(This was written in October 2009 at the time of Saturn’s funeral)
Friends, we are gathered together to pay our last respects to a fallen brother. Saturn was the love child of Roger Smith and Hal Riney; one was the Chairman of GM, a manufacturer of cars; the other, an ad man extraordinaire, a manufacturer of emotions and perceived needs. Let us savor their own words as we remember the brand that was Saturn, starting with these from Roger: (Saturn will be)“a quantum leap ahead of the Japanese, including what they have coming in the future. In Saturn we have GM’s answer – the American answer – to the Japanese challenge. It’s the clean-sheet approach to producing small cars that in time will have historic implications…(Saturn is) the key to GM’s long-term competitiveness, survival, and success.”
So how exactly does a “clean-sheet” car end up sharing the same styling as a mid-size Oldsmobile that came out one year before the Saturn? I know there are explanations, but they don’t work. And the fact that it came out looking like a 9/10 Cutlass already predicts why Saturn was destined to fail. It’s not that the first Saturn’s styling was such a significant factor in itself, but it was profoundly symbolic of GM’s inability to escape itself, even when trying to hide deep in the green hills of Tennessee. Escape from stagnation and decline, and attempts at re-invention from the outside-in, are as old as civilization itself. I’m not a historian, but finding a successful model for Roger’s folly eludes me. Weak organizations and civilizations get overrun by dynamic ones. Or actually fix what’s wrong at the core.
I do fancy myself a bit of an automotive historian though, but I’d almost forgotten this important tidbit: the Saturn was originally planned to be sold by Chevrolet. The whole concept of a completely separate division and dealer network came later in the Saturn’s protracted eight-year development. Now there’s some serious food for thought: how differently might things have turned out if it had been a Chevy. Because the decision to make the Saturn “A Different Kind of Car Company” not only reflected GM’s hubris and unrealistic expectations, it also directly created the mortal bind that Saturn inevitably found itself in.
Sure, in its heyday, the unique Saturn dealer experience and no-haggle pricing was a breath of fresh air. But these were both ephemeral; the pricing policy went out the window when small car sales weakened, and smart dealers of all persuasion began to improve aspects of the dealership experience.
Saturn’s early days feel-good vibes had all the fervor of a quasi-religious cult. It was one of the great triumphs of advertising and marketing; a brilliant campaign engineered by San Francisco’s Hal Riney. GM did one thing right with its choice of Saturn’s agency. Riney’s first big claim to fame was commissioning a song by Paul Williams for a Crocker bank commercial. It became the monster hit “We’ve Only Just Begun” by the Carpenters. And he created the “It’s Morning Again in America” spot that helped get Reagan re-elected. Notice a recurring theme?
Yes, America loves re-inventions more than real inventions. But its attention span is short, and moves on the next new thing pronto, especially so when the underlying product is less than memorable. Or the next fad just around the corner is something different altogether, like trucks and SUVs. There you have it, a brief summation of Saturn’s woes. Now for the automotive details:
The Saturn wasn’t a terrible car. There, that didn’t hurt so much. Obviously, a distinctive and fresh design rather than an old Olds hand-me-down shrunken tee-shirt might have been in order. If you’re going to plow $5 billion (back when billions were still impressive amounts) into a new car, at least buy it a distinctive suit. Was the Saturn competitive? That’s debatable. It definitely wasn’t as good as its clearly stated target, the Honda Civic. It might have been close in some metrics then the gen2 Civic when the Saturn project started. But by the time Saturns finally arrived in the summer of 1990, the Civic was already nearing the end of its brilliant fourth generation, and heading for its fifth. That probably wasn’t on Roger’s mind when he spoke the words at the top of this article.
The Civic and Corolla were on a roll in the eighties and nineties, with a new generation arriving like clockwork every four years. And it showed, in their relentless refinement. The Civic engine hummed like a Stradivarius (a Japanese brand of sewing machine). The Saturn engine growled like a coffee grinder. Saturn interiors were always obviously cheap. Corolla interiors (of the nineties) weren’t. Honda and Toyota might have been worried about Saturn initially, as they were briefly about the Neon, but needn’t have. It was GM, after all.
Granted, there are/were many happy Saturn owners out there. It handled quite decently (no better than the Civic though), was commendably light and toss-able, and owners loved the plastic body panels, especially in the rust belt. The Saturn got good fuel economy, although nothing near the ridiculous 45 city/60 mileage EPA numbers GM promised during the long gestation (they ended up at 27/37; 21/31 adjusted in today’s EPA numbers).
The really big problem with Roger’s big Saturn idea is this: where do we go from here? Was that even considered? Ok, by throwing enough billions at it, GM showed that it could make a half-way decent, reasonably-competitive small car. Does that make a viable car company/division? I don’t think so (and didn’t at the time, contrary to the popular thinking). And that’s where the whole Saturn experiment begins to take its inevitable ugly turn.
When the market soon shifted away from small cars to bigger cars and SUVs, Saturn, as a separate entity, suddenly looked like an answer to a question that never should have been asked. Now GM felt it had no choice but to develop a whole line of cars, SUVs, mini-vans, and even a sports car to try to back-stop Saturn’s decline – right during a time when development dollars at GM were getting scarce. In the meantime, the S Series soldiered along on the same platform for some ten years. It became an endless robbing Peter to pay Paul nightmare. As well as a colossal joke: why was Saturn selling that rebadged mini-van piece of crap, the Relay? Or a gigantic seven seater SUV, the Outlook? Mission statement ADD at its worst.
If GM had stuck to their original plan of selling the Saturn as an entry level Japanese-fighter at Chevy dealers, the whole disaster could have been avoided. GM would have had an import fighter where it belonged: in its biggest dealer network. Yes, we might have missed out on the Spring Hill “Homecoming”, and the rest of Hal Riney’s hokey feel-good BS. But the warm and fuzzy memories of it were worth paying for with our tax dollars, no?
Speaking of which, the re-invented New GM is reminding me all too much of the “Different Kind of Car Company”. Which in turn reminds me of the song that made Hal Riney famous:
We’ve only just begun to live,
White lace and promises…
We’ll find a place where there’s room to grow,
And yes, We’ve just begun.
Yes, friends, it really is Mourning again in America.










I like the focus on the dealer.
However, I think a huge appeal of the Saturn was the no-haggle pricing. Legendary. couldn’t do that in a chevy dealer.
(I’ve always wondered if part of Japan’s Inc. success was luring the most cut-throat dealers in the 1970s to their brands. )
It seems to me the real sin wasn’t the car itself, but not improving it. Crazy ideas of upselling. I might note Honda is now the prime offender there.
“However, I think a huge appeal of the Saturn was the no-haggle pricing.”
That may have been the best marketing tactic ever employed by GM. When I was selling Chevys we had a list of average margins within the divisions and Saturn had the highest. I can’t remember the exact numbers but I do remenber being ticked off about having to bust my butt on $50 “mini deals” and wondering what the Saturn guys were getting paid to lead sheep to slaughter.
I never understood the whole “no-haggle” thing. You can get “no-haggle” pricing at any dealership. Just walk in, pay the sticker price, and then sit on a donut for the next two weeks. As much as I despise haggling, I would never be comfortable paying a price for a car that wasn’t negotiated. Like it or not, it’s just how that kind of transaction works.
Oof.. I should have posted my other comment here!
I’ve always been a bit hard on Saturn. From the start it really made no sense and when I saw my first one at a friends place I just didn’t like it. I couldn’t find it attractive and it didn’t seem to drive any better than the 10 year old “cheap” cars my friends and I were driving at the time.
I have to say, I never made the connection to the W body until I saw that pic…
Me neither, that’s uncanny.
Saturn had the highest margins? Higher than BOP and even Caddy? Yikes, that’s crazy.
Whats funny is that they did’nt start looking like a little Cutlass until late in the design cycle, originally it looked like a little Cavalier.
As I said in the other Saturn thread, I’ve never been a fan. Don’t regret it either. I was anti-GM back then – probably for the wrong reasons, as Chrysler had all my attention (and some of my money) and served us quite well. Ignorance is sometimes bliss, I suppose, but family came first in those days, cars – a distant third – but I still dreamed a lot, unfortunately, wishing wasn’t good enough!
Oooooh how that interior reminds me of my college buddy’s Saturn, complete with a hard flat plastic dash that you could store things on. And things would get stored on it, tons of opened (and left forgotten since) bills, plastic wraps from drive-through meals, crumbs, receipts, all of it flying in my face if I found myself in his car (mistake No 1) and decided to roll down the window (mistake No 2) as he was slamming through badly banging manual shifts.
He certainly didn’t improve my Saturn impression by keeping an already unattractive and obviously cheap car the utter waste and recycle basket that it was. That dash was the worst of it though. Ahh the old days.
The early ones seemed to eat timing chains from what I understand.
I remember reading contemporary reviews of the S series when it came out and was expecting a really nice little car when I finally rode in one. When I did, it was the same crappy GM rattly plastic I remembered from my Grand Prix.
I did like the plastic body panels, though. You just don’t see many terrible looking old Saturns, unless they’ve been crashed.
Hmmm. Curious, because what I recall was the original Saturn engine, with that metal timing chain, came to be seen as more durable and easier to maintain than Japanese engines requiring attention to timing belt change intervals, but the tradeoff was an agricultural level of noise.
Welp, all I can tell you is I went to school with a girl that got a brand-new SL1 with the 8-valve base engine in it threw the chain, and I know of one other one, same engine same generation that did the same thing.
And frankly, I’d rather have the quietness of a belt along with the added maintenance over the reduced maintenance of a noisy chain.
Some engines with chains are more or less silent, some aren’t, but virtually all are a PITA to change the chain on. I would LOVE to change the chain on my Lincoln because it is bound to have slop in it after 20+ years, but my god what a time eater, and if I’m going to spend that much time with the engine in the car I’d do just about as well to have a long block sitting there and swap that in instead.
As long as the car is designed for the belt to be easily serviced, such as a Camry 2.2 engine, or many old K-Cars, I’d take the belt design every time. OTOH, if they are designed by sadomasochistic assholes at VW on cars such as a Passat 2.8 or New Beetles, give me a chain. (But not a VW chain because they can’t do that right either.)
/still-scarred ex VW tech
GM would sell a lot more cars if they would embrace the no-haggle model across their entire line-up. Some people, myself included, absolutely hate haggling. Buying something should not be a confrontation between two parties hostile to each other. And make no mistake, a car haggler is hostile. They go into the transaction with pre-conceived notions of what will happen gleaned from lots of research about the process and what they can expect to pay, and inevitably the salesman does not disappoint, trying to upsell the customer and get them into deals more beneficial to them.
A car should have the actual price on the sticker in the window. Period. Take it or leave it. That was what Saturn brought to the table, and until their line-up got stale it worked like a charm. It’s a shame that I was never in the market for a new car, because that would be my first stop. As it is, I refuse to talk to a salesman. If there is no price in the window or it says “ask for price”, I’m not interested. A car is a TV is a loaf of bread, and the price should be accurately reflected.
As for the subject of the article, my sister had one of those and it was a competent little car. I was never unhappy to be driving it or riding in it. It needed a clutch replacement after about 8 years, mostly due to my sister’s abysmal driving ability, but the car lasted for 14 years. When it died she shopped a new Saturn.
It’s too bad that GM went the way they did with Saturn, but you can’t teach a bloated hierarchy new tricks, and as you said above it was destined for failure. GM was probably the last company on Earth that should have tried this.
The problem is that, in the age of the internet, it’s quite easy to get the necessary information on the real out-the-door price, available incentives and trade-in values, so many customers do not mind haggling anymore. Saturn’s model was made obsolete by the internet.
As long as people like me exist the no-haggle model will never be obsolete.
Every car is no haggle, the manufacturer prints a nice little sticker they put right on the window, you just pay that and boom, no haggle.
Ad man extrordinaire yep he got the most obvious glove puppet ever elected as president so he should have been able to sell cars but I doubt Toyota or Honda lost any sleep worrying about Saturn once they saw one they must have laughed fit to bust as did the whole world when Ronnie Raygun was miscast as prez.
Leave comments about US politics out of your posts. You’re completely out of your depth.
+1 We really try to avoid politics here. My reference to the Reagan ad campaign was not in any way political. Sometimes politics is an integral part of a story, but there are ways to discuss political issues respectfully. Bryce, your comment falls well out of that sphere.
At the very least, grammer check!
I don’t think you said anything wrong.
Reagan weakened the auto-industry by not upholding the tariffs. He made the auto-industry what it is today.
I am as nutty about cars as anyone here so when the Saturn came out in 1992, I decided to have a look see. I had been hearing about how wonderful the thing was and I wanted to find out myself.
At the time I was driving a 1989 Accord LX four door, five speed, which is one of the best cars I have ever driven. So the old boot and I tool into the local Saturn store and we are met by the sales troll, a guy with sideburns and a beer belly. Looks like a total GM type and he says to me, and I shit you not, “Ready to be freed from Japanese cars?” I asked him if he had ever driven a Honda and he proudly replied, “Nope, and I never will!”
OK so we get some keys and go out to an SL2 five speed, with a/c, roughly the same car as my Accord. Except it was $2000 more the Honda. When I asked why this was the case, he replied, “Cuz it’s worth it!” I try to start the car and the battery is flat. OK thinks I, it is just off the transporter. We get the jump cart and geter goin’ and off we go. I then noticed that it was rough, noisy and crude in every manner. It crashed into bumps and didn’t steer straight.
I returned to the dealership and said, “GM spent eight billion on this?” We laughed and left and at that moment I knew GM was a lost cause. There is no way a car that bad should ever have been released on the public.
I had a couple of Saturns and generally liked them as basic transportation, but if anyone ever tried to tell me that they were supposed to compete with the Accord, I’d have walked out without even test-driving. The SL2 wasn’t even in the same neighborhood as the Accord.
“and we are met by the sales troll, a guy with sideburns and a beer belly”
That got a chuckle! Your description is a world of difference from the khaki clad, polo shirted, chipper twentysomethings they depicted in all the adverts.
I remember one ad where they even had a Saturn
actorowner that was so happy with the car and buying experience that they got a job at the dealership!Our dealer, er, retailer rep was actually a chipper guy in a polo shirt and khakis. I actually liked the guy. Not sure what happened to him after Saturn’s plug was pulled; probably went to the Audi/Porsche/SAAB/etc store next door (the larger dealer group owned both, and a few others in town, including the local Buick, Honda and Acura franchises).
My friend Erin in Milwaukee sold Saturns in 2006-2008. He loved it. He was only 22–now he’s a social worker.
The scary thing is just how little GM knows about the business they’re in. They thought they were headed towards EPA figures over 50% higher than they could achieve? They told people that they were going to achieve those fantasy figures? The spent 8 billion dollars on a car launch that could never recover their investment before it would be completely obsoleted by its competition even if it had been as good as they hoped? They benchmarked a moving target and took two model cycles to get to where it had been?
This stuff looks even worse if you read about how the Cavalier and its J-mates were supposed to drive the Honda Accord back into the sea in Brock Yates’ “The Decline and Fall of the US Auto Industry.” If you followed the gestation of the Volt and saw that GM still makes unfounded public statements before devlivering a disappointing product that costs billions, you might be bitter that they’re still around.
Granted when Saturn was intially born it was supposed to be a sub-J body car, the first Saturn prototypes, the cars they showed to the press and even had a special on Donahue with Roger Smith, were about the size of a Geo Metro sedan more or less, they were really small and engine size was supposed to be around 1.0 litre, so that where those MPG figures came from, remember that was 1983, when everyone was predicting 2.00 plus a gallon gas by 1990.
Looking at the Saturn shown in 1984, it seems to be just as big as the production car. The primary change seems to be in the short overhangs, which are exactly the sort of design feature GM concepts routinely use to attract interest but that GM utterly fails to translate to production. Other examples would be the RWD proportions of the Volt concept, the completely integrated and minimal bumpers of GM concepts during the ’80s, and the ridiculously large wheels of the concepts of the past 15 years.
Theres a picture from the side that shows how small it is, originally the base price was going to be $5,000 to, and it ended up being $7995, things change.
I understand inflation and even market changes during the incredibly long gestation period of the Saturns. Still, the volume competitors were already cars closer in size to the production Saturn than to the Metro.
I was searching for some early Saturn documentation, and I found this from September of 1990:
“How significant will it(Saturn) be? That depends on the execution of the product and the public response to it. The key is that consumers now have the perception of Japanese cars having quality. Yet that quality lead over the domestics has dissipated or disappeared, to the point Lee Iacocca goes on TV crying, `Come back to us; our quality is better,` “ Brady said.
“The consumer buys what was, not what is, and relies on experience over the last five years to make a buying decision,“ Brady said.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-09-30/business/9003210542_1_import-fighter-saturn-beleaguered-automaker/2
The more things change… I’m only old enough to remember the same boasts from the introduction of the American FWD compacts around 1978-1981. I’m sure the auto enthusiasts a generation older than me can remember the same promises accompanying the Vega and Pinto, except that time the US manufacturers were merely shooting for European levels of dependability and durability. Now we’re here again, with a US industry that wants everyone to make believe they were born yesterday.
I imagine that long gestation time of Saturn was also due to the “too many cooks” aproach, every component and marketing guy at GM was adding input at one point or another and then the car was “clinic-ed” with test audiences too
These were 3 early Saturn styling studies, with….a min-van included!
I want to know where that image came from…
So a baby-Aurora, an Isuzu Stylus, and a Plymouth Colt Vista were Saturn’s biggest aspirations?
FYI, i really loved the L-Series..regardless of how much it was based off Opel products as a successor to the Cadilliac Catera.
Owned a lot of Saturns and liked them very well. The final results were very disappointing. I certainly knew of no timing chain problems with the early SL’s. They ate the miles and the mileage that my wife and I got (both old folks that have no lead feet) were in the 40′s on the hiway and 30′s around town.
Then they came out with the vue and the adjacent article on the last days is exactly on target. I actually do not remember problems with the S series or the L series. Service was good. Product was good.
Now I bow to the expertise of those of you who knew this was going to happen. I certainly did not predict it. Not being totally stupid, however, I sure saw it happening. My 2002 vue was my worst new car buying experience. I am driving a Nissan again and do not intend to blow any more new car money on government motors.
My brother-in-law bought an SL1 when they first came out. He was a foreign car guy but got hooked by the hype. After a few years and a couple clutches, that may very well have been his fault, he went back to foreign cars and hasn’t looked back. Other than the plastic being good in the rust belt, I didn’t see the pull of these cars. But even if they impressed me, I’d of never had one as I love to haggle at a car dealer and won’t go to one where I can’t. GM’s hubris in thinking that the real problem was the customer and not the cars both amazed and depressed me as I wanted them to succeed in the import battle.
And Bryce, I’d love to hear what you have to say about cars. I can talk to anyone about politics but it’s only at this site that I find such a common love for and depth of knowledge of, much deeper than mine, cars and trucks.
“GM’s hubris in thinking that the real problem was the customer and not the cars…”
Dude just won the comment section!
Man, you just nailed it. I just ended a little over 4 years with a company that doesn’t understand this any better than GM ever did. It’s sad, really.
I wonder what the commentary would be if we had been around back in the 1930′s with the demise of the first ‘companion brands’.
Man, that Oakland I had was a POS, but the Viking? Great car…
When discussing Saturn, I often think of the opening title of the TV show “All in the Family” where song goes “Gee our old LaSalle ran great”…
Me, being a Pontiac fan, and a former Olds fan, have no love lost for Saturn. I explained all that in the other posting on this subject.
However, there is a Saturn I like. Actually two.
When the Sky Turbo came out a few years ago, I managed to finagle a ride in one. It was a blast! I still want one. Although, I’d rather take the Solstice, I like the looks of that one better than the Sky/Speedster/whatever the Korean variant was called.
Secondly, my daughter recently totalled her Pontiac. She replaced it with a Saturn Aura XR, which was their top of the line model. I have a Pontiac G6 and have owned an Epsilon based Malibu, too, but this car blows both of them out of the water. Fast, quiet, good fuel mileage, all the stuff I would like in MY car…
I hope that the DNA from the top of the line Saturn got transferred to the Buick or Chevy Epsilon II cars. It would be a shame if it didn’t.
“I wonder what the commentary would be if we had been around back in the 1930′s with the demise of the first ‘companion brands’.”
Ha! “What a piece of junk, that’s the last Moon I’ll ever buy, I’m buying a Stanley Steamer, next!”
They should have kept Marquette, they really had something good there!
I bought a brand new 1995 SL base stick for $13K. Nice basic styling, nice shifter but at 29k miles it consumed a quart of oil every 600 miles. And then the brake rotors kept needing to be shaved. Dealership never solved the oil problem. I think it was endemic to most Saturn owners, and the line from the dealership is that it was normal. Anybody else care to comment? I traded it in for a new 1999 New Beetle and encountered a whole new set of quality problems.
I bought a ’99 SL1 in 2004 that had 60,000 miles on it. I had it 5 years, putting another 110,000 on it, spent less than $200 in repairs. Biggest cost was the radiator fan. Most reliable car I ever owned, but I was starting to worry. On the way home from work one day, I had been considering trading it, and made a firm decision to keep it. Five minutes later it was totaled. Probably just as well, as the new clutch it was going to need in a few months would have cost more than the car was worth. But I got 33 mpg in the summer and 36 in the winter (no a/c makes a difference when you only have 100 hp), and the HHR I replaced it with only gets a disappointing 28 mpg. The Saturn was light… 2350 lbs for a sedan! In spite of its humble suspension, it was actually fun to drive because of the light weight. When I bought it, I wanted something economical, and hoped sincerely that I wouldn’t hate it. (I had one kid in college and another in high school, and life was very expensive at the time, thus the choice of automobile. Used Hondas were (and are) expensive to buy.) As it turned out, I came to almost love the thing, and it is probably the best financial decision I’ve ever made.
But the last Saturns weren’t Saturns, so I don’t really regret the shuttering of the company. I wouldn’t mind having a Sky, though! And a year into the HHR, I don’t really like the thing.
My dad had a late ’90′s SL that he bought used after putting his mid-90′s Camry into a ditch. He was quite happy with it, and got several years of nearly problem-free driving out of it. I drove it a few times and while I’d never buy one myself, it wasn’t a bad car. My sister and her husband cleaned it out after he died a few years ago and offered it to me. I said no. We don’t really need a car where we live, and it’s easier for us to rent one when we need it.
I liked my ’91 Saturn, it served us well and had a thoughtfully designed interior. Lost in all the criticism is the huge price difference between an SL1 with option package B and a similarly equipped Japanese anything. Honda didn’t even include a passenger side mirror, that was 130 more dollars.
The plastic door panels were a great idea, who cared if they had large panel gaps. They didn’t collect door dings or rust.
I got close to 40 MPG from mine, and I was quite happy with it.
When I sold it 3 years later to move overseas, I got 72% of my purchase price for it, and had so many calls I asked the paper to pull the ad.
But go ahead and bash the Saturn experiment, at least they tried.
As usual people amplify the faults with one car and exemplify the advantages of another without really looking at the big picture. The Honda Civic had a lot of road noise, no steering feel, an incredibly complicated engine bay, and no tachometer, radio, floor mats, hubcaps, and many other features. De-contenting by Honda and hype by dealers with copies of consumer reports convinced buyers to pay too much for too little car. Toyota was selling on it’s name while across town the Geo Prism was panned when it was the same car. Nissan’s Sentra was a strong runner which also suffered from de-content and required much more cash to equip.
Thank you for that!
I am so freaking sick of hearing people bitch about American cars, I mean I guess it seems to be the popular thing to do, but goddamn.
EDIT: Whoops, did not realize how old this is!
Well, my father had a ’93 SL2 with the sawtooth wheels like the one photographed. I remember it was $13,000 new. Our impression was that it was a nice little car with lots of nice features for a decent price. Antilock brakes with traction control were standard, which was unusual at that point in time on a small economical car; it was also quite useful to have those things when driving on snowy roads in the winter. It had a fold down rear seat, air bags, an inside trunk release, alloy wheels, 4 wheel disc brakes, air conditioning, 4 speed automatic trans, AM/FM with tape player, adjustable lumbar support, child locks on the doors, good gas mileage (28 in town, 36 on the highway with an automatic) LOTS of power. My mother used to call it “the little rocket”, it had the DOHC engine in it. It had this cool “Norm/Perf” switch you could use to change at what point the transmission shifted. We thought it was a really good value for the purchase price. We never had any major problems with it. By the time we got rid of it in 2010, it had 180,000 miles on it. The body panels were plastic but the paint still looked nice and shiny. I didn’t think the interior was cheap at all. I thought the car handled really quite well. You mentioned the Corolla interior was “better”. Well I have a friend who still has a 98 Corolla and I certainly don’t think it is better than the interior on the Saturn was, the Corolla’s seems cheaper and more monotone to me.
I do think that GM did not know how to market the Saturn brand once it had been around for a few years. They turned it into just another GM brand. THAT I think was the real mistake. But the Saturn S series, the car itself, was definitely not a bad car at all. I don’t see how you could knock the car itself unless you didn’t actually own one. Was a Corolla or a Civic really so much better? The Saturn engine was a little loud under load, and the Japanese cars were certainly good cars, but the Saturn S series gave them a legitimate run for the money. The Saturn and Corolla were head to head competitors. I seem to remember Consumer Reports rating them as equal around 1993, but then giving the Corolla the top rating by virtue of Toyota’s overall consistent good ratings at the time. Also the market shifted away from small cars and towards SUVs in the late 90s, when we had 90 cent a gallon gasoline.