Grassroots Motorsports

Subscribe get a full year for only $19.95 Sample get a free issue—no strings attached

Login to post Forums » Grassroots Motorsports » Pleasant Suprise from....a Saturn?

1 2 3

Sept. 27, 2008 8:49 p.m. CarKid1989 New Reader

I went down to Dayton Ohio this weekend to visit some friends and my brother (procker) was kind enough to let me borrow his 2002 Saturn SL2. His is the stripped out version. No power anything. No air conditioning. 1.9 SOHC motor with the 5 speed. He always pisses me off by braggin about his MPG.

Anyhow.

I went on my trip which is 223 miles each way. I was driving 75-80ish the whole way, mind you no cruise control, and was simply AMAZED when i found out that i got 41 MPG on my trip

I want one all of a sudden. They are soooo bland and totally boring and kinda cheap feeling but with numbers like that seriously who cares.

Well actually I do.....

It is a boring car to drive. It has no exciting things about it. Its not fast, cant handle for beans and we wont even get into looks. I almost fell asleep driving it. its not exciting its as appliance as you can get in a car. It has no cool features, nothing to play around with, no bells no whistles nothing. The only redeeming feature is the MPG thing.

So I am in a pickle. I need a commuter car and this fits the bill by all means (well i need my AC) but its so boring. I started thinking already of stuff i could do to make it less boring without losing the MPG. I caould buy one like this and just suck it up maybe put a sound system in it and just just it for what it is and have a second car for fun i guess.

(side note, is the 3 door SL1 a better aerodynamic car then the SL2? it it is why not swap the SOHC engine into it and youd get amazing MPG numbers.

Thoughts?
Sept. 27, 2008 9:50 p.m. mw New Reader

if mpg is the only factor, why not get a geo metro. mpg will be betther and I think they are fun to drive.
Sept. 27, 2008 9:56 p.m. CarKid1989 New Reader

I need people room too sometimes so 4 doors work better
Sept. 27, 2008 9:56 p.m. noisycricket New Reader

All 4 door are SLs. 2 doors are SC, wagons are SW. Number denotes number of cams, unless it's an early SC or SW which were all twin cam, or the SL which is a strippo SL1. (ALL "SL" were manual steering...)

I think Saturns are awesome. They have very direct handling because there is almost no bushing material between the road and the cabin. The suspension bushings are very minimal, the subframes bolt directly to the tub, the rack bolts directly to the subframe, there's no rubber couplers in the steering column... it's why Saturn never put tires bigger than 15" on the cars. They didn't have to. Because of that, they retained good return-to-center like you don't get with low profile steamrollers.
Sept. 27, 2008 10:14 p.m. carguy123 HalfDork

Hmmmm I am currently having just the opposite impression of a Saturn.

I have a rental Saturn Outlook and that thing is an absolute turd.

I am amazed at the feature set and the build quality. My 10 year old Honda has better features and a much better build quaility with better fit and finish 10 years later than this car had at 10 miles which is how many miles the car had on it when I picked it up. It now has almost 500 miles so I have had it long enough to get used to the vehicle.

Gas mileage is a joke. I am getting 13 mpg out of a 3.6 engine. It has enough torque steer to make you nervous. More than any other FWD car I've ever driven.

GM has given it an accelerator cam to make it so that there is a disproportionate amount of throttle at tip in (presumably to make you feel like you are driving a more powerful vehicle) and this makes it scary to try to park. The car is constantly jumping forward uncontrollably.
Sept. 28, 2008 9:30 a.m. HiTempguy New Reader

if mpg is the only factor, why not get a geo metro. mpg will be betther and I think they are fun to drive.

The truly sad thing about the metro is that my 1994 Civic CX gets better gas mileage and runs a 16.7 in the 1/4 mile. The place where a metro really shines is in the city, but for highway driving?

If you want a Saturn, I would HIGHLY suggest getting a slightly older Civic. A 1996 4 door Civic sedan would be better in everyway.
Sept. 28, 2008 10:06 a.m. Raze New Reader

carguy123 wrote:

Hmmmm I am currently having just the opposite impression of a Saturn.

I have a rental Saturn Outlook and that thing is an absolute turd.

I am amazed at the feature set and the build quality. My 10 year old Honda has better features and a much better build quaility with better fit and finish 10 years later than this car had at 10 miles which is how many miles the car had on it when I picked it up. It now has almost 500 miles so I have had it long enough to get used to the vehicle.

Gas mileage is a joke. I am getting 13 mpg out of a 3.6 engine. It has enough torque steer to make you nervous. More than any other FWD car I've ever driven.

GM has given it an accelerator cam to make it so that there is a disproportionate amount of throttle at tip in (presumably to make you feel like you are driving a more powerful vehicle) and this makes it scary to try to park. The car is constantly jumping forward uncontrollably.

I'm very confused about this post ripping on Saturn via the Outlook, which is an SUV, not a small lightweight compact car like the SC about which the thread was started, it's like comparing apples to oranges.
Sept. 28, 2008 10:26 a.m. Stuc HalfDork

Also... the Outlook is just a rebadged GM shared model.. the SLs were only Saturns, when they were "different".

My first car was a '97 SL (not SL1 or SL2, super basic like the one you were using). I actually thought it was pretty fun to drive, but then again, it was my first car.

As a bonus with the commuter thing, if anything happens, you simple go to the junkyard and get another panel for $35 and bolt it on in 5 minutes.
Sept. 28, 2008 10:47 a.m. Tyler H Dork

Raze wrote: I'm very confused about this post ripping on Saturn via the Outlook, which is an SUV, not a small lightweight compact car like the SC about which the thread was started, it's like comparing apples to oranges.

I'll bring it closer to home. I rented a brand new Aura the other day. The only good thing I can say about it was that the stereo was nice, compared to my 10 year old Nissan.

This is not going to help the General get out of trouble.

The only thing redeeming about the OP's car is the gas mileage. This car notches in above the Civic in the used car market because it is cheaper, and much easier to find unmodified.

A Civic is a better car in every way, and priced accordingly.

Old Saturns are a viable way to cheap MPG.
Sept. 28, 2008 3:34 p.m. carguy123 HalfDork

No confusion in my mind. The topic title said he had a pleasant surprise from a Saturn and I was also having my own set of surprises from a Saturn.
Sept. 28, 2008 3:54 p.m. 92dxman New Reader

Sl/sc/sw1=longer gearing, single cam engine Sl/sc/sw2=close ratio gearing, twin cam engine, 1k higher redline.

If you were going to look for something to put around in, look for an sw1 or sw2. the sw2 can be had with disc brakes as well.
Sept. 28, 2008 6:27 p.m. Twin_Cam Dork

I agree with Stuc, Saturns stopped being Saturns the second they released the Vue and Ion.

Back to the topic at hand, any Saturn S-series is an incredibly well put-together car that gets great gas mileage and will run forever with oil changes every 3000 miles, and the occasional motor mount and engine coolant temp sensor.

I have owned three, all twin-cams (hence my username!) but I have driven a couple of the single-cams, and they are all great. The single-cams are truly SLOW, but even more bombproof than the twin-cams, not uncommon to see one with 300K+, some has high as 500 and 600K. And they don't handle all that badly with a little work (I'm waiting for Mr. Koback to respond, he has an STS SC2 with custom coil-overs, huge rear sway bar, and 17" wheels with Azenis on them, the thing handles like a damn go kart). And don't get one with an automatic trans...just don't.

My current car, a 2000 SL2, gets 33 mpg in the city during the summer (50/50 air-conditioning/windows open), and regularly gets 37 or 38 mpg all highway, and has pulled off 40 mpg all highway before. And that's a twin-cam model.

Saturn's motto should've been, "Like a Civic, just way cheaper to own, and you don't look like a fratboy."
Sept. 28, 2008 7:09 p.m. minimac Dork

I agree with twin cam. the SL/SC Saturns were cheap-o cars, that excelled at moving you from point A to point B. Cheaply. That's it. The seats sucked, for the most part. It was cheaply put together, with tons of plastic. But if you took care of them, they pretty much took care of you, getting you from A to B, cheaply. My 91 SL had over 250k on it when I got hit head on. About the only repair I did was a drivers seat replacement. I always got 38-39mpg(5 speed) highway@75mph. It was my cheap-o work car. When I got home, I'd enjoy my BMW. When it was time to head out of town again, I loaded up the Saturn. Didn't have to worry about it getting door dings and nobody wanted to steal it. With just a little work, it handled decently too.Did I mentioned it was cheap?
Sept. 28, 2008 10:31 p.m. CarKid1989 New Reader

So if i got a SL2 with the 1.9L is there a manual tranny i can but in for even better mileage?
Sept. 29, 2008 8:07 a.m. Raze New Reader

Twin_Cam wrote: Saturn's motto should've been, "Like a Civic, just way cheaper to own, and you don't look like a fratboy."

minimac wrote: ...Didn't have to worry about it getting door dings and nobody wanted to steal it.

Combine the two and that would have been an advertising slogan
Sept. 29, 2008 10:05 a.m. belteshazzar Dork

CarKid1989 wrote:

So if i got a SL2 with the 1.9L is there a manual tranny i can but in for even better mileage?

You could put a transmission from the single cam car in an twin cam car. The taller final drive would save you a little gas.

Unfortunately, the $300 you spent for the transmission, the $200 for clutch and other misc. crap you feel bad about not changing, and then there's the whole weekend jacking with it 'cause the engine cradle keeps it from being an easy job... is it worth it?

Generally speaking, the single cams were only rated 2 mpg better than the twin cam ones by the epa. Plus, how much of that was the gearing and how much of that was the 25% less powerful engine?
Sept. 29, 2008 10:07 a.m. Twin_Cam Dork

CarKid1989 wrote:

So if i got a SL2 with the 1.9L is there a manual tranny i can but in for even better mileage?

Yes. Any manual trans from an S-series will bolt up. However, if it comes out of a single-cam, the gearing is slightly longer, as it's meant to utilize the flatter torque curve of the single-cam motor. So long story short, any trans will bolt up, but try to find one from a twin-cam car.

And yes Raze, that would be one hell of a slogan hahaha.
Sept. 29, 2008 10:24 a.m. psteav New Reader

Babying my '94 SC2 (twincam, five speed) on the highway would result in low 40's. It's a night and day difference between the single cam and twin cam cars....The twincam cars will run away and hide from any other early 90's econobox except a DOHC Neon or B13 SE-R.

And I can never understand why everyone bags on the seats. They're comfortable enough. And if you're willing to put in a quart of oil between changes and replace an alternator every few years, you really don't have to open the hood otherwise.

Word of caution: The aftermarket SUCKS. There are a few vendors and a lot of DIY stuff out there.
Sept. 29, 2008 12:22 p.m. minimac Dork

The drivers seat in mine broke the latching mechanism, so it wouldn't stay up. I would have replaced it anyways- it was not very supportive, nor was it comfortable. I had the single cam and while not a rocket, it was more than adequate. The only reason they use that much oil, is if the rings are carboned up-as was mentioned earlier. I'm on the prowl for an early SW-1 or SW-2 with a stick. Some decent wheels/tires, an airdam, and sport shocks/springs make a nice driver for very little money.
Sept. 29, 2008 12:53 p.m. Junkyard_Dog Reader

psteav wrote:

replace an alternator every few years, you really don't have to open the hood otherwise.

Better yet replace the P/S pump shaft seal and you'll NEVER need to replace an alternator. The seal leaks P/S fluid into the alternator and gums up the works. -former Saturn tech.
Sept. 29, 2008 12:59 p.m. belteshazzar Dork

OR make a shield out of tinfoil!

I dunno what I'm talking about.....
Sept. 29, 2008 1:04 p.m. 93celicaGT2 Reader

There's a nasty boosted twin cam out here.... moves like a high 11s car, and it handles, too. Has Deal's Gap stickers on it. :)
Sept. 29, 2008 1:34 p.m. Twin_Cam Dork

There are plenty of turbo Saturns...ones with full interiors that run 12s on street tires aren't out of the ordinary. A couple I know of run 11s...but I believe they're on slicks, and one's gutted.
Oct. 1, 2008 11:23 a.m. ProDarwin Dork

The funny thing is the nasty boosted twin cams making over 300whp still get 35-40mpg highway

As far as it not being fast or handling worth beans... stock it'll do mid-high 15s - faster than almost any other econobox, except the neon. Its also still a competitive HS car.

Unfortunately, I wrecked my Saturn autox car... I'm done with Saturns for a while. Not because I don't like them, but because its hard to find one that has been taken care of. Everyone treats them like absolute E36 M3. If I came across a nice 95/96 coupe, I'd make a run for FSP next year.
Oct. 1, 2008 3:42 p.m. confuZion3 HalfDork

My biggest surprise came in high school. I didn't think my friend's SL would burn out. He kept telling me it would. So, I told him to "prove it". He forever set me straight on the subject.

Parking brake on. First gear, rev to 4,000, dump clutch and we're off! Then, bam! Second gear! Smoke was everywhere. Redline . . . so . . . bam! Third gear! Just started bogging, so, bam! Back to second!

He held this thing for 30 seconds. I still maintain that it was the most entertaining (and the best) burnout I've seen to date.

From a Saturn. Not a Mustang, not a Camaro, not a Honda. A Saturn. It was wonderful.

1 2 3

You'll need to log in to post.