saturns fucking suck . just got in an accident lastnight with my 2002 sc1 and went off the road going 35mph and now u cant even tell it was a car saturns are cheap and not even safe to drive
RIP Saturn... I miss those trusty little cars. GM had a success and they let it die. The S-Series was a good car. The ION... what the heck? Then Saturn lost its identity... should have stayed the '90s course, they would be doing so well in today's gas prices.
Just got T-boned by an SUV doing 35mph when I was stopped in my saturn. Spun 180 degrees and slid into another SUV. Walked away without a scratch. Engine still running
About 5 months ago, I was driving my little 1997 Saturn SL1....when a semi changed into my lane (basically right on top of me) and dragged me down the interstate 1500 feet.
After being stuck in the car for an hour and 19 minutes, the paramedics finally got me out.
@JaiLee613 We've got a '96 SC2 5-speed, that if drove as you are supposed to, can get 300 miles out of the 12 gallon tank. It's going to be my first car, but on Wednesday, my father hit a deer going 75 MPH (4th deer hit). It still ran, but the front drivers side was caved in, and the radiator was almost touching the manifold. After being towed 50 miles to a parts store, where a quick radiator hose repair let it drive home the last 30 miles. They are built way cars NEED to be.
@Z0MBIEStheyN0MBIES When I rolled mine it still ran. It had frame damage and there were no windows left but the windshield. They were badass running cars. I get 300 out of a 12.2 gallon tank easy. I tried to monitor my MPG every time. the best i got was 36 mpg city/hwy (and was a auto). So they have potential to much more (mpg). People talk so much shit about saturns. But even the ones that had issues (like 93-95?) had some engine issue i believe they STILL ran for a while.
At Benco we're so confident our cars won't be the victim of a terrible accident that we don't install vital safety features! Now that's an industry first-you won't have to worry!
I hit a deer on an inner-city freeway (my life is so weird that even my car accidents are weird) and rolled my SC1 in the median. I literally walked away with just a scratch, and that hardy little engine still ran.
I like the commercial, but it's really sick the way they are promoting, or at least insinuating, that the Saturn SL was a safe car. It wasn't by far. Look up the safety ratings. It did horrible. Shame on you Saturn.
Only when crashing with heavier vehicles. With comparable size/weight vehicles it shouldn't be an issue. Of course, most vehicles on the road are much larger/heavier.
You must be referring to the gov't testing. The Insurance Institute for Highway Satefy (IIHS) conducts more severe, and more realistic, crash tests. They have become the standard in the US. The SL series 95-02 got an "acceptable" rating. I'm surpirsed it did that good though judging by their crash pictures. It did, OK, but it's nothing exceptional to gloat about like Saturn used to do in their commercials, acting like they were some American economy Volvo or something. Inflated claims I say.
The best way to judge safety is by real-world data. Every crash is not a run into a barrier in a controlled lab. In that, the S-Series did pretty well from the stories and pictures out there (elsewhere on the Internet).
IDK how an Acceptable IIHS rating is "horrible" but OK. Saabs, known for their safety, have gotten "Acceptable" ratings too.
Crash ratings are useful and important but never are the rule for how a car will perform.
I've never heard of Saab having a reputation for safety. I think you are thinking of Volvo, which is always at top. When I originally said the SL did "horrible", I was thinking of the '95-'99 Neon, sorry. To put in perspective, my '97 Tracer got the same score as the SL. So you can hardly say it was the safest economy car on the road worth touting as such. If anything, it was just on par. I don't understand touting a car as a safety standard when it did the same as others. False claims.
IIHS conducts the types of crash tests it does BECAUSE OF real world data. Offset tests are supposedly more common than full frontal crashes like the gov't tests. Frontal crashes account for the largest percentage of all types of crashes vs. left side, right side, rear, and rollover crashes. Fact is, the SL isn't any more superior in safety than the other highest rated economy cars of its time. This commecial gives a very false sense of security to consumers...shame shame.
I think I'm not thinking of Volvo-Saab has as much a rep for safety. They have a # of innovations too-for ex. why do you think they put the ignition on the center console? Look up the Folksam Institute, a European insurance agency that also does crash ratings based on real world data. Not sure about now but a few yrs ago the 9-5 was their top rated cars. I know that IIHS tests are more realistic but they're not the rule-does every front crash happen @ 40mph offset into the same weight vehicle
IIHS simply tests vehicles in the most likely type of crashes. That's all. Would be impossible for them or any agency to test any and every type of possible accident in the real world...that's infinite. Neh, I disagree, Saab is not a safety leader. Not saying they havn't come out with clever safety concepts, but they are not known for being a safety pioneer, that's Volvo territory.
I know how and why the IIHS tests are done. IDK if you're seeing my point-it's not to test in every crash style; crash tests are tests, car + barrier. I like em, they're useful, but to rly get an idea of a vehicle's safety see real world data, which isn't from controlled lab environments.
Both Saab and Volvo are safety pioneers. You don't hear as much about Saab because you don't hear as much about anything about Saab.
(I had another comment from before that IDK if it appears posted yet/now.)
saturns fucking suck . just got in an accident lastnight with my 2002 sc1 and went off the road going 35mph and now u cant even tell it was a car saturns are cheap and not even safe to drive
hondaman9945 2 weeks ago
RIP Saturn... I miss those trusty little cars. GM had a success and they let it die. The S-Series was a good car. The ION... what the heck? Then Saturn lost its identity... should have stayed the '90s course, they would be doing so well in today's gas prices.
December 15, 2011 1:21 am.
whattheheck1000 2 months ago
Just got T-boned by an SUV doing 35mph when I was stopped in my saturn. Spun 180 degrees and slid into another SUV. Walked away without a scratch. Engine still running
asillynoob 2 months ago
saturn sucks!
dodgedip123 7 months ago
my cousin had an '00 sl until just recently it literally saved his life,guess what he's looking to buy,another sl!!!! R.I.P. Saturn and s-series
yotaluva 1 year ago
About 5 months ago, I was driving my little 1997 Saturn SL1....when a semi changed into my lane (basically right on top of me) and dragged me down the interstate 1500 feet.
After being stuck in the car for an hour and 19 minutes, the paramedics finally got me out.
My trusty little gas saving Saturn saved my life.
And I miss it.
Krispea86 1 year ago 4
@Krispea86
I rolled my saturn trying to avoid a deer... it rolled and landed on its side. I had to climb out the passenger side window.
I love that car....:( I miss it terribly.
Lots of people were surprised I was walking because they assumed the roof would have caved in.
People talk a lot of shit about saturns, but mine saved my ass. Not to mention get great gas mileage.
JaiLee613 1 year ago
@JaiLee613 We've got a '96 SC2 5-speed, that if drove as you are supposed to, can get 300 miles out of the 12 gallon tank. It's going to be my first car, but on Wednesday, my father hit a deer going 75 MPH (4th deer hit). It still ran, but the front drivers side was caved in, and the radiator was almost touching the manifold. After being towed 50 miles to a parts store, where a quick radiator hose repair let it drive home the last 30 miles. They are built way cars NEED to be.
Z0MBIEStheyN0MBIES 9 months ago
@Z0MBIEStheyN0MBIES When I rolled mine it still ran. It had frame damage and there were no windows left but the windshield. They were badass running cars. I get 300 out of a 12.2 gallon tank easy. I tried to monitor my MPG every time. the best i got was 36 mpg city/hwy (and was a auto). So they have potential to much more (mpg). People talk so much shit about saturns. But even the ones that had issues (like 93-95?) had some engine issue i believe they STILL ran for a while.
JaiLee613 8 months ago
@Krispea86 Holy Sh*T! I would've pissed myself if that happened to me!
MPGaGa1991 4 months ago
At Benco we're so confident our cars won't be the victim of a terrible accident that we don't install vital safety features! Now that's an industry first-you won't have to worry!
BuyBenco 1 year ago
mines got 150k miles + still runnin :D
blaqkXelectriqk 2 years ago 2
I hit a deer on an inner-city freeway (my life is so weird that even my car accidents are weird) and rolled my SC1 in the median. I literally walked away with just a scratch, and that hardy little engine still ran.
ev1nut 2 years ago 2
@ev1nut I hit a deer with my SL-1 a month ago. I wish the deer had insurance. Now I can't get my fender fixed.
xmakemebad35 2 years ago
Got to the junk yard and get a new fender. It'll probably cost ya $40. Richpin probably has a video to explain replacing it.
ev1nut 2 years ago 5
@ev1nut Richpin is the man
Rushfan32935 1 year ago
Sorry, under my wife's name. Check out Geoff12052's videos to see the saturn with 250,000 miles! :)
Krissy12052 3 years ago
CHECK MY VIDEOS to see my 1995 Saturn SL1 rolling over 250,000 miles on it's original engine! Best car ever!!! :)
Krissy12052 3 years ago
I have a 96 Saturn with 217,000 miles and still going strong.
Original clutch and everything... Only had to replace the starter and altinator once
bridges513 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Car is a piece of DOO DOO. I survived but my bank account suffered - 4 headgaskets in 68K miles. WATCH MY VIDEO- Its the real Saturn Story
SaturnVehicles 3 years ago
maybe if you drive like a RACER with it ...im drivin mine real nicely and its still runnin great and im 85 000 k LOL!
alexlowcaprice 3 years ago
what I want to know is why all the Saturns are being hit in the first place? lol sorry. Good commercial.
MiruKail 4 years ago
I like the commercial, but it's really sick the way they are promoting, or at least insinuating, that the Saturn SL was a safe car. It wasn't by far. Look up the safety ratings. It did horrible. Shame on you Saturn.
palebeachbum 4 years ago
It scored very high in its class in frontal crashes. In side Impacts it was a little lower but still ok.
Any car that size is going to be trouble in a crash.
joeysixtysix 3 years ago
Only when crashing with heavier vehicles. With comparable size/weight vehicles it shouldn't be an issue. Of course, most vehicles on the road are much larger/heavier.
palebeachbum 3 years ago
It scored a 4 out of possible 5. Did great in front impacts and ok in side.One of the safest cars of its size ever. You must be confused.
joeysixtysix 3 years ago
You must be referring to the gov't testing. The Insurance Institute for Highway Satefy (IIHS) conducts more severe, and more realistic, crash tests. They have become the standard in the US. The SL series 95-02 got an "acceptable" rating. I'm surpirsed it did that good though judging by their crash pictures. It did, OK, but it's nothing exceptional to gloat about like Saturn used to do in their commercials, acting like they were some American economy Volvo or something. Inflated claims I say.
palebeachbum 3 years ago
The best way to judge safety is by real-world data. Every crash is not a run into a barrier in a controlled lab. In that, the S-Series did pretty well from the stories and pictures out there (elsewhere on the Internet).
IDK how an Acceptable IIHS rating is "horrible" but OK. Saabs, known for their safety, have gotten "Acceptable" ratings too.
Crash ratings are useful and important but never are the rule for how a car will perform.
03cs 3 years ago
I've never heard of Saab having a reputation for safety. I think you are thinking of Volvo, which is always at top. When I originally said the SL did "horrible", I was thinking of the '95-'99 Neon, sorry. To put in perspective, my '97 Tracer got the same score as the SL. So you can hardly say it was the safest economy car on the road worth touting as such. If anything, it was just on par. I don't understand touting a car as a safety standard when it did the same as others. False claims.
palebeachbum 3 years ago
IIHS conducts the types of crash tests it does BECAUSE OF real world data. Offset tests are supposedly more common than full frontal crashes like the gov't tests. Frontal crashes account for the largest percentage of all types of crashes vs. left side, right side, rear, and rollover crashes. Fact is, the SL isn't any more superior in safety than the other highest rated economy cars of its time. This commecial gives a very false sense of security to consumers...shame shame.
palebeachbum 3 years ago
I think I'm not thinking of Volvo-Saab has as much a rep for safety. They have a # of innovations too-for ex. why do you think they put the ignition on the center console? Look up the Folksam Institute, a European insurance agency that also does crash ratings based on real world data. Not sure about now but a few yrs ago the 9-5 was their top rated cars. I know that IIHS tests are more realistic but they're not the rule-does every front crash happen @ 40mph offset into the same weight vehicle
03cs 3 years ago
IIHS simply tests vehicles in the most likely type of crashes. That's all. Would be impossible for them or any agency to test any and every type of possible accident in the real world...that's infinite. Neh, I disagree, Saab is not a safety leader. Not saying they havn't come out with clever safety concepts, but they are not known for being a safety pioneer, that's Volvo territory.
palebeachbum 3 years ago
I know how and why the IIHS tests are done. IDK if you're seeing my point-it's not to test in every crash style; crash tests are tests, car + barrier. I like em, they're useful, but to rly get an idea of a vehicle's safety see real world data, which isn't from controlled lab environments.
Both Saab and Volvo are safety pioneers. You don't hear as much about Saab because you don't hear as much about anything about Saab.
(I had another comment from before that IDK if it appears posted yet/now.)
03cs 3 years ago