Source: http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2...-for-2009.html

 

It'd be nicer if they just gave us the cold hard data.

 

Go Subaru.

I am amazed that my 10 year old Subaru just returned 24 MPG after 300 miles of all city driving. These are fantastic cars.

 

At one time, Saturns were at or near the top of the list, too.......until GM let the division go downhill by forcing them to sell, instead of Saturn's own unique (and reliable) plastic-bodied small cars, rebadged Opels and other GM products instead.

 

Yep. They have what are probably the best AWD systems in the buisness.........certainly the best ones under 35K. Some 2008 and 2009 models, though, show strong evidence of cost-cutting in trim and content.

 

More evidence Hyundai plans (and is WELL on its way) to conquer the world....

 

As expected with 90% Japanese cars on the top of the list.

Agreed, nice showing/improvement by Hundyai

 

I guess you are not impressed with the current Saturn product line, and I agree, because I'm not seeing anything there that interests me either.

 

CR favorites has been the same since the days of the slinky & kabangas lol.

 

I like the Saturn Aura, mostly because I like the Chevy Malibu, and the Aura is a very close cousin......almost a rebadged twin, despite having some different trim. But I definitely miss the Saturn plastic bodies. The word "plastic" may SOUND cheap, but it worked VERY well in the body panels of the 1990's-vintage Saturns.

However, I like the Malibu/Aura enough that they are on my potential Top-10 shopping list for a new car, though the chances are that it will be another Subaru...or a Lexus.

The rest of the Saturn line? IMO, the GM-designed Sky roadster, like most roadsters, is somewhat fun to drive, but is rather poorly-built and has a hard-to-fold convertible top (much harder than the Miata's). The AWD VUE is OK for bad weather and versatility, and has a better interior than the old VUE it replaces, but is essentially Opel-derived and unreliable. The Astra compact is well-finished, but lacks a sedan version, and has some quirkiness in its interior design and controls. It is an Opel clone/rebadge, and can be expected to be unreliable as well. The GM-designed Outlook SUV is big and thirsty, like its Buick Enclave, GMC Acadia, and Chevy traverse cousins, and the Enclave has a MUCH better interior. Their reliability records are also below average.

So, in a nutshell, the Aura is the only current (new) Saturn product I could (?) see myself driving.

 

I agree, and it will probably be my next rental car while on vacation.

No way would I own one, I can't even remember what they look like, since they are so rare around here.
The Chevy Malibu kind of stands out, it's cool.

 

it's no coincidence. hyundai started to make noise in 2003. they started to score high in initial quality, and they just continued to improve every year.

basically within next 3-4 years hyundai will be top 5 in initial quality, reliability, customer satifaction, dependability and etc.


basically hyundai is slowly becoming a next toyota.

 

I agree with you about newer Saturns. They are boring, yet, somewhat reliable. Subaru? Although I would not own one, I can respect them for what they are, which is good, reliable, economical transportation. However, I cannot understand your fascination with the older, plastic bodied Saturns. It baffles me because these cars were absolute junk compared to today's Saturns. I remember driving a relatively new SL4 and was in shock and disbelief that anyone would buy such a horible car. Road noise beyond belief, and my god, I thought the dash was going to fall off in my lap! Seriously, I cannot think of a worse built car at the time. It could have been just a bad experience but, it will remain with me forever.

 

Actually, most of them are NOT particularly reliable. All except the Aura have been below-average in that regard, although the limited reliability data for the slow-selling Astra is somewhat inconclusive..



You forgot the most important thing with a Subaru....the superb AWD system, arguably the best one in the buisness under 35K.



I have to disagree a little here. The 90's vintage plastic-body panels not only had a superb water-borne paint job (one of the glossiest in the industry....only certain body shops were rated Saturn repaintings), but they strongly resisted dings, dents, and corrosion (of course, like any other car, however, the paint could scratch). The 1996 and later S-series dash gauges, marked with finely-detailed increments, were some of the best I've ever seen. The reliability records, according to Consumer Reports, were consistantly above average, though not quite to Honda/Toyota levels. They also had a superb, easy-to-change, screw-off transmission filter that went away with the awful Saturn Ion and its change to a standard GM Quad-4 powertrain.

Did the S-series have some faults? Of course. No car is perfect. The disc brake rotors, like most GM cars of the period, tended to warp with miles, even with easy use. The upper-dash panels, as you noted, were not the best, and some were rather poorly-attached, causing rattles. The oil filter was very hard to reach...it was up over the right-front drive shaft, on the lower-side of the engine. And some of the S-series coupes, with the small third-door on the left rear, had uneven structural problems that resulted from the lack of a B-pillar only on that side...that could result in rattles and body shimmies....I noticed that on test-drives.

Hyundais and Kias of that period were far worse...as were some Chrysler products. There were some lemon Saturns built during that period....just not a lot of them. Yours may have been one of the few unlucky ones. if so, I'm sorry.

 

It's probably fair to say that you can find anecdotal reports of good and bad "experienced" cars just about anywhere. Our '92 Plymouth minivan (Project Cheapskate) just turned over 100K miles last week and is still returning a solid 20+ mpg in city driving. Still no serious problems. Obviously Chrysler Corp. once knew how to do something right.