Our first car was a navy blue Opel Kadett. My father was off to sea; my mother took us on an inaugural daytrip. When my father returned to the Norwegian mainland, he dismissed the car as too small and upgraded to an Opel Kapitän. This was followed at short intervals by an Opel Rekord and an Opel Admiral. (The hierarchical naming scheme of Opel marketing in the 60s-70s was pretty obvious.) I’m sure my father would have moved to a Senator with time– but he was ready for a Mercedes. Once he’d switched allegiances, he never looked back.
They were good cars, the Opels, but they were also ”’tweeners”: the brand you bought until you made enough money to move on to something better. Then as now, Teutonic carmakers offer such a wealth of quality choices that it’s hard for Opel to stand out. For the last two decades it’s been the ”we’re here too” brand: a low to middle market alternative to higher-priced, better-regarded imports and homegrown ”names;” roughly akin to Chevrolet’s current position in the U.S.
And now GM has decided to populate its ailing Saturn brand with Opels, both platform derivatives (Aura) and outright imports (Astra). The American brand born as GM’s ”import fighter” is down to relying on imported European design, technology and production for its salvation.
The irony is delicious, the choice of donor inauspicious. Although Opel is currently undergoing an extensive product redevelopment program, the Euro-brand’s tweener mainstream products are a stretch as pinch hitters for a quirky niche player.
It’s hard to tell what GM has on its mind these days. They’re building Opel-platformed Saturns, Vauxhalls, Holdens, Chevrolets and Saabs (designed in Germany, sometimes rejigged and rebadged as Cadillacs). While platform sharing and international parts commonality shouldn’t be an impediment to shrewd, sustainable and distinctive branding, you wouldn’t think it from looking at the products coming from GM’s mashup of mid-market models. Can Saturn carve out a name for itself deploying generic German motors? Not likely.
There’s a Black Hole hovering over RenCen. This irresistible vortex devours any automotive brand with a definable identity, pulls it through the Event Horizon, and spits it back out again, bland and denuded. Every brand-specific selling point and distinguishing feature is lost, replaced by variations on the badge slapped to the hoods of identical look-and-feel automobiles. Saturn disappeared into that time – space distortion a long time ago. The new Aura may be a great car, but it’s not a great Saturn.
Hang on; what’s one of them, then? No one’s really sure anymore.
That such a fate should befall Saturn is tragic. Like Lexus, the brand was born an empty slate. Within a few short years, Saturn’s plastic-panelled vehicles, no-haggle pricing and customer-focused dealers built an intensely loyal following. While Pontiac stopped building excitement, Cadillac disappeared into a fug of mediocrity and Oldsmobile vanished, Saturn buyers stood by their brand. They knew they were a different kind of customer for a different kind of company.
This description once applied to Saab buyers. Talk about bad karma; The General bought the brand about the same time they started Saturn. As the import fighter found its inner quirk, the quirky Swedish brand born of fighters was stripped of its mojo. The General tried to turn Saab into a cut-price luxury marque (!), alienating the brand’s core customers. At the same time, GM’s mandarins gradually starved Saturn of product and marketing resources, until the brand’s soul was gone.
Which leaves GM with not one but two formerly distinctive brands that have lost their direction. The General is now talking about brand distinction, even as it begins badge-engineering on a global basis.
Too late. If GM had begun nurturing its divisions’ branding when it mattered, back in the late ’80’s, it would now have a lineup of companies serving a palette of consumer needs. Instead it has a vortex of brands pretending to be different, stacked up in the middle of each segment.
Saturn sits in a particularly tepid part of the goulash. Back when they began, Saturn dealers’ honesty, stress-free service and customer focus was a big deal. In these post-Lexus days of customer CSI’s and J.D. Power ratings, when Saturn hasn’t sold itself as the car customer’s best friend for over a decade, the brand’s [unstated] promise of warm fuzzies is no big thing. When they ditched plastic panels, product differentiation died. Which left Saturn with… nothing.
Take it from someone who’s grown up around Opels, Opelization will not save Saturn. Opel has no glamor to bestow upon Saturn; its geist is middle-of-the-road. This, of course, will not prevent The General from throwing its reserves at another researched-to-death brand melée. But Saturn’s customers have already moved on, as my father did with his Opels. And they’re not looking back.
110 Comments on “General Motors Death Watch 110: Will Opelization Save Saturn From GM’s Black Hole?...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Thank you for this this market context for the Opel brand. Yet you have failed to mention that every single euro-styled and euro-precisioned Opel is better than any single Saturn, both in terms of mechanicals and design. After seeing the new Vue, Aura and Astra and reading countless reviews), my sense is that these will be winners in the US market littered as it is with small (and very competent) Asian cubes and jelly bellies.
I traveled to Opel’s site on the web to see what else they have in the stable, and boy what a shock. There are some outstanding cars here from what I could see. GM would do well to bring more of them here, either as outright imports or re-skinned models made for the NA market.
I am not sure but I believe Vauxhall is doing well in the UK. The new Corsa is a Yaris, Fit – killer if I ever saw one. It has to become a Saturn IMHO.
Smart Move GM, given you can’t seem to make any world-class cars here at home. Bring em all here. My predictions is that so far these new ‘Op-urns’ will all be successful relative to what came before them. Given the alternative (Day-wooooooos), not a bad play at all.
I grew up around Opels also, and don’t remember the story nearly the same.
In most of the 20 years I was keeping track, Opel’s Kadett, later Astra, would be in the top three selling cars in the country. Usually duking it out with the VW Golf for the top place, it was always a bestseller. A bestseller based on many sales to return customers, who did not feel the need to upgrade to another brand or even another model within Opel.
Now, how this applies to sales through Saturn here in the US, who knows? Better not to speculate on the fate of a car in the US based on its European history.
After all, the VW for retired old farts in Europe, the Jetta, is considered a sporty sedan for generation X and Y in the US.
I buy used Saturns to use as loaner cars for clients. Why? Because they’re very cheap in comparison with Japanese alternatives and they don’t rust out as fast, thanks to the plastic panels. But I drive fifty different cars a week in road testing after repair and the Saturn is a really horrible little car. If I need a used engine for one, I have to wait a month or more, until another one flips onto its roof, because almost all Saturn engines have self destructed already. Opels can’t and aren’t that bad. And, being Saturn branded, they’ll make good, cheap, loaner cars in the long run.
Uh, hello? GM has officially admitted that the Euro-zone Astra headed stateside will be sold at a loss (despite Mr. Lutz’ ill-informed assertions to the contrary).
It could be the best small car on the planet, but every single car sold represents a loss for GM. So the more they sell, the more they lose.
What’s more, please note Mr. Leikanger’s larger point: that the Opel brand has no brand cachet or, indeed, distinct brand identity, to share with Saturn.
The wider point is that building a good or even great car is not enough. It’s got to A) generate a profit and B) reinforce the brand.
Of course, point B refers to long-term profitability. An Aura or Astra or Sky can generate a short term boost, but unless the model helps build the brand, it actually hurts it in the long term.
I seem to remember an Opel GT that enticed me as a teenager, until I tried to wedge myself into one (6′5″).
The funny thing is that the Astra is a markedly superior car (sans plastic) to the Ion that it’s replacing. It’s a damn shame that GM wasn’t forward-looking enough to realize that the time for a sporty, fuel-efficient, upscale hatchback has come again, and designed and tooled for a domestic “Ion II”. Instead, they relied on the dismal (except for fuel economy) Aveo, which is a car that people will skip not because they have the money, but they can move (with low-cost dealer financing ) to the next level. Why doesn’t GM ask the customer what they want, then try to deliver it with domestic resources? (I could answer my own question, but I’ll leave it).
The Astra is now on my “short list” to replace my ‘97 Camaro RS (3800 V6 5M), which is a very fun car to drive, and it can (and has) hauled a small water heater, flat-screen TV, and a carpet cleaning machine. I don’t thnk that the new “gangsta” Camaro would fit the bill…
Aura owners don’t seem to notice the issues pointed out in this article. Many are very enthusiastic about their cars.
That said, I’ve also wondered about the financial viability of selling Opel’s as-is in the States:
http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?cat=16
WRT to the Astra, I was able to look it over and sit in it in Chicago. We’re getting Opel’s low-end trim level, so it’s not impressive inside. And I don’t think a 140-horsepower 1.8-liter is going to cut it these days if you’re not Honda or Toyota.
My Astra impressions from Chicago:
http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=31
Lot of doom and gloom over these Opelized Saturns, which I think is a marked improvement over the Ion and L300, especially in the style department. Saturns never really had any brand identity to begin with other than cool plastic doors that resisted dents really well and very friendly salespeople.
I liken this to Version 2.0. Version 1 faltered because GM neglected it. They had a Civic/Corolla fighter for too long and when they finally realized that they needed an Accord/Camry fighter too, it was too late. Now that they’ve reimaged the brand with vehicles that follow the design cues of their flagship Sky roadster, it now depends on whether GM can keep their attention on them long enough to fully develop this new image.
Losing money on every Astra is a problem, indeed, but how much more money would GM have lost if they continued to sell the Ion and L300?
Hello!!
My 3rd car was a ‘72 Opel 1900 Rallye, called the Manta in later years.
Compared to the Japanese and even the other German imports of the time, it had some very unique features, to wit: Cam-in-head valvetrain, a half torque-tube multilink rear suspension, short/long arm front suspension, and excellent dash layout.
A HUGE trunk, spacious underhood, very comfortable interioir.
Excellent handling gave the BMW 2002 owners fits when I autocrossed it.
Unfortunately treated like the retarded stepchild to be kept up in the attic by the BUICK dealerships that sold them.
Kinda funny…the Chevrolet Vega used the Opel 4-speed transmission with a gear removed to make it a 3-speed. Draw your own conclusions.
The message I get from GM and Ford is: “Be a REAL AMERICAN PATRIOT and buy your import car from US!!”
Ditto – Quasimondo!
You bear out my initial point that anything is a marked improvement over what Saturn represents now in the marketplace.
RF – so that leaves only Day-wooooos for Saturn’s small cars? Given that GM is incapable to design/build competent and profitable small cars, Day-wooos are its only other option. What does Sat-wooooos do for the brand in the long term? And for sustained profitability? Despite GM’s many shortcomings right now, Opel is not one of them despite this editorial. If smartly done, leveraging Opel vehicles in NA can prove to be a wise move.
And why then cannot these Op-urns be built in Korea or Mexica or Canada even? VW has built cars in Mexico for generations. Surely there is a way to get them here and still make money on these cars. I realize the US dollar is in the toilet compared to the Euro and that building anything in Europe is more costly. Yet doesn’t a global automaker have other options? Isn’t this the main advantage of being a global company, with manufacturing assets stretched far and wide?
No my friend, given GM’s clumsy track record in the small car segment, you cannot convince me that this is a bad play, by any way you look at it. Yes they have to make the financials work, but isn’t this why these execs make millions of dollars?
Let's try this again…
The multi-millionaire execs' plan: use the money losing (from the git-go) Astra as a "place holder" in the Saturn lineup. If the Astra does well, figure out a way to build them cheaper.
While I'm thinking decontenting and the usual degradation in quality (e.g. the hecho en Mexico Golfs), they're thinking, um, something else.
It's the same "global strategy" they're applying to the Pontiac G8: see if it flies, then commit and figure out a way to make it here-ish.
But back to my main point: what is a Saturn? Why buy one over the competition? It's not JUST about product, but product would be a good start. What makes the Astra unique, different and Saturn?
Robert, I understand your premise here, but I have to ask…
Has Mitsubishi or Mercedes saved Chrysler? Has Mazda or Volvo saved Ford?
I see no difference here. The home team has basically given up in the small car segment, and relies on others for basic engineering.
quasimondo:
Is that the plan? Let's lose less money than we did before?
Carnut:
When a brand relies on an "anything's better than what we had before" justification. well, that's not good is it?
Call me crazy, but I thought the whole Saturn plastic panel thing was a winner. With modern memory materials, maybe they could have built a "self-healing" outer shell.
Terry:
Good question.
No, Mercedes has not saved Chrysler. Nor has Mazda or Volvo saved Ford. So where does that leave GM?
Actually, I would prefer opels as saturns and holdens as pontiacs. That is the best thing that ever happened to Saturn/Pontiac. Mazda, Mitsubishi did provide key technical prowess and platforms for Ford/Chrysler. So, I wont say they didnt help. Without them, they’d still be selling old inefficient engines/platforms.
Robert, it leaves GM, Ford, and ChryCo looking like International Harvester truck maker wannabees whose product fell out of favor due to gas prices, but will unhappily sell you a small car if you absolutely have to have one. Dont ask where it’s made, just buy the damn thing, dont compare it to what else is out there and live in ignorant bliss. In other words… the same ol’ corporate BS brought to you by the High Priests of the Temple of Syrinx…
RF:
If the end result is a vehicle lineup that can put them in a direction of recovery instead of a car that is truly rental fleet caliber in design, engineering, and build, I think a hit to the ledgers is worth it. Certainly building the same stodgy things that can’t even generate showroom traffic wasn’t helping.
The plastic doors was a good gimmick, but unfortunately, that’s all it was, a gimmick. After a while, nobody cared about that anymore, and that’s about the time people went back to buying Civics and Corollas.
…”we’re here too” brand: a low to middle market alternative to higher-priced, better-regarded imports and homegrown ”names;”
Euhm…I would say middle market, definitely not low market, except if you would consider it’s direct competitors, in case of the Astra the Peug 307/Toyota Corolla/VW Golf(Rabbit)/Renault Megane/etc low market. Untill 2 years ago, Opel was the biggest selling brand for 36 years in a row in the Netherlands (even if, indirectly, our government had a big influence on that).
I think that as a car, from all GM brands it mostly fits what Chevrolet should offer. Of course, in American perception it might not be American enough to be a Chevy (then again, what about the Daevrolets they’re selling now???).
After that maybe Pontiac, but I can see why they haven’t since they’ve already made a Saturn out of the Aura.
There might be one point why this car could be a Saturn. I think their is no quintessential Saturn (I mean, plastic panels???), but, from what I’ve read as a European never having seen as much as one Saturn in my life, Saturn as a brand stands for a dealer experience and ownership service that you wouldn’t expect buying relatively cheap cars. In that sense every good value car can be a Saturn.
I remember admiring a lady friend’s dark blue 1st-gen SC-2 coupe many moons ago. Then Saturn offered one with a third door, which I thought was a brilliant idea- until I noticed that it was on the DRIVER’S SIDE! Apparently, the engineers responsible weren’t aware of a city phenomenon known as “parallel parking”, and that unloading of youngsters into oncoming traffic was not becoming of Saturn’s “safety conscious” image at the time. That’s when the thoughts of buying one left my mind completely.
All of this will become irrelevant on GM takes over Chrysler(according to some reports)and becomes the biggest Auto manufacturer in the world again and with that new Sebring chassis as a base, all will be right again. maybe the GM & Chrysler death watch could merge as well.
“But back to my main point: what is a Saturn? Why buy one over the competition? It’s not JUST about product, but product would be a good start. What makes the Astra unique, different and Saturn?”
I think what makes it unique is that it’s European. Maybe it’s not a differentiated brand in Europe, but in the US, the very FACT of its being European differentiates it. Think about Volkswagen … a totally mass-market product in Europe, but differentiated in the US by virtue of being small European cars. So I seriously don’t see the author’s point. Saturn was started as the “import-fighter,” the small car that was more Japanese that the mainstream American offerings. Now it’s fighting the small imports by being an ACTUAL European car. That’s what makes the brand different. Small Chevys and Pontiacs are small American cars, comfortable and cushy, and small Saturns are small European cars, tight, stylish, and fun to drive. That absolutely seems like a brand differentiation to me. OK, maybe it’s stupid to import cars that you lose money on, but you can’t convince me it’s bad brand strategy.
Great article, well written too.
As someone who’s used Opels in Europe before (late 80’s/early 90’s) I never understood how bringing them over here could save GM. Yes they are better than most of the homegrown offerings (GM’s USDM small cars) but they were never *stellar* automobiles. For a long time GM treated their European subsidiaries as underlings to their American operations – beancounting is still easy to do from across the Atlantic. Europe was never dominated by one company at a share of more than 12% or so (which Opel and Vauxhall never achieved) so they had little credibility when most of the money was coming from NA.
GM can’t keep creating different identities for each brand every decade (or less…), and whenever the corporation’s leaders decide to pull a brand in another direction. There many more ways to shuffle a stack of 12 cards than 3, and this constant shuffling is more proof that GM has far, far too many marques. And needs to eliminate several.
The next step should be to do away with the Saab USA dealer network and simply sells Saabs alongside Saturns in the Saturn network. Saturn has a great dealer network while Saab’s dealer network stinks.
If Saturn is going to be a mid-range Euro brand then it makes even more sense to offer the Saab as a premium Euro brand alongside it. First, of course, ditch the Saaburu and SaabBlazer!
RF/Posters –
This is more a request than a comment… I’m relatively new to following the auto industry. Yes, I grew up with dad who worked for GM, but I didn’t really follow the global auto industry until I really started reading… GMDW. What I’m wondering is if some folks who have the facts could do a GMDW/FDW/DCXSW editorial based on history? What I’m thinking is a case study in big industrial companies going under. We’ve heard about Packard, etc and how they were run out of business or whatever, but what happened at International Harvestor? Caterpillar? US Steel, Bethelehem steel? These companies were all old line industries in the States, and at some point they had to reorganize, whatever. I am guessing that these are case studies in MBA school. I suppose I could wikipedia these things… ok I just did. I’m thinking that someone writing an editorial here with an eye towards parallels between those companies and the current US Auto industry would be a worthwhile read.
Thanks in advance.
Opels as Saturns and Holdens as Pontiacs doesn’t bother me one bit, as long as they fit into each brands mission. From an engineering $ and a capacity utilization perpective, sharing cars around the world makes sense. I like that the Sky is being sold internationally, GM needs to do more of this. Look at Dodge – I know it’s hard. They sell US built Dodges as Dodges all over the world. GM and Ford need to learn from this.
As for the Aura, it currently LOOKS like the Vectra, but is really just a restyled G6 underneath. The next-gen Aura is supposed to be a Vectra copy.
It’s sad, really. I mean, why did GM need an “import fighter” to begin with?
It was a source of corporate pride. “We TOO have the technical expertise, and more importantly…the WILL to build a World-Class product right here at home with home-grown talent. Right here in the USA”.
They could have imported Opels from the get go. But nope, pride is what motivated them.
What’s even more sad is the truth: GM was taught first hand(!) by the Zen Master himself (Toyota) how to build a small car. Recall, Toyota’s very first US assembly plant was not a Toyota facility at all…it was GM’s worst of the worst (Fremont, CA…which had been shuttered).
So…yes…GM is a impotent…their vasectomy occurred back before Saturn was even a company. And they’ve been shooting blanks ever since.
This 1986 Toyota/Chevy Nova represents in spirit more of what a “Saturn” is (or is supposed to be)
http://www.synlube.com/images/nova86.jpgthan today’s Opels:
come again:
http://www.synlube.com/images/nova86.jpg
I’m going to have to stand on both sides of the fence on this one. Everyone’s posting this as a black and white issue when in reality, there’s an awful lot of shades in the gray.
First off, Saturn isn’t deviating much from their initial intended purpose. The brand is still GM’s ‘import fighter’ they probably the best overall brand image for import buyers who are looking at GM’s stable.
Most folks even today don’t recognize Saturn as a GM division. Back when they first came out, the L and S series cars (sad to say they only sold two vehicles for nearly a decade) were extremely popular. As Farago already mentioned, the Saturn SL1 & SL2 were probably the most widely appreciated subcompacts GM ever made and the SC’s offered a clean design that filled a niche that the Celica/Integra/Eclipse sports coupes were abandoning for higher price ranges.
GM made a lot of mistakes though along the way. Saturn was starved for product throughout the 1990’s and lost a lot of customers as a result. What did you do once you trade in the Saturn? There was no way to move up in the brand other than buying an optioned out coupe which was a non-starter since a lot of the (young) prior owners had families once the car shopping process became a necessity.
Instead of offering a minivan, mid-sized sedan, luxury car, upscale coupe or SUV to Saturn ( which was offered to Oldsmobile thanks in large part to the politickig of Mr. Rock), Saturn got zilch. The S-series redesign was actually quite well done but the L-Series midsized sedans received an interior that was an absolute abomination along with an exterior that was as bland as the last-gen Olds 88. Like a lot of folks have already metioned, Saturns became very affordable used cars and rental cars since the mechanics of the late 90’s – early 00’s were quite good. But a good used/rental car doesn’t equate to a healthy profit. GM, in effect, screwed their own pooch.
I could go on about the Saturn Vue. But it’s pretty much the same story as the L-series… so let’s skip that chapter and look at what Saturn is doing now…
The Aura and Sky are very solid models overall. I would buy a Sky over a Miata (and that’s saying a lot since Mazda is my favorite mainstream brand) and the Aura offers a credible alternative to the Camry/Optima/Impala blandness in the mid-sized field. The current Altima is a very strong competitor to it… but the next gen Accord will most likely become the new standard. However I’m prognosticating that the imported Astra will be a big hit in the US market so log as the overall design isn’t screwed with. That’s a big if… but I know too may folks who hate the anime inspired Civics, the bland Corollas, and the tepid Yaris.
Hmm… the more I look at what Saturn’s line-up is forming into, the more I believe that Nissan, Mazda and VW (to a lesser degree) will become the primary competitors.
It should be interesting…
So GM (Saturn) is now looking at Opel to bail them out with a sedan, Ford is being pressured to import their small car European in-house designs (Focus and Mondeo where are you?), and the only shining light Chrysler has managed to ignite in several years recieved its chassis from a German designed sedan? (Thanks, multi-billion dollar car company merger of equals.)
Perhaps I’m looking too far ahead, but my TTAC crystal ball is delivering some prognostications that appear more than mildly alarming.
Big picture; what does this mean for American car design and engineering? Will we no longer have the capability to create a sedan/small car on our own that we would buy?
Somebody hold me, I’m scared.
Uh, hello? GM has officially admitted that the Euro-zone Astra headed stateside will be sold at a loss (despite Mr. Lutz’ ill-informed assertions to the contrary).
They did save millions of Federal Researve Notes by not having to develop from scratch so the loss will not be as great….Ugh. Maybe their strategy is to get the teens interested and then sell Mom and Dad an Outlook when they go to look. Or maybe they have no strategy.
My first experience with an Opel was a Manta…Mid-80s…In Scotland…With a rally car driver behind the wheel…And late for a Wedding…With an incredibly hung-over Groom in the car…The look on the Bride’s Mother’s face as we power-slid to the front of the church was priceless…The only thing to do to not throw up was to start drinking again…The Astra should be a “fun” car!
You couldn’t be more right. I am one of those who drank the Saturn kool-aid some time ago and in fact my 1995 wagon is still my daily ride 225,000 miles later. The caq had quirks and one made some comprimises (interior materials and NVH). But the car was bulletproof. In fact when I refreshed the still running motor at 215,000 it was still shifting via it’s original clutch. The car literally had less than 500 dollars of unscheduled maintainance costs and thanks to the aforementioned plastic panels still looked great.
Much of the same can be said for my wifes 2002 Vue though the Opalazation (and eventually even Hondazation) had began. Like my wagon it’s pretty good bang for the buck with compromises in interior fit and finish. However Saturns have always been easy to maintain and now, with my Vue having needed a thermostat for weeks due to a replacement procedure that involves removing the intake manifold to install a 50 dollar replacement, the koolaid is getting bitter.
And on my last trip to the Saturn Store (I still refer to it not as a dealership) I looked at the Aura. A nice looking midsize car. Nice, but not really a Saturn. It’s no different then a Camry except that it looks better but probably isn’t built quite as well. Alas, I’ll probably be tradingg in the Vue on a Sedona when we outgrow it (The Relay, Saturns first badge engineered job) costs more then the Chevy clone and is equally ugly. As for my wagon, well, it may be the last car I’ll own myself, but if it ever needs replacing I can’t imagine going with the new Astra derivitive. At least the Ion still had a propper plastic body.
Lunched with a German the other day. This is the actual German pistonhead’s priority list: Volvo, BMW, Audi, Mercedes, VW, Opel, Ford. As told by a man driving 55000 miles a year, traveling to his company’s other office 175 miles away in 1,5 hours – in a Volvo.
My turn:
Saturn, the import division, is selling the Outlook, an over 5,000lb barge of an “CUV”?
The L Series exterior was almost indestinguishable from the prior generation Opel Vectra, except the grill. We all know what a big hit that was.
The Astra is old meat: the current generation came out in 2002. The “2007.5″ refresh is extremely minor and superficial. And it still all rides on the platform of the prior gen Astra (1998), including twist beam rear axle.
Opel in Europe has been fighting for its ilfe in Europe the past 8 years. Massive restructuring, cutbacks, lay-offs. The reason they’re impoting the Astra is because of gross overcapacity in Europe. Not to say they’re bad cars. Stein lays out the issues well in his article.
What’s really interesting in all of this is the different directions GM is taking from Toyota/Honda, which more than ever is building cars unique to the US market (Camcord/Civic/newXB-XD/etc.) Is GM’s (and Ford’s) strategy of going “global” an act of desperation, because they can’t or won’t develop proper US small car products; or are they being “smart”.
I could probably write 800 words on this, but I’ll keep it to a comment.
Opel may be a middling brand in Europe, but it’s done something good for Saturn. Thanks to Opel transplant DNA, Saturn now has the best looking and most cohesive lineup of cars under $30,000. While other mid-market marques’ design languages are a steady diet of pastiche, Saturn’s new lineup deploys good-looking and recognizable design cues from its compact to its full-size crossover.
Most consumers in the US aren’t used to seeing this design language on Opels and Vauxhalls. To us, they’re completely new. And a fantastic looking design it is too; even the Outlook looks the part, a feat that not even Mercedes has been able to achieve on the ML and GL.
I don’t think people yet understand what this is going to do for Saturn. People are used to budget manufacturers producing bland-looking, derivative blah-mobiles. A cohesive design like this can change Saturn’s image overnight from a producer of mediocre plastic-bodied automobiles with fantastic dealer experience to a producer of fantastic-looking cars with the same fantastic dealer experience.
“That’s a Saturn?” isn’t going to be a question once people get used to seeing Auras, Outlooks, and new Vues. This is going to have a huge impact on GM: for the first time since the original Saturn launch, one of their brands will be gaining mindshare, not losing it.
That’s a Saturn.
(Disclaimer: I used to own a Saturn L300, which was a plastic-bodied Vectra. Since then I’ve moved on to an Acura TSX, but still have a soft spot for the brand.)
A fine commentary. To add to that, I’d say that the fundamental reason that this plan won’t work is that American consumers of bread-and-butter cars don’t particularly want European cars.
Yes, there is a relatively small niche market in the US for European cars, particularly among premium and near-premium car buyers. But on the whole, Americans generally don’t like the body styles or smaller sizes favored in Europe. Europeans will pay a premium price for small cars, while Americans deride them as “econoboxes” and view them as essentially cheap. Europeans prefer hatchbacks for their versatility; Americans like sedans with trunks for their look.
One need only to look at the Honda Accord to understand the issue. The Accord sold in North America is a completely different car than the Accord sold elsewhere. The key difference in these two cars is size: the American car is a larger car with a larger back seat, the US gets larger engine choices, and Americans are not offered a diesel option. The Accord sells very well in the US, for Honda has gone to great lengths to differentiate its US (and Canadian) customers from its other markets, and has realized that the most popular segments in the US require their own unique models. What is badged as the Honda Accord abroad is called a Acura TSX in the US, with the TSX generating just a fraction of the sales volume of the Accord.
Forbes reported that during 2006, the German automakers (this must exclude the Chrysler side of Daimler) had a combined market share in the US of 5.9%. Collectively, they sold about as many cars to Americans in a year as GM built in North America in about three months. If GM wants to learn how to regain a connection with the mass-market consumer, looking to Europe is a way to ensure that they achieve the opposite.
The L Series exterior was almost indestinguishable from the prior generation Opel Vectra, except the grill.
Well, it did have plastic panels. And my understanding is that it actually rode on a slightly lengthened version of the platform shared with the 9-5. Park a 9-5 (even a 2007 model) next to an L300, and their outlines match perfectly.
Brian E. Sorry, no plastic panels. It was simply an Opel Vectra with a few front end touches to make it sadder looking. No, the 9-5 is an evolution of the old 9000 platform, not shared with GM. The 9-3 shares the Vectra platform.
I second most of what is being said about Opel; personified medicrity. However, as the 60’s drew to a close, Opel brought out a truly remarkable vehicle, that did not have its parallell from any other European maker (except the exotics), namely the Opel Diplomat. This was a big barge much in the American tradition, and what set it apart from other European cars at the time was the powerplant. Somehow, the Opel engineers managed to shoehorn a Chevy 327 between the front fenders. There was such a car in my family at a later stage, and I was particularly “impressed” with the way they had obviously installed the spark plugs before installing the engine; it was virtually impossible to get to the rearmost plugs without lifting the engine. They hadn’t skimped the rest of the engineereing either, it had a rather complicated De Dion rear axle that was supposed to combine the best of the solid rear axle with the best from the independent systems.
Well, this is past tense, the 69 Diplomat it sure isn’t gonna help The General’s grip on the US car market one bit!
I disagree – GM had good Euro designs that they wanted to bring to the US and needed a brand to badge them with. Pontiac, Chevy and Buick are too steeped in US history for a car like the Astra to be in their lineup. Enter Saturn – originally devised as an import fighter brand that had been now reduced to selling sub-standard plastic panel cars. The Euro gig fits perfectly – dealers with a good reputation and customers that don’t care for too much machismo image cars.
I too have lived in Europe and know what Opel means to their customers but that has no effect here in the US where customers are completely unaware of the Opel brand.
The bottom line is that the Euro imports have improved the brand image of Saturn by offering far superior products than their previous offerings and it also returned them to their original intended role as an import fighter. Let’s face it – you would cross shop a Mazda 3 and a Cobalt, but you may consider the Astra as an alternative.
Q: Did Volvo and Mazda save Ford?
A: No. But they HAVE given Ford better product. Mostly without wrecking Volvo and Mazda.
Whether or not Opel will do this for Saturn remains to be seen.
Saturn is failing perhaps because they never realized what their brand identity was all about. “Import fighter” is not a useful brand identity. Around here, the ‘burbs, Saturn was the company of “Practical Little Cars.” Mid-level luxury cars are not part of that brand identity. The Vue was a reasonable extension of this (practical little sport-ute, like a Rav or CR-V).
The people I know who bought Saturns were people who wanted just what Saturn was delivering – “practical little cars” and would otherwise go Corolla or Civic but had an American preference. Oh, yes, they all had awareness of the plastic panels and liked that feature very much.
However, many of the people I know who bought Saturns 8 or more years ago have switch to the Corollas and Civics. Why? They felt their Saturns were used up at 100K miles (or had seen high repair bills already) and felt they deserved more in a car. It didn’t escape their notice that their neighbors were doing better with their Toy-ondas.
Beyond the durability issue, at some point, Saturn lost its way. A 5K lb CUV is not a Saturn. An Astra might be.
KixStart:
There is another way to look at the "help" Mazda and Volvo have given Ford.
Maybe these brands ultimately dragged Ford down, by allowing the mothership a relatively quick and easy way to circumvent its own corporate culture.
Did Mazda and Volvo enable Ford's denial?
Something to think about.
Robert: good point. Taking this issue further: The growing importance of “premium branding” is critical too. That particularly is what is creaming Opel and Ford in Europe. A generation or so ago, they were seen as the modest vehicle of the “practical family man”.
That demographic segment is as good as dead, especially so in Europe, where having kids is beginning to be seen as an STD.
Look at the explosion of MINI. BMW 3/Audi A4 are near the top of the sales in Germany. Everybody is (or wants to) wearing designer clothes or fashion accessories.
Saturn doesn’t have that kind of premium/desireable brand image. Frankly, GM should just as well have killed Saturn at its recent near death and changed the name to SAAB (sorry to all you old time SAAB lovers).
At least SAAB (possibly) has a name worth trying to resurrect as the “import/premium” brand for GM. I don’t see it with Saturn. Plastic bodies and no-haggling prices aside, the S series was always a cheap shit-box. Sorry, but true.
Well Robert, I doubt Volvo and Mazda “gave” Ford anything. Ford looked at their own empty bag of tricks, decided to take the easy way out and raid what they could from their other divisions.
It’s been asked what Saturn now stands for, what is its image.
I ask you, in light of all these posts what does GM stand for, what is its corporate image.
Cuts right down to the core, doesnt it?
RF, it’s not like Mazda, especially, has been a recent acquisition of Ford. They’ve been “together” since, what, 1979? It was only more recently, early 2000s, that Ford assumed “majority” ownership of Mazda — even then to the extent that Ford did not assume Mazda’s debts.
Ford was profitable until just a few years ago, as buyers started NOT buying Explorers and F-150s in droves — despite the drain imposed by Jaguar, et al. It was at this time that everyone in Dearborn woke up (I know, relatively speaking) and realized they hadn’t spent a dime on new product on the car side of the ledger. Mazda had a good platform riding under the 6 — and it made for a quick fix to bring the Fusion and now the Edge into being.
The point is, it was not Mazda/Volvo/Jaguar’s fault for Ford’s current problems. The fault lies directly in the top floors of the “Glass House”. They were asleep at the wheel for far too long.
I read about the saturn/opel duo and the memory of my father’s assessment of the Omega/Catera comes to mind. Some years back at a GM event for investors he drove the Opel Omega and the Caddy Catera. What was his assessment of the domestic version, in one word… ruined. He had some positive words for the Omega, but the caddy post lobotomy was ruined for him. Why should I expect GM do do anything else with their saturn products.
There was indeed a brief period of time – maybe five years total – when Opel developed some cache with American buyers. That was when Car and Driver and other magazines tagged the Opel GT “a baby Corvette” and the Opel sedan – whatever it was called – was campaigned successfully by Patrick Bedard in SCCA. There was more than a bit of irony, in that a few years earlier, a writer for C/D had called the Opel Kadett station wagon “a eunuch on four wheels.”
The Europeans have, per usual, gotten the best of the renewed interest in Opel, prior to the States. But of course, the bottom line, is can Opel underpinnings, beneath Saturn sheet-metal reinvigorate Saturn?
It seems unlikely methinks. Not only has editor Farago made the key point, that each of the new cars are sold at a loss, but equally important is that Saturn lost that unique aura – pun intended – that brought people into Saturn stores, back in the Nineties.
That process began with the ill-conceived and ill-timed LS series, pulled after just a couple years of production. And when Saturn had to go to Honda to get a decent V6 for the VUE, it made them look like losers. And as F. Scott Fitzgerald once said, “There are no second acts in America.”
I do feel sorry for all those workers who likely will lose their jobs, as Saturn plants go silent.
Terry said:
“…Dont ask where it’s made, just buy the damn thing, dont compare it to what else is out there and live in ignorant bliss. In other words… the same ol’ corporate BS brought to you by the High Priests of the Temple of Syrinx… ”
Hey Terry, is your last name Brown? ;)
Kind of silly to say that Opel is for tweeners, and therefore not worthy to be Saturn, which are pretty much the same niche. Does anyone seriously aspire to own an Opel? Or any GM product at this point?
Saab is resurrect-able, but frankly not as a luxury brand. How about a back-to-basics sporting hatch? Position it as the much sportier alternative to an VW GTI/Audi A3 with a little less luxury and a lot more sport? Not everything has to be luxury or near-luxury nowadays… Nobody is going to pick a Saab over a BMW in the luxury market, but they might in the sports-sedan market that BMW seems to be washing its hands of.
Brian E. Sorry, no plastic panels. It was simply an Opel Vectra with a few front end touches to make it sadder looking.
Paul, I owned one for five years. Are you telling me I don’t know what kind of body panels were on the car I drove? It was plastic. If I whacked it, it did not dent. The panel gaps were a mile wide. The doors gave a hollow clunk-rattle every time I closed them.
Brian E: I stand partly corrected. Unlike the S series, which had a monocoque structure (a la Fiero, Lumina MPV) covered completely with plastic panels, the L Series was a conventionally built Vectra with plastic bumpers (nothing new), front fenders and the door outer skins. The rest of the structure, including rear-quarter panels, was steel.
@ akatsuki
Given previous discussions here, and the gist of this commentary, I’d say that the point is GM’s mismanagement of brands. They’re moving their pieces around on the board without plan or symmetry – treating every brand in the same manner.
Saturn could have been developed better, in its direction, instead it was dropped by the wayside when GM went for the Gigavehicles. (Though it was my opinion, back then in the 90s, that Saab in the US should have gotten the attention Saturn received – instead, both brands suffered by being “misunderstood” by their owner.)
I completely agree that Saab should be sporty driving — or as we liked to say it then: as low as you can fly, while not in a plane.
At any rate – the middle of the market is the worst place to be in today …
The Car Czar speaks, re: Saturn
“It’s a no-excuses product lineup,” GM Vice Chairman for Global Product Development Bob Lutz said in an interview at the Chicago Auto Show. “I told the sales and marketing guys if this lineup doesn’t work, I’m out of ideas.”
http://www.dailyherald.com/news/illinoisstory.asp?id=282237&cc=&tc=&t=