“Performance, responsibly”.

The angle I’d push is “responsible performance”, but with the emphasis placed on the “performance” side of things. If Saab can’t compete with Audi, BMW, Lexus, and Volvo in in terms of interior quality and materials, then the next best thing Saab can do is take the Infiniti route and go for all-out performance and cutting-edge powertrain technology. Combine that with some eye-catching Scandanavian exterior and interior design that would make up for any materials deficiencies in the eyes of the buying public. A Saab should be a combination of unusual elements that come together to make a car unlike anything else on the market.

First off, I’d do everything possible to get the direct injection ecotec 4′s and highfeature v6′s into Saabs as soon as possible. Saab wouldn’t just have an all-turbo lineup, but an all Direct injection lineup as well, and an all GDI lineup would do alot to give Saab some “environmentally friendly performance” street cred.

The most important advantage that an all-DI lineup would give to Saab is that it would allow the brand to jump right into the German horsepower wars while retaining Saab’s awesome torque curves. It would also up the hp/liter numbers of the of the engines while boosting fuel economy as well. Finally, I’d eliminate the “biopower” models and make all Saab’s flex-fuel.

To help further shore up the “responsible” side of “responsible performance”, I’d look to get the two-mode hybrid transmission that’s going to show up in the Vue into as many Saabs as possible, and go one step further than the two-mode hybrids from “lesser” brands like Chevy and Saturn by offering plug-in capabilities on all hybrid Saabs.

As to diesels, they work well in Europe but dropping the two mode hybrid system into Saabs will be a much more cost-effective option for US models compared to adapting the TTiD mill to meet US emissions requirements.

Personally I think that the only Saab awd systems that deserve the “xwd” moniker are the all-out xwd systems with the eLSD. Saab sells sporty cars, and so the eLSD should be standard on every “xwd” Saab that rolls off the assembly line. Play it up in advertisements and it will only lead to good things for the brand.

So without further adieu, here’s my “ideal US lineup” for Saab that I posted in an earlier set of comments. Remember that in true Saab fashion, there are three regular trim levels, S, SE, and Aero. Above the Aero would slot a line of limited-run cars to compete with the M’s, S’s, and AMG’s of the world. As always, “t” signifies low pressure turbo while “T” means high pressure turbo.

The 2.0 direct injection twinscroll engine should replace the 2.0T engine in the 9-3’s, maybe having the 2.0t make ~230-240 hp with the 2.0T making ~260-280. If Saab could justify it financially, throw in a 2.4 liter DI ecotec with a slightly gruntier 2.4t as an option for the larger models with a sportier 2.4T

Throw the direct injection highfeature heads from the 3.6 in the CTS onto the highfeature 2.8 that saab has, and produce a 2.8t making ~270-300 hp with god’s own torque curve and a 2.8T making making 140 hp/liter. A ~350hp 3.6t would be an option for the 9-5 and 9-6x, with a 3.6T as well, making over 400 hp for any special-edition 9-5’s or production aero X’s.

The 9-1 is the delta-based car that we’re all eagerly waiting to see.
9-1 S: 2.0t
9-1 SE: 2.0t, xwd optional
9-1 Aero: 2.0T, xwd optional
9-1 Turbo X/SPG/Viggen/whatever: ~300hp 2.0T or 2.4T, xwd standard

The next-generation 9-3 would ride on the standard-sized EPII, with a double wishbone suspension at all four corners as has been hinted at by GM.
9-3 S: 2.0t, xwd optional
9-3x S: 2.0t or 2.4t, xwd standard
9-3 SE: 2.0T, xwd optional
9-3h: 2.0t, two-mode hybrid transmission, xwd optional
9-3x SE: 2.0T or possibly the 2.8t, xwd standard
9-3 Aero: 2.8t, xwd standard
9-3 Turbo X/SPG/Viggen/whatever: 2.8T, xwd standard

The upcoming 9-4x is based on the theta platform and is currently making it’s way around the autoshow circuit.
9-4x s: 2.0t, xwd standard
9-4x se: 2.0T, xwd standard
9-4xh: 2.0t, two-mode hybrid transmission, xwd standard
9-4x Aero, 2.8t, xwd standard

The upcoming 9-5 will be a real make-or-break car for Saab. The rumor is that it will ride on a long wheelbase, wide version of the EPII platform with a double wishbone suspension setup all around. If these rumors are true, with the right engines this could be a huge car for Saab. Now Saab has toyed with the idea of a V8 for a while, and if GM comes up with a direct-injection northstar replacement then I could easily see a 9-5 V8 or 9-6x V8 available for the US market.
9-5 s: 2.0T or 2.4t, xwd optional
9-5 se: 2.8t, xwd standard
9-5h: 2.4t or 2.8t, two-mode hybrid, xwd optional
9-5 V8: 4.6i, xwd standard
9-5 Aero: 3.6t, xwd standard
9-5 Turbo X/SPG/Viggen/whatever: 3.6T, xwd standard

The 9-6x would be a Lambda-based sporty crossover to go up against the X5 and Infiniti FX, this would be a pretty simple car for GM to put together and it would really help boost Saab sales in the US.
9-6x S: 2.4t, xwd standard
9-6x SE: 2.8t, xwd standard
9-6xh: 2.4t or 2.8t, xwd standard
9-6x V8: 4.6i, xwd standard
9-6x Aero: 3.6t, xwd standard

Now every truly competitive brand needs a halo car, and an EPII based production 3-door fastback/vert modeled on the Aero-X would work perfectly. Audi proved with the TT that you can build a perfectly good sports car on an FWD-based platform, and the production Aero X/Sonett IV would ride on a widened version of the 9-3′s version of EPII. The Alfa Romeo Brera and Spyder Q4′s would be a good fwd/awd benchmark for this car to beat.
Aero X/Sonett IV S: 2.8T, xwd standard
Aero X/Sonett IV Aero: 3.6t, xwd standard
Aero X/Sonett IV Turbo X/SPG/Viggen/whatever: 3.6T, xwd standard

Remember this is a US-only lineup, and that in Europe you’d have more engine options like the diesels (both I-4′s and V6′s). You’d also have an array of smaller DI ecotec variants such as 1.6t/T’s and 1.8t/T’s for the 9-1, 9-3, and 9-4x. More importantly remember that this can all be done with parts and platforms that GM has already developed and engineered. Give these cars the looks of the Aero X and the interior quality of the new CTS and there you have the recipe for a fixed Saab.

So what do people think?

I’m guessing that when in 2008 they went to the BLS-style doors and door handles they changed the locking mechanism to a less-expensive one? That’s just a guess.

“There are two things any new Saab needs 1) a sloping profile (totally missing on the 9-4X), and 2) the ‘hockeystick’. I have said this before but Scandinavians should design Saab cars – they have some kind of ‘built in’ function defines form ethos that is not found anywhere else. Ergonomics, I love that word!”

I’ll second that! What was the last Saab primarily designed by a Scandinavian? The OG9-3, I think.

Saab used to make cars that had no direct competitors. If you bought a C900 and used it to it’s potential, there were ZERO other options. 9000 hatchback: same kinda deal. There really weren’t any cars that had ALL the versatility. People have never bought Saabs because the interior was superior, or the handling was the best in the world, or the car was so much better looking than the competition, they bought Saabs because they offered something that simply wasn’t offered at any other dealership.

So, in the 80s and the first half of the 90s some one who wanted:
Loads of cargo room
Fast acceleration
Good handling
Great gas mileage
Comfortable
Nicely appointed
Very safe
Not a station wagon. (FYI, I like the SCs, but I realize not everyone does.)

There was (seriously) one viable option. It was the C900 or 9000. Even today, there isn’t a car on the market that bests my 9000 Aero in all those categories. Any car that can keep up with it either gets terrible gas mileage or is tiny.

So, if Saab wants to compete with other car makers, they need to make an amazingly strong case for themselves. Or, they need to make a car that is not like any other.

That’s my opinion: Saab needs to make a car that cannot be cross-shopped with the other players’ cars. Plain and simple. (At least it is to me!)

The trouble with that approach is that there aren’t enough people who would buy that car to make GM happy.

~P

That being said, it is disconcerting to me that most, if not all, of GM’s brands sold in America have a good new car right now. In Cadillac you’ve got their “Car of the Year” CTS, in Chevy you’ve got the Malibu, in Saturn you’ve got the Aura, in Pontiac you have the (Holden Commodore) G8 and I guess you could even count the Solstice (and the Sky for Saturn). In Buick you’ve got the Enclave and Lucerne. In HUMMER you’ve got the H3. What does Saab have? A refreshed 9-3? I know, it’s coming. It’s coming…

On another note, Saab has an advantage/disadvantage of taking advantage of “economies of scale”. I just noticed today the window controls in my 2008 Chevy Impala are the same as in the Saab. Also both share the “bowtie” stereo. BMW doesn’t have to parts-share with a lower-cost brand. While this should be an advantage to Saab (cheaper to manufacture so larger profit margin) it annoys owners to no end that they’re paying for a “premium” car and getting a lot of the same parts as found in a Chevy.

Saab Tart: while it’s great that interest in the brand will be renewed by the 9-4X and/or 9-1 concepts this year, it doesn’t change the fact that there won’t be new metal in the showrooms for sale until mid-2009. Saab doesn’t suffer from a lack of interest, it suffers from a lack of execution, IMHO. People were waiting on the TTiD far too long. Now they’re waiting on the Turbo-X far too long. Then they have to wait another year-and-a-half for the 9-4X and possibly several years for the 9-1. How patient do they think buyers are? While people are “oohing” and “ahhing” at the Saab concepts at auto shows they’re buying other brands’ cars. You know, there are still people waiting for the promised flying car and the DeLorean 2…

Here in the US, Wendy’s cut costs to improve the bottom line. What did they cut? Food costs. Now their food tastes significantly worse. What effect might that have? Stock took a nose dive because sales were flat. The company made a profit from the cost-cutting, but the market knew better and dumped the stock anyway.

Bottom line: Quit worrying about the quarterly dividend. Get back to the basics and make a better product, and your stock will go up.

GM’s task: get back to the basics…

1. Build reliable cars.
2. Improve design and build quality.
3. Increase safety.

You must invest more money to do this- cost cutting is not an investment. Improving your product is.

GM instead works on reducing costs because they’re hemorrhaging money. Try it, GM- I dare you.

I position SAAB in a niche market. No mass products that are squeezed for the last penny, but something that makes you feel… well… special. Swedish styling, the perfect driving position, everything is where you expect it to be. So that you can enjoy the ride. That’s what turns a car into a SAAB… Once you’ve driven one, everything else will feel, well… euhm… ordinary.

Yes, I agree, SAAB needs new products. But please, not yet another boring saloon. Now where exactly can I buy that AeroX?

Look at Austin Martin & now Jaguar- they were both about to go under (jury’s still out on Jag.) until they got a total make-over to compete in today’s market. And today’s market calls for eye candy in the interior. If not, people are not going to plunk down $45K (US) on a 9-5 when there are other more attractive, higher feature vehicles to choose from in that price range.

SAAB needs new product and they need a complete vehicle line. The 10 year old – made over models are killing us.

http://www.raceabout.fi/content/3_1.html