Consumer Reports: Saturn

Yeah, I sometimes have to chuckle about the transmission and EGR problems many owners report on the Odyssey forums I visit. Some threads brought up striking similarities to those about Saturns some years ago on this newsgroup. I'm sure the Toyota sludge problems generated the same types of complaints for the many years Toyota denied these problems and refused to cover them, before consumer advocates began to apply pressure and generate bad publicity.

I also agree with what fish said in their posts. Back in the 90s, the Saturn small cars were pretty consistently rated above average in CR's reliability ratings. They were also at or among the top of the class in the crash tests and safety ratings available at the time. CR still didn't recommend them because of their internal test scores. While all the published, objective measurements and ratings from CR were usually very similar to the competition, the subjective comments and considerations resulted in overall scores that were just a hair short of the rating needed on the bar chart to be "Recommended." Whether this was fair or not was in the eye of the beholder. A search of the Google archives will turn up many threads and insightful comments on these same topics.

Today, most Saturns would be excluded from a recommended pick if only due to their below average reliability (according to CR). The Ion is projected as average, but its low crash test results and overall evaluation keep it from being recommended. I'd have given Saturn strong consideration when purchasing my last two minivans, based on my good experiences with the SL2 in the 90s. Unfortunately, the safety, convenience, performance and features just didn't match Honda and Toyota, let alone the very reasonable models from Nissan, Ford and Chrysler.

As a side note, the Ion crash test results are indeed very disappointing. At a time when most newer models have been designed to do well in the NHTSA and IIHS crash tests, models like the Ion are not keeping up with the rest. Saturn didn't even bother to submit a side curtain airbag equipped Vue for additional IIHS testing. Only the Nissan Sentra and Kia Spectra rival it for worse-than-average performance in both the IIHS and NHTSA crash tests. For anyone interested in overall safety, don't simply trust one or two results or anecdotes for a vehicle. The website

formatting link
produces a very good overall rating based on many factors, using published data to produce a risk rating comparable among all vehicles.

Seems like being absorbed by GM corporate has really taken the "different" concept to the wrong extreme, lately.

Caviller

formatting link

Reply to
caviller
Loading thread data ...

The odd thing is apparently a lot of newer cars don't really need EGR, it just goes in for the secondary effects EGR gives. Don't some GM cars have no EGR valve at all?

Honda automatics? Junk. Bad enough it's a shit design, they can't pick a gear either...

Toyota just blamed the consumer. I'm not aware of 'sludge' issues on any other motors though. Even my '93 SC2 was darn clean at 200,000+ miles.

I dunno, the nonstandard parts were sure a PITA and frankly, GM's finally getting the trim levels up to par. They need to just get the styling there and get on the RWD bandwagon. Certainly, the powertrains are bulletproof - last few GM cars we've had went 200,000+ miles no problem. The Sarturn's going to it's grave at about 255,000. Not bad at all.

Though I'm a bit annoyed - we didn't get the cracked head we were supposed to get. I feel like I'm missing out on something :(

;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

Reply to
Philip Nasadowski

Real world injury and fatality rates are useful to some degree. If you find a vehicle is significantly below average in its class compared to its competition, that might be a red flag. Hopefully, the driver demographic for the same class of vehicle doesn't vary as much as it might from one class to another. It's too bad the real world data is barely published by the time most vehicles evolve into their next generation design, making only useful for new vehicles in some cases. Starting with the latest fatality data released in 2005, the IIHS has begun to account for some differences in driver characteristics. I doubt they can completely eliminate the factor of the driver, but it's good to see that this data will be more meaningful in the future.

It's very difficult to include performance factors like emergency acceleration, handling and braking into an overall safety rating comparable across a range of weights and classes. Even if you test yourself or use numbers from another source, there is more potential for subjectivity and misleading data based on the element of the driver. Plus, I don't think I've ever seen any published studies comparing the benefit of performance features from a crash avoidance standpoint to the benefit of the vehicle's crashworthiness. Without that, it would be hard to include them into a composite score in an objective fashion.

formatting link
's approach is very detailed and almost purely objective. Rather than assigning some seemingly random weighting, formula or threshold, everything is carefully documented from published studies. Every other attempt I've seen to make a composite safety rating has been arbitrary and/or vauge, in some cases perhaps to intentionally include, exclude or adjust the relative rankings of specific makes/vehicles. I also like that when a vehicle is missing a particular result, it is given an average score for that result as a placeholder. Other publications might assume a top rating to include such a vehicle in their "Safest" list or omit an otherwise excellent model because of one missing rating. Consumer Reports tried to make their own overall safety rating a few years back. As with many of their ratings, they failed to give the necessary specifics, so it was hard to say if it was a reasonable effort or not. For whatever reasons, they no longer publish such a composite, though they do have safety requirements for recommended models.

This new effort by informedforlife.org is certainly a step in the right direction, even if it isn't perfect. The IIHS is getting lots of media attention today with it's brand new top safety picks, while this unknown website will probably never get a fraction of that publicity. It seems word of mouth and link exchanges will have to do until the media takes notice. It's too bad, because using just the IIHS selections doesn't include the NHTSA crash tests, rollover ratings, stability control or vehicle weight, all of which are important factors to an overall safety evaluation as well.

Caviller

formatting link

Reply to
caviller

The automatics in my 2006 and 2001 Odyssey are/were very good, knock on wood...

Yeah, I didn't have major powertrain issues, either. Other than the alternator and a wheel bearing, my first SL2 was very reasonable, especially considering it was a first year model of a brand new vehicle.

Caviller

formatting link

Reply to
caviller

I've noticed a whirring noise in 5th on my dad's. It's been getting louder. And an odd whirr that shifts with transmission shifting while parked. I suspect it's something starting to get some real play to it. This at 60,000 miles.

Look, for a modern car driven mostly on the highway, I consider 125,000 miles without issue on an automatic to be the bare minimum. This isn't

1960 anymore. Last 2 GMs with automatics we've had both passed that number with quite a bit to spare, and the last one was the dreaded THM125C - it was only starting to act bad around 200,000 miles.

Oh yes - don't change the clutch clearances on the 3rd gear clutch on a recent Honda slushbox. Shop manual says you gotta replace the whole freaking PCM if you do...

I find my SC2 eats radiators like candy. Other than that, no biggie. Oh yeah, had to do a failing PS pump seal at 190k. Big $5 and a borrowed tool from autozone.

Reply to
Philip Nasadowski

Unless, of course, you are in a full frontal impact, which is about as common or more (depending on the study) than a frontal offset crash. In such a crash, the potential loss would be to someone who unwisely overlooked the complementary NHTSA ratings. According to the IIHS:

"Full-width and offset tests complement each other. Crashing the full width of a vehicle into a rigid barrier maximizes energy absorption so that the integrity of the occupant compartment, or safety cage, can be maintained well in all but very high-speed crashes. Full-width rigid-barrier tests produce high occupant compartment decelerations, so they're especially demanding of restraint systems. In offset tests, only one side of a vehicle's front end, not the full width, hits the barrier so that a smaller area of the structure must manage the crash energy. This means the front end on the struck side crushes more than in a full-width test, and intrusion into the occupant compartment is more likely. The bottom line is that full-width tests are especially demanding of restraints but less demanding of structure, while the reverse is true in offsets. "

Fortunately, most vehicles do pretty well in both the IIHS and NHTSA frontal crash tests these days. It's about time for both of them to increase the speed of their testing to differentiate vehicles a little more.

I'm surprised stability control wasn't at least an option on the new Civic. I suppose they are saving it for a mid-cycle introduction. Assuming good NHTSA crash test results, the Civic appears to the best choice in class for safety, though the Corolla is also worth consideration.

Caviller

formatting link

Reply to
caviller

Well, back in the day CR highly recommended the 1976 Dodge Aspen. My Father bought one on their report. The rest is history. For those too young to know what an Aspen is, do a google and you will find that it was the biggest pile of crappo built on four wheels.

Reply to
Roy Scherer

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.