Jump to content
News
Reviews
Discussons
Activity
Create New...
Close

SATURN AURA RADIATES STYLE, REFINEMENT

Northstar
 Share

Recommended Posts

Bimmer325 Newbie

Bimmer325

Posted
Posted

Once again, real-life photos look infinitely better than GM photography.

  • Replies 252
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

pow Newbie

pow

Posted
Posted

Don't be ridiculous; they share the same engineering & quality control departments. ;)

Then by that same assumption, all new GM cars are POSs because their previous cars were. Or not. That's probably why I don't buy a car based on perceived reliability, as experiences always vary.

The O.C. Newbie

The O.C.

Posted
Posted

My overall opinion after thinking about it a few days is that the AURA is a nice-looking midsize sedan with a very competitive top-level powertrain.

However, it's interior is at best adequate, it's base powertrain is woefully inadequate from a competitive standpoint, fuel economy is unimpressive, and the car is ridiculously heavy for the size of car it is.....which does NOT bode well for a superior ride-and-handling setup.

AURA is attractive but absolutely no standout in what is arguably the most important car segment out there...

It's NOT what GM needs.....they needed much better.

frogger Newbie

frogger

Posted
Posted (edited)

All that chrome is making me think its a buick not a car aimed at people who prefer import style vehicles. Somehow it doesn't work on it like it does the 300.

Also, if it has craptastic Goodyear Eagle LS tires, those will be the weakest point in the suspension.

Edited by frogger
Angry Dad Newbie

Angry Dad

Posted
Posted

My overall opinion after thinking about it a few days is that the AURA is a nice-looking midsize sedan with a very competitive top-level powertrain.

However, it's interior is at best adequate, it's base powertrain is woefully inadequate from a competitive standpoint, fuel economy is unimpressive, and the car is ridiculously heavy for the size of car it is.....which does NOT bode well for a superior ride-and-handling setup.

AURA is attractive but absolutely no standout in what is arguably the most important car segment out there...

It's NOT what GM needs.....they needed much better.

Nobody here has touched the car. That may be the only statement based in fact around here, the rest is BS.

Could be worse, go look at the Camry. Now there's a hideous car with a better reputation than reality. BTW, I couldn't disagree about base power more. Considering how wrong this and other forums were about Aura last week, not much more needs to be said. The net seems to be the place for bias to poison the wells.

CreativeVision Newbie

CreativeVision

Posted
Posted

I do agree it blows the Camry away in styling...but I don't quite get it yet. Some photos make it look really good, but others it looks like GM did a refresh for the current Sebring and used a Honda Civic chrome grill bar. I've said this in a previous post, but I have to say it again....Why do we have to keep looking at it in this Grey color? Its the same Sh*t we've seen since the concept first debuted. C'mon give me some real colors to make this car POP. It just looks so boring and bland. I've seen only 2 shots now of a Red one, but they were of the front end and interior. Where are the other pictures of the side profile and 3/4 views in this color.

Same goes for the Outlook. Need to see some real colors...Ugh!

Polish_Kris Newbie

Polish_Kris

Posted
Posted

Not bad, but it's like 2000 all over again and the intro of the new Sebring sedan...for gosh sake, the wheel arches, the wheel design, the body, and even (from the looks of it) some of the interior materials are the same... :huh:

Between this and the Outlook, I'm pretty underwhelmed...but the Outlook at least fills a niche in the market that no one has touched successfully yet--a large crossover with an ACTUAL 3rd row AND cargo space, not to mention a decent sounding OHC powerplant and trans from this century.

The Aura is just seeming like a 6 year old sedan to me, that happens to have one of GM's fresher powertrains available in it...all together with an interesting interior color choice (FINALLY) and some G6 parts (the rattly Panoramic roof).

Oh well... <_<

Lutz is turning GM into the Chrysler of the 90's.

Polish_Kris Newbie

Polish_Kris

Posted
Posted

You know... I've actually thought that a few times. :lol:

Next thing you know, there's going to be big news "Ladies and Gentlemen, introducing the all-new 2010 Chevrolet Durango"

:nono:

Mr.Krinkle Newbie

Mr.Krinkle

Posted
Posted

Next thing you know, there's going to be big news "Ladies and Gentlemen, introducing the all-new 2010 Chevrolet Durango"

:nono:

i think thats supposed to be funny.

crickets and tumbleweeds, crickets ehh,

nevermind.

you know what else i just noticed...they have four wheels and a motor.

that lutz is a genius.

Intrepidation

Intrepidation

Posted
Posted

i think thats supposed to be funny. 

crickets and tumbleweeds, crickets ehh,

nevermind.

you know what else i just noticed...they have four wheels and a motor.

that lutz is a genius.

No...freakin...way.... four wheels and an engine?! Holy Crap! He is a genius!

:P

Paolino Apprentice

Paolino

Posted
Posted

You can't really tell that by looking at the pics, gotta sit in it to judge.

Is it me, or does the gap on the lower center stack below the HVAC controls seem large?
Ravenfreak13 Newbie

Ravenfreak13

Posted
Posted

Is it me, or does the gap on the lower center stack below the HVAC controls seem large?

You people are just too much...it aint a bentley people..its a saturn..these new models are heaven compared to rattly older saturns. The Aura is a $20,000 car...mid market...nothing more
Paolino Apprentice

Paolino

Posted
Posted

You people are just too much...it aint a bentley people..its a saturn..these new models are heaven compared to rattly older saturns. The Aura is a $20,000 car...mid market...nothing more

You're kidding me right? First of all, base price is going to start around that... and go up to about $30,000. Secondly, I believe it's been very well established that the midsize sedan market is cut-throat. So pardon me for paying attention to details that others will pick on.

Oh, and it's attitudes like that, that have people put out mediocre cars. Kinda like the LaCrosse--well, it's heaven compared to the Century and Regal it replaces.... but then what happened? People weren't that impressed.

Ravenfreak13 Newbie

Ravenfreak13

Posted
Posted

You're kidding me right?  First of all, base price is going to start around that... and go up to about $30,000.  Secondly, I believe it's been very well established that the midsize sedan market is cut-throat.  So pardon me for paying attention to details that others will pick on.

Oh, and it's attitudes like that, that have people put out mediocre cars.  Kinda like the LaCrosse--well, it's heaven compared to the Century and Regal it replaces.... but then what happened?  People weren't that impressed.

People arent put out on the LaCrosse....Buick has the ols people image therefore only appealing to old people...my expectations were far surpassed with saturn recently...im used to the entry level budget car...not the upscale design that has a chance of competing car.
Intrepidation

Intrepidation

Posted
Posted

Looking at it, I guess the STack isn't so bad. After all, even Audi doesn't integrate the stereo/climate controls the way Toyota or NIssan do. ALthough the quality of the materials is great onthose things too. Also, automotive reviews rarely single out the fact that the controls are or aren't integrated, they complain or comment on how nice the design of the unit is, and more so how ergonomic they are and the quality of those controls. Edmunds for example has no complaints about GM's most recent corporate stero unit.

However what does irritate the hell out of me is how the center stack doesn't look symmetrical as it flows into the console.

RBB Newbie

RBB

Posted
Posted

Interesting, according to Motor Trend, the Aura is built off teh Epsilon II platform, I didn't realize it was on the new version.

Consider the source. It's not.

-RBB

gmhashope Newbie

gmhashope

Posted
Posted

Interesting, according to Motor Trend, the Aura is built off teh Epsilon II platform, I didn't realize it was on the new version.

Nope, it's on Epsilon. According to MT Auto Show coverage, the Outlook is on the Theta platform. :duh:

The only thing I don't like on the Aura is the 14 spoke wheels. Saturn should have just downsized the concept wheels for the XR. I think I'm gonna buy the XE just because I can't stand the XR's wheels.

sciguy_0504 Newbie

sciguy_0504

Posted
Posted

At least the steering wheel controls are symetrical....unlike some other #1 selling 2007 sedans out there *coughcamrycough*

The steering wheel controls are not similar on all Camry's because a lower-level Camry will not have the same features and gadgets of an upper-level Camry, which requires more steering wheel controls. So, to smartly cut costs, Toyota places the controls that every Camry steering wheel will have one side while placing the extra controls on the other.

turbo200 Newbie

turbo200

Posted
Posted

The steering wheel controls are not similar on all Camry's because a lower-level Camry will not have the same features and gadgets of an upper-level Camry, which requires more steering wheel controls.  So, to smartly cut costs, Toyota places the controls that every Camry steering wheel will have one side while placing the extra controls on the other.

you are right. so everyone on c&G who previously used this excuse no longer can. i'm lookin at you fly
Robert Hall Veteran

Robert Hall

Posted
Posted (edited)

Side note: I don't get the fixation everyone has with interiors.

It's simple...as an owner/driver of a car, the interior is where you spend all your time..I don't care how good looking the exterior is, if I'm not happy with the interior (looks, fit and finish, quality of materials, comfort, ergonomics, features), I'm not happy with the car...I'm sure a lot of buyers feel the same way...

Edited by moltar
Paolino Apprentice

Paolino

Posted
Posted

It's simple...as an owner/driver of a car, the interior is where you spend all your time..I don't care how good looking the exterior is, if I'm not happy with the interior, I'm not happy with the car...I'm sure a lot of buyers feel the same way...

That's exactly how I feel.
Drew Dowdell Grand Master

Drew Dowdell

Posted
Posted

It seems though that people are more interested in the fluff of an interior rather then the functionality and ergonomics of the interior. Sure they'll complain if the interior is uncomfortable, but if it looks good they'll sometimes overlook that.

knock them all you want, but the W-body Cutlass, Intrigue, Regals and Grand Prix, were the most comfortable cars I've driven. The CTS is way up there to.

When I sit in a W-body or a Sigma, everything just fits. The controls are all easy to reach. The headliner is mouse fur? What does it matter, I'm not looking at it while I'm driving.

The radio is "GM green"? Ok? So what? They were easy to read 20 years ago and they're still easy to read today.

The dashboard is hard? I'll write a complaint letter after the next time I sleep on it.

Cars that I've found issues with that the interiors are usually praised:

The Civic:

1. No I don't like riding with my knees up my nose.

2. Why did you put the cruise controll off switch on the left side, away from the rest of the cruise controll buttons?

3. Why did you not put the sun roof switch in the center where the passenger might also reach it?

The Passat, my partner and I currently own one:

1. What were you thinking with that cup holder placement?.... really, you put it directly over the cigarette lighter, and right in front of the shifter.

2. The lever for the parking brake. Who's idea was it to make it so it hits the armrest when engaged.

BMW

1. iDrive

Toyota

1. Where did you get that clock.... Big Lots?

Notice that none of my complaints are asthetic. To me, a interior can be great looking, but if it doesn't work functionally, it loses me. I much rather mouse fur and a hard dash in an interior that is functional and comfortable. Then a pretty looking one that is neither.

There are interiors that are both:

Aurora

Audi A6

GTO

BMWs without iDrive

Ravenfreak13 Newbie

Ravenfreak13

Posted
Posted

It seems though that people are more interested in the fluff of an interior rather then the functionality and ergonomics of the interior. Sure they'll complain if the interior is uncomfortable, but if it looks good they'll sometimes overlook that.

knock them all you want, but the W-body Cutlass, Intrigue, Regals and Grand Prix, were the most comfortable cars I've driven.  The CTS is way up there to.

When I sit in a W-body or a Sigma, everything just fits.  The controls are all easy to reach. The headliner is mouse fur?  What does it matter, I'm not looking at it while I'm driving.

The radio is "GM green"? Ok? So what? They were easy to read 20 years ago and they're still easy to read today.

The dashboard is hard?  I'll write a complaint letter after the next time I sleep on it.

Cars that I've found issues with that the interiors are usually praised:

The Civic:

1. No I don't like riding with my knees up my nose.

2. Why did you put the cruise controll off switch on the left side, away from the rest of the cruise controll buttons?

3. Why did you not put the sun roof switch in the center where the passenger might also reach it?

The Passat, my partner and I currently own one:

1. What were you thinking with that cup holder placement?.... really, you put it directly over the cigarette lighter, and right in front of the shifter.

2. The lever for the parking brake. Who's idea was it to make it so it hits the armrest when engaged.

BMW

1. iDrive

Toyota

1. Where did you get that clock.... Big Lots? 

Notice that none of my complaints are asthetic. To me, a interior can be great looking, but if it doesn't work functionally, it loses me. I much rather mouse fur and a hard dash in an interior that is functional and comfortable. Then a pretty looking one that is neither.

There are interiors that are both:

Aurora

Audi A6

GTO

BMWs without iDrive

Exactly...As long as everything works well...then were good...No one is not gonna buy a car because their is a 2 mm gap under the center stack...or if the radio screen is green...o well...thats life...if you want the perfect car...go build one
Flybrian Newbie

Flybrian

Posted
Posted

you are right. so everyone on c&G who previously used this excuse no longer can. i'm lookin at you fly

What excuse? I think I even mentioned once it looks 'cheap'...this merely confirms its done on the cheap. And I recognize higher trims have a symmetrical steering wheel layout, but they still look cheap on the lower-line versions. And, yes, I'm aware GM does it too and it looks cheap still.

Its a step above these 'blanks' Koreans are so fond of using even in faux-luxury cars like the Amanti and Azera.

And Oldsmoboi is spot on. There can be a beautiful interior and a real ergonomically-functional interior. Its rare that a manufacturer designs both in one car. And frankly, I'll take some cheap plastics for unobstructive cupholders, intelligently-desinged radio/HVAC controls, and an all-around comfortable layout.

Intrepidation

Intrepidation

Posted
Posted

How much do you guys think the hybrid model will be...since Saturn made the Vue's system under $2000. Then I'll wait instead of buying the altima hybrid this summer.

Depends on if it's mild hybrid or Full Hybrid (like what's gonna be in the new Tahoe)

Paolino Apprentice

Paolino

Posted
Posted

I just don't understand GMs thought process behind the black plastic surrounding the radio/HVAC units.

You know, because of the lighting, the HVAC, Radio and surround almost have a metallic look to them--I bet it would look so much better if it was metallic instead of black.
sciguy_0504 Newbie

sciguy_0504

Posted
Posted

Why does it have to be there, anyway? Just make the wood go right up against the controls, perhaps with a metallic edge trim? That is a nicer combination than the brown leather/brown wood we have seen, even though I love the leather.

BTW, what is the difference between a GM radio display and a Toyota clock that both look like they came from Big Lots?

turbo200 Newbie

turbo200

Posted
Posted

I also love the brown leather, just that it's a bad combination with the wood. This combo looks better, but there is just too much fake wood, and the integration of the radios/HVACs looks like a kid designed it, or someone really really cheap and stupid decided it should be that way. It looks retarded and unfinished, undeserving of the market this car is going for.

Intrepidation

Intrepidation

Posted
Posted

The Aura is going to be a mild hybrid. It will have the same system as the VUE (2.4 + BAS).

If that's the case, at least it won't be a huge premium like the Accord or Camry hybrids.

pow Newbie

pow

Posted
Posted

If that's the case, at least it won't be a huge premium like the Accord or Camry hybrids.

The Camry hybrid starts at $25,990... hope GM doesn't charge full-hybrid price for a mild-hybrid.

Northstar Newbie

Northstar

Posted
  • Author
Posted

If we knew what the Aura would start with with the 2.4, then we could add about $2k. Looking at the G6 for comparison, the Aura 2.4 would probably start around $18-19k, so that means the hybrid is probably going to be anywhere from $20-21k base and probably go up to $25k or so.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

I've whitelisted
Continue without support

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search