News, Saturn was Supposed To Save GM. Instead, GM crushed Saturn. Here's how. (dealership, financial)

[John1960]

It's hard to remember a time when the top man at GM was the most celebrated industrialist in America, maybe even the world. But that was the case on Jan. 8, 1985, when Roger B. Smith convened a press conference in Detroit to make what he billed a "historic announcement."

How GM Crushed Saturn | Newsweek Business | Newsweek.com

[Oildog]

I remember all the hype when they came out, and wondered what had happened. Corporate bueracracy kills another decent idea.

[Dexterguy]

I have been hearing some rumors at least for the past 3-4 weeks that the Saturn dealerships of the country are trying to put together a plan to break off from GM and continue the company on there own.

Does anyone one know anything else on this??

I honestly don't see how this could actually work, GM builds saturns on their assembly lines with their parts. Saturn is completely difused into GM. How can they just break off and become a seperate business?

I can see Hummer being sold off. Saab being returned. But Saturn breaking off??

[hiknapster]

We own two Saturns. Granted, the plastic parts inside the car are not the best, but they are sound cars with inexpensive parts and are incredibly easy to fix.

I bought mine used, two and-one-half years ago and have spent $30 on a fan. That's it. It gets incredible gas mileage. As long as I stay away from ethanol it gets about 40 mpg.

It's a decent-looking car.

And my husband is an auto mechanic.

I was planning on buying a new one when this one dies, if it is ever does. I'm at about 125,000 miles. My husband's is three years older. God knows how many miles he has on it.

It's a shame.

GM has made so many bad business decisions. I use to sell cars for them.

[eggalegga]

I've owned two S-series coupes. Loved them both, but I haven't liked any Saturn vehicles since the S series ended in 2002. I for one loved the polymer panels that didn't dent. I didn't find the plastic to have gaps or appear cheap like so many have said. My first Saturn is 17 years old with 105k miles on it. I just sold it to my sister for a commuter car. I was sad to leave the Saturn family. I really liked the service department at my local dealership.

[eatfastnoodle]

"Americans turned away from small cars in favor of trucks and SUVs". That's both truth and bullsh*t. It's true that for more than a decade, Americans did fall in love with trucks and SUVs and flocked to Big Three for even more outrageous gas-guzzlers. That's why Detroit eked out such hefty profit during the 90s. It's bullsh*t because even during Detroit's best time, Japanese auto makers continued to make inroads into American car market and took bigger and bigger market share from Big Three. That's why I think the defense put up by Big Three regarding why they concentrated so much on gas-guzzlers is total bullsh*t. And that's why I don't buy the argument put up by Detroit's defenders in the mainstream media and here about how wrong the statement "GM refuses to build cars Americans want to buy". Yeah, that's not a 100% correct assertion. Yeah, SUV and Trucks were immensely popular. But considering the constant, even non-stop market share growth of Japanese auto markers, good time or bad time, that statement should also be considered as least mostly correct, otherwise , how do you explain the market share growth of Japanese auto makers? (Which can only be explained by the argument that MORE and MORE people are buying Japanese made cars, good time or bad. If you think Detroit were building cars Americans wanted to buy and Japanese companies were building cars Americans didn't want or at least wanted less to buy, you can't explain the market share changes even before the whole financial and oil crisis hit us) However profitable you are, without growing or at least sustaining your market share, it's just a matter of time before you fade into irrelevancy along with your unsustainable profit margin. I don't know what Harvard Business School taught these executives, but their narrow and short-sighted focus on short-term profit and tomorrow's share price is what ultimately killed Big Three as we know it. Without constantly designing and building products that people want to buy (what's the definition of product wanted by people? Mine is the products that can attract at least customers similar in size to the similar products you already have in your line-up), all the profit margins, share price hikes are nothing more than illusory successes.

[hiknapster]

Originally Posted by eatfastnoodle

"Americans turned away from small cars in favor of trucks and SUVs". That's both truth and bullsh*t. It's true that for more than a decade, Americans did fall in love with trucks and SUVs and flocked to Big Three for even more outrageous gas-guzzlers. That's why Detroit eked out such hefty profit during the 90s. It's bullsh*t because even during Detroit's best time, Japanese auto makers continued to make inroads into American car market and took bigger and bigger market share from Big Three. That's why I think the defense put up by Big Three regarding why they concentrated so much on gas-guzzlers is total bullsh*t. And that's why I don't buy the argument put up by Detroit's defenders in the mainstream media and here about how wrong the statement "GM refuses to build cars Americans want to buy". Yeah, that's not a 100% correct assertion. Yeah, SUV and Trucks were immensely popular. But considering the constant, even non-stop market share growth of Japanese auto markers, good time or bad time, that statement should also be considered as least mostly correct, otherwise , how do you explain the market share growth of Japanese auto makers? (Which can only be explained by the argument that MORE and MORE people are buying Japanese made cars, good time or bad. If you think Detroit were building cars Americans wanted to buy and Japanese companies were building cars Americans didn't want or at least wanted less to buy, you can't explain the market share changes even before the whole financial and oil crisis hit us) However profitable you are, without growing or at least sustaining your market share, it's just a matter of time before you fade into irrelevancy along with your unsustainable profit margin. I don't know what Harvard Business School taught these executives, but their narrow and short-sighted focus on short-term profit and tomorrow's share price is what ultimately killed Big Three as we know it. Without constantly designing and building products that people want to buy (what's the definition of product wanted by people? Mine is the products that can attract at least customers similar in size to the similar products you already have in your line-up), all the profit margins, share price hikes are nothing more than illusory successes.

Yeah. Chevy made some massive mistakes. It took Grandma's Malibu and completely revamped it, new platform and everything. It's a great car. But the genius' continued to call it a Malibu. Well, nobody wants to own a grandma car. Except grandma, who was pissed that they changed her car.

I could go on and on with examples like that. I was with these people on the lots and they were confused. Eventually they'd head up to the Toyota dealership where they could find a vehicle that they actually wanted.

[texdav]

In the edn Saturn was just rejected by the consumer as being not up to the toehr small car standards. basicallt GM could not afford to build a car to the japanses standard. it was a failed attempt that was rejected by the public. Just as they have their other branded car that GM tred to introduce to compete;thus GM became a truck and SUV comapony because they needed the high profit margins they produced.That was demanded by the high legacy cost that needed to be passed on with each vehicle sold.