![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-425736-100x100.png\")
I figured this would happen.
I figured this would happen.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
The writing has been on the wall in Northern NJ for quite some time. One of the larger Saturn dealerships in Morris County, Saturn of Denville, Mount Olive and Livingstone hasn't had anything but used cars on it's lot for almost 6 months. I hear that Stu Lasser, the gentleman that owns the chain of dealerships was getting a lot of flak because he wanted to convert the flagship in Denville to a Kia dealership, but due to contractual obligations, he was unable to.
I guess now that Penske is backing out, he might be able to get his wish.
@SinDex23: A Saturn dealer in Georgia converted over to a mega-Kia dealer, IIRC.
But it's a different story here in Fort Wayne: The Saturn dealer here (who also owns a bunch of other GM franchises, including the #1 Buick/Pontiac/GMC franchise in the Midwest) was cheering on Roger Penske to do good things with Saturn, as his Saturn dealer had a VERY loyal customer base. Even George Bush (senior, not W) bought three Saturns from him... what, was there such a shortage of good Saturn dealers in Texas that made him come to Indiana?
Oh well. Maybe he'll sell the soon-to-be-empty Saturn building \"on the 14/69 Auto Mall\" to Bob Rohrman, and he'll move his high-volume Toyota dealer there.
@SinDex23:
Pretty soon he will be extolling the virtues of how much better the Kia is than Saturn.
Then you may ask him the question of why he was selling Saturns when the Kia was the better car.
Then you may watch him squirm.
@Blueskylaw: Honestly, I used to work for the man and not much phased him. It was standard policy to churn through C techs every 2.5 months so he wouldn't have to pay them benefits or invest in their 401k's.
You might argue that it could be considered good business practice to do this, since the majority of the people hired for this churn already knew how to do oil changes and tire jobs etc etc... But morally it's a dick move.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-25844-100x100.png\")
If I recall the details of the proposed deal correctly, it wasn't a great deal for either side.
Penske would have paid GM for the Saturn brand, and its dealership network agreements, but not for any of the manufacturing facilities. So basically Penske would have paid GM to become a sort of \"uber dealer\".
On the other hand, GM would have gotten some cash, but would have ended up in an agreement to continue building the same cars for the same dealer network. Well if they couldn't make Saturn profitable before, aside from a one-time capital gain, it doesn't make sense that the deal would have generated any further profits for GM.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-98962-100x100.png\")
@humphrmi: I don't know why GM did not sell Penske the whole shabang. That deal is just terrible all the way around. Now GM get's nothing.
@sonneillon: Risk that Penske would ruin GM at its own game.
There where even specific stipulations baring Penske from getting his cars from Opel even if GM didnt own the company anymore, because GM knew that if Penske sold Opel cars (which Saturn had been moving to anyway) and actually market them (which Saturn never did) then he might make Saturn work.
The problem with Saturn and GM is you had three people (Lutz, Wagoner, and now Fritz Henderson) who have numerous times in the past expressed their disdain for Saturn. Saturn was Roger Smiths baby, and as such when he left as CEO support within GM proper disappeared rapidly in the next 3-6 years, especially when Saturn in its first few years managed to embarrass GM by actually turning a profit while GM reported record losses which many in GM actually BLAMED on Saturn cannibalizing away from GM (never mind there was a small recession going on)
This was basically the culmination right here. Lutz finally got his lifelong wish of killing Saturn, which he over a decade ago specifically set out to do he hated the brand so much and was not shy in stating as such in public.
@Falcon5768: That's what I never understood about CEOs and companies like that. You have a company or division that's doing something different, is being widely appreciated by the public, and is making a profit it at, you'd think they'd appreciate it and follow the money in order to maximize the potential of the rest of their company.
But, no. It's like they have some insurmountable mental block against admitting what they were doing before, or doing now, or believe in, is incorrect. Then you get situations like this were execs seem to go out of their way to crush divisions like this out of pure spite. The duality is sickening some times; you'll have execs that will have their companies do anything they possibly can to make money, regardless of legality. Then you have instances like this were a division is making legit profits by doing fair business, and they're killed by the parent because of their success.
I have a friend who works/worked at Saturn. He said their downfall came around 2000-2001, when their in-house design was scraped and their products essentially became a plastic body slapped on to a Neon frame instead of what they were doing before. He also predicted at that time that GM would be dead before the decade was out due to asinine politics like that.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16563-100x100.png\")
@Falcon5768: It must suck to be the CEO of SUVs when your own upstart mini-brand is eating your lunch.
Of course, sensible (i.e., Japanese or European, or for that matter any MBA worth his sheepskin not drinking Detroit Executive Kool-Aid) would have sensed an untapped business opportunity and maximized it.
When I bought out my lease (don't even GET me started on that, yes, I was an idiot, but with physical damage, it was the best option) the salesman at Saturn of Bellevue was telling me how it was a \"done deal\" and would be announced by July 1.
He was sorely mistaken. My first bad experience with a Saturn dealership was Saturn of Bellevue. Definitely feel like I got taken to the cleaners, even with my Consumerist knowledge.
I think they felt I was backed into a corner because of my damage.
Sad to hear that, though. I love my car and the brand.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-332708-100x100.png\")
Well, that won't be so hot for my local economy...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-248249-100x100.png\")
I still plan to buy a 1996-2002 SL2 to compliment my 1995 SL2. Anybody have one fully loaded, preferably dark green?
This just made my day!
It's too bad, because their aesthetics were finally starting to come around with the Aura and Sky.
Their earlier models were less than appealing, to put it very nicely.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-68654-100x100.png\")
@G.O.B.: Come on!: agreed. the aura & the sky have very sleek lines. even the astra is pretty nice looking for a compact.
GM missed a huge opportunity with saturn. they never really threw the marketing dollars at saturn that they threw into other brands - even the smaller brands like hummer & saab. to this day, i've never seen a single commercial for any of the 3 vehicles mentioned above.
how can you expect a brand to compete without letting people know it exists?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-665956-100x100.png\")
I've never owned one, but I've always liked Saturns and considered the Vue before buying my Equinox. And I love the look of the Sky.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1226904-100x100.png\")
So, what about the number-2 bidders for the Saturn rights - the coalition of Saturn dealers? Are they back in the running now?
@Dondegroovily: Au contraire they were never the number 2...the brand is not dead but in hibernation for the next year.
@Dondegroovily: No the brand is dead dead, as in shut down asap with the dealers being closed by the beginning of next year.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-34412-100x100.png\")
GM should have offered a 2-for-1 deal when they sold Hummer to the Chinese. LOL.
I think eventually GM will be reduced down to Chevrolet, Cadillac, and GMC. Well, maybe Chevrolet and Cadillac.
@LatherRinseRepeat: GM will never dump GMC - it's one of their most profitable lines. consider this excerpt from a truck trend article:
GMC has often been accused of being redundant, as all of its vehicles can also be found in other GM brands under different sheet metal. Despite that, the brand still makes a good business case for itself. GMC is GM's number-two selling brand behind Chevrolet and well ahead of Buick, Cadillac, Pontiac, Saturn, Saab and Hummer. GMC sold 376,996 vehicles in the U.S. in 2008, outselling the Chrysler brand (335,108), Acura (144,504), Jeep (333,901), BMW (249,113), Infiniti (112,989), Lincoln (107,295), Mercury (120,248), Volvo (73,102), Kia (273,397), Volkswagen (223,128), Mazda (243,949) and Mercedes-Benz (225,128).GMC's curse is also its blessing. Because GMC vehicles can be found in other brands, it costs GM comparatively little to produce new body panels and badges for the same vehicles, and trucks and SUVs are generally high-profit vehicles compared to passenger cars. It would make little business sense to kill a brand that is comparatively cheap to produce and still outsells a number of other brands.
why would it make any sense to dump a best-selling brand that's highly profitable?
@mac-phisto: Dont have to dump them, just dump their administrative overhead which they are careful NOT to talk about.
There is no reason for GMC to be a separate dealership with a separate supply chain and separate management. If you want to keep GMC so bad, kill Chevys commercial line then.
There are lots of ways to cut cost there without actually physically killing the company.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-108451-100x100.png\")
Dammit so I guess my Saturn Sky is worthless now. :(
You mean your OPEL GT. The SKY is NOT an American vehicle. They are produced in Delaware, but have parts all imported from Germany and Belgium.
Practically all the Saturns have been import Opel designs since they discontinued the SL2. This is a good thing though; the newer Astras are FAR more reliable than the old SL2's that had major tranny problems and burned tons of oil.
I'll keep my Honda. It's more American than any Saturn
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-804913-100x100.png\")
@MSUHitman: I will gladly take it off your hands! I just need you to make me a really, really good deal :D
I was looking forward to possibly purchasing one in the future.
Sadly looks like that won't be happening now D:
The real tragedy is EVERYTHING was in place, except the cars. Penske had already sent the dealers their new contracts, set up the retirement of all the parts suppliers from GM so they could go on to work for him, and hired all the management personnel.
Even Jill Lajdziak had requested an early retirement from GM to go on to work as the GM for Penske-Saturn.
All of that just got thrown away today.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-614980-100x100.png\")
Dammit, the one GM brand worth saving gets dropped anyway.
WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING, GM?
Oh yeah, that's right. YOU WEREN'T.
@FooSchnickens:
There all made from the same parts. One isn't any more worthy of saving than another. You either like GM or your don't, but comaring Saturn to Chevy or Buick is just silly.
@tbax929 is back from the beach: The difference is that Saturn was the most forward-thinking of all the GM marques (in the US, at least). Cheap econoboxes for the masses with plastic body panels and good fuel economy. Something no other domestic brand was doing until we finally got the focus. The sheer number of SLs still on the road today is testament to their reliability and people who own them swear by them. If I didn't already have a daily beater I'd get a saturn. Hands down.
Also, they're.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-328859-100x100.png\")
@FooSchnickens: It's good to know that GM is still up to the same types of decisions that put it in the position of needing a bailout in the first place. Heaven forbid they learn anything from this snafu and save Saturn, their one and only brand with some customer loyalty and good will behind it.
Don't mess with Roger Penske. He plays hard and wields a giant hammer. He takes no prisoners. You do it his way or you get smashed flat.
Saturn just got pounded into sub-flat.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1223549-100x100.png\")
I agree that Penske is a take-no-prisoners guy, but what, exactly, did he get out of this? Exactly nothing, right?
@LastError: Maybe it'll grow into a tree it got buried so deep
Roger's a straight-shooting, no-nonsense SOB that plays hardball and runs a tight, clean-cut operation.
One story goes a crew chief was caught by a race judge trying to cheat and Roger caught wind of it. He fired him on the spot without prejudice or giving the poor bastard a chance to explain why.
GM probably tried to play the BS game with him and he didn't appreciate it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-894757-100x100.png\")
I'm on my third (and apparently last) Saturn. 2008 Astra. I absolutely love it. If I'm lucky it'll be a collector's item in a few years...but probably not.
@LandShark: Saturn ain't got no history to go back on. It'll be a footnote in comparison to the Pontiac family.
@Nighthawke: Well same could be said about a lot of now gone brands like GEO where their cars actually do go for a lot still.
That being said Pontiac isnt dead. They are shutting it down but not selling the brand specifically to bring it back when the economy warrants it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-405405-100x100.png\")
Now what are people who like lame cars going to buy?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-545212-100x100.png\")
@acarr260: And for those of us with families on a budget, I'll take my Honda appliance minivan over anything \"American\" companies have currently, thankyouverymuch. Considering the car's at least as American as anything from the other brands, I think it's a good choice overall.
@treimel:
Compared with a Boxster, Elise, or Z4M (or even an early 90's MR2 Turbo)...
Yeah, I'd say the S2000 is more of an appliance!
Just kidding, sort of. The S2000 is by far the most exciting car currently offered by Honda, but IME one really has to flog the car before it \"comes alive\". It's a real hoot when it DOES, but most of the time during more reasonable driving it feels composed, controlled, and sedate. The other cars I listed (except the Elise) are also quite refined, but they never let you forget that you are driving a potent machine. The S2000 is like the \"nice\" girl who occasionally cuts loose (and rarely lets you down), while the others seem more like the free-spirited \"party girl\" who is a good time all of the time, but has a lot more \"maintenance\" issues as well. One really cannot be faulted for going in either direction, its just personal preference.
After the myriad electrical, out of warranty problems I had with my fourth (and final) Saturn automobile three years ago, this comes as little surprise. The Aura and Outlook may be finer, but it's too little too late. We started buying Hondas after that fiasco, no regrets here.
My GF has a crappy Saturn, but overall it was good line of cars with poor execution in marketing and design. They would be rolling in cash if they focused on making cars that could go head-to-head with Honda in MPG, ease of maintenance, and long performance life.
To all those folks in Middle TN out of a good US manufacturing jobs, I am sorry about your and our countries loss.
@MarcosMaximus:
GM had already stopped building Saturns in Tenn.
That plant was building the Chevy Traverese and was going to build a new small car for GM.
GM chose another plant to build the car and the Spring Hill plant is now scheduled to close. Still a loss for Middle TN.
@MarcosMaximus: Actually Saturn did.
Its pretty well known that Saturns old SC and SL line of cars hit over 40+ MPG well beyond the government MPG listing or Saturns own estimates. I used to be able to go over a week commuting 60+ miles a day on a tank of gas
@Falcon5768: I love the old SC line. I'm currently in a '95 SC2 with over 321,000 on the odometer, and the only issue I've had with her has been the belt tensioner.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1220420-100x100.png\")
@Falcon5768: They started out that way, with efficient and reliable cars for a good price, and then GM started meddling. Then they started turning out crap cars, banking on their previous reputation to sell them. Those cars were dangerous, unreliable, and generally of poor quality. Like the Ion. Saturn killed itself.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-21984-100x100.png\")
@AshCatScram: GM let Saturn tank when the suv tax credit and pickup truck profitability made GM think that all they had to do is sell big vehicles versus nurturing Saturn for when the bad fuel prices hit again...
@AshCatScram: Eh the Ion is certainly not dangerous and unreliable. I didnt like the car, but my mother had it and it worked perfectly fine and only once went in for a recall.
I really am starting to get annoyed at the exaggerations being made against American cars here. There is NO car on the road in the US thats anywhere close to as dangerous pre-80's cars were.
I will say DRIVERS are certainly more dangerous now than they where 30 years ago though. But I would feel just as safe in a Ion as I do in a FIT.
The IOn was far from American. The Ion was an OPEL Astra. It was avilable in Europe WAY before the Ion came to the states. It had imported parts from Opel of Europe and was assembled in the USA.
The newer Saturns? They are completely foreign. The Aura and Astra are Belgium made and the Vue is Mexican made with parts imported from GM Daewoo of South Korea
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1216155-100x100.png\")
My first car was a Saturn. I have to say, I'm not playing the world's smallest violin here.
Worst car ever. I kept having issues with it and it really did become dangerous to drive on the roads, especially when it came to trying to merge into traffic.
@ZeGoggles:
It's my understanding that first-generation Saturns had issues, but most people I know who've owned one absolutely love it and got lots of life out of it.
The worst car I ever had was a Honda. Yes, a Honda. Does that mean all Hondas suck? No. It means I got a bad Honda.
Went from a 2003 Saturn L200, which was the best new car I've ever owned, to a 2009 Honda Accord EX-L (to appease the wife). Worst. Decision. Ever. That Honda is horrible in just about every aspect. I have no idea why everyone seems to think they are great cars.
Bring back Saturn so I can go get an Aura.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1004969-100x100.png\")
Well... I guess I'm glad that I was paranoid enough to think Saturn wouldn't survive. Though, if I weren't looking for a hatchback, but a sedan instead, I would have bought an Aura in an instant. I rented an '08 a couple of years ago, and it was the best rental car I have ever had. Power. Styling. Comfort.
Sadly, it looks like Blondie, my '94 gold SL2, will likely die this year along with its brand. Not that I'm sad to see it go. Leaks from every system, a chronic, documented, deteriorating head gasket (I'm on my 3rd one...), and alignment issue that the dealership swears doesn't exist, have made this car uneconomical for me to keep running anymore.
Well, at least us folks less skilled in the art of haggling and navigating commission-driven swindling, can hopefully find comfort in Carmax. It may not be the best, but they're the last one left.
RIP, Saturn. Perhaps if GM had shown you a little more love, you would have survived. I guess that's what happens when you have a brand that competes directly with your other brands...
@Riff-Raff: When we bought our Scion, they had no-haggle pricing. In fact, we priced it out online and brought the sheet to the dealer, who calculated exactly that price based on the options we chose. So it might not be totally hopeless for non-negotiators (I hate playing the game too, quite frankly).
How does this affect people who currently own Saturns who might need repairs or parts? I guess there's always the third party part option, but I don't think that covers everything that could go wrong. How much supply of already manufactured Saturn parts is left?
@chucklebuck: Doesn't affect them at all. There where over 10 years of the SC/SL line where many of the parts are interchangeable between not only like models but each other. These would be the only question as they where the most un-GM like models.
The LS, Ion, Aura, Astra, Vue, Sky and Relay where all poached by GM to make Chevys Buicks and Pontiacs. While the specific parts may eventually dry up 10-20 years down the line, the platform sharing parts will be easy to get. In particular if you have an Aura or a Vue you should have no issues, as they basically where rebadged and reskinned and sold as other brands cars.
Now the Astra is a bit trickier as it was a German car brought here, BUT while it tanked in the US it was the 2nd best selling car in the EU for years now.
It will not take 10 or 20 years for the parts to dry up. try three ot four. Signed, guy who can't go back to the GM dealership because his car is 8 years old.
Finally! Saturn never made a profit....NEVER. GM is a business after all, and they had long enough to prove themselves and didn't. I did admire the dent-resistent panels in the earlier cars, but everything else about them was substandard.
@michigan2cv: But it did. It was actually very, very profitable during the first ten or so years they were sold. In fact, it was GM's main competition with the smaller import cars. It stopped being profitable when GM pulled resources away (which was very noticable, btw).
No, it never made a profit:
\"Despite a cult-like following that drew thousands to annual reunions in Spring Hill, the brand never made money for GM. The factory stopped making Saturns in 2007 and currently builds only the Chevrolet Traverse crossover. Today, Saturn production is scattered at plants across North America.\"
@treimel: Nope sorry GMs own financial records prove that edmunds is wrong.
The problem is and MANY auto writers screw this fact up, its first years of existence Saturn didn't REPORT with GM. For years Saturn was not part of GM at all. It was THOSE years it turned a profit, so much so that GM actually blamed Saturn for its losses in 92-93.
The reason Saturn was re-incorperated into the fold was because of their profits, which backfired because once GM brass got involved Saturn stopped making a profit.
Yes, Saturn was always a part of GM--as a GM shareholder for many years, I can attest that despite initial accounting tricks, Saturn was, for every second of its sorry existence, simply a part of GM. No, it never made a profit--provide a source, or stop it.
@treimel:
@falcon...
In twenty years, one year of operating profits--1993--is, for grown-ups, materially *never* making money for GM.
Gm itself admits it:
Since Saturn began production in 1990, it has been \"break-even to slightly profitable\" only in 1993 when it had just its original small coupe and sedan, says a Saturn spokesman. Saturn's U.S. sales peaked in 1994 at 286,003 units.:
[www.1853chairman.com]
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-523434-100x100.png\")
So no one gets to work on the Penske File?
Damn, I wanted an Outlook too (new).
What a shame...but it was bound to happen. I don't even think a sale to Penske would have saved them. There are just too many car brands, and not enough people buying. From an economic standpoint, Penske made the right decision. Shame on GM though for never marketing Saturn properly and/or enough....they would have been the only GM brand that I would even look at.
When they started re-badging the hideous Chevy Venture you knew their days were numbered. I did like the Sky/Opel GT, but that top was typically bad GM engineering, like a drunk making origami.
I wouldn't trust GM or any corporation regarding profitability of their own product...they are clearly going to paint a rosy picture, even if it's a failure.
Except... even they didn't. If you'll notice, it was actually a Saturn Spokesman I quote who said they broke even, or made a slight profit--once!--in twenty years. Saturn failed. Utterly. It was never a success.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-323201-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-335454-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-681073-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-212453-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-498964-100x100.png\")
Well, poo