Penske Group likely to buy Saturn.

[javacontour]

Why do you need two entry level brands? Chevy is as entry level as Saturn is today. The argument for Saturn being entry level was solid in 1990. Today, not so much as their lineup has expanded to include SUV's, minivans, sports cars, etc. No need to have Saturn when you have Chevy. The case for Pontiac vs Buick is a little less clear-cut. Arguments can be made for keeping both of them. I suspect they kept the more profitable (or less losing) of the two. Many Pontiac dealerships also had GMC. If I recall, GMC is being kept, so are they really getting rid of that many dealerships by getting rid of Pontiac? Seems like getting rid of Pontiac is more about collapsing a division than it is about closing dealerships. They may not even get rid of the Pontiac name, just not have Pontiac as a separate division, from what I've read. So GM is selling what isn't "core old school" GM, I.E. Hummer, Saturn and Saab, and simply doing away with the separate division status of Pontiac. I wonder if Pontiac won't be a "tuner" shop for GM at some point in the future.

 

[rjundi]

Good luck to him. I will never set foot in a Saturn dealer after testing driving a 1994 SL2 or renting a Saturn L200. I was not impressed by the "experience" of buying a Saturn in 1994. They called my 3 times after my test drive asking if I was interested.

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

 Originally Posted By: javacontour

Why do you need two entry level brands? Chevy is as entry level as Saturn is today. The argument for Saturn being entry level was solid in 1990. Today, not so much as their lineup has expanded to include SUV's, minivans, sports cars, etc. No need to have Saturn when you have Chevy.

Exactly. The Saturn ION was what the Cobalt was based on. Then they phased the ION out and kept the Cobalt. Makes no sense. Having redundancy in the marketplace makes no sense either. Too many of the same products across the divisions only waters down the individuality of each model. Good luck to Penske. I'm in his corner for making Saturn into the company/experience that GM failed at.

 

[Vizzy]

 Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn

[quote=javacontour]Why do you need two entry level brands? Exactly. The Saturn ION was what the Cobalt was based on. Then they phased the ION out and kept the Cobalt. Makes no sense. Having redundancy in the marketplace makes no sense either. Too many of the same products across the divisions only waters down the individuality of each model. .

Especially when BOTH products were Horrible or bad, in that order. Why not just make one OUTSTANDING product? This is more evidence of what killed GM.

 

[CivicFan]

I think Saturn is going to have a bright future like this. We are going to be entering a new era of car sales. We will have brands that outsource the R&D, design and manufacture of their products. We may drive one model of Saturn designed by an Italian design house, manufactured by Peugeot and sold under the brand name of Saturn. Penske will make sure that Saturn is a unique vehicle and they will probably position it to have a youthful image. In this age, comfort, safety and reliability are a given - you can't compete in the marketplace if you do not meet these three qualities. I don't know where this leaves GM. Hopefully, by unloading all these under-performing brands, they will be able to focus on maintaining whatever brands they end up with [Cadillac for the luxury market, Chevy for the mainstream market, GMC for trucks and Buick for the aging population who can't afford Cadillacs].

 

[artificialist]

 Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn

 Originally Posted By: javacontour

Why do you need two entry level brands? Chevy is as entry level as Saturn is today. The argument for Saturn being entry level was solid in 1990. Today, not so much as their lineup has expanded to include SUV's, minivans, sports cars, etc. No need to have Saturn when you have Chevy.

Exactly. The Saturn ION was what the Cobalt was based on. Then they phased the ION out and kept the Cobalt. Makes no sense. Having redundancy in the marketplace makes no sense either. Too many of the same products across the divisions only waters down the individuality of each model. Good luck to Penske. I'm in his corner for making Saturn into the company/experience that GM failed at.

Early IONs were full of design bugs. Not nearly as bug filled as the Chevy Cobalt. The ION was a stained name that needed to be erased. It also didn't help that Saturn built some of the worst oil burning engines back in the 1990s.

 

[VNTS]

 Originally Posted By: artificialist

 Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn

 Originally Posted By: javacontour

Why do you need two entry level brands? Chevy is as entry level as Saturn is today. The argument for Saturn being entry level was solid in 1990. Today, not so much as their lineup has expanded to include SUV's, minivans, sports cars, etc. No need to have Saturn when you have Chevy.

Exactly. The Saturn ION was what the Cobalt was based on. Then they phased the ION out and kept the Cobalt. Makes no sense. Having redundancy in the marketplace makes no sense either. Too many of the same products across the divisions only waters down the individuality of each model. Good luck to Penske. I'm in his corner for making Saturn into the company/experience that GM failed at.

Early IONs were full of design bugs. Not nearly as bug filled as the Chevy Cobalt. The ION was a stained name that needed to be erased. It also didn't help that Saturn built some of the worst oil burning engines back in the 1990s.

Yes and you got the Saturn MSRP no hagglep rice experience laughing out loud. GM should have spent the 11 billion at the time they wasted on Saturn and developed some really good small and midsize cars for Chevy and Pontiac. Per Penske and Samsung motors, I doubt people are going to be beating down the doors to buy a Korean DNA car rebadged as a Saturn. Eery rebadge job from any country has been a failure in the US.

 

[ViragoBry]

R.I.P, Sky. I'll miss you. :-(

 

[mpvue]

saturn stopped being saturn when they abandoned platic body panels and the spring hill plant became a GM plant. I've had a few saturns, a modded '93 SC1 (I put a '94 SC2 drivetrain in it), a '02 L200 5 speed (great car, 34mpg!)and my current, a '04 VUE 5 speed. so, the 'name' doesn't mean anything to me, the cars do. point being, I won't be anymore likely to buy another saturn after Penske gets done w/ it than I would any other car. it's just a name, w/ no similarity or DNA link to the original cars.

 

[MONKEYMAN]

I have one of those oil burning Saturns, a 99SL2. One of the best vehicles I have ever owned. It is one of the main reason's I joined BITOG and have a 3 year supply of oil stockpiled in the garage. For me, the beauty of my S-Car is I can do most repairs or maintenance myself. I grew up when you could sit in the engine bay installing some points or when working on a vehicle. I guess I appreciate some things in Saturn that takes me back to the simple days (plus it has a cassette which was a selling point). As for as Penske and Saturn, I will be open to buying a Saturn in the future. It will need to be fuel efficient with some options I need. Needs to be reliable. I am not a Saturn purist. Call it a Penske if it helps make the business successful.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi, Roger Penske took over an ailing "Detroit Diesel" from GM in the mid 1980s and drove their (his) new Series 60 4 cycle engines to become the Market leader. He does things very well indeed DD is now part of Daimler AG