04 Ion- IS IT TRUE ????

Don't you kind of miss the good old days when GM would build a plant that
could make a million of one model and its twins and nothing else whether
they could sell them or not. Nissan did the same and it almost put them out
of business.


"Seamus's Stuff" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven M. Scharf" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > "Seamus's Stuff" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > No doubt the accountants weighed the extra cost of the polymer panels
> > against the number of lost sales that they believe will result from
> dropping
> > them. The polymer panel over sub-frame approach was supposed to be
> cheaper,
> > but never was. The manufacturing cost of the polymer panels, the yield,
> and
> > the problems associated with painting them, made them more costly than
> > steel. The need for a sub-frame also raised the cost. Furthermore, there
> was
> > no safety increase with polymer over steel, versus steel alone, just
look
> at
> > the crash test results.
> >
>
> It did involve cost...but not those. It was the cost to convert every
other
> plant from steel to polymer...and the cost of having only one plant that
can
> build polymer panel cars/trucks. Since we were the only one out there.
We
> can not build any other product GM makes at our plant. With GM moving to
> the flexibility of any plant being able to build most any product. We
were
> becoming a large cost to the company. So either we change....or the
> accountants get rid of the dead weight. I think you can figure out why we
> said change...
>
> Jim
>
>

In article . net>,
Steven M. Scharf > wrote:

> "Seamus's Stuff" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > So if you like cars/SUV's with polymer panels, get them now while they are
> > still being produced. I liked them well enough I have 2 Lumina APV
> minivans in my
> > driveway.
>
> ""If you find something you really, really like, buy a lifetime supply;
> because it'll either be changed for the worse or go out of production."
>
> > Just wish that the manufacturing world liked them as much as I
>
> No doubt the accountants weighed the extra cost of the polymer panels
> against the number of lost sales that they believe will result from dropping
> them. The polymer panel over sub-frame approach was supposed to be cheaper,
> but never was. The manufacturing cost of the polymer panels, the yield, and
> the problems associated with painting them, made them more costly than
> steel. The need for a sub-frame also raised the cost. Furthermore, there was
> no safety increase with polymer over steel, versus steel alone, just look at
> the crash test results.
>
>
The crash test results only tell part of the story. The final selling
point when I purchased TWO (2) Saturns at the same time was the picture
from the local newspaper of an SL2 with a full milk tanker sitting on
the SL2's roof. The occupants of the SL2 opened the doors and walked
out. Try that without a sub-frame. The sub-frame and the polymer panels
were the only thing keeping me from Toyota. GM has burned me with
their garbage too many times. The only good GM products I had were two
Oldsmobiles and GM killed them, too. Do we see a pattern whereby GM
kills the good parts and keeps the garbage?

> wrote in message >...

>> The crash test results only tell part of the story. The final selling
>> point when I purchased TWO (2) Saturns at the same time was the picture
>> from the local newspaper of an SL2 with a full milk tanker sitting on
>> the SL2's roof. The occupants of the SL2 opened the doors and walked
>> out. Try that without a sub-frame.

But the chances of being involved in this sort of accident are far, far,
lower than being involved in the type of head-on collisions as are
tested for by the IIHS, where Saturn did poorly. They don't have the Ion
tests, but you can see the Saturn SL tests at:

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_rat...html/97015.htm

Compare Saturn to a Civic,
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_rat...html/00031.htm

or Corolla:
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_rat...html/00031.htm

And of course the milk tanker was not being supported by the Saturn's
frame, if this happened at all, the car was wedged under the tank.

The fact that the IIHS hasn't received an Ion to test is worrying. Saturn
has
always done poorly on the IIHS tests, which the experts agree are much
more realistic, and tougher, than the NHTSA crash tests.

Saturn attempted to copy Volvo's marketing for safety, without having
anything to back it up. Of course the Volvo message is now largely a
myth as well, as other automakers have added similar safety features.

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_rat...ary_midlux.htm
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_rat...mary_small.htm

Right about several things over the years? An effing monkey would be right
that often.

"twinkie" > wrote in message
...
> scharf was right about several things over the years.
> and saturn was always controlled by GM even though
> many saturn devotees were in denial.
>