMW, ETC? Or are they imported.
  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    VW makes most of its US product in Mexico and Brasil.

    Daimler makes the MB SUVs in the US. MB sedans are all imported. Most of Daimler's Chrylser and Dodge products are made in the US.

    BMW makes the Z and the X cute utes in the US. The BMW Sedans and Minis are imported.

    Audis are imported.

    Ford imports Volvo for now, but may start making some in the US. The high Euro is killing Volvo profits in NA.
  • chrisl0chrisl0 Member Posts: 114
    I figured that was the case.
  • autoboy16autoboy16 Member Posts: 992
    I read somewhere it would use a 3.5 from the vue as the midlevel trim and the 3.6 will be the top of the line. These are similar to the 2007 G6. Anyways, my point is that if it uses the vue's v6, we're in good shape. That v6 is a j35 straight from vtec. Who uses vtec? Just Good ol` honda :shades:.
  • autoboy16autoboy16 Member Posts: 992
    You're complaining about mast antennas? I'm 100% sure that it has a mast antenna. If you hated them sooo much, y didn't you look for a 1996 or 1997 if you like that body style? BTW if you're looking for a vehicle with a big 3rd row, did you check out:

    a 2007 Chevy Tahoe/Gmc YUKON
    a 2006 Nissan Armada
    a 2006 Ford Expedition?

    Can you pace yourself and check out a mazda CX-9? It has a huge 3 seat and good mpg with ford's new 3.5. Heres some pics.

    image

    image

    Now back to the AURA?
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    The Honda 3.5 and the GM 3.6 have almost the same output so you will never see those two products in the same vehicle. VTEC isnt even as advanced as the VVT system used on the 3.6 GM V6. Vtec is not infinitely variable, it has stages of valve timing that change depending on rpm. Thats why they often say Honda motors seem to kick it into another gear when you pass a certain rpm level. Most manufacturers like GM and BMW use more complex VVT systems that have more than two positions. VTEC was class leading stuff 10 years ago but now others have developed similar, if not superior, systems that do the same thing.
  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    read somewhere it would use a 3.5 from the vue as the midlevel trim and the 3.6 will be the top of the line. These are similar to the 2007 G6. Anyways, my point is that if it uses the vue's v6, we're in good shape.

    Don't know where you read that, but it is wrong.

    The base Aura will have the GM 3.5 V6 in the Malibu and the mid-line G6, among others.

    The high end Aura will have the GM 3.6 high output V6 currently found in the Cadillacs and top line Buick LaCrosse.

    Neither Aura engine is offered in the current VUE. (the Vue uses the 2.2 ecotec, the 3.5 Honda V6 and will also have the 2.4 with an electric engine in the Hybrid Greenline)
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    Wow, that's just wrong.

    Variable Valve Timing advances or retards the rotation of the cam relative to the piston cycle, so the valves open and close at different times at different rpm. Variable Valve Lift (VTEC, VVL, MIVEC, etc.) uses two different cam profiles to change the duration and height the valves open and close. This gives you a LOT more power than VVT does (30% more hp versus 3%). Honda i-VTEC and Toyota VVTL-i combine both VVT and VVL.
  • autoboy16autoboy16 Member Posts: 992
    :P You said it. Thats more or less where i was going. How else did honda squeeze 200something hp out of the small 2.2 in the s2000? It revs safely to 9000 rpm (when it had the 2.0 in the early models. Now its more like 8700rpm) without much trouble. Now the toyota system is the more advance than vtec, for now... :P

    Otherwise i was GUESSING that since it will have the 3.5, it may be hondas. Otherwise gm wouldn't have gotten rid of the 3.9 v6 in favor of a more powerful and efficient v6, the 3.6.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    The aura's base engine is an upgraded version of the engine in the Impala, not the Malibu. The Malibu makes 200hp without VVT. The Impala makes 211hp with VVT but for 2007 it has been boosted to 224hp for all applications. In other words the base Aura V6 has more hp than the Fusion's V6.
  • chrisl0chrisl0 Member Posts: 114
    Dam calm down it is a personal preference. What has a mast antenna that you are talking about anyway? Those three vehicles are too expensive and too fuel efficient. The cx9 I personally liked but the fact that it needs premium fuel turns me off to it. Some advice if you can't stand people don't speak on forums.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    I dont know where you got the 30% vs 3% from, but there is no set amount of hp increase that can be expected when you add VVT to an engine. In most cases engines dont exist in VVT and non VVT forms so you cant really determing how much power is due to VVT.

    VTEC has several different iterations and the complexity of the system depends on which VTEC is being discussed. VTEC on SOHC engines like the accord V6 is not as complex as VVT used on the GM 3.6V because it doesn't operate on the intake and exhaust valves. Every GM VVT system, except the 4.2L inline 6 and related engines, operate on the intake and exhaust valves. The SOHC VTEC system doesnt yield the same type of power increases as HOnda's DOHC VTEC system which is found on 4 cylinder models. It has two modes, one for low RPM and one for high RPM.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    I read pricing will be inveiled this month since production starts next month. Should be interesting. I really wish Saturn would add more info to their webpage because there isnt much there now.
  • mplsmnmplsmn Member Posts: 2
    I just received an email with the choices for my 2007 company vehicle. I have narrowed it down to either the AWD Vue or the Aura, but can't seem to decide between the two.
    I would get the vehicle in about two months, so it would be cool to get the Aura as there won't be many around. But, I like the Vue also.
    I wish I could go to a dealer and see an Aura in person, but because I have to put my order in next week, that isn't an option.
    Any suggestions?
  • chrisl0chrisl0 Member Posts: 114
    Go with the Aura it has many more features than the Vue, plus it looks better than the Vue.
  • navigator89navigator89 Member Posts: 1,080
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    That isnt too bad at all, about why expected. It will be interesting to see how much a fully loaded XR model will cost because it does have a few options. I think that is right about where the car needs to be though. It's only slightly more expensive than the G6.
  • froggersjcfroggersjc Member Posts: 51
    To me the pricing is not outrageous, though would be more in line if the base had the 6 speed. I'll be waiting to see if they move it to the base next year. The base engine fuel economy seems substantially better. Once you figure in the fact that you can't negotiate a lower price on a saturn and GM card earnings can't be used it is substantially higher than the G6
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    I dont think its fair to count GM Card earnings on the G6 because most people dont have a GM card. Its best to compare the real prices of the cars and accept the fact that you will have more negotiation room on the G6. I dont think prospective Aura owners would buy a G6 even though it's basically the same car. I think a $1000 or so premium will be accepted by most Aura buyers, if they even bother to price the G6. Personally, I dont know if I would pay more than an extra $1000 just to get a better center stack and the new radio with MP3 jack. I like the looks of the G6 just as much, if not more than the Aura but I really do want the new head unit and I know the Aura will be more exclusive than the G6.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    real complete pricing is available now. The options arent that expensive and it seems that a loaded XR will be under $28k.
  • chrisl0chrisl0 Member Posts: 114
    Yea I am also happy with the pricing, and I like the Aura far more than I do the G6.
  • corvettecorvette Member Posts: 11,277
    No xenons and no satnav. It has similar features to an Accord EX-V6, the sticker price is a little lower on the Saturn, but the Accord can be had very close to invoice, making it cheaper than the Saturn.
  • driverdmdriverdm Member Posts: 505
    See my question is not why would someone buy an Aura when you can get a similar G6 for $1000 cheaper. My question is why would someone buy a G6 when you can get an Aura for only 20 dollars more a month aka $1,000 more? Though I am still iffy on the styling (I was blown away by the concept, the production version is blander), it is starting to grow on me. I'd say the lookers in this segment are the Aura, the Fusion, the new Altima, and the Mazda6. The Mazda6 is due for a redesign next year and will get a more luxurious interior according to the head of Mazda USA. If it looks like the concept sketches, I may need to lay my deposit down. I wonder if the Aura and mazda will be competitors with the Mazda having a more performance edge, and the Aura have a more luxury edge. Then we may have to talk Subie Legacy. Now that is a whole other world.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    I dont find the G6 and the Aura to be drastically different so I dont see how you could like the Aura but not the G6. The only clear advantages to the Aura are a better interior and the new GM radio. Other than that there isnt a huge difference between the two cars. When you take into account the fact that POntiac dealers can negotiate, the prices of the cars wont be all that different really. It's up to your personal taste really. If I could get an '07 G6 for substantially less money I would probably get one. If not, I would go with the Aura.

    I would imagine the next mazda6 would be larger and get more power. You can always hold out for the next great model, but then you would never get a car. The New altima looks OK, but is too similar to the current one. I also am not crazy about the interior and find it no better than the G6 in that regard. In fact, it looks like it was inspired by the G6.
  • chrisl0chrisl0 Member Posts: 114
    I find the Aura to look better, and if I would buy it I would buy it over the G6. A $1,000 difference doesn't seem to bother me as much as it does to others.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    $1000 isnt really that much over the course of 48 or 60 months so I see your point. The only thing is I have GM card earnings so that makes the decision a little harder. The Aura will definitley be more exclusive than the G6 so you wont see them everywhere you go and that is a good thing. But the G6 is exclusive when compared to the Camry, Altima and Accord.
  • driverdmdriverdm Member Posts: 505
    I think the Aura is much nicer than the G6. The Aura's interior alone is worth the extra $1,000. Additionally, I think Saturn is positioning itself as a more premium brand than Pontiac. The Aura is three inches longer than the G6, has more amenities, and has a more powerful engine in baseline trim (234HP VS 201HP). The $1,000 difference can be seen as a bargain.

    The next Mazda6 has already been confirmed to be bigger and be more powerful. It is based on the Fusion chassis, which incidentally is a stretched Mazda6 chassis. Addditionally, the next Mazda6 will get the new 3.5 engine good for at least 250hp. All this information has already been made public by Mazda USA. I think someone might be smart to hold out until next year if possible. The New Altima, the new Mazda6, the new Stratus/Sebring and let us not forget the new Honda Accord will all be out by then. The whole mid-size segment will basically be brand no with no significant players having a model over two-three years old.

    The new Altima in person looks very nice. It is much more like the 350Z in styling than the current generation Altima but most Nissan have a strange familiarity anyway so I can see why people would think it is too close to the current model. THe interior does scream "inspired by Pontiac" though the dash materials are better than in the G6.
  • mevandemevande Member Posts: 190
    I saw one on the road yesterday with a regular license plate (aka non dealer), how could that be? I had to do a triple take to make sure it was a Saturn.
  • froggersjcfroggersjc Member Posts: 51
    I'm going back to the previous stint a bit comparing how Toyotas and Hondas are becoming more American than the big "2 and a half" As seen in todays (6/15/06) inside line news column, Ford may be planning to spend almost all their new investment money in Mexico while continuing to cut its U.S. workforce. If this is true, in my mind its inexcusable and definitely makes Honda and Toyata a bigger supporter of the U.S. economy than Ford. Just something to think about. Throwing out Ford, the Aura might be the only decent domestic product left.
Sign In or Register to comment.