I recently visited the Saturn website to check on an Astra factoid. I was surprised to discover that the brand has dropped the "American" part of their "Rethink American" advertising strapline. It's now just "Rethink," with various bits added as and when needed (e.g. Rethink Hybrids). The idea of a generic prefix, followed by a campaign-specific suffix, is not new. Mercedes dropped it's "Engineered like no other car in the world" shtick a long while ago, in favor of a revolving series of "FILL IN THE BLANK like no other car in the world" pronouncements. Nissan has been shifting this and that for some time now, from Expectations to, uh, I can't remember. Which is the problem. While a flexible strapline certainly helps the marketing mavens, like any brand extension, a one-size-doesn't-fit-all marketing solution weakens the impact of the original, highly-focused brand promise. In fact, none of these automakers keep their strapline front and center on their web pages. In any case, Saturn's shift in my expectations got me to re-thinking like no other journalist in the world. What IS a Saturn? I rang up Kyle Johnson, Saturn's Director of Communications, to ask him about the streamlined strapline, cupholders and Saturn's Unique Selling Point.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
With Flash, they could rotate slogans between, “Think American”, “Think Belgian”, “Think Mexican”, etc. just like Nissan on their web site.
I really should learn to read.
Speaking of consistency, if the Catera was “the Caddy that Zigs”, shouldn’t the Aura be “the Saturn that Zigs”? GM could use the “zigs” slogan for any Opel-derived product.
It would help us keep track.
No, that would be a bad idea. I can just imagine all of the ‘move zig’ and ‘all your Opel are belong to us’ jokes.
So, did anyone else notice how much Mr. Johnson spun, A LOT? On the one hand, it’s likely his job to do so (and he is good at it), but at some point, doesn’t your BS detector go off? My BS detector went off after hearing a few lines.
Have you ever noticed the people who do National Public Radio sound different from everyone else on the radio? Corporate Kool Aid pushers have a tone and method of speech that is all their own. It crosses regional boundaries and accents. Mr. Johnson has that whole corporate speech thing down to an art. I suspect he is really successful. Still, I don’t even need to listen to what he is saying to know from the way he is saying it that it is spin.
What I don’t understand is why it still works on people. It’s like one of those fake looks that Bill Clinton used to always use. It took a decade for people to catch on. Why?
Landcrusher,
It works because that tone and style is the least offensive way to present information to the largest group of people. I think this is due to the fact that while a person might be smart individually, when grouped together into groups of, oh, say, 6 or more, people become idiotic bleating sheep in need of gentle shepherding and calm elusive wordplay. Its all spin and studies have shown that the younger generations have a very sensitive BS meter and I for one hope it goes away in favor of honest, intelligent discussion as time goes on.
This will not happen, of course, and continued misinformation from government and our corporate overlords will lead us into dystopia as soon as they can mismanage it.
Landcrusher> I thought the same thing, only substitute “spin” for “bullshit”. I’m just a country boy with a more limited vocabulary. :)
It’s a warning to anyone thinking of buying a Saturn!
I feel sorry for the poor bastard. He has to defend Saturn’s all day long.
Landcrusher — I agree with you (again). It would be more genuine if he had said, “Yes, we would have liked to introduce the Aura with both an I4 and V6, but we couldn’t get it done. So we’re offering the I4 a year later.” Instead, he tried to defend an obviously inferior strategy. That’s when he LOST ALL CREDIBILITY in my book.
Way to pound on him, RF! You didn’t pull any punches!
Thanks for the interesting interview. It sounds like Saturn now imagines themselves as the GM brand for VW Intenders. Kyle sure tap dances past the difficult questions.
Still waiting for an answer on what happened to the American in rethink American. Maybe GM should just create an Opel division here and kill Saturn off entirely
SATURN’S ASTRA! Apply directly to the pavement!
SATURN’S ASTRA! Apply directly to the pavement!
SATURN’S ASTRA! Apply directly to the pavement!
Yea, the newer generations are bleating idiots. I wouldn’t hold my breath expecting them to get honesty, integrity, or intelligence from car marketers. The last honest car ads were the Joe Isuzu ads from the 80’s.
I would be impressed if they changed their U.S. ad slogan to “Think Belgian.” Did any of you see TAXI’s brilliant and hilarious “Dominate Winter” campaign for MINI Canada about two years ago?
VW in the 60’s proved there’s a lot to be done with tongue-in-cheek advertising.
With respect to the 6-cylinder-only strategy of the Aura; weren’t they concerned that they’d steal sales from the Impala?
And if 70-80% of mid-size intenders want 4-bangers, why would they cut themselves off from the bulk of the market?
I used to like Saturn. They were Practical Little Cars (with plastic panels). Now, they’re… I don’t know what. And the people I know who bought them aren’t going to buy the New Saturns. They’re all Practical Little Car people. It’s like throwing any brand loyalty away.
I realize this is the forum for un-checked critique of automakers’ marketing strategies, so the response is usually going to be weighted on the harsh side, but I actually felt this guy did a pretty impressive job of being straight-up about Saturn’s direction. I guess I feel like he’s obligated to push the positives of his brand (and we’d tear him to pieces if he didn’t, too).
RF – I applaud your doggedness with the questions… I also detected a bit less hostility than I’ve heard from you with other interviews. Did you appreciate Kyle’s straightforward answers as I did? How do *you* feel he fared?
After listening to this podcast, I have to wonder why “Saturn” is still about? Surely “Opel/Vauxhall” could have done this job? And I’m not even talking about killing the division off, just the brand. Kill the “Saturn” brand and rename all dealers “Opel” or “Vauxhall”. Let’s face it, they’re taking their cars and selling them in North America, why not let Opel/Vauxhall take the credit? Give the brand a little more cache?
I love the way Mr Johnson said that “Saturn” stood for “euro inspired”. Surely, he meant “Euro-Built”…….?
Must rethink, must rethink, must rethink….
RF: Thanks for reminding me why I left the corporate world. That was amusing.
Mr. Farago –
Stop picking on the marketing types with your dastardly logic. It’ll make their heads explode.
(Just kidding…keep it up…it makes me giggle.)
It would help if selling opels in the US actually made GM money at some point.
Katie-
I’m not an expert on the branding strategy for GM Europe (maybe you can help clarify), but isn’t GM using the Vauxhall name to re-brand Opels in Britain right now? I’d argue that, with Opel as the “parent brand” for these vehicles (like the Astra, etc.), Vauxhall is nothing more than Britain’s Saturn.
As for dropping Saturn as a brand, well… As little recognition as Saturn has in the States, Opel and Vauxhall have no presence here at all. Since Saturn has, up to this point, lacked a coherent branding strategy in the states (their original import-beating one died with their first generation of vehicles), it seems fair to think that they could be re-imagined as the Euro-centric arm of the GM stable… (IMHO, at least – I seem to be in a minority here.)
AndyR,
With respect, Vauxhall has more of a heritage than Saturn. GM bought them in the 1910’s and slowly but surely, they merged them with Opel. GM would love to ditch the Vauxhall brand (in fact they tried to once), but like you say, it has a cache in the UK, more so than Opel. But to call it “Britain’s Saturn” is extremly harsh. Vauxhall was great……once.
I never understood “import fighter” (shouldn’t every car fight any import in its segment?) and I certainly don’t understand “euro-centric.”
People that want a European car will buy one. They won’t buy a Saturn; the nuance of an Opel rebadged is going to be lost on people that want a Benz or Bimmer.
The market seems to me to be fought in functional segments; pickups, compacts, mid-size sedans, luxo-barges, performance coupes, sport sedans, etc. To say a car is “euro” tells me much less than to say a car is a “compact.”
Saturn could say a particular model of their cars is a “Camry or Accord fighter” and that would communicate a lot; mid-to-large sedan focussed on interior room, comfort but not lux, acceptable performance (with optional V6 for good performance), good fuel economy (acceptable fuel economy with optional V6) and decent trunk space.
Katie-
I never intended to down-grade Vauxhall’s legacy by lumping it with a fabricated marque like Saturn. I only meant to illustrate that any non-Opel product has long since vacated the Vauxhall line-up. Regardless of history, Vauxhall = Saturn = Opel in the current product lineup (with all the included crossovers like the Sky, which originated with Saturn).
KixStart-
Perhaps the confusion of terms comes down to individual experience… (and please, everyone, pipe up if you find you don’t agree – like that’s ever been a problem :) ) Domestic American cars seem to have (until lately) suffered from certain inadequacies when compared to their (primarily) German and Japanese competition, especially in the compact to midsize markets… What you describe in terms of a “Camcord fighter” is similar to what I describe as “import fighter”, though if the targeted import is a VW (Euro-centric, if you will) the criteria might be interior quality instead of reliability or value-for-money.
It seems apparent to me when GM releases a vehicle like the Astra that they are attempting to fight the American stereotype, and in the case of the Saturn, they are quite obviously aiming at the Rabbit/Golf rather than the Civic. The idea being, a person shopping for compact cars might be drawn to the quality interior of the VW and (hopefully) cross-shop the Astra on price. “European” doesn’t mean Bimmer-beater to me; it just says “luxury appointments.”
There was a time when Opel was a nameplate in the US of course–but it was always buried in the back of the Buick dealership showrooms, nicht wahr?
So the imports sell cars primarily around the world. When times are good they add some North American products such as big trucks and SUVs but when gas prices go up it is easy to move out more economy oriented vehicles that they already sell around the world.
FINALLY maybe GM realizes they have a gem in Opel and how easy it is to sell Opels as Saturns. Okay – just kill off the Saturn brand and leave the Opel names – okay?
The big 2.8 primarily sell trucks and SUVs and ignore their car lineup b/c they are not as profitable. Consequently the non-large vehicle segment languishes until gas prices jump like they have done to $3 a gallon and it takes AGES for the big three to respond. It’s like they ignore the small(er) vehicles until they are desperate for economy product!
Why not keep Europe selling mostly cars and North American selling trucks and exchage vehicles as necessary? Our markets are much more volatile anyhow – Europe always buy small while we buy based on the current fuel prices. Is that because Europe taxes based on displacement? Europeans are not going to buy American style pickups when gas drops 50 cents a a gallon. Their towns and cities stay small… Tough to manuver.
Furthermore – when the big 2.8 introduce a new produce it seems to in response to the early manuvering by the imports.
Gas prices climb and the import guys simply ship in a line of compacts already sold somewhere else. All they have to do is federalize them, add them to their supply line (cars and parts).
Gas jumps ALOT and they add a line of super-minis formally already found in Europe or Japan.
Meanwhile the big 2.8 spend 5 years rushing a new compact to market adding some new feature that often turns out to be half-baked such as GMs CVT tranny in the Vue which later had a habit of self-destructing at 85K miles b/c the CVT chain was under-spec’d. They they ditch the whole program and install 4 speed autos in their place rather than fixing the CVT woes and then having a tranny they could use in many different models that they sell. Duh!
I mean how long is GM going to show that trio of super-mini cars on the show circuit? Why not sell a small Opel (Corsa?) they already produce NOW? By the time they get around to selling that trio of super-minis the gas price crisis will be past! They will have a big investment in a car the market no longer wants.
It’s a good argument for a world-wide product lineup. Easy federalization.
Of course – maybe GM doesn’t want to sell us those super-mini cars b/c they can weather the storm by showing concept cars they never intend to build -OR- they don’t want to alter American taste in cars which might open the “floodgates” and ultimately diminish the markets for larger vehicles such as SUVs or trucks…
The new Camaro? Nah I don’t want one of those – they are SO 2005…
The last thing I’ll rattle on about here is the big 2.8’s habit of joining a vehicle market with a vehicle that is larger and heavier than the competition’s product. We bought a new CR-V back in 1999. Nice little 2.0L four-banger vehicle. The VUE came out and seems substantially larger. The Ford CUV comes with a V-6. The Chrysler Patriot (?) CUV is much larger and has a 4.0L???
WHY would I want to buy a CUV that heavy or that big? Why would I want something that “needs” a 4.0L to merge in traffic?
Maybe we don’t understand each other. I want a smallish light-weight clever vehicle and maybe they think I want the largest thing I can afford…
Whatever the case I think they ought to unify their dealers to be all GM dealers and advertise their vehicles together. A commercial advertising their high mpg cars all together – following each other across the screen might be clever so we can see all the brands they sell here in the USA together that get 30 mpg+ It’s easy to see the Aveo and forget the Cobalt or see the Saturn and forget about the Aveo! Are there any others?
What stops the USA and Europe from unifying their safety and emissions standards to make truly international products? Trade laws? Unions?
What stops GM from selling all their products through all of their dealers?
Whatever the case Saturn selling undiluted Opels is something I’ve wanted since the early 90’s when I was living in Italy. No Pontiac LeMans versions of the Kadett. No Caddy versions (with Buick styling cues) of the Omega.
I think AndyR has the right of it. While Saturn has never had much mindshare in the States, Opel has had virtually none. Didn’t Buick dealers actually sell Opels a few decades back? And anyway, it seems to me that renaming things has never been a terribly successful strategy for the US automakers.
MgoBLUE — We could have put the 4-cylinder in the Aura in the 2007 model year. It’s the same motor compartment as the G6. It was a very deliberate strategy to hold back the 4-cylinder until the ’08 model year.
Kyle Johnson:
Thanks for joining us here.
It was a very deliberate strategy to hold back the 4-cylinder until the ‘08 model year.
Why? What was the thinking behind this move?
Robert Farago — Space the Aura away from other GM midsize sedans. Establish the Aura as always a strong competitor.
KatiePuckrik — It is difficult to explain complex things on the podcast. Perhaps I can do a better job here.
“Euro-built” isn’t appropriate. The Aura, Outlook and Sky are all engineered and built here in the U.S.
Vehicle development is now a global effort. For example, the Vue was designed in Europe, engineered in Korea and manufactured in Mexico for sale in the U.S. and Canada.
Welcome to the conversation, Kyle! Thanks for braving the comments section…
Could you elaborate a bit on the plans to help distinguish the Aura from the Malibu in Chevy’s stable? With prices near identical at almost all trim levels (the hybrids go out the door for exactly the same price), it seems difficult to distinguish between the two. What will bring buyers to the Aura who aren’t already looking exclusively at GM vehicles?
” Didn’t Buick dealers actually sell Opels a few decades back?”
Yes they did. They even had one minor hit, the Opel GT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel_GT
The Opel Kadett sedan was also sold and perhaps a few other items. http://www.justwebit.com/members/39011/gallery.shtml
This strategy played out in the 60s and 70s and was pretty much a mess. Buick dealers at the time were about the last place a person looking for a small four cylinder car were going to go.
Later on Buick dealers sold “Opel by Isuzu” products which were simply Isuzu cars with an Opel badge sold at Buick dealers. They were a disaster. Isuzu took on setting up it’s own dealer network and did quite well for themselves for about two decades until they lost the plot.
Another Opel product which made it into US dealerships was the Pontiac Lemans of 1988-1993. It was an Opel Kadett built by Daewoo in Korea and sold through Pontiac dealers in the US. I put about 500 miles on one as a rental car back in the day. Not a horrible car, but nothing very special and less reliable than competing Corollas & Civics. Many did in fact end up in rental fleets. You will rarely find one still on the road today.
All of which is to say, there is nothing new about Saturn’s current strategy. At least they aren’t duplicating the Allante strategy which included a round trip air journey between Michigan and Italy in the middle of the production process.
Opel/Buick, Opel/Isuzu, Chevy Luv, several Geos, Pontiac Lemans, Pontiac GTO, Cadillac Catera, and Saturn L200/300 were all products of GM’s overseas operations and/or affiliates.
Not a one of these efforts was a real success. The best of them served as gap fillers. The most recent complete disaster was the Saturn L series, which car was basically an Opel Vectra design tooled up for production in Delaware. It was a flop and was canceled after only a few short years. The sales were so poor that GM killed it off early in 2005 even though it’s replacement, the Aura, wasn’t due until late in 2006. The Aura seems to be a much better car and is based on the same updated platform used by the later Opel Vectras. Thus the Aura is really a next generation L-series. Of course given the dismal sales of the L, Saturn came up with a new name.
As Albert Einstein said: “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Mr Johnson,
Firstly, welcome to TTAC and I must commend your bravery from talking to us petrolheads face to face (well, keyboard to keyboard!)
So, to call “Saturn” an American car company is really a misnomer? It’s a global effort? I was reading your website and Saturn refers to itself as an “american family”. If an american wanted to buy a car that supported American jobs (not a good basis for buying a car, I know!), rather than a Saturn Vue, surely, he/she would be better off buying a Hyundai Sonata? Or Toyota Camry? Or a Honda Accord?
What would you say to those people who call “Saturn” an irrelevance and a brand which should be consigned to the history books?
AndyR — We maintain an outward, customer focus in our marketing — Chevrolet and Saturn are “teammates” in the marketplace. We definitely come with different perspectives. Saturn is “no-haggle, no hassle” customer service oriented at 440 retailers. Chevrolet has over 2000 dealers and a much broader portfolio. We’ll each monitor competitor actions and work the market from our unique positions.
This answer probably doesn’t satify you, but the underlying premise in your post (Saturn v Chevrolet) isn’t valid.
KatiePuckrik,
It’s all shades of gray with regard to vehicle origin these days. What is the relevant yardstick for “American,” “German,” “Japanese” or “Korean?” Even for vehicles assembled in the U.S., a significant percentage of the components may have been manufactured elsewhere.
With respect to Saturn, going foward we’re sharing designs with Opel (typically from the design studios in Germany); sharing engineering on joint programs (could be anywhere, Germany, Korea, U.S., Brazil, Australia, etc.); GM prefers to manufacture in the regions where the vehicles will be sold, but that isn’t always economically feasible. We’re importing Astra from Belgium, but GM also exports the Opel GT (twin to the Sky) from Delaware to Europe.
How can a brand be “irrelevant” when its sales are up 8 percent in a down market? When it’s average transaction price is up 43 percent in moving from the ’06 model year to the ’08 model year?
“This answer probably doesn’t satify you, but the underlying premise in your post (Saturn v Chevrolet) isn’t valid.”
Nonsense. Every Saturn has (or soon will) have a competing offering from Chevrolet or Pontiac. Business strategy wise, Saturn never should have been started in the first place. GM needed to fix the problems it’s then existing brands had, not start another midmarket brand.
There is no compelling reason for both the Sky and Solstice to exist. Potential customers for the Malibu and Aura are the same people. Spinning nonsense about the different customer experience in the showroom is nothing but laying the fog of war over the fact that many Chevrolet and Pontiac dealerships give a rotten customer experience on the sales floor. The right answer would have been to fix what was broken. The wrong answer was to start and internal competitor.
Saturn was a dumb idea from day 1 and it’s ongoing draining of engineering and marketing resources away from the historic GM brands is one of the many ongoing problems GM has.
Of course if there was no Saturn there would be no need for Saturn Public Relations people ….
P.S. If Saturn is GM’s European flavor brand, what the **** is Saab ???????????????????
P.P.S If Saturn and Saab are both going to continue to exist, why not put the really rotten Saab dealer network and US operations out of business and sell Saturns and Saabs out of the same showrooms?
I agree that Saabs and Saturns (Opels) ought to be sold from the same dealer network.
As far as Saturn being a dumb idea – I think you are totally wrong here. Saturn promises to deliver a product that is completely different from the other divisions. That’s what GM ought to be doing. Designing a vehicle and then selling the same car with tiny differences under 3 different name plates is a plan that best suits the dealers but bores the consumers…
I’d be very happy if GM had 9 unique cars all with similar specs but a unique style. Note that by similar specs I mean V-6 and auto transmission but unique sheet metal and interiors. For example the Aura and the Malibu are unique but offer similar specs and different style.
Opel and lots of other “world” manufacturers do this with their cars offering wagons (YAY!), sedans, coupes, convertibles, light-duty delivery vehicles, etc all on the same platform. As long as they are all badged Opels (Saturns) then fine. It’s when they are badged as Buicks and Pontiacs and Chevys that I lose interest.
Hasn’t Honda been pretty consistent with the Power of Dreams? I think they’ve had that one for a long time now. They don’t do much advertising as far as I’ve seen, though.
“As far as Saturn being a dumb idea – I think you are totally wrong here. Saturn promises to deliver a product that is completely different from the other divisions.”
Back in 1985 GM’s Boss Roger Smith wanted to revolutionize how GM built and sold cars. Rather than try to fix the Chevrolet, Buick, Oldsmobile, Pontiac and Cadillac operations he chose to start yet another division which would “do it right”. That was a strategic blunder, and arguably led to the decision little over a decade later to shut down Oldsmobile. Smith also made big moves by buying EDS and Hughes. Saturn has never come close to selling like Oldsmobile was doing in 1985.
The first Saturn was an OK effort at competing the with Japanese, but it should have been a Chevrolet. Why build a huge costly new infrastructure for the purpose of selling mass market cars? It made no sense then and still doesn’t today. Anything GM can do with Saturn it should be doing with Chevrolet.
Toyota sells almost as many vehicles worldwide as GM does, and does so with two main brands, Toyota and Lexus. Scion isn’t really a separate brand since it’s dealers are really just Toyota dealer. Scion’s structure is similar to what Geo was back when GM had Geo as a sub-brand of Chevrolet. Which brings up the point that at the same time GM was trying to position Saturn as it’s “import fighter” they were also selling imports at Chevrolet dealers as Geos.
Even a company as massive as General Motors needs to be very careful how it uses it’s resources. Saturn remains a strategic blunder. EDS and Hughes have since both been sold off and Saturn, the last of Smith’s Big Ideas, needs to be put to rest as well.
I bought a first generation Saturn. Saturn had promoted them as the practical person’s sporty car, and it was. The original saturns weighed a mere 2,450 lbs, they were nimble and cornered flat. When I first had the car, one day I turned from DC’s Mass Avenue onto a side street — 80 degree turn or so — without braking. A cop pulled me over. He was apparently offended that I’d taken the corner so fast — at 30 maybe — but I hadn’t exceeded the speed limit, so he couldn’t ticket me. I used to love tossing that car on the twisties.
The plastic panels WERE practical (I have acquired two parking lot dings in the doors of my Accord).
In 1995, Saturn sold nearly 300,000 copies, more than they sell of their four or five current models. My understanding when I bought the car was that they were going to leave the rather cool-looking styling alone, and concentrate on improving the substance. But no, they had to dumb down the styling, dumb down the handling, and totally lose their brand identity. They lost me and probably a few hundred thousand other original buyers.
@jthorner
The reason to start a whole new company, separate from the mother company, was because the mother company had a sclerotic bureaucracy. Smith’s idea was to start something good that was free of that bureaucracy, and then try to apply the lessons of Saturn to the rest of GM.
The beginning of the end for Saturn was when GM pulled it back into the “small car group” in the mother company in 1996. That’s when they dumbed it down.
Mr. Johnson,
I want to second Katie’s welcome to TTAC. Despite my negative comments, I respect you for speaking directly to us, both on the podcast–which I haven’t listened to yet–and online.
“The reason to start a whole new company, separate from the mother company, was because the mother company had a sclerotic bureaucracy. Smith’s idea was to start something good that was free of that bureaucracy, and then try to apply the lessons of Saturn to the rest of GM.”
I know the reasons Smith gave for starting Saturn, but his idea never panned out and was the wrong way to solve the problem in the first place. If GM had a sclerotic bureaucracy problem then the new CEO should have fired enough bureaucrats to fix that problem. Starting a parallel organization as a CEO-Pet-Project was a dumb move. I’m surprised that the Board of Bystanders went along with it. Saturn has yet to turn a cumulative profit for GM. 22 years and counting.
If they’d been left alone by the mother company, and allowed to maintain their original focus, they might well have turned a profit long ago. The trouble started when the GM pulled them back into the mother ship. After only 4 years of production. They did much better before they were pulled back into GM than after.
Kyle Johnson, thanks for dropping by.
If you don’t mind, I’d really like the background on V6-only in the Aura for its first year.
Everybody I know who’s gone “Camcord” in the last few years went shopping intending to get a 4-cylinder. Now, two (out of 8) came out with V6’s but only because they shopped late in the year, couldn’t find a 4 equipped they way they wanted and got a super deal on a V6.
Maybe the people I know are atypical but it seems like 4s rule that segment and a V6-only car is a bit of a puzzle to me.
Agree w/ KixStart. FWD is front heavy enough w/ 4cyl. And I get plenty of zip in my 2.3 4cyl Accord. (Oh, not by Boxster or 3series standards, but I would rather have the handling than the power.)
I bought a Saturn because I wanted an American car. Guess I couldn’t do that with the Astra.
If I was to buy again I would have to buy a Cobalt, Caliber or Focus.
Kyle Johnson- I’m not sure it was a good strategy to hold the 4 cylinder back. A lot of people who would have bought 4 cylinder Auras probably ended up in Japanese brand cars or Fusions.
Kyle Johnson: thanks for your time with us. Considering Saturn’s premium branding I’d have to agree with the strategy with initially going V6 only.
I’d consider going a step further, making the 3.6L and the I-4 Hybrid the only engines available. (not a big fan of the 3.5L, or the 2.8L that it came from) That might narrow your scope too much, but it would really help position the brand against the Malibu.
“If they’d been left alone by the mother company, and allowed to maintain their original focus, they might well have turned a profit long ago. The trouble started when the GM pulled them back into the mother ship.”
Sorry, but that isn’t true. Saturn was unable to make enough profits from their venture to re-invest in more models or any updates. Most reports said that in the first 10-15 years of Saturn’s existence it consistently lost money. Saturn’s substantial start-up capital all came from GM’s treasury, which meant that said money wasn’t available to invest in the historic GM brands.
The only way for Saturn to get new models was to be brought under the GM corporate product development and sourcing system. Had Saturn been a stand alone start up automotive company they would have had to close the doors or sell out. The beginning and the resuscitation of Saturn’s product portfolio all came courtesy of the cash and expertise within GM. The initial design work and engineering was all done by the GM corporate staff and then handed over when Saturn was set up.
I know that early on Saturn had a lot of passionate fans and that those fans were disenchanted when the mother ship took over, but the only alternative was to shut it down. Saturn had lost money forever and was not capable of designing and building the range of products it would need to compete. Personally I still think Saturn never should have been started and should not have been resuscitated.
Think about it this way. GM is in even more trouble as a business today than it was in 1984, the year they took the decision to launch Saturn as a company-within-the-company. GM has the same number of car brands in the US market today as it did in 1984 (subtract Oldsmobile, add Saturn). Does anyone think that the way GM should get it’s house in order today is to start a stand-alone subsidiary corporation with a new name, a new factory, a clean sheet car design, a new proprietary engine and a whole new dealer network? If it was a great idea in 1984, why isn’t it a great idea to do it again today?
I’d agree, more or less, with Sajeev. A 224hp 3.5L pushrod V6 and 4-speed transmsission is not in keeping with “premium brand” identity. The premium end of the competition is 260hp DOHC engines with many-speed transmissions. If the Aura’s a premium vehicle, they should tick to premium drivetrains. And the BAS hybrid package should be deliverable at low enough cost to Saturn that it can be the “fuel efficient” drivetrain for this premium car without pricing it in Camry hybrid territory.