why saturn instead of chevy

4363 Views 19 Replies 10 Participants Last post by sky_vue, Jul 28, 2005

sky_line

Discussion Starter · Jul 23, 2005

hello, all!

I'm really curiouus, here. Since in the past, GM has partnered Chevy with Pontiac. (i.e. Camaro/Firebird, Monte Carlo/Gand Prix). Why did the choose to partner the Pontiac Solstice with "Saturn" instead of maiking it a Chevy product. I do believe that Saturn took the place of Oldsmobile....(the 93 Olds Cutlass and the Saturn SL1 and 2 favor each other). Just curious. :willy: Maybe someone can add some insight to this. Thanks all and good luck to all of you in finding the perfect "SKY". :cheers:

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

LS2 MN6

· #2 · Jul 24, 2005

sky_line said:
hello, all!

I'm really curiouus, here. Since in the past, GM has partnered Chevy with Pontiac. (i.e. Camaro/Firebird, Monte Carlo/Gand Prix). Why did the choose to partner the Pontiac Solstice with "Saturn" instead of maiking it a Chevy product. I do believe that Saturn took the place of Oldsmobile....(the 93 Olds Cutlass and the Saturn SL1 and 2 favor each other). Just curious. :willy: Maybe someone can add some insight to this. Thanks all and good luck to all of you in finding the perfect "SKY". :cheers:

There have been Pontiac/Olds crossovers before; the most notable was the Cutless/Grand Am (in the 90's). My thinking is that Chevy is the Common Man's car (minus the Vette), and that Pontiac/Buick/GMC will be the slightly better then cars to Chevy, with Saturn being just above those (replacing Olds), and Cadillac at the top; Hummer and Saab will remain niche brands. Since the Solstice is the "lower" kappa model, GM had to make it's sister car with a "higher" brand like Saturn. I also think GM wants to keep Chevy free for the Camero, or other "high volume" car.

ianwells100

· #3 · Jul 24, 2005

DuSpinnst said:
There have been Pontiac/Olds crossovers before; the most notable was the Cutless/Grand Am (in the 90's). My thinking is that Chevy is the Common Man's car (minus the Vette), and that Pontiac/Buick/GMC will be the slightly better then cars to Chevy, with Saturn being just above those (replacing Olds), and Cadillac at the top; Hummer and Saab will remain niche brands. Since the Solstice is the "lower" kappa model, GM had to make it's sister car with a "higher" brand like Saturn. I also think GM wants to keep Chevy free for the Camero, or other "high volume" car.

its camAro, my good man, nothing worse than that word being spelt camEro

also, on topic, isn't saturn going to be much more heavily influenced by opel, the european counterpart of GM?

LS2 MN6

· #4 · Jul 24, 2005

ianwells100 said:
its camAro, my good man, nothing worse than that word being spelt camEro

also, on topic, isn't saturn going to be much more heavily influenced by opel, the european counterpart of GM?

As usual my spellchecker is worthless for names.....

sky_line

Discussion Starter · #5 · Jul 24, 2005

Thanks Du

I appreciate your response DuSpinnst...like I said before, it's just my curiosity..and don't worry, speliing is not an issue to me.

Have a good one and Thanks, Again. Good luck to you! :cheers:

brentil

· #6 · Jul 24, 2005

I wouldn't call the Solstice the lower brand, I'd clasify it more as the performance brand. As mentioned GM's moving Saturn more upscale styling wise to fill the Olds missing spot in the lineup. A lot of it had to do with what lines needed Halo cars. Pontiac was in a hurtin for the GM redesign spotlight to be pointed at it, and Saturn was as well. Both lines were slowly going down. Models getting very stale and dated. Chevy already has a 2 seat Roadster halo car. If they had made the 2nd Kappa Roadster a Chevy it would have just been over shadowed by the Corvette. Cady also already has the XLR, and the car would have to be very upscale to fit in that lineup though. I don't think Buick's ready for a Roadster yet in its current state, GM needs to rework it in another way first. With the Opel/Vauxhall designed versions already worked on, and GM's apparent desire to make Saturn the Euro inspired brand SAAB never became popular as so GM looked elsewhere.

Personally I wish they had just dropped the Saturn name for Opel instead. Kept the entire dealership network the same, and the product lineup the same, but done the Euro make over as part of the name change. I think a lot of people are going to have problems getting over the Saturn name in the first couple of years. As long as they bring cars to market like the Sky and Aura and succesfully restyle the other cars with Euro inspired flavor the Saturn name will survive.

See less See more

sky_line

Discussion Starter · #7 · Jul 24, 2005

thanks, brentil

i appreciate your insight, brentil...i am getting good feedback and i do thank you...you all seem very knowledgeable about these things and i look forward to more...again, i thank you.

sky_line

to all of you.... :cheers:

Dante

· #8 · Jul 24, 2005

I think I agree with the theory about the Opel connection for Saturn. The Opel-Saturn sharing started with the L series Saturns quite a ways back, IIRC, and from the looks of the Sky and Aura, future Saturns will be slightly redesigned/rebadged Opels... Which, to me, is ok, even though I do like most of what Saturn has in it's stables now (although I can't really live with the center console in the ION).

The Camaro/Firebird were basically always the "last gen" Corvettes in many ways. It really killed me to see GM kill them. My g/f's dad has an '02 WS6 t-top ram-air Firebird and it is a seriously fun car to drive (although by no means is it as refined as the Corvettes of the same period). A lot of the GM Chevy/Pontiac fans are still holding their breath for the revival of the Camaro. I don't think it will ever be like it was before. It's a sad thing, too, because I think I probably would rather have an '07 Firebird or Camaro (if such a thing existed) based on the fairly recent Corvette (even if it were the C5 platform, rehashed and rebodied) than a pure 2-seater roadster like the Sky/Sol... I'm a fan of the huge rear hatch, with or without a "back seat". Maybe by 2010 GM will once again have a stepping stone car between the "boy tuner" import chaser stuff like the Cobalt and Ion and the serious 2-seater high performance cars like the Corvette and XLR. After all, it's easier to justify spending nearly $40k on a sports car when you could *theoretically* put a baby car seat in the back and still have room for a few groceries in the hatch. LOL

See less See more

sky_line

Discussion Starter · #9 · Jul 25, 2005

my wife would agree

My wife would agree with you about the Firebird. She was upset that they stopped making them. We instead got her the '06 ION. I think it suits her. It's not a bad car, for her. I spoke with the salesman that sold us the Ion and he told me to expect delivery in January. Very excited here. Hope it's true. Only time will tell. Thanks for your reponse, Dante. Godspeed. :cheers:

SKY305SR

· #10 · Jul 26, 2005

Chevy is not completely out of the loop yet. Although the sol/sky can be seen as sister cars if you will just like the firebird/camaro, Chevy is still considering bringing to market the third kappa platform based vehicle referred to as the Chevy Nomad.

Just like Brentil pointed out, it would not have been smart for Chevy to create a small roadster that would have probably looked like a shrunken corvette. So instead they designed a concept based more on the ssr and the new hhr to see if they could bring some nostalgia to the new platform. The problem is I don't know how much of a market exists for a small 2 door sports wagon....

http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/040104-2.htm

swatthefly

· #11 · Jul 26, 2005

i think it would be wise for a chevy kappa to not be a convertable. the nomad would be a good way to bring the kappa into the market as a chevy.

i also think it would be wise for chevy to give it two years before they set it loose. give the current kappas time to settle a bit.

achieftain

· #12 · Jul 26, 2005

SKY305SR said:
Chevy is not completely out of the loop yet. Although the sol/sky can be seen as sister cars if you will just like the firebird/camaro, Chevy is still considering bringing to market the third kappa platform based vehicle referred to as the Chevy Nomad.

Just like Brentil pointed out, it would not have been smart for Chevy to create a small roadster that would have probably looked like a shrunken corvette. So instead they designed a concept based more on the ssr and the new hhr to see if they could bring some nostalgia to the new platform. The problem is I don't know how much of a market exists for a small 2 door sports wagon....

http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/040104-2.htm

Cosworth VEGA, need I say more? Okay, sure. Chevy has their performance flagship in the Corvette and forever has guarded that image and it is certainly a new Chevrolet that has not gotten upset with Cadillac for having a hot convertible, too. Long before Saturn was created Opel should have been brought back into the USA as the "offbeat" brand with European potential. Of course the Sky could have been a Saab, not the first time a sports car would have been from them. Just like Ponyiat, Saturn needed pumping up and the Kappa is the vehicle.

brentil

· #13 · Jul 27, 2005

Don't hold you breath for the Nomad or any other 2+2 Kappa. Or you'll :brentil:.
GM on several occasions has stated that there are no plans to develope any at this point, and that it would take a fairly large ammount of redesigning to make them really do-able. The Nomad/Curve were hand built concept cars originaly made from clay/foam/hand made metal. Just like the Solstice Coupe and the original Saturn Sky Concept (one ugly car).

Here's some images of the old Sky along with a wonderful piece of bizaroSky art I found online.

See less See more

3

LS2 MN6

· #14 · Jul 27, 2005

brentil said:
Don't hold you breath for the Nomad or any other 2+2 Kappa. Or you'll :brentil:.
GM on several occasions has stated that there are no plans to develope any at this point, and that it would take a fairly large ammount of redesigning to make them really do-able. The Nomad/Curve were hand built concept cars originaly made from clay/foam/hand made metal. Just like the Solstice Coupe and the original Saturn Sky Concept (one ugly car).

Here's some images of the old Sky along with a wonderful piece of bizaroSky art I found online.

That wing is funny looking. At least the SKY is RWD, nothing upsets me more than a wing on a FWD car.

KappaMan

· #15 · Jul 27, 2005

DuSpinnst said:
That wing is funny looking. At least the SKY is RWD, nothing upsets me more than a wing on a FWD car.

Why is that?

If done correctly, wings provide downforce. Downforce is applicable for ALL cars, FWD/RWD/AWD...

Downforce increases the available grip at that end of the car, because the normal force is increased, but the wing is negligible on that end of the car's mass.

I've personally seen an example of an acura and a honda at a road racing course where the back half of it isn't particularly fast. I was ribbing the guys at the track day about the wings they were going to put on later - and helping them take times as well. I kept saying to them that there is no way the speeds here, except maybe at the end of the straight, were enough for the wing to matter.

They both just said, "we'll see..."

Even got to drive the civic before and after and was shocked at the difference...

It worked out to be about 1 1/4 seconds on a 1:35 ish course (Grattan Raceway, for those interested). The difference in controllability, even at corner entry at a mere 50 mph was very noticeable. Much better control of the rear, allowing higher corner-entry speeds without the car wanting to spin - also better control of the car with faster steering movements, and much less "edginess" to the car with the wing on the back. No wing: trail braking was dicey. With wing: absolute blast to trail brake...

Or is it the styling thing that you object to?

See less See more

LS2 MN6

· #16 · Jul 27, 2005

kappaman said:
Why is that?

If done correctly, wings provide downforce. Downforce is applicable for ALL cars, FWD/RWD/AWD...

Downforce increases the available grip at that end of the car, because the normal force is increased, but the wing is negligible on that end of the car's mass.

I've personally seen an example of an acura and a honda at a road racing course where the back half of it isn't particularly fast. I was ribbing the guys at the track day about the wings they were going to put on later - and helping them take times as well. I kept saying to them that there is no way the speeds here, except maybe at the end of the straight, were enough for the wing to matter.

They both just said, "we'll see..."

Even got to drive the civic before and after and was shocked at the difference...

It worked out to be about 1 1/4 seconds on a 1:35 ish course (Grattan Raceway, for those interested). The difference in controllability, even at corner entry at a mere 50 mph was very noticeable. Much better control of the rear, allowing higher corner-entry speeds without the car wanting to spin - also better control of the car with faster steering movements, and much less "edginess" to the car with the wing on the back. No wing: trail braking was dicey. With wing: absolute blast to trail brake...

Or is it the styling thing that you object to?

I object to the one on the SRT-4, DCX claims it helps at "speeds of 150 MPH or greater...." Which on a street car what is the point of it, other than to be guady.

swatthefly

· #17 · Jul 27, 2005

kappaman said:
Why is that?

If done correctly, wings provide downforce. Downforce is applicable for ALL cars, FWD/RWD/AWD...

Downforce increases the available grip at that end of the car, because the normal force is increased, but the wing is negligible on that end of the car's mass.

I've personally seen an example of an acura and a honda at a road racing course where the back half of it isn't particularly fast. I was ribbing the guys at the track day about the wings they were going to put on later - and helping them take times as well. I kept saying to them that there is no way the speeds here, except maybe at the end of the straight, were enough for the wing to matter.

They both just said, "we'll see..."

Even got to drive the civic before and after and was shocked at the difference...

It worked out to be about 1 1/4 seconds on a 1:35 ish course (Grattan Raceway, for those interested). The difference in controllability, even at corner entry at a mere 50 mph was very noticeable. Much better control of the rear, allowing higher corner-entry speeds without the car wanting to spin - also better control of the car with faster steering movements, and much less "edginess" to the car with the wing on the back. No wing: trail braking was dicey. With wing: absolute blast to trail brake...

Or is it the styling thing that you object to?

if they take it to a track and know how much it will help them and actually use it to its full potential, i have no problem with it. what bugs me is when i see a 1985 honda civic 4 door with a giant wing on the back of it. i doubt that car could hit 50mph much less require the downforce. or when i see someone who puts a CF hood on the car, but adds another 200lbs of stereo equipment. or people who put a body kit on a car and then dont paint it. or people who put dual coffee can exhaust on a 1.8liter 4cyl car that has a top speed of 89mph.

KappaMan

· #18 · Jul 27, 2005

swatthefly said:
if they take it to a track and know how much it will help them and actually use it to its full potential, i have no problem with it. what bugs me is when i see a 1985 honda civic 4 door with a giant wing on the back of it. i doubt that car could hit 50mph much less require the downforce. or when i see someone who puts a CF hood on the car, but adds another 200lbs of stereo equipment. or people who put a body kit on a car and then dont paint it. or people who put dual coffee can exhaust on a 1.8liter 4cyl car that has a top speed of 89mph.

Ahhhhh. The old "form vs. function" discussion....

Have to say, I agree with you. But, if done correctly, they will enhance the handling of even FWD'rs.

swatthefly

· #19 · Jul 28, 2005

kappaman said:
Ahhhhh. The old "form vs. function" discussion....

Have to say, I agree with you. But, if done correctly, they will enhance the handling of even FWD'rs.

and i guess its all a matter of personal preference. i prefer little to no wing. you can always achieve similar downforce with properly designed body panels.

sky_vue

· #20 · Jul 28, 2005

I don't like the wings either.. aside from the fact that every time I've seen a wing on a car (large one anyway) it becomes a distraction when driving. I have a small (factory) wing on my eclipse and on occasion it is a distraction.

The back of this car just doesn't lend itself well to a wing addition.

My thoughts..

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.