Saturn Aura News **2010 Concept Illustrations (page 8)**
10-20-2006 | 02:12 PM
#161
Fahrvergnügen'd
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,494
Likes: 1,569
From: Maryland
Originally Posted by gavriil
The JEtta and Passat are also really good cars. Look at how they sell.
We'll see how it plays out but the Aura is a nice looking car inside and out.
10-20-2006 | 06:44 PM
#162
hail to the victors
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 1
From: chicago
Originally Posted by charliemike
I disagree. A good car is a good car. Saturn has a better reputation than Hyundai and so while it not might be up there with Toyota and Honda it should still be more compelling than Dodge/Chrysler, Hyundai, Kia, and other GM offerings.
Will it be the kind of car that shoppers of the mid-$20k europeans go drive? Perhaps not initially but again, I think a really good car is a really good car.
If I needed a sedan, I would go drive a Saturn Aura XR before a Nissan Altima or VW Jetta.
Will it be the kind of car that shoppers of the mid-$20k europeans go drive? Perhaps not initially but again, I think a really good car is a really good car.
If I needed a sedan, I would go drive a Saturn Aura XR before a Nissan Altima or VW Jetta.
10-21-2006 | 10:41 AM
#165
Suzuka Master
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
From: Chicago Suburbs
Originally Posted by chungkopi
saturn doesn't have a better reputation than hyundai.
10-21-2006 | 01:35 PM
#166
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 8
From: Washington DC (NOVA)
Originally Posted by chungkopi
saturn doesn't have a better reputation than hyundai.
10-21-2006 | 01:37 PM
#167
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 8
From: Washington DC (NOVA)
Originally Posted by gavriil
I dont think the Aura can compete with the Accord and the Camry at all.
10-23-2006 | 11:14 AM
#168
Safety Car
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,411
Likes: 0
From: New Orleans
^ I think the Aura won't have any problems competiting against it's competiton. The Malibu (the next one is supposed to be awesome) is supposidly direct compeition for the Camry/Accord, while the Aura is billed as a bit more upmarket (competition for the Passat); though, it's easy to lump all of the cars together in the same FWD midsize sedan bowl. Anyway, I've tested both the Camry and Aura, and I'd take an Aura first, personally.
12-01-2006 | 02:06 AM
#169
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 8
From: Washington DC (NOVA)
Saturn Aura Green Line - - Source: Autoweek
Saturn bolsters its fuel-frugal arsenal with the addition of the Aura Green Line. The same Ecotec 2.4-liter 164-hp hybrid powertrain first found in the Vue Green Line powers the Aura example as well. The result is a claimed 25-percent fuel economy improvement over non-hybrid Auras. Expect to see the Aura Green Line in showrooms this spring and start at under $23,000, making it an affordable green machine.
12-01-2006 | 07:58 AM
#170
Safety Car
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,411
Likes: 0
From: New Orleans
The little "Green Line" and "Hybrid" logos on the rear chrome strip are nice detail touches, but I don't like the wheels. Making this hybrid affordable is a good move. It's better that they move them out the door as oppposed to squeezing more money out of them.
01-26-2007 | 08:49 PM
#171
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 8
From: Washington DC (NOVA)
Saturn Aura vs. Toyota Camry - - Source: Autoweek
Some new car models have more riding on them than others. Such is the case with the redone sixth-generation Toyota Camry and the new Saturn Aura. Expectations for these vehicles couldn’t be higher, since both figure heavily into each company’s plans.
The Camry needs to retain bragging rights as America’s best-selling car and to help elevate Toyota to the throne of the biggest carmaker in the world.
The Aura is seen as a turnaround player for the Saturn brand and a major component for a struggling General Motors to fend off Toyota’s challenge for the title of biggest carmaker. Oh, and each wants to aim for the jugular of the other.
Pressure? We would say so.
So we brought a copy of each to California Speedway to participate in our latest DoubleTake and to help answer the question that’s haunting midsize-sedan shoppers everywhere: Which is better, the latest version of Toyota’s perennial favorite or the new entry from resurgent Saturn?
A look at the spec sheets shows little disparity. Our test cars are both equipped with range-topping dual-overhead-cam V6 powerplants and six-speed automatic transmissions. The Toyota’s slightly smaller 3.5-liter displacement wins in the horsepower column with 268 hp to the Saturn’s 252 hp from a 3.6-liter unit. In torque, Aura barely edges Camry, 251 lb-ft to 248.
Underneath, both use similar suspension setups to keep the wheels planted up front with MacPherson struts. In back, Aura carries over the four-link suspension from the Opel Vectra.
Camry makes do with a dual-link unit in the rear.
Dimensionally, the Saturn rides on a longer, 112.3-inch wheelbase, while the Toyota sits on 109.3. Inside, the Toyota offers a total of 101.4 cubic feet of passenger volume, 3.7 more than the Saturn’s 97.7 thanks to slightly larger height and width dimensions. Cargo capacities are also close, with Aura offering 15.7 cubic feet to Camry’s 14.5 cubic feet of storage.
On the track, the Toyota drew first blood. From a standstill to 60 mph, the Camry clocked a best time of 6.22 seconds, 0.33 faster than the Aura’s 6.55, no doubt hampered by its extra 164 pounds of mass. Quarter-mile tests had the Camry going 3.7 mph quicker and beating the Aura to the timing lights by 0.47 second. Neither car exhibited any notable torque steer down the drag strip, which impressed one tester to say it was “quite an achievement given this much power. It just tracks straight ahead without need for any correction from me [when driving the Aura].” But neither did any tester mention torque steer in the Camry.
The slalom also saw the Camry besting the Aura with its run through the tight cones at a 43.3-mph top speed, while the Aura managed 42.7 mph. Testers noted that the inability to fully disable the Camry’s traction and stability controls slowed runs and hurt potential performance. Though the Aura was slower around the cones, testers applauded its surefootedness and said it felt perfectly manageable without using traction and stability control, but they wished for increased steering and tire response.
Around the skidpad, Camry was easily controllable using both steering inputs and throttle to modify its line to exhibit moderate understeer. Traction and stability programs again came into play but were fairly unobtrusive for this exercise to pull 0.77 g.
The Saturn showed the same degree of understeer but was slower to respond to changes in steering and throttle. “You have to move the steering wheel quite a bit for very little return,” according to one tester. In the end, the Aura’s wider rubber did pay dividends to better the Camry with 0.81 g. “This car feels a lot more stable on the skidpad than the Camry; the line is a lot more stable, less nervous,” said one tester.
Camry’s brakes quickly and smoothly hauled it down from 60 mpg in 113 feet, putting it on par with the Lotus Elise we tested last year that did it in 111 feet and the Chevrolet Corvette Z06’s 112-foot stop. Aura came to a halt 16 feet after the Camry, needing 129 feet.
During real-world driving, we found the vehicles comparable, neither showing much freeway hop, torque steer or dive under braking. Staffers preferred Aura’s fun and more composed everyday ride quality over Camry’s comparatively twitchy ride. The Toyota wins the green award for a slightly smaller petroleum appetite than the thirstier American.
Moneywise, the Aura holds an advantage over its Japanese challenger, with the XR coming in at nearly $4,300 less than the Camry’s as-tested price. When removing some of the Camry’s options to bring it more in line with the tested Aura’s equipment level, the advantage drops to about $1,900.
Inside, Aura held the upper hand and impressed the staff with high-quality materials equal to Camry’s and great overall build quality. One staff member said the Aura had “nice tight panel fits that are as tight, if not tighter, than the Camry. They’ve done a nice job with this.”
When we first drove an Aura (Has Saturn Finally Hit Its Target? AW Aug. 14), several people who saw the car thought they might be looking at an Acura.
One staffer expressed disappointment in the quality of Camry materials, saying, “There’s a surprising degree of cheapness on the Camry, something I didn’t expect,” and continued by asking, “Is Toyota losing it?” This was in response to the trunk interior, with what he described as the car’s ratty-fiber-lined wheel wells and black-painted Styrofoam blanking out the hinge areas.
On styling, our staff tips its hat to the Aura. Its design reminds us of the previously mentioned Vectra. In the August introduction story, we called Aura “a handsome car, clean with a bit of jewelry to declare this isn’t the plain-Jane basic transportation that was Saturn’s forte.” We still feel the same way.
Proclaiming a winner is difficult. The Camry won all of the performance tests except the skidpad. However, day-to-day testing had us walking away in favor of the Aura’s superior on-road manners, interior, styling and value.
While we are enthusiasts at heart, Camry’s performance edge is mostly small except in braking. As for what ultimately sells cars in this segment, Aura has strong credentials. The performance advantages of Camry are not significant enough to overlook its vanilla styling, cheapish details, higher price point and poorer ride quality compared to the Aura’s.
Saturn won’t overthrow Toyota for title of best seller, but it now has a strong package in Aura to start winning over skeptics and making them into believers, as it did with us. In the end, Aura is the better choice.
More Views
Aura is a clear winner in my book. The interior is well done, and the two-tone leather looks great. Neither car is really sporty, but the Camry feels bigger and less nimble than the Aura. Go drive both, and I bet most will bring the Saturn home. PHIL FLORADAY
I found the Aura more surefooted, with superior steering response and sportier powertrain and suspension. The interior often tips the scales to Aura, but to me the Saturn’s trump card lies in details like the double-sealed trunk. When little separates you from the competition, it’s the little things that count. BOB GRITZINGER
I would go for the Aura. At $26,919, it looks better than a Camry that costs more. Plus, I like the ride and handling from its Opel Vectra-based chassis. WES RAYNAL
Camry will sell more despite our preference for the Aura because Toyota has the proven formula: a roomier cabin, strong performance (brakes matter) and features like a rear seat armrest and cabin air filter. Its extra cost can be offset by fuel economy and a record of reliability. Saturn’s stunner merits Car of the Year, but the evolved Camry builds on Toyota’s enormous strength. KEVIN A. WILSON
2007 Saturn Aura XR
BASE (INCLUDES $650 DELIVERY): $24,595
AS-TESTED PRICE: $26,919
ENGINE
Front-transverse 3.6-liter/217-cid dohc V6
Output: 252 hp @ 6400 rpm, 251 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm
Compression ratio: 10.2:1
Fuel requirement: 87 octane
DRIVETRAIN
Front-wheel drive
Transmission: Six-speed automatic
Final drive ratio: 2.77:1
CHASSIS
Unibody four-door sedan
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 112.3 in
Track (front/rear): 59.9/60.3 in
Length/width/height: 190/70.3/57.6 in
Curb weight/GVWR: 3647/4628 lbs
SUSPENSION
Front: MacPherson struts with coil springs, gas-charged shock absorbers, antiroll bar
Rear: Four-link with coil springs, gas-charged shocks, antiroll bar
BRAKES/WHEELS/TIRES
Discs front and rear, ABS, aluminum 225/50R-18 Goodyear Eagle LS2
CAPACITIES
Fuel: 16.3 gal
Cargo: 15.7 cu ft
OPTIONS AS TESTED
Leather trim package, with leather appointed seats, leather-wrapped steering wheel, leather shift knob ($800); sunroof ($800); enhanced convenience package, with power passenger seat, power adjustable pedals ($425); satellite radio ($199); floor/trunk mats ($100)
STANDING-START ACCELERATION
0-60 mph: 6.55 sec
0-100 km/h (62.1 mph): 6.89 sec
0-quarter-mile: 15.11 sec @ 93.1 mph
ROLLING ACCELERATION
20-40 mph (first gear): 2.2 sec
40-60 mph (second gear): 3.5 sec
60-80 mph (third gear): 5.4 sec
BRAKING
60 mph-0: 129 ft
HANDLING
490-foot slalom: 42.7 mph
Lateral acceleration (200-foot skidpad): 0.81 g
FUEL MILEAGE
EPA combined: 23 mpg
AW overall: 22.0 mpg
INTERIOR NOISE (DBA)
Idle: 46
Max first gear: 78
Steady 60 mph: 62
2007 Toyota Camry SE
BASE (INCLUDES $650 DELIVERY): $24,895
AS-TESTED PRICE: $31,213
ENGINE
Front-transverse 3.5-liter/210-cid dohc V6
Output: 268 hp @ 6200 rpm, 248 lb-ft @ 4700 rpm
Compression ratio: 10.8:1
Fuel requirement: 87 octane
DRIVETRAIN
Front-wheel drive
Transmission: Six-speed automatic
Final drive ratio: 3.685:1
CHASSIS
Unibody four-door sedan
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 109.3 in
Track (front/rear): 60.2/61.6 in
Length/width/height: 189.2/71.7/57.7 in
Curb weight/GVWR: 3483/4485 lbs
SUSPENSION
Front: MacPherson struts with coil springs, gas-charged shock absorbers, antiroll bar
Rear: Dual-link with coil springs, gas-charged shock absorbers, antiroll bar
BRAKES/WHEELS/TIRES
Discs front and rear, ABS, aluminum 215/55R-17 Toyo Proxes J33
CAPACITIES
Fuel: 18.5 gal
Cargo: 14.5 cu ft
OPTIONS AS TESTED
Navigation, JBL premium audio, four-disc in-dash CD changer, eight speakers ($2,200); sport leather package, with heated front seats, heated outside mirrors ($1,770); moonroof ($940); stability control, traction control ($650); security system ($359); rear spoiler ($200); trunk mats ($199)
STANDING-START ACCELERATION
0-60 mph: 6.22 sec
0-100 km/h (62.1 mph): 6.55 sec
0-quarter-mile: 14.64 sec @ 96.8 mph
ROLLING ACCELERATION
20-40 mph (first and second gear): 2.1 sec
40-60 mph (second gear): 3.2 sec
60-80 mph (third gear): 4.3 sec
BRAKING
60 mph-0: 113 ft
HANDLING
490-foot slalom: 43.3 mph
Lateral acceleration (200-foot skidpad): 0.77 g
FUEL MILEAGE
EPA combined: 25 mpg
AW overall: 24.9 mpg
INTERIOR NOISE (DBA)
Idle: 42
Max first gear: 74
Steady 60 mph: 61
The Camry needs to retain bragging rights as America’s best-selling car and to help elevate Toyota to the throne of the biggest carmaker in the world.
The Aura is seen as a turnaround player for the Saturn brand and a major component for a struggling General Motors to fend off Toyota’s challenge for the title of biggest carmaker. Oh, and each wants to aim for the jugular of the other.
Pressure? We would say so.
So we brought a copy of each to California Speedway to participate in our latest DoubleTake and to help answer the question that’s haunting midsize-sedan shoppers everywhere: Which is better, the latest version of Toyota’s perennial favorite or the new entry from resurgent Saturn?
A look at the spec sheets shows little disparity. Our test cars are both equipped with range-topping dual-overhead-cam V6 powerplants and six-speed automatic transmissions. The Toyota’s slightly smaller 3.5-liter displacement wins in the horsepower column with 268 hp to the Saturn’s 252 hp from a 3.6-liter unit. In torque, Aura barely edges Camry, 251 lb-ft to 248.
Underneath, both use similar suspension setups to keep the wheels planted up front with MacPherson struts. In back, Aura carries over the four-link suspension from the Opel Vectra.
Camry makes do with a dual-link unit in the rear.
Dimensionally, the Saturn rides on a longer, 112.3-inch wheelbase, while the Toyota sits on 109.3. Inside, the Toyota offers a total of 101.4 cubic feet of passenger volume, 3.7 more than the Saturn’s 97.7 thanks to slightly larger height and width dimensions. Cargo capacities are also close, with Aura offering 15.7 cubic feet to Camry’s 14.5 cubic feet of storage.
On the track, the Toyota drew first blood. From a standstill to 60 mph, the Camry clocked a best time of 6.22 seconds, 0.33 faster than the Aura’s 6.55, no doubt hampered by its extra 164 pounds of mass. Quarter-mile tests had the Camry going 3.7 mph quicker and beating the Aura to the timing lights by 0.47 second. Neither car exhibited any notable torque steer down the drag strip, which impressed one tester to say it was “quite an achievement given this much power. It just tracks straight ahead without need for any correction from me [when driving the Aura].” But neither did any tester mention torque steer in the Camry.
The slalom also saw the Camry besting the Aura with its run through the tight cones at a 43.3-mph top speed, while the Aura managed 42.7 mph. Testers noted that the inability to fully disable the Camry’s traction and stability controls slowed runs and hurt potential performance. Though the Aura was slower around the cones, testers applauded its surefootedness and said it felt perfectly manageable without using traction and stability control, but they wished for increased steering and tire response.
Around the skidpad, Camry was easily controllable using both steering inputs and throttle to modify its line to exhibit moderate understeer. Traction and stability programs again came into play but were fairly unobtrusive for this exercise to pull 0.77 g.
The Saturn showed the same degree of understeer but was slower to respond to changes in steering and throttle. “You have to move the steering wheel quite a bit for very little return,” according to one tester. In the end, the Aura’s wider rubber did pay dividends to better the Camry with 0.81 g. “This car feels a lot more stable on the skidpad than the Camry; the line is a lot more stable, less nervous,” said one tester.
Camry’s brakes quickly and smoothly hauled it down from 60 mpg in 113 feet, putting it on par with the Lotus Elise we tested last year that did it in 111 feet and the Chevrolet Corvette Z06’s 112-foot stop. Aura came to a halt 16 feet after the Camry, needing 129 feet.
During real-world driving, we found the vehicles comparable, neither showing much freeway hop, torque steer or dive under braking. Staffers preferred Aura’s fun and more composed everyday ride quality over Camry’s comparatively twitchy ride. The Toyota wins the green award for a slightly smaller petroleum appetite than the thirstier American.
Moneywise, the Aura holds an advantage over its Japanese challenger, with the XR coming in at nearly $4,300 less than the Camry’s as-tested price. When removing some of the Camry’s options to bring it more in line with the tested Aura’s equipment level, the advantage drops to about $1,900.
Inside, Aura held the upper hand and impressed the staff with high-quality materials equal to Camry’s and great overall build quality. One staff member said the Aura had “nice tight panel fits that are as tight, if not tighter, than the Camry. They’ve done a nice job with this.”
When we first drove an Aura (Has Saturn Finally Hit Its Target? AW Aug. 14), several people who saw the car thought they might be looking at an Acura.
One staffer expressed disappointment in the quality of Camry materials, saying, “There’s a surprising degree of cheapness on the Camry, something I didn’t expect,” and continued by asking, “Is Toyota losing it?” This was in response to the trunk interior, with what he described as the car’s ratty-fiber-lined wheel wells and black-painted Styrofoam blanking out the hinge areas.
On styling, our staff tips its hat to the Aura. Its design reminds us of the previously mentioned Vectra. In the August introduction story, we called Aura “a handsome car, clean with a bit of jewelry to declare this isn’t the plain-Jane basic transportation that was Saturn’s forte.” We still feel the same way.
Proclaiming a winner is difficult. The Camry won all of the performance tests except the skidpad. However, day-to-day testing had us walking away in favor of the Aura’s superior on-road manners, interior, styling and value.
While we are enthusiasts at heart, Camry’s performance edge is mostly small except in braking. As for what ultimately sells cars in this segment, Aura has strong credentials. The performance advantages of Camry are not significant enough to overlook its vanilla styling, cheapish details, higher price point and poorer ride quality compared to the Aura’s.
Saturn won’t overthrow Toyota for title of best seller, but it now has a strong package in Aura to start winning over skeptics and making them into believers, as it did with us. In the end, Aura is the better choice.
More Views
Aura is a clear winner in my book. The interior is well done, and the two-tone leather looks great. Neither car is really sporty, but the Camry feels bigger and less nimble than the Aura. Go drive both, and I bet most will bring the Saturn home. PHIL FLORADAY
I found the Aura more surefooted, with superior steering response and sportier powertrain and suspension. The interior often tips the scales to Aura, but to me the Saturn’s trump card lies in details like the double-sealed trunk. When little separates you from the competition, it’s the little things that count. BOB GRITZINGER
I would go for the Aura. At $26,919, it looks better than a Camry that costs more. Plus, I like the ride and handling from its Opel Vectra-based chassis. WES RAYNAL
Camry will sell more despite our preference for the Aura because Toyota has the proven formula: a roomier cabin, strong performance (brakes matter) and features like a rear seat armrest and cabin air filter. Its extra cost can be offset by fuel economy and a record of reliability. Saturn’s stunner merits Car of the Year, but the evolved Camry builds on Toyota’s enormous strength. KEVIN A. WILSON
2007 Saturn Aura XR
BASE (INCLUDES $650 DELIVERY): $24,595
AS-TESTED PRICE: $26,919
ENGINE
Front-transverse 3.6-liter/217-cid dohc V6
Output: 252 hp @ 6400 rpm, 251 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm
Compression ratio: 10.2:1
Fuel requirement: 87 octane
DRIVETRAIN
Front-wheel drive
Transmission: Six-speed automatic
Final drive ratio: 2.77:1
CHASSIS
Unibody four-door sedan
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 112.3 in
Track (front/rear): 59.9/60.3 in
Length/width/height: 190/70.3/57.6 in
Curb weight/GVWR: 3647/4628 lbs
SUSPENSION
Front: MacPherson struts with coil springs, gas-charged shock absorbers, antiroll bar
Rear: Four-link with coil springs, gas-charged shocks, antiroll bar
BRAKES/WHEELS/TIRES
Discs front and rear, ABS, aluminum 225/50R-18 Goodyear Eagle LS2
CAPACITIES
Fuel: 16.3 gal
Cargo: 15.7 cu ft
OPTIONS AS TESTED
Leather trim package, with leather appointed seats, leather-wrapped steering wheel, leather shift knob ($800); sunroof ($800); enhanced convenience package, with power passenger seat, power adjustable pedals ($425); satellite radio ($199); floor/trunk mats ($100)
STANDING-START ACCELERATION
0-60 mph: 6.55 sec
0-100 km/h (62.1 mph): 6.89 sec
0-quarter-mile: 15.11 sec @ 93.1 mph
ROLLING ACCELERATION
20-40 mph (first gear): 2.2 sec
40-60 mph (second gear): 3.5 sec
60-80 mph (third gear): 5.4 sec
BRAKING
60 mph-0: 129 ft
HANDLING
490-foot slalom: 42.7 mph
Lateral acceleration (200-foot skidpad): 0.81 g
FUEL MILEAGE
EPA combined: 23 mpg
AW overall: 22.0 mpg
INTERIOR NOISE (DBA)
Idle: 46
Max first gear: 78
Steady 60 mph: 62
2007 Toyota Camry SE
BASE (INCLUDES $650 DELIVERY): $24,895
AS-TESTED PRICE: $31,213
ENGINE
Front-transverse 3.5-liter/210-cid dohc V6
Output: 268 hp @ 6200 rpm, 248 lb-ft @ 4700 rpm
Compression ratio: 10.8:1
Fuel requirement: 87 octane
DRIVETRAIN
Front-wheel drive
Transmission: Six-speed automatic
Final drive ratio: 3.685:1
CHASSIS
Unibody four-door sedan
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 109.3 in
Track (front/rear): 60.2/61.6 in
Length/width/height: 189.2/71.7/57.7 in
Curb weight/GVWR: 3483/4485 lbs
SUSPENSION
Front: MacPherson struts with coil springs, gas-charged shock absorbers, antiroll bar
Rear: Dual-link with coil springs, gas-charged shock absorbers, antiroll bar
BRAKES/WHEELS/TIRES
Discs front and rear, ABS, aluminum 215/55R-17 Toyo Proxes J33
CAPACITIES
Fuel: 18.5 gal
Cargo: 14.5 cu ft
OPTIONS AS TESTED
Navigation, JBL premium audio, four-disc in-dash CD changer, eight speakers ($2,200); sport leather package, with heated front seats, heated outside mirrors ($1,770); moonroof ($940); stability control, traction control ($650); security system ($359); rear spoiler ($200); trunk mats ($199)
STANDING-START ACCELERATION
0-60 mph: 6.22 sec
0-100 km/h (62.1 mph): 6.55 sec
0-quarter-mile: 14.64 sec @ 96.8 mph
ROLLING ACCELERATION
20-40 mph (first and second gear): 2.1 sec
40-60 mph (second gear): 3.2 sec
60-80 mph (third gear): 4.3 sec
BRAKING
60 mph-0: 113 ft
HANDLING
490-foot slalom: 43.3 mph
Lateral acceleration (200-foot skidpad): 0.77 g
FUEL MILEAGE
EPA combined: 25 mpg
AW overall: 24.9 mpg
INTERIOR NOISE (DBA)
Idle: 42
Max first gear: 74
Steady 60 mph: 61
01-26-2007 | 10:38 PM
#173
Fahrvergnügen'd
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,494
Likes: 1,569
From: Maryland
Originally Posted by heyitsme
The Aura looks silly next to the Camry in the above pic.
I like the understated appeal of the Aura. I'm glad it's as good as I hoped it was.
NOW, how about that Aura Red-Line please?
01-26-2007 | 11:48 PM
#175
Registered Abuser of VTEC
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 6,542
Likes: 115
From: Edmonton, Alberta
Originally Posted by 98CLChick
I personally don't care for the Camry, it looks bloated. 
That being said, I dislike both cars. The Camry is STILL boring (I don't care how much HP Toyota puts in there, it's a boring car to me, both the drive and look, although the look is much better than the last rendition), and the Aura is fugly and I didn't like the steering or ergonomics very much. For the size of the engine it felt laggy or something as well.
01-27-2007 | 09:27 PM
#181
Senior Moderator
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 47,710
Likes: 801
From: Toronto, Canada
One staffer expressed disappointment in the quality of Camry materials, saying, “There’s a surprising degree of cheapness on the Camry, something I didn’t expect,” and continued by asking, “Is Toyota losing it?”
01-27-2007 | 11:22 PM
#182
nnInn
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,670
Likes: 1,084
Originally Posted by dom
I've been saying this since the 2006 Detroit Auto show. Glad to see someone else has noticed.
That's because the REAL magazines are finally saying something about it. M&T, just want their ad $$$. Camry was 5 out of 6 with R&T.
01-28-2007 | 10:58 AM
#184
Suzuka Master
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
From: Chicago Suburbs
Originally Posted by biker
At this point the Camry has built itself such a reputation that unless Toyota screws it up it will sell its 400K/yr no matter the competition.
01-28-2007 | 10:18 PM
#185
Safety Car
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,411
Likes: 0
From: New Orleans
Originally Posted by heyitsme
The Camry is just about 200lbs lighter. Why is the Camry bloated?
02-04-2008 | 03:58 PM
#186
The sizzle in the Steak
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 71,436
Likes: 1,877
From: Southern California
2010 Saturn Aura
From Leftlanenews.....
Last week we brought you some pretty revealing spy shots of the new Saturn Aura (Opel Insignia). Of course, the car was still wearing some disguise, so our artists have put together an illustration of how the finished car will look, badged as a Saturn rather than an Opel.
The car draws lightly from Opel's GTC concept, but it's definitely evolutionary, rather than revolutionary.
The upcoming Aura/Insignia is based on GM's fresh Epsilon 2 platform. We're expecting similar powertrains to the current model - a couple of V6s and a hybrid - as well as front wheel drive. All wheel drive is a rumored possibility.
The prototype's gauge cluster is highlighted by four chrome-ringed dials — two large and two small — with clean looking faces. Chrome also accents the center-mounted gear shifter, giving the interior an up-scale feel. For the first time, spy shots reveal what the center stack will look like on the road-going model. Although the quality doesn't look quite up to production floor standards, the overall design can be inferred. Atop the center stack looks like a space that could house an LCD screen.
The Insignia will be released in late '08 as an '09 model in Europe, with U.S. sales of an Aura likely following a year later.
The car draws lightly from Opel's GTC concept, but it's definitely evolutionary, rather than revolutionary.
The upcoming Aura/Insignia is based on GM's fresh Epsilon 2 platform. We're expecting similar powertrains to the current model - a couple of V6s and a hybrid - as well as front wheel drive. All wheel drive is a rumored possibility.
The prototype's gauge cluster is highlighted by four chrome-ringed dials — two large and two small — with clean looking faces. Chrome also accents the center-mounted gear shifter, giving the interior an up-scale feel. For the first time, spy shots reveal what the center stack will look like on the road-going model. Although the quality doesn't look quite up to production floor standards, the overall design can be inferred. Atop the center stack looks like a space that could house an LCD screen.
The Insignia will be released in late '08 as an '09 model in Europe, with U.S. sales of an Aura likely following a year later.
02-04-2008 | 05:43 PM
#195
Safety Car
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,411
Likes: 0
From: New Orleans
Damn... The CGIs look awesome. If the production version stays true to form, it'll be the best looking midsizer on the market, IMO. It'll trump the Malibu, which is the nicest out... Love the interior layout.
Talk about out of touch.... 
