Consumer Reports: Saturn

None of the Saturn cars for the 2006 New Car Preview edition of Consumer
Reports have been recommended.

Saturn: A different kind of company.

 

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.

http://tinyurl.com/au39h

 

This is untrue.

CR does test new models, when the model really changes. The problem with
Saturn and CR is that CR puts very high priority on reliability and
safety, two area where Saturn has done very poorly in most years.

I.e. look at the Ion rating:

"http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=526"

versus the Corolla rating:

"http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=305"

versus the Civic rating:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=300

And of course in long term dependability, Saturn has always been ranked
far below Toyota and Honda by J.D. Power.

So don't attack CR for not recommending Saturn, blame the safety issues
and the reliability issues.

 

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.

 

It wouldn't be so bad if the competition had similar reliability issues.
But Saturn has earned a bad reputation for long term dependability,
especially with all the cracked head problems, the alternator failures,
timing chain failures, and the oil burning. These problems are expensive
to fix, and in some cases they are recurring because of design flaws
(i.e. the alternator failures in the S series were due to the poor
placement in the engine compartment which resulted in excessive heat).

Look at the J.D. Power Long term dependability results during the past
few years, Saturn is always just slightly above, or just slightly below
average,

2005: "http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2005089"
2004: "http://www.jdpa.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2004055"
2003: "http://www.jdpa.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2003050"

But even these figures don't tell the whole story, because they fail to
distinguish between minor problems and major problems.

It isn't that Saturn is so bad, it's that some of the competitors are so
much better.

What also hurts Saturn is that unlike some of their competitors, they
procrastinate admitting known problems, and sometimes never admit them
and fix them. Every Saturn dealer knows about the oil burning problem,
and will even admit it to customers, but the corporation never did
anything about it, instead they simply claimed that the oil consumption
rate was "normal" during the warranty, and once the car was out of
warranty it was just too bad.

Because you can find such anecdotes for any vehicle, no matter how poor
or how well it does in the crash tests. Saturn created a powerful
marketing tool with the "safety cage" but in reality the crash test
results prove that it was a myth.

The 40mph frontal offset crash test by the IIHS is the primary standard
by which consumers that are interested in safety compare vehicles. Look
at the small car ratings at
"http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=40". This really hurts
Saturn because all the rationalizations in the world cannot change the
test results.

Produce a 40 mpg vehicle that does well in the crash tests, and back it
up with a 10 year/100K powertrain, 5 year/60K bumper to bumper warranty
to allay consumer fears about reliability. The latter is what brought
Hyundai back from the brink, despite continuing reliability issues, at
least the consumer is somewhat protected.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

Saturn has almost always been upset with CR's statistics, but they
haven't ever been able to counter them with any facts. This is why all
these great anecdotes are necessary.

You really are delusional. CR's reliability ratings are not their own
evaluation, they are based on tens of thousands of surveys that they
send out to owners. Their recommendations are based on safety, value,
fuel economy, and reliability. The fact that Saturn rarely excels in any
of these area, is why Saturn products are not recommended more.

Again, you are deluding yourself.

Agreeing to disagree is a cop-out. You have not provided a single shred
of supporting evidence for your position.

 

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.