belteshazzar wrote:
If you worked for the Saturn service department than you did not have extensive experience with the other marks, as one Saturn "brand critical standard" was that there be no mixing of service or sales experiences. I know that's been abandoned at this point, but it should have made up the majority of the last 14 years.
All I know is when you show up for work and the boss says, "you're over at star today," that meant I was working on mostly Fords. Or if he said, "you're over at Saturn today," I knew I was working on mostly saturns. Regardless of the "brand critical standard," that you speak so highly of, we swapped jobs like trinkets at the flea market.
In the earlier Saturn years, that "brand critical standard" you speak of didn't exist. They were hurting. Once they started getting snooty about it and saying you can only work on Saturns, nobody listened. When you have a dealership getting screwed by the company and someone brings a Dodge in for service, you don't turn them away, you say thanks for your patronage, sir.
No, you did not. You don't know how to change an alternator without removing parts that even some of our diy'ers knew to leave alone. You have had a trouble aligning them and blamed it on a "flexible unibody". That explanation fails on too many levels. The Saturn S-series was not the first compact car to receive a 5-star crash test rating because they were a limp noodle. Even if they were, it's ridiculous to believe that merely driving them for a short period of time would cause them to change dimension in some measurable way. I wouldn't make that claim about ANY brand and expect to be taken seriously.
crash test ratings have little to do with harmonic stiffness. In fact it is the compressability and energy absorption of a unibody that has a large amount to do with its crash test rating. Sorry, but the facts disagree. Over they years they have gotten a bit better, but some of the first saturns were the worst, with Hz ratings that were just a hair better than the K-car.
If you'd had said something like, " the block was porous and leaked oil", or "it was a 97 sohc and the head cracked" you'd have a case. Those were actual quality control problems that Saturn dealt with. But you, in your fantastic amount of experience, didn't even pick well known Saturn issues. Claiming that a block broke in half, and that it somehow reflects on the LLO or L24 family of engines in some sort of sweeping general sort of way, is just crazy.
Why does it have to be a known Saturn issue? I didn't say, "don't buy a saturn because the blocks break," I merely relayed a factual event that took place. I didn't say anything about ALL saturns, I merely relayed a few situations that supported my argument.
I'm not here to raise feathers, I'm just providing counterpoint. The OP asked for opinions about buying a saturn as a DD. I think there are much better options. You clearly passionately love saturns. Lets just leave it at that... counterpoint. You recommend that he do it, I'll recommend that he doesn't.
Why is it so hard to believe that I worked for a service department and I experienced things that were not on a TSB? Other things happen.