Junkyard Find: 2007 Saturn Vue Green Line

Murilee Martin
by Murilee Martin

Honda beat everybody to the production gasoline-electric hybrid game in the United States, putting the Insight in showrooms in 1999. Toyota followed with the Prius a year later, but it took GM until 2006 to introduce its first true gasoline-electric hybrid here. That car was the 2007 Saturn Vue Green Line, and I managed to find one in a Denver-area car graveyard recently.

Our nameless reviewer felt, back in 2006, that the Vue's panel gaps made it the "automotive equivalent of a shotgun shack" and calculated that the Green Line version would require 90,000 miles of driving with $2.15/gallon gas in order to recoup its cost over the pure-gazzoline version. In fact, fuel prices went insane right around the time that review was written.

If we look at the fine print, GM actually introduced a sort-of-a-hybrid vehicle as a 2004 model, though the 2004 Chevrolet Silverado Hybrid/GMC Sierra Hybrid didn't have regenerative braking.

Ford launched the Escape Hybrid as a 2005 model (its Mercury Mariner and Mazda Tribute siblings showed up a bit later), so The General had some catching up to do in the green-car department. Nissan introduced the Altima Hybrid as a 2007 model (and using licensed Toyota hardware), though it disappeared quickly and without leaving much trace.

Toyota and Honda didn't have much to fear from the Vue Green Line's hybrid technology, but it did benefit from regenerative braking and delivered a pretty good 23 city/29 highway miles per gallon (versus 19/25 mpg for the base Vue with 2.2-liter engine and automatic).

The system replaced the starter motor and alternator with a belt-driven motor/generator rig that generated five horsepower and 48 pound-feet. A 2.4-liter Ecotec gas-burner did most of the work with its 170 horsepower.

You could get a manual transmission in the regular Vue, but the Green Line was slushbox-only.

The green paint has faded from this Green Line badge, but it was supposed to be the Gaia-loving counterpart to the planet-ravaging Saturn Ion Red Line. I have mounted Red Line and Green Line badges side-by-side on my garage wall, in order to represent the duality of man.

The storm clouds over General Motors were getting darker by the minute when this car was built, and Saturn would soon have its head on the chopping block. Geo and Oldsmobile were already gone, with Pontiac and Saturn following in 2010.

The entry-level '07 Vue started at $17,995 (about $27,588 in 2024 dollars), while the Green Line version had an MSRP of $22,995 ($35,254 after inflation). Even with $4/gallon gas ($6.13 gallon in today's money), it would have taken quite a while to break even with the Green Line.

The Vue's platform outlived Saturn and still lives today, though. You'll find its derivatives underpinning everything from the Suzuki XL7 to the Wuling Almaz, and it all began with the 2002 Vue.

The interior isn't bad, but a 17-year-old non-AWD car made by a long-defunct brand doesn't command much resale value these days.

There is a way to recapture the world's imagination. To stay the same in one way, and evolve in another. Chapter 11 bankruptcy was approaching quickly, by the way.

A 2007 Saturn Vue Green Line hybrid in a Colorado wrecking yard.

A 2007 Saturn Vue Green Line hybrid in a Colorado wrecking yard.

A 2007 Saturn Vue Green Line hybrid in a Colorado wrecking yard.

A 2007 Saturn Vue Green Line hybrid in a Colorado wrecking yard.

A 2007 Saturn Vue Green Line hybrid in a Colorado wrecking yard.

A 2007 Saturn Vue Green Line hybrid in a Colorado wrecking yard.

A 2007 Saturn Vue Green Line hybrid in a Colorado wrecking yard.

A 2007 Saturn Vue Green Line hybrid in a Colorado wrecking yard.

A 2007 Saturn Vue Green Line hybrid in a Colorado wrecking yard.

[Images: The Author]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by  subscribing to our newsletter.

Murilee Martin
Murilee Martin

Murilee Martin is the pen name of Phil Greden, a writer who has lived in Minnesota, California, Georgia and (now) Colorado. He has toiled at copywriting, technical writing, junkmail writing, fiction writing and now automotive writing. He has owned many terrible vehicles and some good ones. He spends a great deal of time in self-service junkyards. These days, he writes for publications including Autoweek, Autoblog, Hagerty, The Truth About Cars and Capital One.

More by Murilee Martin

Comments
Join the conversation
5 of 20 comments
  • Lorenzo Lorenzo on Mar 18, 2024

    I'll say one thing about those plastic bodies: they still look good after a decade and a half. Automakers should be sheathing their cars in petroleum-based plastic before they thin out the "sheet metal" to foil thickness.

    • See 1 previous
    • FreedMike FreedMike on Mar 18, 2024

      True, but the flip side was massive body panel gaps. Apparently the plastic would expand when it got hot.


  • Bof65705611 Bof65705611 on Mar 19, 2024

    There’s one of these around the corner from me. It still runs…driven daily, in fact. That fact always surprises me.

    • Lorenzo Lorenzo on Mar 20, 2024

      That was the mistake of GM's bean counters. They figured to save by using GM's "old" drive trains, forgetting that GM's practice is to stop building them after they eliminate all the bugs. The "planned obsolescence" gimmick then went out the window with Saturns. They killed the brand to hide their shame.


  • Theflyersfan I'm having a tough time figuring out Mazda's recent lineup decisions. I've mentioned before how having the CX-5 and CX-50 makes no sense as it seems like they would steal each other's sales instead of conquest sales from other brands. And now here comes the CX-70 vs 90 decision. If Mazda wanted to position the 70 above the 90 with pricing, I think they should have gone the Audi Q7 vs Q8 route. The Q8 costs more, has one fewer row, and is smaller on the inside, but has the more aggressive styling and tries to position itself as the sportier alternative large CUV in their lineup. With Mazda, the 70 and 90 seem to be in the position, like the 5 vs 50, to steal each other's sales. There isn't anything compelling me to get a 70 if I get more for my money with a 90, except 100,000 miles down the road, I won't have a folded up third row seat rattling around loosely. Mazda should have brought over the CX-60 and position that where they wanted the 70. I understand it's a touch larger than the X3, Q5, and GLC CUVs, which is a sweet spot in that market. Make the CX-70 a sportier alternative 2-row instead of such a blatant cynical move of just ripping a seat out of the 90, calling it an all new model and price it in the same ballpark. I want Mazda to succeed and continue to be independent, but decisions like these make me wonder what their future plans are.
  • Daniel J This thing is just too big and not packaged great being RWD. I'd prefer a FWD/AWD pre 2024 Santa Fe sized vehicle. A true CX-70.
  • Ash78 Now that we're on the topic, I think Apple owes us all a ton of money for bringing out new phones every 1-2 years and devaluing the one I have! /sDepreciation has always been a part of car ownership, far more so now if you're getting into EVs. I think it's just the discrete nature of these depreciation events (ie, price cuts) that have everyone wringing their hands.I'm too price sensitive -- not necessarily to BUY an EV -- but for the fear of what a truly disruptive battery tech might do to them. Split the differene with a hybrid or PHEV and you've reduced your car's reliance on battery tech as the primary determinant of value.
  • Ash78 Interesting take on the pricing...superficially illogical, but Honda has been able to sell the Pilot Junior (er, Passport) for more than the Pilot for several years now. I guess this is the new norm. I have 2 kids, who often have friends, and I feel like the best option here is buying the CX-90 and removing the third row completely. It won't be pretty, but it adds useful space. We've done that in our minivan several times.I've been anxiously awaiting the 70 for over a year, but the pricing makes it a non-starter for me. I like the 50, but it's tight (small, not dope/fire/legit); I like the 90s, but it's more than we need. This "Goldilocks Solution" feels like it's missing the mark a little. Mazda could have gone with more of a CX-60 (ROW model) and just refreshed it for the US, but I suspect the 90 was selling so well, the more economical choice was just to make it the same basic car. Seems lazy to me.
  • FreedMike If you haven't tried out the CX-90, do so - it's a great driver, particularly with the PHEV powertrain.
Next