Is GM right in downsizing the Saab 9-3?
The following is a guest post submitted by WooDz, a man with more than a little Saab experience.
——
IS GM/SAAB RIGHT?
For some reason, the news that the next generation 9-3 is to be built using a smaller architecture conjures up images of inferior quality. I’d imagine the immediate thoughts of many went like this: Physically smaller than its predecessor, second-rate technology, conflicts with a small vehicle that would share the platform. Then you have the market comparisons with Volvo and how bad the V40 and C30 are. These, in reality, bare no relevance to the market perception of Saab, who are still renowned for making quirky mid-size hatchbacks and not mammoth hunks of metal.
Before any of those assumptions can be made, maybe we should concentrate on the current model, where the platform first debuted as the Opel Vectra. If we add 4 years development time then we’re looking at a vehicle that was engineered over a decade ago. The 9-3 has just undergone an enhancement and as previous timelines would suggest, it will remain in this form for around the next 3-4 years. This means it could be as late as 2012 before we get to touch the all-new Saab 9-3.
When you look at the two global architectures Delta and Epsilon and consider that the next generation Delta platform, simply by systematic technological advancement, will be lighter and stronger than either the current 9-3 or the Insignia, you have to wonder where the negatives will be? An extended Delta could quite possibly be larger than the current 9-3 and more advanced, technically. If VAG’s Golf/A3 can carry a V6 engine then why not the next generation Delta? After all, Opel would no doubt like a comparable model to the Golf R32 or what will become the R36.
The 9-1 and 9-3 may end up sharing synergies and components from Epsilon 2 that could be utilised in the same way that BMW use the multi link axle and engines from the 3-series setup for the 1-series. This will greatly reduce development and production costs. Having that translate into more favorable prices will probably be unlikely. However, they will create a buffer zone when dealing with weaker currencies or generate profits for a future projects; a real Saab Sonett, anyone?
Trollhättan is also an issue and the potential to have the plant work at full capacity by producing a high volume of Saabs will show GM that the company can stand their own. Also, being able to bolster that output by building e-flex and other conventional vehicles destined for northern European regions will secure the facility further into the future. Having a strong manufacturing presence in their home country is of inestimable value for Saab.
Another issue is timing. If 2012 was to be the entry date for a new 9-3 using Epsilon 2, that would mean we’d have a new vehicle with a potential life of 10 years starting out on what will be a 4 year old platform. With Delta 2 the scenario is still not perfect, but it’s much better in terms of current engineering design.
It is without doubt the Audi A4 would be a larger vehicle but even the motoring media are starting to question whether the A4 has outgrown is market segment. It’s just as big as the current 5-series. We are finally seeing motoring markets, especially the US, turn the corner and accept that a smaller, more efficient car is the car of the future. Saab will still have a larger car, but this move will most likely make them the first to recognise the trend and design accordingly.
With Fuel prices that will only continue to rise and government regulations demanding lower emissions, larger heavier vehicles will no longer become economically viable for most families. In North America trends are already changing and even with the typical SUV no longer being of BOF architecture they will become obsolete as a family commuter. If you have money and want to drive a Caddy, fuel prices won’t stop you. However, the story will most likely be different for the rest of us. For those who want to pay the premium for a quality car where running costs are affordable something a lot smaller than a 9-5 might be the only answer in a global market.
We often feel that the big General seems to step from one blunder to the next, that little thought is ever given to automotive passion and that the whole company is bound by its financial analysts and accountants, who by natural gene-chemistry have zero creativity and the passion of a dormant snail. Yet for a company that has employed a load of dim-witted baboons, they’re still doing OK. GM are still producing nearly 10 million vehicles per annum and are profitable in all markets except North America. Maybe they’re more capable than we give them credit for?
The auto industry is heading for some big changes in the next decade and where most manufactures still want to make their next generation vehicles larger than their predecessors, I think GM are allowing Saab once again to show some of their unique lateral thinking. Consider the BioHybrid console, which has more of a horizontal 99 / 900 layout as opposed to a sweep around 9000 look - you never know the next 9-3 might even be a hatchback?
One can dream.
-
More from this category
- Lance Cole: The Saab Psychosis
- Don’t lose your reverence
- Automotive News Europe: Sell Saab (and Volvo)
- My idea for GM Europe and the Saab 900
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’
I’m pretty sure the next “9-3″ will be available as a combi, hatchback and convertible - and maybe as a coupé but not as a sedan. More body styles means more choice for a customer. The problem with the C30/S40 thing is that there is little market in Europe for smaller sedans. C30 is as small as a Volvo can get, so the S40 is just too small. So maybe there will be no true small sedan from Saab, but rather a hatchback with more sleek curves.
The 9-5 not getting bigger is probably a wise thing at the moment. Until we know where we are heading in terms of fuel technology and regulations, use the current size. It still leaves room for a bigger and more luxury Saab above the 9-5 later on (a 9-8) when the time is right.
I don’t think that GM goes from one blunder to the next, but then, I didn’t live through the Malaise era. Also, I love the wraparound console, and any journalist that thinks it’s outdated is an idiot. It makes so much more sense to angle everything toward the driver than to spread it all out on a big flat surface.
Other than that, I pretty much agree with everything else.
ctm - it’s kind of refreshing to see a Swede who doesn’t find the idea of a Saab car larger than the 9-5 completely abhorrant.
http://www.aftonbladet.se
Has already written about a new hatchback is coming with the smaller 9-3. They think that it will be smaller (but virtually the same car) and called 9-2. The 9-1 will be canned/saved for a really small car.
More in this post: Saab 9-3 to be built on Delta - from the horse’s mouth (62)
Jeff,
If they can still make it a “true” Saab and there is a need for it, I don’t see a problem with it. With the right technology, a bigger car doesn’t have to be a more gas guzzling car. It can just be a safe, practical, comfortable transportation with far less fuel consumption than a BMW M3.
One of the reasons for me fearing the coming of the new 9-3 on the “global premium compact architecture” (Delta II) is psychological.
Journalists as well as other stupid people keep referring to the other cars using the same parts bin. In case of the current 9-3 that is the Vectra. After 2012 those people will refer to the Astra or maybe even to the Deawoo Lanos. That does not help keeping up your appearances!
As far as weight and dimensions are concerned choosing Delta is probably a wise thing.
The wanted dimensions can certainly be reached. Not convinced: look at the current Opel Astra Stationwagon or the current Opel Zafira. Both have a longer wheelbase and surely more rear legroom.
Using Epsilon II will bring a lot more weight. The new Insignia is at least 100 kg heavier than the Vectra it replaces. Part of this is due to better safety (the 9-3 has always been better there!), part of it is due to a stiffer body, but I don’t believe a 100 kg’s come only from a stiffer body. It most come from heavier components too. I think GM will not admit that a mistake has been made there.
About the V6 Woodz is talking about: Technically the RV6 from VW is a V6 but with an inclined angle of 13°, you can hardly call it a V. To save space Volvo uses an R5 instead. In my opinion that is the better way to go. A blown DI 2,5 l R5 must be capable of at least 340 hp. I think the current V6 is a dinosaur, way too thirsty.
Opel has always been a master in mixing components between car lines, but can the axles from the Epsilon II be used ? Remember: the current Astra has a McPherson front suspension and a twisted beam rear suspension. That won’t do for a new 9-3.
Many good points.
Saab buyers are supposed to be thinkers. So they realise that this is mostly psychological, and can probably ignore that.
I’ve said it before, and will repeat:
The current Astra wagon is arguably bigger than the 9-3 wagon, and the interior materials of Astra are more premium than in 9-5 (apart from the chairs, naturally).
So my guess is that if the next 9-3 is to small and of too bad build quality, it’s not GM’s fault but Saab’s (provided the right components can actually be used in the architecture)
Albert: Regarding some of your worries of the suspention/Chassie for a Delta II 9-3, SaabKen posted the following link -http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=52347 -
in “Saab 9-3 to be built on Delta - from the horse’s mouth” about the Next generation Holden/Opel/Vauxhall/Saturn Astra.
Here is a quote from that article:
“Once again the Astra will be designed and engineered primarily by General Motors’ German subsidiary Opel. The current Astra’s torsion-beam rear suspension will be replaced by a more expensive independent set-up that aims to improve the small car’s ride and handling.
The Astra will continue to be front-wheel drive, though it’s possible a version of the new Haldex all-wheel-drive system developed by GM’s Swedish arm Saab could find its way under range-topping versions of the small car.”
I believe that to be true and I also believe that alot of this technique that is “expensive” is made with both Delta II and Epsilon II vehicles in mind. Though it would be likely that Chevrolet/Daewoo get the less expensive stuff in their cars to make a clear difference between brands and pricerange.
And Martin:
Quote from your mouth:
“I’ve said it before, and will repeat:
The current Astra wagon is arguably bigger than the 9-3 wagon, and the interior materials of Astra are more premium than in 9-5 (apart from the chairs, naturally).”
My kids grandpa has got an -06 Astra Wagon (Or Caravan.. Are they still called that?) and I have had a 9-3SC 1,8t for a short period of time. Comparing the legroom that my kids have in the rear i have to say the 9-3 beats the Astra.. But not by much. The Saab has got a much more cozy and secure feeling were the Astra is simple and quite “plasticy”.
And comparing materials in the Astra and a 9-5.. Eeeeh.. The 9-5 is much more dignified and materials are superior… And yes.. I´ve got new glasses.
I drive an Astra H 1,6 TP 5D myself. My former car also was an Astra 1,6 5D but the G model.. They are ok, realy understated.. I buy them because of the value for money. Cheap second hand and the milage is great. 6,2l/100km combined.. But the materials used could be better, the looks are ok but the drive is so unsexy.
ctm: I’m sure the new 9-5 will be larger than the current car. I’d just like to commend the idea not to make the next 9-3 any larger. This makes a clear size differential between the two models. At the moment they are much too close. To resize the 9-3 to something like Audi A4 size would be wrong. I’m guessing Audi have made a tactical error making the new A4 so large. Will the next A6 be huge?
If the 9-3 stays the same size or gets a little smaller, I’d like to see a new bigger 2.3 or 2.4 litre 4 cylinder for the sportier models. It might be prestigious to have a V6, but the 2.8 litre is not fantastically economical. It could remain as an option, but with less emphasis placed on it. Perhaps use it in a luxury Griffin type model?
The 9-5 is different and I would suggest that a larger 3.2 litre V6 also be available to supplement the 2.8 litre. The base engine should be a version of the 2.3/2.4 litre four.
Mark: Where would that 2,3l engine come from? The current 2,3l is 1. Built at the Södertälje plant that Scania is taking over competely from 2009 and 2. The 2,3 liter is a good engine but too old and to expensive to continue working on and use in only one model.
Tompa: There needs to be new 2.3 litre engine. It could be based on the existing 9-3 2 litre? I’m sure the base engine on the new 9-5
will not be the 2.8 litre V6, at least not in all markets. Does GM have a bigger 4 cylinder?
I´d like to see a 1,6t 150-160hp twinscroll as a base for europe in the NG9-3 and a true 1,8T 175hp twinscroll for the 9-5. In the US maybe the 2,0T from todays 9-3 but updated with direct injection in both the 9-3 and 9-5. Is there realy a need for another 2,3l?
There is a naturally aspirated 2.4 litre GM/Ecotec (used for instance as the base engine of Solstice). I don’t think there is a turbo version of it (at least not yet).
What there need to be is both BP and diesel alternatives in the US. Plus the adition of hybridtechnology. But formost.. Marketing!
riku1100s: Perhaps that 2.4 litre could be a turbocharged base engine for the new 9-5.
With fuel geting more expensive, I just think there should be less emphasis on 6 cylinder engines in the 9-3, especially if the car gets slightly smaller and lighter. A 285 bhp 2.4l turbo 4 should be more than adequate!
why change the 9-3? arent most saabs that are sold 9-3´s (in sedan version)??? so why make it unavailiable. remember when porsche wanted to discountinue the 911 and make 914 instead. everybody knows what happend.
i hate the idea of downsizing… just improve the 9-3 (bigger faster efficency) and make a 9-2 on the delta platform….
I think both the next 9-3 and 9-5 should offer a gas turbo 4 or two, the TTiD 4, and then the range-topping V-6 should be the new GM V-6 turbo diesel. It seems to me that doing that would keep the gas mileage up.
I would like to see a true 900 hatch replacement ,coupe and sedan model to take on Audi A4 and something in the hot hatch or sport coupe with help from Chevy’s Volt.
Tompa,
I’d say to market 1.6T and 1.8T for NG9-3 in all countries and 1.8T & 2.0T for NG9-5.
If Saab wants to make some special editions IE: XWD with 2.3,hybrid or Bio fuel.
the US market will follow and buy smaller displacements.The cars I own are Honda civic w/ 1.6,Vw Golf w/ 1.8T, Saab 900 SE 2.0T.I don’t need anything big than those for driving.
What I need right now Jorgen is a Chevrolet Transport I´m afraid. Same as the Opel Sintra but longer and with an american V6.. I´m about to be a father of FOUR on the 7´th of september. I had wished to trade my Opel Astra 1,6 Twinport 5D -06 for a Saab 9-5SC 2,0t -03-04.. But I have to get a minivan for the sake of the kids. Sweden is more of a minivanplace.. So wy didn´t GM make a Saab out of the Transport? 9-6X?
Hmmm.. Wonder what´s in store for the name 9-6……. A SIXY vehicle hopefully
Tompa & Jorgen, Im with you. 1.6-2 liter enough for 9-3 and 2.3 max for 9-5 - for European market. 3 liter v6 turbo for US and those who want it.
I´ve said this before, but I cannot help to be amazed by Audi´s new 2.0TFSI. 211bhp and 350Nm already at freaking 1500rpm! That´s like a turbodiesel with that low end torq. Consumption is way much lower than Saabs two liter turbo.
Talking about GM. They seem to have some chassis tuning experts which might´ve been useful for tuning Saab special sporty models. Read more here:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/car_shopping/latest_news_reviews/2009_cadillac_cts_v_outruns_the_bmw_m3_and_m5_at_the_ring_car_news
@Tompa: I don’t think that Aussie paper is right where it concerns the Astra’s rear axle. What I heard is that the axle will remain, but heavily modified, but there might be a chance that the most powerful versions will get an independent rear axle. Both mr. Forster and mr Demant have made it quite clear that an independent rear axle for the astra is too expensive (+ E 500 per car). Besides the cost disadvantage there is a packaging problem. How big this is you can see in the VW Golf. Boot space is officially the same but VW calculates the room for the spare wheel in the boot space and Opel doesn’t!
Again @ Tompa: the Astra wagon has exactly 4 cm’s more rear legroom than the current 9-3 wagon.
I hope GM takes the decision to use top of the bill front and rear suspension.
I am still mulling over the whole Delta 9-3 thing. I am finding it difficult how an Astra platform-mate is going to competently compete against an A4, 3-Series, C-Class et al. I can see it as more of an S40/A3 competitor. Will it cost less than the current 9-3? If not, I have a hard time seeing it as successful. I had an 03 9-3 SS and traded it in on an 07 9-3 convertible. I like the size of the 9-3. I find it very competitive against the C70, A4 convertible, 3-series convertible and even the CLK. If the new 9-3 is going to be more like an S40, will that leave a big hole in the line up, like going from an S40 to S80 with no S60?
This link is to an excellent article in Popular Mechanics about platform sharing. After reading it you shouldn’t worry about sharing platforms.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4262488.html
Guys that are still sore about NG9-3 going to Delta 2 should look at this way, Maybe something better is planned down the road for Saab & Esp.2 could be a great place to start with electric and hybrid or diesel models for world consumption.
As we need now Opel is moving upmarket a bit to counter act VW groups move to bring something ;either SEAT or other to US market.
To do this Gm needs to set the wheels in motion for Saab to move them up or give them the Alternative Vehicle solutions before Opel is pulled up.Or could this be a way of selling Saab’s current to old technology to gain money for new stuff?
As Tompa stated earlier, there ia s very interesting article by Robert Collin which throughs a whole different light on things: http://www.aftonbladet.se/bil/article2423144.ab
David is so right. He just spoke the words of god.
Saab will have a MAJOR gap in the lineup if they make the 9-5 too big, and the 9-3 too small. Im not sure how flexible this Delta is, But I know for a fact that the epsilon II is built with flexibility in mind.
Answer this question truthfully everyone:
Do you REALLY think the Delta 9-3 will be able to take on the 3 series, C class, A4, S60 in terms of ride comfort, power, room/dimensions?
Now I cant tell the future, but I really dont think Saab has a clear plan on the table yet. The 9-5 should grow (at the most) 6 inches, while the present 9-3 should grow 2 inches (in cabin), because it is very cramped and compact already for the money they want for that thing!
I dont understand WHY Saab creates these problems for themselves. It is common sense to downsize the epsilon II to whatever size they want it to be, and place the 9-3 on that platform to give it the prestige it will need to take on the competition, while the 9-1 utilizes the Delta to its full potential to take on the c30, A3, S40, and even V50. The 9-5 will then be able to grow a half foot and take on all its competition.
Lets face facts. GM is not interested in Saab anymore and I doubt we will ever see a new 9-3. All this dithering about what will be built and where it is to be built doesn’t fill me with confidence about Saab’s future. Sadly, GM’s dithering reminds me of the way BMW treated Rover toward the end.
im afraid your right zippy…
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/05/13/gm-to-move-opel-upmarket-in-europe/
“The 9-3 has just undergone an enhancement and as previous timelines would suggest, it will remain in this form for around the next 3-4 years. This means it could be as late as 2012 before we get to touch the all-new Saab 9-3.”
This is exactly true.
The NG900 debuted in 1994 and was replaced (after being “refreshed” into the OG9-3 after 5 years) after 9 years in 2003 by the 9-3SS.
The 9-5 debuted in 1997 (was “refreshed” in 2005, eight years later) and is due to be replaced in 2009-1/2 (12 and a half years after its inception).
The 9-3SS debuted in 2003, was refreshed after five years (just like the NG900), and if the same product cycle holds true would be replaced in 2012.
The 9-5’s product cycle was unusually long, even for Saab. I understand however it was originally set to be replaced around 2004 but the whole 9-3SS development fiasco canceled those plans.
As die-hard Saabers I think we appreciate that these cars are typically so ahead of their time that they age quite well and the long product cycles enable Saab to continuously improve them to perfection. Buy a 2008 9-5 and rest assured there’s been 11 years of “working-out the bugs”.
The problem is that people who aren’t die-hard Saabers see the cars as “old”. This is reflected in the 9-5’s terrible sales numbers the past few years, which looks to continue until it’s replaced in the middle of next year.
I fear for Saab if they plan to sell the current 9-3 until 2012. Sales are bound to start a downward spiral soon (if it hasn’t already begun). I don’t think XWD is going to be enough to keep selling this car for another four years.
Albert: I agree on your sentiment of the current V6 being a dinosaur. It doesn’t even feature direct-injection! Hello, Holden: 2004 called. It says to get with the times.
There is precedent of Saab developing a “blown” 5-cylinder engine. The Saab Variable Compression prototype was a supercharged 1.6-liter 5-cylinder engine. The story goes they originally started with a 2-liter 4-cylinder but its immense power output proved unwieldy (too much power? That’s a problem!?!?).
That little prototype 1.6-liter SVC engine powered a big, heavy Saab 9-5 sedan. There’s a link to a video of it somewhere in the archives here at TS.
I’m thinking that the next-gen 9-3 is going to have to be flexible enough to be adaptable to future powerplants. Maybe in a few years they’ll finally have a production-ready SVC to pop-into the 9-3 after a couple decades of development!
I would like to see Saab get their hands on the highly-regarded direct-injected 3.6-liter V6 (for the next-gen 9-5) that Cadillac has available in the CTS and STS. This engine has been certified to produce 302 hp and 369 Nm (I’m sure Saab’s engineers could eek-out even more torque somehow - maybe put turbos on it?) on lowly 87 octane (RON + MON /2) gasoline.
I believe this will be a selling point in coming years. With Americans now beginning to freak-out at $4 a gallon gasoline they’re REALLY going to freak-out when they realize they have to pay $0.20 more per-gallon for premium unleaded in their luxury car. My mom’s Acura TL recommends premium unleaded ONLY.
If Saab can get more fuel-efficient AND require only regular unleaded gasoline this should help sell a lot of Saabs in the future, IMHO.
Lastly, I mean no offense whatsoever to any of my European friends, but I have to say that you don’t understand the North American market. There’s no way Saab will sell 9-5s at the price point they plan to equipping it with a 4-cylinder engine. It just WON’T happen. We can extol the benefits of the turbocharged 4 all day but you just can’t change peoples’ minds. Anyone willing to pay more than USD$40K on a car WILL NOT settle for a four-cylinder. Why do you think the 9-5 hasn’t been selling very well (besides the fact that it’s old, but even in the late 90s and early ’00s it wasn’t selling in GREAT numbers)? Europeans are more logical and would buy a 4-cylinder 9-5. Heck, BMW doesn’t even sell a 4-cylinder car in the U.S. The 1-series is coming standard with a twin-turbo 3-liter inline-6! Do you think BMW would sell the 5-series in the U.S. with a 4-cylinder???
Base engine in the 9-5 in the N.A. market HAS to be a V6. I don’t agree with it, but that’s what the market demands. It’s crazy that you can get all-wheel-drive and a V6 in the smaller, cheaper 9-3 but not in the larger, more expensive 9-5.
1985 gripen : I agree with you concerning the 9-5, wich over the years has now been developed to near perfection ! (execpt for the GM style dashboard and controls) It would be great if Saab could eventually present the SVC in working condition, and ready for production.
(but where- Södertalje ?)
I dont care if the next 9-5 has a fuel economical 4 or 5 banger or even a V6 for whose who want that, as long as it have a turbocharger.
But what i really want is A HATCH 9-5 (i loved that rear end on my 9000 Aero)
Saab: Bring back the hatch, -on all models please!
Guys I agree that the new 9-5 defintely needs a V6 with perhaps two displacements and a big four for some markets as a base option.
The Holden V6 might be very well rated in the Commodore, but that’s only because the Ford Falcon’s current engine is much older and that’s due to be replaced.
On the subject of size differential between models, progolf suggested this: Next 9-5 will be about 490 cm, 9-3 about 460 cm and new 9-1 about 430 cm”. I think that would work out pretty well, but that Aftonbladet article might put a fly in the ointment?
PLEASE click trough to http://www.aftonbladet.se/bil/article2407568.ab?teaser=true
Take a look at the 9-X BHC standing beside it´s sybling the 9-4X.. If the 9-X tells something about the comming 9-3 and hatchback version the 9-2.. Should we then be worried about it´s size on the Delta II that the 9-X BHC rides upon? Would not think so.
/Tompa
The problem with the “compact architecture” aplied to a “premium” sedan, its the way it goes and performance you obtain. Take a look at many compact cars, or for example the 9xbiohybrid. It uses a torsion beam axle as a rear suspension. This has advantages in rear space, but the problem is that is not as good in terms of stability, ride quality, agility as a multilink or more modern suspension configurations used by sedans.
The priority will be to reduce wheight and obtain more space, then lets see what happen with the “performance”, comfort and so…
Take a look at the 9-5. The basis of that car is the Vectra B. A car thats not that much bigger than the OG9-3. But is the 9-5 small or have crappy handling?
A 9-3 on the Delta II is doable and should work out nicely
I’d say nothing bigger than a 2.3T all the way around for standard production vehicles in Saab’s lineup if you want more Gm should build some special limited models for that.that way it keeps fuel rating numbers up and still give the few a car they want.Audi has S4 and stuff i’m sure saab could use that sportiness always to bring in younger buyers.But Saab can’t make too many or have it as a normal model as Buick and Caddy sell these as bread and butter product.plus Saab should have alternative fuel sources.
With the J platform or GM2900, there is a big difference. It was developed for sedans in both categories C and D mind and with variety of sizes, like the Epsilon I, and Saab for the 9-5, introduced quite big changes, with high costs in terms of investment, development. Take a look at the rear axle of both models, thanks to the success of the 9-5, Saab could continue, imagine the difficulties and I+D to adapt a platform from a compact car to a sedan. The Vectra with epsilon platform uses the longest wheelbase version instead of the 9-3, that uses the shortest, Saab concentrated its resources in applying a better rigidity(22000NM/grade, instead of 18000 for the vectra), better handling, safety, etc etc…
I hope you are right, but it will be quite a hard work to transform a compact platform, designed to be used in a compact car, to meet the requirements of a premium sedan. And one of the big challenges will be the rear axle, space, dynamism, ride quality, agility, wheight, XWD, safety….
regards
A new turn in the future of 9-3. Not only it will be built on a substandard platform, but GM is tooling Russelsheim for Astra(deltaII)-based products too.
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/news/wirtschaft_-_handel/hxcms_article_513102_13987.hbs
Welcome 9-3 2012 made in Germany ??