Many people have had very high hopes for the new Saturn Aura ever since the concept version was unveiled at the January 2006 Detroit auto show. With SUV sales flagging, GM desperately needs to start regaining share in the midsize sedan segment it once dominated. The concept Aura, with European styling, a DOHC V6, and six-speed automatic, seemed just the ticket.

I was personally quite impressed by the concept. Between that car and the Sky, I returned from the show feeling that Saturn had a very bright future.

Then I saw photos of the production car, and my expectations sank. The sheetmetal was all the same, but a less aggressive front fascia, smaller multi-spoke wheels, and extra chrome detailing reminded me a bit much of a Chrysler Sebring. These are the latest Opel cues (Opel is GM's German subsidiary), but nothing about the production car's appearance in photos made me think "European sport sedan."

Also, I noticed that the Aura shared much more with the G6 than I initially realized. I've always liked the styling of the G6, but driving one was an underwhelming experience. Especially the handling. Could the Saturn be much better?

Well, now I've driven one, specifically a white XR sedan with the DOHC V6 engine and Morocco brown leather interior. The salesman did not come along, and some of my favorite testing roads were nearby, so I got a very good test drive. My impressions follow.

Styling

My evaluation of the Aura's exterior styling has not improved much. The large headlights are a bit much, the wheels have too many spokes, and the whole thing needs to look less like a Chrysler Sebring. Bob Lutz had a hand in the original Sebring. Why bother doing another one the same year Chrysler is shipping the outmoded tooling to Russia?

During the test drive I dropped by a Pontiac dealer and parked the Aura next to a G6 GTP sedan. Looking at the cars side by side, it became clear that I had been overestimating the amount of sharing between the two. The windshield and trunk lid are probably shared between the two. But the rest is different.

Between the two, I continue to prefer the appearance of the G6, with its lower, cleaner, more chiseled nose, more dynamic beltline, less frilly trim, sheer fenders (no trendy flared wheel arches), and strong five-spoke wheels. I've wondered if the Pontiac's body is too clean for American tastes. Now we'll find out. The more massive front end and flashier trim of the Aura do lend it a more upscale appearance in the Chrysler vs. Dodge idiom.

Encouraged by GM's PR flacks, many people believe that the Aura is a rebadged Opel. This is not correct. The Opel in question is a smaller car, with a wheelbase half a foot shorter than that of the Aura. (At 112.3 inches, the wheelbase of the Aura and G6 is longer than that of most midsize sedans.)

The lack of kinship with the Opel is especially apparent inside the Aura. It's not the styling per se. The Aura's interior styling is similar to that of many Japanese and Korean sedans, with a band of trim running along the otherwise clean dash and door panels. Nothing crazy. The black, more businesslike interior of the G6 is more distinctive, but most people will prefer the warmer, flashier interior of the Aura.

The Morocco brown leather upholstery is less impressive in person than in photos. The center panels, embossed with a reptilian pattern, are a bit too slick and shiny. The vinyl door panels will fool no one into thinking they might be leather, even if the armrests did not have such obviously vague stitching along their edges. Every reviewer has been ripping on this fake stitching. GM cars used to be plagued with such stuff back in the 1980s. I personally thought it extinct. Apparently not. If you mind it, get the dark gray interior; the stitching is much more obvious on the brown armrest. Given the rampant criticism of this detail, I strongly suspect GM will rework the mold to eliminate it.

From photos of the interior, I thought I'd hate how a thick band of trim encircles the ignition and the band of trim that surrounds the non-integrated audio and HVAC controls. But I did not mind these much. The trim around the ignition was blocked by the steering wheel, so it was not visible from the driver's seat. And the surround didn't look so bad in person thanks to a bevel I had not noticed in the photos, especially not in interiors with the silver trim. (While a car in the showroom had the silver trim, the car I drove had the obviously fake, overly glossy woodtone trim.) Still, fully integrated control panels like those in most competitors would be much better.

The Aura interior's materials and construction do leave much to be desired. The door panel flexes way too easily, something I've complained about in many GM cars over the past six years. And why are fewer and fewer auto makers fitting cars with proper door pulls you can comfortably wrap a hand around? Rectangular hard plastic depressions in the armrest don't cut it. While the corporate steering wheel's leather-wrapped rim looks and feels good, its vinyl hub looks cheap. I'm not sure who decided that the best place to use premium soft-touch materials was the upper part of the instrument panel. Though the upper IP does look better than just about any other part inside the car, you're much more likely to touch the door panels and center console.

Not that GM is the only one doing this. The 2007 Camry's hard plastic door panel trim and center console look and feel even cheaper. Honda also uses hard plastic in the Accord, but their hard plastic looks better.

Fits inside the Saturn are also iffy. With both cars I examined, the driver-side door closes so tightly to the instrument panel that even a credit card cannot slip between them. Yet in both cars the same gap was quite wide and uneven on the passenger side. The various cutlines on the lower part of the center stack vary more from car to car, but also are neither even nor consistent.

After driving the Aura, I briefly stopped by a Ford showroom. The interior of the Ford Fusion is more precisely and solidly constructed, but its extremely plain styling lends it a downscale character relative to the Aura.

Accommodations

The various exterior and interior dimensions of the Aura and G6 are quite similar. The major exception is rear headroom, where the Aura has nearly an additional inch. I noticed this additional inch while checking out the rear seat, which includes plenty of legroom if not quite enough thigh support. I'm not sure where the extra inch came from, since the Pontiac G6 is taller based on published specifications. Perhaps the specifications are somehow misleading, and the Aura does actually have a higher rear roofline.

The driver's seating positon seems higher in the Aura, though again the similar specs suggest this cannot be the case. Similarly, while the position and shape of the instrument panel is basically the same between the two cars, the Aura's instrument panel looks less massive. As a result, I preferred the driving position in the Aura.

Most of the controls are easy to understand and well-located. But there are a couple of exceptions. First, the mirror control at the base of the A-pillar is too far away to reach without leaning forward. Second, the steering-wheel-mounted upshift buttons are mounted too far from the rim to be easily reached by those (like myself) without long thumbs. (I noted the same problem in the Saab 9-3.) The downshift paddles, mounted behind the rim, are much more accessible. Both are fitted with comfy rubber pads.

The Aura's front seats are nothing special. Like the seats in many family sedans these days, the Aura's feel a bit small and are insufficiently contoured. But at least the driver's seat in the Aura has a power recliner, most likely to better compete with the Accord and Camry (both of which offer this feature). The manual recliner in the G6 is the sort of crude, flimsy ratchet that curses many GM products (including the Corvette). Unfortunately, while the Camry has power lumbar the Aura does share the G6's manual lumbar adjuster.

Trunk space is about average, and the rear seat folds to expand it. The resulting opening is larger than many these days. A folding front passenger seat could be useful, but none is offered.

On the Road

Back in 2002 Nissan shook up the midsize segment by fitting the redesigned Altima with a DOHC V6 good for 240 horsepower. While GM had offered a similarly powerful supercharged V6 in some of its midsized sedans since 1997, that engine never took the segment by storm. Apparently a supercharger was no substitute for the extra refinement afforded by a couple pairs of overhead cams. GM has offered three DOHC V6s in its midsize sedans at various times, but these also failed to impress. None possessed the necessary combination of power and refinement.

Also in recent years five- and even six-speed automatics have become increasingly common in the segment. Meanwhile, GM's sedans were saddled with the company's tried-and-true four-speed.

With the Aura (and this year's G6 GTP), GM is finally fitting a mainstream midsize sedan with a competitive powertrain. The DOHC 3.6-liter V6 first seen in the Cadillac CTS, and producing 252 horsepower in this application, has been paired with an all-new six-speed automatic. The Camry's direct-injected 3.5 puts out a few more horses, but others in the segment are less powerful.

On the road, the new powertrain certainly performs better than the pushrod plus four-speed combo that continues to power the base trim Aura. The DOHC engine is smoother and sounds much less raucous, and the larger number of ratios usually prevents the more-than-you-bargained-for kickdown of the four-speed.

Still, the new powertrain didn't awe me. It's undoubtedly quick, but then so is nearly every competitor. Five years ago this powertrain would have been a breakthrough; now it's just price of entry. A manual transmission would help. With the automatic, responses aren't sharp enough or strong enough to throw you back in the seat.

This lack of thrills isn't entirely a bad thing. To some extent it's a by-product of the powertrain's high level of refinement. Responses are smooth. Torque steer is virtually absent except when flooring the pedal at low speeds. Even then there isn't much of it.

I do wish that the engine sound at full throttle and high rpm was more mechanical and less traditionally throaty, but perhaps that's just me.

The new transmission shifts smoothly and offers a much-needed wider selection of ratios. Second gear is nearly as steep as first in the old four-speed. But, shift buttons notwithstanding, it's not tuned for enthusiastic driving. Leave the lever in D, and the transmission responds reluctantly and slowly when your right foot calls for more go. It will only downshift if you dip deep into the throttle, and even then only after a considerable delay. This can make the engine feel much weaker than it actually is.

Put the lever in M and use the manual shift buttons, and you can at least be assured of getting and holding the ratio you want, but responses are still slow. And if you manually upshift into too high a gear for the speed of the car, a prod at the throttle will ellicit absolutely no response. In this situation it feels as if the transmission is not even in gear, probably because so little torque is being transferred to the wheels.

GM's first execution of a manually-shiftable automatic, in the 2004 Grand Prix, was much more responsive. But the Grand Prix transmission had one major downfall: with only four widely-spaced ratios, there was little reason to shift gears. The new transmission has the ratios, now it just needs some lightning-quick reflexes to best use them. GM could do worse than to benchmark VW's DSG in this area.

Past GM sedans have suffered from a mushy brake pedal. Not the Aura. Its brake pedal is very firm, yet the brakes aren't grabby. Consider me impressed.

Handling is the area where the closely related 2006 G6 most disappointed me. The Aura does perform better here. Responsiveness just off-center is refreshingly quick, and the steering has a firm, nicely-weighted feel to it. Sail through some fairly broad sweepers, and the Aura has the solid, composed character that used to be the province of pricey German iron. In this situation, the car feels more balanced than a nose-heavy front-drier has any right to. (In the G6's defense, a drive in a 2007 convertible suggests it might have received similar tuning this year.)

Turn the wick up a couple more notches and the Aura's limitations surface. Take sharp turns at speeds approaching 40, and the body heels over and the nose drifts wide. Hit some uneven pavement mid-turn and the car comports itself fairly well, but true sport sedans do better. The front outside Goodyear Eagle LS2 begins to speak up, but no more than is appropriate. One bright note: the XR's standard stability control is effective without being overly intrusive.

I would also blame the steering for lacking precision in hard driving, but I'm not sure the steering is the issue. See, the seats are so slippery and lacking in lateral support that I had to take a line while entering the turn, then fight to remain correctly positioned behind the wheel. When you're using the wheel to locate yourself, you cannot precisely employ it to locate the car. The Red Line performance variant, due in a year or so, better have better seats. The Volvo-like thrones in the CTS aren't bad. Something like the sport seats in the BMW 3-Series would be ideal, but that's probably beyond the realm of possibility.

The upside of the touring-class suspension tuning is a compliant ride. I discovered no harshness during my test drive. Around town, the feel through the seat of the pants is decidedly premium even if the feel through the left elbow is not. A Chrysler Sebring never felt nearly this good. The tires don't loudly clomp over bumps and divots and noise levels are in line with the class leaders. All in all, the suspension tuning is perfectly suited for the needs and tastes of the target customer. I returned from the test drive impressed by the Aura's performance in this area.

Saturn Aura Price Comparisons and Pricing

The Saturn Aura lists for about $2,000 less than a similarly-equipped Pontiac G6. But Saturn dealers don't discount, and Pontiacs tend to have larger rebates. In the end the Pontiac will probably cost less, how much less depending on the size of the rebate.

A Honda Accord EX V6 lists for about $1,600 more than a comparably equipped Aura XR, but also includes fewer features. Adjusting for these widens the gap to about $3,600. But again you can buy an Accord at a sizable discount these days, so the actual difference is probably around $1,500.

Between the two Aura trims, the XR starts $4,000 higher than the XE. But if you equip the two the same and then adjust for remaining feature differences, the extra cost for the DOHC mill and larger wheels shrinks to just $300. The XR is clearly the way to go except for those who just want the base car without options.

Prices change frequently, and differences will vary based on feature level. To quickly generate these and other comparisons with the specific features you want, visit my Web site, www.truedelta.com. (It's the only site that provides true "apples-to-apples" price comparisons.)

TrueDelta's page for the Aura:

http://www.truedelta.com/models/AURA.php

Last Words

For the enthusiast, the Aura needs much better front seats and a much more responsive transmission. If the Red Line isn't slated to get these along with the almost certain styling and suspension enhancements, then GM better take another pass at the car. The snappier responses of direct-injection would also be nice -- and might already be planned for the car, as the next CTS is rumored to get just such an engine.

But the XE and XR aren't meant for enthusiasts. They're meant for the people currently buying Accords and Camrys. For these people, the Aura is a good car, but isn't quite the winner GM needs. It has most of what it takes to be competitive, which in itself is an improvement for GM. The main thing lacking are better door panels; I'd scrap them and start over, pronto.

But the biggest problem is that competitive isn't good enough. This car needs at least one sizable advantage over everyone else to lure people away from the Camry and Accord. And it doesn't have that.

What would do the trick? The power thing is probably tapped out, although a round 300 might get more people interested even if it would be superfluous. The exterior could be improved, most notably through the easy fix of better wheels and a sportier front fascia, but such improvements would be necessarily incremental.

A vastly upgraded interior to near Lexus levels would likely be more effective. Better seats, better door panels, and a cleaner center stack, all made of top-quality polymers with some leather trim for good measure. No doubt this would add a few hundred dollars to the cost of producing the car. But GM needs to give people a strong reason to buy its cars. An interior that was clearly a cut above the Accord, which would be a cut or two above the new Camry, seems most doable and most likely to have an impact.

Honda has to keep the Accord from encroaching on the Acura TL, and Toyota has to keep the Camry from encroaching on the Lexus ES. In contrast, Cadillac does not offer a front-drive midsize sedan that potentially competes with the Aura. So, by focusing on the interior, GM might hit Honda and Toyota in an area where they cannot afford to strike back.

My advice to GM: put your money where your mouth has been with regard to upgrading interiors, and go for it.

As it stands, I give the Aura four stars for being a bit better than the class average, if not quite up to the leaders. If you're shopping for a new midsize sedan, it's definitely worth a look.

On the other hand, if you're looking for a sport sedan up for tackling some seriously twisted roads, consider this a two-star car. While the suspension is almost where it would need to be, the seats and transmission aren't nearly up to the task. Best wait for the Red Line or buy something else.

A Note on Saturn Aura Reliability

I cannot practically cover reliability within the context of this review. However, many people are interested in such information, so I've started collecting my own data. Results, once they are available, will be posted to my site, www.truedelta.com, with updates every three months.

Unlike other sources, TrueDelta will clearly identify what difference it will make if you buy an Aura rather than another vehicle by providing "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats (among others). You will be able to specify the number of years, annual miles, and types of repairs to include in Saturn Aura reliability comparisons.

Before I can report results, I need data on all cars--not just the Aura--from people like you. To encourage participation, those who help provide the data will receive free access to the site's reliability information. Non-participants will have to pay an access fee.

For the details, and to sign up, visit www.truedelta.com.

A link to this website and alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.

If you're an Epinions member, and you want to receive an email alert from Epinions when I post a new review, click here.

My reviews of related vehicles:
Chevrolet Malibu Maxx SS review
Dodge Stratus R/T review
Ford Fusion review (see Mercury Milan for a review of the V6)
Honda Accord review
Hyundai Sonata review
Kia Optima review
Mazda6 review
Mercury Milan review
Mitsubishi Galant review
Nissan Altima review
Pontiac G6 GTP review
Saab 9-3 Aero review
Saturn L-Series review
Subaru Legacy GT review
Toyota Camry review
VW Passat review