Maybe I just don’t get it. OK, at this point I’m guessing a lot of the American car-buying public does not get it. Why would GM kill off it’s “import fighter”? Is the General fighting someone else now? Or, something else? Like bad perception. Was Saturn really part of the bad perception?
A few years back Saturn introduced their FIRST minivan! Fantastic! Only ten years late to one of the most popular categories. Besides being late to the party the poor thing was ugly, bland, plain, boring, and apparently designed on the cheap. Pity.
Imagine if you will, if Saturn’s first convertible had been similarly designed. Luckily, the Sky is/was striking, much like its European counterpart, the Opel Speedster, and, in a different way, its Pontiac cousin the Solstice.
The fact Saturn received such a knockout convertible begs the question, “why such a horrendous minivan?” Surely the bean counters calculated they’d have a better chance at making money by offering a minivan, even if only mildly attractive, like their sedan, than they would off of a knife’s-edge droptop with very limited availability.
I guess the Sky was the quirky little car company’s flagship offering. Doesn’t GM know you don’t build a company with a low volume flagship? They may easily have built up brand equity for the whole of Saturn with the Sky, much like Chevrolet does with the Corvette, but most of the rest of the Saturn line was left to sink into the boring end of the spectrum. Yes, the Saturn SUVs did receive some good looks but the Outlook doesn’t fit the Saturn image. It’s big and expensive, for a Saturn anyway.
Maybe GM is killing Saturn off because they have so confused potential customers they can’t figure out if the vehicles are practical anymore. And, as it seems, many car shoppers in this country rarely go for practical.
