Car & Driver: July 2007 - Exceptional Review

[piney]

Just got the new Car & Driver and they have a full review of the new VUE XR AWD. I've been reading the CD rag since 1981 or thereabouts and a SaturnFan since the idea of building a Hondabeater was devised in the the mid to late 80s & have yet to read a review of a Saturn product this good or any other GM product in this market range. :yes:

Other than being heavy with iffy MPG, this was one solid review if not raving article. The price as tested is a tad high at $31,115 but they finally put a good product out which is good from the get go and the car rags even like it.

No more cheap interiors!! :us: I'm actually still a little shocked. :eek:

[Ritz]

Welcome to the new Saturn marketing strategy. It seems to include the obligatory payola to C&D. :-)

Cheers,

[montrealvue]

Gotta love payolas :D ....hope it pays off in the end.

[Charlie]

Welcome to the new Saturn marketing strategy. It seems to include the obligatory payola to C&D. :-)
In the past, folks used to complain that C&D and others didn't give Saturn a fair shot in their reviews. Now that Saturn is building better vehicles and getting positive reviews... you're saying that Saturn is paying off the magazines, newspapers, blogs? Oh boy. :ugh:

I'm happy to see Saturn finally getting some good recognition in the press. The new vehicles are awesome. :)

Charlie

[Dante]

In the past, folks used to complain that C&D and others didn't give Saturn a fair shot in their reviews. Now that Saturn is building better vehicles and getting positive reviews... you're saying that Saturn is paying off the magazines, newspapers, blogs? Oh boy. :ugh:

I'm happy to see Saturn finally getting some good recognition in the press. The new vehicles are awesome. :)

Charlie

I take a lot of Ritz's sarcastic comments as such... I think the new Saturn models will have a lot of success, even if they are a dramatic departure from the ways of old which, as much as we love our Tupperware cars, weren't as popular with the rest of the buying public. Shame, too, they don't know what they missed. I just hope the rest of the Saturn ownership experience doesn't become so mainstream that you'd just as soon go to a Chevy or Pontiac or *gasp* Ford shop for service, if you're into letting other people monkey-wrench on your car, that is.

[BobbyP]

The 2008 VUE would have been truly spectacular if they could have kept the weight of the current model. With lower weight the mpg would be higher.

Unfortuately the price & weight is higher because of the extra safety equipment, and more comfortable interiors.

[K-1]

Unfortuately the price & weight is higher because of the extra safety equipment, and more comfortable interiors.... and the steel body.

[Ritz]

In the past, folks used to complain that C&D and others didn't give Saturn a fair shot in their reviews. Now that Saturn is building better vehicles and getting positive reviews... you're saying that Saturn is paying off the magazines, newspapers, blogs? Oh boy. :ugh:

I'm happy to see Saturn finally getting some good recognition in the press. The new vehicles are awesome. :)

Charlie

Oh come on. Going back through the years there have always been these howls of "we wuz robbed" protest here as the mainstream car rags and CR has largely ignored or given luke-warm reviews of Saturn products. Now all of a sudden Saturn has some "advertising budget" and their cars start getting ink in the magazines and "award trophies." Where are all those howls about how worthless and "biased" these reviews are now? Hmmmmmm....

That doesn't make Saturn bad...it just means they are now playing the advertising payola game like everyone else.

Best,

[mkaresh]

I personally avoid playing the bias card.

The review seems fair to me, they were hard on the price and weight.

And if you want to talk payola, check out the 8-page "A Guide to the All-New Buick Enclave" that's near the front of the issue. At the bottom corner of the first page it says "Brought to You by the Publishers of Car and Driver." It's "by the publishers" to maintain a separation between the business office and the editorial office. These publishers are also behind the Focus vs. Camry comparisons.

But the "Car and Driver" is in a much bigger font than the rest, to lend the impression that the editorial staff wrote the effusive copy, when Buick's ad agency working with the editorial office likely did all the writing.

Just remember: a strict separation is maintained between the two offices.

[SaturnPlanet]

Just remember: a strict separation is maintained between the two offices.

Yes, its a 25ft partition with employees on both sides who play pranks on each other (a la Jim and Dwight from The Office).

[Ritz]

Yes, its a 25ft partition with employees on both sides who play pranks on each other (a la Jim and Dwight from The Office).

Really...just like the research analysts and investment banking analysts being "separate" at a wall street firm. :-)

The car rags are pure theater and the ink goes to the companies who throw them the most ad dollars. The only one with even a hint of propriety is CR.

Best,

[ciciusss]

Oh come on. Going back through the years there have always been these howls of "we wuz robbed" protest here as the mainstream car rags and CR has largely ignored or given luke-warm reviews of Saturn products. Now all of a sudden Saturn has some "advertising budget" and their cars start getting ink in the magazines and "award trophies." Where are all those howls about how worthless and "biased" these reviews are now? Hmmmmmm....

That doesn't make Saturn bad...it just means they are now playing the advertising payola game like everyone else.

Best,

No,

It means that Saturn is turning out a much better product and therefore they are getting better reviews.

[MarvC]

Consumer Reports will be the deciding factor. Most ALL car buyers reference this before a major item purchase.

The new VUE is priced up there with the major players in the game now so the demand may change if the reviews are negative or less than the competition as published by CR.
If the reviews are equal or better Saturn should sell a lot of the SUV's based on the review.

:| :| :|

[Ritz]

No,

It means that Saturn is turning out a much better product and therefore they are getting better reviews.

Heh, if you say so.....

[John10]

That doesn't make Saturn bad...it just means they are now playing the advertising payola game like everyone else.

Is that a speculative statement on your part or can you provide evidence that positive reviews in auto mags are bought by advertising dollars? You are suggesting that some very questionable practices routinely take place in this industry and I'd be very interested to know if there is any factual basis for your claim.

[piney]

I know Ritz is just breaking chops but it really looks like Saturn has really put out a great product in this case. It'd be better if it has a nice clean burn diesel but we can't have everything.

The interior in this really looks great and well thought out. A Saturn with a Saab level of leather? Who'd have thunk it possible? The 16 mpg is rotten but my wife's CRV-SE (AWD) only gets 18 in city driving down here as it is all red lights and the AC is used 362.5 days per year.

On the payola conspiracy, Hyundai and Kia advertised for years and years in the car rags and got ragged on, rightfully so, for their cheap interiors, poor fit and loud, slow, thirsty motors. Fast forward 10 years and they are now making cars with a build & interior quality that Lutz can only dream of.

[Ritz]

Is that a speculative statement on your part or can you provide evidence that positive reviews in auto mags are bought by advertising dollars? You are suggesting that some very questionable practices routinely take place in this industry and I'd be very interested to know if there is any factual basis for your claim.

Sorry, I should have clearly marked that as satire for the satire-impaired. Go back through the years and look at all the conspiracy theory posts every time Saturn got ignored or panned in the press. But it's only half tongue in cheek.

Best,

[John10]

Sorry, I should have clearly marked that as satire for the satire-impaired. Go back through the years and look at all the conspiracy theory posts every time Saturn got ignored or panned in the press. But it's only half tongue in cheek.

There are rumors of "conspiracy" in all types of reviews from consumer products to entertainment. "Payola" however is a big step beyond conspiracy and has in fact had some serious legal consequences in the past for practitioners in the music and radio business. I have no idea how the auto mags work but given the fact that most car reviews that I read rarely are totally positive about any brand, the auto manufacturers don't seem to be getting much bang for their bucks if the illegal practices are really going on.

[GR898SL2]

AWD or not, a curb weight just north of two tons is on the beefy side for a midsized SUV, when considering that not just the RAV4 and CR-V are lighter, so is the Escape/Mariner and the Jeep Liberty, too. Glad to hear that C&D appreciates VUE v 2.0 in spite of its heft and has mostly good things to say. When it comes to driving dynamics, C&D does not shower with praise unless they feel it's deserved.

:flag:

[EnjoytheVue]

Welcome to the new Saturn marketing strategy. It seems to include the obligatory payola to C&D. :-)

Cheers,

SO TRUE Ritz.....they test the overpriced slow gas guzzler, basically say it is overpriced, slow and a gashog, then rave about it!!! I know ALL manufacturers obviously build cars to make money, but it has never been quite this obvious to me in looking at a product review. Hmmm....lets build a "new" version of a car....make it slower, heavy, and have it get worse gas mileage.....but our bottom line will rock!!!....YES, thats the ticket!!! Now start writing checks to the press! What next?...the infamous Motor Trend SUV of the Year? Yeah, THERE'S a really proud award to have.

[EnjoytheVue]

There are rumors of "conspiracy" in all types of reviews from consumer products to entertainment. "Payola" however is a big step beyond conspiracy and has in fact had some serious legal consequences in the past for practitioners in the music and radio business. I have no idea how the auto mags work but given the fact that most car reviews that I read rarely are totally positive about any brand, the auto manufacturers don't seem to be getting much bang for their bucks if the illegal practices are really going on.

Ever hear of Motor Trends "Car of the Year"? Some really fine examples of automobile engineering there......

2002 Ford Thunderbird
2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser
1996 Dodge Caravan
1995 Chrysler Cirrus
1994 Ford Mustang
1993 Ford Probe GT
1991 Chevrolet Caprice Classic LTZ
1990 Lincoln Town Car
1988 Pontiac Grand Prix
1987 Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe
1986 Ford Taurus LX
1983 AMC / Renault Alliance
1981 Chrysler K Cars, Dodge Aries / Plymouth Reliant
1980 Chevrolet Citation
1978 Chrysler, Dodge Omni / Plymouth Horizon
1976 Chrysler, Dodge Aspen / Plymouth Volare
1975 Chevrolet Monza 2+2
1974 Ford Mustang II
1971 Chevrolet Vega

There have been long-standing rumors of these "awards" being tied to magazine advertising.

[cdp326]

SO TRUE Ritz.....they test the overpriced slow gas guzzler, basically say it is overpriced, slow and a gashog, then rave about it!!! I know ALL manufacturers obviously build cars to make money, but it has never been quite this obvious to me in looking at a product review. Hmmm....lets build a "new" version of a car....make it slower, heavy, and have it get worse gas mileage.....but our bottom line will rock!!!....YES, thats the ticket!!! Now start writing checks to the press! What next?...the infamous Motor Trend SUV of the Year? Yeah, THERE'S a really proud award to have.
Yeah, and on top of that, let's make it a safer car, with better steering and handling (that the reviewers prefer because they do like sportier cars, such as Mazdas, one of which you own), a MUCH better interior, and seats that are more comfortable. They also said it was more refined than the competition.

[BobbyP]

... and the steel body.

In the early days, 1990's, it's was always said that polmer bodied vehicles were heavier than steel bodeid vehicles. Unfortunately all Saturn steel bodied replacements weigh considerably more.

[John10]

Ever hear of Motor Trends "Car of the Year"? Some really fine examples of automobile engineering there......

2002 Ford Thunderbird
2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser
1996 Dodge Caravan
1995 Chrysler Cirrus
1994 Ford Mustang
1993 Ford Probe GT
1991 Chevrolet Caprice Classic LTZ
1990 Lincoln Town Car
1988 Pontiac Grand Prix
1987 Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe
1986 Ford Taurus LX
1983 AMC / Renault Alliance
1981 Chrysler K Cars, Dodge Aries / Plymouth Reliant
1980 Chevrolet Citation
1978 Chrysler, Dodge Omni / Plymouth Horizon
1976 Chrysler, Dodge Aspen / Plymouth Volare
1975 Chevrolet Monza 2+2
1974 Ford Mustang II
1971 Chevrolet Vega

There have been long-standing rumors of these "awards" being tied to magazine advertising.

EnjoytheVUE- Obviously those rumors exist in autos and other types of business awards. That said you could have done a better job trying to prove your point with your data. I don't know why you left so many years out of your listing but I am assuming that you only listed vehicle that you thought were undeserving of the award from an engineering perspective. Given that, you listed a series of products in which 7 were Ford products, 6 were Chrysler Corp, 5 were GM and 1 was AMC. That is a fairly even spread among the Big 3 American manufacturers. If you could tie that in with some valid data on advertising dollars perhaps you might better support your suspicion. Based on the spread however I am not sure even a correlation was shown.

[cdp326]

Ever hear of Motor Trends "Car of the Year"? Some really fine examples of automobile engineering there......

2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser
The PT Cruiser was a big deal at the time.

1996 Dodge Caravan
That was pretty much the benchmark for minivans at the time. It also brought some important innovations to the minivan market.

1994 Ford Mustang
I think thousands of Mustang owners would disagree with you.

1993 Ford Probe GT
What made this a bad car?

1986 Ford Taurus LX
The Taurus was a revolutionary car at the time and it was the best selling car in the U.S. from 1992-1996. It must have been awful....

1981 Chrysler K Cars, Dodge Aries / Plymouth Reliant
They only helped spur Chrysler's comeback--not just from those cars themselves, but from all the cars later based on the K-car platform.

1978 Chrysler, Dodge Omni / Plymouth Horizon
These were pretty decent cars. I know of one in particular that went for at least 12 years.

I agree with John10.

[mellissam]

Ever hear of Motor Trends "Car of the Year"? Some really fine examples of automobile engineering there......

2002 Ford Thunderbird
2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser
1996 Dodge Caravan
1995 Chrysler Cirrus
1994 Ford Mustang
1993 Ford Probe GT
1991 Chevrolet Caprice Classic LTZ
1990 Lincoln Town Car
1988 Pontiac Grand Prix
1987 Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe
1986 Ford Taurus LX
1983 AMC / Renault Alliance
1981 Chrysler K Cars, Dodge Aries / Plymouth Reliant
1980 Chevrolet Citation
1978 Chrysler, Dodge Omni / Plymouth Horizon
1976 Chrysler, Dodge Aspen / Plymouth Volare
1975 Chevrolet Monza 2+2
1974 Ford Mustang II
1971 Chevrolet Vega

There have been long-standing rumors of these "awards" being tied to magazine advertising.

I am not so sure of the rumors being fact, but I will say that of all those cars listed (why you are missing years is beyond me), none of them have stood the test of time (i.e. are classics or durable), except a mint Vega (maybe the Cruiser will be in time)...all the others are throw-away cars (I rarely see them on the road anymore). That is the problem with reviews, they look at it right off the assembly line which is dandy and all, but only time will tell if it is a great car....It's almost like voting for the next great politician (full of promise), only to find out he is an a**.

They look at handling characteristics, look and feel, but I wish they would look at durability. For instance, being a car owner who likes to keep cars for years, if not decades, I wish they would look at the materials a little more closely and tell me, the reader, whether the thing will stand the test of time...not blather about superficial things (like a soft dash or cloth inserts).

[dm919]

Here is the data sheet for those that don't get C/D at home. I laughed out loud when I saw the Vue hit top speed in 3rd gear with 3 gears to go! :yes:

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/1787/vuemr1.jpg

[Ritz]

Heh, C/D observed mpg = 15. Oh lord....

C

[montrealvue]

Heh, C/D observed mpg = 15. Oh lord....

C
Ack! Horrific! Sorry, I just can't get past it.....:xeye:

[ciciusss]

Considering Car and Driver only drove the Vue 474 miles which included performance runs, that mpg figure is no doubt on the low side. They observed 16 mpg with the Rav4. Again, that figure included performance runs. Rav4 owners are certainly seeing better gas mileage than what Car and Driver observed. By comparison, Consumer Reports observed 22 mpg in their testing of the Rav4 equipped with the 3.5 V6.

But it appears some here decided long ago not to like the 08 Vue before they even saw it in person, much less drive it.

[BobbyP]

The C&D notes makes the 3.6L sound like the 3.6L has V-TEC.

It's specs are disappointing...

I'm certain the 2008 VUE rides better, has a nicer interior, and is probably a safer vehicle than the out going VUE.

[mellissam]

Here is the data sheet for those that don't get C/D at home. I laughed out loud when I saw the Vue hit top speed in 3rd gear with 3 gears to go! :yes:



Yeah, that is rather low....A positive is the rpm at 101mph in 6th gear....2550rpm - wow, that is just sedate. I must see what Silven can do one day....:D

[MarvC]

4146 pounds for a small crossover SUV:dizzy: :dizzy: :dizzy:

I drove the XR and the car is very mushy off the line now I know why.
16.01 lb/HP

Rav4 Limited no third row seat 269 HP 3506 pounds.
13.03lb/HP

:no: :no: :no:

[dm919]

My 2006 V6 is 3544lbs/248hp=14.29 lbs/hp

[ciciusss]

Here are some specs on some other SUVs that are approximately the same size as the 08 Vue:

BMW X3: 179.9 (length); 73.0 (width); 4133 lbs
Acura RDX: 180.7 (length); 73.6 (width); 3982 lbs
LR2 SE: 177.1 (length); 75.2 (width); 4332 lbs
Vue XR: 180.2 (length); 72.8 (width); 4146 lbs

Although, the Land Rover, Acura, and BMW are more premium compact SUVs, they are all right about 4,000 lbs or more. The Vue's extra weight over the previous generation Vue is obviously a result of more safety equipment, sound deadening and stiffer frame. All that contributes to a vehicle that will be safer, quieter and have better ride and handling characteristics. But, that all contributes to the Vue's weight gain too.

Car and Driver did say in the high section that the Vue is more refined than the competition (Rav4, CR-V, Forester, etc). When was the last time any reviewer wrote that a Saturn was more refined than the competition or any GM product in general?

[BobbyP]

Here are some specs on some other SUVs that are approximately the same size as the 08 Vue:

BMW X3: 179.9 (length); 73.0 (width); 4133 lbs
Acura RDX: 180.7 (length); 73.6 (width); 3982 lbs
LR2 SE: 177.1 (length); 75.2 (width); 4332 lbs
Vue XR: 180.2 (length); 72.8 (width); 4146 lbs

Wow... they are heavy also... their mileage I'm sure suffers accordingly.

Car and Driver did say in the high section that the Vue is more refined than the competition (Rav4, CR-V, Forester, etc). When was the last time any reviewer wrote that a Saturn was more refined than the competition or any GM product in general?

I agree with Car and Driver about the 2008 VUE being more refined than the Rav4, CR-V, Forester. We've been saying that for years on this forum, even their redesigns fall short of the current VUE. So if the 2008 VUE's NVH is lower, it definately out classes them.

[EnjoytheVue]

The PT Cruiser was a big deal at the time.


That was pretty much the benchmark for minivans at the time. It also brought some important innovations to the minivan market.


I think thousands of Mustang owners would disagree with you.


What made this a bad car?


The Taurus was a revolutionary car at the time and it was the best selling car in the U.S. from 1992-1996. It must have been awful....


They only helped spur Chrysler's comeback--not just from those cars themselves, but from all the cars later based on the K-car platform.


These were pretty decent cars. I know of one in particular that went for at least 12 years.

I agree with John10.

The PT a big deal at the time? Why was it a big deal, oh yeah, retro styling....I didn't realize automobile awards are for styling alone....if they are, they shouldn't be taken seruously at all. The PT is and was a throw away vehicle with "good" retro styling.....doesn't make it any better than a K-car with a nice body.

In 1996 there where certainly many more "innovative" cars and even though millions of Americans ran out and bought chrysler minivans, they are junk compared to some "foreign" offerings.

The mustang, yes a lot of boy racers would disagree but in reality, it was about styling again....the mustang offered nothing more than a powerful engine in a stylish body, not innovation, not quality, not car of the year worthy.

What made the Probe a bad car?....what made it a good car???? another throw away car.

The Taurus was "innovative" at it;s time, the fact that millions where "sold" only speaks to the rental car market, not to innovation or quality.

The fact that the K-car saved Chrysler and was the platform for lots of junk to come does not make it car-of-the-year worthy, the only person that really won in the end was Lee Iacocca, the car was rolling junk at an affordable price...what america neede at the time but at the same time, what helped cement the "american car quality" issues.

The Omni was a good car? oh boy, what do you say about that...although the Omni GLH was humorous. 12 years....hmmm, I've had the same trash can for 12 years too.:D

[EnjoytheVue]

Sorry cdp326, but we obviously don't have the same opinion of what makes a car of the year a car of the year (which is fine, if everyone had the same opinion there would be a lot less car makes and models available). To me a car has to be a good car first and foremost. After that it has to be above and beyond the vehicle it was a year before or a new car with some really innovative ideas and features. A car that is simply "popular" or one that sold a lot or one that had a different skin doesn't make it noteworthy. How sad was our Country's bicentennial that the car of the year was a Volare? Any "car person" should have been wearing a sandwich board walking the streets exclaiming that "the end is near" for American car companies with that gem.

I obviously purposely left off some years because they did happen to get it right a few times.....1984 being one of them :D ....when Chevrolet came out with "the most innovative production car on the planet" and also "the fastest production car on the planet" as they touted their fiberglass beauty, a $21,800 car that would blow the doors off of foreign cars 3-4 times the cost....of course I may be a little biased but I am just quoting the advertising and the press. ;) The Prius was another good selection, it did something NEW for the industry, not just for it's manufacturer, it gave us the first "accepted" mass production affordable hybrid (Honda's little rear wheelwell skirted beauty was hardly "accepted"). THAT'S what makes a car of the year, one that is innovative from the ground up, not one that just got a new skin or one that has "rich corinthian leather".:| cheers

[mellissam]

....hmmm, I've had the same trash can for 12 years too.:D

LMAO....that really sums up what I was trying to say...thank you.
:D

[cdp326]

The PT a big deal at the time? Why was it a big deal, oh yeah, retro styling....I didn't realize automobile awards are for styling alone....if they are, they shouldn't be taken seruously at all. The PT is and was a throw away vehicle with "good" retro styling.....doesn't make it any better than a K-car with a nice body.
It also helped that it was very versatile, fun to drive, and inexpensive.

In 1996 there where certainly many more "innovative" cars and even though millions of Americans ran out and bought chrysler minivans, they are junk compared to some "foreign" offerings.
Really? Name the more innovative 1996 cars.
The 1996 Chrysler vans were the first with dual sliding doors and the press liked how they drove, their space, and their versatility. GM was in its last year of production for their Dustbuster vans that never were successful. What were the "'foreign' offerings," as you say, at the time?
The undersized, I4-only Honda Odyssey which lacked sliding doors.
The RWD Toyota Previa, with round shape and a blunt nose, powered by a mid-engined supercharged I4 (since a V6 wouldn't fit). It was also a bit small, as well.
The Mazda MPV, which was essentially a regular RWD/4WD SUV made into a minivan and had been on the market without many changes since the late 1980s.

The mustang, yes a lot of boy racers would disagree but in reality, it was about styling again....the mustang offered nothing more than a powerful engine in a stylish body, not innovation, not quality, not car of the year worthy.
I know of plenty of middle-aged people who would disagree, too.
It was a sports car. The press liked it--it was fun to drive. Is it just that the Camaro/Firebird didn't win the award the year before?

The Taurus was "innovative" at it;s time, the fact that millions where "sold" only speaks to the rental car market, not to innovation or quality.
Oh, if only you knew. :no:
The Taurus wasn't big in the rental car markets until after the 1996 redesign. Before that, the Taurus ruled for a reason.

The fact that the K-car saved Chrysler and was the platform for lots of junk to come...what america neede at the time but at the same time, what helped cement the "american car quality" issues.
No, I think GM and Ford helped out quite a bit with that themselves in the same time period. That, and all three were doing a pretty good job of cementing that issue when Iacocca was still at Ford.

The Omni was a good car? oh boy, what do you say about that...although the Omni GLH was humorous. 12 years....hmmm, I've had the same trash can for 12 years too.:D
The Omni was probably more reliable than our 1998 SL1 was (6 years) and our 2005 VUE is.

Anything/anybody that doesn't hold the same views as you is automatically wrong. It's pretty clear that you don't like Chrysler or Ford. I take it that you've owned a PT Cruiser, a Probe (they specified the GT model), etc. to call them "throwaway cars?"

I want you to name what vehicles should have won in all those years. It's a different new vehicle every year. If you don't know the exact dates for a model, it's OK.

[cdp326]

Sorry cdp326, but we obviously don't have the same opinion of what makes a car of the year a car of the year (which is fine, if everyone had the same opinion there would be a lot less car makes and models available). To me a car has to be a good car first and foremost. After that it has to be above and beyond the vehicle it was a year before or a new car with some really innovative ideas and features. A car that is simply "popular" or one that sold a lot or one that had a different skin doesn't make it noteworthy.
I agree that a car has to be good. The difference is, you think it shouldn't be a Chrysler or Ford product, even if it is innovative.
When the 1986 Taurus came out, it was one of the most aerodynamic vehicles on the road. It was ahead of its time in design, be that competitors from GM, Chrysler, Toyota, or Honda.
Heres a quote from member wolfman from a couple months ago:
A little personal history for you.... I drove one of the first Ford Tauruses ever delivered in Houston, Texas in 1985. It was a 4cyl automatic, dark grey in color, and I remember being gawked at and chased down on the freeway for the entire 35 mile trip from what was then known as Houston Intercontinental Airport to a location about 1/2 way out the Southwest Freeway. Ford dealers had only had the cars on their lots for LESS THAN A MONTH.

I worked for Budget Rent a Car at the time.

The ones in our rental fleet for about the next year stayed parked only long enough for us to fuel and wash them. People got pissed off when we did not have any to rent, even if we had other similiar sized cars.

A bit more from the net...

"The Taurus was a milestone design for both Ford and the entire American automotive industry, as well as a very influential vehicle in the marketplace, with Ford selling nearly 7.5 million examples during its 20 years of production — a longer bestselling run than the original Ford Model T. Between 1992 and 1996, the Taurus was the best-selling car in the United States, even prompting Honda to grow the US version of the Accord to a similar size. The Taurus eventually lost its best-seller status in 1997 to the Toyota Camry."

I obviously purposely left off some years because they did happen to get it right a few times.....1984 being one of them :D ....when Chevrolet came out with "the most innovative production car on the planet" and also "the fastest production car on the planet" as they touted their fiberglass beauty, a $21,800 car that would blow the doors off of foreign cars 3-4 times the cost....of course I may be a little biased but I am just quoting the advertising and the press. ;)
The Corvette was not a leader in quality which seems to matter to you. From the Car and Driver June 2002 issue, in its special on the Corvette's 50th anniversary:
In January 1985, a C/D editor picks up a new Corvette fresh off the assembly line in Bowling Green, Kentucky, and drives it home to Michigan where it will begin a 30,000-mile long-term test. The zoomy Vette is beloved by the speed-geek staff, and the nitpicking is at a whisper, despite numerous faults--electrical failures, a clunky gearshift, a dotty A/C, a leaky window, quickly used-up brake pads, uncooperative wipers. A year and a half later, just days before the car is to be returned, several GM repair orders are found in a back-seat storage bin of the car. The vehicle ID number on the work orders confirms that it is indeed our test car, and the paperwork shows it had been checked out, and repairs made to it, several times at the GM proving ground before we picked it up. And, uh, the transmission had been replaced, too. We, of course, squealed to our readers.

The Prius was another good selection, it did something NEW for the industry, not just for it's manufacturer, it gave us the first "accepted" mass production affordable hybrid (Honda's little rear wheelwell skirted beauty was hardly "accepted"). THAT'S what makes a car of the year, one that is innovative from the ground up, not one that just got a new skin or one that has "rich corinthian leather".:| cheers
Then why didn't the first Prius win as well when it came out in the U.S. in 2001?

[BobbyP]

Many of the cars don't seem to have the longevity of other cars. I've noticed still a large number of Saturn SC's on the road. The SC's competition was the Ford Probe and the Mitsubishi Eclipse. I hardly see any of them on the road any more. I drove a Ford Probe in 1991 and that made me buy my Saturn SC. The Ford Probe was a horror under the hood, possibly people couldn't keep them running. The Saturn SC was well laid out and executed mechanically. Great simple Saturn engineering.

Taurus was definately a milestone vehicle.

[Kooler King]

Here is the data sheet for those that don't get C/D at home. I laughed out loud when I saw the Vue hit top speed in 3rd gear with 3 gears to go! :yes:

Not too surprising ... most top speeds will be had at the 1:1 gear ratio, not overdrive. In this case, I also suspect the tall rear gear drops that back another gear or two plus I'm certain the engine computer is limiting output at speed so that top speed happens same whether in 3rd, 4th, 5th, or 6th gear.

I expect the computer limit is partly for safety reasons, and partly so that the Outlook can be sold with the same mechanical engine being rated at 270 HP. Probably the Red Line will have 20 or 30 more HP with only a chip change.

[SaturnPlanet]

Many of the cars don't seem to have the longevity of other cars. I've noticed still a large number of Saturn SC's on the road. The SC's competition was the Ford Probe and the Mitsubishi Eclipse. I hardly see any of them on the road any more. I drove a Ford Probe in 1991 and that made me buy my Saturn SC. The Ford Probe was a horror under the hood, possibly people couldn't keep them running. The Saturn SC was well laid out and executed mechanically. Great simple Saturn engineering.

Taurus was definately a milestone vehicle.

Interesting point, however I think there are some other factors you might want to consider before making that kind of correlation. For example, Saturn owners might have different tendencies regarding how long they keep their cars for (perhaps the fact that for 9 years Saturn made the same car basically), or perhaps Saturn owners are more likely to give their cars to their children or to sell or fix them rather than junk them.

Not only that, but the sample you are using is based solely on convenience (i.e. cars you observe while driving around; they may not be indicative of the presence of older Saturns is around the rest of the country, etc...)

Its just to big of a jump to say that just because you see more Saturns on the road than the others means that Saturns are more reliable. Sorry to be a stickler...

[davidsky]

Many of the cars don't seem to have the longevity of other cars. I've noticed still a large number of Saturn SC's on the road. The SC's competition was the Ford Probe and the Mitsubishi Eclipse.

Only the cheapest, low end versions of the Probe and Eclipse were competition for the SC.

[piney]

Heh, C/D observed mpg = 15. Oh lord....

C


Especially since the same issue has the 500hp, 4.4 second to 60, Alpina B7 (BMW 745i with AMG treatment) and it got 15 as well.

One would think that the tall final drive ratio and 6 speed auto would help more than it apparently does.