2005 Saturn Preview

With the 2005 model year just around the corner, SaturnFans.com has
assembled a list of the rumored changes to each of Saturn's existing models.
Look for a more complete - and official - list to be posted online as soon
as it becomes available.

http://www.saturnfans.com/Cars/Future/2005saturnpreview.shtml

Enjoy,
Charlie

 

quote:
"4-speed automatic transmission replaces current 5-speed unit"

What the crap? GM and manual transmissions are getting more and more
rare every year. I wouldnt mind a 5 speed Ion with these improvements
they speak of. Not gonna happen it seems.

Anyone else hear about GM and Ford pulling together in developing an 6-
speed automatic transmission? GM spent 350 million and Ford spent 375
million.

 

Hm, this would be a nice American alternative to the Aisin auto tranny
Saturn currently uses, right Blah Blah?

It would also be nice to have the same crisp manual shifting in an ION that
one gets from a mustang, that would make manual driving even more fun.
marx404

 

Huh? I think the quote ment that there will be no more manual
transmissions in Ions. The next part of that was unrelated refering to
GM's a 6-speed auto. Ions probably wont ever be getting that I dont
believe. More gears = more money and Ions = less money.

 

Did I misunderstand the posting about the 2005 Ion? Would they really do
away with a manual tranny?

The way I took it was that they wouldn't offer 5 speed *automatic* trannies
anymore [that was an option I was faced with when I bought my Ion - I went
for the VTi and got the nifty notice, but the VTi has been great so
far...] - but only a four speed automatic. (Strange to "downgrade' (if
indeed it could even be considered that), but were there flaws in the 5
speed automatic?)

 

Oh oh ok my mistake then. The site didnt specify what the 5 speed unit
was. I dont know much at all about saturns transmissions to say if the 5
speed auto was good or had problems. Maybe their shutting down or re-
tooling the plant that made those. The VTi is still new tech so I dont
know how good those are. I havent had a chance to drive anything with a
variable transmission yet. The VTi should be a good transmission for a
Ion.

 

EPA.

 

As in, automatics burn less fuel/higher MPG? Or automatics are
controlled by computer, so they're more easily manipulated to produce
output and have gear ratios designed specfically to reduce emissions,
torque and hp be damned? While automatics have done some serious
catching up to manuals because of PCMs, etc the 5sp manuals are still
listed with higher MPG than 4sp automatics.

Antecdotally, I had to call Briggs/Stratton about a problem with my lawn
mower engine and the rep explained how the EPA had put strict emissions
requirments on their engine designs forcing them to give (take) control
of the throttle position on the model I'd purchased over to a
centrifical clutch - that they had set my engine to run at the proper
(low) RPMs as to produce X amount of emissions. From a friggin push
mower. What I felt like was that they (EPA) are more interested in
attacking the little things which they can get to (my piddly lawnmower
or an already relatively (H2 anyone?) fuel efficent saturn), than
figuring out why the dumptruck in front of me on the road is spewing out
thick black smoke which I can't see through.

*sigh*

 

*ding*

Oh yes, and now the TC locks up in the lower gears, same reason.

Sounds about right.

I'm waiting for a decent EFI that's cost effective for these things.
It'd be a lot better in many ways. Oh yeah, I hear Cali is gona require
cats on mowers. Surprisingly, lawn mower engines are actually quite
dirty, far far more than cars. But, they should be able to be cleaned
up a bit easier... *shrug* IMHO, it's the acient B&S design that's
flathead and will run on anything flamable, than any inherent issue.
Not so for Lawn Boy and that goddammed 2 stroke POS they use. But It's
a POS anyway.

Because enforcement of vehicle emissions issues after the sale is the
state's problem. It's pre sale that it's the EPA's problem. Though I
agree it's stupid anyway. AFAIK, there's also nothing that the EPA can
do to force a state to enforce the emissions regulations, besides
threatening to do bad things to highway funding, etc. But not much
otherwise.

Of course, the local cops arent paid to enforce some regulation written
by a paper pusher in DC. Though in NY, they can smog larger trucks by
the side of the road. I've not seen it done, though.

The EPA also does what the enviros tell them to, so naturally cars are
the big target, no matter what.

 

Interestingly, in an EPA study done in the early 90's, they determined that
1 hour of lawnmower use produced the same amount of emissions (primarily
volatile organic compounds) as an "average in-use passenger car that was
driven for 50 miles. This figure is most likely much worse today given the
continuing improvements that were made since that time to automotive
emissions controls and the fact that many of the older vehicles that were on
the road at that time are no longer in use. Per the EPA, non-road source
emissions (lawnmowers, boats, other) constitute approximately 14.5-17.3% of
total VOC emissions and approximately 20% of benzene emissions with road
sources - cars/trucks/etc constituting 45% and stationary sources the
remaining 35%.

You can read more about the health affects (primarily carcinogenic) of these
emissions at:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/equip-ld/ph2nprm/ph2rsd-6.pdf The EPA
site also provides many additional studies and facts which are very
enlightening. My reason for responding is solely to help to explain why our
"piddly" 3.9HP (the average used nationally) is of interest to the EPA and
requires emission controls.

Bob

than > Antecdotally, I had to call Briggs/Stratton about
a problem with my lawn

 

I keep thinking I'll get a B&D battery mower however the old gas model from
Builder's Emporium (pre Home Depot) just doesn't die. The city (San Diego)
had an offer if you brought your old mower in they'd sell you the battery
model for less that half of what you would normally pay. The line to get
one went around the block and I aborted that idea... (not my idea of a nice
way to spend a Saturday)

 

The electricity to recharge such a device (and all-electric cars (ie not
hybrids)) has to be generated somewhere. If the power plant burns
anything (coal, gas, etc) to generate and deliver that power aren't you
creating greater net pollution?

The question isn't baited, I really don't know the answer.

 

In terms of CO2 (is that pollution today?) you may be right, especially
after taking into account multiple conversion losses.

But in terms of all the other emissions, a small lawnmower engine will
make 100x more emissions than even an unscrubbed coal power
plant (which there aren't any of anymore) for the same power. For
everything but CO2, local measurements usually matter more to the
regulators than any global picture, so just moving the emissions to
a different state is a solution.

Tim.

 

Great point - the pro electric position I've heard is that the emissions are
generally less per unit of energy because there are tighter controls that
regulate emissions output on an industrial source of energy. But is that
nuclear, coal, gas turbine or photovoltaic? The con electric position is
similar to your point added to the waste of energy to produce the batteries
and then ultimately recycle and or dispose of them...

....things that make you go hmmmm??