Saturn VUE

gweilo · July 2003

I have noticed a lot of complaints about GM paint not being durable(see Impala, Vibe forum and genvibe.com) Does the Ion or other Saturns suffer from this?
Is the variable transmission(Vti) on the various Saturns holding up?

saskheat · July 2003

Saturn uses a different painting process vs GM's regular one. This is due to a water bourne process. I think its because of the plastic panels on the side body. As for durability...judge for yourself. I have never seen on old saturn with large peeled sections of paint missing like the rest of the big Four. Come to think of it I have never seen an older saturn look really crappy in the paint department ever.
As for the Vti. They are doing miserably. Read some of the other postings in this forum. I heard the ION was delayed in implementing it because of problems with the Vti in the vues. Save yourself the headache and go for the v-6 with the traditional hydraulic tranny. Saturn Dealers are very slow to admit the Vti has problems, but if you call them on it enough they'll usually confirm "Other dealers" have had some problems.

carguy1234 · July 2003

My wife was just in an accident with her VUE where an RV made a lane change right into her (it was in a construction zone, and the RV driver did not follow the correct path and came across the lane. All invlolved are fine).

The impact was a side-swipe, but was enough to shatter the rear window. The amazing thing is that the paint and the Saturn side panels took it and still look like new! When I first saw it, I thought "Oh noooo", but it turns out that the paint from the RV came off and our VUE held up perfectly. So we just buffed out all the marks ourselves, and the only thing we need to do is take it in to get a new window.

Had it been my Toyota Sienna, I'm sure the metal would have caved in. That thing gets door dings if you just look at it funny.

dindak · July 2003

carguy : Sorry to hear about the accident. Glad your wife is ok. Can it be fixed or is it a w/o?

ketch : Glad you are enjoying the VUE. Saw quite a few of them up north in cottage country this past week. I think it may come down to a VUE, Maxx or Equinox for our next vehicle.

saskheat : Congrats on the new VUE. I read a review of the CVT / VTi in CarGuide last month and they were very complimentary in the article. Have heard of a few issues for some early ones, but I think they are generally ok.

ems1 · July 2003

Got deal I could not pass up on a '03 AWD Ecotec CVT trans. Vue. 0% interest + $1000 end of year discount + $1000 Saturn loyalty discount + $1000 GM card discount + $500 conquest discount. Total $3500 plus the 0% worth about $2400. Also, they gave me $1300 more for my 98 Venture trade-in than other dealer offers. I've been driving it for a week now and I'm really surprised by how well it performs for a small engine in a heavy vehicle. I was also shopping the 4 cyl. Highlander but the numbers worked out to about $9000 more. I can do with a bit less refinement and a inch or two here and there in the interior for $9000. I just hope Saturn has the transmission bugs worked out. I talked to the service mgr. and he claims they have never had "significant problems, a few isolated cases" with the early CVT trans. and that there are no issues now.

vuefor2 · July 2003

I think the CVT Vues are fine. I was talking to my sales rep about them the other day and he said they have had a few small issues initially but nothing major. Typically just some "minor adjustments" he said.

I prefer the V6 regardless though, more power is nice to have.

ems1 · July 2003

Glad to hear you heard basicly the same thing about the CVT.
Can't disagree that more power is nicer but we do 95% of our mileage in the city, rarely getting over 50 mph. So the 4 will be adequate.
I almost bought the v6 anyway but decided on the 4 because of the good reputation that engine has and the fact that the current v6 was going to be discontinued. Also, I like to do most of maintenance on the vehicle and the 4 is just sooo much easier to work on.

littlove · July 2003

Tomorrow morning I must decide to buy either a 2003 Saturn Vue AVD 4dr w/ power package, on star communications system, ABS for $22610 w/$2250 cash back (dealer plus graduate program)

or

2003 Kia Sedona LX w/ABS, roof rack, and rear spoiler for $20,700.

Both finance at 0 percent.

Any suggestions as to what you think is better. I can't explain simply why these two vehicles....I guess mostly because the price is in my range....and I need some room to move about but do not necessarily need a van yet (only one baby at this time)...

Any suggestions would be very helpful. Thanks.

uga91 · July 2003

What a decision! I was expecting you to say that it was between the VUE and a CR-V or something. Is that VUE for $22,600 after the cash back, or will your price be $20,360? Is the VUE a 4 or 6 cyl? I assume it has the 4 cyl since you are buying the power package--isn't that standard on 6 cyl models? That is tough. How long do you keep your vehicles? If this is a short term thing, get the VUE as its resale should be higher than the Sedona. If you plan on keeping it (and a 100k mi warranty helps with that) then the Sedona may be the way to go. The space will be needed when child number 2 comes along. Either will have positives, and they both have negatives. Drive them both and get the one you are most comfortable driving. Buy the one you see as a better fit for your family down the road and you should do just fine. Good luck to you!

dindak · July 2003

Don't like the Sedona because of the horrendous gas mileage and I still don't trust Kia after driving in a Sportage only 2-3 years ago. What a crap box that was. Saturn service will definitely not get matched at Kia and if you hate the VUE, you can always return it in 30 days.

uga91 · July 2003

Agree the service will be better for Saturn. The Sedona, though, has held up pretty well, has it not? As the owner of a new Ion, I would love to hear this guy choose the VUE; but, he must get the vehicle that will best suit his needs--not only today but in the future as well. Of course, that's my opinion, I could be wrong.

jamesle1 · July 2003

Has anyone heard of any problems with the V-6
to cause it to be discountinued. I know about the
Honda 3.5 coming

ems1 · July 2003

I just bought the Vue last week. I was considering the Sorento, CRV, Rav4 and Highlander.
The Vue was the best deal for me. Unless you are going to do a lot of towing or off roading, the horrible gas mileage of the Sorento does not make any sense. The Sorento weighs nearly 1000 lbs more than the Vue and has about the same interior space. I did like the Sorento interior better though. Agreeing with Dindak, Saturn has the best the best service.

saskheat · July 2003

Littlove: It shouldn't be much of a choice between the Saturn or Kia. Just look around at Korean quality in cars. I've seen more late model Hyundais with big blue clouds behind them then seems acceptable. The Koreans can't make a vehicle within 1/10 of the quality that the Japanese can, so don't expect it to be a Budget Honda. I'd run not walk from a Korean made vehicle dealer. Especially if you are planning to keep it past warranty.

EMS1: WOW did you ever get a smoking deal. I wish we had the 0% financing here in Canada. I was watching the news early in the week and GM with all of its subdivisions were reporting a surplus of 300,000 new vehicles in stock over what is normal. I bet the firesale will continue when other manufacturers jump into the mele'.

Dindak: When I was in the dealership just before committing to a Vue, the salesman was telling me that Saturn was pulling the 30-Day no hassle return policy soon. He was expecting it without notice any time. I got a 30 Day-Return policy on mine and it was in writing, but others considering a new Saturn make sure you ask for it and get it in writing. I'm positive he wasn't just trying to pressure me as the return policy wasn't an issue for me in buying the vehicle and he knew it. I researched vehicles for over 6 months (driving everything) and he knew I was willing to buy a Tribute/Escape even without a return policy. His return plan was just extra Lemon insurance for me.

uga91 · July 2003

Isn't Saturn using the Honda V6 for better mpg? It's kind of funny, IMO, that Honda would sell this engine to Saturn since the VUE and CR-V compete head to head.

uga91 · July 2003

I'm not arguing your post at all regarding Saturn vs Kia. I'm a 3 time Saturn owner myself. My whole point, though, was that this guy needs to drive and buy what he likes the most and what will best suit his family's needs--whether we would buy the same thing or not is irrelevant.

dindak · July 2003

uga91 : Honda and GM did a deal a couple of yeas ago to swap engines for transmissions. The 3.5L was suppose to go into a new Saturn vehicle which got shelved so Saturn put it into the VUE. Nothing wrong with the 3.0L at all.

sask : I agree, Korean cars generally finish near the bottom of reliability surveys. Kia is worse that Hyundia. Odd they would pull the 30 day money back guaranty.

uga91 · July 2003

Which did he choose?

saskheat · August 2003

uga91: My point is very simple. You get what you pay for. If litlove is expecting a KIA to be a Honda at a bargain price, he's going to be sadly disappointed....especially if he keeps it past warranty. I agree with Dindak Korean cars are the least reliable things on four wheels next to Ex- Soviet Block automakers...which brings me to another point. Isn't the Saturn CVT Tranny made in Hungary???

mmspeal · August 2003

Well, trip to the dealership #6 was about a month ago to have the deflector re-attached. They've completely replaced it twice - thankfully I had it installed before I took delivery so it falls under the new vehicle warranty! Don't have to worry about it coming loose anymore though - I was cruising along the QEW just outside Toronto on the weekend and it took flight - right up over my VUE and smashed all over the highway a few lanes over and behind me. Thankfully it didn't hit another car (if you've ever driven the QEW you will understand how amazing that is). The dealership still tells me I am the only one they've had problems with ... come on ... someone else out there please tell me you've had problems keeping the Saturn hood deflector on the vehicle !!!

Anyway ... other than that, I'm at 31 000 clicks and still not an issue to speak of on the 4 cyl. 5 speed.

vuefor2 · August 2003

Littlove ::: Stay away from Kias. From what I have seen, people get sucked in by low prices and then they pay later with replacement parts as everything is low end under the hood. As was mentioned the motor in the Sedona is very inefficient also.

EMS1 ::: Ya, I like V6 power in an SUV. One of the reasons we went with a Vue instead of a CR-V. We bought before they had 0% so incentives were not part of our buying decision. No regrets, we love our Vue!!!!!

dindak · August 2003

Anyone know if the 04's are available yet?

markopolo · August 2003

Just an update. Saturn put a motor mount in my Vue to solve the rumbling in reverse. I have not noticed it since it was put in. The motor mount is their way of solving the problem and so far so good. My hood deflector blew off a few weeks ago. The dealer told me the new style replacement will be in by the end of October. That is all for now and I can now see why Saturn service beat out every other car manufacturer.

dindak · August 2003

I found the base V6 pricing in Canada will be C$28800, up C$895 (about U$640) from 2003. Looks like the 3.5L will indeed be boosting prices.

carguy1234 · August 2003

Remember that the 3.5 is just one of a laundry list of updates for the '04, including better interior noise suppression, upgraded safety features, auto-headlamps, etc, etc.

dindak · August 2003

That's true. I wish they would make ABS standard on the V6 models though.

If the 3.5L FWD really can do about 20/28 mileage wise, it will still be a contender for our next vehicle. Another C$900 isn't going to kill me.

saskheat · August 2003

I heard that the Honda Power Plant was going to increase the price by a couple of thousand not a few hundred. I'd be surprised if Honda is going to make a motor for a competitor that will out power and undercut its own SUV the CRV.

Dindak: Why would you want to see ABS standard on all v-6's. All it would mean is a base price increase for everyone. They're not going to throw it in for free. The bloated starting price of Small SUV's is attributed to the auto makers stuffing them full of expensive options as standard equipment, forcing the customer to take (And pay for) stuff they dont nessicarily want or need. Smart marketing from the automakers...selling everything and maximizing profits on every sale. I'd probabally fall over dead if I actually knew how much Saturn marked up the Vue by putting in the compass in the rear view mirror.
I bought a Vue and it was a huge selling point that I could get it without ABS. Why would I want to get soaked $900 for something that decreases my stopping distance. The dealers argue it also comes with traction control, but this is also a useless feature, especially in an AWD or FWD vehicle for that matter. I had my dealer bring in one specifically without ABS since I don't need it. Saturn Keep doing it like you are and offer ABS as an option, actually offer more flexibility for customers to pick options. Vehicles should be a personal choice not a cookie cutter assembly.

dindak · August 2003

Don't know about you , but I like stopping in shorter distances. It's can save your butt, especially in the rain, snow and ice. Traction control is not useless as you claim either. Base models should keep it an option, but typically when ABS is standard the vehicle's price is not $900 more. Options always have a higher markup than the vehicle itself.

I would NEVER buy a vehicle with out ABS and since Saturn is a "safety conscious" company, I kind of wish they made some safety items standard on their more expensive models.

afk_x · August 2003

History of the 3.5 Honda engine going into the VUE. (As I understand it - then again I'm just a salesman for a dealership so I only know what I read on the net)

Honda wanted to get Izusu disel technology for Europe - and had extra capacity in Ohio for building the 3.5 liter engine - so Honda approached GM and a deal was struck.

The 3.5 was going to be used in a 7 passenger VUE built on a stretched version of the current VUE platform. I believe this was code name 318B. I know it was approved, till Lutz came in and canceled it. Seems the potential volume did not justify the cost.

Due to the contract already in place, Honda's 3.5 goes into the 04 VUE.

Honda has no say in what GM does with the engine as far as I know.
http://www.saturnfans.com/Cars/VUE/2004/04vueoverview.shtml

afk_x · August 2003

Honda Pilot - 4416 lbs
240 HP @ 5400 RPM
242 TQ @ 4500 RPM

0-60 8.5 seconds
1/4 miles - 16.5 seconds

Saturn VUE - 3478 lbs (AWD 3630)
250 HP @ 5800 RPM
242 TQ @ 4500 RPM

0-60 7 seconds (est)
1/4 mile 15.2 (est)

saskheat · August 2003

Dindak: I don't know what you do for a living or what your credentials are, but I would like to correct you about ABS brakes. THEY DO NOT SHORTEN STOPPING DISTANCE!! And I do like stopping in shorter distances, so that is why I demanded there be no ABS brakes on my vehicle.

I am a level 2 collision analyst and have been so for almost a decade. I have been to hundreds of collisions in the real world and can categorically deny based upon measurement and analysis, that ABS decreases stopping distances. This is a myth. Its usually increases stopping distances in the 5% range depending upon coefficient of friction and other variables of weather ect.

Threshold braking is the most efficient and fastest way of stopping a vehicle in average road conditions. The exception being full lock up on soft gravel. ABS Brakes PREVENT you from being able to reach the true threshold of braking and a significant amount of braking potential is lost. If you don't believe this I would like to extend an invitation for you to join me on the Skid pad and I'd be happy to demonstrate this.

ABS brakes were designed to provide one benefit and one benefit only! This benefit is the electronically controlled ability to regain control over steering effort when a person panics, slams on the brakes and they would have other wise locked the wheels up resulting in a skid. Do they give the opportunity to steer...yes. Do most people utilize it...NO! Emergency collision avoidance depends upon the ability to steer. From and analysts perspective (Without arguing the finer points) you cannot brake at MAXIMUM efficiency and steer at the same time. Laws of physics restrict this. People panicking is why ABS was invented. It gives the other half of the driving population control over steering again in a stress full situation and some braking effort. (A compromise)

Getting back to the 5% + greater stopping distance for ABS. What's 5% here or there so you might say? When you do the math, especially when elevated speed is involved, 5% in a 100ft stopping distance means the difference between accident and Headlines. Consider the 5 feet more intrusion into the rear passenger compartment of YOUR vehicle, where your kids are sitting, after a broadside right angle accident. I have seen death before me and more than one persons life changed forever over less than 5%. ABS is not the answer. Driver training is. Good Day.

tidester · August 2003

When you do the math...

More to the point, when you brake down to within 5% of your stopping distance you're still travelling at about one fifth (~20%) of your initial speed.

tidester, host

joey2brix · August 2003

Why all the talk of threshold braking when ABS kicks in when loss of traction has occurred? The extra 5% of braking power doesn't do squat when you're hyro-planing, or skidding across ice, the wheel spin is only agrevating the loss of control of the vehicle. In general, I feel the long option lists only cost the consumer more and he winds up not getting the option he wants from what's been ordered for the lot by the dealer.
All safety features should be standard to lower the cost of these devices by mass production numbers. Remember when air bags were first proposed and the auto makers said they would be thousand dollar options. Their requirements have probably added only a few hundred to the price of a vehicle. Long option lists only complicate final assembly causing defects and creating overstock of strip models that no one buys. Isn't it stupid when some car makers still don't install rear defogger and intermittent wipers on a car, probably saving $20 in parts.

saskheat · August 2003

Joey2Brix: You are right about the loss of traction when you are skidding on ice or hydro plaining and that wheel spin compounds this. If I follow what you are getting at, the sideways slippage as a result is called Yaw. This goes again to support my previous posting that you cannot brake and steer at the same time at extreme levels. Physics precludes this possibility. You must pick one or the other. ABS gives you a limited balance for a VERY brief moment, but if you find yourself loosing traction and spinning sideways, ABS isn't going to save you either.

Now you've got me started on Air Bags. They were designed to assist in decelleration of the driver to combat the lash effect of seat belts. A seat belt properly adjusted will have up to 10" of forward travel in a total frontal collision at speeds of around 50kph. The corresponding forward energy of the passenger is thousands of pounds. Air bags were said to aid seat belt restraint in frontal collisions at highway speeds.

At the beginning of my career I was involved in an ongoing joint Transport Canada study on air bag premature deployment. I was assisting a level 3 Collision Analyst at that time. I had cause to see numerous collisions of low speed in which air bags had deployed. The data revealed that air bags were deploying unnessicarily at speeds in which they were offering limited benefit or none at all. Air bags were suspected in causing at least 2 deaths in our jurisdiction and I personally witnessed several serious injuries that I attributed to unnessicary air bag deployment. An opinion held by many analysts I have spoken with is that air bags are only beneficial in Head On Collisions in speeds in excess of 70kph. Otherwise there tends to be a large amount of supporting data indicating they are responsible for unnessicary injuries. One case that came to mind was a bag that deployed in a right angle collision, on the car that was hit on the side. (No reason for the bag to deploy) The air bag snapped the ulna bone of the elderly female passenger, causing a compound fracture with the bone protruding out her arm for about 2". I saw another collision where the air bag deployed in a solid mass, striking the female driver in the chest, detaching an aorta in her heart. She bled to death in her chest in 15 seconds.

My point is that auto makers are installing expensive options, making a tidy sum as a result, under the auspices of "Safety". Things like air bags are deploying unnessicarily at an almost criminal rate, resulting in a lucrative parts demand. Its $1800 Canadian for an average air bag replacement, and an insurance company isn't going to question weather it needs to be replaced or not. (not to mention the windshield and dash being blown out). I'm sure I'll hear from someone from the "If it will only save one life" crowd, but I can back up what I say with data.

It wasn't some government safety council that came up with the idea that air bags were needed. It was the auto makers pushing it. They are bumping up their bottom line.

Joey2brix hit the nail right on the head about the rear defogger/intermittent wiper thing. It costs a marginal amount to add something as an option, but look what it adds to the MSRP. Same with Air bags and ABS. Thats why the base price on vehicles has crept up disproportion ally over the last decade.

I just hope I don't have to see the day when the entire vehicle is encapsulated in multidirectional air bags, top to bottom. Maybe I'll take the bus if it gets to that. If I had my way I wouldn't have air bags in my vehicle either, but Transport Canada says otherwise.

dindak · August 2003

saskheat : Everything I have read and experienced tells me that ABS shorten stopping distances on most surfaces and give the driver more control at the same time. To me that's worth every penny as I value my life and protecting my family from collision. I suspect ABS saved our lives and the people I hit when t-boned a red light runner a few years ago. Saving a few bucks isn't worth a life if an accident can be avoided or lessened in severity.

dindak · August 2003

Any numbers confirmed on the mileage of the 3.5L yet? That's my main concern with the motor at this point.

joey2brix · August 2003

I'm not saying ABS and air bags are a miracle cure. But in skid situations we are told to pump the brakes, ABS is an automated/faster/better way of doing this. I'd rather slam on the brakes and let the micro processors try to help me then going it alone. ABS is also the basis for more complex traction control and roll suppressing systems like the one Volvo has out.

On the air bag front, I too would rather have a full four point harness. We also have all heard about the infant car seat deaths and deaths of elder and short/small/light female drivers. But
those 100 deaths are out weighed by the thousands saved by air bags. Some were even dumb asses not wearing a seat belt. Intelligent, slower and less forceful deploying bags are being developed. Also the side air curtain seems to be one of the few safety items that's getting cars and SUV's better ratings in side impact tests.

I know you will come up with an example of a death from a side curtain roll-over, but we must look at the law of averages. These devices do work in 99% of the cases. (when used correctly with seat belts of course!)

BTW The $1800 air bag replacement cost probably 10 times the install cost to the car makers. Most replacement costs are labor and I feel that most manufacturers would want the car totaled and not repaired. Liability and profit concerns, so the replacement bag cost is set high. I'm old enough to remember how the car makers screamed and fought that air bag costs were going to kill sales in the 70's. Seat belts were not rushed into production because consumers did not care about safety in the 60's: sexy speedy cars were in, not safety. I don't think a web belt and a buckle were a big cost item even then.

Why don't you take a poll in the Volvo thread about giving up air bags and the costs. I'm sure that crowd would give anything for rear/ceiling and floor curtain bags if the option was available.

carguy1234 · August 2003

"Intelligent, slower and less forceful deploying bags are being developed." True, and will be available in the 2004 VUE.

http://www.media.gm.com/news/releases/030407_vue.html

"Safety enhancements on all 2004 VUE models include front seat-belt pretensioners and dual-stage air bags. Dual-stage air bags are designed to detect vehicle deceleration and, based on the deceleration data, provide an appropriate amount of air-bag inflation. The dual-level air-bag system senses the severity of a crash and determines whether to deploy the air bag with primary or "lower" amount of inflation or with primary and secondary "higher" amount of inflation. Dual-stage air bags are designed to help reduce the occurrence of inflation-induced injuries by deploying the air bag less forcefully in lower speed crashes."

ratox · August 2003

I cannot believe there are still people who doubt the effectiveness of ABS. Sure, threshold braking can be better, but only with perfect front/rear brake bias, and consistent traction at all four wheels. Change the load in the rear of a car (luggage, passengers) or when a car has a few miles on it and the pads/discs have slightly different friction, or when tire wear/temp/pressure is uneven, or put the car on the shoulder with some loose dirt or gravel (or water or ice!)... then let's see you stop as quick without ABS. I, for one, want all four wheels at maximum braking effort in a panic stop. Do you have four brake pedals in your car? Technology is not always bad...

afk_x · August 2003

So I'll just try to stay ON topic

I have no idea about gas milage. The stats seem odd but who knows ... the numbers I have seen are

04 VUE FWD 20/28
04 VUE AWD 19/25

Seems strange that the extra 250 pounds makes such an impact...

Pilot is 17/22 but does weigh 1000 pounds more...

Odyssey is 18/25 and is 900 pounds more...

The 04 VUEs won't be hitting the lots for another month or so from what I hear so we'll have to wait and see...

joey2brix · August 2003

Are the FWD numbers on the 4 cyl and the AWD numbers are on the 6? There is also mechanical drag to factor into an AWD system even when you are not in AWD mode. Viscous couplings and transfer cases are still turning sucking up some power (and gas).

dindak · August 2003

20/28 is what I heard for the FWD also.

If the VUE can get that, I would be most pleased.

bullcreek · August 2003

I've owned my vue for a year. About four months ago, I noticed it seemed to be getting louder. I got my tires balanced. no help. I got new tires last week, no help. It's so loud you can't have a conversation in the car, or play the radio without going deaf. I live an hour and a half from the nearest dealer, which is out of state. The noise isn't the engine and gets worse as I go faster. the highway is a nightmare. Any clue what this is?

bullcreek · August 2003

I went to the site, I apparently don't have the program to listen to these. Do you know what I need? I'll check the site out too. It looks like an excellent site.
The noise sounds like tires, or something right between them. That's why I had all the tire work done. It's definitely gotten louder, and sounds like really loud tires. It's a consistent noise, not grinding, or reving, and it gets consistently louder as I go faster. I'm trying to figure what I might be before I bring it to the dealer because I live so far from it.

stever · August 2003

Those are .ram files and are intended for Real Audio (there's a free player download link at real.com if you look hard - not the 7 day free trial link). There are some conversion programs out there if you don't like RealPlayer.

Steve, Host

vuefor2 · August 2003

I still think the 3.5L is excessive for the Vue. We have the 3.0 and it's is more than enough power even when the truck is loaded up. I hope that Saturn is making some modifications to the suspension set up and traction control to compensate for this huge increase in power. I fear the 3.5L will cause all kinds of problems for lead footed people that could push the vehicle out of control.

joey2brix · August 2003

A lead foot can put any vehicle out of control.
I would rather have an engine that will accelarate onto a highway without fear of getting rear ended and to be able to get around the snails in the left lane. Not to mention you get one of the best made mass producded V6's in the world in a mini-SUV, something Honda doesn't even offer. I'm jealous, I think you wished you waited for this too.

dindak · August 2003

I think the 3.0L is fine but if the 3.5L FWD will do the same mileage I am very tempted to maybe get one next year. I'm sure Saturn will make the needed adjustments to accommodate the 3.5L. The only down side is the price hike, but such is life.

afk_x · August 2003

I'm a bit concerned as well.

The 3.0 V6 already has enough power to create some serious tourque steer. Add 50 more ft/lbs of TQ and ... well ... we'll have to wait and see.

The ION Redline Saturn notes will have equal length halfshafts to combat this - the 04 VUE press release makes no mention of any mods to the suspension (outside of lowering the VUE Redline)

About 30-45 more days and we'll find out...

uga91 · August 2003

Not to beat a dead horse; but, didn't the original poster say they wish ABS was made standard on V6 VUEs? I agree with that. Leave it an option on the 4-cyl models to keep prices down and competitive in the market place. However, the V6 VUEs are not cheap. The CR-V EX has standard ABS. I know the Honda will have a 4 cyl engine, but in that price range I feel standard ABS would be a big plus.

Saturn VUE

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles