By Edward Niedermeyer
October 6, 2008 -
The Times of London has a test of the new Vauhall/Opel Insignia, possibly destined for the US as the 2010 Saturn Aura, and the Mondeo-fighter apparently isn’t living up to the hype. What is the Times’ biggest beef? The beef, apparently, as the Insignia weighs a hefty 3,300 pounds, some ten percent more than the Vectra it replaces. Times scribe Andrew Frenkel is not amused, noting that the Insignia “also uses more fuel, pumps out more CO2, has slower acceleration and a lower top speed. They call this progress.” Much of the review gripes about the Insignia’s placement in the Euro-market, but it does note that the Vectra replacement does look terrific. Too bad that will likely change when if it comes Stateside, since the program to bring it as a Saturn is on hold. Handling and ride quality receive high marks, though engine performance and economy are blunted by the weight gain. One of the biggest letdowns noted by the Times is the poor interior build quality, with its “preponderance of cheap, hard plastic” and several functionality issues ranging from wiggly handbrake to disappearing (!) mirror control assemblies. Frenkel fears that beyond attractive looks and “keen pricing.” the Insignia doesn’t offer anything the Mondeo doesn’t, particularly in the crucial categories of dynamic abilities and efficiency/running costs. If its sleek looks are lost in translation to the Aura, it might not be too early to call Saturn’s last best hope DOA. If they bring it here it all.
London Times (UK) »
Subscribe to New Content Alerts20 Comments on “ 2010 Saturn Aura Previewed ”
Leave a Reply 
Back to Top
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BlinkList
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Furl
Google
Live
NewsVine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
POWERED
October 6th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Can we start a Saturn Death Watch?
October 6th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Excellent sheetmetal. Why not build it at one of the many plants here?
October 6th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
One of the biggest letdowns noted by the Times is the poor interior build quality, with its “preponderance of cheap, hard plastic” and several functionality issues ranging from wiggly handbrake to disappearing (!) mirror control assemblies.
Remember, kids, this is the brand they intend to take upmarket to compete with
Saab and CadillacBMW and Audi, while clearing space for Chevrolet in Europe on the low end.Glad to see GM’s learned from it’s North American mistakes. Oh, wait…
October 6th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
quite disappointing to find out that out after seeing the sheet metal … which is fantastic
October 6th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
The review trashes the low end diesel option, which we won’t see here. And we probably won’t see the twin turbos, either. They like the other engines.
More worrying is the lack on interior quality –which is terrible on all GM products.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
With the (naturally) bigger engines that the Aura would use if the car came to the US, it would end up at around 3500 - 3600 pounds, correct? That isn’t any worse than its competitors, i.e. Altima, Accord, Mazda6, Malibu(!). I wonder if all the new heft is due to attempting to meet all European AND US safety standards.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
With suppliers being squeezed from all sides, we’ll probably see many more
Chinesecheap bits in many automakers’ cars. No longer will a higher cost piece be rationalized with “we’ll make it up in volume”.October 6th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
snabster:
More worrying is the lack on interior quality –which is terrible on all GM products.
What are you basing that on? Where’s the research, what models, what consitutes “quality,” and what’re the metrics?
Anecdotally, our ‘07 SRX’s interior still looks new, nothing is broken or worn, and is fairly easy to upkeep.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
One of the biggest letdowns noted by the Times is the poor interior build quality, with its “preponderance of cheap, hard plastic”
Well, obviously this will be brought stateside with very few changes but the badge.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
akitadog
Exactly…3300# isn’t exactly “large” for the US midsize segment. In fact, that’s pretty darn lean these days.
October 6th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
C’mon - 3300 lbs is the same as my 1st Gen CR-V which has 146 HP (right up at the red line).
3300 lbs will be a reasonable size for a car that size. Lighter would be better of course. Wonder what it will weigh after GM releases it with one of their leaden lumps of V-6 engines. I’d rather have a good four cylinder thanks. Not saying GM doesn’t have good V-6 engines but they are overkill. My grandmother’s Buick has a nice 3.1L V-6 (that leaks). I’d rather have a Euro-spec engine though.
NICE looking car. Keep it up Saturn!
October 6th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
When will automobile reviewers realize that hard plastic is here to stay?
October 6th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
I suspect the problem is that they upsized the car to make it viable in the U.S. The current Aura is a bit narrow for a U.S. midsizer.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
It’ll be re-skinned as a Buick in a year. Looks like a winner, but then the Aura was Car of the Year, and has had zero sales traction.
October 6th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Oh Saturn, I see that your Aura is dimming and turning a Lead Gray color ….
http://www.archeosofica.org/en/content/view/136/37/
October 6th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Guess how many jobs will it give the engineers in US? Oh, it is not important, because we will give jobs to sales dealers and staff. Guess, how much will I pay those wobbling sales dealers a week compared to engineers who would work on a real Buick or Saturn, not watered down Insignia. And if I don`t pay enough guys, you get foreclosures and staff.Money is actually an exchange means of sweat and work and added value, if you want to consume the values by giving money to others that is not backed by equal work or sweat, guess what, your money goes down the hole.
October 6th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Nice looking car that could lose 400 lbs just by building the subframe and frame with aluminium.
More fun to drive and help with some extra money for the car payments. Why doesn’t GM get this: less money spent in maintenance, running costs more money can be spent on the original price of the car.
Good for GM, Good for customer and sooo bad for the mean people selling us the oil
October 6th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Compare that hind end to the new Acura sedans; much, much nicer. What’s with that weird side sweep, though?
October 7th, 2008 at 7:40 am
On this side of the pond 3300 lbs is practically anorexic for a sedan…
October 7th, 2008 at 9:39 am
On this side of the pond 3300 lbs is practically anorexic for a sedan…
On either side of the pond it’s not bad. The Jetta (never mind the Passat) weighs not a lot less than that, the (very large) North American Accord only a whisker more in four-cylinder trim. Most of the others fall around the same mass.
European cars are, by and large, not really that light and haven’t been for a while. If you want lightness, you really have to look to Japan. Case in point: the aforementioned Jetta.