Originally Posted by mmarshall

Most of the reasons you listed are not really the things that CR measures in its repeat-buyership questionaires....nor what it bases its ratings on. In the CR repeat-buyer data-base, most of the reasons why people would not choose to repeat-buy something are because they are dissatisfied because of things like poor reliability, uncomfortable ride/seating, hard-to-use controls, etc..... not simply because their needs change.

And, IMO, this also tells me that more people need to do more careful inspections/sampling/test-drives of vehicles before they sign on the dotted line for them. Simply saying ......"Oh, Man, I dig those looks", or "I only care about 0-60 or quarter-mile times", or "I gotta keep up with the Jones".....that doesn't cut it, as too many cases of Buyers' Remorse shows.

Nevertheless, among Saturn's MANY good and customer friendly features, that's one more that I liked....with a clear title and no vehicle damage, one could bring back ANY new Saturn, for ANY reason (even if the buyer decided he or she didn't like the color) in the first 30 days after sale for a full refund.

And Saturn was serious about that offer. My SL2 sedan was fine, with minimal problems, but, later, I had a yellow special-order SC2 coupe that, IMO, was a lemon, with a cruise-speed shimmy (that, IMO, was probably related to its body-structure and asymmetrical third-door on one side). For several weeks, both me and the dealer's Shop Foreman worked on the car together in the shop....we tried everything.....new wheels, new tires, alignment, precision balance....every trick that he and I could both think of. Finally, I said screw it, I turned it back after three weeks. Saturn wrote me a check for the car's entire price, plus the Maryland Sales Tax and the cost of a factory car-cover, which I had bought......legally, they didn't have to refund the tax or the cover (only the car itself)....but they did. I found out later a young girl bought it...she either wasn't as picky about a shimmy as I was, or they eventually found what it was in the shop and fixed it.

And you guys wonder why I liked that company.

Originally Posted by AMIRZA786

Saturn was never profitable, and maybe that return policy was one of the reasons. But the main reason was it was created as a fighter brand meant to take on low prices Japanese competitors, it's initial setup cost failed to ever get out of the red

Originally Posted by mmarshall

It was one of the best success-stories in the Industry (1990-2000) until, after the first decade, GM stopped what Saturn did so well (small plastic-body vehicles), and essentially tried to turn it ito an Oldsmobile-successor with rebadges of Opels and other GM products. Just didn't work. IMO they only did one really excellent metal-bodied product after the shift away from the small S-series cars (the Aura)...and that was because the Aura's twin (the Chevy Malibu) itself was such an excellent product for that generation.

Originally Posted by EZZ

It had a 15 year run and was never profitable. Hardly a success as they didn't change the industry nor did they survive nor did most people think they made exceptional cars. Sounds like a trifecta of fail.

Originally Posted by mmarshall

It was one of the best success-stories in the Industry (1990-2000) until, after the first decade, GM stopped what Saturn did so well (small plastic-body vehicles), and essentially tried to turn it ito an Oldsmobile-successor with rebadges of Opels and other GM products. Just didn't work. IMO they only did one really excellent metal-bodied product after the shift away from the small S-series cars (the Aura)...and that was because the Aura's twin (the Chevy Malibu) itself was such an excellent product for that generation.

Originally Posted by SW17LS

What he misses is WHY GM made those changes to Saturn...because they had to.

Originally Posted by mmarshall

Well, what happened to Saturn after they did that proves that was not the right move. That's not simply me, or my opinion...that is history. To say that what they did was inevitable is a stretch of any imagination. GM execs made those decisions...not the market, Saturn retailers, or customers.

Getting back to the thread-topic, if the Saturn Ion were still around today, it would probably be on CL's 10-worst in customer satisfaction. The Ion was one of Saturn's deadly sins after they gave up the S-series.

Originally Posted by SW17LS

What you miss is Saturn was bleeding money before they made those changes...which is why they made those changes. All that matters is that a product makes money, and they were losing money on Saturn so however "great" it was, it could not continue.

Its a business.

Originally Posted by SW17LS

Worst rental car I have had in the last say, 5 years was a Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross. I actually took it back.

Originally Posted by mmarshall

Well, what happened to Saturn after they did that proves that was not the right move. That's not simply me, or my opinion...that is history.

Originally Posted by SW17LS

Its like the Michael Scott Paper Company. "Michael, your low prices are putting you out of business" "But...my low prices are the only thing keeping me in business!"

Originally Posted by bitkahuna

as the old joke goes though, you can't lose a dollar on every sale and make it up in volume. something has to give.

Originally Posted by bitkahuna

saturn was an interesting experiment,

Originally Posted by bitkahuna

, somewhat like scion, and both dismal failures.

Originally Posted by LexsCTJill

Totally agree. At the time GM was just massive, and Saturn worked for a little while, but it is defunct.