04 Ion- IS IT TRUE ????

is it true ??? last year for the plastic body panels, last year for the 5
speed and, sadly, last real Saturn .... ?
say it ain't so,
E

 

Not the last year. There should be 2 more years before that happens.

Jim

 

I was told this too - but didn't believe it. One of the only reasons I have
continued to buy Saturns is because of this unique feature (among others.) I
think it is unfortunate that GM wants Saturn to become so integrated with
it's control that it is losing everything that is unique about it. Soon it
will be another generic car with similar but slightly different body panels
(eg: Camaro/Firebird syndrome OR Cavalier/Sunfire syndrome, etc. etc.)...I
think it's a mistake, and one that will cost Saturn and GM. I guess the
price of oil makes the plastic panels too expensive to make anymore! As far
as the 5 speed - that is the AUTOMATIC 5-speed...it had too much "gear
indecision" (as I call it) so the 4-speed automatic will replace it. (And,
maybe a 6-speed will replace the 5-speed manual tranny!)

 

All speculation and rumours for now so not to worry.
The rumour of the polymer panels being fazed out only pertains to the
upcoming Relay Van. There is talk of going from 5 to 6 speed in the ION.
Polymer is here to stay - for now. But then Saturn engineers are like the
weather in Florida, just wait a few minutes and it'll change again. I also
agree that if they do away with the polymer panels it will greatly influence
Saturn loyalty.

marx404
saturnofstuart.com

 

GM was always in control of Saturn.
after all it was their $$$$$$ that created Saturn.
to think otherwise is mere folly.

 

There is only a couple of more years for polymer panels on Saturn products.
How
do I know this....My boss...General Motors...has told me this. And if GM
does
not convert Spring Hill to steel panels not only will polymer panels be gone
from Saturn products....so will I from GM employment, as Spring Hill
Manufacturing will be no more.

So if you like cars/SUV's with polymer panels, get them now while they are
still
being produced. I liked them well enough I have 2 Lumina APV minivans in my
driveway. Just wish that the manufacturing world liked them as much as I
do.

Jim

 

Many years ago there was a PBS show on Saturn and the factory. Made a big
deal of how all the panels for a particular car were made from the same
batch of plastic. Then in another scene they showed where imperfect panels
were dumped. What I found amusing was that logic would follow that if one
panel for a car was bad, all panels should be dumped but the pile seemed to
be individual panels. I'm sure there's a good explanation but kind of
amusing.


Reminded me of another PBS special on building the Boeing 777 jet. They had
a new door design and wanted to make sure that the door could be opened
after being very cold 30000 feet above the earth. So they took the assembly
and put it in a freezer overnight and were happy that the door opened the
next day. Seemed to me to be a defective test since the inside of the
assembly should have been kept at room temperature.

 

It sounds like in a couple of years there won't be anything different about
Saturn anymore, so why would it exist?
Actually "Saturn" is already gone since there aren't anymore cars called
"Saturn". There are IONs, VUEs and Relays, but saying you drive a Saturn
isn't anymore descriptive than saying you drive a GM. I kind of miss the
alphabet soup, C, L, S, & W, in what ever order you pleased.
ron
94 SATURN SL-1

 

""If you find something you really, really like, buy a lifetime supply;
because it'll either be changed for the worse or go out of production."

No doubt the accountants weighed the extra cost of the polymer panels
against the number of lost sales that they believe will result from dropping
them. The polymer panel over sub-frame approach was supposed to be cheaper,
but never was. The manufacturing cost of the polymer panels, the yield, and
the problems associated with painting them, made them more costly than
steel. The need for a sub-frame also raised the cost. Furthermore, there was
no safety increase with polymer over steel, versus steel alone, just look at
the crash test results.

 

It did involve cost...but not those. It was the cost to convert every other
plant from steel to polymer...and the cost of having only one plant that can
build polymer panel cars/trucks. Since we were the only one out there. We
can not build any other product GM makes at our plant. With GM moving to
the flexibility of any plant being able to build most any product. We were
becoming a large cost to the company. So either we change....or the
accountants get rid of the dead weight. I think you can figure out why we
said change...

Jim

 

Don't you kind of miss the good old days when GM would build a plant that
could make a million of one model and its twins and nothing else whether
they could sell them or not. Nissan did the same and it almost put them out
of business.

 

The crash test results only tell part of the story. The final selling
point when I purchased TWO (2) Saturns at the same time was the picture
from the local newspaper of an SL2 with a full milk tanker sitting on
the SL2's roof. The occupants of the SL2 opened the doors and walked
out. Try that without a sub-frame. The sub-frame and the polymer panels
were the only thing keeping me from Toyota. GM has burned me with
their garbage too many times. The only good GM products I had were two
Oldsmobiles and GM killed them, too. Do we see a pattern whereby GM
kills the good parts and keeps the garbage?

 

But the chances of being involved in this sort of accident are far, far,
lower than being involved in the type of head-on collisions as are
tested for by the IIHS, where Saturn did poorly. They don't have the Ion
tests, but you can see the Saturn SL tests at:

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/97015.htm

Compare Saturn to a Civic,
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/00031.htm

or Corolla:
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/00031.htm

And of course the milk tanker was not being supported by the Saturn's
frame, if this happened at all, the car was wedged under the tank.

The fact that the IIHS hasn't received an Ion to test is worrying. Saturn
has
always done poorly on the IIHS tests, which the experts agree are much
more realistic, and tougher, than the NHTSA crash tests.

Saturn attempted to copy Volvo's marketing for safety, without having
anything to back it up. Of course the Volvo message is now largely a
myth as well, as other automakers have added similar safety features.

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/summary_midlux.htm
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/summary_small.htm

 

This link shows an "acceptable" (not "poor") result for a 1997 Saturn SL2.
Which is actually not bad for a car with crash protection characteristics
essentially from 1996 (but based on a structural design from 1991).

Of course, since the S-series was run for so long without being redesigned,
it was gradually passed by in many areas, including crash protection (note
that most designs from 2000 or newer have gotten "good" ratings in the IIHS
test).

 

http://www.crashtest.com/saturn/ie.htm
All looks good to me. Maybe if Scharf wasnt so blinded by his own
moronic propaganda and his hatred for Saturn he could see that.

 

scharf was right about several things over the years.
and saturn was always controlled by GM even though
many saturn devotees were in denial.

 

Right about several things over the years? An effing monkey would be right
that often.