Thursday, 11 of March of 2010
Love cars? Love travel? Then you're in the right place
Submit your cruise and car show calendar information to laviolette.autoscribe
E-mail a couple of pictures of your car along with some information about it to laviolette.autoscribe
Twitter: michiganwllz
Much has been written about why Saturn was somewhat of a success through much of the 1990s.
Even though General Motors starved the brand for new products, those who bought Saturns back then loved them.
Don’t be surprised if plans to save Saturn reemerge in the next couple of weeks. Read more »
Date: October 1, 2009
Categories: Automotive marketing, Detroit Three, General Motors, Saturn
I agree with everything Motor Trend Editor Angus McKenzie says here, except this: “Saturn succeeded not because the original car was good — actually, it wasn’t even remotely competitive with anything from Toyota or Honda — but because it was cleverly sold and marketed.”
The American automakers have gotten a bad rap for building a lot of bad cars, but Saturns weren’t among them. In fact, the first Saturns were overbuilt to the point that GM couldn’t make any money on them. I’ve said this before: I know owners who will tell you that their Saturns were among the best things they’ve owned, let alone cars. They were fun to drive, tough and well built. Saturn would have been a great success but for three things GM did: 1) It allowed the original models to languish with too few updates, typical of the Big Three in the ’80s and ’90s; 2) It didn’t fill out the Saturn lineup in a timely manner with equally good cars (Want an example, take a look at the unloved LS sedan); 3) When it finally did replace the original SL, it did so with the Ion, which made Saturn fans wish GM had just let them keep the old SL.
- Bryan Laviolette
By Angus McKenzie
Auto companies have traditionally been engineering and manufacturing businesses, rather than marketing and retail businesses. Henry Ford, for example, insisted dealers pay for his Model Ts as soon as they left the factory door. But what made sense in Henry’s time, and reached its apotheosis with the huge River Rouge plant, the most vertically integrated automobile factory in the world, has become a liability today.
Auto plants cost staggering amounts of money to build and to run. And in an era where the manufacturing process no longer delivers major differentiators in terms of the finished product — all vehicles have to meet similar safety and fuel economy mandates, and the cost and quality differences between the best and the worst are getting smaller all the time — that’s money many auto industry insiders wished they no longer had to spend. Especially as what largely defines an auto company these days is not where its products are made, but how its brands are perceived by consumers.
A Boxster is still a Porsche, even though it is built in Finland by Valmet. A Grand Cherokee is still a Jeep, even though it is built in Austria by Magna Steyr. Right hand drive Mercedes C-Class and BMW 3 Series models are still seen as German cars, even though they are made in South Africa.
Penske
With Roger Penske’s takeover of the Saturn brand apparently moving forward (Motor Trend via Automotive News), a legitimate question is what Penske plans to do with General Motors’ ringed-planet brand.
Penske says he is on track to complete the purchase of Saturn by the end of September. He says he wants to keep Saturn’s vaunted dealer network in place, and plans call for GM to continue supplying most of the existing models through 2011. One model that won’t continue is the Saturn Sky, the Pontiac Solstice clone that ended production July 30.
