Recently I asked if there were any circumstances where you could envision it being OK that Saab release a new model without a turbocharged engine. Some people opined that a non-turbocharged hybrid drivetrain would be OK for a Saab, and I tend to agree. Unfortunately, that’s not why I asked the question.
For me, it’s a question of identity that goes right to the root of who Saab are and what they represent in my own little world. The recent news that the upcoming Saab 9-4x will arrive in some markets with a naturally aspirated V6 in the base model poses a classical identity crisis and makes me question where Saab are going and for how long I’ll be hitching a ride.
The 9-4x could carry seven people, bake a pizza, pour a beer and re-wire your house, for all I care. I hope 9-4x customers are happy with the vehicle but it’s not something that I’ll ever be in the market for. But the choice of drivetrain does concern me. It speaks to the heart and soul of the car and where GM are taking Saab.
The Saab that I came to know and love was quite different from all the rest in terms of design and powertrain. I liked that. Mainstream cars bored the crap out of me and the fact that Saab had so many points of difference was an instant selling point. A car is much more than just adequate transportation to me. If I’m going to spend X-thousand dollars on something then it’s going to be something that I love. No mainstream car’s going to satisfy that connection.
Now Saab are developing a non-turbocharged car? Is there any good reason for this decision? If there is, I’ll listen to it, but if it’s just “this is what we can afford in this segment and it’ll satisfy the market in XX” then I’m afraid that’s not going to wash.
It shows a lack of imagination. A lack of commitment to a set of core values. Sadly, it shows the Saab Brand Center to be a bit of a toothless tiger and it shows, in a very concrete way, that GM are more intent on harnessing Saab’s expertise for use on their other brands than they are on building up Saab’s identity.
Bob Lutz, at the Geneva Motor Show, said that the Saabs they’re developing now will be the most Saab-like vehicles that have come from the brand in the last 30 years. If this non-Turbo SUV is an example of what he’s talking about then either I bought a ticket on the wrong train or Bob’s spending his twilight years reliving his herbal heydays of the 1960′s.
Here’s another pointer as to the lack of identity at Saab, especially in the US.
Back when Steve Shannon was appointed to take over from Jay Spenchian, I wrote an open letter to him and the one thing I implored him to do, more than any other, was to hang around. More than anything else, Saab needs some continuity in leadership. It needs some people that 1) have the authority to develop the identity of the brand, and 2) have the commitment to stick around and see it through.
I’m pleased to say that Steve has stuck around so far. I have to call into question the level of authority he has now that GM has bought in the Cat In The Hat to oversee his work (and that of Hummer and Cadillac), but at least he’s hanging in there.
What’s disturbing, though, is the lack of press that SaabUSA are generating under his watch. There’s been a number of reviews thanks to the 2008 Saab 9-3 coming out and there’s been positive press with regards to the XWD system, however SaabUSA have been pretty quiet about generating press material to round out the identity of the brand there.
As an example:
In 2005 there were 32 official press releases from the offices of SaabUSA. In 2006 there were 30 press releases. In 2007 this number shrank to 24 press releases.
We’re nearly half way through 2008 and so far there’s been just 7 press releases from Saab USA.
If exposure is a problem for Saab in the US (and it is) and if the advertising budget has shrunk (and it has) then surely this back-to-basics stuff should be in full swing. When a car company releases one of these, all the media outlets publish it. It’s no-brainer content for them. Easy.
It’s not high impact but it’s inexpensive and gets the name out there. Even if it’s just a little.
——
Saab are a brand with a whole heap of potential.
The brand’s philosophies of efficiency, design and sportiness go hand-in-hand with what will become the industry-wide perspective on motoring in years to come. We’re already seeing more and more companies get into turbocharging – an area that Saab should absolutely own by now.
I suspect that the V6 decision isn’t quite the thin end of the wedge. I think they got the thin end of the wedge past us back in 2003. As Saab become more and more mainstream in coming years the enthusiasts will be left in their 900s, their SEs, their Viggens and their Turbo Xs, contemplating what could have been and asking “why?”
-
I don’t know, it’s not as if all Saab have always been turbocharged. It’s only been recently that the whole model line was, in fact, and that didn’t last long once the 9-2x and 9-7x came on board.
I don’t find it all that much of a crisis, as long as Turbo is offered as an option.
The reason I bought my first SAAB was because it was DIFFERENT and turbo charged. I wouldn’t buy it unless it had a little t on it. I guess as long as it’s an option it’s ok. It does sort of suck though…
And of course GM once again manages to wrench defeat from the jaws of victory when it comes to Saab. Just as gas prices are climbing and 4-cylinder premium cars are becoming a hot item, GM replaces the fuel-efficient DI turbo 4 from the 9-4x concept with a fuel-sucking V6 that probably won’t even have direct injection.
Funny thing is that GM is now considering selling the 2.0 direct injection Ecotec in the new Camaro as well, on top of the Cobalt, HHR, Sky, and Solstice. Yet for some reason Saab, the premium brand is stuck with the old-tech 2.0 port-injected turbo Ecotec with inferior gas mileage.
I love my 9-5 Aero, between the 2.3 HOT engine, the distinctive styling, and the ergonomic gadget-loaded interior (heated rear seats in a car that costs less than $90k!) it’s the best car I’ve ever owned hands down, but if this is the direction that GM wants to take Saab, they’ve lost me as a future customer. At this rate once I get out of school my next car will probably wear 4 rings or a roundel on the hood.
Swade,
While I can fully understand where you are comming from and although I have a turbo SAAB now, I was not originaly drawn to SAAB because of the Turbo charging. I was drawn to the aesthetics, design and function of the car, I came to appreciate the SAAB differance through that car, which has lead to further purchases. At the time I could not afford the turbo version, and did not want it due to insurance etc. I do not see it as a big issue if the base model is not a turbo, as long as turbo options are available.
Ryan, you’re correct. They didn’t always have an all-turbo lineup but if you count only the Swedish-made cars, they do now.
They also have the opportunity to replace the 9-7x and for the first time, have a genuine all-turbo lineup. Foregoing that opportunity seems a little like a regression to me, for the cars on offer, and for the brand in general.
Trent, I know where you’re coming from. My first Saab was a non-turbo too, but it had the wierd design to compensate for that. Saab design is already less distinctive than it used to be, a path the drivetrain is now just beginning to tread. They still look really good, just not as different as they used to.
Swade: It’s regrettable that the 9-4X will come with a non turbo model. A turbo 4 petrol or diesel could have covered that position in the model line up. I think if an entry model 9-1 came with an NA engine I wouldn’t complain, but it makes little sense with this car.
I’m afraid I don’t really consider the 9-4X to be a core model really. It’s just filling a niche where Saab previously hasn’t been represented (outside of the US), and perhaps it’s now a declining one?
Like everyone I looked at the 9X and the 9-3X in the early part of the decade and had great hope for Saab. Things looked really interesting!
But when the the 9-3SS arrived, it seemed to me that Saab had been told to make an Audi competitor and just give it a bit of a Saab flavour. I’ve never liked the car. Perhaps if Saab had been able to make some of the other variations of the car that it had planned, my feelings might have changed? I admit that the MY2008 9-3 is a much improved car and I respect it now, but I don’t think I’ll ever really like it.
From 1988 when I bought my first Saab to 2003 I would go every year to a motor show or a Saab dealer and collect a C900/NG900/OG9-3 brochure. I collected a few 9000 and 9-5 brochures too, including a few overseas. In 2003 I got the first Saab 9-3SS brochure and subsequently I have never gone back for any later ones.
I too want to go down the road less traveled, but I don’t want to go down the road non-traveled. I’m sorry but it sounds like you want to drive a SAAB “just because” it is different, and less for all the other reasons. I do want to drive something that is not sitting in the driveway of every house on the block, but at the same time if isn’t an exceptional ride and drive then I can go buy a Yugo. Let us take each year and range as they come. All SAABs were not fantastic, some of them broke down as fast as we bought them. What good is that? Some of them, like the Viggen, are the step beyond and will always be in demand.
With all the talent and engineering that SAAB has, it is too bad that they haven’t managed to come out commercially like 4 rings or a roundel. They not only didn’t, they almost lost it all, like the Stanley Steamer or the Dodo.
We all agree that GM has a diamond that they seem to keep covered up with dirt and only let a little sparkle out once in a while, but at least they do.
There seems to be a lot of armchair quarterbacks that just know if GM would just do this or do that, then SAAB would be a winning horse in their stable. From the way this thread is going, it sounds like if it does, then you won’t want it anymore.
I’ve followed the upgrade path of latest models and recently ditched the 9-3 to go back to an 1988 900 Aero as a weekend car. There are too many other brands out there that fill the desire that lead me to Saab in the first place.
Saab needs to get XWD as an option on all 9-3′s and advertise the heck out of them – now. I have been reading in a UK magazine that Seat is building a new four door sedan that is pretty much the current generation ie pre-09 A4 that will more than likely undercut Saab in Europe adding to the company’s problems.
Another problem Saab has is thet their gas engines are not very CO2 friendly and that is a big issue in Europe where cars are taxed based on their CO2 emissions. Some form of direct injection needs to be on the next generation of Saab cars.
I think Saab is in a make or break situation over the next two years. The must get it right!
Whats wrong with having lpt as standard on the base models? I agree with you Swade, and I believe that turbocharging goes along with the ethos of Saab in regards to safety and responsible performance. I would definitely like to see some consistency, given that the brand is good at many things but owns nothing.. they don’t own safety, and they don’t own AWD.. Volvo and Subaru own these because they have been consistent in at least making these values known in every car they sell. I would like to see Saab own something, and not just be runner up in a bunch of categories.
Nail, Head, Hammer:
Well said, Seth. Saab should own turbo.
Saab owns quirky, no?
Hmmmmmm – SW
Saab = Turbo. It´s like a concept – Saab turbo. I´m VERY disappointed to hear about new V6 n/a engine. It´s freaking ridiculous how they show us great 2 liter turbo engine at the show, but when it come to real life they´ll offer us a V6. I´ve said this several times, but already existing 2.8v6t is not a good engine for Saab.
Today, our E95 price is 1.55€/liter (that´s US$9,2 per gallon..) even diesel costs now 1.45€/liter. The price of fuel is rising, there´s no coming back.
Well, okay maybe for US, but isn´t this V6 too small for US market? 9-4X is targeted to norht american market, but the SUV segment is rising over Europe all the time. Audi, BM and others are now producing smaller SUV´s a´la Audi Q5.
How we can support Saab? Buying and driving a Saab, I think. I don´t buy Saab because it says SAAB on front grille. It has to be Good car in many ways.
I think they owned quirky once turbin, but it seems at the moment, they only lease it. And maybe for a while now, they haven’t been paying the rent?
Maybe the cars aint so quirky but the management is.
As for N/A vs Turbo, yes we all love turbos but the 9-3SS/SC is still available with the 1.8i in many markets. Is this inconsistent?
Hi.
I agree with Trent & Swade. I too had my first Saab NG 900 without turbo. But i loved the car for the same reasons as you. What i did not love was the low trade back value of a non- turbo saab ! Nobody wants it, exept for the low price ! Big value for money.
It is exact the same with the 9-3 “sport” sedans n/a Opel 1.8 engine 122 hp. They are only sold as company cars due to the low price. They have a lot of stuff onboard- but no engine. (and no 1.8 sign at the rear) and nobody wants them afterwards because of the missing turbo !! Their lack of power (torque)and their higher fuel consumption compared to the turbo versions make them un wanted.
They are not considered as Real Saabs!
I fully agree Saab = Turbo.
In certain countries we have governments that will tax your car so much that it becomes very expensive. Duty on CO2, cubic and horse power! Example of duty:
1,8i: $23,300
1,8t: $27,800
1,9TiD: $22,100
1,9TTiD: $34,100
2,8TS: $87,300
This is duty only!!!!
No wonder 9 out of 10 SAABs are 1,8i or 1,9TiD.
Solution: Right sizing! Drop the 1,8i and replace it with a 1,6t or even a 1,4t with direct injection and you will have the same horse power, bett torque and lower emissions=lower tax!
SAAB should only sell cars with turbo engines, but do it in a clever way. SAAB needs more up to date technology. This will probably come soon.
The first Saab I ever drove was a 99 EMS. The first Saab I owned was a 99 GL 5speed. The first one got me curious. The second one made fall in love. Neither had a Turbo, but were probably more “Saab” than my current 9-3.
Not every buyer likes, or needs, turbocharged performance, turbocharged insurance costs and turbocharged fuel economy. And some markets – the USA in particular, do not take to them with the same gusto as others. To some turbos are just another thing to go wrong.
Saab have always been and always will be more then just turbos, and the inclusion of modern, powerful and efficient NA engines into the range would probably improve sales.
Saab made turbocharging their own when it was the only way to get power in a relatively economic package. Those days are long gone.
I think American companies generally are less concerned with brand reputation than Japanese or Europeans, especially when there’s a short term dollar to be made. (I say that as an American)
For Saab to have NO turbocharged model in a range just seems wrong to me.
Likewise, to have a non-turbocharged top-of-the-range model is, again, unpalatable.
Saab have always been about function rather than fashion. If you can produce a base model without a turbo that does what it needs to then surely it follows that this should be done.
The original turbo, don’t forget, was a way of avoiding development of a new engine for the US.
Turbos are not Saab’s raison d’être but a product of their pragmatic approach to the market-place challenge. *THAT* is the Saab brand.
I don’t have a problem with Saab having a non-turbo engine, but it should be placed at the low end of the price range. As long as a car like that sells (or brings customers to the showroom to eventually buy turbo versions) it’s probably OK.
Whenever power-trains are mentioned I’ve noticed an inherent backlash from the Americans who feel that Saab just isn’t producing the goods to compete in the US market. The TurboX is a classic example 280hp wasn’t enough for a power obsessed nation where one comment even when as far to state that they needed at least 300hp to safely get on a freeway. 300hp to accelerate to 75mhp? So that means Germans must all be driving 600hp supercars to deal with the speeds they drive on the Autobahn. In comparison the latter is just as ludicrous.
However; since the 50′s Americans have grown up with 4,5,6 litre engines and even though they have shrunken in size over the years It’s still the norm and large displacement is expected to cope with an average weekend trip that a European might only do once a year.If I make a 4 hour trip west I will have visited 5 Counties. So it’s understandable that Saab USA only offers 3 Engine choices to cover the 9-3 and 9-5, The cost in shipping the 150hp 1.8t and 175hp 2.0t could well be a wasted exercise leaving many vehicles with no homes.
Which leads to the next issue and that is hardly any American wants to buy a premium vehicle unless it is a 6 Cyl. which is why BMW do not offer any of their 4Cyl. engines in the USA. Saab are different and with good reason. Up until 2 years ago they didn’t have a 6Cyl.
A 3.2i V6 sounds a good entry level engine.
A vehicle of this weight will require a displacement that a 4 cyl. NA engine can’t produce. The low-end torque that is required in towing can only be produced in a 4 Cyl if a turbo or more likely Twin-Turbo is added to the equation and then you have a more expensive setup. Some people are commenting as if this will be the only engine available which is NOT the case. This is about expanding the envelope and getting more people experiencing the world of Saab. The naturally aspirated V6 works 2 fold. Gives the car a good headline price and doesn’t turn conquest customers away for not offering a V6.
There will be other engines offered which will be Turbo Charged, that will be more powerful and naturally will set you back a lot more money.
I don’t really have a problem with a non-turbo SAAB, as long as a turbo is available. C900′s came both turbo and non-turbo, as did the 9000 and N900 (and a V-6 at that!) The 9-7X is a non-entity for me. I like the 9-4X and if a turbo is available, then I am fine (TTiD preferably.)
After daily driving my 9-3 Aero with the 4-cylinder 2.0T engine and putting 750 miles on a rented Volvo S40 with a 5-cylinder 2.4i this past weekend, my question is, “Why NOT a turbo?”
Sure, there’s a little higher investment up front (and some increased complexity, AKA technology), but you’re not likely to be shopping for a Saab if you just want a cheap car. My 2.0T is more economical and MUCH more fun and powerful than the gutless Volvo I had to deal with over the weekend. Why choose an engine with 23% more displacement and 7% lower gas mileage (which offsets the slightly-lower cost over time), when you can have 25% more HP and 30% more torque with the (Saab turbo) alternative?
Looking for a transportation appliance? Choose the naturally-aspirated base-level S40 I got to “experience” this weekend (or a cheaper car that still retains many of the Volvo’s arguably more-endearing attributes).
Looking for a totally different driving experience thousands of us have come to crave? Then encourage Saab to stay true to what makes them unique by choosing the turbo.
Bringing up the issue of rentals is a good one.
Some manufacturers deliberately put an engine in their line-up that no private buyer would normally want. The entry level car will attract some customers but in the example of the 2.4i Volvo the model is ultimately destined for fleet to help boost sales figures. These are your bread and butter models and it doesn’t matter that it doesn’t have the right performance as these cars residual values will drop quicker than Paris hilton’s underwear on a night out.
So you get a higher output of vehicles per year and the used values do not affect your better models destined for your retail market.
I’m not implying that you will be able to hire a 9-4x in the near future. I’m just giving insight as to why you ended up with a gutless Volvo