Sign In Join 

You are here: [F] Forums / Sedans / Saturn Aura / Saturn Aura



Saturn Aura

1463 messages,  Last post on Apr 20, 2009 at 6:09 AM

You are in the Saturn Aura Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Saturn Aura, Concept Cars


Messages Page 146 of 147
1
...
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#1444 of 1463
Re: 3.5 [vanman1] by oldcem
Apr 27, 2008 (7:20 pm)
Reply

Replying to: vanman1 (Apr 27, 2008 5:41 pm)

I disagree with you. I've put 3K miles on my 08 Aura 3.5 so far on business trips. The car gets the same fuel economy as a 4 banger, yet, has a decent performance level. I think Saturn is making a mistake by dropping this combo in 09. If they married the 6 speed automatic to the 3.5, it would do even better.
 
Regards:
Oldengineer
#1445 of 1463
Re: 3.5 [oldcem] by vanman1
May 04, 2008 (5:53 pm)
Reply

Replying to: oldcem (Apr 27, 2008 7:20 pm)

Perhaps, but 3 combos increase costs and GM needs to cut them desperately. I think most people are looking for a 4 these days anyway, even if the mileage numbers are mostly optics vs. the 3.5.
#1446 of 1463
Re: 3.5 [oldcem] by phaetondriver
May 05, 2008 (7:17 am)
Reply

Replying to: oldcem (Apr 27, 2008 7:20 pm)

If you ask me, and nobody did, I have to agree with terminating the 3.5.
GM could easily retune the 3.6 so it produced LESS H-P, duplicating the 3.5's H-P and torque. This would probably give slightly better MPG than the 3.5 does now and would keep production costs down.
Still gives the buyers what they want and eliminates one whole engine/trans choice.
Of course this will probably be the cause of 10,000 lost jobs shutting down an entire engine factory, but who cares about a few jobs as long as the stock holders are happy.
Oops, bad tangent, sorry.
 
so you could have a choice of 2.4L-140 H-P, 3.6-180 H-P and 3.6-250 H-P and 3.6-305 H-P (direct injected from Cady CTS )
Maybe add a 1.8 L-100 H-P with Electric Hybrid (hire back those 10,000 workers) but I think the Hybrid should be in the Astra size not the Aura size cars IMHO
#1447 of 1463
Re: Hope this helps people posting BAD reviews [bob919344] by dinof
May 05, 2008 (9:14 am)
Reply

Replying to: bob919344 (Apr 21, 2008 6:16 am)

You are correct in saying that the Saturn is a good buy for the money. However, they offer a new warranty attempting to show
that their product is just as good as higher priced brands.
However, they will not honor their warranty, as in the case of the
separating rocker panels................they simply get away with not
repairing the panels by declaring that they are a design/manufacturing DEFECT and therefore exempt from warranty coverage. In other words, the problem has to be called a REPAIR in order to qualify for warranty coverage.
#1448 of 1463
Re: 3.5 [phaetondriver] by drwilsc
May 05, 2008 (9:16 am)
Reply

Replying to: phaetondriver (May 05, 2008 7:17 am)

I, too, do not see the place for the 3.5. Many people are choosing the 4 cyl with today's fuel prices. Those who want the power of a V6 and can afford the gas will be more satisfied with the 3.6. The Malibu is doing just fine with no 3.5 L option.
#1449 of 1463
6-speed 2.4 by vanman1
Jun 11, 2008 (5:37 pm)
Reply
I was reading on the Saturn fans site the new 6-speed with the 2.4L boosts highway mileage to 33 mpg from 30, just about best in class (excluding the Malibu).
 
Seem like a great option in the $4 / gallon world we seem to have suddenly entered.
 
That said, I still want a 3.6 XR.
#1450 of 1463
Re: 3.5 [drwilsc] by oldcem
Jun 11, 2008 (8:13 pm)
Reply

Replying to: drwilsc (May 05, 2008 9:16 am)

I guess you don't live in a moutainous state like I do. The 4 cylinder cars I've owned (including Hondas) never did well on fuel economy or longevity. The 3.5 has enough HP so that it doesn't scream at high RPM much, and, its consistently giving me over 30 MPG on business trips. Adding a 6 speed automatic to the 3.5 would improve its EPA numbers , as well as its 0 - 60 numbers. I passed on Malibu because the 3.5 wasn't offered.
 
Regards:
OldCEM
#1451 of 1463
Re: 3.5 [oldcem] by drwilsc
Jun 12, 2008 (4:24 pm)
Reply

Replying to: oldcem (Jun 11, 2008 8:13 pm)

No I do not live in a mountainous state, but have visited them and I can imagine a 4 banger not being much fun. Still, if you live in such an environment and feel you need a V6, the 3.6 liter is still an option. It is a more refined and powerful engine than the 3.5 for not much more money.
#1452 of 1463
Re: 3.5 [drwilsc] by oldcem
Jun 12, 2008 (8:02 pm)
Reply

Replying to: drwilsc (Jun 12, 2008 4:24 pm)

When I priced the Auras - the models with the 3.6 would have cost me about $4K more + the hit on fuel economy. For my business driving the 3.5 fills the bill perfectly. I'm well aware of what a more refined, more powerful V6 runs like. My Saturn's stablemate has a 240 HP 3 Liter in it, and, its substantially quicker than the 3.5 Aura is. Downside is - it gets about 26MPG on premium gas.
 
Regards:
OldCEM
#1453 of 1463
by vanman1
Jul 06, 2008 (4:51 pm)
Reply
Has anyone out there tried a 2.4L / 6-speed?
 
Tested an XR last week and I loved it but will gas spiraling, I may go with an 09 XR-4.

Messages Page 146 of 147
1
...
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

You are here: [F] Forums / Sedans / Saturn Aura / Saturn Aura

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Learn More

2009 Saturn Aura

2009 Saturn Aura XR Sedan Shown

More Pictures

DoMore

Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement