Saturn and Saab gone?

[cfz2882]

looks like saturn and saab cars are out of business?
I have 1 saab car,a 1971 "99"got it in '95 from a junkyard
and replaced the original,blownup,triumph built 1.85L with
a 2L from an'80 900-it's kinda rough now after nearly 40yrs
of use,but i plan on fixing it up as it is a really neat
little car-Also almost got a '73"96" saab-earlier design
with a german ford v4.
Also looks like saturn has bit the dust too-never owned one
of those,but got the radio out of a '94 at the junkyard
car was in a severe frontal accident,but inside there was no
evidence of accident and doors worked fine,so looked like it
was really safe for a small car.

 

[ronhic]

er.....

Saturn may be...

But Spyker has bought SAAB....

Thankfully no more permenant ties to GM.....

News | Auto Express

Get the latest new car news from Auto Express. Covering everything from the hottest new car launches to the latest in-car entertainment gadgets.

www.autoexpress.co.uk

 

[lordkenmore]

But Spyker has bought SAAB....

That's my understanding, too.

Link to open letter on Saab USA site:

http://www.saabusa.com/saabjsp/about/pr_240210.jsp#headline

 

[lordkenmore]

Thankfully no more permenant ties to GM.....

I really couldn't put it any better than this. I have heard so many negative things about the GM era Saab. One Saab collector (who at least tolerated modern Saabs--I know that at least his wife had one) had a long list of the technical advantages that the older Saabs had.

A late (and now irrelevant) note to GM: simply moving the ignition switch to the floor does not make the car a Saab.

 

[cfz2882]

indeed,the '94 up opel-based 900s did not have the same crash
safety of the reinforced '69-93 99/900,especially not the
windshield frame/A-pillars of 99/900 that were designed with
moose srikes in mind.

 

[volvoguy87]

"Simply moving the ignition switch to the floor does not

Amen to that!

I have a 2002 Saab 9-3. While I love the car, it loves the shop more than I would like. I thought Saab stood for interesting and out-of-the-box engineering. GM fitted a bunch of leather and electronics but the quality was bad (the electronics fail too frequently, interior fit and finish is sub-par, and they never even bothered to develop an Onstar digital conversion package). In 2007, my Saab went about 6,000 miles and cost the warranty company over $5,000.00 in repairs. That's just repairs, not even maintenance!

Comparing my 2002 Saab to my 1987 Volvo, the Volvo is far cheaper to run, maintain, and repair. The Volvo is also more solidly built. The Saab's alternator only lasted to 60,000 miles (bearings failed). My Volvo's alternator lasted to 144,000 (diodes failed, but the bearings were great). The Saab has had most of its suspension rebuilt, it seems to eat engine mounts, the driver's window FELL OUT! The Saab's throttle body had to be replaced, I didn't even know you could break those under normal driving conditions. The Saab is just not what I expected it to be (although it's comfortable, handles like a glove, and gets fantastic fuel economy). I do like the turbo charger. Remarkably, it hasn't given me any trouble. Mine is the high-output version, so there is some noticeable turbo lag. Once the turbo gets up to speed, however, it will throw you into the back seat! If I keep my foot off the gas, I can get 40mpg, but when I want to MOVE, I can do it without even shifting down from 5th gear.

GM's biggest blunder with Saab styling was killing off Saab's signiture design, the hatchback (mine is the last year) and replacing it with a glorified Chevy Malibu. The Malibu is an ok car and it certainly has its place, but it is NOT what a Saab is supposed to be. I love my hatchback because it is so practical. I can carry huge things but it still handles like a small car and gets the fuel economy of one too. Saab has a certain amount of prestige associated with the brand, not because they are loaded with gimmicks and gizmos, but because they used to be distinct and had a character unlike any other car. Saabs traditionally haven't been for for everybody, but they do have a very loyal following because of their eccentricities.

I really hope Saab can get back to its roots. I vowed never to buy another GM Saab, but if they can ditch some of the unnecessary luxury-fluff and iron out the essentials of building interesting and good cars, I would consider owning a newer-generation Saab. Provided, of course, that they bring back the hatchback.

Dave

 

[lordkenmore]

Volvos are also good cars.

...at least when they are real Volvos. I have also heard many complaints about the Ford-era Volvo.

Thankfully, this probably won't be a problem much longer. I read that Ford has found a buyer for Volvo. That's the good news. The bad news? The buyer is a Chinese company.

Wonderful. Just wonderful. Take what was once one of the world's best car companies. Completely wreck it. And then sell the remains to the Chinese.

 

[lordkenmore]

A few boring words about Saturn

Saturn is apparently going bye-bye, although I suppose that could change. (I've roughly followed both Saab and Saturn for a year or so, and the plans/policies have changed often enough that frankly I've lost track. In any case, another change could happen.)

I'm not sure if Saturn's passing is very sad. I was interested in Saturn many years ago, when it was first started. It had some promise to deliver the quality that was--then--apparently totally lacking in American small cars.

I'm not sure that promise was ever delivered.

Yes, Saturn was probably better in many ways. I have known people who've had and liked Saturns. Many people liked the no-haggle pricing system. (Other car lines could be worse than trying to haggle in a Arabian market.) The early cars had, I gather, initially tolerable reliability in comparison with other small US cars. Although anyone used to a Ford Escort, Chevrolet Cavalier, or Dodge Omni would probably find almost anything better.

But from what I've heard, the long term reliability wasn't that great. Just the other day, I read on another forum a mechanic advise Saturn owners (of, I think, the first generation cars) that when the car hits the low 100,000 mile range, it's probably a good time to consider replacing it. He sees too many Saturns at about that point needing very expensive engine work.

A few years ago, I considered buying a Saturn. I can't remember what year it was (1990-something--I buy cars old and well-used.) The car wasn't that bad. Probably not as good as the best Japanese car of the era, but certainly miles better than what I remember from older small GM cars. Overall, I could probably live with the car--it had acceptable fit and finish, and drove tolerably well. But I didn't buy it, since it was clearly heading in for trouble. For one thing, it had strangely colored exhaust. (I can't remember for sure the color, but I think it was blue. It certainly didn't look like anything too terribly promising for the long term good health of the car.)

 

[lordkenmore]

A question about GM era Saabs

One interesting quirk about the Saab-Saab 900 was the way the hood opened. It was hinged in front, but, unlike other cars I've seen with front hinges, it didn't simply swing back and forth. The hood would rise a bit, parallel to the ground, and then swing back.

I was told that this was a safety feature unique to Saab. In case of an accident, this mechanism meant the hood would not ever crash back into the passenger compartment, but go over, if I recall right.

Does the GM era Saab still do this? I have a feeling not, since it would probably be cheaper to do almost any other method of hinging the hood.

 

[MikeS]

A Few Positive Words About Saturn

I've been a happy owner of three Saturns--a 2000 SL1; a 2004 ION 2 and my current car, a 2007 ION 3 (with the very rare 2.4 engine). All have been reliable, secure cars that I have enjoyed driving. But it was the dealer experience that brought me to Saturn--and the service after the sale. I've never had a bad experience with my Saturn dealers, and I hope that will be the case when Saturn servicing switches over to a Chevy dealership in my area.
Unfortunately, it became a victim of internal GM problems, including a feud with Chevrolet that Saturn could never overcome. It's unlikely I'll ever buy a GM car again, but I'll keep an open mind if I ever decide to ditch my black ION. For now, happy motoring continues.

 

[58limited]

I had a 1999 Saturn until someone ran a red light and totaled it. The safety features worked great and I didn't even get hit in the face by the air bag. I really liked the car. It got good gas mileage and handled well. My friends have two, a 2000 and a 2001. Both have over 100,000 miles and run fine. On has had to have the fuel pump replaced, the other had the timing chain replaced five years ago (The driver had a lead foot and really wore it out with hard accelerations. The dealership was amazed. They said that they hardly ever had timing chains break in these cars. She is easier on the gas pedal now).

The loss of Saturn, like most of GM's problems, is nothing more than piss poor management and quality. I currently have a 1998 Olds 88LS and have had to have the plastic intake manifold replaced twice. There was a recall on this problem in 2004, six years after it was made (and 10 days after I bought the car - the manifold went out 2 days before the recall). The heat from the exhaust warped the manifold and dumped the antifreeze coolant into the cylinders. I was told that GM saved about 60 cents per unit by making the intake manifolds out of plastic instead of aluminum, but the garage charged $650 to replace it. They had to flush the motor and replace the expensive 100,000 mile platinum spark plugs. GM reimbursed me. You can't run a business like this: cut costs and then have to shell out hundreds of times the amount of the savings to fix the poor engineering. I calculated that GM saved $.60 to make the part, then had to give me 1083 times that amount to cover my repairs.

 

[cfz2882]

"dusted"engines

i have seen several older saturns where the rubber intake
tube into the engine will get cracks in it underneath where
they cannot be seen-letting dust and grit get in...

 

[volvoguy87]

GM Saab hoods.

My 2002 GM Saab 9-3's hood opens as most other cars do. The interesting hoods are found on the 1993 and earlier 900s and the the 1994 convertibles.
Dave

 

[davy1063]

Had a 1995 Saab 900s

I agree, it was in the shop more than my driveway. I'm very good with my cars. I have a 1967 VW Beetle and a 2000 Audi A4 1.8T with 179,000 miles on it and it runs like a champ. The Saab never did. Figured out what the acronym was:

Somethings
Almost
Always
Broken

and nothing trivial either. The average repair bill was $800-$1200 if I couldn't take care of it myself, with help from Goldwing used Saab Parts.

 

[lordkenmore]

Thanks for the hood info

I'd figured that the GM Saabs probably had moved to some other hood design. Yet another sad loss.

 

[lordkenmore]

"You can't run a business like this: cut costs and then have to shell out hundreds of times the amount of the savings to fix the poor engineering. I calculated that GM saved $.60 to make the part, then had to give me 1083 times that amount to cover my repairs."

The sad thing is that seems to very common practice for US business. The only thing many managers care about is this quarter's profits. The fact that it can cost them a lot more down the road is irrelevant if they can show great numbers now.

It's this sort of thing that has helped drive a lot of people away from buying Detroit cars.