Trollhattan Saab has changed!
The site you're viewing now is the original Trollhattan Saab weblog, though it's now an archive only and no new material is posted here. As of February 2009, all new material is posted at our new site - Saabs United.
Please join us at Saabs United and get your daily Saab fix from Saab sources all around the world.
The following piece was sent to me by regular visitor and commenter, Markac. He started it off as a comment in response to many of the saabological stories that have appeared recently. It got so big he decided to send it to me as an article, instead.
It starts with a recent history and I’m sure you’ll all be basically familiar with what’s there. I say ‘basically’ as I don’t have enough knowledge as to some of the details mentioned here, but I’m sure readers here will.
It ends with a bit of prognostication. I’m not sure I agree with Markac’s conclusion, but I think it’s an interesting possibility to ponder. It’s certainly not out of the question, though personally, I think the likelihood is low.
——-
It seems like whenever we discuss what we like and what we don’t like about Saab, someone always jumps in and defends GM. Okay I’m not saying GM haven’t tried with Saab, we all know they have. But they always seem to try in a very measured way.
When GM first bought into Saab I was quite skeptical because in the past when GM bought something it was either totally absorbed and lost it’s identity or if GM couldn’t figure out what to do with it, it generally got sold of again quite quickly. Neither of these two options were good for Saab. I know at the time, Fiat were trying to acquire Saab and most people thought GM would be the better option, But has that truly been the case?
GM bought half of Saab in 1990 and began pulling strings straight away. Perhaps at first it was just this omnipresent figure in the background, but it gradually moved into the foreground. The first time it noticeably tried with Saab was the NG900 and that was a measured response. Saab needed a new car to replace the C900. It had a basic design, but no new platform to work with. It had looked at adapting the 9000’s platform to a smaller car, but it just wasn’t cost effective.
GMs proposal was to offer an amalgam of different platforms for the new 900, but the problem was all of these were becoming obsolete. Saab was given parts of the Cavalier, Astra and Calibra platforms to work with, but really should’ve been given the opportunity to use the platform being developed for the upcoming new Vectra even if this took a year or two longer.
Saab worked hard with the pieces it had been given, but couldn’t make a silk purse out of the proverbial sow’s ear. It is generally conceded now that Saab would’ve preferred another 12 to 18 months to develop the NG900’s platform and if they’d been given that time, the NG900 at launch might have been class leading instead of merely just competent. And had Saab been involved in developing the Vectra’s platform and had even been allowed to use it first, the story might have been very different again. It’s history that Saab finally got the platform pretty much right with the OG9-3, but by then the competition had moved on and Saab was still behind the eight ball.
GM acquired the rest of Saab in 2000 and for once things started to look promising. Saab had launched the 9-5 a couple of years earlier which would prove to be a very good car, if not a great one and would go on to display the 9X and later, the 9-3X concept cars. There was quite a lot to be excited about, but that’s when things began to go wrong. Perhaps recognizing it’s earlier error, GM gave Saab it’s new Epsilon platform to work with for the OG9-3’s replacement from the start and for a while there, everything looked hunky dory, but that wasn’t to be the case. The 9-3 Sports Sedan when it debuted, tried to be all things to all men (sorry ladies) but ended up being generally a bit of a disappointment. First up, it got traditional 900 enthusiasts offside by not having a hatch option (something that may have been addressed later?), but it also seemed to have markedly less character than either the outgoing model or the (then) five year old 9-5.
In what now appears to be a gross blunder or a strategic error, Saab management overspent hugely on adapting their 9-3SS variation of the Epsilon platform so that the car could only be produced at Trollhattan. Whether it was just trying to protect it’s manufacturing operations in Sweden or it had other plans, is not known, but it angered GM who put a freeze on most other proposed 9-3 variations and discontinued development of an intended 9-5 replacement. Saab had overspent for sure, but was not alone in this and other GM brands weren’t exactly economizing either. but GM was in quite dire financial straights and decided to bite Saab particularly hard. Perhaps some day Saab can show us those other cars it had planned?
Despite the freeze, Saab eventually added a wagon option to the 9-3SS and 9-3 convertible range which first appeared as the 9-3 Sport Hatch concept, sadly the only concept this decade that has gone on to be manufactured. It’s debatable if the 9-3SS has sold any better than the hatchback it replaced. It probably hasn’t? But anyway for MY2008 Saab greatly improved the 9-3SS added “all wheel drive” as an option and even managed to give it a somewhat better facelift than the 9-5 got when that car’s replacement was shelved. For once it seems that the 9-3SS could finally be quite a marketable proposition in it’s middle age.
Speaking of age, the almost geriatric 9-5 has to be replaced and the long delay hasn’t helped, although the car has aged far more gracefully than most, perhaps only beaten by the C900? GM’s plan was to move 9-5 production to Opel factory at Rüsselsheim in Germany. The new 9-5 would be built on an extended Epsilon II platform alongside the new Opel Insignia and would most likely be joined by the 9-3 when the current car is to be replaced, built on the same sized platform as the Insignia or a slightly shortened version. However, the platform used by a replacement 9-3 now would appear to be a variation of the new Delta II and more likely to be built at Trollhattan.
There seems to be a great deal of speculation as to what will be built at Trollhattan. The 9-1 using Delta II still hasn’t been signed off and the new 9-3s configuration is still open to debate. Probably some of the special Astras: coupes, twin tops or convertibles, wagons etc? But nothing has been confirmed.
But what if GM has other plans?
I think the new 9-5 has to be a very special car. The best car that Saab has released since it’s involvement with GM. Something that could spearhead them into a new future? I think it has to be to Saab, what the Jaguar XF is to Jaguar. And like the XF was to Ford, I think the new 9-5 will be a bargaining chip for GM to sell off Saab. And it’ll be similar to the deal that Ford struck with Tata, GM will supply the new 9-5 from Rüsselsheim for the life of the model. It will sell Trollhattan to the buyer and try to negotiate a deal to supply at least some parts for any 9-1 or 9-3 that may be produced there. I’m not sure where the 9-4X fits into this equation, but I’m sure GM will try to do a deal with that too. In the past twelve months with an updated 9-3, a totally new 9-5 and the 9-4X on the horizon, Saab has become a much more saleable commodity, more than it has been for many years and I’m pretty certain GM will take the plunge. You only have to look at it’s recent efforts with Cadillac.
Does it really need or want Saab anymore?
-
25 responses so far ↓
1 Charles
// May 29, 2008 at 1:18 am
Geez. I never believed that GM would sell Saab, but you mention the scenario around the XF..and you have to think.
I use to say GM wouldn’t sell Saab, in that GM needed Saab for turbocharging expertise, E85 and Hybrid technology (Saab showed off the plug in hybrid before any other GM brand, yet GM continues to downplay that concept and only play up the Volt).
But I’m sure GM has learned what they needed about turbocharging, E85 and hybrids from Saab. Here in North America, it use to be only the SUV’s were E85 but come next year even the Cobalt and HRR will gain Ethanol capability. They are finally starting to apply the technology to smaller engines, much like Saabs BioPower range offered everywhere BUT North America. Why is that?
GM now has the 2.0 DI Turbo’d engine in cars such as the Sky RL and Solstice GXP and there is more and more talk of turbo’d four cylinder in the upcoming Camaro and even Holden Commodore range.
GM has the hybrid technology, two mode hybrids are rolling out and the Volt is on schedule.
A week or two ago, Opel revealed a new badge (same badge, just slightly tweaked and higher grade material) to signify its move further upmarket. GM continues to push Cadillac in Europe. With the introduction of Chevy to take care of the lower market, Opel is now moving upmarket. Where does that leave Saab? GM won’t let Saab be on par with Cadillac, and is it reasonably to try and squeeze Saab in between Opel and Cadillac? Chevrolet > Opel > Cadillac. That seems much easier to manage.
Once you get to NA it gets even messier With Saturn moving upmarket to combat VW, Buick trying to be the American Lexus and Caddy setting their sites on Mercedes and BMW. So that leaves Saab going after Acura? A struggling luxury brand that isn’t sure if its a Honda or Acura.
But you have GM pushing Saab into Cadillac showrooms to consolidate on their dealership network. To me that is setting up a kill vs. a sale. And oddly enough next to my computer is a GM brochure I received in the mail, just talking about GM in 2008. Lots of nice pictures and little details about cars and future development. There along the bottom are all the brands listed, except Saab. Though there is a mention of the Saab 9-5’s crash rating and on the concept pages, the Aero-X is shown. But there is no dedicated page to Saab like the other brands.
Its confusing really and maybe GM still really doesn’t know what to do with Saab. I hope though, that GM holds on to Saab as I feel GM finally has its mojo back. Look at the most recent cars it has produced (CTS, Malibu, Lambda’s, GMT900’s) all these products are class leading and that gives me hope that Saabs new products can reestablish the brand.
2 NineTwoX
// May 29, 2008 at 1:33 am
I wouldn’t put it past GM. They did sell Allison Tranmissions even though it was a profitable company. However, what does Saab have to offer?
The 9-4X is based off of GM’s platform, the 9-5 is based of GM’s Epsilon 2 platform, the 9-7X is based of GM’s GMT360 platform, the current 9-3 is based off the Epsilon platform.
IMO, Saab is too engrained with GM products and I doubt GM could sell it to a competitor.
3 DMR
// May 29, 2008 at 1:34 am
In an alternate reality, I wonder how Saab would have done if Fiat had taken over instead of GM.
I’m thinking that Alfa would be a fair comparison of how Fiat would have behaved as a big brother. Stateside, we really don’t see any Alfas anymore (at least none that are younger than Mrs. Robinson
). I would be interested in knowing what you folks on the other side of the pond think in terms of Saab vs. Alfa these days.
4 MarkoA
// May 29, 2008 at 2:14 am
To me, Saab and Alfa are way too far away from each other. Even though they share some ideology they are still too different. But who knows, if Fiat would´ve given Saab engineers possibility to tweak their platform etc.
Still I don´t see it as a good option.
Saab vs Subaru? If only Subaru could afford to buy Saab, or have any interest.
5 NineTwoX
// May 29, 2008 at 2:35 am
Honda has Acura, Nissan has Infiniti, Toyota has Lexus, and Mazda is a part of Ford. Subaru doesn’t have a luxury brand, especially one they could market in Europe.
Good suggestion there MarkoA. Saab could be a good fit for Subaru. Especially since Subaru is trying to break into the diesel market.
6 Charles
// May 29, 2008 at 2:37 am
Right but Subaru is now owned by Toyota…that will not work.
7 albert
// May 29, 2008 at 2:39 am
No, I don’t believe in a “sell Saab” scenario. The only interested party would be a Chinese or Indian one.
If Saab doesn’t get going it will be killed. Just like BMW did with Rover.
Development and production of Saab is too much integrated with Opel to sell the marque to another competitor. That gives the advantage that a new model can be profitable at low volumes. But your sales channel has to be lean. And I doubt if that is the case at the moment.
8 Bernard
// May 29, 2008 at 2:45 am
If Alfa knows how to do one thing, it is “how to be on-message.” Even the cheapest Alfa looks great, is fun to drive, and is undeniably an Alfa.
A Saab-Alfa pairing would be preferable to GM’s attitude, namely putting common GM engines in common GM platforms, adding a few “design cues” and calling the result a Saab.
Plus, Alfa isn’t afraid of making a bold move every once in a while, and offering the result for sale to actual customers.
9 NineTwoX
// May 29, 2008 at 3:01 am
Charles – IIRC, Toyota only owns ~17% of Fuji Heavy Industries and are still not a majority stake holder.
10 Dan
// May 29, 2008 at 3:57 am
albert… you are dead-on correct.
11 turbin
// May 29, 2008 at 8:00 am
Ask Alfa fans about Fiat, they will tell you the new cars just aren’t real Alfas. Sound familiar?
12 Danni
// May 29, 2008 at 8:32 am
With all these talk about possible mergers or acquisitions or disposing off Saab because GM is playing the asparagus culture (when something of brilliance shine, it is nibbed in the bud because we operate as a team) on Saab, I am just wondering how Saab or the majority owner (ABB I think) managed to produce low volume but characteristically different cars between 1947 and 1999 which established benchmarks or developed new ideas in the automotive world? With all the dollars at hand, why can’t GM makes this work?
13 1985 Gripen
// May 29, 2008 at 8:36 am
I thought GM originally bought Saab simply to counter Ford’s purchase of Volvo. However, I think Volvo has been profitable since Ford has owned it while Saab hasn’t turned a profit yet. Eight years of red ink has got to weigh on the GM beancounters sometime.
14 Danni
// May 29, 2008 at 8:41 am
1985 Gripen – ah, light at the end of the tunnel. So why has Volvo been protitable and Saab not? Does it say something about the parent? What did Ford allow Volvo to do which GM has been denying Saab – dipping their fingers in the proverbial candy bowl and getting stuck in there too deep without producing the results anticipated?
15 1985 Gripen
// May 29, 2008 at 8:52 am
Charles: Saab had the world’s first flex-fuel convertible concept, but I’ve never seen anything to indicate that engine was anything but theoretical (like most if not all of the concept engines). If a plug-in hybrid were do-able right now Toyota (the world’s hybrid leader) would have done it by now. Even Toyota is still working the kinks out of the PHEV.
Also, it’s nitpicking, but the Saturn Sky Redline is not turboed: it’s supercharged. But I get your point: force-inducted small-displacement inline-4 cylinder direct injected technology GM’s “premium European” brand doesn’t even have access to yet.
It’s a bit off-topic (when has that ever stopped us here?
), but I was looking at specs for GM’s 3.9-liter V6 engine with VVT. I believe it’s still a cast-iron block and the displacement is a bit high, but I like that it has cylinder shut-down technology so it can run on 3-cylinders for better fuel economy when under low load.
If Saab could get a smaller-displacement (maybe around 3-liters) 6-cylinder with aluminum block, VVT&L, cylinder shut-down, and direct-injection with twin dual-scroll turbos and possibly “mild hybrid” features into the next-gen 9-5 that’d be a pretty nice powerplant.
16 ck1x
// May 29, 2008 at 8:55 am
I don’t think that Saab is costing GM anymore money then say some of the larger brands not doing so well, such as Pontiac or Buick. GM actually advertises for those companies and they have more models to sell. So all this has to be factored into play. Saab has not done well for one reason and one reason only. They have lost their identity. The soul reason people bought into the Saab movement in the first place. On top of that what they did do well GM did not capitalize on, till it’ was to late. When everyone was heralding V6 and V8 this and that Saab should have been maximized for their turbo charging then to catapult them as a premium performance brand. Saab could have been where Audi is now but GM dropped the ball big time.
17 Charles
// May 29, 2008 at 8:57 am
No, sorry but the Sky RL is turbocharged and direct injected. As is the Cobalt SS and Solstice GXP, all using the same engine.
18 turbin
// May 29, 2008 at 8:59 am
Volvo has made losses in 2006 and first quarter this year. It is a misperception that Volvo has been a consistent winner and the figures have been complex and buried within Ford and the PAG. Maybe somebody can shed some more light on Volvo’s performance in the Ford years
19 ck1x
// May 29, 2008 at 9:09 am
1985 Gripen: the 2.0 engine in the Sky Red line is turbo charged. It’s just an evolution of the current Ecotec power plant. So Europe has access to it but Europeans aren’t as power hungry as us Americans are. After all Opel, Saab and GM Europe engineers are the ones that developed the Ecotec power plant that’s so widely used.
20 1985 Gripen
// May 29, 2008 at 9:48 am
Sorry on the Redline thing then. I thought I remembered reading (before it was released) that the Solstice GXP was going to be turbo whereas the Sky Redline was to be supercharged.
Turbin: Volvo has had losses but it has turned a profit since Ford has owned them, something Saab has been unable to do as of yet.
I agree with ck1x (in comment 16). The ball has been dropped, but whether the blame lies with GM or Saab themselves, I don’t know. Saab needs an identity check. Exactly what does Saab stand for anymore?
21 mike c
// May 29, 2008 at 10:50 am
I think that Saab stands for being different and being safe. Being efficient and smart. Most people drive Toyota, Nissan, that may be efficient but safe, I’m not so sure. I have driven Saab convertibles for the past 10 years and I feel these cars have a special mystique about them. My Saab convertible is a car that does everything for me, can be used in all types of weather and fits my kids. I take care of it and it takes care of me and KEEPS US ALL SAFE. Volo is also a very good car. My wife has been with them for as long as I with Saab.When it comes to convertibles, Volvo can’t touch Saab, retractible hard top or not.
We all talk about build quality, as we all know, every manufacturer has its troubles. What matters most is how the brand deals with the customer. As I am not so happy with all of what GM has done with Saab. I am happy with my car and what I thin it stands for.
22 Adam
// May 29, 2008 at 10:27 pm
To answer the question directly, no. Saab has never been a big enough plus or minus to GM’s bottom line to warrant any kind of real attention.
I think sale of Saab is very plausable, but the problem is finding a buyer. I don’t see Saab adding any prestige or profits to anyone’s bottom line right now. I agree Subaru was always a great fit, but they certainly don’t have the strength to absorb a money-losing foreign company.
23 arattai
// May 29, 2008 at 11:25 pm
I don’t think any Indian manufacturer would be interested in Saab. We just don’t know about it. Lot of Indian immigrants even here in US know very little about Saab. OTOH, Jaguar is more like RR(well you get the idea) in India.
24 Markac
// May 29, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Could well be Tata might like another range of cars to slot in below their Jaguar range. I don’t think any of the cars would compete with each other. More likely they would complement, but I’m not saying Tata is a probable buyer. Perhaps they have spent enough for the moment?
25 dino tramontini
// May 30, 2008 at 11:31 am
I hope GM does not sell Saab but they have not been to successful with Saab and perhaps are not the best parent. It’s a shame. Because in my opinion Saab could be the right car at the right time. Our 9-5 Arc Wagon is perfect. Comfortable, good looking, great mileage and good power. I was a former owner of 6 BMW’s in a row (2002 – to a 6 series). When I decided to switch to Saab I looked at Audi, Volvo and of course BMW but I think Saab offered the best wagon – plus it got way better mpg (which as it turns out was a wise decision) I like Saab and switched to them because not everyone has one and they still have some personality (plus it’s a very good car).
Saab has the basics to be a great brand if they could be properly nurtured. Not sure GM is the right company to do that but then who is?