If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Consumer Reports: Saturn
Seamus's Stuff wrote:
> Though the Toyota Prius which had a 100% recall because of software flaws > that could leave you stranded in the middle of the highway, because of > engine shutdown, got their highest rating......Think they are not > biased...think again. A recall is generally looked upon favorably by CR, when it is voluntary. It means that the manufacturer is willing to do the right thing, and fix a known problem. Of course problems like occurred on the Saturn Vue were so serious that it's hard to overlook them! OTOH, a manufacturer that stubbornly refuses to do anything about known problems, problems that even their dealers admit exist, is looked upon unfavorably. It was very hard to get Saturn to admit the cracked head issue and fix cars with the problem. They never owned up to the oil burning problem, even though every dealer knew about it, and most independent shops were aware of it. One thing about Toyota and Honda is that they are so concerned about their image, due to their almost maniacal quest for customer loyalty, that they tend to not put up a fight when a problem is uncovered. Toyota has even fixed problems that were a direct result of the owner failing to abide by the maintenance schedule, because the company had published conflicting maintenance requirements. Toyota wrote ""misunderstanding of what constitutes 'normal' versus 'severe' driving conditions may result in neglecting their vehicle." |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Consumer Reports: Saturn
no, I am saying "I dont agree with you, you dont agree with me". AFAIK,
nobody on either side had presented facts that either side has agreed upon. This topic nor this forum is not intended for name calling nor rudeness, so it is my intention to end this conversation as it seems to be headed in that direction. fin. marx404 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Consumer Reports: Saturn
marx404 sez...
> This topic nor this forum is not intended for name calling nor rudeness I initiated this thread to discuss what Consumer Reports had to say about Saturn. They do not accept ads, so therefully are not swayed one way or another. When researching for that dream car, I find it helpful to all to discuss what is available to consumers. No one wants to get stuck with a lemon! For all the hard earned money, I want to feel well-informed. I will follow the advice and buy some other magazines and will start a new thread about my findings. Back in the 90's, Saturn had a reputation of quality. Now just looking at them cars in the showroom, I do not feel it. My favorite vehicle of the current lineup is the Vue, but that's not saying much. There used to be an "L" series. Saturn has really changed. It's a shame! -- ______________ =====fish===== |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Consumer Reports: Saturn
marx404 wrote:
> no, I am saying "I dont agree with you, you dont agree with me". AFAIK, > nobody on either side had presented facts that either side has agreed upon. > This topic nor this forum is not intended for name calling nor rudeness, so > it is my intention to end this conversation as it seems to be headed in that > direction. fin. I guess that we can't expect you to gracefully admit that you're wrong, so it's best that you end your participation in this thread. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Consumer Reports: Saturn
In article >,
SMS > wrote: > One thing about Toyota and Honda is that they are so concerned about > their image, due to their almost maniacal quest for customer loyalty, > that they tend to not put up a fight when a problem is uncovered. Right, that's why the flakey transmission in my dad's Oddessey, instead of getting replaced with a unit that won't lock up suddenly on the highway, got a 'jet kit' to fix what Honda calls a 'lubrication problem' inside the gearbox. Where just about everything is drenched in that magic nonstandard Honda ATF anyway. So, we've got a ticking time bomb transmission that may/may not fail with who knows what results. Oh yeah, they're giving us a '100,000 mile' warrenty on it now. Or the EGR valve that they told us could fail, so as a courtesy, they're extending the warrenty on the emissions system to 80,000 miles, which they're legally supposed to be at anyway. Or, we could talk about Toyota's sludge issues that have been around for years. What Honda and Toyota figured out long ago was that a good PR dept and quietly handling some issues, combined with some slick legal moves, can give the appearence of them being a warm and fuzzy company. Of course, look at the Prius, which performs like an 80's Toyota and gets nowhere near it's sticker mileage. Yet sheep suck it up anyway. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Consumer Reports: Saturn
Philip Nasadowski wrote: > In article >, > SMS > wrote: > > > > One thing about Toyota and Honda is that they are so concerned about > > their image, due to their almost maniacal quest for customer loyalty, > > that they tend to not put up a fight when a problem is uncovered. > > Right, that's why the flakey transmission in my dad's Oddessey, instead > of getting replaced with a unit that won't lock up suddenly on the > highway, got a 'jet kit' to fix what Honda calls a 'lubrication problem' > inside the gearbox. Where just about everything is drenched in that > magic nonstandard Honda ATF anyway. So, we've got a ticking time bomb > transmission that may/may not fail with who knows what results. Oh > yeah, they're giving us a '100,000 mile' warrenty on it now. Or the EGR > valve that they told us could fail, so as a courtesy, they're extending > the warrenty on the emissions system to 80,000 miles, which they're > legally supposed to be at anyway. > > Or, we could talk about Toyota's sludge issues that have been around for > years. > > What Honda and Toyota figured out long ago was that a good PR dept and > quietly handling some issues, combined with some slick legal moves, can > give the appearence of them being a warm and fuzzy company. > > Of course, look at the Prius, which performs like an 80's Toyota and > gets nowhere near it's sticker mileage. Yet sheep suck it up anyway. Yeah, I sometimes have to chuckle about the transmission and EGR problems many owners report on the Odyssey forums I visit. Some threads brought up striking similarities to those about Saturns some years ago on this newsgroup. I'm sure the Toyota sludge problems generated the same types of complaints for the many years Toyota denied these problems and refused to cover them, before consumer advocates began to apply pressure and generate bad publicity. I also agree with what fish said in their posts. Back in the 90s, the Saturn small cars were pretty consistently rated above average in CR's reliability ratings. They were also at or among the top of the class in the crash tests and safety ratings available at the time. CR still didn't recommend them because of their internal test scores. While all the published, objective measurements and ratings from CR were usually very similar to the competition, the subjective comments and considerations resulted in overall scores that were just a hair short of the rating needed on the bar chart to be "Recommended." Whether this was fair or not was in the eye of the beholder. A search of the Google archives will turn up many threads and insightful comments on these same topics. Today, most Saturns would be excluded from a recommended pick if only due to their below average reliability (according to CR). The Ion is projected as average, but its low crash test results and overall evaluation keep it from being recommended. I'd have given Saturn strong consideration when purchasing my last two minivans, based on my good experiences with the SL2 in the 90s. Unfortunately, the safety, convenience, performance and features just didn't match Honda and Toyota, let alone the very reasonable models from Nissan, Ford and Chrysler. As a side note, the Ion crash test results are indeed very disappointing. At a time when most newer models have been designed to do well in the NHTSA and IIHS crash tests, models like the Ion are not keeping up with the rest. Saturn didn't even bother to submit a side curtain airbag equipped Vue for additional IIHS testing. Only the Nissan Sentra and Kia Spectra rival it for worse-than-average performance in both the IIHS and NHTSA crash tests. For anyone interested in overall safety, don't simply trust one or two results or anecdotes for a vehicle. The website www.informedforlife.org produces a very good overall rating based on many factors, using published data to produce a risk rating comparable among all vehicles. Seems like being absorbed by GM corporate has really taken the "different" concept to the wrong extreme, lately. Caviller www.car-safety.org |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Consumer Reports: Saturn
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Consumer Reports: Saturn
SMS wrote:
> wrote: > > > interested in overall safety, don't simply trust one or two results or > > anecdotes for a vehicle. The website www.informedforlife.org produces > > a very good overall rating based on many factors, using published data > > to produce a risk rating comparable among all vehicles. > > Interesting. I did something very similar a few years ago, but I also > included the insurance industries statistical data as a small percentage > of the total score. The reason I did that is because there are factors > that obviously are not factored into the crash testing, because often a > vehicle with lousy crash test results actually had low injury and > fatality rates. Part of this is obviously based on the type of person > that buys a specific vehicle, but part may also be do to handling issues > not taken into account by crash testing. Real world injury and fatality rates are useful to some degree. If you find a vehicle is significantly below average in its class compared to its competition, that might be a red flag. Hopefully, the driver demographic for the same class of vehicle doesn't vary as much as it might from one class to another. It's too bad the real world data is barely published by the time most vehicles evolve into their next generation design, making only useful for new vehicles in some cases. Starting with the latest fatality data released in 2005, the IIHS has begun to account for some differences in driver characteristics. I doubt they can completely eliminate the factor of the driver, but it's good to see that this data will be more meaningful in the future. It's very difficult to include performance factors like emergency acceleration, handling and braking into an overall safety rating comparable across a range of weights and classes. Even if you test yourself or use numbers from another source, there is more potential for subjectivity and misleading data based on the element of the driver. Plus, I don't think I've ever seen any published studies comparing the benefit of performance features from a crash avoidance standpoint to the benefit of the vehicle's crashworthiness. Without that, it would be hard to include them into a composite score in an objective fashion. www.informedforlife.org 's approach is very detailed and almost purely objective. Rather than assigning some seemingly random weighting, formula or threshold, everything is carefully documented from published studies. Every other attempt I've seen to make a composite safety rating has been arbitrary and/or vauge, in some cases perhaps to intentionally include, exclude or adjust the relative rankings of specific makes/vehicles. I also like that when a vehicle is missing a particular result, it is given an average score for that result as a placeholder. Other publications might assume a top rating to include such a vehicle in their "Safest" list or omit an otherwise excellent model because of one missing rating. Consumer Reports tried to make their own overall safety rating a few years back. As with many of their ratings, they failed to give the necessary specifics, so it was hard to say if it was a reasonable effort or not. For whatever reasons, they no longer publish such a composite, though they do have safety requirements for recommended models. This new effort by informedforlife.org is certainly a step in the right direction, even if it isn't perfect. The IIHS is getting lots of media attention today with it's brand new top safety picks, while this unknown website will probably never get a fraction of that publicity. It seems word of mouth and link exchanges will have to do until the media takes notice. It's too bad, because using just the IIHS selections doesn't include the NHTSA crash tests, rollover ratings, stability control or vehicle weight, all of which are important factors to an overall safety evaluation as well. Caviller http://www.car-safety.org |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Consumer Reports: Saturn
Philip Nasadowski wrote:
> Honda automatics? Junk. Bad enough it's a **** design, they can't pick > a gear either... The automatics in my 2006 and 2001 Odyssey are/were very good, knock on wood... > Though I'm a bit annoyed - we didn't get the cracked head we were > supposed to get. I feel like I'm missing out on something > > Yeah, I didn't have major powertrain issues, either. Other than the alternator and a wheel bearing, my first SL2 was very reasonable, especially considering it was a first year model of a brand new vehicle. Caviller http://www.car-safety.org |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Saturn horror stories- could (will) happen to you! | [email protected] | Saturn | 3 | June 22nd 05 12:49 AM |
Why all the cracked heads, oil burning,etc. here? | [email protected] | Saturn | 11 | March 28th 05 09:39 PM |
Consumer Reports: "Disappointing ION"... | Warren | Saturn | 72 | June 26th 04 12:15 AM |
What's So Bad About Consumer Reports? | RobertG1 | General | 2 | March 8th 04 06:31 AM |
Saturn Lemons- epidemic flaws, engine cracks, ball joints | misterfact | Antique cars | 0 | January 6th 04 06:04 PM |