The argument for a four cylinder Saab 9-4x
Saab’s first ground-up-built SUV (or crossover, if you must) is planned for release some time in 2009.
I can tell you quite categorically, as previously mentioned here at TS, that the debut range for the North American market will comprise a normally aspirated V6 engine making around 260hp for the base model, and a 300hp turbocharged V6 for the Aero.
Now, let’s switch focus for a moment and take a look at GM’s Light Truck (i.e. SUV, ute and crossover) sales for May 2008.
Buick
Buick Total: 3,027 this year vs 5,386 last year. Down 43.8%
Cadillac
Cadillac Total: 3,896 this year vs 7,450 last year. Down 47.7%
Chevy
Chevrolet Total: 90,106 this year vs 140,035 last year. Down 35.7%
GMC
GMC Total: 30,724 this year vs 48,336 last year. Down 36.4%
HUMMER
HUMMER Total: 1,843 this year vs 4,636 last year. Down 60.2%
Saab
Saab Total: 174 this year vs 433 last year. Down 59.8%
Saturn
Saturn Total: 10,852 this year vs 14,141 last year. Down 23.3%
I didn’t bother with Pontiac’s numbers as they were so minuscule. Saab’s were even more minuscule, but this is a Saab blog……
GM have just announced the possible sale of HUMMER and whilst they’re officially saying that all options (including keeping it) are still on the table, The Truth About Cars are claiming a leak saying that HUMMER is now dead. There’ll be no investment, marketing support, no model development.
Welcome to Saab’s world!! 
Seriously, though, there is blood all over GM’s large vehicle showrooms. Out of the 53 (yes, fifty-three) vehicles listed in GM’s Truck statistics, only the Buick Enclave, Chevy HHR, Uplander and Topkick had positive sales figures in May 2008. Everything else was well into the negative.
Before you say it, I know that other manufacturers are doing it tough right now, too. It’s tough all over. And they lost some volume because of the American Axle strike. But for GM and the sale of recreational large vehicles, the writing is on the wall. The economy might cycle up and down but fuel prices are only trending one way, and that’s up.
Saab want to inject a 9-4x crossover with a 3.0 litre V6 into this scenario, with no fuel-efficient turbo four underneath to lure in the more economy-minded buyers (not to mention the Saab aficionados who’d prefer a turbo four-pot anyway).
Of course, in Europe, the 9-4x will most likely have both of these petrol options, but they’ll also benefit from two diesel options as well, and sales of those will go off like a firecracker!
The ‘economising’ of the motor vehicle purchaser during the next few years is going to hand GM a golden opportunity to make more from Saab than they might have thought possible, but only if they embrace the brand and maximise its potential.
Dropping a decent turbocharged four into the 9-4x as soon as possible after launch date would be a great start. I hope someone’s working on that option right now.
-
More from this category
- Nordic adventure in Åre, Sweden
- One guy’s view - What GM should do with Saab
- Scorching Saab Seats can Stifle your Swimmers?!
- Wednesday Snippets
More from this author
- Automotive Rites of Passage
- Friday Snippets (well, it’ll be Saturday when you read them)
- Edmunds provide puzzling Saab Turbo X road test
- Thursday Snippets - rumours of my demise have been greatly exaggerated, for now…
Subscribe to this author
Recent Comments
- zippy on EnG Weekend Snippets
- Andy Rupert on Automotive Rites of Passage
- eggsngrits on In defence of the Pontiac Aztek, and other Snippety things
- eggsngrits on Automotive Rites of Passage
- SaabLance on Edmunds provide puzzling Saab Turbo X road test
- Jeff on Friday Snippets (well, it’ll be Saturday when you read them)
- No.9 on Friday Snippets (well, it’ll be Saturday when you read them)
- James on Automotive Rites of Passage
- BrianL on Friday Snippets (well, it’ll be Saturday when you read them)
- eggsngrits on EnG Weekend Snippets
Great idea, Swade. Saab should offer economical alternatives for all of its models, especially in the US where consumers tend to dump gas hogs when fuel prices spike.
AutoExpress first to drive the 9-4X here.
Agree, a 2.0T with BioPower possibility and later hybrid version and sales will rock.
I’d love to know if that’s for real, Ted. Maybe they were present when the 9-4x and 9-X went out for a photo shoot in Trollhattan a few weeks ago, but I think they’re making it out to be a bit more than it really was (not unheard of for Auto Express)
And the Ford F-150 has been knocked off the top of the sales mountain for the first time since 1991 as Americas favorite vehicle! By a Honda Civic no less.
We all wondered where the ‘tipping point’ would be for drivers to start changing their behavior and $4.00 a gallon gasoline has proved to be sobering reality.
The base BRX is also coming with the 3.0L V6 base. It would be nice to have some difference between the 2 brands, especially since Saab is now being sold along side with Cadillacs.
I am thinking that we’ll see the V6 stay in the 9-4X until the next generation 9-3 comes out. Hopefully then Saab will have a refreshed 2.0T engine with DI and that will be the new standard.
I agree that the 9-4x should have a 4-cylinder option, but a vehicle of this size should have a 6-cylinder, too.
Ted: I agree that thins are changing, and I heard that story, too yesterday on the radio. It’s a little misleading — the full-sized pickup isn’t dead by any means. Ford hasn’t been discounting the F150 as they have in the past and people have been moving to other brands, most notably Dodge where HUGE discounts are going ang going and going. So, I wonder if the full-sized pickup sales are off by a significant amount? SUVs certainly are.
Gasoline prices here are a function of the exchange rate, so thank your local mortgage brokers for the prices, and realize that if the exchange rate were restored to levels of a year or 18 months ago, the sales of those vehicles would return somewhat.
It would be totally insane to introduce this vehicle without a turbo 4. But we are talking about dwindling GM here. They are specialist at not doing things right the first time around. Trouble is second time around most people have gone elsewhere.
Again, a brilliant demonstration by Swade which demonstrate why he will be missed so much.
Yes the car definitely needs a turbo 4. Something in the region of 2.3 to 2.5 litres and this should go into the new 9-5 too.
I have very mixed feelings about the 9-4X.
It’s not the kind of car I’d buy. Seems like the first new car Saab gets to release is the one it least needs at the moment. Well anyway, the new 9-5 shouldn’t be too far behind it and that’s the car it really needs.
In that sideview of the 9-4X at AutoExpress, I am surprised how “big” this car is. It almost looks like a 9-7X, which is “not” on my list. Does anyone else feel that this 9-4X is way to big? Am I supposed to wait for the 9-3X?
Anyway, the cockpit is awesome, and that shouldn’t change a bit. They should actually put that in the next 9-5 and the 9-1 as well.
Swade, thanks for keeping it going this week,
Nico
The 9-4X is the vehicle that I need NOW! My 9-7X self-destructed. Thankfully the investigators couldn’t pin blame on me for the vehicle deciding it wanted curtains. Of course, there is no 9-4X. It looks like a GMC Acadia will be the replacement I’m offered. It’s the size range I need with tolerable MPG. I’m in a Buick Enclave rental now … talk about a totally DEAD driving experience.
I’d love a 9-4X with a mix of fuel economy and the grunt of a turbo. The vehicle size is about right as SportCombi’s are a bit too small and the 9-7Xs are just a Moraine TrailBlazer that obtains forward momentum by pressurizing fuel and squirting it out the tail pipe. The 9-4X could stand out in MPG from other crossovers. The 9-4X could stand out in driving experience too, demanding a luxury car premium. But NOOOOO, GM’s bound and determined to make the 9-4X the Pontiac Aztek of it’s crossover line. Too funky and no differentiation from other similar platforms. Then there’s the whole thing about the larger vehicle market being dead. Release a mediocre model and it will NOT sell.
Swade, I think you’ll kick the smoking habit. I don’t know about the blogging habit. You might need help.
I don’t think a gasoline turbo 4 would be worth it. The turbo 4s in the RDX and CX-7 don’t do better than a V-6, and the turbo 6 in the V90 doesn’t do better than the V-8.
A turbodiesel 4 would work though. I think Americans are ready for diesel.
The 9-4x is not that big. According to Wikipedia, it slots-in exactly between the current 9-3 and 9-5 in length.
Even if a turbo 4 does not save much gas (which I doubt), it would be on-message for Saab and help the brand strategy in general.
It’s easier to tell people that your new SUV is a 4 cylinder than to explain to them that’s it’s a 6 with direct injection and a few other gizmos that make it more economical than a comparatively sized 6 from a few years back. As the Prius and all BMW’s have shown, you can make a lot of sales by having a car that sends a clear message to your neighbours.
In that spirit, not only should the 9-4x have a Turbo 4, it should have a big Turbo badge on the back.
Comparing the fuel economy of the 9-5 (turbo 4) and the 9-3 Aero (turbo 6), it seems like a 4 is still much more economical than a 6, even if they have the same amount of power and are pulling the same weight.
I personally feel that if the 9-4 doesn’t come turbo charged that it doesn’t feel like a Saab to me. They already have an excellent 2.0 4cyl DI that gets good gas mileage, it’s in the Solstice/Sky. It gets 22/31 in gasoline and 260 hp. Saab could even make it a low pressure turbo and bring it down to around 240 hp to get even better gas mileage and this would still be an excellent engine for this vehicle.
Why do people continually refer to these vehicles as cars? Look at it. It’s truck-like and not much different from all the other unnecessary ones out there. Talk about unappealing!
GM should also look back at their corporate history.
The last time the US economy was in this type of bind (high fuel prices and low/negative growth), they found that 4 cylinder sales for the (then-new) X-cars were above expectations, while 6 cylinder sales were way below expectations.
I don’t know why I remember that, I was only 12 at the time.
The lesson learned (and evidently forgotten) is that US consumers will buy a 4 in a troubled economy, even if it means sacrificing some prestige.
Markac - very interesting point. GM’s timing always seems to be as bad as it can be with regard to Saab. Adding yet another SUV choice to the US market always seemed like a bad idea to me, but adding it just in time for $4.00+/gallon gas prices seems like suicide for the model, but we’ll have to see what engine choices are available. Saab REALLY needs to build the 9-1 (and 9-5 of course)! I wish the R&D time and money had gone into the development and release of the smaller car first, and the 9-4X later, if at all. It’s been painful to watch GM’s decisions with regard to Saab over the past several years. It’s like watching a monkey in a test lab trying to push the correct button to release the banana.
I read the news yesterday about GM closing four SUV plants (including the one in Moraine, Ohio where the 9-7X is built) and that they’re considering what to do with HUMMER, but it wasn’t until this morning that I read that GM has decided to end production of their Chevrolet Tahoe, GMC Yukon, and Chevrolet Suburban large SUVs.
While GM cuts their largest SUVs I don’t think Saab’s mid-size crossover can be labeled as being “in trouble” yet. I can see all the big V8 SUVs (like the 6.0-liter Saab 9-7X Aero) and the larger V6 SUVs (like the 5.3-liter and 4.2-liter Saab 9-7X) ending production due to lack of sales because of the price of gasoline.
But to worry about the 9-4X and its comparatively miniscule 2.8 and 3-liter V6 is a bit premature, IMHO. Do I think it would have been better had they put the theoretical 2-liter inline-4 from the 9-4X concept into the production model? Maybe, but maybe not. I had grave doubts that a vehicle that size and weight could legitimately be powered by that small an engine. And if it could, would the fuel economy be just as bad as if it had two more cylinders?
What bugs me is the decision to produce the 9-4X at all. It appears to be yet another case of Saab being “a day late and a dime short”. By the time it comes out will there even remain a market for SUVs (or “crossovers”/CUVs)?
It seems to me the resources and development money spent on this vehicle would have been better spent building a car which will sell well WHEN IT COMES OUT, not when it was conceived. A little foresight would have shown that higher petroleum prices would negatively impact sales of larger vehicles. Had they taken the 9-4X and produced, I don’t know, a hybrid version of the 9-3 ‘vert they’d probably be looking at a very rosy future. As far as I know in the U.S. market at least there is STILL no manufacturer selling a convertible hybrid, and almost all hybrids are dork-mobiles. Who wouldn’t want to be seen in a Saab ‘vert hybrid?
Lastly, Tedjs (comment #5): if I had been saying that $4 a gallon gasoline is the “tipping point” where consumers start conserving and therefore decreasing demand for a couple of years now (I can’t take credit for this, I read it from an economist’s calculations a couple years ago) Saab with GM’s infinite resources should well have known it. GM seems to have been in a state of denial the past few years.
Here is a good read on GM’s lack of foresight…to say the least.
http://www.autoextremist.com/
Along the same thoughts, I got an invite in the mail today to test drive Saabs’ new XWD, just at the begining of summer. But the worst of it is that the choices are between two gas guzzling V6 turbos (turboX or AeroXWD.
Wasn’t the 9-4X designed as the 9-7X replacement? The closure of the plant that manufacturers the 9-7X supports this move.
Keep in mind, SUV sales/demand have only diminshed. They haven’t completed stopped and a demand for them still exists. IMO, the trend/demand gravitates towards smaller SUVs.
For example, if we look at Honda’s May vehicle sales: The pilot has seen a 19.7 % drop where-as the CR-V only dropped 1.5%. Keep in mind that the Honda sells about 2x the amount of CR-Vs as Pilots.
(Sorry about the Honda example, their sale stats are just easy to find)
Based on the sales history of the 9-7X, up until recently, wasn’t it the only Saab vehicle that saw positive monthly sales increase?
IMO, with the right marketing and equipment, the 9-4X could be successful.
On a positive note, GM has announced that they will be bringing their 1.4L DI-turbo engine to market next year. Wasn’t the engine in the 9-1 concept a 1.4L engine? Could this be a sign that the 9-1 is still a possibility?
NineTwoX: yes, the 9-4X was indeed intended to replace the 9-7X and this was intended to be the last year of the 9-7X all along anyway, so the closing of the Moraine, Ohio plant isn’t ceasing 9-7X production early. Not only that, but the plant closures are not immediate, as I understand.
However, the Moraine plant didn’t only build the 9-7X. It also builds the Chevy Trailblazer and the Buick which shares the 9-7X’s GM360 platform. I’m not sure this was meant to be the last year of those two vehicles.
BTW, great read from autoextremist. Thanks for pointing that out, No. 9.
My only complaint is how people go to extremes. They go from talking about GM dumping HUMMER, their ultra-large SUVs (like the Yukon, Suburban, and Tahoe), and their large truck-on-body SUVs to talking about the newest Aveo and 1.4-liter tiny car from Europe. Like there are only two options: bus or clown car. There is middle ground people. Saab cars could be a great compromise if they could increase their fuel economy.
I guess this means GM’s vaunted two-mode hybrid Yukons and Tahoes with their great 20 mpg mileage won’t be available anymore? Imagine if GM had put those same resources spend on trying to increase the fuel economy of their giant SUVs into creating a Saab hybrid instead. Which do you think would be selling better now?
Gripen is right. The plant closures are to coincide with the model year end of production which will be in the next 3-4 weeks, anyway. Some plants may have already completed the 2008 model production. I’m not exactly sure of the plan.
It’s a surprise the the larger SUVs will bite the dust. They are or have been very, very profitable for the General. Not much model change, older designs, high prices.
The shift to smaller vehicles is a real thing anyway. It was happening before the gas prices went up.
I’m sure glad the UAW has been there to help. :eyeroll: What a bunch of morons.
Of course the 9-4X needs a turbo 4!
Cars of this size need lots of torque. Nobody needs all that horsepower though.
And as always: it’s horsepower that sells the car, but it’s torque that’s pulling it around.
Want an example of how to do it wrong? BMW X3 with the 2.0l I4. Totally dead, whereas the diesel goes well.
The GM360 platform was getting axed after the 2009 model year anyways.
The GM two-mode hybrid technology (which was co-developed with Daimler/Chrysler and BMW) will live-on in just about every larger vehicle produced by the three (now four) partners. This spans the range from city mass-transit buses to the 2009 Saturn Vue Greenline.
It is quite likely that the GM two-mode hybrid technology will get applied to the 9-4x at some point.
Gripen - Honestly, I still think that those GM hybrids would sell better. A potential customer could realize a fuel savings of 50% or more without downsizing. Sure it may only average 20mpg but that sure beats the 10-13mpg they were seeing.
I don’t think the immediate response to the fuel prices will be to purchase the smallest vehicle possible since people aren’t ready to make those sacrifices just yet.
I have an announcement…
I’ve probably said before that I would like to become a automotive designer and engineer in the future and one company I have become interested in is Saab- as part of this I have done a number of designs for Saabs of the future.
As part of my learning curve I have been using your opinions about whats good in a Saab a guidance and, seeing as Trollhattansaab is ending soon, I would like to continue my own Saab education with all your help. To this end I am in the process of creating a small blog, http://dan91saab.wordpress.com/
I am welcome to all of your comments about what I show and it will be fully online soon.
If you don’t think this blog is a good idea too, then I’ll be welcome to hear about it too.
thanks
I think that this was a “this should go without saying” idea that unfortunately needed to be said anyway.
Also…Chevy TopKick? News to me.
Not saying that it will be, but if the 9-4x comes anywhere close to getting 22/31 miles to the gallon, this vehicle will sell. You have to remember people want what they want. That’s what GM needs to cash in on right now, a pretty efficient gas burner. As long as they can paint it being better than the current CUV’s out there they will do fine. The 2.0 engine is priceless right now and with DI would definitely be the right choice in my opinion for this vehicle. I have 2003 9-3t and it is a pretty heavy car for only 175 hp, but I have the tickets to prove that this car is no slouch in getting around. We are not looking to haul trailers around with this, just people so it should be more than enough power for that.
MarkS: You’ve summed up my thoughts exactly.
The 9-5 and the 9-1 are far more important than the 9-4X. Saab needs to get those two on the market and then work on the next 9-3. The current model has something of a new lease on life, but it’s only a short one.
As to that monkey, I’ve heard he might be off to a zoo soon!
1985Gripen - Wow….wouldn’t a BioPower Hybrid convertible have been something to really trumpet? FINALLY people could move to hybrid technology and into the world’s FIRST BioPower hybrid convertible, a much more attractive choice than the usual “dork-mobile” (haha)! Instead it will be “hey, look over here mister customer…yet another SUV to add to your existing 15,000 choices”! Markac - lol!
Now that GM has seen the coming of the apocalypse we might get some action.
A couple of points from me, in no particular order.
Look at BMW ( efficient dynamics/turbos/small cap/ diesels)
Look at Japan. (same).
Saab is still beautifully positioned in the brave new world of $200 crude oil. 4cyl expertise/Turbo expertise/efficiencies in place… Its really the diamond waiting to be polished.
I read an interview in CARmagazine last year with one of the italian engineers from VM Motori who have largely been responsible for the new-gen diesels. He saw diesel as a stop-gap measure that bought some time for developent of petrol and vehicle efficiencies. Small cap. ( 1.0 - 1.9 litre) turbo is the futur in his eyes. Along with Start-stop technology, displacement on demand etc. BMW are doing this first in my view. But for some investment - Saab could be right there.
The 9-4 and crossovers in general will do fine, relatively speaking. Buyers don’t move down three sizes, they move down one size. Suburban drivers don’t suddenly buy Mini’s. Current big SUV drivers will move down and buy crossovers, and current crossover drivers will move down and buy sedans.
JohnK:Those are my sentiments exactly! People want what they want. They are not going to sacrafice that much and go and get a Prius tomorrow. GM really could have been further ahead of the crest if they had given Saab a little more attention earlier. This goes to show how tunnel focused the American culture is. When we have something going we milk it dry until we have no futher use of it or it brings profit no more. With no pre planning or thoughts of the future at all. Just look at reality shows on tv, they’ve gone mad & everyone has one these days…That’s how the auto industry is to me, one Big Bandwagon.