Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, that's right. I said it. GM should have never gotten rid of Saturn. They were the most reliable cars that we ever owned. I drove a 1994 Saturn SL1 on a daily commute from Philly to the Pentagon every day for 5 years and never had a problem with it. I just changed the oil and conducted the maintenance at the required intervals. When we (regretfully) sold it in 2009, it had over 340,000 miles on it and just as reliable and was still getting over 30 mpg on the highway and over 20 mpg in the city.
I have a 2006 Relay 3 AWD now with slightly more than 58,000 miles on it. Yes, it is low mileage but I haven't had any issues. If Saturn still existed, I would still buy them because they were fun to drive and were an excellent value. *sigh* If I could only find a Sky and an Outlook, my collection would be complete.
Notice how they didn't announce city mileage because its pathetic compared to a cheaper hybrid. And lets not forget how regular unleaded (AKA the fuel for all hybrids) is substantially cheaper than diesel fuel in most of the country.
First of all, thanks for calling me a genius. I already knew that, but your compliment makes me feel even more confident. Secondly, the Prius starts at around 25k, or the same cost as the Chevy Cruz. I also own a Prius myself and can for certain tell you that they don't get near as good a fuel economy in town as on the freeway- or to put it another way- the same as the Cruz. Besides, the BIG difference between a new diesel or a new gas engine is that diesel engines will get better MPG as they break in. These engines have to be tested for their economy when they are new. For example, while my mother in law's Jetta TDI was rated at something around 45 MPG, it actually gets close to 52MPG. The same will likely be true for the Cruz.
Yeah, that's right. I said it. GM should have never gotten rid of Saturn. They were the most reliable cars that we ever owned.
I remember when they first came out. They were something totally new for an American car. They were indeed very good when they first came out. I'm not sure what happened, but to me GM dropped the bal on them and forgot that brand's purpose, which was to be a car that basically mimicked the manufacturing system perfected by the likes of Toyota.
Yeah, that's right. I said it. GM should have never gotten rid of Saturn. They were the most reliable cars that we ever owned. I drove a 1994 Saturn SL1 on a daily commute from Philly to the Pentagon every day for 5 years and never had a problem with it. I just changed the oil and conducted the maintenance at the required intervals. When we (regretfully) sold it in 2009, it had over 340,000 miles on it and just as reliable and was still getting over 30 mpg on the highway and over 20 mpg in the city.
I have a 2006 Relay 3 AWD now with slightly more than 58,000 miles on it. Yes, it is low mileage but I haven't had any issues. If Saturn still existed, I would still buy them because they were fun to drive and were an excellent value. *sigh* If I could only find a Sky and an Outlook, my collection would be complete.
It would be far more accurate to say that GM should not have jacked up Saturn in 2001-2002. They HAD decent, low-priced cars, then they ruined them and ruined the company.
GM should have kept the original ideas in Saturn. It was a totally unique car when it came out with the plastic body and all. They were just simply no-nonsense, honest cars. When they started their typical badge engineering with the brand is when things got sloppy.
Here's why we can't get a diesel Cruze, even if we want one. In the 1980s Mercedes had some vehicles with higher output engines in Europe than in the US. Those with money and connections practiced "grey importing" - importing vehicles through unofficial channels, in order to get these more powerful Mercedes models. Mercedes went and whined to the government. Granted they made the best cars in the world at the time. The government passed a law - the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 - that ended grey importing. There simply hasn't been enough criticism leveled at this law. The solution is to 86 the law and let grey importing do its work. Grey importing was legal prior to Jan. 31, 1990, and never caused any deaths. Yeah it'll cut into the profit margins of automakers who choose to keep their products that are sufficiently demanded in the US out. But if Chevy sees that there's a lot of grey importing, they will bring the diesel Cruze wagon for mainstream US sales. The Smart Car had it - although it was regulated, hence not grey per se.
Here's how I see it: You buy US approved vehicles, you have a measure of safety regulation. You grey import, you should take that risk. But there's plenty of crash test data for these vehicles done by overseas agencies such as EuroNCAP. As for emissions, give me a break. Many foreign countries have stricter emissions standards than the US does, including most of those where grey importing would be from. Where are they going to get their cars, BFE? No, probably Germany, Japan, Italy, Sweden, Korea, etc etc. All countries with standardized crash testing and emissions standards. Sure the US is unique in the world in requiring unbelted crash tests. In my opinion unbelted crash tests are unnecessary, seat belt use rates are 85% nationwide now - and most of the other 15% is obstinate. So wear your belt, and grey importing should be legal. It could pave the way for surprise successes the automakers wouldn't have thought of. Who knows, there's a car on sale in Germany waiting for grey importing to be legal so those first pioneers can bring it over before the automaker sees a success and decides to bring the car itself. It could be a windfall for the car company.
The Nissan Cube was an example of a car that could have been successful earlier and made more money for Nissan if it had been grey imported. True, it's not selling well in 2013, but it had a time where it sold like hot cakes. It had sold in Japan for several years before Nissan brought it to the US.
Oh, and to GM: Bring Opel over already. You're not fooling anyone.
Here's why we can't get a diesel Cruze, even if we want one. In the 1980s Mercedes had some vehicles with higher output engines in Europe than in the US. Those with money and connections practiced "grey importing" - importing vehicles through unofficial channels, in order to get these more powerful Mercedes models. Mercedes went and whined to the government. Granted they made the best cars in the world at the time. The government passed a law - the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 - that ended grey importing. There simply hasn't been enough criticism leveled at this law. The solution is to 86 the law and let grey importing do its work. Grey importing was legal prior to Jan. 31, 1990, and never caused any deaths. Yeah it'll cut into the profit margins of automakers who choose to keep their products that are sufficiently demanded in the US out. But if Chevy sees that there's a lot of grey importing, they will bring the diesel Cruze wagon for mainstream US sales. The Smart Car had it - although it was regulated, hence not grey per se.
Here's how I see it: You buy US approved vehicles, you have a measure of safety regulation. You grey import, you should take that risk. But there's plenty of crash test data for these vehicles done by overseas agencies such as EuroNCAP. As for emissions, give me a break. Many foreign countries have stricter emissions standards than the US does, including most of those where grey importing would be from. Where are they going to get their cars, BFE? No, probably Germany, Japan, Italy, Sweden, Korea, etc etc. All countries with standardized crash testing and emissions standards. Sure the US is unique in the world in requiring unbelted crash tests. In my opinion unbelted crash tests are unnecessary, seat belt use rates are 85% nationwide now - and most of the other 15% is obstinate. So wear your belt, and grey importing should be legal. It could pave the way for surprise successes the automakers wouldn't have thought of. Who knows, there's a car on sale in Germany waiting for grey importing to be legal so those first pioneers can bring it over before the automaker sees a success and decides to bring the car itself. It could be a windfall for the car company.
The Nissan Cube was an example of a car that could have been successful earlier and made more money for Nissan if it had been grey imported. True, it's not selling well in 2013, but it had a time where it sold like hot cakes. It had sold in Japan for several years before Nissan brought it to the US.
Oh, and to GM: Bring Opel over already. You're not fooling anyone.
1. Grey importing has so many hoops and hurdles that for a regular private person who is not Bill Gates. If that car is less than 25 years old then you're screwed. You have to get it crash tested, emissions tested and then the changes that typical USDM vehicles have. If you don't do that the government will come down hard on you. Why? You are stealing from them they believe. Automakers pay taxes and build their cars in a specific way and if you buy a car that they didn't offer in the US. They get pissed, plain and simple. The Nissan Skyline is a prime example.
A firm called Motorex went through the process of legalizing importation of the Skyline and it was all going well until it was time to submit crash test data. They crashed several R33 models and then used the data to represent the R32 and R34 as well. The government eventually found out after they were granted permission and came down hard banning the R32 and R34 (the ones that were already imported in was grandfathered in). You can still import an R33 Skyline with little hassle but the others? Forget about it. Protectionism for all automakers in the US.
2. Opel was in the US for a time. This was before your time though. They were sold under the Opel nameplate through Buick dealers.
That's good to see that the Cruze will have some decent efficiency...I do wonder if the ratings are underrated like they are on other diesels? Maybe it's how you drive, since I know Car and Driver tested the Jetta and found a combined 35 mpg city/highway spread on the Jetta and Passat TDI's...however I've averaged a combined 42 mpg over my 12,000 miles of ownership.
I'll expect that these figures might be accurate, and fuel economy figures will drop in the 40-42 mpg combined range for the Cruze as well. My typical commute has seen mileage as high as about 55-56, but I've never maintained that over a full tank. I can typically pull about 50 mpg on my 20 mile one-way commute to work, and get close to that on the way home...but that appears to be traffic and temperature dependent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
