Saturn's rebirth vexes Chevy dealers

[The O.C.]

Sorry but they're not in the same league. The interior particularly. In the end they're not after the same market so debate on this one is fruitless. The 300C is about size, and in your face size and with the V8 it's about pure horsepower. The STS is much more refined.

This is one place GM really needs to respond and hard. Chrysler has a hit with a very large car with a big engine - this USED to be GM's domain and one where they were constantly beaten up. The public is kinda fickled. Ya think?

You obviously haven't driven both cars....maybe haven't even sat in both cars....

The 300C has WAY more of a "sense of occasion" when you sit inside it than STS....and that comes from the style of the interior, the gauges, the materials, seats, everything.

AND the STS is no more refined than the 300C.....you'd see that if you have driven them both.

It's certainly worked for Chrysler in the marketplace.....I would say much more than STS has for Cadillac.

[The O.C.]

TELL YOUR FRIEND HE'S A G*DDAMN MORON and show him the STSv, CTSv and XLRv.......

or is he just afraid the Cadillac is not gonna get him the p*ssy / laid that an import car would.......

.....uh...he's GAY.....

LOL

And he's not a "moron."

He's just an example of one of MILLIONS in this country that (unfortunately) agree with him.

[haypops]

The 300C is about size, and in your face size and with the V8 it's about pure horsepower. The STS is much more refined.

It's all about size? The STS and the 300 weigh the same and are the same length.

[regfootball]

.....uh...he's GAY.....

LOL

And he's not a "moron."

He's just an example of one of MILLIONS in this country that (unfortunately) agree with him.

sorry, but someone who outright excludes from consideration a maker that sells cars like the CTS, STS/v, CTSv and XLR/v is really being a MORON

[Cadillacfan]

What about Corvette? Doesn't seem like an economy class car to me.

Compared to other cars in it's class, it's the cheapest car.

Also, for years.. many consider the Corvette to be a separate entity from Chevrolet even though it is under the same brand.

The corvette is the exception to the path of Chevrolet and always has been.

[PurdueGuy]

Not to mention I guess no one can say how well Saturn's brand image is, because you can't be around millions of people to tell and who you're around will influence your thoughts of its image.. For example if you're around people who don't like it, you're going to think no one likes it, but at the same time if you're around people who like it and own it you're going to think people have a good view of them.

Funny, I've been saying that you have an incomplete/biased perception of Saturn's image, and you've fought me tooth & nail on the point. Then you say this.

I'm not saying everyone loves Saturn. I know there are a lot of people who have had Saturns (partucularly S-Series cars that have been abused & not held up well to it), and think they're total crap. I know they're generally not respected for performance folk. I also know a whole lot of people across a wide spread age group that DO like the cars, and I've gotten unsolicited complements on mine.

[Guest flowmotion]

Cadillac was designed and advertised as an "old man's car" as little as five years ago.

While they've done wonders, there's only so much that one generation of product, and one advertising campaign can do. I don't expect Caddy to be fully rehabilitated (ie, equal to Lexus or Mercedes) in the minds of consumers for another two product cycles -- if GM executes, which is a big ASSumption. Anyway, people are claiming premature victory for Cadillac -- they still have a ways to go.

Saturn, I don't think has this problem. They can rehabilitate their image with one generation of product. There's nothing really wrong with their image -- they just need the product to back it up.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I *still* don't think Cadillac is that bad off as the very word itself has ALWAYS been connotated with quality. But, I agree they do need MORE and I think GM will deliver.

It's not a premature victory... Cadillac HAS been revived, the battle has been won. The question is; how will the WAR turn out.

[turbo200]

I *still* don't think Cadillac is that bad off as the very word itself has ALWAYS been connotated with quality. But, I agree they do need MORE and I think GM will deliver.

It's not a premature victory... Cadillac HAS been revived, the battle has been won. The question is; how will the WAR turn out.

you're right, because of Cadillac's stature in the automotive landscape, and despite thier many fumbles, they were clearly in a better position than Buick and Pontiac are in now.

[ellives]

Corvette's are not "cheap" cars. It is *probably* the "least expensive" product in it's class but it's not "cheap."

Who cares what "many" have "for year" done? The point is still the same. Why does the Corvette not belong with Pontiac as the "excitement" division for example?

Don't you just love the "because it's always been that way" argument?

Compared to other cars in it's class, it's the cheapest car.

Also, for years.. many consider the Corvette to be a separate entity from Chevrolet even though it is under the same brand.

The corvette is the exception to the path of Chevrolet and always has been.

[ellives]

More rubbish. Cadillac was considered an "old main's car" for a number of reasons but certainly not because they were designed to be. I agree with your timing though which I mentioned in a recent post. Strange how soon people forget it wasn't long ago Cadillac was considered a dead division. It's all about the product.

Cadillac was designed and advertised as an "old man's car" as little as five years ago.

While they've done wonders, there's only so much that one generation of product, and one advertising campaign can do. I don't expect Caddy to be fully rehabilitated (ie, equal to Lexus or Mercedes) in the minds of consumers for another two product cycles -- if GM executes, which is a big ASSumption. Anyway, people are claiming premature victory for Cadillac -- they still have a ways to go.

Saturn, I don't think has this problem. They can rehabilitate their image with one generation of product. There's nothing really wrong with their image -- they just need the product to back it up.

[Cory Wolfe]

See... THIS is the very ESSENCE of General Motors and WHY their divisions have SUCH potential if used right...

GM doesn't HAVE to worry about broadening 3 divisions of vehicles to appeal to an ever widening, ever diversifying marketplace...

GM CAN focus Buick AWAY from your tastes because they HAVE another division that WILL appeal to your tastes....

If GM could spread it's divisions out to where they covered the ENTIRE market with SPECIFIC, focused, quality offerings, then their 8 divisions would turn from a liability into an asset over night IMO.

***Not picking on you at all CaddyXLR-V I just think you hit on an excellent point***

I agree about the perception part....

Exactly. This is the appeal of GM, yet it doesn't capitalize on it. That is the problem.

Corvette's are not "cheap" cars. It is *probably* the "least expensive" product in it's class but it's not "cheap."

Who cares what "many" have "for year" done? The point is still the same. Why does the Corvette not belong with Pontiac as the "excitement" division for example?

Don't you just love the "because it's always been that way" argument?

Again, the same thing. That's an example of GM not capitalizing on this. We have Chevy with a high performance car, a performance coupe coming, and a performance oriented compact. Then we have Pontiac with a rebadged mediocre ho-hum minivan, a rebadged average ho-hum SUV, a rebodied Toyota, and no performance trim on the best seller. That and the only RWD vehicles are niches? I just don't get GM. One brand is supposed to be one thing while others are supposed to be another. Yet, in the end the brands competed with each other, whine about each other's existance, and sometimes have controll over what each other get?

I'm not necessarily against any brand, but something needs to change about that, IMO.

[El Scorcho]

Exactly. This is the appeal of GM, yet it doesn't capitalize on it. That is the problem.

Again, the same thing. That's an example of GM not capitalizing on this. We have Chevy with a high performance car, a performance coupe coming, and a performance oriented compact. Then we have Pontiac with a rebadged mediocre ho-hum minivan, a rebadged average ho-hum SUV, a rebodied Toyota, and no performance trim on the best seller. That and the only RWD vehicles are niches? I just don't get GM. One brand is supposed to be one thing while others are supposed to be another. Yet, in the end the brands competed with each other, whine about each other's existance, and sometimes have controll over what each other get?

I'm not necessarily against any brand, but something needs to change about that, IMO.

[sciguy_0504]

Me, too.

[Guest flowmotion]

I *still* don't think Cadillac is that bad off as the very word itself has ALWAYS been connotated with quality. But, I agree they do need MORE and I think GM will deliver.

It's not a premature victory... Cadillac HAS been revived, the battle has been won. The question is; how will the WAR turn out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree that things were never "that bad" for Cadillac, but you are kidding yourself if you believe that Caddy has the same reputation level as European and Japanese luxury brands. Currently Cadillac is not the "Standard of The World", and Cadillac is not the "Cadillac" of automobiles. Close, but not quite.

This reputation gap is clearly indicated in the MSRPs. If Caddy had the reputation, tney would be priced the same.

More rubbish. Cadillac was considered an "old main's car" for a number of reasons but certainly not because they were designed to be.

You could argue that they started their comeback 15 years ago with the STS, but the reality is that the showrooms were filled with DeVilles until last year. Caddy's traditional bastardized psuedo-1960s-retro styling just screams "old man". It's going to take a long time (10-20 years) to get away from that reuptation.

[Guest flowmotion]

Exactly. This is the appeal of GM, yet it doesn't capitalize on it. That is the problem.

Again, the same thing. That's an example of GM not capitalizing on this.  ...

I'm not necessarily against any brand, but something needs to change about that, IMO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

GM's fundamental problem is that they have TOO MANY cars. They don't have the resources to release new models quickly enough. They can't afford proper marketing support for all their vehicles.

So while having lots of divisions *should* be a strength, the fact is that GM can't afford them, which makes 8 divisions a huge WEAKNESS.

GM: Three versions of a car, on the market for eight years -- advertising split 3 ways. Demand eventually dies off.

Toyota/Honda: One version of a car, refreshed every 3 years -- heavily advertised. Demand increases.

(Yeah, I know Toyota/Honda do brandjobs as well, but they don't sacrifice the core product to do so.)

Until GM comes up witha long-term fix for this problem, there's always going to be two or three divisions that are getting the shaft. Five years ago it was Saturn and Saab. Then they dump money into those brands and Buick and Pontiac get screwed. In a few years they'll "revive" Buick/Pontiac and Caddy/Chevy will get cutback. It's just musical chairs, there's no plan.

Edited February 25, 2006 by flowmotion

[ellives]

I think you hit the nail on the head. There's no plan. In business "the plan" is everything and it can't be the "plan of the month" club. The thing that is totally amazing to me is the full knowledge both Ford and GM have been riding the big SUV gravy train when the only direction for gas prices was up. When this happens (happened) the market for their flagship stuff evaporated - thus the crisis.

They should have been thinking about how to get themselves back into the small car market in a big way. (I'm not sure they were EVER in this market.) This lack of any strategy in this market segment and the thinking that they "had" to abandon the small car market because they couldn't make enough money in the segment has killed the company.

Now they are going to continue the "death by 1000 cuts" approach to staying in business. They don't and won't have the courage to do the right thing and take aggressive action to fix things. At least this is my opinion and I hope I'm wrong but of course time will tell.

GM's fundamental problem is that they have TOO MANY cars. They don't have the resources to release new models quickly enough. They can't afford proper marketing support for all their vehicles.

So while having lots of divisions *should* be a strength, the fact is that GM can't afford them, which makes 8 divisions a huge WEAKNESS.

GM: Three versions of a car, on the market for eight years -- advertising split 3 ways. Demand eventually dies off.

Toyota/Honda: One version of a car, refreshed every 3 years -- heavily advertised. Demand increases.

(Yeah, I know Toyota/Honda do brandjobs as well, but they don't sacrifice the core product to do so.)

Until GM comes up witha long-term fix for this problem, there's always going to be two or three divisions that are getting the shaft. Five years ago it was Saturn and Saab. Then they dump money into those brands and Buick and Pontiac get screwed. In a few years they'll "revive" Buick/Pontiac and Caddy/Chevy will get cutback. It's just musical chairs, there's no plan.

[Guest flowmotion]

Small cars are the least of their problems at this point. GM faces serious problems in the midsized and large car markets. While they weren't looking, the Camry and Avalon have directly targeted the center of GM's core product. 10 years ago that would have been unthinkable. They need to be very very worried.

I believe that GM is taking their last shot at their tradtional "Division" marketing strategy. If this doesn't work, everyone here should expect massive slash-n-burn brand-consolidation and shutdowns. If you are a particular fan of one of GM's classic brands, you probably won't be happy with the future.

Currently GM has about 70-80 models (I believe) -- They either need to start growing share rapidly, or they will be forced to get down to around half that number.

Edited February 25, 2006 by flowmotion

[ellives]

I think they were looking. They just weren't doing anything about it.

It's not clear to me why they'd give one last "shot" at the divisional approach. It's clear the approach hasn't worked. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. You can't keep tweaking knobs in the engine room of a sinking ship and expect to save the passengers.

They should be making sweeping internal changes now. You'd think with the number of employees they have, they'd have analysts doing all kinds of calculations to determine the outcome of every potential scenario and pick the most palatable path. None of them will be exciting but it's clear big changes need to be made.

Their current behavior is what I used to call the "Allah" approach before it became politically incorrect to say so. What I meant is along the lines of "if we can just eek by with this approach, eventually Allah will save us." This is a foolhardy approach of course. Any company needs to lay out a plan that focuses on a specific end result and execute it. If the results aren't what you expect, you fire and replace those responsible for the plan. Eventually you figure out the recipe and all is well.

Small cars are the least of their problems at this point. GM faces serious problems in the midsized and large car markets. While they weren't looking, the Camry and Avalon have directly targeted the center of GM's core product. 10 years ago that would have been unthinkable. They need to be very very worried.

I believe that GM is taking their last shot at their tradtional "Division" marketing strategy. If this doesn't work, everyone here should expect massive slash-n-burn brand-consolidation and shutdowns. If you are a particular fan of one of GM's classic brands, you probably won't be happy with the future.

Currently GM has about 70-80 models (I believe) -- They either need to start growing share rapidly, or they will be forced to get down to around half that number.

[Cadillacfan]

Corvette's are not "cheap" cars. It is *probably* the "least expensive" product in it's class but it's not "cheap."

Who cares what "many" have "for year" done? The point is still the same. Why does the Corvette not belong with Pontiac as the "excitement" division for example?

Don't you just love the "because it's always been that way" argument?

By cheap.. I don't mean as in cheaply made. Far from it. But when you compare other cars in it's class (viper, porsche, etc.) , it is the cheapest you could buy but it also happens to be the best bang for your buck. Prove me wrong if you can.

The Corvette itself, is very different from the Chevy brand and always has been to the point where it shares nothing (platform, styling) with the other cars. I don't know why.. but that's the case. I'm not making an argument.. I'm just stating the truth.

Why does the Corvette not belong with Pontiac as the "excitement" division for example?

The reason why the Corvette doesn't move to the pontiac brand is the same reason why Saab fans complain when GM develops an SUV or an AWD vehicle for the brand or why people loyal to Cadillac complain about a rebadge Cavalier...Those vehicles aren't true to each brand's heritage. People are concerned about brand history more then anything. You may not be.. but there are a lot of people out there who are especially on this site.

oh.. and when you call other people's opinion's rubbish like you did with Flowmotion's post, that can be considered by some as disrespectful.

[Guest flowmotion]

The problem is paralysis through internal politics. Every "Division" has their own constituency in GM, dealer network, etc. Always someone bitching about someone getting a car or not getting a car. Any substantial move would cost billions of dollars. What they did with Olds was just a complete clusterf@#k. Nobody has any confidence that GM could execute on such a plan. What to do, what to do.

For example: Emotionally, I think Pontiac is useless. Tacky faux-sporty plasticmobiles. My kneejerk reaction woud be to scale back Pontiac to two cars -- Solstice and RWD "G8", just to get people into the Buick dealer. But in reality, Pontiac moves a ton of vehicles and doing anything would be risking hundreds of thousands of sales.

So the "Allah" approach is right on. Only I think that Allah is going to have to save them, cuz nobody else will.

Edited February 25, 2006 by flowmotion

[haypops]

Flowmotion: What is wrong with the Buick-Pontiac-GMC sales channel idea? Of course it needs more time to be fully implemented, but it seems a good compromise to me. Also I notice people here are "slaves" to the divison tag lines such as Pontiac's "excitement division" and Saturn's "import fighter". I think these are just useless commercials not true brand characters. Does GM fall into the mistake of believing their own hype with regards to this.

[Cory Wolfe]

GM's fundamental problem is that they have TOO MANY cars. They don't have the resources to release new models quickly enough. They can't afford proper marketing support for all their vehicles.

So while having lots of divisions *should* be a strength, the fact is that GM can't afford them, which makes 8 divisions a huge WEAKNESS.

GM: Three versions of a car, on the market for eight years -- advertising split 3 ways. Demand eventually dies off.

Toyota/Honda: One version of a car, refreshed every 3 years -- heavily advertised. Demand increases.

(Yeah, I know Toyota/Honda do brandjobs as well, but they don't sacrifice the core product to do so.)

Until GM comes up witha long-term fix for this problem, there's always going to be two or three divisions that are getting the shaft. Five years ago it was Saturn and Saab. Then they dump money into those brands and Buick and Pontiac get screwed. In a few years they'll "revive" Buick/Pontiac and Caddy/Chevy will get cutback. It's just musical chairs, there's no plan.

I do agree that GM has too many vehicles. Also that GM has too many brands as well. GM needs to change that and what I mentioned. GM isn't very efficient either. Another thing that needs to change. Once... well, if... all that changes, GM wouldn't have a problem with lacking the resources.

For example: Emotionally, I think Pontiac is useless. Tacky faux-sporty plasticmobiles. My kneejerk reaction woud be to scale back Pontiac to two cars -- Solstice and RWD "G8", just to get people into the Buick dealer. But in reality, Pontiac moves a ton of vehicles and doing anything would be risking hundreds of thousands of sales.

[ellives]

I don't see people being "slaves to the division" so much as we're trying to grapple with the reason for the multiple divisions to exist. If we as GM enthusiasts can't understand there's no chance the general buying public will. Even your statement "useless commercials" backs up this thinking. If you don't buy the "excitement division" then we REALLy need to ask why Pontiac exists.

Flowmotion:  What is wrong with the Buick-Pontiac-GMC sales channel idea?  Of course it needs more time to be fully implemented, but it seems a good compromise to me.  Also I notice people here are "slaves" to the divison  tag lines such as Pontiac's "excitement division" and Saturn's  "import fighter".  I think these are just useless commercials not true brand characters.  Does GM fall into the mistake of believing their own hype with regards to this.

Edited February 26, 2006 by ellives

[ellives]

No offense intended. The intention is to simply vehemently disagree. Flowmotion is free to call me out if he feels I was out of line.

By cheap.. I don't mean as in cheaply made.  Far from it.  But when you compare other cars in it's class (viper, porsche, etc.) , it is the cheapest you could buy but it also happens to be the best bang for your buck.  Prove me wrong if you can.

 

The Corvette itself, is very different from the Chevy brand and always has been to the point where it shares nothing (platform, styling) with the other cars.  I don't know why.. but that's the case.  I'm not making an argument.. I'm just stating the truth.

The reason why the Corvette doesn't move to the pontiac brand is the same reason why Saab fans complain when GM develops an SUV or an AWD vehicle for the brand or why people loyal to Cadillac complain about a rebadge Cavalier...Those vehicles aren't true to each brand's heritage.  People are concerned about brand history more then anything.  You may not be.. but there are a lot of people out there who are especially on this site.

oh.. and when you call other people's opinion's rubbish like you did with Flowmotion's post, that can be considered by some as disrespectful.

Edited February 26, 2006 by ellives

[Guest flowmotion]

Flowmotion:  What is wrong with the Buick-Pontiac-GMC sales channel idea? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean other than the copious rebadging, old streched-out platforms, and ancient engines and transmissions?

No, the big problem with BPG is that they haven't defined where Pontiac stops and Buick starts. If they are just going to keep all the same duplicate model lines, there was no point in merging the sales channels.

I think these are just useless commercials not true brand characters. Does GM fall into the mistake of believing their own hype with regards to this.

I think this completely true. GM has fallen into a trap where all Pontiacs must have the same identical faux-sporty look and drive a certain way, and all Buicks have to the same identical 1990 Park Avenue look and drive another way, etc etc. This is purely for screwed-up internal political reasons -- because ultimately the consumer doesn't really care about GM Brand Identity and just wants a good car.

No offense intended. The intention is to simply vehemently disagree. Flowmotion is free to call me out if he feels I as out of line.

Yup and Done. I can take care of myself.

[The O.C.]

It's interesting to note that Corvette isn't even branded under the "Chevrolet" banner in Europe....

It's simply branded a "Corvette" and is sold alongside Cadillacs in shared showrooms.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

No, the big problem with BPG is that they haven't defined where Pontiac stops and Buick starts. If they are just going to keep all the same duplicate model lines, there was no point in merging the sales channels.

I think that is a VERY good point.

[haypops]

I think that is a VERY good point.

Perhaps I am too much the optimist, but I think that with time any model overlap will be solved. Its been only a short time that this sales oultet was common knoweldge and not completely implemented (still some stand alone dealers) yet.

[ellives]

Having this happen could work over time. Having the channels together would eventually get the buying public to learn it. Once this happened GM could easily decide to kill divisions and/or merge them or whatever without killing dealerships.

Perhaps I am too much the optimist, but I think that with time any model overlap will be solved.  Its been only a short time that this sales oultet was common knoweldge and not completely implemented (still some stand alone dealers) yet.

[MyerShift]

I don't believe that killing Saturn (say, instead of Olds in comparison) would cost nearly as much as some say because Saturn didn't sell that many cars, so had (has?) fewer loyalists to win back with another brand. As an example, domestic automobile dealers are in far more towns/cities than imports are. Here in Coldwater, MI there is a Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep dealer, a Chevrolet/Cadillac dealer, and a Buick/Pontiac/GMC/(Olds) dealer. Saturn is the only American brand that is not widespread, so closing down fewer dealerships would technically cost less.

Buick/Pontiac should be complaining more than Chevrolet. They keep getting cut and reduced. Squeeze the pennies too hard and something will break.

I think Buick needs all the attention General Motors can give it. It actually has histroy, like Olds did and Pontiac does. Olds was the first American automaker to celebrate its centennial.

In the Chrysler realm, they desperately need Plymouth as Chrysler attempts to move upmarket. Plymouth could be the affordable value leader, Dodge in the middle, Chrysler to the top.

[ellives]

Plymouth is already gone.

I don't believe that killing Saturn (say, instead of Olds in comparison) would cost nearly as much as some say because Saturn didn't sell that many cars, so had (has?) fewer loyalists to win back with another brand. As an example, domestic automobile dealers are in far more towns/cities than imports are. Here in Coldwater, MI there is a Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep dealer, a Chevrolet/Cadillac dealer, and a Buick/Pontiac/GMC/(Olds) dealer. Saturn is the only American brand that is not widespread, so closing down fewer dealerships would technically cost less.

Buick/Pontiac should be complaining more than Chevrolet. They keep getting cut and reduced. Squeeze the pennies too hard and something will break.

I think Buick needs all the attention General Motors can give it. It actually has histroy, like Olds did and Pontiac does. Olds was the first American automaker to celebrate its centennial.

In the Chrysler realm, they desperately need Plymouth as Chrysler attempts to move upmarket. Plymouth could be the affordable value leader, Dodge in the middle, Chrysler to the top.

[haypops]

. Saturn is the only American brand that is not widespread, so closing down fewer dealerships would technically cost less.

while I agree that the much fewer number of Saturn dealers would lower costs, the fact that these are all stand alone dealerships and that they have a higher profitability than other GM dealerships, would raise the costs of killing Saturn.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I think Buick needs all the attention General Motors can give it. It actually has histroy, like Olds did and Pontiac does. Olds was the first American automaker to celebrate its centennial.

Unfortunately that history has been twisted into a pile of REGRETS for most americans instead of the amazing story it is, by those who TOLD them domestics suck.

[ToniCipriani]

while I agree that the much fewer number of Saturn dealers would lower costs, the fact that these are all stand alone dealerships and that they have a higher  profitability than other GM dealerships, would raise the costs of killing Saturn.

Actually from what I see Saturn has developed a pretty good customer base, thanks to it's pairing up with Saab. People usually get a Saab, then a Saturn as a second car. My ex-boss just told me he traded his L-Series for a Relay, to compliment his primary car, a 9-3.

I wonder if Saab and Saturn are paired up in the States like here. Because that can essentially be GM's "Euro" division, given that Saturn is now moving towards Opel cars.

[haypops]

All saturn dealers in the U.S. are stand alone. In Canada, in the past, Saturn was paired with Isuzu and Saab. Another difference between CAnada and the U.S. is that in Canada the dealers accept GM card rebates, but in the uNited States Saturn dealers do not.

[Flybrian]

Saturn, Izuzu and Saab sounds like kind of a nonsensical pairing. The again, so does Buick, Pontiac and GMC.

Actually, B-P-GMC makes a whole lot of sense. Chevrolet is your basic whatever car and truck, Cadillac is high-end luxury.

Pontiac offers more focused and refined performance that you get with SS-trim Chevies, GMC offers the extra touch of class and luxury accruments a step above Chevy, and Buick is traditional American luxury without the high price.

SAAB fits in with Buick or Cadillac where the market deems it appropriate. SAAB-Buick pairings seem more ideal, though.

[regfootball]

Saturns are usually stand-alone dealerships here in Minnesota. I think there is only on Saturn dealership in Minnesota, but I'll have to check.

there's more like 8 saturn dealers in the twin cities.