Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Saturn Aura was a giant step forward for GM. I think it as a "fast forward" to modern day quality in terms of ride/handling, interior design, etc. It's styling was clean and sleek. I think its 4 cylinder engine was a weak spot - true in general for GM at the time. But the sixes (why two?) were better.
The Outlook was a similarly good vehicle.
Unfortunately Saturn was still a mess and could not be turned around.
I bought a Highlander last year because I had specific needs and at the time the domestics did not have a comparable SUV built on a car frame.
I paid the price for it too, I would have rather gotten domestic and gotten a better deal at the time but it was the only vehicle with the combination of seating, size and gas mileage.
I can't reconcile "pretty much panned since day one" with the fact that in 2007 the Aura was not only voted North American Car of the Year by automotive journalists, but it also won Motor Trend's Car of the Year award.
Panned by the buying public. These are the sales #'s for the Aura:
2006 19,746
2007 59,964
2008 59,380
The Saturn Aura was a giant step forward for GM. I think it as a "fast forward" to modern day quality in terms of ride/handling, interior design, etc. It's styling was clean and sleek. I think its 4 cylinder engine was a weak spot - true in general for GM at the time. But the sixes (why two?) were better.
The Outlook was a similarly good vehicle.
Unfortunately Saturn was still a mess and could not be turned around.
The 4-cylinder was pretty much necessary to be segment-competitive. 4-cylinder versions tend to be the better seller in this segment. It appeals to people who want the room and comfort of a car this size but prioritize fuel economy and lower price over quicker performance.
As for the two V6 options, GM eventually agreed with you and dropped the lower-end V6 option.
Panned by the buying public. These are the sales #'s for the Aura:
2006 19,746
2007 59,964
2008 59,380
Was it "panned" by the buying public, or was it ignored by them because GM could barely trouble themselves to market the car, or the Saturn brand as a whole? Seeing how the Aura represented 30% of Saturn's total sales (outsold only by the Vue), I'd say it was the latter. Which is a major reason why Saturn is going the way of AMC/Plymouth/Pontiac/etc.
Was it "panned" by the buying public, or was it ignored by them because GM could barely trouble themselves to market the car, or the Saturn brand as a whole? Seeing how the Aura represented 30% of Saturn's total sales (outsold only by the Vue), I'd say it was the latter. Which is a major reason why Saturn is going the way of AMC/Plymouth/Pontiac/etc.
Mitsubishi has been the poster child for ignored and ineffectual automakers in North America. Yet, they still managed to sell 112,000 mediocre Galant's from '05-'07. The Aura total was only 139,000 units for the same period. And these Galant sales were after the 0 financing debacles, so we can't say people were hooked by that lure.
The 4-cylinder was pretty much necessary to be segment-competitive. 4-cylinder versions tend to be the better seller in this segment. It appeals to people who want the room and comfort of a car this size but prioritize fuel economy and lower price over quicker performance.
As for the two V6 options, GM eventually agreed with you and dropped the lower-end V6 option.
Nothing wrong with offerng a 4. I agree many will be satisified with one.
The problem was THAT 4. GM hasn't had a good 4 cylinder engine in a long time. Early Saturns were regularly criticized for the rough and noisy 4s.
Nothing wrong with offerng a 4. I agree many will be satisified with one.
The problem was THAT 4. GM hasn't had a good 4 cylinder engine in a long time. Early Saturns were regularly criticized for the rough and noisy 4s.
Yeah, early Saturns were, but Saturn has been around for over 20 years now. And I disagree that GM hasn't made a good 4-cylinder in a long time. I think the Ecotec 4 is a solid powerplant. It's lightweight, it's flexible (displacement anywhere from 1.8L to 2.4L, output anywhere from 140 to 260HP), it's as smooth as you can expect from an inline-4 (no inline-4 is truly smooth), and it's bloody bullet-proof.
Yeah, early Saturns were, but Saturn has been around for over 20 years now. And I disagree that GM hasn't made a good 4-cylinder in a long time. I think the Ecotec 4 is a solid powerplant. It's lightweight, it's flexible (displacement anywhere from 1.8L to 2.4L, output anywhere from 140 to 260HP), it's as smooth as you can expect from an inline-4 (no inline-4 is truly smooth), and it's bloody bullet-proof.
There is not a stronger 4 cylinder in any car line right now than the new ecotech engines. Currently the record holders fro drag rcing in all out classes for 4 cylinders, they actuly get better mpg than most, and are extremely reliable.
There is not a stronger 4 cylinder in any car line right now than the new ecotech engines.
I hope you dont mean that literally.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
