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.
UPDATED – new translation of the original article, with thanks to Albert!
——
There’s been mumblings here previously about the possibility of the next Saab 9-3 being built on the compact Delta platform instead of the next generation Epsilon II. See the following links for the background:
- Saab 9-5 and 9-3 future model news
What’s going on with the Saab 9-3?
Saab 9-1 and 9-3 – the Saab response
In short, those articles cover the possible decision to make the next Saab 9-3 on a compact vehicle platform, the same as will be used for the next Opel Astra. Currently, the Saab 9-3 is built on the larger Epsilon platform and it was assumed that it would be produced on the new Epsilon II platform eventually, in Russelsheim, Germany. The new Saab 9-5 will be produced on this platform starting in 2009.
In the article noted above as “the Saab response”, Saab’s PR manager in Sweden, Eric Geers, confirmed that they were looking at the compact Delta platform for the 9-3 as a means to reduce weight and better meet emission requirements. He pointed out that the vehicle architecture is just a modular basis for the vehicle and that vehicles of varying sizes and specifications can all be made from the one architecture.
That’s the history.
Today there’s been another article appear in Hendelsblatt, in Germany, that all but confirms that the Saab 9-3 will be built on this smaller architecture. The report states that the next Saab 9-3 will be built in Trollhattan rather than in Russelsheim.
The Trollhattan factory is soon to be re-tooled for the Delta platform in the near term and will be producing the current Epsilon 9-3 and the new Delta vehicles concurrently. It seems this will continue until the current 9-3 is phased out and the new version moves to Delta as well. New Epsilon II vehicles such as the Saab 9-5 will be produced in Russelsheim and the withdrawal of the Saab 9-3 from those plans will leave Russelsheim with a fair amount of excess capacity.
An updated translation from the original artical in German is as follows:
GM draws back production job from Opel.
The Opel-mother company General Motors (GM) has made a course correction with the production plans for Europe. The company plans apparently to give the production job for the next generation Saab 9-3 to the family plant of the Swedes instead of to Rüsselsheim.
FRANKFURT. According to information from business circles, the GM Board is expected to deal with the issue in June. With that the automobile manufacturere is giving the precedence to a badly filled aout Trollhättan Saab plant in preference to the Opel family plant in Rüsselsheim, that was originally planned to build the car.
To compensate the GM management around GM-Europe’s boss Carl-Peter Forster considers to give build jobs based on the Astra platform or the Chevrolet Epica to Rüsselsheim, it is said in the company.
A spokesman for GM Europe (GME) would not comment on the plans: “Our management cannot comment to the production site of the future Saab 9-3 at the moment.” The management although has just made clear commitments to order volumes to the works. To this the manufacturer will keep itself, said the spokesman.
In 2005, the Rüsselsheim factory promised that the future Saab middle class car would be made there. According to information from business circles the car company is planning now, however, to build the successor to the Saab 9-3, which is expected on the market in 2012, no longer on the old Vectra platform, but on the basis of a new compact car platform.
The works council chairman of the plant in Bochum, Rainer Einenkel, had already announced in the specialist magazine Auto, Motor und Sport “,that its location would apply to the model. Bochum is one of four future GM Astra plants in Europe and would be able to build the next Saab 9-3 also on this basis. But the U.S. company seems to prefer to fill the capacity at the plant in Trollhättan with the model, where in the future – according to business circles – the planned Saab 9-1 small car is expected to be built.
One year after the decision where to build the most important for GM model in Europe, the Astra compact car, the race for the manufacturing site for the current smallest model Saab is internally as good as decided. Open, on the other hand, is still with which cars GM management will ensure the production capacity and models in the Opel headquarters in Rüsselsheim.
Opel company works council chairman Klaus Franz said recently that he assumes that GM will keep to its assurances. “We have a signed contract with the management, capacity and the volume is definitely ensured,” he said. GM had promised the works council in an agreement in the autumn of last year to produce up to six GM models in Rüsselsheim by 2012. Currently in Rüsselsheim only the middle class models Vectra and Signum are produced, that will be replaced by the Insignia from November,
GM restructures further with this its production plans for its European operations after the reassignment of the important Astra production in the works Bochum, Gliwice and Ellesmere Port.
Only last week the company, that writes its books deep in the red on the home market, had announced investments in a total of 9 billion Euros in its core brand Opel until 2012 and announced a guarantee for the Astra plants, including Bochum until the year 2016.
Once again, I’m going to write to Saab Sweden and seek a response to what appears to be a measure of progress on this issue.
——
The possible threat here is that the Saab 9-3 could be too close to the proposed Saab 9-1 idf they are both built on the same architecture. The move to Delta would definitely make a marked difference between the Saab 9-3 and Saab 9-5, however, something that hasn’t been around since 2002.
Eric Geers remained confident when I last heard from him (again, the link above) that the Saab 9-1 would see production. I guess the challenge here is to make sure the 9-1 and the 9-3 are remarkably different vehicles.
——
Thanks very much to LML for the article
31 responses so far ↓
1 Markac
// May 6, 2008 at 11:21 am
I think it’s a good thing if both the 9-1 and the 9-3 can be made in Trollhattan. We don’t know enough about the new Delta II compact vehicle platform, so it would be too early to criticize it.
There’s a strong need to move the 9-3 and the 9-5 models further apart and this would seem a good way to acomplish it. But the whilst it would be good if the 9-1 and 9-3 could have some things in common, what we don’t need is for the next 9-3 to be merely a stretched 9-1.
It appears odd that they might consider building the Chevrolet Epica in Ruesselheim, unless the next model is far removed from the current Daewoo car? If it is still Daewoo based, surely it would be cheaper to build it in Korea?
2 Alex
// May 6, 2008 at 11:26 am
Like I’ve said before, if Delta is what it takes to make a lighter, more tossable 9-3, then bring it on!
I think it also makes sense for Saab and keeping the street cred of Saab as a Swedish car company. Having both major models built in Germany would have been the final nail in the “Saabs are rebadged Opels” coffin. Building the 9-1. 9-3, and Astra in Sweden on the other hand will make it fully look as if it’s the Astra that’s built on a Saab platform, not the other way around.
Reading between the lines, I think this could also signal the end to the idea of building Cadillacs in Trollhattan. Trollhattan isn’t a huge plant, and balancing the 9-1, 9-3, and Astra production lines should use up the full capacity of the facilities there, if not requiring them to expand.
3 joemama
// May 6, 2008 at 11:27 am
Well, I just saw a news report that in the US small cars, especially 4 cyls. are up something like 50 percent.
I know most people here don’t want to see the 9-3 getting any smaller, but it might be a good move on Saab’s part if they can improve the MPG and introduce a hybrid 9-3.
Let’s face it, the industry is making cars smaller, not bigger.
4 Swade
// May 6, 2008 at 11:43 am
I didn’t mention my opinion in the article, but if more Saab production stays in Sweden then all the better. I think it would be the best thing they could do. As Alex says, a smaller but more nimble 9-3 wouldn’t hurt, either.
Except for the product date of 2012, it’s good news all round.
5 Markac
// May 6, 2008 at 11:52 am
Swade: MY2012 for the next 9-3 is logical, MY2011 would be better! I’m guessing Astra production would start at Trollhattan for MY2010 and the 9-1 MY2011? Ideally I think 9-1 production should begin no later than 6 months after the new Astra.
6 Mag-X
// May 6, 2008 at 12:10 pm
It’s a good idea, I think. Having the 9-3 and 9-5 on the same platform makes them too similar. If Delta is as flexible as they say, then it shouldn’t be a problem to make the 9-3 and 9-1 different enough. Having the base/entry level model similar to the mid-range shouldn’t be an issue as long as the entry level cannot be optioned up to the mid-range level.
7 Alex
// May 6, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Or let’s look at it this way, the 1-series rides on a cut-down version of the E90 platform and nobody complains about them being too similar.
Now for once Saab will be better off since they’re working with a small car platform to begin with. That means they’ll have a light, tossable, good-handling 9-1, and a nice, good-handling 9-3 instead of a big heavy good-handling 3-series and a big overweight understeering 1-series.
8 zippy
// May 6, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Personally, I think they are nuts making the 9-3 a smaller and therefore less profitable car. GM has clearly lost all interest in Saab and is looking for an excuse to close it down as they keep changing their minds about where the car should be build and what it will be. I dont think Saab will exist in 2012, IMHO.
Why? Because I dont think GM can afford all that red ink.
9 saab9x
// May 6, 2008 at 1:14 pm
one of the issues of the ‘08, 9-3, xwd aero is that the platform doesn’t have enough room, “natively,” for the “xwd” system. they, therefore, have to raise the suspension –creating unsightly wheel gap–to accommodate the “xwd” hardware. this makes the vehicle look freakishly cuv/suv-ish.
a) wouldn’t a smaller platform make for the same result, only worse–i.e., even more wheel gap? and
b) if so, is the next 9-3 going to offer “xwd,” if built on the delta platform?
i’d rather see them use the epsilon ii platform if that’s the only way to “cure” the excessive wheel gap.
10 Markac
// May 6, 2008 at 1:57 pm
saab9x: I’m sure Delta II platform has been designed from the ground up to take XWD?
Zippy: I don’t think they said the next 9-3 would be smaller, but just perhaps not any larger? Personally I don’t think a bigger flabbier 9-3 is desirable. A lighter more space efficient car is the way to go.
11 riku1100s
// May 6, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Of course we would need more facts about the Delta II to make any serious conclusions. For the moment it feels like madness to build Opel Insignia on Epsilon and Saab 9-3 on Delta.
Sounds strange to me if the 9-3 platform selection is a factory capacity issue (more than a product issue). – Nothing a premium car manufacturer would do, me thinks ?
12 Tiago do Vale
// May 6, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Well, besides Alex’s example, the Ovlov’s S40, V50 and C30 all share the same C1 platform, which I think it’s less modular than the Delta II, and it works.
It might even help the 9-1 project, and it would represent more savings in development.
If it can take XWD, if there’s different wheelbase possibilities, and if it allows for a refined rigid product with a good suspension setup, I don’t see a problem.
13 ctm
// May 6, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I agree with Markac. Sounds very strange indeed to build a Daewoo (aka Chevrolet) in Germany. I would rather guess they build a Cadillac there, but with the current Dollar I don’t see the point with that either. Obviously, there will be no more Cadillac’s being built in Trollhättan. I also wonder if there is a small sports car in the plans. A car like that would probably be based on the new Delta.
14 Richo
// May 6, 2008 at 5:18 pm
I think Gm should sell Saab to IKEA and then we’ll be able to build the cars ourselves!
I’m in a silly mood today…
15 Martin N
// May 6, 2008 at 6:43 pm
The word “platform” creates a lot of misunderstandings. It isn’t four wheels and suspension on which you build your car. It’s more like a set of components with a common standard. Think Lego. You choose the bricks you like, and they all fit together. Then you cover the car in 100 % original sheet metal and plastic (not from the Lego box).
Ford can make cars in at least 5 different segments (e.g. Ford Kuga, Volvo C70, Mazda5, Ford Focus and Volvo C30) from one platform, and so can (hopefully) GM.
You cant touch a plaform, it’s only an idea.
16 progolf
// May 6, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Makes sence to have only Delta based cars at Trollhattan. Also good for brand that the new 9-3 will be built in Sweden. New 9-5 will be larger than current model, so I don’t think they will compete for the same buyers, regardless of plattform. Look at Audi A6 and the new A4, almost same size now. Trend is for models to become bigger, so is the case for new 9-3’s competitors (A3, Volvo S60, Alfa 159, BMW 3 etc.). Perhaps clever to let new 9-3 have about same size as now (about Astra Wagon size anyhow), but lighter and with plug-in hybrid, latest tech and great design. New 9-1 will probably come in 3-door “mini” size and 5-door
A3-size. Great future for SAAB, it seems.
17 Jeff
// May 6, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Richo – A flatpack Saab…I like it. That would be a hell of a box, though, I doubt even a Saab could transport it.
Well, maybe one of these.
As far as a Delta II 9-3 is concerned…I don’t think it’s going to happen. I don’t really know why, but I just doubt it.
I don’t even think it would be a great idea, unless the Delta II platform can be stretched to the point where you can build a car the size of the current 9-3 on top of it. I don’t think downsizing the 9-3 is a good idea, for two reasons. First, that’s what the 9-1 is for, and second, I have a hunch that the next 9-5 is going to be bigger than the current one. A smaller 9-3 would leave too much of a gap.
18 Markac
// May 6, 2008 at 9:07 pm
The new 9-5 is undoubtably larger, but if a new 9-3 was to grow by a similar amount, they’d still be too close together as they are now. The new 9-3 needs to be lean, mean and ultra versatile! Not big, flabby and boring.
Build the 9-3 and the 9-1 and perhaps the Astra coupe/convertible in Sweden. Germany can build those blasted caddies!
19 bk-aero
// May 6, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Building the 9-3 on the Delta architecture is a good move, in my opinion. Sure, it might mean that there will be no significant growth but if you needed more space that would be an argument for buying a 9-5!
The advantages of the smaller platform prevail:
- a lighter, more fuel-efficient car
- probably lower costs due to the production volume
- production in Sweden which is essential for the brand image
In addition, I can’t imagine that the 9-3 will become smaller. Firstly, the next Astra itself is considered to grow, secondly, as Martin N wrote, you can do anything with the platform components.
Concerning XWD, I think I read that the Astra will have it. And if it’s integrated right from the beginning it will not look as oddly as in the 9-3 XWD. Remember that only two years ago Saab said that it was not possible to attach AWD to the 9-3.
So, in any case, let’s hope for a great 9-3!
20 Martin N
// May 6, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Is everybody avoiding the embarrassing fact that the current 9-3 is actually closer in size to an Astra than to the “platform sister” Vectra?
So it actually does make more sense to have the 9-3 share the Astra platform, even when it comes to size…
21 albert
// May 6, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Some remarks:
A smaller 9-3? that’s a 9-1!
One the negative comments I hear all the time about the current 9-3 is the limited space in the rear. So no one wants a smaller car (if they want, they can buy a 9-1 in the future or a S40).
From the words from people like mr. Franz and others I am beginning to get the impression that Trollhättan can build more than just Delta and that Rüsselsheim can build more than just Epsilon.
Why? They want to build the current 9-3 alongside the new Astra and they seem to consider to build an Astra-derivate alongside the Epsilons in Rüsselsheim.
Delta or Epsilon: When I am going to buy a new 9-3 for more money than an Insignia, GM better be aware that it is the better car of the two.
22 Iggy
// May 7, 2008 at 12:17 am
I don’t think that changing the platform will affect the future 9-3 badly. The old 9-3 was build on Opel Astra’s platform, if I remember correctly. I agree with Tiago, about the Volvo’s platform policy. I also think that SAAB might introduce another Volvo’s policy, the naming policy. One of the biggest complains on SAAB is that there are few models, but let’s compare it with Volvo:
S40 = 9-3 SportSedan
V50 = 9-3 SportCombi
S80 = 9-5 SportSedan
V70 = 9-5 SportCombi
C70 = 9-3 Convertible
XC90 = 9-7
XC 60 = 9-4
C30 = 9-1
The only model which is missing in SAAB’s palette is S60 (but its future as Volvo’s model is not bright) and XC70 (SAAB can easily introduce corresponding model by putting new higher suspension and some plastic around 9-3 XWD).
Conclusion is that for few years ago (when XC 60 and C30 didn’t exist) model program of SAAB and Volvo was comparable, but when you read “SAAB has only 9-3 and 9-5” it doesn’t sounds so good. So, maybe something to think at SAAB and introduce different model numbers for different 9-3 and 9-5 variants.
23 NJ_Nick
// May 7, 2008 at 2:10 am
Reducing the weight and thus building a more fuel-efficient 9-3 makes sense (although I still would like more leg-space in the front seats). At this point the 9-5 gets similar EPA numbers as the 9-3 so I am all for the Delta II platform if, and only if, this is not compromising the class leading safety of the 9-3. And please keep working on the engines (especially the 2.8 V6) to make them more fuel-efficient as well.
24 Bernard
// May 7, 2008 at 2:47 am
This is great news. I don’t think that the interior space will shrink, simply because they won’t need to leave space for a big V6 or size the unibody and components for a car that’s 300kg heavier.
I would rather see the 9-3 be the biggest car on a smaller platform than the smallest car on a bigger platform. I am sure that Saab will make sure that it has best-in-class safety anyways.
As I’ve said before, anybody who wants a 9-5 sized 9-3 can just buy the next 9-5 (provided it is not priced outrageously).
25 edusaab
// May 7, 2008 at 2:49 am
Volvo has an experience with the S40, about using a compact platform(Ford Focus) for a sedan/medium range car. And the result is a shame and Volvo recognized it wasn’t a good idea. And the next gen of the S60 will be the replacement of the S60 and the S40, and the S40 won’t be available anymore.
One of the big complaints if the S40, is the road quality and premium feeling of many parts that is more like a Ford Focus than a Premium Sedan.
If the new 9-3 is going to have a roadholding and loose some of the premium feeling and has more a 9-1 and Astra feeling, then its a big mistake.
What do you prefer to read in all the mag reviews?? “The 9-3 that uses the EpsilonII platform like the Opel Insignia” or “The 9-3 that uses the Delta platform like the Opel Astra”.
Those are the first words in every review of the 9-3.
Its a big waste of resources to develop two different platforms, when like some other brands could develop internally one basic high quality plaftorm and then adapt it to different range of models.
Why don’t they develop the new 9-1 based in the EpsilonII?? why don’t they do the synergies between different Saab models adapting the requirements of sizes and qualities taking as a reference the needs of every range??
like BMW with 3 series, 1 series…. and also 5 series. Commonly used suspension and platform parts. Audi with the A5 and A4…. and so.
regards
26 ck1x
// May 7, 2008 at 5:50 am
People do have to consider that Saab probably is trying to make the 9-1 their hybrid vehicle of choice. In the vain that Toyata has Prius and Corolla. I think that even with the new Delta II platform though, Saab could keep the size of the new 9-3 to about the same capacity of the Lexus IS series. Which is fine with me if it does end up being less of a family car than it is now. I’d rather Saab go more of a sports coupe route than anything with the next 9-3. Maybe to compete with the Audi TT would be great.
27 SK
// May 7, 2008 at 7:10 am
I just came from a Saab dealer meeting last week,(I’m a Saab Sales Manager) We saw a shaddow picture of the new 9-5 that looked pretty good from the roofline and windows to about the level of the door handles. The eyebrow lights will remain in the US models. Steve Shannon (US Saab President) said that the new 9-5 is going to be about 6 inches longer to make it more comfortable for grown up rear passengers. As a result it will be longer wider and bigger in just about all dimensions. It retains the hockey-stick rear window styling and steep windshield rake. It appeared to me as an evolutionary change in the body rather than a radical redesign. The new 9-5 will still be offered with a 2.3T in the base model giving it superior fuel economy in it’s class. So expect the new 9-5 to be larger but still familiar from the styling standpoint.
28 Markac
// May 7, 2008 at 9:38 am
If the new 9-5 is six inches longer and the next 9-3 was to grow by the same amount, a new 9-3 would be about the size of a current 9-5. That all seems rather pointless. As quite a few people have said, if you want more room, buy the new 9-5.
I think if the next 9-3 was to be a hatch again, it could grow by an inch or two to about the length of a C900. I for one, would definitely not like it to be any longer than that.
The new Astra is slightly bigger, but a 9-1 would still end up being smaller than a 99.
We’ll all know the dimensions if/when we finally see a real prototype, not just a concept car.
29 Alex
// May 7, 2008 at 10:11 am
According to the latest Car and Driver, their scoop on the 9-X Biohybrid is that it’s a thinly-veiled glimpse at the production 9-1 which they expect to hit production around ~2010.
They state that the hybrid drivetrain in the 9-X isn’t just concept-car smoke and mirrors, but the real deal and almost ready for production. In the past they’ve rarely been wrong about these sorts of things so I fully expect that they said this based on what GM leaked to them.
It makes sense when you look at the 9-1, beyond the camera mirrors, the rooftop solar panel and the wing there’s very little of the car’s exterior design that doesn’t look production-ready.
With that kind of production schedule a delta II-based 9-3 shouldn’t be much further off.
30 Pedro
// May 9, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Why not call them all 9-3 and offer hatches, a sedan and a wagon? Delta2 will be able to accomodate all those alternatives and an Epsilon2 9-3 would probably be too close in size and character to the NG 9-5.
31 socal_eric
// May 10, 2008 at 5:11 am
Not necessarily unreasonable to consider Delta if they’re trying to plan future models on available production capacity, size/economy, and a bunch of other factors. I sure wouldn’t complain about Saab’s being made in Sweden either. A couple of the comments by others here have hinted at concern over using a “compact” or “economy car” platform to underpin a new 9-3. To get an idea of what’s possible using new platform architecture and how diverse the products can be you can take a look to other manufacturers. The compact Dodge Caliber and Jeep Compass/Patriot twins are all based on the same Mitsubishi-developed platform that also underpins the new Lancer/Evo. The same architecture is stretched and also used for Chrysler’s Sebring sedan and convertible, the Dodge Avenger, the new Dodge Journey crossover, and will also be used by Mitsu for the new Eclipse, Gallant, and their crossovers.
You can also look to Ford as previously mentioned. The Euro Focus C1 platform has spawned the Mazda 3 and Volvo S40-family but few people also realize that they used that architecture as a basis for the new EUCD platform that underpins car like the Volvo S80. And for anyone that has seen how much bigger a car the S80 is over the Focus and that it includes things like AWD and a V8, that should give you an idea on what’s possible. We’re not necessarily talking badge engineering anymore (although that is still done, witness the BLS), but instead developing products that have certain characteristics and elements to leverage economies of scale and facilitate flexible production.