Brand Survival - The fates of Saturn, Saab, and Volvo

There was a hint of anticipation in some enthusiast circles last week when the Detroit 3 submitted their plans in Washington, D.C. Long the subject of Internet debate, these plans shed a light on which brands might be heading for the chopping block. Two GM brands seem most in jeopardy—Saab and Saturn—and Ford is reportedly considering selling Volvo. Looking back through old Consumer Reports road tests, you can see the shortcomings in these brands’ line-ups that led to their weaknesses.

Let’s start with Saab. We tested our first Saab 9-5 back in October, 1998. We called it "well thought-out and innovative." The problem now, however is that the 9-5 that you can buy brand new today is basically the same car with only some upgrades. Eleven model years is an eternity, especially in a competitive luxury sedan market. For most models, that would be more than two full generations.

Likewise, Saab built variations of the same 900/9-3 from 1994 until 2002; most competitors saw at least one full redesign in that time. Many of the complaints we had with the 900SE we tested in August, 1994, were the same as with the 9-3 we tested in the February, 1999 issue.

Even the current 9-3, Saab’s volume model, has been on sale since 2003 (we tested an Aero model in July of that year) with only minor tweaks along the way. Again, almost every direct competitor has been introduced or fully redesigned since then. With a dated line-up essentially consisting of only two sedans/wagons, it’s no surprise that Saab sales have lagged.(See our Saab 9-3 and 9-3 convertible road test videos.)

And adding a lightly modified Chevrolet TrailBlazer SUV to the lineup didn’t exactly help. Our brief experience with the relatively rare 9-7X is that it’s probably the best version of this platform, but that really isn’t saying much.

Next up: Saturn, the company that was intended to beat back Japanese small car imports. The first Saturns, which we tested in 1990, were a solid effort at the time. They even proved to be quite reliable. But then nothing much happened. Our March 1996 review of the restyled SL1 noted that the Saturn "used to be competitive, but it’s fallen behind the times."  Amazingly, the SL we tested in September 2000 was basically the same car; that review said simply "outdated and outclassed."

When Saturn finally replaced the 12-year-old S-Series with a new small car, the Ion, it turned out the wait wasn’t really worth it. Our March, 2003 test found that "the Ion is very disappointing for a new car." Now, Saturn’s current smallest car, the imported-from-Belgium Astra is a vast improvement over the Ion. But it suffers from shortcomings as a result of importing an aging Eurocentric design. Brought to America late in its design cycle, the choices of drivetrain were limited, and it would be hard to justify investing in major changes for a short model run.

It’s tough to build a brand with only one car line. But Saturn was slow to add larger models as GM held off on investing into the brand. (Starting from the ground-up, including a new factory, cost billions.) When Saturn did get around in 2000 to adding a larger model, the L-Series, it was a lackluster effort based on an older Opel design. The January 2003 review of the face lifted L200 noted "The Saturn L-Series added nothing extraordinary to the class when it made its debut three years ago; it now feels a generation behind." Not good.

Saturn’s Vue small SUV also suffered. Launched in 2002, we said that "Saturn’s first SUV has potential but feels half baked." Despite adding a Honda V6 in later years, seat comfort and fit and finish remained subpar, and the Vue didn’t get stability control until its redesign for the 2008 model year. That redesign improved interior quality and handling, but a hefty curb weight added up to only 17 mpg in our tests--low for a small SUV.

While Saturn’s 2007 Aura won the much-hyped title of North American Car of the Year, we found it to be thirsty with the either V6 engine. It took almost two years after its launch to offer a more efficient four-cylinder – keep in mind that most buyers of family sedans opt for smaller engines. Rear seat room remains tight for a family sedan, especially compared to its platform-mate, the Chevrolet Malibu. (See our Saturn Aura road test video.) It wasn’t until the 2007 Outlook SUV that Saturn had a truly-competitive product – and then sales of that model were out shadowed by those of the essentially identical GMC Acadia and similar Buick Enclave.

So that presents a problem. Keeping Saab and Saturn relevant demands new product. Some of that product is in the pipeline, with a small 9-4X SUV for Saab and a version of the well-received Opel Insignia for Saturn. But both of these vehicles are likely delayed or in limbo, since it’s hard allocating precious resources to struggling brands.

Volvo’s also been short on resources. Like Saab, their products remained unchanged for a very long time. We first tested Volvo’s S60 back in 2001; the current S60 scores so low that it’s not recommended. Simply put, there are a lot of better ways to spend your money.

Volvo’s small S40 was introduced in 2000 after being on sale in Europe for four years. A 2005 redesign was "much better than the model it replaced," but "overall the S40 trails the competition." Volvo’s large sedan, the S80, hung around from 1998 until 2006. The redesigned 2007 S80 didn’t "measure up well to its competitors" in our November, 2007, report. At least Volvo’s XC70 wagon and XC90 SUVs were reasonably competitive and sold well.

It has also taken years for Volvo to shake reliability problems. The S60, V70, and S40, and XC90 all suffered from problems when they were introduced, and the problems continued for several years after. On the plus side, one benefit of building the same car for so long is that many of the bugs get worked out – most of these models now have average or better reliability. (See our Volvo C30, C70 convertible, S80, and XC70 road test videos.)

Who knows what the future will bring for these brands. A new buyer might make investments in new product. Or some of the brands may simply disappear. No doubt each of these brands still maintains some loyal fans. But brand survival has to boil down to competitive product.

—Tom Mutchler

Discuss Saab, Saturn, and Volvo in the forums. See how brands compare in Reliability and Owner Satisfaction.

Comments

[Cale]

Thank you Tom. That was very thoughtful.

Keeping my fingers crossed for our future.

[melville248]

It would be such a shame to see these brands disappear. The whole future of the auto industry seems to be up in the air right now. Of course some will be high on that totem poll while others will be knocked off completely. Wait and see game.

[Rangachari Anand]

As a two time owner of Saturns I have to agree with your assessment. I bought an SL in 1991 and an SW2 in 1997. Both were very unrefined and rough riding - but they were durable at least. I have driven both the L series and the Ion and agree that they were really disappointing. I can't think what would convince me to try another Saturn at this point.

[David Isenbergh]

Tom --I quite agree with your assessment of Saturn: good start out of the gate (I bought an early model SW2 --pretty good little car for the time) but atrocious evolution over 2 decades. And while I think there may be room left for the Saab: The 9-3 sport combi is a nice, sporty medium sized wagon, with (apparently) improved reliability and a good reputation for high speed handling and braking, exceptional crash-test results, better than average fuel economy, good turning radius, and a highly discounted purchase price, giving it a possible niche amidst some big-name carmakers (Toyota, Honda, Nissan) that do not make wagons for sale in the U.S. I think Saab might have a future if medium-size, non-luxury wagons were to make a comeback.

Likewise for Volvo: its wagons have continued to be among the best values, in terms of convenience, comfort, fuel-efficiency and safety, for those seeking road-worthy practicality and competence. Even today, the latest V-70 looks fairly promising: it has most of the features of, and shares a platform with, the generally well-regarded S-80 sedan. Volvo has always been in the forefront of safety innovation: it has recently pioneered blind-spot monitoring systems in affordable cars, whip-lash prevention, tail-gating prevention, and collision warning systems. Volvo's medium to large cars are not especially sporty, but they drive and handle a lot better than comparable Buicks and Lincoln/Mercurys. They tend to have good fit and finish, excellent climate-control systems, and exceptionally comfortable and ergonomically sound front seats. And after going through a period of questionable reliability during the '90s and early '00s, since 2004 they seem to be back on track.

[Tom Mutchler]

David, interesting comments. I have two good friends who bought 9-5 wagons: both have moved on to Japanese SUVs or wagons. I wonder if with the Toyota Venza and Honda's rumored Accord-based equivalent (seen in spy pics here), the wagon market might heat up. Again though, selling the older, smaller 9-3 against these might be tough.

Same goes for Volvo's safety gear - even brands like Mazda and Buick have blind-spot monitoring. Good fit and finish, comfy front seats, and good sound systems - that could just as easily describe a Honda or Acura.

That's the challenge - can these brands be distinct enough to stand out? I agree that they're at their best with their unique products - the convertibles, wagons, and the C30. Hard to build volume from those.

[Atenna Motor]

Nice post..indeed..

And while I think there may be room left for the Saab: The 9-3 sport combi is a nice, sporty medium sized wagon, with (apparently) improved reliability and a good reputation for high speed handling and braking, exceptional crash-test results, better than average fuel economy, good turning radius, and a highly discounted purchase price, giving it a possible niche amidst some big-name carmakers (Toyota, Honda, Nissan) that do not make wagons for sale in the U.S.Good fit and finish, comfy front seats, and good sound systems - that could just as easily describe a Honda or Acura.

[Brakes]

As a two time owner of Saturns I have to agree with your assessment. I bought an SL in 1991 and an SW2 in 1997. Both were very unrefined and rough riding - but they were durable at least. I have driven both the L series and the Ion and agree that they were really disappointing. I can't think what would convince me to try another Saturn at this point

[Marcus]

Brakes' post from December 15 is exactly the same as Rangachari Anand's from December 12. What gives?

[Ryan Hunter]

I agree entirely with your diagnosis. Additionally I'll add, that these are surface issues which underline a much larger problem..which is the insistance of both GM and Ford to basically re-badge other brands.

I own a 1998 Saab 900 convertible and I see very little reason to purchase a new 93 when it's essentially the same car I already own. In fact if it weren't for the new front end or decals I wouldn't know the difference. I appreciate the continuity between model "changes"..which is a long standing practice of many import lux autos...but it's also an outdated practice.

[Tom Mutchler]

Ryan, to be fair, the 9-3 being sold now is a different platform than your 1998 900. The styling is indeed very similar, but the convertible is much more rigid.

[Marcus]

Tom, regarding Saturn you said, "The first Saturns, which we tested in 1990, were a solid effort at the time." In fact the Saturn S-series was the number one small car in the 1994 Consumer Reports Buying Guide. It seems that these days everyone is looking for a chance to dump on GM. Please be fair in your reporting.

[BRUCE]

FOR ALL OF YOU FAITHFUL SATURN FANS OUT THERE I APPLAUD YOU!!! THANKS FOR GETTING BEHIND A GREAT COMPANY THAT TRULY MAKES A WORLD CLASS PRODUCT WITH WORLD CLASS SERVICE... THE SATURN EXPERIENCE IS ONE THAT YOU CAN COUNT ON. AS AN EXPERIENCED MANAGER IN A SATURN FRANCHISE I HAVE EXPERIENCED NOTHING BUT LOYALTY WHEN IT COMES TO A SATURN OWNER AND THEIR VEHICLES. TAKE THE TIME TO VISIT A NEARBY SATURN RETAILER, AND CHECK OUT HOW SATURN HAS EVOLVED SINCE THE TIME OF THE SL'S. OH AND JUST FOR YOU FOLKS THAT ARE ALL ABOUT HYBRIDS... CHECK OUT THE 09 AURA 4CYL WITH THE 6 SPEED TRANNY... UP TO 39 MPG HWY. SAVE YOURSELF 10K AND BUY A FULL GAS ENGINE WITH THE MPG AS A HYBRID... 10K WILL BUY ALOT OF GAS!!! OPEN YOU HEARTS AND YOU POCKETBOOKS AND SUPPORT AMERICA!!! OR WE CAN JUST BEGIN TO SPEEK JAPANESE.