Comments

• Curtis said:
  

  I really hope GM sells Saab to a company that will treat it like Ford does Volvo. Volvo still designs their own platforms and is allowed to create innovative technology. If a company were to let Saab do the same I could see the brand becoming healthy again withing 5-6 years. If GM keeps them I’m gonna agree with Swade and hope they do a rehaul and change their current strategies.

  -July 8th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
• 1985 Gripen said:
  

  This is the report I heard on NPR this morning that I mentioned in comments on another post. I didn’t put two-and-two together and realize that the guy being interviewed is the guy who wrote the Wall Street Journal article.

  American Public Media is distributed through National Public Radio.

  I have a question: even if GM wanted to sell Saab, could they? I mean, what would they sell, the naming rights? The factory in Trollhattan? Saabs are now more GM Europe than they are Saab. How do you take the Opel elements out of current Saabs so a potential buyer would have a product to sell?

  Would a buyer simply have to start developing Saab cars from scratch?

  -July 8th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
• Curtis said:
  

  No. they would to what Tata is doing with Jaguar and Land Rover.

  -July 8th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
• zippy said:
  

  I think PSA would be a good buyer for Saab.

  -July 8th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
• Tedjs said:
  

  Stoll does bring up a valid point in his article in terms of getting rid of any GM division right now:

  “Most GM executives have countered that having different brands helps the company reach more potential customers and gives it more tools in fighting the likes of Toyota Motor Corp. They point to the company’s closure of its Oldsmobile division earlier this decade, which left many of that brand’s customers defecting to brands other than GM’s.”

  You have to really doubt all those loyal Oldsmobile customers moved right into Buicks and Cadillac’s etc.

  If GM were to simply just shut down a division like Saab they run the risk of losing not only their Saab customers, but I would bet quite a few of those Saab customers might have a vehicle from another GM division in their garage.

  A potential 9-3 customer might find themselves at an Acura dealer for the first time ever (checking out that diesel TSX) and maybe thinking that how cool it would be to have a turbocharged RDX for the wife. That customer might be me. Instead of buying her a 9-4x, or maybe a new Saturn VUE – that Acura might look like a pretty good…..

  Gripen brings up an excellent point as well. Who would GM sell Saab to and what would they sell them? The (Chevrolet) GMT360 platform that is the current 9-7x is basically done in another year, maybe less. The upcoming 9-5 is more Opel (GM Europe as Gripen stated) then it is a Saab so not sure what would happen there. The 9-3 in my opinion has become one of the most competent vehicles in GM’s current ‘car’ lineup. Granted it is not perfect, but what other GM division has anything like the 2009 Aero XWD to offer the customer that is looking for something that is different and essentially the antithesis of what other GM divisions offer? The CTS is a sharp car, but glitzy Cadillac egg-crate grills are not on the menu of this Saab customer.

  Hummer has always been a black eye for GM in terms of the image problem it creates for them in terms of General Motors painting themselves as an environmentally responsible company. Even at $2.00 a gallon, GM was routinely criticized for building such an inefficient vehicle. GM has an excellent opportunity right now to divorce the company from the Hummer brand as they rush to get the Volt to market.

  In the end, nothing to do at this point except sit back and wait and see what GM does.

  -July 8th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
• PT said:
  

  If Saab is sold, my guess is that it won’t be European or American money that buys. Lets just hope its not a mess like Rover became.

  -July 8th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
• Bruce said:
  

  It’s all speculation, but . . . GM will have 2 Opel-based car lines with Saturn and Saab (and they are good cars–we have one of each). Saab car prices start where Saturn leaves off. That works. GM needs fuel-efficient cars in the line-up. There’s no real profit in Daewoos; profit comes from up-market cars, but they keep future move-up customers. My guess is that GM needs MORE Opel-based cars in the US and soon, whatever they call them.

  I also think that the sliding US dollar in recent years is a bigger problem than the actual cost of gas (it’s 50% higher in Canada and double or more in Europe compared to what US drivers pay–no tears for the monsters getting off the road–they block the view and the vehicle most likely passing you at a super speed is an SUV). It’s tougher for GM to import any of its overseas technology or products and sell them at a competitive and profitable price.

  As for the new Saturn Aura, why not do what they did with the Astra? A straight re-badge of the Vectra with a fuel-efficient engine line including diesels WITHOUT a urea injector system. That may be the plan with the new Chinese Buick and the Insignia. The US, Canada, and Europe, I have read, are on the verge of equating bumper standards–that should make it especially easy to move vehicle lines across the Atlantic and between Canada and the US with lower development costs.

  Rebadge-clones like GMC (all Chevys) and Pontiac (the most incoherent brand with a Toyota Matrix, Holden, Opel/Saturn Solstice, and Chevy Cobalt, Malibu, and Daewoo cousins comprising the car line) seem more worthy of abandonment as I see it. Buick is mid-American mid-posh, Saturn has European flair, Saab FWD performance, Chevy value, and Cadillac–RWD luxury and performance. There may not be too many brands, but too many models in each brand. Then group the dealers into smaller circles: Chevy (long the value brand), Buick-Cadillac (the RWD shop with a focus on luxury), Saturn-Saab (the FWD shop with a focus on sportiness and performance). That would give dealer and brand distinction, plus better use of global resources such as Daewoo (subcompact Chevys) and Opel (some or all Buicks and Saturn-Saab).

  -July 8th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
• eggsngrits (Author) said:
  

  I read the article earlier in the day and I must say that I thought it was crap. Even the “market share” graph is misleading — GM dumped whole market segments (minivans, small trucks) and the whole industry had to bear the brunt of Chrysler’s dumping huge quantities of 2006/2007 models parked all around the country onto rental car companies everywhere. 2008 shows a different tale already emerging — Chrysler is down by about 40%, showing the dilution that their over production caused last year.

  In fact, the only car company up right now is Honda (Swade wrote that here.) Everyone else is down.

  So, what to make of this whole thing? I think that GM needs to solve the labor cost issues RIGHT NOW. Otherwise, they are in deep, deep kimchi (sic).

  If I were Waggoner, I’d show the world just how serious I was about shifting production to non-union facilities. Just cut the UAW and German Auto union jerks off now by moving production to Mexico or Madagascar, wherever. They are killing the auto business.

  Do you think for a moment that Nissan, Honda or Toyota have unions? No effin’ way. Do you think that has something to do with this situation??? I could write a tome on the subject, but in the last forty years the UAW has slowly mired GM, Ford and Chrysler into a slow-moving, bloated, bleeding mass of confusion. They’ve done it by choking the companies of resources, by slowing auto development and hindering manufacturing agility with their obstructionist refusal to cooperate without “talks” and by limiting the choices that the companies have to actually build automobiles. The Russelheim v. Trollhattan brouhaha is a case in point — labor DEMANDS something that isn’t right for the company and the brand, but they still DEMAND it. I understand that unions are sometimes good for the workers, but they’ve certainly overstayed their welcome in this case.

  I’m going to make my documentary masterpiece, and I’m going to name it “Ron Gettlefinger and me”. Think that it will get me noticed?

  -July 8th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
• eggsngrits (Author) said:
  

  Ted: I agree except that I don’t think that Humer is the black eye that you think that it is. In fact, I give GM credit for following the market even when it lead to that extreme.

  Bruce: Good thoughts.

  -July 8th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
• Bruce said:
  

  ENG-thanks!
  B

  -July 8th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
• 2-don said:
  

  All I know is that if GM cuts SAAB they can kiss this customer good bye! I have two 9-3s and DON’T like anything else GM offers. I almost like the Pontiac GTO but I like an Audi A4 more! So it’s SAAB or bust! Not a threat, (it’s the truth) a promise.

  -July 8th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
• Scott Bachmeier said:
  

  Swade wrote: “…bringing the TTiD to the US - essentially making Saab a full-service European premium brand.”

  Amen to that. I will probably purchase a new car within the next 1-2 years, and while I really like the 9-3 SportCombi, I have decided that I want a diesel. And right now, the VW Jetta SportWagen TDI is about the only game in town. But if Saab offered a TTiD 9-3 (or new 9-5) SportCombi, I’d be all over it.

  -July 8th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
• Joe Lobo said:
  

  The option of selling Saab had a lot more conjecture and logic to it 3-4 years than what it is now especially when the effort on alternative fuel has been so heavy and concentrated. With their offerings in Diesel and Bio Power engines right now there is only a hand full of motor car companies that are capable of addressing the petrol crisis as Saab is doing. Selling this concern will only set GM further backwards and could destabilize their future even more. I could not add comments on the Poor Sales state, but the when anyone announces the release of new products that can not be delivered, the negative impact and overall backlash is huge. I have been in this situation before and know that when suppliers release new offerings if these are not available as they are released consumers simply walk away. Saab took a huge risk in announcing the long awaited and overdue AWD options without being able to deliver them in almost one year !!!! This is no coincidence at all as there are many followers holding back on purchases let alone new potential buyers. On this any new buyer wanting to see, test and drive any of the AWD options this not an remote possibility. Saab has simply left a huge void to be covered as consumers do not forgive. The Turbo X is indeed an option that will steal other brands clients despite the limited number produced however, the car is not even in the show rooms yet despite all the harping, publicity, editorials etc etc. I doubt that the handling of these market approaches can be blamed to GM and the powers to be. This is a clear misjudgment that was mostly driven from Sweden. In my view this is a big contributor as to why the cars are not selling as they should which contributes to the longevity options of this enterprise.

  -July 8th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
• Conor said:
  

  I can’t imagine Saab being sold at this point. The trollhattan plant deal, and what X millions of dollars GM has dumped into Saab promoting the TDF. Just something you dont do when your about to ditch the brand. that said, crazier things have happaned.

  -July 8th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
• Conor said:
  

  happened~

  -July 8th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
• jeff k said:
  

  here we go again. this should be a monthly, or even biweekly column.

  This Week In: What Should GM Do With Saab?

  while PSA might be more sympathetic to the plight of the endangered Dreaming Saabisti, right now GM should be playing the heck out of the Swedish card in their back pocket.

  i believe saab has more potential upside for growth and profitability than any of the GM brands, other than maybe cadillac in the US. it’s not going to go from penny stock to berkshire hathaway, but it could make them a very pretty penny if the parent company, who suffers from severe ADD, would sit still and focus for a spell.

  where is the car industry going at the moment? varying degrees of fuel efficient 4’s.

  ATTN: Wagoner, Henderson and Lutz
  Re: Saab’s Wheelhouse
  Date: 30 years ago

  and i haven’t even mentioned the best part for GM! saab’s don’t bring the profit margins of their upmarket german competition, but with better product development, execution, and marketing, brand perception will benefit. then they could more easily justify the 9-3’s current entry-lux price. and going further upmarket with the 9-5. and an upmarket mini-competitor in the 9-1. and a sky/solstice-based sonett.

  making the TTiD US-compliant would be a start.

  saab could make them money. real money. if only…

  -July 8th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
• patric95 said:
  

  The rumors of GM shedding brands has been around for a LONG TIME!!! Sadly the media needs to fill 24 hour news cycles including the vaunted Wall Street Journal. The reality is that it is highly unlikely that Saab would be sold off by GM or discontinued for several reasons. First off the next 15 months Saabs entire product portfolio will be all new or greatly enhanced. That is a fact. the money GM has invested in new product offerings for the Saab brand is HUGE. We all know the vehicles, 9-4X,new 9-5, 9-3X combi, and eventually a small Saab too. The main issues Saab has right now at least in the US is the dollar weakness. And for the bread and butter model in Saab’s lineup, the 9-3, this has meant numerous price increases not only to the public but also from a wholesale standpoint. The 9-3’s pricing is out of control. This has meant less competitive lease and financial support and of course a perception that the car is too expensive….but its something that we have to deal with. From a product standpoint, the 9-3 in my opinion is the best,safest,etc car that GM has. But when compared now at the pricing level versus a BMW,Audi,Acura our advantage has been diminished. And as for the 9-7X having slowwed down, part of that has been due to the strike at the axle plant which esentially shut down production for quite a while. Of course the higher fuel prices havent helped, but Saab people still need and want a larger vehicle such as the 9-7X. And the 9-4X and 9-5 (new) are homeruns waiting to happen. And even Bob Lutz agrees that the best is yet to come. As for the other brands, Saturns turn around and better product has meant improved profitability for its dealers. As the average transaction price has gone from roughly 17000 to over 25000 dollars. So while sales may be lower the general concensus is that Saturn isnt going anywhere. And as for Pontiac,Buick and GMC, almost 80% of those outlets sell all three brands under one roof so again while we mightnot like or agree with some of the product or design, they do fill a need and dealers seem content. Of course Chevy and Cadillac seem to be moving along fine. The only question mark is HUMMER for all the comments metioned by others. And the loss of Hummer from a business perspective for GM certainly would be viewed as a positive. surely there would be dealers upset over their investments in buildings et al but there would surely be a suitor for the Hummer brand. So before we start writing Saab’s or any of the GM brands tombstones, lets remember its slow for everyone for right now. The car industry has always had its ups and downs and always will. And as I mentioned at the beginning, speculative and sensational headlines sell more newspapers and get more viewers to cable news channels. Just because its the Wall Street Journal doesnt mean its written in stone or even close to it!! GM has tightened its belt over the last few years and out of the big three will certainly fare a lot better that Chrysler and Ford. Plus the products versus those companies are selling way better because they are a better product. Is there room for improvement…of course but once gas prices level off (which they will) and some of the other percieved ills work themselves out we will look back at this “article” a year from now and have to say how wrong the “experts” were about GM and its brands.

  -July 8th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
• Markac said:
  

  I still think what I wrote in May will come to pass. After 18 years of direct or indirect GM control, Saab appears to be going nowhere fast.

  I predict Saab will be sold in the next two years and I’m guessing most likely by the end of November 2009.

  -July 8th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
• Gunnar said:
  

  Eggs, you paint a dark picture and largely true picture about the General’s perilous status.

  That said, GM may yet make it through and there’s every indication that Detroit is well on its way to treating Saab less like a colonized territory and more like a state.

  Saab’s next models will tell the tale.

  -July 8th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
• JMcK said:
  

  I would want a sale to some company who sees the potential in Saab. They’ve got some great engineers and ideas rolling around in Trollhattan, but they’re cash-starved and product-starved, and haven’t really changed that position in 20 years.

  I think some European company like PSA or Renault-Nissan (or even Fiat) would be ideal to buy Saab, but that’s probably not going to happen because even they don’t really have the disposable income at the moment. Look at Ford and Volvo. They can’t sell Volvo now because really, no one’s going to give them a good price for it even if they sell.

  And GM’s not going to shut Saab down, or any brand for that matter. Shutting Oldsmobile down cost them too much in dealer lawsuits and other costs that would hurt them greatly now. It’s not like they kept many of those Olds customers either.

  GM has to just suck it up over the next few years. They’ve got to let their fat SUVs and trucks have a product cycle of 20 years again and realize that with oil at sky-high prices, they’re going to have to get serious about global cars. Buicks are going to be Chinese. Pontiacs are going to be Holdens, Saturns are going to be Opels. Saabs can be Saabs because they’re already sold in most countries. Chevrolets are Chevrolets really too.

  And Cadillacs? Well I really don’t know either.

  -July 8th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
• Markac said:
  

  I would like to suggest Mercedes as a possible parent for Saab. Now that they are mostly out of the Daimler-Chrysler deal, it would be a good option. They could build up Saab as a serious Audi alternative and focus their Mercedes-Benz brand directly against BMW.

  -July 8th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
• ctm said:
  

  What most people forget all the time is that GM has a division called GM Europe, and Saab is a part of that. In fact, GM is doing really good in Europe, with record sales in many countries. Without GM Europe, GM would have had even bigger losses since the US operations (US designed and built car) is not doing that well - neither in the US or abroad.

  Of course, just chopping of the GME division could be something if they are desperat to maintain US operations and brands. I think it would be an easy sell. But after that, the remaining GM would be down to nothing and probably be bought and cut into pieces within five years.

  There are now lot’s of ties between Opel and Saab. Take away Saab, and Opel would suffer. That is something Opel would never admit, but that’s understandable since they are German. Of course, they could take that chance. Let Chevrolet-branded Daewoo’s be the volume car, and move Opel upscale. Problem is, it will take decades to get them there. Another solution would be to let Cadillac take Saab’s place as premium in Europe, but then they have the same problem again - nobody here is taking the Caddy brand for serious. Even Houndai/Kia has a far bigger chance making Genesis premium.

  If you read GMs lips, they stated again yesterday that “no other brand is up for sale.” That doesn’t say that some brands could just be closed down. What I think is going to happen is that Saturn be axed. That they even stopped a the simple project of rebadging the Opel Insignia is to me a clear signal of that. We could see a future where Chevrolet in the US consists of rebadged Opel’s and in Europe of rebadged Daewoo’s.

  GMC could be closed down. What does that brand stands for? Don’t see the point with it. Then there is Buick. Could Buick be rebadged Saab’s in the US?

  An easy thing to do would be to ax Vauxhall. It must surely cost some money to to put Vauxhall badges on Opel’s.

  -July 8th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
• Adam said:
  

  Markac- I like the idea of Daimler. Saab would certainly be easier to manage than Chrysler. Saab wouldn’t compete with MB, either. Saab could slot in between Smart and MB. Perfect. I think the same could go for BMW/Mini also.

  JMcK- I like your idea of GM as a multi-national with several home national companies selling worldwide. Share tech worldwide, but let the subsidiaries do the engineering and styling, each with their own theme. It would keep each brand authentic to something and different. Decentralize.

  -July 8th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
• ctm said:
  

  Then Daimler should by both Saab and Opel, keeping Opel downscale to compete with VW, Skoda, and Ford.

  -July 8th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
• joemama said:
  

  Can someone answer this: What happens to current Saab owners if GM dumps Saab? Where do we get our cars serviced? How does that work? What will this do to our resale value?

  -July 8th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
• eggsngrits (Author) said:
  

  ctm: You’re right. Saab without Opel is not that valuable given that the cars share so many components.

  Joe: Believe me, BOTH companies will want your service business. They make crazy money on parts and service, so GM and the mythical buyer will want to do it.

  -July 8th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
• aznsaab said:
  

  one would think that the way the GM North American engineers are scrabling to make a small FUN fuel efficent car that they would tap into some of saab’s technologies and let them take over. Those are the buzz words in the US. I’ve always been confused as to why we have not had access to turbo diesals and turbo ethanol cars. It makes so much sense. I think that’s why it hasn’t happend. Working in the auto industry as an engineer I’ve learned that if an idea makes sense it’s likely not to happen.

  -July 8th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
• fridolin said:
  

  Who remembers the seventies? There was a big discussion between Saab and Volvo because they wanted to consolidate and make one swedish car manufacturer. What do they think about that today? Wouldn’t that be a possibility to save both, Saab and Volvo and make a real swedish car-industry with safe, modest and sporty cars? I think if both would help one another and move over the struggle about rivalry in the background so it could be a very good compromise. The two brands should stay an they have to decide wich one ist the more sporty an wich one is the more family-friendly car. The most important part is that Sweden even in the future has his own car-production with all the external suppliers. I absolutely can’t imagine that a Saab or a Volvo has to be connected with China or India - fy fan!

  -July 8th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
• ck1x said:
  

  I completely agree with 2-don. If GM does consider dumping Saab in the near future I will look elsewhere for my next vehicle. I love Saab’s and have always owned one but refuse to be a conglomerates shovel ware for mediocrity. The 9-4 has been in my sight for some time but Audi is looking that much better every day.

  -July 8th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
• Markac said:
  

  eggsngrits: “Saab without Opel is not that valuable given that the cars share so many components.” You could’ve said much the same about Jaguar and Ford, but Ford still came up with a strategy to sell Jaguar to Tata.
  Where there is a will there is almost certainly a way.

  I still think GM will try something pretty similar with the new Saab 9-5 to Ford did with the Jaguar XF. I’m guessing it will contract to supply the 9-5 for a pre-determined period leaving the buyer to sort out platforms for other models. The 9-4x will be largely irrelevant in the deal.

  -July 8th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
• Adam said:
  

  GM wouldn’t sell Opel. GM and Daimler would just have to work out a transition plan. That’s not unprecedented.

  The more I think about it, the better Daimler and especially BMW look. At BMW, Saab goes right in between Mini and BMW. The 9-1 is the Mini Clubman size. Saab becomes the fun to drive, front drive, stylish and a little bit funky ride you move up to from Mini. Advertising and marketing from Mini. We know BMW can do turbo, based on the Mini S and 135. BMW already has a European supply chain. The next 9-5 is being built in Germany, even if it’s in a GM plant. Build a 9-1 soon with the excess capacity at the Mini factory. The 9-3 and variants stay in Trollhattan. Saab is a managable size for a company the size of BMW. Plus it would help out with meeting US corporate fuel economy standards.

  A similar argument applies for Daimler, but not as perfect a fit.

  -July 8th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
• OLN said:
  

  I’ve been following the debate of SAABs “Shakespeareal”; to be or not to be, for a long time now. A number of years ago I think it was a relevant question to raise, but now – not!

  Clearly the strategy of GM is to make the brand palette sharing more and more of fundamental technology and fewer platforms, but profiled to different customer groups. I.e. scale and profiling. This means a number of things:

  a. It creates the necessary scale factor when being in the volume car market.

  b. It also implies that a successful brand positioning in the higher end makes good money, as they share “invisible” technology at scale. I.e. high value adding.

  c. But also that the brand identity becomes more then ever important, it takes skill to share costly technology and at the same time appear solidly and sharp for different buyer groups. The next generation 9.5 and coming models will show how well this works for GM.

  d. The products could, brand independent, virtually be manufactured in any GM-plant. Thus follow a global low cost strategy. E.g. SAAB needs to be produced in US (or more cost-productive environment) to compete in US. The USD/SEK ratio is not good for business right now! The 9.4 will be a good example of this – if that vehicle should have been produced in Sweden - it would generate losses from day one, sold in the US.

  e. Said that, the brand heritage must not be forgotten, as for SAAB means Swedish. I think this has been quite skilfully handled with the promises to continue production in Trollhättan, the brand centre, allocated R&D etc. At the same time as economic realities has to be challenged.

  In these perspective SAAB already is an integrated part of the GM-strategy, sharing platforms and manufacturing facilities etc. But also adding profile and knowledge, as small, fuel efficient engine technology, ethanol technology and high tech XWD, safety etc – all very important features for the GM group.

  It also probably means that for GM the cost of SAAB is not the issue that journalists makes it to. On the contrary the potential for good earnings is huge even with small volumes – 150 – 200 000 vehicles already will make them float. How many can show that kind of volume efficiency?

  Summary: My point is that SAAB, taking the advantage of GM-general technology in the creative way we have seen from the concepts, has the potential to be the most high value adding brand in the GM portfolio, to (in the context) small investments. And as a bonus, give GM a portion of the good image they need! The announced divestment of Hummer I guess is not only about wrong positioned vehicles but also to great extent an image question.

  -July 9th, 2008 at 12:00 am
• Mike C. said:
  

  With regards to the unions, Eggs is 100% correct. GET RID OF THEM NOW.
  The sad fact is it would be a good move to keep Saab and NOW START TO TO THE CORRECT THING AND INVEST IN A SMART WAY. Reading the post about the all wheel drive, Even though Audi “had the all wheel drive market locked up, why not do your own thing ? Why just let it die back then. If Lexus thought like that, Acura would be on top. I think at the end of the day GM will dump Saab. That’s what GM does, the wrong thing time and time again.

  -July 9th, 2008 at 12:39 am
• DMR said:
  

  Austin, Morris, Rover, etc. are brands that had significant name recognition in India in the 1950s. Ratan Tata looking at Land Rover and Jaguar would have plenty of heritage to associate with, and it is not a purely corporate buying decision.

  When I think of Saab heritage outside of Sweden, I primarily think of the U.K., the New England region of the U.S., and potentially Canada and Australia. Definitely not Germany.

  I have a hard time thinking of Saab as a “European” brand. Audi feels “European”. Saab feels “Swedish”. Jaguar feels “British”. Don’t ask me why. Heritage is important.

  -July 9th, 2008 at 1:09 am
• Dan Palka said:
  

  It’s hard to take a journalist who refers to Saturn as “a maker of economy cars” seriously.

  -July 9th, 2008 at 1:53 am
• Tedjs said:
  

  Eggs: You bring up a good point about the unions. Gettelfinger and his crew have been a thorn in GM’s side for way too long. GM could use this as an opportunity to further distance itself from the UAW.

  CTM: “Could Buick be rebadged Saab’s in the US?” – I don’t think Tiger Woods would like that at all. Before GM picked up Saab in 90’s – Buick was allowed to amusingly flirt with ‘euro’ design through the 1980’s by slapping ‘T-Type’ badges and tighter suspensions on it’s models which sort of made them clash with euro Pontiac’s such as Bonneville SSEi’s and 6000 STE’s of the same time frame. Confused customers found themselves in Honda Accords and we have never seen them again.

  -July 9th, 2008 at 3:02 am
• joemama said:
  

  Dan - Wasn’t Saturn’s model all along to make inexpensive, economy cars for the average person?

  -July 9th, 2008 at 3:49 am
• Dan Palka said:
  

  Joemama - Until about three years ago. Now they’re all priced above Pontiac and Chevrolet. Like Vauxhall, Saturn is basically rebadged Opels now.

  -July 9th, 2008 at 3:51 am
• Mailr said:
  

  > A potential 9-3 customer might find themselves at an Acura dealer for the first time ever …

  Well, my brother, who has only owned Saabs so far, is about to move to Athens, GA (a collage town). There is no Saab repair shop (or dealer) within 100km as far as I know, so although he would like to get a Saab, it’s not practical. But he has a Volvo, Acura, BMW, Mercedes, VW dealers next door…

  My guess is that Saabs would sell just fine there, if somebdy just tried.

  It’s strange that GM entry in Saab hasn’t help widening the sales channel one bit.

  -July 9th, 2008 at 4:31 am
• sam said:
  

  Geez - three handwringing “What’s the future of Saab” posts already this week. Can someone hand out some Prozac before we all stick our collective heads in the oven?

  -July 9th, 2008 at 6:14 am
• Howiez5150 said:
  

  Mailr– I have always thought Athens, GA would be great location for Saab dealer. The nearest true dealership is in Atlanta about 60 miles from Athens. There are some Indies in the area, but the good ones are in NE Atlanta area. That has always been a challenge with owning a SAAB…. long drive to dealership for majority of Americans. I would still say it is worth it for me. I take mine about 35 miles from house for all my work.

  It would be great to get the diesel line-up in US and a true hybrid from Saab. These things could make them what they should be.

  -July 9th, 2008 at 9:09 am
• smoke_jaguar4 said:
  

  Sell Saab to BMW.
  BMW continues to specialize in RWD, high-performance inline 6’s, V8’s, V10’s.
  Mini carrys on as the small FWD youth brand.
  Saab slots above Mini with high-performance, high-efficiency FWD turbo-4’s and perhaps V6’s.

  All three share technology innovation and great chassis dymnamics. Just do it before Ford puts Ovlov out for sale.

  -July 9th, 2008 at 11:33 am
• turbin said:
  

  Simple, leak more pics and specs of the 9-4 and new 9-5 and get some tongues wagging about something else other than sell-off.

  -July 9th, 2008 at 11:58 am
• Alex said:
  

  Like Swade said, Saab has a whole lot of untapped potential to offer GM, that is if GM wisens up and realizes such. After seeing just how good GM is at killing brands that formerly had much to offer (Oldsmobile, Saturn, or Pontiac anyone?), I’m not entirely confident that they will realize this and follow through with the treatment that Saab deserves. The Detroit management seems too obsessed with cost-cutting at the expense of brand individuality and product quality for starters, and even if they had the business savy of say, Ferdinand Piech or Carlos Ghosn, I’d still have a hard time seeing them devote the resources that Saab needs at the expense of one of the American brands.

  They seem to have no problem throwing that kind of money at Opel, but I think the sense is that since Opel competes exclusively outside of the US that it’s somehow much more acceptable to spend money on it(and to an extent, Opel seems to be spared from Detroit’s wrath). Since Saab sells the majority of it’s cars stateside, it seems like the Detroit management are much more hands-on in the management of the brand than they are in Opel. The problem here is that the Detroit management seems to focus on the American brands, and who can blame them? Most of these guys worked their way up through GM thinking of GM and it’s American brands. The idea of cutting funding to an American icon like say Cadillac or Pontiac in the name of developing products for some odd Swedish company surely doesn’t go over well with most of the long-term shareholders and management staff. I think that this is to blame for the poor treatment that Saab has seen at the hands of GM.

  Now what would I like to see GM do with Saab? In a perfect world I’d like to see GM treat Saab the way Ford treated Volvo. This version would have Saab be in charge of developing their own product selection, platforms, and engines, which would then trickle down to Opel and the rest of the GM lineup. The problem is that I don’t think it’s ever going to work that way. If GM had those kinds of ideas for Saab, we would have seen the brand treated that way long before it got into the situation that Saab is in today.

  So I would like to see Saab sold to a big European company with the platform and engine selection to underpin a full Saab lineup, and with the competent management that will give Saab the resources that it needs. Ferdinand Piech did great things bringing Audi back from the dead, but Saab would overlap too much with Audi and VW for that purchase to make any sort of sense. Right now I think the best company for Saab to be sold to is Renault. Carlos Ghosn has done some amazing things with Renault’s product line and especially with Nissan and Infiniti, and I have no doubt that he would be able to work the same kind of magic with Saab. More importantly, Renault has no premium brand with any sort of European appeal, and I’m sure they’re looking at Cadillac in Europe and wondering about whether Infiniti will prove to be an equal sales dud there. This all makes Saab a perfect buy for them, and I think our brand would be in the best of hands with Ghosn running the show.

  Second to Renault? I’d like to see Saab end up in PSA’s hands, or even in Tata’s hands. Jaguar-Saab-Land Rover mesh really well together with no overlap, and it seems like Tata is serious about giving it’s new brands the quality products that they need.

  -July 9th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
• Alex said:
  

  And as to Volvo, If they go for sale I think that the Volvo group will be the buyer. There have been rumors in the past that Volvo AB felt that selling the Auto division was a bad idea, and it seems like they want to bring Volvo cars back into the fold. I also wouldn’t be surprised if the Swedish government stepped in to help that one along since Volvo is such a big Swedish icon, not to mention a big employer there.

  -July 9th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
• John said:
  

  GM should sell Hummer, close Saturn and sell opel cars in USA as opels.., Close Pontiac and GMC. and the most important sell SAAB to Renault.
  Secondly GM should close Zurich headquarters, and give OPEL a better image.and be centered in Europe in opel and chevrolet(GM-DAT CARS)
  OPEL HARMS THE SAAB IMAGE AND SAAB TO THE OPEL, MUST SEPARATE.
  IF GM SELLS SAAB, THE EXISTENCE OF GM EUROPE DOES NOT HAVE SENSE (ZURICH), THUS OPEL COULD IMPROVE ITS IMAGE MUCH MORE FAST, TASK THAT HAS BEEN YEARS TRYING.

  -July 11th, 2008 at 12:24 am

Trackbacks

There are no trackbacks