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

General Motors discussions

1531532534536537558

Comments

  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    What if you were in charge of GM?

    I would have a 6 martini lunch and then come back and work on the re-structuring plan. :shades:
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    "We are not in merger talks with Chrysler," said GM spokesman Tony Cervone in response to an Inside Line query Thursday morning. "We stated in November that any talks related to a potential merger were tabled so we could focus on our liquidity situation. That remains the case."

    GM: Merger Talks Have Not Restarted With Chrysler
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    "rumor"is that Ford is looking at taking over parts of Chrysler. Probably the best place for some of Chrysler to go. Sell the Rams to Nissan. Ford gets Jeep and the minivan. Perhaps Ford could also use the RWD 300 architecture.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Parting out is a long and honored tradition in the auto world.

    Not quite the same when you part out the whole company, but it does make some sense here.

    I don't know how you'd handle the dealers though.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    No matter who gets what of Chrysler the dealers are going to be gone. Question is who will be paying them off.
  • jchan2jchan2 Member Posts: 4,956
    I think Chrysler will be on the ropes long enough that most of the dealers will close up shop because there just won't be any business.

    Once enough dealers close up shop on their own accord, it should be relatively inexpensive to take Chrysler apart, sell the Ram to Nissan, minivans/Jeep/300 to Ford, and fold the rest.

    No automaker will be looking to expand right now given the tough market; it'll take a while for automakers to be in the game to purchase another one, and that'll give Chrysler enough time to get dealers to fold.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    And that was there plan 1 year ago. They told everyone they were not going to give each division enough product to survive on its own. You got a Chrysler dealership? No trucks/CUV's/SUV's. They told them to combine or go out of business.
  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    That explains some things........

    I'm not sure how much longer Chrysler will be in business anyway. The reports are if they do not get major concessions from the UAW as far as wages and from their creditors, they will not be able to repay the "loan". I guess Cerebus is willing to give up its equity stake in Chrysler to the unions and creditors.

    of course it doesn't solve their major problem which is no one is buying new cars right now so making a profit in this market will be difficult. And Chrysler has nothing in the pipeline past 2010 so their long term viability is in question.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    I would say Chrysler's viability beyond 90 days is seriously in question. I wonder if GM isn't being urged behind the scenes to take over Chrysler by the government that just gave it $13 billion in seemingly unrepayable loans....

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    I think it is too late for any merger. Not unless the government fronts a lot more money, neither company can afford to take on the task of merging these two behemoth companies. GM needs to focus on their own survival which is not looking good. Both companies are looking at certain bankruptcy. It's a matter of whether they do it themselves or is it forced on them?
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Well, I was thinking that GM could possibly take over the potentially profitable portions of Chrysler, like the Jeeps according to lots of folks, and use the $4 billion Chrysler is getting to do an orderly liquidation of the rest. Of course, the structure of such a deal would have to be in place by March 31, so they are going to have to burn some of that midnight oil in Detroit....

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    I think Chrysler will not be owned by Cerberus by March. Hopefully the government will watch the $4 billion a little closer than they did the financial $330 billion and it just does not go into their pockets.

    Talking to a friend at Chrysler. He is ahead of a financial group. Everyone in the group was bought out. Price Waterhouse people brought in. Some of them the same ex Chrysler employees. These are not contract positions but it takes employees off the books.

    No doubt Cerberus is preparing to get rid of it. We may see more buyouts of hourly and salaried with the $4 billion and then a sale of the assets to the highest bidder. They have a huge brand new headquarters building but I doubt anyone would buy it at anywhere what it would normally go for. Just too big for any company around here. Also a proving grounds which Toyota may pick up.

    That leaves the minivan plant, some plants that build Jeeps and the Ram truck plants. Ford takes the Jeep plants and the minivan plant. Nissan takes the Ram truck plants. Only issue for Nissan is the UAW workers so they all get fired before they take it over from Chrysler.
    The rest of the plants get parted out and the property sold.
  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    You obviously have been thinking about this.....
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,386
    Of course, the structure of such a deal would have to be in place by March 31, so they are going to have to burn some of that midnight oil in Detroit....

    That's OK. Detroit is good at burning oil...
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • faroutfarout Member Posts: 1,609
    Cerberus sais today December 23, 2008 it is giving all it's 80% of Chrysler LLC to the UAW! This is according to Automotive News today. www.allpar.com has the full story.

    I talked to someone who is in Chrysler and they felt this would be a good thing, like Fedx that is owned bt the employees.

    There is never a dull moment as our country seems to be facing the most challenging financial times in our history.

    farout
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Wow, someone there must read these boards...I actually suggested that, sorta.

    If the UAW ends up with a majority stake, this is their chance to prove that they actually know what they're doing. And if they can't do it....let's face it, no big loss. :shades: it's just Chrysler.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    My snowboarding buddy works for a large employee owned company as does one of my nephews. You still have much the same management and personnel issues as with a profit or non-profit outfit. Sounds good in theory but I don't think it's going to be a quick panacea. Still, you'd have car people running the show, even if indirectly, instead of a bunch of hedge funders.
  • faroutfarout Member Posts: 1,609
    Steve: I actually called the Editor of Auto News and got the better full story.

    Cerberus has made to offer to give the UAW the complete Chrysler LLC. Along with this gift comes the full responsiblity that Chrysler LLC has debt and all. The UAW has not said yes or no, and all the creditors and suppliers must agree to it.

    The Auto News Editor told me Cerberus wants to rid it's self of Chrysler LLC. Cerberus has tried to sell Chrysler LLC> but no one has the money or cantake on more than they already have. The editor said this is real bad news for all the auto industry.

    Ford seems to want to avoid the intangelments that has been required for the bail out money. Personally I doubt any huge company could draw up a plan that is required for the bail out money in 90 days.

    My personal opinion is as a country we are headed for a major down tern in our economy and employment that may be a depression, this present administration waited to long to see the hand writting on the wall. I can't see how we can stop not only the USA from sinking into a depression say nothing about the rest of the world. I hope I am wrong.

    farout
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    Is this a joke? There is nothing at autonews.com and this would be headlines there. And the link to the actual story at autonews is bogus or broken.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    AutoObserver reported a similar story a few days ago.

    I think Bloomberg originally reported it.

    Oh, here's the Allpar link. I don't know if the Automotive News link there works or not since I'm not registered there.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    It works now!!

    Craig Fitzgerald, analyst for Plante & Moran, in Southfield, said Chrysler's best hope for the future lies with finding a partner or partners "that will cause some of their brands and products to be moved over to competitors."

    Cerberus's move to give up its equity stake could help the restructuring, said Kimberly Rodriguez, also with Grant Thornton.

    "It's really a pre-packaged bankruptcy without the pre-pack where equity is no longer in control," she said. "It's a cooperative way of handing over your position in a company to help it see another day. It's an industry-supportive move by Cerberus, which is more beneficial to the other OEMs."


    Will the UAW bite? So will Ford then bite?
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Chrysler has nothing Ford wants, and Ford needs their current liquidity to get them through without needing bailout money. Ford's F-series is brand new and at least comparable to Ram, they have zero interest in minivans (and already have crossovers that fill that niche anyway) and I don't see them needing Jeep that badly unless they want to base the next Ranger and Sport Trac off of the Wrangler.

    GM might bite if it could...Jeep could be a good Hummer replacement, and the Ram is a step up from Silverado. But they'd also have no interest in the minivan platform, since they have the Acadia/Traverse, which fills the same niche. So unless Nissan buys Ram and VW buys the minivans (both possible, they're each selling them now), the UAW is probably going to end up with the whole package.
  • jchan2jchan2 Member Posts: 4,956
    GM and Ford won't want any of Chrysler- both have their own issues, and even though Ford is safer than GM right now, I think one needs to remember that Ford only has that cash because they leveraged EVERYTHING they own- literally, everything, so eventually that massive debt load could hurt.

    Nissan could go for the Rams- the Titan isn't the hottest of sellers and being able to buy something like the '09 Ram that could be an off-the-shelf replacement for the Titan would be nice.
    I could even see Nissan picking up the minivan franchise with the Quest essentially worthess; they could take the bones of the 'vans and improve on them.
    Only problem for Nissan is the UAW- maybe they would just buy the designs and build them in Canton, MS.

    I have yet to figure out where Jeep could go... A foreign automaker (Renault, Alfa, Fiat) could buy Saab or Volvo and get the US dealer network they want without the pesky UAW... Plus Jeep's exponentially larger dealer network compared with Volvo/Saab makes it less attractive as any foreign automaker would have to have enough product to sustain all those dealers...
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    I think that the minivan is making money for Chrysler. There are only 2 other competitors in this segment and while the segment is getting smaller there is room for 3 players. All Ford has to do is slap a Ford badge on it and sell it thru the Ford dealerships. I think at least 3 of the Jeep vehicles are in the same boat and Ford could again just sell them in their dealerships.

    Nissan already has a truck design completed that Chrysler was going to build for them. Just change over the line and go. Issue is that I doubt that Nissan could sell an entire plant capacity (240, 000 units) of Nissan trucks even with the Ram trucks gone.
  • jchan2jchan2 Member Posts: 4,956
    But would Ford have the funds necessary to take on so much of Chrysler? And while those Jeeps would make a nice fit in the Ford lineup, that would just take Ford back to its initial problem of having a lineup too heavily skewed towards SUVs and trucks.
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    But I believe one of the reasons some would prefer bankrupcy for any of the big three is the idea that the UAW contracts would be void. We hear things everyday about congress wanting concessions from the UAW so the domestics can have wages more in line with the Imports in the south. Good or bad agree or disagree that is a consideration.

    It is hard to drum up sympathy for a group of people that have a paid work pool that will pay laid off workers for up to four years. Or so I have heard. The average tax payer has got to be wondering what hit them when Banks have been using the bailout money to buy other failing banks and now GM and Chrysler get billions from the same tax payers. If indeed we the tax payer ends up buying into another bailout and the auto manufacturers end up receiving that money it will be hard to justify paying a laid off worker for that many years.

    If the two companies merge and they receive tax payer money the UAW will have to bargain with the tax payers representative, the government. Not that I have any faith that the government can do a better job of running a company I think they can bargain a better deal against the UAW. A strike against the government isn't as effective.

    I don't know the answer but if the Imports can make quality cars in the south with what they pay their employees you have to wonder why the domestics can't? Just day dreaming here.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    Cerberus just offered Chrysler to the UAW for nothing. Only make concessions so Chrysler can survive and Cerberus can make money off their financial lending side.

    http://blogs.thecarconnection.com/blogs/marty_blog/chrysler/cerberus-to-uaw-take- -our-company-please/

    If they can give it away they can sell it away for some minimal amount. Cerberus wants to dump Chrysler anyway they can. There sure is nothing left to it. Talked to an ex employee there and hardly anyone she knew is there any longer. They have cut all kinds of models and are only building some vehicles now. Basically a manufacturing company ready to pass on the plants and minimal staffing to supply parts and keep them running.
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    I also would wonder if GM could simply wait till Chrysler went Bankrupt and see if the BK administrater wouldn't give them the plants for a song without the emoloyees?
  • faroutfarout Member Posts: 1,609
    62vetteefp; The best news about Chrysler LLC is at www.allpar.com there is a better discription of what Chrysler still has going. You can also go to www.airfleet.com/production.html there the actual production schedule it there for the big three, there is also dropped vehicles, build dates and what is on hold.

    I talked with the Web Editir of Automotive News and he emailed me a copy of the
    article about Cerberus and the giving away of Chrysler LLC. There is more to it than you think.

    "Cerberus also announced that it's Chrysler Finincial unit would offer $ 2 billion to backstop the federal loan, which Chrysler must repay at the end of the first quarter. Cerberus acquired 80.1 percent of Chrysler from Daimler AG for $ 7.4 billion in 2007."

    Please note that the $ 2 billion is due before the federal money has to be paid back should Chrysler fail to make the required changes. The loan of $ 2. billion is a protection that Cerberus wont lose it's inital investament, and it stops the federal givernmenr from forcing Chrysler into bankrupcy if Chrysler faild, then Cerberus gets a chance in fixing or selling Chrysler. Cerberus is "allocates capital on behalf of it's investors" so Cerberus does not want to run a vehicle company.

    I think you Chrysler is in transition and had dropped some vehicles that were not profitable for Chrysler. I own a Chrysler Pacifica Touring AWD which was dropped. Our PAC is a 2007 and we are very pleased and the quality od materials is excellent as well the fit and finish. The 4. L engine and the 6 speed automatic was the first for Chrysler and the engine and trans. are a great combination.

    What other vehicles come with a lifetime warranty on the powertrain? Even the extenede warranties are lifetime as well. Ther just is no other warranty that even come close to that. I think you are making judgements that are lacking facts to back your statements up. If you don't like Chrysler products than don't buy them. I personally don't like GM and Ford. But I am not going to bad mouth them, especially when I don't own either. farout
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    So in other words Cerberus figured out how to get debt senior to the federal government out of the Chrysler unit...which means if Chrysler DOES go BK, Cerberus gets its money before the taxpayers do. Lovely.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    Where did I say I did not like Chrysler? I have many friends and relatives that used to work there. They no longer do. I do not think I have ever even bad mouthed them. Please correct me if I have. I do have the facts, or at least 2nd hand info since I never worked there, that the people I know who worked there no longer do. I do know one person who decided to stay. He is the one that told me that all 12 of his employees are gone and replaced by Price Waterhouse contractors (some of who used to be in the same positions as Chrysler employees:financial positions).

    Here are two guys.
    http://www.linkedin.com/in/garettpatria
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/8/804/790

    notice they have recently left Chrysler with excellent credentials.

    GM has 10 year warranty on powertrains and is transferable.

    My sister in law also worked there and no one is left that she used to work with. Yes there are enough people there to keep the plants operating but it sure seems like not much else is going on. heck they even got rid of their PR head and stuck PR under HR!!
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    Not to worry, Chrysler would be responsible to repay the loan before they filed BK. But if they were going to file BK they might not have the money to pay back any loan and that would make Cerberus a creditor, or they might not last the first quarter. The government through their administrator would decide who gets paid and at what percent after BK has been applied for. We can see how this works today by watching the huge Ponzi scheme charity rip off that is in the courts as we type. The government will decide who get what and how much they get based on the value of the assets recovered. And it is possible that if Cerberus has more than 50 percent stake in Chrysler they can be held partially liable for any loans made by the government to Chrysler. This should be a legal gunfight at the OK coral.
  • magnettemagnette Member Posts: 4,229
    One observation on Saturn - you might as well keep the Astra, even if another division in US GM sells it - it's one of the best selling cars in Europe, and until the world economy fell off a cliff it was probably very profitable, so GM can't drop the model over this side of the pond (only Corsa sells better). If they are making it here, in LHD, then you might as well keep shipping it to your shores - some sales are better than none, and although oil prices are dropping, your market will eventually have to accept the days of gas-guzzling sub 30 mpg cars are over.
  • TIMGT5TIMGT5 Member Posts: 50
    While the Astra may sell well over there, it is not doing well over here in NA. In fact the Astra is largely invisible. I live in a very large metropolitan area which has a large Saturn dealer close buy and commute on a heavily traveled stretch of highway everyday and have yet to see even one. There are a number of compacts which offer more standard features for the money and score better on magazine reviews. Sorry but over here the Astra is just not a game-changer.

    Keep in mind that 30mpg is not that big of a deal anymore. The base model of every mid size (read full size in Europe) car sold here gets that much or better. I agree that the demand for gas guzzlers has dropped significantly and that is a good thing, At the same time to say that every sub 30mpg vehicle will vanish is a sweeping generalization that is inaccurate.

    Name one 30mpg plus car that can seat 7 and tow 8000 lbs? Didn't think so. A car company that is as large as GM needs vehicles that address every need. Besides if you had read my post carefully you would notice that my line-up overall is more fuel efficeint than the one they currently have.

    I am convinced that we have reached the point of maxium efficiency with the ICE. That even the best scenario-a common rail DI diesel backed with an electric motor might be able to achieve 65-75mpg in a compact car (I am not counting the Chevy Volt, because in reality the Volt is basically an electric car). The problem is one of weight and cost. You can in theory make full size vehicles a lot lighter while still maintaining safety, but the costs of replacing standard steel and aluminum body work with F1 type carbon fiber construction would be enormous and would make such vehicles well beyond the reach of an average person.
  • magnettemagnette Member Posts: 4,229
    I wasn't suggesting that for people who need to cart seven around, or tow 8000 lbs, a small Euro hatch would do - although I question why so many people here need a large 4x4 to take one child to school and to go to the local supermarket, and I really don't understand why - for the majority of town dwellers who must sit in the same traffic jams we do - the average car size in your market is so much larger than here. Obviously if you are driving 200 miles each day in Montana then that needs a different car than someone going twenty miles in suburban New Jersey.
    What I meant by my comment was that the Astra is already developed, already paid for and it isn't likely to be dropped over here if GM survives, so it is effectively a free model over there - all they have to do is stick it on a boat. I thought it was actually selling better there than some of it's competitors - given GM doesn't have much else in that segment. And it isn't sub 30 mpg here - the claimed combined (urban/extra-urban) figures for the Astra here are 42.8 (1.6 petrol);36.7 (1.8); 56.5 (1.7CDTi). (that's UK gallons)
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    I think that the biggest problem with the Astra is the price. Most of what I saw on the lot were between $17-21K. THAT turned my attention to the Aura quicker than it's 3% domestic content. WIth the general public, I think the car would be a bigger hit if it was between $11-15K.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    I've seen only one Astra on the street since its introduction.
  • TIMGT5TIMGT5 Member Posts: 50
    I agree with you that too many of Americans are driving truck based SUVs. More people should look at compact cars. My point is that GM already has the upcoming cruze and under my plan a rear wheel drive 4 cyl compact for Pontiac would cover the "driver's" niche car angle, another small car would just muddy the mix. One of my problems with GM has always been too many cars going after the same market.

    As for why Americans prefer bigger cars, well there is some pyschology you have have to understand. Conduct the following experiment. Walk up someone you do not know from your side of the pond and observe how close he or she lets you come before moving away from you. Then do the same to an American stranger. You find on average the American will more likely move away from you sooner. The reason for this is that Americans have a very strong sense of personal space and space ownership. This is why a higher percentage of Americans live in detached houses, own their own cars and have more suburban development.

    There will always be a number of Americans who will not be comfortable in a car that forces you into close proximity with the other occupants. The trick is going to be to make bigger cars more fuel efficient. The forth coming Ford Fusion hybrid, again a "large" car by your standards is supposed to get 40mpg.

    I understand where you are coming from, but I am not sure the Astra is GM's miracle compact. The Honda Civic gets better MPG and has more power and a bigger interior. If GM fields a car it must be the undisputed winner in almost every comparisson test, R&T, CR, Car and Driver etc. to win buyers back.
  • magnettemagnette Member Posts: 4,229
    Well, that's not good for Astra - but you would have to ask why GM can't sell the thing over there, when here it's the standard patrol car for the Metropolitan Police in London, for a start (badged as a Vauxhall, rather than an Opel, but it's all from the same production line... It's the second best selling GM product in Europe, after only the COrsa - which I would imagine is too small for your market...
    If they can't sell the Astra competitively in the US against VW's Golf, with your huge network of dealers, but they can in Europe, maybe the question is whether GM's management could find its a** with a map - or perhaps they were too busy polishing the corporate jet...
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    "...Astra - but you would have to ask why GM can't sell the thing over there..."

    In a word, it's price. It's too expensive compared with the competition. The pricing suggests that GM is more concerned with margins than volume with the Astra, in large part because the value of the euro vs. the dollar doesn't permit GM to make a profit on this car at lower prices.

    Price isn't the only reason the Astra isn't selling well in the U.S., but I believe it's the primary reason. Another important reason is a very small marketing budget.

    Reason #3 may be that the future of the Saturn Division is up in the air.

    I don't doubt that the Astra is a good car, but is it better than, say, a VW Golf/Rabbit or Honda Civic, just to mention two competing models?
  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    You hit the major reasons for the Astra slow sales. There are probably 6 or 7 cars in this segment that beat the Astra on price, performance, and/or fuel mileage. Quite honestly after GM offered the Ion, no one is rushing to Saturn to buy small cars. I think Ion was declared the worst car in America by one car magazine. The second car introduced under the Saturn name was the L-series which was a re-badged Malibu, complete with all the problems that plagued that generation Malibu. Then you had the Vue which had to borrow a V6 from Honda. Not exactly the way you want a new product line to roll out.

    I like what GM planned to do with Saturn (Opel designs) but GM starved Saturn for so long that they destroyed the brand. To save all the research dollars, GM should move the products scheduled for Saturn to Pontiac. But I just read the current Motor Trend and it appears that Buick may be the recipient of the Opel 's designs which leaves Saturns future in question. Well, not really. I think we all know how this story ends, it's a matter of when and how.

    I have a feeling that by the end of this month, we should know more about GM's fate. The fat lady is already warming up on Chrysler.
  • TIMGT5TIMGT5 Member Posts: 50
    It seems GM kept using Saturn as the "Beta" models to work out the flaws and kinks in the platform before putting them up for sale as Chevys. The Aura is the Beta for the current Malibu and the Ion was the Beta for the Colbalt. In each case the Chevy product comes out better in reviews.

    I still think that if GM wants Pontiac to survive and improve it is going to have to go its own way in design and engineering. In the plan I laid out in an ealier post, Pontiac would be an all rear wheel drive, performance oriented niche seller much like Toyota's Scion.

    Again Saturn no longer has a clear mission and is now a waste of research and marketing dollars.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,674
    >The second car introduced under the Saturn name was the L-series which was a re-badged Malibu, complete with all the problems that plagued that generation Malibu

    Which car is that? I'm confused on Saturn's offerings. The L-series cars weren't based on the Malibu. They were based on the Opel Vectra B and manufactured at a GM plant in Wilmington, Delaware.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    You could be right, it was 9-10 years ago and my memory is foggy because I owned a 2001 malibu and tryin to forget that experience (the most disappointing car I have ever bought). I know it shared many components with the Malibu since many of the problems that plagued that version of the Malibu was repeated in the L-series.
  • anythngbutgmanythngbutgm Member Posts: 4,277
    The L-series was heavily based on the Opel Vectra. SO in some ways, the Malibu connection is legit as it is now based on the Saturn Aura which in of itself is also a Vectra.

    Good thing about the Saturn is that while the Malibu makes its living off supprting the rental market, the midsize Saturns do relatively little fleet sales.
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,386
    My sympathies. I remember one of those as a rental. Underwhelming to say the least.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    Thank you. It was the only car I have ever traded in while still paying the loan. I would have took a bath on the trade but I purchased my minivan on the last business day of the year. The dealer really wanted to sell me a van that day.
  • michaellnomichaellno Member Posts: 4,120
    As the owner of 3 Saturns, the past 10-12 comments on this thread strike a nerve with me.

    Currently, the Saturn product portfolio is as strong as it's ever been. I will admit, however, that there have been some missed opportunities in the past 5-10 years.

    1) L-series. I own a 2003 L300 (with the V6) and chose it over an Accord or Camry because of the value it represented to me. Yes, it is quasi-European (which I'm reminded of every time I spend $400 to have the brake rotors replaced), but, with the 16" wheels and tires, it handles quite nicely. I've got 77K on mine at the moment and while it's had its fair share of issues (aforementioned brakes, plus two replaced BCM's) it's never left me stranded.

    2) VUE. I've had two - an '05 and an '08. The '05 was the first year that GM offered the Honda sourced 3.5L V6 and the 5-speed automatic. My wife loved that car - up until the day it simply stopped running. Towed to the dealer, who couldn't find anything wrong. Picked it up from the service side of the dealership and immediately traded it in on a redesigned '08 - which is orders of magnitude better in every respect.

    3) ION. My step-daughter drives an '06, and while it's no head turner in terms of looks, it is a competent little car that does what we ask of it. We took it from Denver to St. George, UT last Memorial Day weekend and loaded up with 3 teenaged girls and all their stuff, it averaged over 30MPG through the Rockies.

    One thing that used to make Saturn different was the use of the polymer panels. Both the ION and L-series have them, and it cannot be underestimated how good they look when clean. I used to drive to downtown Denver and park in public parking, so I don't know how many door dings I've avoided. Same with the ION at the college campus my daughter lives on.

    The other aspect of owning Saturn is the service experience, both before and after the sale. When we bought my L-series in November 2002, my wife was absolutely blown away by how easy it was (before that, we drove Fords almost exclusively). In the 6 years that I've owned Saturns, I cannot remember one bad service experience - the dealers that I've worked with have gone above and beyond the call of duty on more than one occasion to accommodate us.

    The Astra, while a fine little car, suffers from a couple of issues that have doomed it here in the states. The first, already noted above, is that the exchange rate has made it quite pricey compared to the competition. Hard to justify $20K for a compact that really has no pedigree here in the US. The second is that it was hastily converted to the US market and doesn't come equipped with an AUX jack or XM radio (as almost every other GM car, truck and SUV has). Little things, to be sure, but the little things often push a consumer to a different brand.

    I'm hoping (for obvious reasons) that GM keeps the Saturn brand alive, but I will admit that I'm not too optimistic about it. I've heard that the franchise agreements GM wrote with the dealers are different and give GM more control, allowing GM to close the brand without the same amount of overhead that plagued GM when they discontinued Oldsmobile.

    Time will tell.
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,386
    It was the only car I have ever traded in while still paying the loan.

    My one car that got dumped while the loan was still going was an 80 VW Rabbit.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • TIMGT5TIMGT5 Member Posts: 50
    A few things that illustrate the problems I have with the Saturn brand.

    Your L300 only managed to produce 180Hp from 3.0 Litres. The same model year Accord had a 3.0 Litre that put out another 60hp (240) and thanks to its 5 speed autobox compared to the L300's 4 speed probably got better gas mileage to boot. The L300 was too narrow for the American market and its shape was about as anoynomous is it gets. The L300 was an "ok" car but not a class leader. Truth is if you looked at all the expenses involved, repairs, gas and resale value, you would have saved money on the Accord in the long run.

    The Aura is much better than the L300 but still misses the mark. It has yet to win a comparison test. The Chevy Malibu which better utlizes the same platform set has had much better reviews.

    The Ion consistantly rated at the bottom of the class. It does not come close to the Civic or Mazda 3 in terms of refinement, standard features, drivability or gas mileage. The Colbalt sold at the Chevy store is again based on the same platform and is a much better car. Read some reviews of both.

    The Vue and the Astra is the only unique products Saturn offers, as crossovers go the Vue is not bad but "not bad" does not cut it anymore. There is no breakthrough here. Nothing that wows the buyer looking for a crossover. For about the same money you can get an Equinox which seats 6.

    The fact is that Saturn has never turned a profit and has failed in its misson to be an affective "import" fighter. It was one of Roger Smith's really bad business decisions to spend money on creating a new import fighting brand when he could have just had the funds spent to improve the exisiting ones.

    As for the pricing stategy, that too is a double-edged sword. I had a friend who was interested in one of the Lambda crossovers. He checked out the Outlook and then looked at the identical GMC Arcadia down the road. The Arcadia stickered higher, but because the GMC dealer was willing to negotiate he managed to get it for a lower price.

    I have never really understood brand loyalty in cars, each and everytime I buy a car, I do extensive reading and research, then thoroughly test drive the top five vehicles in the class I am looking at and pick a winner based on the car's performance, features and comfort . If all Americans bought cars this way every weak brand would be gone and we would always have top notch cars to choose from and frankly the big three would not have had the problems they are having now.
This discussion has been closed.