Saab 9-X Redux - part 2: Firing up the styling
This is part 2 of a 2-part entry. It was initially placed in comments by “Jeff” but was such a good and in-depth read that I thought it deserved to come out on to the front page.
——
I’ll preface this by saying, yes: Saab should always be a step ahead of the competition, they should be revolutionary with their styling and really give us something inspiring with their design, technology, and feeling.
I think the rear of this concept is onto something in small car design. I honestly think a few minor tweaks, a little more time in the oven, and this 9-1 is good to go. But damn, I will say it is polarizing. They went so far as to put MacBooks around the thing to see what reactions were. And you know what? Just like here, motorshow elite or not, I guarantee people either love it, or hate it. They feel passionately one way or the other, and there you have it: people will see this car and feel that word…passion, towards a Saab. And whether it’s in a positive or negative way, it’s challenging us to react.
That’s what good concepts do, they make us rethink our norms (which consequently is probably why this car looks better everyday you come back to see it). It’s the same phenomenon Apple has seen as of late, people love or hate them, but their intrinsic philosophy has stayed the same, and eventually, that attention has brought people to their brand, and marketshare and revenue have come with it.
But as far as styling trends are concerned, we all saw that the coupe rear end is where car design is headed. Not only the Mercedes CLS, BMW GranTurismo (future 7-series), Aston Rapide, Jaguar XF etc etc have adopted this, but even the BMW X6. And while the back of the X6 has received some bad press and I’ll agree, the front and the back don’t match, it shows that sporting profiles are what people want. Isn’t it ironic that at a time when everyone else is adopting a trend, Saab has dumped it while their current lineup apes sedans designed 10+ years ago? When something is your trademark for so long, and everyone else comes along with their own version of it, you don’t just drop it, you enhance it and celebrate why yours is the original and the best. I’m tired of Saab being regarded publicly as just “that quirky brand.”
And it’s about time good ol’ Maximum Bob Lutz got to see first hand that this brand can ignite this passion.
Wouldn’t it be remarkable if they capitalized on this? If they started working with Hirsch in house as an AMG/M/RS tuner to compete with those Germans? Wouldn’t it be great if GM finally saw this brand as its premium European sporting arm, and let Cadillac take a more premium luxury angle? Why can’t they coexist like BMW/Mercedes? Wouldn’t it be amazing if Saabs started showing off the E-Flex architecture showcased within clean Scandinavian designs? Wouldn’t it make sense to promote the fact that Saabs are universally safe? Wouldn’t it be fair if Swade got embargoed materials before anyone else on the planet? (why, thanks! - SW)
I’m serious about this. Any politician knows that cultivating your base is how you win over hearts and minds, politicians know it, brands like Mini know it, VW is starting to catch on, and Mercedes certainly is getting back to its roots as a solid, safe investment. It’s reflected in their sales data, too.
In an ideal world, Saab would release the 9-1 as a coupe with a sloping rear that looks a hell of a lot sleeker than my nasty photoshop, a shooting brake similar to the concept, and a convertible. Hell, call the coupe the Sonnet and really get people juiced up. The lineup wouldn’t be all that different than the BMW 1-Series, and isn’t that what we should be fighting/compared to anyhow?
Alright, I admit this may be the biggest comment in the history of all time, and I hate to rant, but I love this blog and respect Swade and the other posters here greatly, and love this brand. I also really, really, really want a new Saab. I can’t stand the current 9-3 SS or SC, I’m sorry folks, it’s just so conventional. And those new ice lights are like lipstick on a pig for me. As for the SC, well, I hate wagon proportions. The 9-1 is the car I have been waiting for. I pray that it is released soon, funky C-Pillar or not. Either way, I know I’m getting one.
As a final thought, over on Autoblog they caught the new Skoda’s trunk (it’s basically a Czech VW Passat). And might I say, it’s damn cool, and Saab should have been all over this years ago:
If Saab would come out with this in the new 9-5, in a sloped back coupe concept style rear like CAR magazine or the spanish competition posted here a few weeks ago’s first prize entrant, I would expel magical bricks from my bee-hind.
Anyhow, I’m working on a CGI concept of my own for the 9-1 Series in 3D studio max incorporating my thoughts, and hopefully I’ll be able to post those soon. Hats off to everyone for being so passionate about this concept, and this brand.
——
Swade here: I’ve been very happy to post this as it’s the type of impassioned plea/rant/tome that I’ve been inclined to write myself from time to time, but I feel I must register a protest vote against that Skoda ‘hatch’. The one knock on hatches is the loss of rigidity. The main benefit of a hatch is extra storage without the look of a wagon. That hatch seems to lack the storage benefit but lose the rigidity anyway. Just my 0.02c.
More from this category
- Another Award for the Saab 9-X BioHybrid
- How many doors on the Saab 9-1?
- Saab 9-4x and 9-X in motion!
- More talk of the next Saab 9-3
More from this author
Subscribe to this author
Recent Comments
- Conor on Saab 9-1 - the ‘news’
- Markac on Saab 9-1 - the opinion
- saabyurk on More photos from Le Mans
- turbin on Turbo X startup question - answered!
- Beren Erchamion on Turbo X startup question - answered!
- Jörgen Trued on More photos from Le Mans
- Jeff K on More photos from Le Mans
- Jeff K on More photos from Le Mans
- Ying on Lance Cole: The Saab Psychosis
- Gordon on Saab 9-1 - the ‘news’
Excellent piece, It’s really good to read the thoughts of a professional designer of they think Saab has tried to achieve with the design. The photo’s speak a thousand words and what we can take on-board is that although initially we have an idea of what we would prefer our iconic Saab to look like. Once we have a go ourselves the final outcome just doesn’t look right. After seeing the attempts I’ve made in the past and recently the 9-4x which I sent to Swade, just adapting the bonnet to incorporate a clamshell disrupted the flow in design and basically didn’t look right. Simple Photoshop work is of no real comparison to work that goes into designing a vehicle where 3 or 4 initial propositions are amended copious amount of times until they are happy with one final product. When you consider elements of engineering such as size of headlights, fuel tanks, bonnet height etc, to meet safe standards. Then you have crumblezones, drive systems and the thought of creating something that can meet all of those aspects and still carry the final product design is a recipe for headaches allround.
Maybe Swade might have the chance for a real in-depth interview with Anthony Lo, where he might be able to add a little more depth about why we have this design as opposed to something else?
What worked and what need to be amended?
Thanks Jeff for opening my mind that little further.
When I look at the 9-x Biohybrid, I see a shape thats much closer to production than we might first think.
Usually on a concept like the 9x, 9-3x, and Aero-X the wheels are pushed to the corners and a low, sleek hood is used. This all looks great but the wheels need to be set much further back for a fwd drivetrain to fit into the car, and thanks to the European pedestrian crash tests, a taller front end and higher hood are now required to comply with the new regulations.
Look at the 9-x Biohybrid now, and notice how far back the front wheels are set compared to previous “fantasy” concepts from Saab. Now look at the relatively tall front end, and the high hood. This is design that could be adapted to an existing platform and meet the European pedestrian safety requirements with few major changes.
Likewise, take the rear end and eliminate the active aerodynamic elements, and give the back of the car a slightly more pronounced “bumper” and you have a production-ready rear end.
So this car might not be as close to production as the ready-for-assembly 9-4x, but it’s also much, much closer to being production-ready than it’s flashy bits might first indicate.
I second what WooDz said.
And, about the Skoda hatch, I’m not to sure about it. The only advantage I might see is when hauling a long load (e.g., 12 ft lumber) that has to stick out the back. I would rather tie down the lighter trunk lid than the whole very heavy hatch. I did that a lot on my 75 Wagonback (Combi), and you really had to tie it down tight because it was so massively heavy and prone to bouncing vary hard. Only nee a nubgy cord or two for the trunk lid. But, otherwise, just unnecessary complication and expense, and additional squeak/rattle points.
Erm… I suppose a bungy cord would work as well as a nugby cord.
…beside design, I guess, the new small Saab is going to be a 92 (or 9-2). Otherwise, a small Saab city car shoul be coined 90 (or 9-0). Being a “Null” is not that nice, isn´t it?
About design again, Bertone´s concept car´s stern is still nice.
http://www.saabhistory.com/category/bertone-novanta/
Personally I think that the Skoda idea is pretty genius. It doesn’t have the look of the hatch (that everyone seems to say “wont sell in the US,” but I keep noticing more of them …) but if designed right, it can certainly have the majority of the benefits of both a sedan and hatch.
As for the rigidity issue, it should be easier to solve there than on a convertible, because you still have a roof to work with!
I see a fair number of Malibu Maxx’s around, Mazda3 hatch’s, Impreza wagond (tho not a “hatch” they are def. small enough) , and even Hyundai and Kia hatches.
More adn More I love the chopped off rear end. Combine a wagon and a hatch. Good to go for me.
Saabyurk,
Your “nugby cord” made me laugh. Thanks for making my day.
re: the hatch
Despite the fact that I have defected to Jaguar, I am still a proponent of hatch backs. Sure, the rigidity might not be as good. But it sure is handy.
Both the XJ6 and my current XJS have trunks which has caused me to borrow my wife’s minivan for runs to the hardware store. Eight foot flourescent lights don’t work hangin’ out the window, right? And you gotta wonder, what’s a guy to do when sets a perfectly good, plaid couch out in the trash? Tie it to the roof?
I miss my hatch. Not enough to go back yet (mind you) but I do miss the hatch.
BTW, does that Skoda hatch split in the middle? If so, that’s looks to be a good idea.
http://jalopnik.com/photogallery/skodasuperdgeneva/1000861858?viewSize=thumb1280×1280
I don’t think the rigidity is compromised, the way they engineered this solution is pretty darn cool. It’s a metal pinned connection at the lower window rail, and it’s actually pretty beefed up. Browse through that gallery to see just how cool (and probably patented and never going to make it out of the VW group) it is.
great post. very intersting read from someone who clearly know the ABC’s of design. Sometimes a picture (or a bit of photoshop) can say more than 1000 words.
I liked the 2nd picture thou (without the spoiler. Maybe this is what a potential 5 door version will look like…?