Soccer Moms who adopted fossil-feasting truck-based SUVs for their parental duties know the truth: the genre is falling from fashion faster than Sony’s PS2. Style-conscious sprog schleppers now want a spacious rug-rat mover that doesn’t drain tanker trucks or scream mommy-van. For them, crossovers are The Next Big Thing. They’re eyeing vehicles like the new Saturn Outlook, the first of GM’s all-new Lambda platform-based crossovers (the GMC Acadia and Buick Enclave are set to follow). The Outlook replaces the TWAT-winning Relay minivan– which isn’t exactly a tough act to follow. Still, will the Outlook break a leg?
It’s immediately obvious that the Saturn Outlook is more of a pseudo-SUV (a.k.a. soft-roader) than a bold moving crossover. Although the Outlook rides four inches lower than the latest Chevrolet Tahoe, it’s just as wide and sits on a wheelbase that’s three inches longer. GM’s designers have done an excellent job disguising the vehicle’s mass, using muscle-bound curves and a hidden D-pillar (creating wraparound rear glass) to make the Outlook appear light and sleek. The result falls right into the genre’s sweet spot: a handsome, rugged-looking vehicle bereft of the bluster blighting traditional SUV’s.
That said, the Outlook’s mean mugging schnoz doesn’t convey the new Saturn (Opel) design language as well as the Aura or SKY. The Outlook's cliff face front end contains far too many design elements– creases, folds, bumps, lighting elements, etc. — to form a coherent whole. The Outlook’s back end ends just as abruptly, with very little overhang or bumper protection (GM will sell lots of replacement lift gates.). But the rear's design, complete with an up-tilted butt in the grand French tradition, is far more effective.
The Outlook’s interior is replete with pleasing plastics and padded door panels and armrests (with honest-to-god stitching). The materials are deployed judiciously, creating a calm, quality feel; at night, amber LED lighting (a la Audi) bathes the center stack and shifter in a warm glow. Unfortunately, the Outlook’s fake wood fails to blend with the elegant polymers (those of you with a satin-nickel addiction will find less than a nickel-bag of fix here). Available touch-screen DVD navigation, heated memory seats, dual moon roofs, xenon lights, remote start and power liftgate are sure to please the Coach purse crowd– and push the Outlook's sub-$30k starting price well into the low-40’s.
Given the Outlook’s relatively svelte-looking sheetmetal, the interior packaging is exemplary. The middle and rear seats comfortably accomodate normal-sized adults– not just bi-lateral amputees. Even better, GM’s innovative Smart Slide system ensures that the center row moves out of the way faster than Paris Hilton facing a bar tab. Even with all eight passengers aboard, the Outlook's got more useable rear cargo capacity and legroom than the new[ish] GMT900 SUV's. Unless you need to tow more than 4500lbs., the case for height flight is compelling.
The Outlook pits GM's 3.6-liter VVT six against 4936 pounds of SUV (all wheel-drive). As you might imagine, the 270-horse (275 in XR trim) Outlook isn’t exactly what you’d call fast; zero sixty takes over eight seconds. But neither is it particularly slow. The six-speed clutch-to-clutch automatic makes excellent use of the Outlook’s 251 ft.-lbs. of twist. In-gear grunt is always available for ambling, [well-timed] passing and highway cruising. You can find a little extra oomph by shifting manually with the up/down thumb rockers on the console-mounted shifter, or just go easy on the go-pedal and wait your damn turn.
At speed, the Outlook’s helm weights-up nicely, with admirable on-center feel. The massive 255/60-19 tires [XR Touring] will outgrip the seats (lateral bolstering and super-size-me American physiques don’t mix). The Outlook’s aluminum intensive suspension– coil over strut (front) and linked H-arm (rear) — delivers a competent compromise between corner control and the need to keep the kids’ Big Gulps from spilling. Obviously, the Outlook’s weight does it no favors in the bends, but SUV refugees will enjoy the inherent advantages of the vehicle’s stiffer chassis and lowered ride height.
The Outlook’s 13” vented four wheel disc brakes are perfectly sufficient for stop-n-go urban assault duty; use them in anger and they fade faster than K-Fed’s fame. More importantly for the Outlook’s target market, the crossover offers standard OnStar, Stabilitrak, side airbags and three-row head curtains– providing the passive protection kiddy chauffeurs have come to expect. And the front-drive Outlook’s 18/26 mpg (17/24 for all wheel drive) keeps more in the college fund than the Yukosubtaholade, Aspango or Exploragator.
The Outlook is an excellent choice for SUV refugees seeking a vehicle with better mileage and more efficient packaging that stil isn’t afraid to get its feet wet (with optional all wheel-drive). Or people who just can’t bring themselves to buy a minivan.
122 Comments on “Saturn Outlook Review...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Right…Just another SUV then…
Btw, I can see a lot of Opel in the nose. It looks like an inflated Astra. Not so terrible I think.
Also, when I saw the picture of the rear I thought…1st gen Porsche 928. The real American Porsche.
I guess Europeans like me just don’t get this sort of car. It just doesn’t fit in with the urban scenery. I saw an Sclade EXT driving down the village yesterday and it just looked hideous.
Anyway, according to the review it seems that GM America finally built a reasonably competitive product again, albeit a SUV.
It’s nice to see that GM can design a nice vehicle when they want to. Let’s just hope they can bring those skills to bear in the lower end of the market.
oh boy another suv
yawn
Good review.
This Outlook looks nice. The Acadia and Enclave even more so. The only criticism I have is that it’s a bit late…specs look similar to the Toyota Highlander which came out years ago.
GM arguably has trumped Highlander’s styling, but they are a full model-cycle behind on technology; Highlander Hybrid is available right now.
As a substitute for the larger GM SUVs, I can definitely see this working. Not my cup of Starbucks, though. My wife’s little L200 has been as reliable and fun as any competing small Japanese car, for as long as we’ve owned it (and still a year to go at 0%, woohoo! Depreciation hasn’t been too bad over the long run.)
It really looks vaguely similar to the awful Trailblazer, but mellowed with some Acura MDX cues — right down to the cliche letterbox exhausts.
Eric,
Good review. This is the first one I’ve seen — are you in trouble for breaking an embargo? Of course, I’ve seen dozens of reviews of the Edge, and it’s been delayed…
As the family is outgrowing our MDX, my guess is we’ll be replacing it with either one of these or an upscale Odyssey.
This looks like a great size for families of 5-6 who don’t need to haul a giant trailer across the Rubicon. The 3.6 seems fine, although I’d love to see a small diesel V-8 up front.
ThriftyTechie,
I’ll say this in GM’s defense: The Outlook/Acadia/Enclave are a generation ahead of the Highlander in terms of size. This is the first vehicle I’ve seen which is a true alternative to the minivan.
All the other SUV/CUVs like the Highlander may have a third row in theory, but in practice, it is small and inaccessible. Young kids can’t get back there on their own, and older ones feel squished.
Yes, the Highlander comes as a hybrid, but is otherwise thoroughly outclassed by the RAV4, amongst others.
The only criticism I have is that it’s a bit late…specs look similar to the Toyota Highlander which came out years ago
Except it’s a full class larger than the Highlander, has a full-size third row suitable for adults instead of a kludged-in afterthought, and has more power. I’m not sure what specs you’re drawing your comparison from, but they’re as different as a 4Runner and a Tahoe.
No Satin Nickle? I’ll buy it!
Whenever I hear “alternative to minivan,” I just glance at the unnecessary ground clearance and wonder why they forwent all the extra interior room. I still have yet to ride in an SUV that has the vertical interior space and roomy feel of a minivan, and the ground clearance is always the culprit. Nobody who uses their vehicle exclusively on-road needs more than 6″ of ground clearance, at most. For dual use, maybe an air suspension option would be in oder (5% of buyers?)
Tirerack.com doesn’t list any 255/60/19 tires, but their cheapest all-season 255/55/19 tire is $203 each. With mounting costs, a new set of tires is going to cost $1000 on this crossover. Ouch.
bfg9k
Glad you mentioned that. I predict a massive consumer backlash against silly, huge rims in the near future. All of these pedestrian vehicles with 18″-20″ OE rims are going to damage the sensibilities of the majority of people who flock to the “$39 tires” specials at their local Sears*
*(price quoted for 155-75R-13 size. Other sizes may incur additional charge)
The Outlook’s back end ends just as abruptly, with very little overhang or bumper protection.(GM will sell lots of replacement lift gates.)
That rear bumper/lift gate in the last picture has to be a worry for anyone interested in this SUV/CUV/Alterna-minivan. It seems completely irrational – you create an unsightly line across the bumper, and any slight rear end mishap means a jammed rear liftgate and some serious $$$ to fix what should otherwise be a minor bumper issue.
It looks like a good effort. Do this for the Malibu, bump up the years the warranty is in effect and we’ll talk.
Still, it’s awful heavy; that weight could be mistaken for the weight of a body-on-frame SUV. Are they really going to achieve 26mpg highway with the FWD version and 24mpg highway for the AWD?
bfg9k and ash78, you are right… Rim sizes are spinning out of control. More reaonable size rims on this thing would save you a penny a mile, maybe more, and, yes, I find that a significant cost. And if the vehicle turns out to be tire-hungry, the cost escalates further.
Stand next to it and you would be surprised it only weighs 5K lbs. The size of this vehicle is enormous (for a x-over). It makes the Trailblazer look tiny.
I badly want to drive one of these. Hopefully soon. Handling sounds better than I expected.
For those interested in how the pricing compares:
http://www.truedelta.com/models/Outlook.php
I hope to start collecting reliability info on the Lambdas ASAP. Aiming for initial results in May.
Good review, interesting vehicle. I only wish manufacturers put a little more emphasis on the “U” in SUV/CUV since I’d be willing to bet this thing doesn’t have a completely flat load deck. A flat load deck and removable seats (a la the Honda Element) makes for a very versatile vehicle. Most minivans have flat decks and removable seats (although how “removable” a 100+lb seat is, is probably worthy of a separate discussion) but the other drawbacks to minivans are limited ground clearance, poor MPG and let’s face it, they’re ugly.
Ash78: Re: Ground clearance, it depends on where you live and what kind of recreational activities you engage in. There are lots of forest service/BLM roads leading to great campsites, riverside boat launches, hiking trails, etc, that are closed to vehicles with too much crap hanging from the undercarriage. It’s one of the reasons I drive an Outback with AWD and 7+” of clearance. You don’t see too many minivans out there for exactly this reason.
In any case, if GM can coax 24mpg out of a 5000 lb AWD vehicle and keep it under 30k, they deserve kudos just for that. I’ll be looking forward to seeing what the “real world” numbers are, though.
It seems odd that Saturn would venture into this large of a size class. They gave a version to GMC, why not Chevy instead of Saturn? Has Saturn’s market niche become “whatever”?
“[in re remote camp sites, roads and ground clearance] You don’t see too many minivans out there for exactly this reason.” – Martin Albright
Plenty of people camp and own minivans. Like us. We’re just a bit careful off the paved roads and are willing to compromise on where we actually camp. Too rocky or muddy? Go to plan B.
And how many of these Outlooks will ever go on a Forest Service road? How many of their buyers will even camp?
Martin Albright,
The Outlook load deck is flat like a minivan (with the third row removed) but obviously not as low.
“4936 pounds of SUV (all wheel-drive)”
Oink, oink.
It seems odd that Saturn would venture into this large of a size class. They gave a version to GMC, why not Chevy instead of Saturn? Has Saturn’s market niche become “whatever”?
I believe the idea is to replace some of the re-badged minivans with Lambda’s. However the Chevrolet/Pontiac will keep the minivan for those who really want the thing.
Dhathewa:
Yes, and some people prefer to go past the area where all the minivans are parked and find another campsite. I’m guessing these are the people to whom the Outlook will appeal.
This is becoming a rather tired cliche. I guess if you live in LA or New York or Chicago and you never go off road, then it’s easy to assume this.
Out here in Colorado it’s a different story. Every weekend during the summer there are “rush hour” type traffic jams heading into the mountains for various forms of recreation. Every autumn tens of thousands of hunters head into the hills and prairies. And some crazy people (like me) even go camping in the Winter. And once you get off the beaten path, you see very few passenger cars or minivans – pickups, SUVs, and Crossovers are all over the place, and for good reason. And of course this doesn’t include the millions who rely on 4wd/AWD vehicles to get them to the ski slopes every Winter.
I know it’s an article of faith on TTAC that people who own SUVs/CUVs/AWD cars “never take them off road” but out here in flyover country, that’s just not true, and our overcrowded recreation areas are proof of that.
WOW! Im shocked that they made this thing so portly. Looking for a replacement for a small SUV (replacing a tribute)in the next two years has me watching the market closely right now. Though I never thought Id admit this, the 2007 Mistu Out-LANDER is looking better and better (even considering the fact that Im no fan of this make in general).
The Acadia is mildly interesting but like the outlook, if they are this large and heavy (good grief!), then forget it.
Lastly, what exactly is prompting folks to write the check for 35K + here? Sure its nice and all but its still a gussied up utility vehicle….and those can be had in the 20-25K market. Is this REALLY that much better? These are far from the cadillacs of SUVs, and there is little to no poser decadence in a Saturn nameplate, maybe its just me?
Martin
I hear you. Colorado is a very unique place in a lot of ways, and actually using 4wd is one of them (the state keeps Subaru in business!). We just make generalizations because they’re usually true–for every Colorodoan that goes up to RMNP on Saturday, there are two dozen Californians using the same vehicle on the 110, hoping to make it home before it starts raining.
Let’s face it: If GM was really marketing this to that one person, they’d never have a business case. They are depending on the masses of non-offroaders for profit. That’s the great irony of design compromises favoring a minority, while for the majority, the compromise isn’t even needed.
IF my wife hadn’t liked mini-vans then this would have been my choice for her next vehicle. Has plenty of capacity, AWD for some snow and camping and doesn’t ride like a truck. I’ll be pushing for her to get the Enclave or whatever else might be around in 2012 when she is due for a new car.
In regards to size you can’t compare this class of vehicle outside the US. It’s not meant for the small streets in Europe or even in any dense metropolitan area. Most of America has huge roads and plenty of space so large vehicles except for fuel economy are of no consequence.
I think this will be a winner for GM. The Acadia seems to be redundant, just too similar to the Outlook, however the Enclave will also be a big winner IMO.
Steve_S: Agreed on the Enclave. I think it wil be what the Lexus RX has always wanted to be, but itsn’t.
I know it’s an article of faith on TTAC that people who own SUVs/CUVs/AWD cars “never take them off road” but out here in flyover country, that’s just not true, and our overcrowded recreation areas are proof of that.
That needs to be said more often. Thank you.
Its nice to see the Outlook’s interior fixed the glaring problem with the Aura, maybe GM is on the right track. Now if they’ll start making CARS (sedans, coupes, wagons) like this they’ll find their way off of Death Watch.
If you need all wheel drive (a separate debate), and were open to a minivan, the Toyota Sienna is currently the only all-wheel-drive minivan available.
The exterior dimensions are very similar, including height (if both have roof racks). The Outlook weighs about 450 pounds more. The Sienna has a clear advantage in interior space, but cubic volume doesn’t tell the whole story. It’s pretty hard to pack all the way to the ceiling.
Price is quite comparable as well. Outlook has a very slight edge in EPA fuel economy, which is more impressive given its 60 horsepower advantage.
However, most buyers are fairly polarized for or against the minivan genre. If you don’t want a minivan, the Lambdas will be a good alternative.
I’m sorry… you don’t need an SUV to traverse a gravel road. Hell, I once drove ~250 miles of unpaved tracks in Nevada in a Jaguar XK-120. Mind you, this is NOT what Sir William had in mind for the XK, but it worked!
99% of your “recreation areas” are served by well maintained, gravel roads. In my youth I spent a LOT of time in the mountains (I am a retired Alpinist) and my mount at the time was a VW mk1 Rabbit. Never had an issue travelling some pretty damn remote spots in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Alberta, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, Utah, and New Mexico (except getting the Diesel to start at 15 below.) Why today’s recreators require 8″ of ground clearance and AWD is beyond me.
Oh yeah… it is all about image. =P
You’ve been brainwashed by marketers folks.
–chuck
Why today’s recreators require 8″ of ground clearance and AWD is beyond me.
I've been over some streets in downtown Atlanta and other urban areas that look more like the Rubicon than they do city streets. There have been times I wished I had the ground clearance of an SUV for some of my "on road" daily commuting excursions!
Tirerack.com doesn’t list any 255/60/19 tires, but their cheapest all-season 255/55/19 tire is $203 each. With mounting costs, a new set of tires is going to cost $1000 on this crossover. Ouch.
The standard tire is 255/65-18 and the 19s are optional only as part of the touring package on the full-zoot XR model.
Arguing what someone “needs” and what others do not “need” is another dead horse that is taking a vicious beating. I’m not sure if it even looks like a horse anymore.
No one “needs” a corvette, but none seem to take up that position on TTAC.
We all know some of you hate SUV’s; (not pointing out any one person) we ALL get the point… So please… For the love of Christ… cut it out.
“I know it’s an article of faith on TTAC that people who own SUVs/CUVs/AWD cars “never take them off road” but out here in flyover country, that’s just not true, and our overcrowded recreation areas are proof of that.” – Martin Albright
It’s the same in Michigan. I-75 is packed northbound every Friday and southbound every Sunday in the summer (and fall during hunting, and winter for snowmobiling). Plus, plenty of forest roads with deep sand, especially on west side of the lower peninsula, ground clearance is really your friend on those roads. And, like yours, they are pretty well traveled….
If you can get where you’re going in an Outback, you can do it in a Golf.
Marketing Dept. : 100,000,000
Dopey Consumers: 0
Nice review. I think we all need more K-Fed related zingers.
It sounds like more usable room than a Tahoe in a more efficient package – although you might give up mega towing – you can still do quite a bit. So this is all good, right? I’m actually encouraged by this vehicle…maybe GM can produce a decent vehicle.
And for all the people whining about tire prices…sheesh. The days of $50 tires are over. Even my pedestrian RX330 was $1000 (out the door) for decent set of tires. Yes, my old 2003 CRV got out the door for $550 for a set of Michelins, but it was WOEFULLY undertired. Make up your mind – you want grip, traction, & short braking distances? Someone who ponies up $40k for this can afford the bill.
The stance of the vehicle – i.e. ground clearance – isn’t all about clearing obstacles in one’s chosen roadway. Some of it is nothing more than styling preferences of the buying public. However, another reason, is that many people feel safer sitting up higher. I’m not saying that I agree with that argument considering I don’t sit very high in my Corvette, but I have heard that frequently. We drive a 2005 Ford Freestyle which would be the direct competitor to the GM lambdas. The size and utility should be very similar and I can tell you that it has been a great car for our family of five. We took our FWD Freestyle up to Yosemite this summer and it swallowed all our gear while getting 23 mpg in the mountains with a loaded cartop carrier. Could we have done it in a minivan? No way……my wife would have divorced me for purchasing a minivan. For those of you who seem to be a little confused as to what these things are – call them crossovers if you want, but they’re really station wagons. My father drove a full sized Chevy station wagon and I’ve owned a Chevy Blazer. These crossovers feel a lot more like the direct descendant of the station wagon more than SUV’s. Just don’t tell anyone……I’d like GM to be able to sell a few.
Goolsby, Mcningning, you’re missing the point: The fact that you can do something with a certain vehicle doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. And BTW, I’d really like to see a Golf try to follow me along a rutted dirt trail when it’s pouring rain. Ditto with the Jag. You may not need AWD every second of every day, but there are times when it’s a Godsend, and yes, I’ve driven enough 2wd vehicles in similar situations to know it.
Second, I suppose I could probably go a lot of places with a smaller car like a Golf (though I’d have to remove all that silly plastic stuff hanging down, otherwise it would be left on the trail after the first time I went through a rutted road) but why should I? For one thing, the Outback is bigger, which allows me to carry the stuff I need for camping, and it still gets pretty decent mileage (I’ve gotten over 30 when I set the cruise control at 55mph.)
I mean, hell, I could drive a motorcycle everywhere, as could all of you, right? Go to any 3rd world country and you’ll see tiny motorbikes, mopeds, and bicycles used for all manner of cargo and personnel transportion. Which proves exactly nothing, of course, about the US auto market.
Look, this argument that “I don’t need X, therefore, that conclusively proves that nobody needs X” has to die. It’s utterly ridiculous and completely devoid of logic, reason or sanity. A single guy living in LA who wants to go up to the mountains occasionally and a family with 5 kids who spends half their summers in the Rockies have totally different needs and it’s silly to think the same vehicle will serve them both. That’s why we get a choice in this country.
People complain because SUVs are too big or too thirsty, the manufacturers respond by making smaller, more economical SUVs, and people still complain.
If I didn’t know better, I’d think it was just plain-old class warfare, i.e. “I hate you because you can afford something that I can’t.”
PS: To get back (somewhat) to the topic at hand, I have to ask: Why did GM name this product after a trouble-prone Microsoft Email program? Were “Word” and “Power Point” already taken? Did someone at GM hear a co-worker say “My Outlook just crashed!” and think it would make a good name for a vehicle?
heh… reminds me of a famous quote on an operational community mailing list after yet another outbreak of a network destroying Microsoft bug/worm/exploit:
“(Microsoft) Outlook, the exploding Pinto on the information superhighway.”
— Sean Donelan on NANOG, 1:25 AM -0400 7/27/03
I guess we’ve come full circle?
–chuck
1984:
That’s good to hear. From the side it really reminds me of the Toyota Sequoia, even though I know the Sequoia is a full-sized SUV based on the Tundra truck platform. If they can actually return the (frankly rather unbelievable) MPG figures they advertise this could be a good move for GM and offer a more aesthetically pleasing alternative to the minivan.
Id just like to know why people are content to pay out big cash for it as I asked earlier on. I can see big money for an Enclave, but these??
Whats the tow rating on a Golf anyhow? It matters because that is EXACTLY why I dont drive an outback….which at least can tow something (but not much).
You CAN build a house with a hot glue gun, but there are better tools for the job.
Pretty sensitive about your vehicle choices, aren’t we?
It’s a capitalist society. Pay your money and drive whatever the hell you want and quit trying to rationalize your purchase. You liked the damned car and you bought it. End of story.
But if you’re going to pass your Outback off as a mighty off-roader and then tell me I can’t make fun of you, that’s when I beg to differ.
blautens
I think you’re missing the point of the “big rims/expensive tires” comments. It’s that we all pretty much agree that most people are hands-off and want low-maintenance cars. If these people are coming from another middle-of-the-road sedan or SUV from 5-10 years ago, they aren’t prepared for tires to cost more than $400 out the door. My point is that it can leave a very bad taste in their mouth when their reasonably-priced, reasonably-reliable new vehicle suddenly runs $1,200 for tires. Not many people even think of that kind of thing beforehand. But that’s not model-specific, so it’s somewhat OT.
socsndaisy, I don’t understand your confusion. If you’re in the market for a small vehicle, then you’re looking in the wrong place. Fitting my family of five plus a set of inlaws in your Golf or Outback would be a bit tight. As for the price, I suspect that these are going to be very competitive. You mentioned that you can find similar vehicles for 20-25K. I don’t know about that……in 2005 I shopped pretty hard and was able to buy our FWD Freestyle at the employee pricing in the 25,500 range. I’d like to know where you can find a vehicle that seats 8 reasonably comfortably, can tow 4,500, has all the safety features, and gets this gas mileage for $20,000.
Pretty impressive power out of the 3.6 liter to haul 5000 lbs. around. Figured it would be a real dog with that motor.
26 MPG out of this beast… Well Done.
I’d like to know where you can find a vehicle that seats 8 reasonably comfortably, can tow 4,500, has all the safety features, and gets this gas mileage for $20,000.
Toyota Sienna LE 8-passenger, FWD with ESC/SAB. $24k, but only tows 3500lbs.
Arguing what someone “needs” and what others do not “need” is another dead horse that is taking a vicious beating. I’m not sure if it even looks like a horse anymore.
No one “needs” a corvette, but none seem to take up that position on TTAC.
We all know some of you hate SUV’s; (not pointing out any one person) we ALL get the point… So please… For the love of Christ… cut it out.
This bears repeating.
The popular refrain is very grating now.
Maybe it’s a sign of increased prosperity that we can now turn our attention to defining–with confidence–the precise “needs” of others.
starlightmica – the Toyota website says $28,400 for that vehicle (you have to choose a package deal to get stability control) with a $1,500 cash back offer until 11/30. Probably not a bad deal if you can stomach the Toyota styling, but still not $24,000……and certainly not $20,000.