Consumer Reports: Saturn

How is that any different from past years?

Ratbert sez...

It is sad because as a Saturn owner, having a reliable car for over 9 years is nice, so when I am ready for my next car, Consumer Reports does not recommend any Saturn vehicle.

I will not miss the silly, "No Haggle Price Policy" because paying top price does not put a smile on my face.

LOL, this comes up so frequently on every Saturn BB that it should be a mandatory FAQ sticky, lol. Let me clarify what CR does and doesnt do and what the majority of the public doesnt recognize.

I collect annual CR magazines and have noticed this long ago as well as currently, and this is why I will never trust CR for anythign more than a TV or toaster, which IMHO is all they are qualified to review.

1.) Since CR has begun reviewing Saturns they have not updated nor thoroughly tested newer model years. They just simply and lazily continue to post the same verbatim information from the original article over and over. If you look, you will read what year they last reviewed each Saturn product and you will see that they have NOT actually tested the latest model year. If you can find an original '02 thru '-05 CR Saturn review you will laugh at how they have been only repeating verbatim the same tired old article year after year. They may add in that they noticed a new facia, ect, but case in point, CR's '05 VUE review on the 4cyl automatic was still noting a CVT transmission! The '05 review on the Relay was a joke and was evidently clear that they really didnt drive the vehicle for any length of time. The '06 ION review neglects to mention the many major changes.

2.) This is one and the same magazine that has recently been sued by Consumer Agencies for putting the Ford Focus as a top rated "safe" and reliable vehicle! Hmm, unbiased and unpaid? Says who? them?

I alway refer ppl to more reliable resources (and yes, even these sources may not put Saturn on the top of thier lists, but they actually DO test drive them and dont rehash old articles year after year) such as: Motor Trend and Consumer Guide.

marx404

They note the date of the issue with the last review. If you want to read the actual review of the tested car, visit the library and read it. No date then they are just summarizing it for buyers of used cars.

They used to recommend the SCs. As recently as 2003 they recommended the Vue, but it no longer meets their requirement of at least average reliability. They still recommend SCs and SLs as used cars in certain price ranges.

I think a lot of what you are saying is deceptive if not outright wrong.

There has been no review of the '06 Ion, merely a ~40 word summary of past testing - the same treatment all '06 models received in the 2006 Buying Guide.

The original test of the Ion was in March '03 This was obviously a new review since the car had only been out a few months. The latest review was in the May 2005 issue. This was a completely new test including new performance statistics. While there are some items common to both reports - not surprising since they cover the same car two model years apart - most of the copy is completely different with comparisons made to the new competition and some comments that indicate previous complaints have been rectified.

Similarly, the Vue was last reported in the Oct. 04 issue. Again , it is a full retest of the vehicle with different performance stats and different copy form the original May '02 report. There was no report on the 2005 model that I can find, but it is possible that the 2005 Buying Guide (mailed Oct. '04) lists a CVT as an option. This book would have been already at the printer when GM announced discontinuance of the CVT in September of that year.

Citation? I have never heard of any consumer agency ever suing CR for any reason. Nor am I aware of any safety issues regarding the Focus.

Motor Trend and Consumer Guide take advertising and test vehicles from manufacturers. In the case of Motor Trend and other car buff magazines this is par for the course. In the case of an alleged consumer advocate like Consumer Guide, it is a pathetic joke. Not only do they take advertising, their reviews are available for manufacturers to (selectively) quote.

Consumer Reports uses anonymous shoppers to buy the cars it tests. It refuses all advertising and does not allow any commercial use of its product test reports. Testing is very thorough and takes at least a couple months including a 2000 mile break-in period. Another feature you won't find anywhere else, each car gets a multi-point 5 mph bumper bashing.

If you are interested in knowing which magazines are most committed to thorough automotive testing, you might want to consider among Road & Track, Car and Driver, Motor Trend, Consumer Reports and Consumer Guide, which is the only one that owns its own fully equipped Test Track? The track in question is located on 327 acres and includes a

3100 foot straightaway, off-road and on-road courses, a 120 foot long rock hill, a complete garage and tire shop, snowmaking and grooming equipment and a hydroplane test area.

SMS sez...

Wow, what a difference!

I bought a Saturn 9 years ago for one thing, dependability.

Yes, it is dependable, but I want something new next year. It will be 10 years and I don't want to have to worry about any major repairs because I kept it too long.

wow, Im not trolling here guys, but fish, ya make me laugh, think about it. You have had your trusty Saturn 9 yrs and you question its reliability?

What Im saying here guys, is not deceptive. CR is biased and thier articles are based on testing older models than what is currently availiable, if not based upon outdated information. Thier reccomendation of the Focus IMHO was reprehensible and biased, the '05 reviews on Saturns were based on outdated info. 6 months after the VUE had been redesigned, CR was still publishing that it failed the rollover testing which was incorrect as that issue was already fixed. I could go on but I'll spare you.

Just so you know, we always keep a number of current mags at our desk including CR so ppl can actually read the articles. When they get to CR, we always have alternate (and more updated) info onhand to correct thier faux pas.

Now IMHO, the ecotec engine is far better than the old shaky 1.9. Yes, the ION is not a cute as the old S series and everyone says so in every mag. I cant wait for the '08 makeover myself. As far as reliability, recent year IONs have had a few more issues (especially electric and battery related) but none critical enough to deserve the awful rap that CR gives it.

As far as safety, I will stand by the personal stories my customers have told me throughout the years how even in a bad accident, they have walked out of an ION virtually unscathed. No magazine portrays that as well as physically speaking to a Saturn owner who has gone thru that and returns for another ION.

Im not saying that the ION is the nicest looking, it isnt, nor am I saying it is the most trouble free, it isnt, but my proof has always been talking to actual owners which I do every day.

marx404

Which is no proof at all.

Quoting from the Oct. '04 issue. "As this issue went to press, General Motors Corp. recalled all the Saturn Vue sport utility vehicles it had ever made." [omit middle of 210 word article] "The auto maker will replace the rear suspension components 'to make it more robust,' according to the Saturn spokesman." What about this was not timely and accurate?

BTW, the Vue did not simply fail the rollover test. Not one but two different vehicles actually suffered catastrophic suspension failure in the middle of the test.

I take it that you are a Saturn salesman. To the extent that Saturn is correcting problems noted in CR reviews, that is a good thing. But you can hardly expect CR to mail out paste-in footnotes on every detail of every car that changes after the issue is published.

Twelve years of technology advancement will do that.

You will never find such a statement in CR.

Any reliability "rap" that CR gives it is based on the experiences of Saturn owners. Unlike your experience based on Saturn owners, this is a scientific survey of 810,000 car owners. It is as objective as it could reasonably be.

Reliability is not factored into the actual rating anyway. The rating (actually called "Overall Score") is based on their own testing and evaluation alone. Reliability from the survey is reported separately from the rating. Those two factors, along with published crash tests, are considered when CR recommends the car (or not).

In the case of the Ion, it doesn't have much of a reliability record yet, but what there is indicates it is worse than average. That makes it ineligible for recommendation. But even if it was the most reliable car ever built, it still wouldn't be recommended because of its poor Overall Score - it ranked 14th out of 16 small cars. It also failed IIHS side impact tests but to be fair, most of the recommended cars haven't been tested yet. The only one tested, The Toyota Corolla only passes (and is only recommended) with the optional side curtain air bags.

Now this is what we call, selection bias. Presumably the dead ones didn't come back to complain.

By the way, do you show your customers the Car & Driver issue where the long term testers absolutely trashed the Ion? IIRC, one tester thought it had a few redeeming features and the other two thought he was on drugs.

Apparently they came to the same conclusion as CR. And they were more fun to read.

marx404, I've always enjoyed reading your posts, back from the time before you went to work for Saturn and as you have continued on as both a Saturn sales rep and a customer. But this thread has made me laugh, as well. This is principally because I first became a Saturn owner (back in '94) BECAUSE of what CR said about the SL. And, even as a victim of the dreaded casting flaw, which cost me over $1000 (Saturn paid more than 1/2), I would still buy another new SL if they were still manufactured. Talking to a few (dozen?) owners who come into your dealership is not, IMHO, as good an indicator of an auto's reliability as a broad survey of owners, including those who don't take their cars into their dealerships for service. I don't know from personal knowledge that that is how CR derives its reliability ratings but from my experience with cars (including my two Saturn SLs), CR's information has been pretty consistent with that experience so I'll continue to trust them. On other matters, I'll continue to trust you. :)

told me throughout the years how even in a bad accident, they have walked out of an ION virtually unscathed. No magazine portrays that as well as physically speaking to a Saturn owner who has gone thru that and returns for another ION.

Our 1997 took a diagonal rear-end strike at 75mph by a drunk jerk in a

3000GT and we walked away unscathed. The car was destroyed - the trunk had basically disappeared in a diagonal from the passenger to the driver's side - but we weren't hurt at all.

We bought a '99 not long after that. They're safe.

mh

Well I have no reason to lie to you guys here and definantely dont intend to upset anyone, but I will stick with what I know and what has been physically proven to me. CR is a punch in the eye to me so pardon if I go on a rage about it. Thier auto reviews are a topic of controversy to everyone in the auto industry, not just Saturn. It is just a shame that CR harbors such hate towards Saturn products year after year.

Really now, if Saturns were as awful as the way CR continiually demonizes them year after year, would there be so many loyal owners out there, including ourselves? Use your own judgement ppl, not what some book tells you. ;-) I wonder if and how CR will slam the SKY and Aura when they go into production? Not saying they will, but history repeats itself and so does CR mag.

So I hope its cool to say "lets agree to disagree" shake hands and move on; until this same topic comes up again - verbatim, next issue, lol. ;-)

marx404

But isn't your sample size considerably smaller than CR's potential range? Consider: here's proof that all positive integers are divisible only by either themselves or 1: 1 is divisible only by itself and 1; 2 is divisible only by itself and 1; 3 is divisible only by itself and 1; QED. :) What's relevant, though, is (if I understand you correctly) that you don't consider CR reporting of Saturn's reliability to be reliable. Fair enough (and I do not necessarily disagree that this may be true lately, I simply have no evidence either way).

Of course, anyone whose ox is gored is going to consider the gorer to be giving them a "punch in the eye." :)

The fact that owners of 1990 - 2000 Saturns are pretty loyal and satisfied does not necessarily mean that owners of 2001 - 2006 Saturns are loyal and satisfied (relative to alternatives).

If you offered a reasonable rebuttal to what I am saying and neither of us could not convince the other that (s)he were wrong, then I'd "agree to disagree" but so far I don't see that as having happened. It looks to me that you are saying that CR isn't (hasn't ever been?) a reliable source of information about Saturns but I'm not saying it always has been; I am saying that I bought my first Saturn in 1994 mostly because of the positive things CR had to say about Saturn and you have not said anything I can interpret as rebuttal.

Though the Toyota Prius which had a 100% recall because of software flaws that could leave you stranded in the middle of the highway, because of engine shutdown, got their highest rating......Think they are not biased...think again.

A recall (no matter how extensive or serous the problem) doesn't prove that the car is unreliable overall. If it makes you happy, consider that the CR reliability ratings for the 2001 - 2004 Prius show that the electrical system has mediocre reliability even though most other systems are excellent.

no, I am saying "I dont agree with you, you dont agree with me". AFAIK, nobody on either side had presented facts that either side has agreed upon. This topic nor this forum is not intended for name calling nor rudeness, so it is my intention to end this conversation as it seems to be headed in that direction. fin.

marx404

marx404 sez...

I initiated this thread to discuss what Consumer Reports had to say about Saturn.

They do not accept ads, so therefully are not swayed one way or another.

When researching for that dream car, I find it helpful to all to discuss what is available to consumers.

No one wants to get stuck with a lemon! For all the hard earned money, I want to feel well-informed.

I will follow the advice and buy some other magazines and will start a new thread about my findings.

Back in the 90's, Saturn had a reputation of quality. Now just looking at them cars in the showroom, I do not feel it.

My favorite vehicle of the current lineup is the Vue, but that's not saying much.

There used to be an "L" series.

Saturn has really changed. It's a shame!

Right, that's why the flakey transmission in my dad's Oddessey, instead of getting replaced with a unit that won't lock up suddenly on the highway, got a 'jet kit' to fix what Honda calls a 'lubrication problem' inside the gearbox. Where just about everything is drenched in that magic nonstandard Honda ATF anyway. So, we've got a ticking time bomb transmission that may/may not fail with who knows what results. Oh yeah, they're giving us a '100,000 mile' warrenty on it now. Or the EGR valve that they told us could fail, so as a courtesy, they're extending the warrenty on the emissions system to 80,000 miles, which they're legally supposed to be at anyway.

Or, we could talk about Toyota's sludge issues that have been around for years.

What Honda and Toyota figured out long ago was that a good PR dept and quietly handling some issues, combined with some slick legal moves, can give the appearence of them being a warm and fuzzy company.

Of course, look at the Prius, which performs like an 80's Toyota and gets nowhere near it's sticker mileage. Yet sheep suck it up anyway.