Over-weight in 08'

[eagleboy]

The specs for the 08' say the weight is around 4300lbs. for the AWD V6. The 07' specs on the Saturn web site say around 3700lbs. for the AWD V6. Can that be right? Most other specs are near identical as far as size.

250hp won't go nearly as far with an extra 600lbs. to lug around!

[BobbyP]

The current VUE's should have no problem outperforming the 08's. It's asking a lot of the 6 speed auto to make up for the extra weight. The Honda engine also may still be more eficient than the GM 3.6L engine.

We won't know until April or June.

I was going to drop in on the LA Auto Show this Friday and see the 08 VUE, but after the Mexican plant announcement I've lost interest in it.

[vue-vtec]

Seems like every new car that comes out is a lot heavier than the one it replaces. So much for fuel-efficiency.

[mkuz13]

As cars get newer,they add on more electronics (modules,sensors,wiring harnesses,etc...)which contributes to some of the add-on weight.

[MJD1001]

As cars get newer,they add on more electronics (modules,sensors,wiring harnesses,etc...)which contributes to some of the add-on weight.

I dont' like the extra weight...but I could accept it IF they would have the 270-275 hp version of the V6 in it, not the 250hp version.

What is the difference between the 250hp 3.6 (like in the Aura or G6) and the 270-275hp version in the Outlook/Acadia? I'd assume packaging of the exhaust system....but while the Vue is smaller, there still should be enough room underneath to not make it as restrictive as the G6 and Aura.

The extra weight is not welcome, but acceptable. Only having 250 hp in the 3.6 is not welcome, but acceptable. But having BOTH the extra weight and the 250 hp version of the 3.6 is not acceptable to me.

[prosys001]

Anyone thinked that the extra weight could come from the fact that they are getting rid of the polymer panels for steel one ?

[MJD1001]

Anyone thinked that the extra weight could come from the fact that they are getting rid of the polymer panels for steel one ?

I don't think getting rid of plastic and going to steel has much to do with it. Maybe a VERY small part but that is it.

Look at it this way, compare the Current Vue to the Chevrolet Equinox. Basically, they are built on the same version of the same platform. If anything the Equinox should weigh a bit more due to the fact it is a bit longer. And that is what it does weigh, a bit more (maybe 100-150 lbs? not totally sure, but it sure isn't 4000-4300 lbs and its body is steel, not plastic).

[prosys001]

I don't think getting rid of plastic and going to steel has much to do with it. Maybe a VERY small part but that is it.

Look at it this way, compare the Current Vue to the Chevrolet Equinox. Basically, they are built on the same version of the same platform. If anything the Equinox should weigh a bit more due to the fact it is a bit longer. And that is what it does weigh, a bit more (maybe 100-150 lbs? not totally sure, but it sure isn't 4000-4300 lbs and its body is steel, not plastic).

I didn't thinked to the Equinox. You're right they should be about the same. Let's hope that they will be safier !!

[BobbyP]

Anyone thinked that the extra weight could come from the fact that they are getting rid of the polymer panels for steel one ?

I remember the original articles about polymer vs steel was the polymer cars weighed more because of extra reinforcements because the polymer panels could not contribute to the structure of the car. That building a similar all steel bodied car would weigh less.

I believe the extra weight will definately adversely affect the mileage and handling. It will probably be quieter and ride smoother than the current VUE, but handle like the Queen Mary...

[mellissam]

...... It will probably be quieter and ride smoother than the current VUE, but handle like the Queen Mary...

That's what I was kind of expecting from the current Vue's, before I test drove it...it seemed to be quite large (coming from a Hyundai Pony..LOL), so I thought I would be buying a boat, but it seems quite agile for an SUV (discounting the body roll). I wish there was an AFM kit for the shocks/springs so it ran like the QM.

[avro206]

The current VUE's should have no problem outperforming the 08's. It's asking a lot of the 6 speed auto to make up for the extra weight. The Honda engine also may still be more eficient than the GM 3.6L engine.


That Honda 3.5L is highly overrated. For as much hp as it has it should pull a lot harder. It has a much better power to weight ratio then my 2.4L Cobalt SS but I beat it in the 1/4 mile!:hmpf:

The ECM holds the current Vue back.

Now saying that---with 600 extra lbs--the GM powered Vue (3.6L) will be slower still.

I hope to hell these weights are not correct---it does not make any sense:ugh:

[BobbyP]

That Honda 3.5L is highly overrated. For as much hp as it has it should pull a lot harder. It has a much better power to weight ratio then my 2.4L Cobalt SS but I beat it in the 1/4 mile!:hmpf:

The ECM holds the current Vue back.

Now saying that---with 600 extra lbs--the GM powered Vue (3.6L) will be slower still.

I hope to hell these weights are not correct---it does not make any sense:ugh:


The Honda 3.5L is the best engine Saturn has ever used. For one who doesn't own a one, you shouldn't judge it. You drive a Chev-ro-let... You're missing the whole point, comparing a SUV to a small car.

Don't they have Chev-ro-let forums you can post on?

[97_Saturn_SL2]

The Honda 3.5L is the best engine Saturn has ever used. For one who doesn't own a one, you shouldn't judge it. You drive a Chev-ro-let... You're missing the whole point, comparing a SUV to a small car.

Don't they have Chev-ro-let forums you can post on?Is Chevrolet hyphenated down there in New Or-le-ans?

:hmpf:

[20VUE06]

That Honda 3.5L is highly overrated.

The ECM holds the current Vue back.



Um, overrated? What are you basing that on?

In regards to the computer holding the Vue back - your are right on the money. The computer programming changes between '04 and my '06 are disappointing. I doubt that it is a FWD versus AWD thing, but my old '04 and my in-law's current AWD '04 were/are absolute rocketships. You touch the gas and it goes. My '06 FWD is pretty much of a dog compared to the '04 AWDs. I have not driven an '06 AWD, but I assume that the programming is the same between the two - could be wrong I guess. I am wondering whether they reprogrammed for the protection of the driveline components, or whether the modded it to become more "civilized." I mean civilzed in the way that it used to be very "quick" but now, it is fast, but subdued.

I would love to figure out some way to know the difference between the years or the AWD versus FWD... Does anyone know a way to check this? Any Vue techs out there???? ANYONE?

[Ritz]

The Honda 3.5L is the best engine Saturn has ever used. For one who doesn't own a one, you shouldn't judge it. You drive a Chev-ro-let... You're missing the whole point, comparing a SUV to a small car.

Don't they have Chev-ro-let forums you can post on?

I agree. The 3.5L is very smooth. More torque would be a nice addition, but the VUE already has more torque than it can deal with in terms of nasty torque steer under WOT. Anyway, it doesn't really matter at this point, since the Honda drivetrain is going away next year.

Cheers,

[eRic 02sc2]

Anyone thinked that the extra weight could come from the fact that they are getting rid of the polymer panels for steel one ?

maybe, maybe not. when ION "replaced" S-Series it gained over 300 lbs in the process. both are polymer.

[avro206]

The Honda 3.5L is the best engine Saturn has ever used. For one who doesn't own a one, you shouldn't judge it. You drive a Chev-ro-let... You're missing the whole point, comparing a SUV to a small car.

Don't they have Chev-ro-let forums you can post on?

gee what a friendly guy:rolleyes: You are right that its the best egnie they ahve used in the Vue to date. That old 54 degree 3.0 is junk.

My wife has an 05 Vue--so I do know what I am talking about.

At part throttle and the ocassional downshift---when the revs climb it feels very good. Other times its pretty weak---it could downshift two gears but it rarely does that. Upshifts are way to low--5500rpm! (maybe a but higher)

All I am saying is that for 250hp its disaponting. GM engines give all they have got. Case in point---this Vue is slower then her previous 00 Grand AM GT--that had the 4 speed auto and 175hp 3400 V6. IT spun the tires and reved to 6K every time.

75hp, 1 more gear, not too mention its geared far lower and over 40lbs-ft or torque should win--even if its 500lbs heaver.

I'd love to get some ECM tune to wake it up---I bet it has potentila that is seriouly being held back.

[Ritz]

All I am saying is that for 250hp its disaponting. GM engines give all they have got. Case in point---this Vue is slower then her previous 00 Grand AM GT--that had the 4 speed auto and 175hp 3400 V6. IT spun the tires and reved to 6K every time.

75hp, 1 more gear, not too mention its geared far lower and over 40lbs-ft or torque should win--even if its 500lbs heaver.

I'd love to get some ECM tune to wake it up---I bet it has potentila that is seriouly being held back.

I find that *extremely* hard to believe (VUE feels "slower" than older grand am)...probably because it's just a load of hogwash. The 3.5L VUE does 0-60 in the 7.0 sec range. That's pretty fast....even by 60's-era muscle car standards. There hasn't been a Grand Am in that range (at least in stock trim) since the 455cid version back in the early 70's. The VUE has its share of issues, but pick-up isn't one of them on the 3.5L version.

Cheers,

[avro206]

I find that *extremely* hard to believe (VUE feels "slower" than older grand am)...probably because it's just a load of hogwash. The 3.5L VUE does 0-60 in the 7.0 sec range. That's pretty fast....even by 60's-era muscle car standards. There hasn't been a Grand Am in that range (at least in stock trim) since the 455cid version back in the early 70's. The VUE has its share of issues, but pick-up isn't one of them on the 3.5L version.

Cheers,

haha---tell me if you find this hard to beleive. Well on 2nd thought---don't you choose what you beleive reguardless of fact.

I have drag raced both of them at the local 1/4 mile track. The GT won by 0.1 and some 2mph. I don't go by "feel" I test them out

Your quoted 7.0 sc to 60mph for the Vue is from an 04 Car and Driver test. Many on here feel the 04's were faster then later model years.

So quit calling my posts hogwash---documneted fact is the case here.

Perhaps you don;'t have any exp with fast cars and feel the Vue is a rocket? Pick-up is not an issue, correct BUT for 250hp its not stunning. Just pretty good.

[James Gerber]

Are they seriously getting rid of the plastic?

I'm currious how many here would be a 'VUE' owner if it hadn't been for the polymar? (I know I wouldn't be).

Avro206,
A little off topic, but did you get a chance to try out an HHR with the SS engine? Before I got my VUE, I wanted to test one out... but all they had was the normal ones. They let me try out a Cobalt SS, but I was curious how it felt in a larger body. I think the HHR is a bit smaller than the VUE, but the interior space seemed pretty good.

[avro206]

Are they seriously getting rid of the plastic?

I'm currious how many here would be a 'VUE' owner if it hadn't been for the polymar? (I know I wouldn't be).

Avro206,
A little off topic, but did you get a chance to try out an HHR with the SS engine? Before I got my VUE, I wanted to test one out... but all they had was the normal ones. They let me try out a Cobalt SS, but I was curious how it felt in a larger body. I think the HHR is a bit smaller than the VUE, but the interior space seemed pretty good.

Were off topic already!;)

Nope never driven a 2.4L HHR--or any HHR. Length-wise the HHR is not much shorter then the Vue. They weigh about 3200lbs or so. I did drive a PT Cruiser---they suck:D

HHR SS is sue out in 08 with the 2.0 Turbo

[BobbyP]

gee what a friendly guy:rolleyes: You are right that its the best engine they have used in the Vue to date. That old 54 degree 3.0 is junk.

My wife has an 05 Vue--so I do know what I am talking about.

At part throttle and the occasional downshift---when the revs climb it feels very good. Other times its pretty weak---it could downshift two gears but it rarely does that. Up shifts are way to low--5500rpm! (maybe a but higher)

All I am saying is that for 250hp its disappointing. GM engines give all they have got. Case in point---this Vue is slower then her previous 00 Grand AM GT--that had the 4 speed auto and 175hp 3400 V6. IT spun the tires and rev-ed to 6K every time.

75hp, 1 more gear, not too mention its geared far lower and over 40lbs-ft or torque should win--even if its 500lbs heavier.

I'd love to get some ECM tune to wake it up---I bet it has potential that is seriously being held back.

My apologies for getting rough, but just like Ritz said the VUE 3.5L V6 is very quick. I measured a 0-60 under 8 seconds with only 200 miles on the clock and 2 people on board. Now that the engine has 4000 miles on it, it is much quicker. The throttle response is better than any domestic V6 I ever drove, and I drive a different car every week. I'm driving a 2007 Dodge Magnum 3.5L today, and it's no where close to the Honda engine in performance.

[body-snatch-her]

Ummm, I hate to get back on topic here, But if the GM 3.6L uses an iron block (does it?) then maybe that and the xtra transmission mechanism could explain part of the extra weight.

[Ritz]

haha---tell me if you find this hard to beleive. Well on 2nd thought---don't you choose what you beleive reguardless of fact.

I have drag raced both of them at the local 1/4 mile track. The GT won by 0.1 and some 2mph. I don't go by "feel" I test them out

Your quoted 7.0 sc to 60mph for the Vue is from an 04 Car and Driver test. Many on here feel the 04's were faster then later model years.

So quit calling my posts hogwash---documneted fact is the case here.

Perhaps you don;'t have any exp with fast cars and feel the Vue is a rocket? Pick-up is not an issue, correct BUT for 250hp its not stunning. Just pretty good.


Spare me. The VUE is my wife's car. My daily driver is a modified A6 twin turbo with a bit north of 300hp (0-60 in about 5.5 secs, 1/4 in 13.6). The dedicated track car is a 650hp Ultima GTR. I've also owned my share of 5.0 Mustangs, a coupla Porsches, and even a few Saturn S series econoboxen. So I think I'm quite familiar with what cars can do at the track, thank you.

Got a couple hundred bucks to wager? I'd happily take on a stock '00 Grand Am with my wife's '06 VUE in the 1/4.

Now back to our regularly scheduled misinformed inane chest thumping mine-is-better-n-yours posts from the peanut gallery... :rolleyes:

Cheers,

[97_Saturn_SL2]

Ummm, I hate to get back on topic here, But if the GM 3.6L uses an iron block (does it?) then maybe that and the xtra transmission mechanism could explain part of the extra weight.GM 3.6L is all aluminum, and higher tech than the Honda 3.5L it is replacing, for that matter.

I'm imagining the weight gain (and I'm still not sure I believe the numbers that have been released so far) is largely due to structural changes for crashworthiness, plus added sound deadening, added feature content, added safety features, and so on.

The Vue is far from being alone in this situation. Most newer cars are getting heavier and heavier as they add safety stuff, luxury stuff, useless rear seats (who needs a seven passenger RAV4, for crying out loud?), etc.

:(

[Ritz]

GM 3.6L is all aluminum, and higher tech than the Honda 3.5L it is replacing, for that matter.

I'm imagining the weight gain (and I'm still not sure I believe the numbers that have been released so far) is largely due to structural changes for crashworthiness, plus added sound deadening, added feature content, added safety features, and so on.

The Vue is far from being alone in this situation. Most newer cars are getting heavier and heavier as they add safety stuff, luxury stuff, useless rear seats (who needs a seven passenger RAV4, for crying out loud?), etc.

:(

Yeah, cars in general are getting heavier which seems to be offsetting gains in engine efficiency. Sigh...

Hell, even the Sky tips the scales at over 3,000lbs.

Cheers,

[avro206]

Spare me. The VUE is my wife's car. My daily driver is a modified A6 twin turbo with a bit north of 300hp (0-60 in about 5.5 secs, 1/4 in 13.6). The dedicated track car is a 650hp Ultima GTR. I've also owned my share of 5.0 Mustangs, a coupla Porsches, and even a few Saturn S series econoboxen. So I think I'm quite familiar with what cars can do at the track, thank you.

Got a couple hundred bucks to wager? I'd happily take on a stock '00 Grand Am with my wife's '06 VUE in the 1/4.

Now back to our regularly scheduled misinformed inane chest thumping mine-is-better-n-yours posts from the peanut gallery... :rolleyes:

Cheers,

Hey forgive me but all your cars aren't in your signature! Hard to tell much about a person off the 'Net.

Lots of people think they have fast cars or know what they are talking about BUT few actually do

I am not inane or chest thumping--sad you have to resort to childish insults to try to make your self look good.

I do take them to the track but still get slammed for doing so--just because someone "thinks"

I have timeslips so there is nothinig to prove--its been done already, so you owe me a few hundred! :)

Here is a more recent test then 04---

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suv/163_0408_compact_suvs_comparison/saturn_interior_performance.html

I'll be more then happy to take the Vue back to the track in the spring and hope its broken in more. How about you take yours to the track to??

[drivehard]

well, Avro...lets see.

from the link you posted the Vue will do the following:
1/4 in 15.5 sec @ 86.3 mph
0-60 in 7.4 sec.

From the following two mags the 1999 Grand Am GT (same as 2000) will do:

Car & Driver (Sep-98 edition):
1999 Grand Am GT Sedan (4-door):
0-60: 7.70-sec
1/4: 16.0-sec (no MPH given)

Sep-98 edition of Motor Trend:
1999 Grand Am GT Coupe (2-door):
0-60: 7.70-sec
1/4: 15.9-sec (no MPH given)

Looks like you don't need to take it to a track afterall. The worst performance numbers I have seen for the AWD V6 redline still beat the best I could find for the Grand Am GT.

Wish I could find some good numbers about skidpad performance for the GT...I have a hunch that the Vue Redline could beat the Grand Am around a racetrack as well.

[avro206]

hey I know all about those magazines times. I also have 2 time slips which say otherwise. I have tons of car mags and lie, reading them but I always drag race my cars to compare them to magazine times. Even going from R/T, M/T and C&D you get some differeing numbers.

Neither the Grand Am or the Vue has been tested much at all. Perhaps the Grand Am had very few miles and the Vue had more at the time of the test. Its common that cars get a little quicker as they break in.

Thats why I am going to back to the track on the spring to see if it has loosened up some.

Sad to see taht no one else here ont his board has drag raced a Vue.

What do you think my goal is here? That I am lying to promote the Grand Am GT??

We put the Vue on the shoping list specificaly for the 250hp V6---at the time it was near or at the top in its class.

I was disapointed as hell---and mad too! That the 250hp Vue was slower then the 175hp Grand Am.

But like I said before--the wimpy ECM programmming is seriously holding this back. Its slow off the mark and lazy at certain speeds--downshifting only 1 gear when it could do two. Part throttle it feels great.

I am not trashing the Vue--just giving my opinions backed up with some times. We still like the Vue--although the handling is awful---but I better just zip it on that!:D

[SLAPSHOT]

That old 54 degree 3.0 is junk.

Coming from a true expert. :rolleyes: What qualifies you to say a proven engine is junk?? Yet another backyard mechanic expert chiming in on something that they most likely don't have a clue about....tiresome, but par for the course. :rolleyes:

[avro206]

Coming from a true expert. :rolleyes: What qualifies you to say a proven engine is junk?? Yet another backyard mechanic expert chiming in on something that they most likely don't have a clue about....tiresome, but par for the course. :rolleyes:

Ok when I said junk I am speaking in a comparitve manner. The Honda 3.5L is an great engine by itself and far better then the 3.0 it replaced. So how has the 3.0 been for you? Good I would guess by your post. Great to hear!!!! :)

Secondly I have heard this from many Catera owners, and Saturn SL owners. Never claimed to be a mechanic or an expert so just give it a rest.

To really know you'd have to get GMs records and see how much warranty claims they have had.

Tiresome and par for the course? Good one!! Take cheap shots if thats all you can do. I drive the Vue from time to time but apparently diagreeing with popular opinion is disallowed here?? No more free speech and expression of ideas? I have even raced them--which no one on here has but still get treated this way?

-I officialy take back the "junk" comment okay? But its not on the best engines of all time list either.

[eagleboy]

I owned a 2000 Saturn LW with the iron block 3.0 V6. If it came with a 5 speed trans. it would have easily kept up with the Vue. Only rated at 182hp and 190 ft. lbs. of tourqe make it sound weak, but it had D.O.H.C. and would absolutely pull in the mid-range. I enjoyed it in that car.
Not all GM engines give there all though. My 03' Sierras 5.3 V8 is very held back from takeoff and anywhere near redline. Just like on the newer Vues it's held back by computer programming, to help save driveline components.
The Vues maximum grip levels are quite high, however it takes a lot of faith to approach them on the road due to NO steering feel. However the steering is quite direct and accurate, which allows for some spirited cornering. Compared to the Oddysey though, the Vue can't be safely taken to its handling limits as easily. The rear of the Vue seems a little unpredictable through a slippery corner. However it's quite fun on very slippery roads where you can power oversteer it. And it will really rocket out of a dry corner when floored just past the apex thanks to AWD.

[Dorian]

I think where several people are missing the mark is in the demographic target for the Vue. Most Vue owners aren't gearheads looking to emabarras a Monte Carlo or a Grand Prix as they pull out from a light or stop sign. Most Vue owners are looking for reliability, room to carry a lot of stuff, reliability, comfort, reliability, "not-ugly" body design, reliability, decent gas mileage, reliability, adequate suspension performance, and reliability. Those are fairly practical concerns.

The Honda engine if maintained properly (scheduled maintenance) is relatively bullet proof for at least 200K miles. That's where Honda has made a serious mark in the market. But if you start tweaking the ECM, modifying the engine and exaust/intake systems, and adding blowers or nitrous to the beast then you are asking for trouble. Again, most Vue owners aren't looking to give a Corvette a run for the pink slip. Reliability is higher on the priority list and again, the Honda engine delivers.

The increase in weight for the '08 is a viable concern. It definitely affects mileage. But until folks are climbing around the '08 Vue we can only speculate as to the cause of the weight gain. If you ask for more high tech toys, more sound proofing, and more creature comforts you are going to get weight gain. I think that most SUV owners are okay with mileage in the mid to upper 20's as long as all the other needs are met, including a reliable engine.

[Kevin94SL]

Okay... a few things. HP to weight really doesn't matter a whole lot in a drag. Torque is a more important factor. Torque is what gets the vehicle moving, HP is what keeps it there.

2004 VUE, FWD, V6
-250HP at 5800RPM
-242 lbft torque @ 4500RPM
-3478lbs curb weight
(http://www.edmunds.com/used/2004/saturn/vue/100363999/specs.html)


2004 L300.3 FWD, V6
-182HP at 5600RPM
-184 @3600RPM (This isn't right I don't think, but I'm using a like site to compare all)
-3197lbs curb
(http://www.edmunds.com/used/2004/saturn/l300/100366795/specs.html)


2000 GrandAM
175@5200RPM
205@4000RPM
-3168lbs
(http://www.edmunds.com/used/2000/pontiac/grandam/10519/specs.html)





On a more personal note on all of these, I like the 3.0. We have an LW2 (2000 M/Y) that has this engine. We've had no major problems with this car.

Haven't had any experience with any VUE's. Don't think the 3.0 or the 3.5 Honda would do too bad in it - both engines are decently powered.

[SLAPSHOT]

To really know you'd have to get GMs records and see how much warranty claims they have had.

Exactly my point. You can't just go spouting off that something is "junk" without the facts to back that up. Of course you're going to be called out, especially from a 3.0 VUE owner.....this is a surprise to you?

Tiresome and par for the course? Good one!! Take cheap shots if thats all you can do.

There's no "cheap shot". My comment is my opinion of all the "experts" that seem to know so much but have no facts to back them up. Just try a search for tires....there's a whole crowd of tire experts here who say the stock Duelers are "dangerous"....they've even got people buying new tires before their VUE comes off of the lot! :rolleyes:

I drive the Vue from time to time but apparently diagreeing with popular opinion is disallowed here??

Actually, I'm the one who disagrees with the popular "HONDA is God's gift to the VUE" opinion.

No more free speech and expression of ideas?

Sure, that's what these forums are about. My opinion of the 3.0L is obviously different from yours, and I called you out when you said it was "junk". Nothing personal, we just don't agree. There are a ton of people on here that get so threatened and defensive when someone disagrees with them....come on people, it's a public forum, there will be disagreements and there's nothing wrong with that....learn how to handle it and stop whining. :cry:

I have even raced them--which no one on here has but still get treated this way?

See above comments.

-I officialy take back the "junk" comment okay? But its not on the best engines of all time list either.

Agreed.....see, that wasn't hard.

[BobbyP]

Actually, I'm the one who disagrees with the popular "HONDA is God's gift to the VUE" opinion.

I guess you'd have to own one to see the light... :) We started a weekly meeting for Saturn owners that love their Honda engines too much... :)

A lot of good engineering went into the 3.0 V6, I've only heard a few problems primarily with the engine oil cooler. This was probably a Saturn problem, nothing related to the engine design. I remember reading that they meticulously balanced each engine, that there was 5 different pistons to ensure perfect balance. They look really great when the aluminum intakes are polished.

[vue-vtec]

Are they seriously getting rid of the plastic?

I'm currious how many here would be a 'VUE' owner if it hadn't been for the polymar? (I know I wouldn't be).



That's right. Opel doesn't build any plastic-bodied cars, and since the majority of new Saturns will be re-badged Opels, you can say goodbye to the plastic.

BTW, the plastic body wasn't a huge selling point to me.

[99blacktop]

Sad to see taht no one else here ont his board has drag raced a Vue.Huh? It's a SUV, not a race car. I will never understand why people think that it should spend it's time on a race track. Oooh, aaah, it has 250 ponies under the hood. Big deal, that doesn't make it a race car.
We put the Vue on the shoping list specificaly for the 250hp V6---at the time it was near or at the top in its class.

I was disapointed as hell---and mad too! That the 250hp Vue was slower then the 175hp Grand Am.Since when is horsepower a measure of speed? Sure, more power should mean more speed, but there a lot of factors involved. The 250hp VUE is geared to tow 3500lbs, what can that 175hp Grand Am tow? Hmm, I guess that's one explanation why the VUE is slower. My Corvette has a 5.7L 350hp engine that will smoke a Chevy pickup with the same size engine. Why? Because that is what it was designed to do. It even gets better gas mileage than my VUE which has less than half the horsepower. :D

[avro206]

Huh? It's a SUV, not a race car. I will never understand why people think that it should spend it's time on a race track. Oooh, aaah, it has 250 ponies under the hood. Big deal, that doesn't make it a race car.

never said it was a race car...geeze. SOmeting wrong with taking the daily driver to the track too? Please:rolleyes:

Sorry we can't all own Corvettes but can have fun with what we do own

[myoung]

The steel body should weigh LESS, not more. The polymer serves virtually no structural purpose, it's basically all cosmetic, and as such there is more steel involved in supporting the vehicle itself. With a steel bodied car, the steel outer panels are structural members, and thus less steel is needed for re-enforcing.

The 3.6 will be heavier than the honda 3.5, for a couple of reasons:
DOHC v. SOHC
Timing Chain v. Timing Belt

Obviously the DOHC head has twice as many valves, twice as many cams, etc. And a chain is going to weigh more than a rubber belt. So it's not really a fault on GM.

Look at the plots on gmpowertrain.com, you'll see the 3.6 does a little better than does the 3.5, with a smoother curve. If I wanted a Honda motor with (OMG WTF!!!!!!) VTEC (ADSADS!!$!$!@$!@%%^), I'd buy a Honda like every other tweaker. Is it solid? Sure. Powerful? Definitely. Does it belong in a Saturn? I think not.

If you want the Honda so bad, go buy a Pilot. Hope it works out for you. And, FWIW, since this thread is about the weight of vehicles, the AWD 07 Pilot weighs in at a trim 4497. Good luck.

As for all the Racecars (tm) mentioned in this thread... What a collection. I love the whole, "my grocery getter is faster than your kid-mobile" argument. Really makes me feel like my time in this forum is well spent.

[BobbyP]

Obviously the DOHC head has twice as many valves, twice as many cams, etc.

You better go back and check your facts... Just because it's a SOHC doesn't mean it doesn't have 4 valves per cylinder... The Honda 3.5L has 24 valves also.

The Honda is also a ULEV II rated power plant. It's emissions are 50% lower hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions than the GM 3.5 and 3.6L engines.

I'm not convinced the GM 3.6L is better than the Honda 3.5L. IMO the positive experiences Saturn owners had with their Honda power plants will definitely influence their next vehicle purchase.

IMO it's plain and simple the best engine Saturn ever used.

[sixsigma]

One thing to remember is that the Honda 3.5L is overrated in both hp and torque. The same motor is in the Pilot and MDX. Honda had to adjust the ratings down with the new SAE measurements in their cars. They were able to inflate the ratings using the old standards by using higher octane fuel etc. In other words, don't think that the 250hp of the Aura is the same 250hp in the VUE. They are not. Like most Japanese companies, they used loopholes in the rules to exaggerate their power. The real power ratings for the VUE are approx. 238hp.

Even Chrysler fell into this trap. The new Sebring has only 235hp from their 3.5L. The same 3.5L they use in the 300C and the previous 300M. No one could figure out why these engines were slower than comparable power plants. Now we know. Their numbers were artificially high, like the VUE's.

Don’t get me wrong, this is a very nice engine. We have one in my wife’s SUV. Just don’t assume that it has the same hp or torque as GM's 3.6L. I do agree with BobbyP that this was the best engine Saturn ever used - until now. The 3.6L ups the ante even further.

Geez, this is kinda fun talking about a really good V6 in a GM getting even better. That hasn't happened in over 20 years! And think, that motor is now over 270hp in the Outlook. More signs that there are life at the General.

[vue-vtec]

You better go back and check your facts... Just because it's a SOHC doesn't mean it doesn't have 4 valves per cylinder... The Honda 3.5L has 24 valves also.....

...IMO it's plain and simple the best engine Saturn ever used.

I agree with that last sentence!

And you're right, it is a 24-valve SOHC engine.

http://automobiles.honda.com/images/banners/2007/odyssey/engineering_photos/engine_30l.jpg

[BobbyP]

One thing to remember is that the Honda 3.5L is overrated in both hp and torque. The same motor is in the Pilot and MDX. Honda had to adjust the ratings down with the new SAE measurements in their cars. They were able to inflate the ratings using the old standards by using higher octane fuel etc. In other words, don't think that the 250hp of the Aura is the same 250hp in the VUE. They are not. Like most Japanese companies, they used loopholes in the rules to exaggerate their power. The real power ratings for the VUE are approx. 238hp.

Even Chrysler fell into this trap. The new Sebring has only 235hp from their 3.5L. The same 3.5L they use in the 300C and the previous 300M. No one could figure out why these engines were slower than comparable power plants. Now we know. Their numbers were artificially high, like the VUE's.

Don’t get me wrong, this is a very nice engine. We have one in my wife’s SUV. Just don’t assume that it has the same hp or torque as GM's 3.6L. I do agree with BobbyP that this was the best engine Saturn ever used - until now. The 3.6L ups the ante even further.

Geez, this is kinda fun talking about a really good V6 in a GM getting even better. That hasn't happened in over 20 years! And think, that motor is now over 270hp in the Outlook. More signs that there are life at the General.


It's a nice time to be a VUE owner... :)

Saturn did adjust their hp ratings down to 248hp in 2007 on the 3.5L. In 7-8 months we'll see how the 3.6L performs in a VUE when it finally gets to market. I'll like to compare it to a 3.5L VUE.

I'm driving a Buick Lucerne with a Northstar V8 this week. I'm a bit disappointed, I thought it would be quicker.

[eagleboy]

The 3.6 V6 is now making as much horsepower as the Northstar, I think the V8 is rated at 275 in the Buick.

[MJD1001]

GM just released info today on the "Equinox Sport" that will have the 3.6 and the 6 speed automatic. The numbers they released for the 08 Equinox Sport with the 3.6 list it as having 262hp, not the 250hp they listed in the Vue.

Also, the Equinox sport is listed at just above 3900 lbs for the FWD, and over 4000 for AWD. Still less than the 08 vue, but yet a jump in weight over the equinox with the 3.4. Is the 3.6 engine and/or the 6 speed auto really that heavy?

[eagleboy]

The new 6 speed weighs considerably less than the four speed for the 4 cylinder.

[Troy]

I was going to drop in on the LA Auto Show this Friday and see the 08 VUE, but after the Mexican plant announcement I've lost interest in it.

I agree. Point of assembly is an important consideration. It is the reason Ford lost me as a potential Mercury Milan buyer when I was in the market for a Sedan (went with the Malibu Maxx, one of the highest percent American autos behind the, ahem, American assembled Camry. But profit center *also* weighs heavily for me; I don't want my hard earned dollars sent to Japan).

Besides, in the photos, the styling of the new VUE, even though it has European heritage, appears to me to be more Korean/asian.

[Ritz]

I agree. Point of assembly is an important consideration. It is the reason Ford lost me as a potential Mercury Milan buyer when I was in the market for a Sedan (went with the Malibu Maxx, one of the highest percent American autos behind the, ahem, American assembled Camry. But profit center *also* weighs heavily for me; I don't want my hard earned dollars sent to Japan).

Besides, in the photos, the styling of the new VUE, even though it has European heritage, appears to me to be more Korean/asian.

The Milan lost me because it didn't have any real performance to match the looks. I don't really care a whole lot exactly where a vehicle is slapped together, as long as it meets my aesthetic and performance requirements. I'm with you on the look of the new VUE. It doesn't do anything for me either.

Cheers,