2000-ish Neon vs. 2000-ish Saturn S

For daily driver use, I actually prefer the sohc Saturn's powerband. Below 4000rpm I'm convinced there's more guts.

This from someone who has bought and sold hundreds of them since the late 90's.

Anyone who's driven an e30 325I back to back with a 325e will already know the feeling.

belteshazzar wrote: For daily driver use, I actually prefer the sohc Saturn's powerband. Below 4000rpm I'm convinced there's more guts.

My first Saturn was a 1995 SL1 SOHC MPFI. Fifth gear really sucked when A/C was needed and was useless on any sort of grade, but otherwise it was fine. Never drove the earlier lower horsepower SFI SOHCs.

I bought my fourth Saturn a few months ago, a 1999 SW2 5-speed running on 3 cylinders for $500. Engine swapped my 30k mile rebuilt 1995 SC2 engine into it, and the struts, brakes, etc.

I've probably been driving the STX BMW too much, but I am not fond of driving Saturns now. Maybe that light front end that makes them handle so well just feels odd. Maybe the KYB struts are gone now, IDK.

The SOHC and DOHC dyno exactly the same down low. The SOHC just has worse gearing and runs out of breath a whole lot faster than the DOHC.

Given the difference in gas mileage and the near-zero difference in price in used models, there really isn't a reason to consider a SOHC Saturn unless someone gives it to you for free.

Its nothing like the SOHC Neon which gives up little to the more powerful DOHC.

If you want extensive bolt-on moddability, buy the neon. Just within the neon world there is a lot of interchangeability and over the counter upgrades.

I personally think the kinds of things that would draw someone to a saturn over a neon are mostly subjective/preference, like the existence of the wagon version. Although, i have said before that if the 1st gen neon had been available as a wagon it would be one of the most-loved cars among GRM-type people. The saturn HAS a wagon variant and still isnt.

ProDarwin wrote: The SOHC and DOHC dyno exactly the same down low.

I want to disprove what you said but I'm not sure how without spending money. Maybe overlay some aspect of the datalogs between DOHC's and SOHC's? I swear I'm right on this.

Back in a former life I sold Saturns. Here's a little more input:

In 1995 they revised the interior / gauges which is a big improvement over the earlier cars. The body styles changed in 96, so if you (like me) like the early styling, but prefer the later interior--- 95 is the year to get. I've always kinda wanted a 1995 SW2 5-spd.

The manual trans cars have a transmission oil dipstick. The automatic trans cars have a screw-off trans filter-- which is nice.

The cars were developed to be easy to maintain--- everything under hood is color-coded and easy to get to.

Saturn (when new) had good crash-test results, better than the Neon, Civic, or Corolla at the time.

Saturns raced, and won in showroom stock configuration. All the DOHC cars handle well, are light (2400 lbs) and fun to drive.

The cheapest Saturn was the SL--- passenger side mirror was optional, no ps, and the bumpers are black, instead of body colored.

I dig em---- I'd buy one as a daily beater / parts chaser. Saturn was a really good idea, that got ruined by GM's bean counters.

Both good options. Both two of the more "fun to drive" choices you'll find in the '90s econobox crowd.

I've never owned a Neon (it's about the only Chrysler product I haven't) but they're fast, fun, and handle great. They've almost all been treated like they're disposable. IF you can find one that's been taken care of, they're great. Neons.org has a great faq regarding options, packages, hopups and the like.

I've owned and loved a '94 DOHC Saturn coupe. Still the most reliable car I've ever had. In addition to what everyone else has already said, they get great fuel mileage (35 driving it like you stole it) and because they have plastic body panels, there's actually a pretty stout steel frame underneath. (Note that the frame CAN rust badly and it's not obvious without getting underneath it.) Also, if you get one that burns oil (and they all do) there's supposedly an engine treatment that sounds like snake oil but actually does wonders for freeing up the stuck rings.

I'm looking at the early 2000's ('01, '02, '03) SW cars to be specific.

Neons would be 2000-2004 depending on price vs. condition.

They weren't made in '03. 01/02 are disappointing compared to the 91-99 cars from a performance standpoint. They have a head that flows worse, harder to extract power from, and an air-pump system for emissions. They are still decent cars though - reliable and good mileage.

Just don't forget that those plastic body panels are mounted on a steel frame work. Anybody think hidden rust ?

For me, the only Neon is the first gen Neon, since it was available as a coupe. Put me down for the Saturn. I even test drove one back in the day. The SOHC was a dog. The DOHC was a different car.

belteshazzar wrote:

ProDarwin wrote: The SOHC and DOHC dyno exactly the same down low.

I want to disprove what you said but I'm not sure how without spending money. Maybe overlay some aspect of the datalogs between DOHC's and SOHC's? I swear I'm right on this.

iceracer wrote: Just don't forget that those plastic body panels are mounted on a steel frame work. Anybody think hidden rust ?

Not really. Sedans rust under the rear door sills. All models can rust in the front subframe near the swaybar mounts if the POs were all too clean with oil changes. And if a windshield install was botched it can rust in the roof at the windshield seam, but thats something that would happen to ever car.

Not yet mentioned, all the sunroofs leak.

and here I thought I had a fairly well calibrated butt dyno

Leafy wrote: Not yet mentioned, all the sunroofs leak.

I haven't had much trouble with them leaking. They are stuck in place more often than not though. I think maybe they should re-market the feature as a skylight.

The cars can rust... but are no more prone than most cars. In fact they resist rust probably better than most cars out there. And as a bonus, most of the parts that can rust are easily swapped with a clean part found in the junkyard, and there is no risk of the body rusting which will devalue a car very quickly.

belteshazzar wrote:

Leafy wrote: Not yet mentioned, all the sunroofs leak.

I haven't had much trouble with them leaking. They are stuck in place more often than not though. I think maybe they should re-market the feature as a skylight.

There is an aftermarket machined slide you can buy to fix it once and for good.

I hate sunroofs, so I've only had 2 of them. The one in my current DD works fine and does not leak. The one in my past DD (avatar) I did have to repair.

I've never seen a sunroof on a wagon though - more reason to get a wagon.

iceracer wrote: Just don't forget that those plastic body panels are mounted on a steel frame work. Anybody think hidden rust ?

This, they are typical 90s GM unibody construction under that skin. However, it seems they die most often from the cradle rotting out around the trans mount, rather than the subframe falling off or the rockers disintegrating, look there carefully. The rear trailing arm(more of a rod) also has a tendency to snap in salty/bumpy environments, poor design (tube with a square cut stud welded in the end) with a nice stress riser inside.

My general impression of them is they are GMs attempt to knock off a Corolla, as cheaply as possible. The general layout and design of everything is similar, but way cheaper and lighter on the Saturn. Like how the Corolla rear suspension is the same design, but much tougher. Saturn uses stamped sheetmetal u channel for the toe links, Corolla is tubing.

My experience stems from a 92 that was actually driven, infrequently, by the littlest oldest lady I have ever met. It only had something like 120,000 miles on it, maybe the later ones were improved.

Kenny_McCormic wrote: My general impression of them is they are GMs attempt to knock off a Corolla, as cheaply as possible. The general layout and design of everything is similar, but way cheaper and lighter on the Saturn. Like how the Corolla rear suspension is the same design, but much tougher. Saturn uses stamped sheetmetal u channel for the toe links, Corolla is tubing.

I used to think that too, but BMW uses even flimsier lower rear arms on the E36/E46. They are just designed to buckle in an accident to save the rest of the car.

In reply to Matthew Huizing:

Perhaps, but the BMW ones probably aren't prone to rusting out, and in the case of the trailing link, snapping of while looking to still be in serviceable condition.