Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 87

Thread: The Saab story.

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Modena
    Posts
    9,826
    Yeah, it had a GM/Saab steering column or something. I remember I've read it seemed like made of wood.
    KFL Racing Enterprises - Kicking your ass since 2008

    *cough* http://theitalianjunkyard.blogspot.com/ *cough*

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    East Coast of the United States
    Posts
    11,994
    Quote Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead View Post
    Saab 9-2X. As far as I can remember, it had an horrible steering.
    Quote Originally Posted by clutch-monkey View Post
    what as in the usual subaru understeer or did they add something in?
    The only car I would think about was the 9-2X, it looked good in an unholy kind of way.

    Honestly, I agree that Saab has no fan base, and whatever fan based it had eroded when GM took over.

    I don't want to see Saab go away, but honestly, what cars would you miss if Saab did?

    It's the same idea with Mitsubishi- I could care less about the Galant and the Eclipse, but the Evolution makes me interested. I've even heard rumors where the Evolution might be discontinued.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Commodore GS/E View Post
    GM softened the Subaru down. I think that says it all.
    Actually I don't think GM changed it at all. I think it was identical to the WRX sold in the US save for a MUCH better looking nose. Ironically the car really did look like a SAAB (unless you looked under the hood).

    I have had an irrational like for SAAB since sometime in the 1980s. I currently have a SAAB 900. GM didn't kill SAAB... not exactly. SAAB was in bad shape when they came to GM. GM never committed to fixing the company. Part of the issue was GM never seemed to have a compatible platform for SAAB to start from. At the same time SAAB never sold enough cars to justify getting their own platform. Both sides were at fault.
    SAAB also had a bit of a market position issue. In the US in the 80s SAAB was almost alone in being a quick, good handling, not overly expensive Euro car. It was a car that offered character that was lacking in many Japanese cars. It had great practicality yet good turbo power and safety.

    These days almost every family car has great safety. Almost any family sedan can be had with lots of power. FWD is common and most can be made to handle well if the manufacture wishes. Basically SAAB has little to make it stand out. The company was arguably doomed even before GM bought them because they were too small and to niche. I'm not sure if they would have thrived under any other company. That isn't to say GM didn't screw up. However, SAAB didn't do a good job either and it's possible all GM's ownership did was prolong the inevitable.
    Last edited by culver; 04-07-2011 at 08:35 PM.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Way Down South
    Posts
    2,734
    Quote Originally Posted by culver View Post
    Actually I don't think GM changed it at all. I think it was identical to the WRX sold in the US save for a MUCH better looking nose. Ironically the car really did look like a SAAB (unless you looked under the hood).

    I have had an irrational like for SAAB since sometime in the 1980s. I currently have a SAAB 900. GM didn't kill SAAB... not exactly. SAAB was in bad shape when they came to GM. GM never committed to fixing the company. Part of the issue was GM never seemed to have a compatible platform for SAAB to start from. At the same time SAAB never sold enough cars to justify getting their own platform. Both sides were at fault.
    SAAB also had a bit of a market position issue. In the US in the 80s SAAB was almost alone in being a quick, good handling, not overly expensive Euro car. It was a car that offered character that was lacking in many Japanese cars. It had great practicality yet good turbo power and safety.

    These days almost every family car has great safety. Almost any family sedan can be had with lots of power. FWD is common and most can be made to handle well if the manufacture wishes. Basically SAAB has little to make it stand out. The company was arguably doomed even before GM bought them because they were too small and to niche. I'm not sure if they would have thrived under any other company. That isn't to say GM didn't screw up. However, SAAB didn't do a good job either and it's possible all GM's ownership did was prolong the inevitable.
    Culver, you nailed it. I have an irrational attraction to SAABs too... the premix 93s (850 Monte, my fave), V4 96s and Sonnets. There's something about the simplicity of those models that could be engineered into a modern niche, not unlike the cultish market they developed originally. The technology is available to build sporty, safe, and cheap compared to nearly everything but Tata. Could or would the aircraft division rescue the car with support from Sweden, a full circle rebirth? But then again, it was trouble at home that sent the company to GM in the first place. It would be sad to see another marque disappear, but without a bit of nationalist pride from Sweden that seems likely.
    Never own more cars than you can keep charged batteries in...

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    33,489
    Quote Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead View Post
    Given their power to weight ratio (or just plain power), I couldn't have bought any of them, except some older 145/146 1.3 liters maybe.
    I found a couple of good deals on a 147 and a 156, with the 1.6 liter engine. Too powerful.
    Beware the torque steer.

    I like Saab too, and I disagree that they were in bad conditions (AFAIK) before GM bought them or that they have little to stand out. But I don't have the time to elaborate further now.
    Lack of charisma can be fatal.
    Visca Catalunya!

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    10,227
    Quote Originally Posted by csl177 View Post
    Culver, you nailed it. I have an irrational attraction to SAABs too... the premix 93s (850 Monte, my fave), V4 96s and Sonnets. There's something about the simplicity of those models that could be engineered into a modern niche, not unlike the cultish market they developed originally. The technology is available to build sporty, safe, and cheap compared to nearly everything but Tata. Could or would the aircraft division rescue the car with support from Sweden, a full circle rebirth? But then again, it was trouble at home that sent the company to GM in the first place. It would be sad to see another marque disappear, but without a bit of nationalist pride from Sweden that seems likely.
    I didn't think the Spyker-Saab experiment would work from the get go. It surprises me that Saab looks to be so doomed already though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferrer View Post
    Beware the torque steer.

    I like Saab too, and I disagree that they were in bad conditions (AFAIK) before GM bought them or that they have little to stand out. But I don't have the time to elaborate further now.
    Elaborate after work if you have time... I assume you are going to work.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    33,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitdy View Post
    Elaborate after work if you have time... I assume you are going to work.
    I was indeed going to work.

    Saab has always been a small company with a small factory, but back in the time before GM ownership, even if they were the most financially powerful car maker in the world they broke even and even usually turned small profits.

    It's not true that Saab does not stand out in my opinion though. I think that culver over-simplificates the issue by saying that everybody else does fast front drive saloons. If that what the case pretty much the entire world car production is repetitive.

    On the other hand, I do think that Saab had good points that make them stand out, chief among which was the hatchback. Which incidentally was killed by GM. And that shows really the scale of the problem, I don't think GM understood Saab at all. Had they keep to they core market they would be probably much better now.

    But instead GM wanted to earn loads of money woth Saab, increasing volume and lowering costs everywhere they could effectively diluting what Saab stood for, and failing spectacularly at the same (and this the same reason why Alfa Romeo wouldn't work under VW ownership, but that for another thread).

    Saabs do work, look at the A5 Sportback and the A7 Sportback, but what GM churned out weren't really Saabs. They were GM designed cars with Saab badges on them. Wheter its too late now, or if Saabs potential volume is actually enough to survive is an entirely different matter, but teh thig is GM completely ****ed up Saab.
    Lack of charisma can be fatal.
    Visca Catalunya!

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    Ferrer,

    I think your analysis underplays how the cost of developing a car has risen since SAAB was acquired. Remember the original 900 was born in the 1970s and was the last chassis SAAB developed alone in house. The 9000 was a shared platform ( I think with Fiat and ??). In addition to cost rising, competition was also rising. In the 1980s "luxury" (in the US) was either American living rooms on wheels or Euro cars. At least in the US we started seeing a lot of new competition once the Japanese luxury cars started to hit the market. So now SAAB needs more volume or must further share R&D with another company. From what I read the problem with GM's running of SAAB was not that they forced things on SAAB but that they gave SAAB too much independence but not enough money to make that independence work. SAAB should have been pulled fully in or fully out. Instead the company could run after a lot of stuff on their own but was always trying to find the right platform. The NG900 wasn't bad when it came out but it should have been replaced in 1999 when it was renamed the 9-3. The 9-5 was good when new but in the middle of the 2000s GM simply didn't have money or platforms available to replace the 95 thus it was left on the shelf far too long. Remember that the last decade was GM working very hard to fix their core brands and finally deal with labor issues. They didn't have spare cash to mess with SAAB. And again, they didn't give SAAB enough money to fix themselves but also didn't force SAAB to integrate.

    The NG900 was as much SAAB as GM. SAAB needed a platform to replace the 900 and GM offered that platform. The rest of the car is very SAAB. Then again the 9000 was the same thing but with different parents. If the NG900 wasn't a SAAB then neither was the 9000 which means the death of "true SAABs" happened before GM entered the picture.

    GM didn't fix SAAB but SAAB wasn't exactly healthy when GM entered the picture. According to wiki SAAB lost money each year from 1988 to 1995. GM didn't get involved until 1989. That suggests that SAAB wasn't healthy. We can question if a different company would have bought SAAB and if they would have lasted longer with a different parent.
    [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Automobile"]Saab Automobile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
    Contrast this to Ford involvement with Mazda (Ford saved Mazda) or Mercedes involvement with Chrysler (Chrysler was quite healthy until Mercedes got involved). GM was simply an absentee parent who offered a credit card but not enough guidance or control. I think the real issue was after GM had SAAB they had no idea what to do with it so they really didn't do much of anything until just a few years back. By that time GM's own financial house was in such bad shape that they couldn't afford to FINALLY invest in SAAB. The good looking 95 is a product of the GM-SAAB days. It makes one wonder what could have happened if GM stayed on board for another 10 years.


    SAAB went to GM because they realized they weren't going to make it on their own.
    Last edited by culver; 04-08-2011 at 10:34 AM.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Goshen, IN
    Posts
    3,377
    It will be sad to see Saab go, but as someone pointed out, I'm not sure there is a single car Saab currently makes that I will miss. I'm not sure 10 years from now I'll be saying "Damn, remember the 2011 Saabs?"

    I liked the Saabaru, although I never drove one so I can't speak for how good or bad it was. But I thought it was a good idea.

    Saab should be an alternative to the other Euro car brands like Audi, BMW. Make slightly cheaper luxury cars with turbos and hatchbacks. That's such a simple, great idea. I'd consider buying one if I had the money.

    Unfortunately this very well could be the end for another brand.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    I think the 2011 95 might be the sort of good alternative car we would miss but if it dies now most of us will have never seen one thus won't know what we are missing.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    33,489
    Culver, that's why I said that I'm not sure if Saab's potential volume is actually high enough to generate enough resources to actually develop new cars. And surely partnerships would probably still be needed but the independent Saab already forged parterships as you said with the Tipo 4 project (from which the Alfa Romeo 164, the Fiat Croma, the Lancia Thema and the Saab 9000 were developped).

    But still that doesn't detract from the fact that GM didn't really know what to do with Saab for much of its ownership. The NG900 was fine, and it could have been a path, had they followed it, but instead the 9000/9-5 was kept for too long, the 9-3 became a generic looking premium saloon and the 9-2x and 9-7x were desperate attempts to generate more revenue for a cash strapped brand.

    You may have a point with the lack of resources given by GM to Saab, but even with that restraint many of the decisions are at least questionable. Ford, seemed to do much better with Volvo and they weren't flush with cash either.

    In my opinion, lack of resources or not, Saab was seriously mismanaged by GM.
    Lack of charisma can be fatal.
    Visca Catalunya!

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Mexico City, Mexico
    Posts
    4,708
    At first, I feel sorry for all the poeple that would lose their jobs if Saab closes shop. But in retrospect, I canīt think of any car that Saab has made in the recent past that stands out, in any category...price, performance, quality.....

    I went to look at a Saab at a local dealer last year. I didnīt test drive it, but as I sat in it, I remember thinking to myself, how bland or even ugly the interior was. For a car that is in the same market segment as the low to mid end Audis, BMWs and MBs. That was really disapointing to see. I hardly see any Saabs on the road here. I havenīt seen a single one on the road in the past year. In contrast to the Audi, BMW and MB. They are all over the place. Thereīs a reason for that....
    "NEVER ALLOW SOMEONE TO BE YOUR PRIORITY, WHILE ALLOWING YOURSELF TO BE THEIR OPTION"

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Ferrer View Post
    Culver, that's why I said that I'm not sure if Saab's potential volume is actually high enough to generate enough resources to actually develop new cars. And surely partnerships would probably still be needed but the independent Saab already forged parterships as you said with the Tipo 4 project (from which the Alfa Romeo 164, the Fiat Croma, the Lancia Thema and the Saab 9000 were developped).

    But still that doesn't detract from the fact that GM didn't really know what to do with Saab for much of its ownership. The NG900 was fine, and it could have been a path, had they followed it, but instead the 9000/9-5 was kept for too long, the 9-3 became a generic looking premium saloon and the 9-2x and 9-7x were desperate attempts to generate more revenue for a cash strapped brand.

    You may have a point with the lack of resources given by GM to Saab, but even with that restraint many of the decisions are at least questionable. Ford, seemed to do much better with Volvo and they weren't flush with cash either.

    In my opinion, lack of resources or not, Saab was seriously mismanaged by GM.
    I believe the 92 and 97 were to keep the dealers, not SAAB happy. The problem was having just to models didn't generate enough showroom traffic. The lack of an SUV also hurt. Of course blatant rebadges aren't a good idea either even though, ironically, both were the best of their respective siblings.

    Volvo was in much better shape when Ford came in. In the US Volvo had a reputation for quality and safety that was nearly unmatched. Yes, people didn't think of Volvos as the most reliable but SAAB's had a reputation for being unreliable AND hard to service. Volvo's had a reputation for being good family cars. Also Volvo just came out with a new platform which Ford is still using under the Taurus and Explorer (heavily modified).

    That said, Ford seemed to be much better about saving brands or perhaps Ford was just smarter about buying brands.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rudolstadt/ Thuringia
    Posts
    1,053
    What makes me upset is that Saabs potential to be awesome is seemingly endless. I mean, the whole "born from jets" things is so damn cool... but they did absolutely nothing with it (ignoring the Viggen which wasn't even that good).

    It's really a shame.
    FIXIE EVOLVED INTO SMALL MOTORBIKE! Now driving a Simson KR51 <3

    Dream ride: red 1971 Opel Commodore GS/E

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    East Coast of the United States
    Posts
    11,994
    It's a Sad Sob (Saab) story...

    Get it?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Gran Turismo 5
    By Sauc3 in forum Gaming
    Replies: 1020
    Last Post: 05-19-2014, 03:16 PM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-21-2006, 02:33 AM
  3. Saab 9-7X 2005-2009
    By Matt in forum Matt's Hi-Res Hide-Out
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-24-2004, 07:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •