Talk:Saturn Corporation

I am looking for Pictures of the future redline Turbo Sky any idea where i can view those? Are they even available?

Try Saturn.com, unless it has copyright issues. You could try various automotive forums for pictures from enthusiasts taken at autoshows. Bok269 00:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard about Saturn being sold in asian countries. I also never heard of the Saturn Vita & Saturn Kuda.

List of Updates

12.7.06 - Edited FUTURE section to include reference to new 2008 Saturn Astra. --Flybrian 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced information removed from article

GM began manufacturing Saturn automobiles in 1990, largely in response to the success of Japanese small-car imports in the United States.

Its motto was "A different kind of company, a different kind of car". Not only would it copy Japanese car style, it would try to copy Japanese management style: workers would have more control and involvement in the plant, the UAW agreed to lay off the Saturn division, and in general things were 'done differently' than they had been at GM, drawing from experiences gained through its NUMMI and CAMI Automotive joint ventures.

Saturn values were communicated through finely crafted image advertising created by a leading ad agency of the times, Hal Riney. Saturn's narrow focus on a high quality small car and graceful customer service found a perfect match in Riney's folksy signature style. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CyclePat2 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

more information removed (no sources):

Saturn employees spoke a carefully selected language meant to separate the "new world" from the "old world." This new world was steeped in the best customer service practices learned from travel and hospitality as well as consumer retail industries, not necessarily the traditional car business. If you owned a Saturn franchise, you were a "Retailer," not a dealer. And you planned how to serve a non-competing geographic area, "Market Area," with "Retail Facilities," not dealerships. Saturn inspired a cult following with annual 'meetings' in Tennessee of Saturn owners, as well a day-to-day special events in retail settings. However, the division never made a profit and by the 2000s was a several billion dollar loss for General Motors, which due to its massive financial problems closed the 'experiment' and folded Saturn back into its traditional corporate landscape.

More unsourced information:

General Motors even choose west-coast Saturn retailers to sell and service the short-lived and highly politicized electric car, the EV1, in the mid 1990's. A history of the EV1 can be seen in the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?.

Saturn's headquarters, retail employee training facility and primary manufacturing facility were originally located in Spring Hill, Tennessee. The facility was chosen in 1985, after a highly publicized nationwide search for a site; the impact of bringing a major industrial development to a rural American community was the subject of architectural historian Joe Sherman's book, "In the Rings of Saturn."

Saturn was originally established as a fully-owned, but independently administered subsidiary of General Motors, with GM executive Bill Hoglund at its helm. It was hoped that lessons learned from Saturn would trickle down to the rest of General Motors to make them more competitive against foreign automakers and improve labor relations. Due to severe losses at GM, and a failure of the company to capitalize on its initial momentum by not redesigning its vehicles fast enough nor expanding its range, it was decided to integrate the rest of the company in to the GM infrastructure in 2003, with Bob Lutz aiming to bring the brand closer to its European cousin, Opel.

Since the 2000s, Saturn has been gradually losing its autonomy, as new models, for example, do not utilize polymer side panels and are derivatives of other GM models. Production has since been moved to other GM plants. Production of Saturn vehicles at the Tennessee facility ceased on March 30, 2007. Initially, the Saturn Corporation was headed by a president who consulted with a Union local counterpart and reported to the GM Board of Directors. As the role of Saturn changed within General Motors, the chief executive role was shifted to be a Vice President of Sales, Service and Marketing. Since 2005, Jill Lajdziak, previously a VP of SSM, has been the General Manager of Saturn, who reports to the Vice President of the GM Small Car Group.

Saturn is known for its company-wide "no-haggle" sales policy. Saturn dealers (called "retailers" by the company) are encouraged to sell vehicles at list price. Customer satisfaction with dealer service is among the highest of any car brand in the U.S. The company also won praise for its environmentally-conscious manufacturing processes and for its innovations such as using flexible plastic side panels on its cars to avoid minor dents. However, in 2005, the Saturn Relay became the first Saturn vehicle without polymer side paneling.

Since the 2000s, Saturn has been gradually losing its autonomy, as new models, for example, do not utilize polymer side panels and are derivatives of other GM models. Production has since been moved to other GM plants. Production of Saturn vehicles at the Tennessee facility ceased on March 30, 2007. Initially, the Saturn Corporation was headed by a president who consulted with a Union local counterpart and reported to the GM Board of Directors. As the role of Saturn changed within General Motors, the chief executive role was shifted to be a Vice President of Sales, Service and Marketing. Since 2005, Jill Lajdziak, previously a VP of SSM, has been the General Manager of Saturn, who reports to the Vice President of the GM Small Car Group.

Saturn is known for its company-wide "no-haggle" sales policy. Saturn dealers (called "retailers" by the company) are encouraged to sell vehicles at list price. Customer satisfaction with dealer service is among the highest of any car brand in the U.S. The company also won praise for its environmentally-conscious manufacturing processes and for its innovations such as using flexible plastic side panels on its cars to avoid minor dents. However, in 2005, the Saturn Relay became the first Saturn vehicle without polymer side paneling.

under history section removed POV:

When it was launched, Saturn (named after the rocket that took American astronauts to the moon, not for the planet) was a significant departure for GM.

Removed unsourced:

The first real change came with the 2000 Saturn L-Series mid-size car. It shared the GM2900 platform with the Opel Vectra, along with its engine, and was built at a GM factory in Wilmington, Delaware. The Saturn Sky is now being produced in the Wilmington facility along with its essentially-identical siblings, the Pontiac Solstice and Opel GT.

Today, the company shares GM's Delta and Theta automobile platforms, along with the company's Ecotec engine, and vehicles are built at many GM plants along with the Spring Hill factory. The Saturn VUE even uses a Honda engine, and the plastic body panels will be discontinued on most future vehicles.

In recent years, Saturn has been criticized for not keeping pace with the rest of the automotive industry. Sales have been declining, and the ION production lines were halted for two weeks in 2003 to allow dealer inventory to reduce. The L-Series was canceled after production of the 2005 models.

Since Saturn never made a profit, GM decided to take back control of the division, eliminating its independence from the corporate behemoth.

Wikipedia is not a crystal bal. Removed:

The Saturn brand will be repositioned in the upper-end of the family car market, stopping just south of entry-level luxury; roughly where Oldsmobile used to be. Volkswagen is in the same market position that GM wants to take Saturn (only going as high as the Passat)

Remove POV and no source:

The company's independent manufacturing operations are in doubt, however. GM has begun moving Saturn production away from Spring Hill, and announced that that plant would be integrated with the company's regular plant mix, producing products for all GM brands. It is currently being retooled for larger cars, and the shop to produce Saturn's iconic plastic body panels is being dismantled as the company moves to conventional steel panels. Besides the obvious cost and assembly benefits to using industry-standard steel panels, Saturn's trademark polymer skins require larger gaps in between body panels to allow for heat expansion. The lack of understanding by automotive critics has led to past Saturns being periodically criticized for poor assembly quality.

Wiki is not a crystall ball:

The VUE and ION Red Line models, launched in 2004, will be joined by a Green Line VUE and Aura and Red Line Sky in 2007.

Please do not mass delete content

While removal of clearly unencyclopedic content is fine, mass deletions on the pretext that they lack citations are unproductive, and border on vandalism. It is better to add citation-needed tags ({{cite}} or related) to uncontroversial passages. Or better yet, find the references yourself. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 15:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ProhibitOnions but your playing games here and it is making me mad. (uncivil comment removed by me, CyclePat) I have stated an answer to your question which may be found on a users talk page here. In short please see WP:VER. Per the policy, it is now your responsibility to add the sources. (comment censored)... so long as it is well sourced. I do however agree with you that it is better to add citations then delete material but let's be honest... there are no real sources presently within this article. I come to wiki to get some educational material and frankly I'm not to impressed with the crappy crystal ball and unreferenced material I have found in this article. It sounds like a prosaic POV story told by an employee. (Which is Okay, if we put the source... ie: Interview with President of Saturn... or letter from Saturn). {{fact}} would be a waste of time and your accusations of vandalism are an insult. Next time you want to talk to me I expect an apology,... (removed threat). Good luck with the references as per WP:CITE. adieu. --CyclePat2 19:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in the content dispute here and was offering advice, not specifically addressed to you. You have earned yourself a block for incivility and vulgarity. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 20:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of sections and Sources of information disputed...

The neutrality and lack of properly sourced information is being disputed again. I will place the information here. (FOR A SECOND TIME). Please discuss this information prior to putting it back into the article. --CyclePat2 00:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest set of edits, adding "According to XX" to the text and adding an excessive number of cite tags to items that you could have researched instead, are not helpful, and seem to be a violation of WP:POINT. Please desist. Find citations for the items you have flagged and you will instead have made an excellent contribution to the article, for which the other users will be grateful. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of tagging every sentence with {{cite}} tags, you should just instead put an {{unreferenced}} tag at the top of the page. Cite tags are usually only used for controversial sentences that will need a source to back them up. Karrmann 19:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While removing huge chunks of the article might seem drastic, the article consist to a significant extent of speculation, OR, POV, crystalballing, editorial-style comments, imprecise, incorrect or malformed information, and yes - it is completely unsourced. I believe it might even be beneficial to remove the whole lot and start ab ovo, making sure to include encyclopedic and properly-sourced info only. Cheers, PrinceGloria 21:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right, and I fully agree the article is very poor. However, the manner in which content has been removed so far has not been helpful, and amounts to an edit war. There's a skeleton of basic information about Saturn here (founded 1985, located in Spring Hill after a long and highly publicized search, originally autonomous but ultimately absorbed by the GM bureaucracy, etc.), but it, too, keeps getting removed, along with all the speculative and other nonsense that deserves the chop. Unfortunately, mass deletion without discussion, excessive taging without new contributions of material, and rude comments on talk pages, are unhelpful. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 22:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason why I objected to the deletion was mainly just like what you said, he deleted information that was the basic skeleten to this article. After he was done, nothing really was left to his article, and it was missing the most basic information about Saturn. I think that a good NPOV go over and referencing whould be done, but no more mass deletions. Karrmann 22:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on rewriting the article, bringing it to good article status, but I have limited time to do so. My stub will be available at User:Denimmonkey/Saturn Corporation until I feel it is finished. I have already gathered a variety of sources that verify nearly all the text on the current page, but I feel it would be worthless as the article could have much better headings instead of grouping everything into the initial summary. Anyone is welcome to contribute to what I currently have (which is pretty much empty at the time of this writing), and I'll make sure to get approval before replacing the page with my version. --Denimmonkey 23:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - though at the same time I made an attempt to remove the most glaring faults of the article by rearranging some contents, leaving out what did not belong and rephrasing some of the most inappropriate statements. I also left citation tags wherever the remaining information, to my best knowledge, is or might be be genuine, but would need good, reliable sources. I agree the article is no less a mess than it used to be, but I hope its development will continue. I guess I might have done a much better job, but unfortunately my egoism took over and I decided I do have to get some sleep... PrinceGloria 23:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too have intentions of making this a good article, but i can't get my butt in gear to do it. But if you need any help on the article, just let me know! Karrmann 00:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate content?

According to the artile, Saturn never turned a profit. This contradicts a New York Times article from 1993 that says Saturn turned a profit in May of that year. It also contradicts a GM webpage.

My guess is that it "turned a profit" for the time period, if you don't count the huge investment in startup costs, etc. But if those are factored in (and they have to be, over the 20-25 year period the company has been in existance now), it never was able to recoup those costs. But that's just speculation on my part. Also, the NYT Article mentions that no specific financial numbers were given, so it's kinda GM's word... --Rehcsif 17:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a quote to support my speculation, from this source:

In January 1994, Saturn announced its first operating profit, achieved in calendar '93, though the amount wasn't made public. The workforce had grown to 8500 by then, and each employee received a profit-sharing check for about $5100. Though Saturn was still a long way from paying back GM's initial investment, officials hastened to point out several benefits accruing from the new company.

So my guess is when people say Saturn "never turned a profit" they're meaning that GM never recouped their investment and actually made money on the line. --Rehcsif 17:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to agree with Wikipedia's page on Profit, in particular the Accounting definitions of profit. The sources I originally cited used the term "operating profit", which Wikipedia clarifies as profit before taxes and interest on loans.Simplex 04:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

I noticed that a few people had suggested making major changes to this article, but it seems that no one has done it it. I would suggest that someone rewrite at least the history section, and maybe the entire article, preferably with more citations. In particular, the article has some serious organizational issues, including a lot of repeated content, like mention of the plastic side panels and GM's profit loss (which is currently in dispute, it seems). UrsaLinguaBWD (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took the initiative to make a few changes to the article. I added a few extra phrases at the beginning of the History section, fixed a punctuation error in the paragraph about the primary manufacturing facility, and deleted the last sentence of the Products section, as this was not only redundant, but also written in the second person. UrsaLinguaBWD (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last two paragraphs could still use some tweaking, and the article still needs citations. And how a bout some pictures, especially in the Products section? There are several on the pages for the Saturn models (S-series, ION, etc.) Lastly, a few questions. Is this article part of the Automobiles Wikiproject? If not, I think it should be. And is the Saturn website an okay source? I don't know how this figures in to NPOV and such. UrsaLinguaBWD (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts with this article. It looks like it was restored to a more information-rich, but poorly formatted, previous version (it was agonizingly sparse the last time I checked, November or so perhaps). I would not be able to weed through things all that well at the moment, but when I can, I'll lend a hand in at least removing repeated content. Boter (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it me or does the "History" section repeat itself? Smithw14 (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo saturn.jpg

Image:Logo saturn.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]