Not related but lead batteries are the most recycled product(96%) and plastic can be good if it is formulated correctly,steel is without a doubt the manus dream material-Kevin
Pro shops use spectral scanners on the car's existing paint, but even that isn't perfect.
I knew an old time body-man that could perfectly match a paint color. Did it by eye. He’d go to the paint store to get the color it’s suppose to be. Then he’d start adding different pigments and hold the mix up the the paint on the car. This was the magic part because the paint will dry a different shade. He knew that and could tell. I have no idea how…but it was always perfect.
" I wonder if the plastic panels expand and contract with the temperature and change the fit some?"
That is exactly why the panel gaps were so much larger on Saturns than on other makes. The extreme expansion of the plastic during the summer necessitated panel gaps that are noticeably larger than on any other make of car.
One thing I have to say about those old Saturn dealerships is that the cut-out car on display made a lasting impression. It showed a cut-out of the engine highlighting the timing chain, it showed a cut-out of a door panel to show the safety cage infrastructure, and the salesman invited me to hit the dent resistant side panels with a baseball bat. If the car I test drove hadn’t had such loose steering, I might have bought a car from them.
When the first Saturn models were introduced, I seriously considered buying one–especially after visiting a showroom. However, since my next stop was at a Honda showroom, my fascination with Saturns was short-lived.
The difference in assembly quality between those two marques was…dramatic. I bought an Accord instead of a Saturn and never regretted that decision.
I took a closer look at another Saturn SL that I see fairly regularly, a gold wagon owned by a nice old guy, the panel gaps around the doors were fairly wide but the rest weren’t so bad. A Chrysler Sebring sedan was much worse overall.Some of the newer and larger Saturns like the L-Series sedans had some large gaps as well. The newest cars had pretty small and uniform gaps. The Sebring looked like you could almost reach under and unlatch the hood.
The co-worker with the SL used either aftermarket or good used body panels which initially stood out, later they most likely had just those panels painted to match (from what I could tell from 20ft away at least) and did the replacement in their driveway. Their 1983 Rabbit Cabrio is the car they really try to keep nice since it had new paint/top/interior when they bought it after seeing the bright yellow convertible with a 4sale sign on a street near Seattle. It’s been very good to them for the 7 or so years since they bought it. They have much better luck with their older VW’s than the BMW 330i that turned out to be an expensive problem child.
The newer Saturns had no more plastic than any other car. Most were Americanized Opels. The first Saturn was the SL/SC/SW 1 and 2. Those were the cars that were almost entirely plastic-bodied. Then came the mid-sized L, which had a mix of plastic and metal. Those were the only models with unusual amounts of plastic in the bodies. Once they had abandoned that it was hard for them to argue that there cars were different. Somewhat European in feeling, maybe.
Plastic cladding exist today in a much different way. The expense of reinforcing that much plastic for crash tests just isn’t worth the added expense. It’s still just cheaper to build the car out of steel, then slap on the pastic afterward for what ever other advantages it might have in dings, paint chipping and surface rust. People are not into touching up knicks before they become too severe and the expensive self supporting composites aren’t there. The plastic Saturn had it’s day…but like the SAAB, when it became just another name plate and nothing special, the buyers faded away.
“The plastic Saturn had it’s day…but like the SAAB, when it became just another name plate and nothing special, the buyers faded away.”
I disagree
GM watered down Saturn and Saab to a ridiculous degree
In the end, some Saturns were absolutely identical to their cousins . . . remember the Saturn Relay van?
As for Saab, GM took away everything quirky which game the brand its identitiy
GM tried to change Saab, but the Saab employees didn’t follow the script. They continued to build a car very similar to the pre-GM version so it remained more expensive to build than the old ones. And many people thought it was substantially altered by GM, so its sales plummeted. They went out of business quickly after that.
So, what you’re saying is this . . . Saab could not be saved
Keep Saab quirky and pre-GM, and it will be too expensive
Let Saab be substantially altered by GM, and it loses its identity, and becomes superfluous
Did I understand correctly?
dagosa The plastic Saturn had it’s day…but like the SAAB, when it became just another name plate and nothing special, the buyers faded away."
@db4690 I disagree
GM watered down Saturn and Saab to a ridiculous degree
@db4690 Huh ? From everything you said, it looks like we do agree… 
ie. “watered down” compared to "nothing special"
I have a wife that will disagree with me for no reason. I don’t need another volunteer. But thanks for the offer. ;()
You got me there
LOL
Not exactly. Had Saab done exactly what GM wanted the cars would have been less expensive to build than to sell. No one knows what would have happened. But judging by all the people that say GM ruined Saab, it seems clear that a segment of the buying public would not touch a Saab because of the perceived changes. Top Gear paid homage to the departed Saab:
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/a-tribute-to-saab-part-1-series-18-episode-5
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/a-tribute-to-saab-part-2-series-18-episode-5
Another feature that made Saturn popular was the ability of it’s cars with automatic transmissions to be towed on all four wheels without being modified. This made Saturns very popular for RVing. However, this unique feature went away at about the same time as the dent resistant side panels. Once these two unique features were gone, Saturn started circling the drain.
After being fairly loyal to SAABs for about ten years, I found the original models (the 99) qute innovative and other then the motor, very well made. But, fwd, ohc motors , disc brakes and a body like a tank can only take you so far when everyone else starts doing the same. SAAB ran out of innovations and the parent company was not about to strap one of their jet motors to it. So, they rode the nameplate as far as they could take it. IMHO, GM did try to increase the spark by selling models rebadged from other makers. It was really no different then the Infinity line, Lexus of what any other brand does which Optioned and styled it’s way into the pocket books of those who want to belong to an exclusive club.
I know a bunch of SAAB owners who took a lot of convincing to show them that GM and Subaru were the under pinnings of some SaABs. It’s really just a generational thing and SAAB owners grew up, had families and bought minivans and F150s. Their kids bought scions, Civics, Focus and Corollas and there goes their market with no room for SAABs…All is left is to compete against less expensive and better performing Fusions, Camrys and accords for thousands less. Adios.
The Swedes were in a tough spot. They didn’t have the reputation for luxury or performance of the better German brands, so couldn’t charge as much, though their labor costs were similar. Volvo got by for years on their reputation for safety, but once those safety features were required on all cars, Volvo was in trouble. All Saab had was its quirky reputation and a slight connection to aviation (that GM made laughable in their ads - they were definitely NOT ‘born from jets’). My partner had a couple of Saabs in the seventies and early eighties and their very poor reliability turned him off them (but not before buying the second). He worked for a New England university, where Saabs were common. I expect both brands to become just upscale nameplates for third-world cars, with a handful of their most expensive models made in Sweden so they can claim authenticity.
My guess is that Geely bought Volvo to acquire ready entry and distribution channels to major markets like the U.S. and for the technology to be able to meet major-market regulatory requirements. I’m betting that Geely will build on the existing Vovlo designs while reducing costs through their own Chinese supply chains and cheap Chinese labor. It’s early yet, but that’s my guess.
SAAB’s “estate” (bankruptcy remains) were recently purchased by a Swedish group, but I’ll bet they’ll disappear into history. Having tried to save a bankrupt (chapter 11… which ended up chapter 7) manufacturing firm myself, I learned that it was about 1000 times more difficult than I expected. There is serious bankruptcy residue in the supplier chains. Credit, early delivery, and discounts all evaporate and materials prices rise. Rather than purchasing on “10% discount/net 90 day” (or whatever) discounts and getting the materials into the manufacturing process and turned into deliverables hopefully before the procurement discount even expires, suppliers up their prices (to cover the loss they took) and demand payment before they’ll even begin setup… and banks are really, really, really reticent to give you operating capital loans to bridge the gaps. The entire business model gets flopped on its head.
If the purchasers of SAAB integrate it fully into their own operations and they have a good amount of operating capital up front, they might be able to save SAAB. If they try to run it as a separate business, I fear they’re doomed.
SAAB made their name in the U.S. as a provider of FWD cars for the snow belt. That marketing advantage disappeared decades ago.
I remember vividly walking into the local SAAB dealership shortly after purchasing my first (pre-owned) 900T.
A salesman ambled over to ask me what I was currently driving. When he got my response, he ambled off again without a word. He knew all about SAAB owner loyalty!
You understand correctly, the way that Top Gear explained it was GM wanted Saab to simply put their own bodywork on a Opel design, they ended up changing so much and costing lots of money, even coming up with their own Nav system instead of using the GM one. The battle was between cheap and just a rebadge and keeping Saab quirky. GM tried to make Saab into BMW but on the cheap.