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.
One of the notable 900s at the great TS Pacific Northwest Meetup belonged to Kevin Miller, who’s one of the writers for online motoring site, Autosavant.
In the washup of the event and all the chatter and discussion that took place, Kevin’s penned a piece considering the current state of Saab. As I read through it, I found myself nodding my head over and over again.
Saab enthusiasts, in general, are concerned about the state of the company and about GM’s stewardship of the marque (or lack thereof).
(nods head)….
Throughout its history, Saab has been an innovator of vehicle safety. Beginning in the 1970s, Saab became a leader in economical vehicle performance through the use of turbocharging, which supplemented vehicle performance while maintaining fuel economy. Saab is still making incredibly safe cars, and they are among the most fuel- efficient near-luxury vehicles on the market. So why aren’t either of those facts highlighted in Saab’s current marketing?
(nods head)….
Thirty years after Saab introduced turbocharging , GM and Ford are introducing “groundbreaking” new technology with their small-displacement, turbocharged engines for volume passenger cars and light trucks. The technology is being touted as all-new, as if those automakers have re-invented the proverbial wheel.
In this time of heightened focus on fuel economy, Saab should be shining, and highlighted as a jewel of efficiency and dynamics in GM’s crown.
(nods head)….
It should be noted that Saab have recently started to focus on the efficiency of turbocharging in their latest US advertising, but considering how quiet Saab have been in the last 12 months, they have a very long road to travel in getting the marketplace aware of their credentials.
Fact: they should OWN turbocharging the way Volvo OWNS safety.
It’s a crime that they don’t.
There’s a lot more stuff in Kevin’s piece and I’d recommend that anyone interested in Saab’s current position, and their future, have a read and leave some feedback there.
Autosavant: What is GM doing to Saab, and why?
-
13 responses so far ↓
1 Dan9-1
// Sep 10, 2008 at 3:42 am
That sums up the problems really, Saab aren’t high profile enough at the moment to do that in the way that most people who love saab would like. They’re like a shy person sat in the corner, who’ve done everything the rest have done first; but don’t shout about it. This might work in a down the pub situation, but I don’t think that it can carry on in an environment which is based on 1. Design which Saab are getting up on and 2. Advertisement. They’re most recent advert did feature something about turbo but if its not prevelent enough then no-one will care- they’ll just go to another company who explain it better and shout about it loudest ( this is if turbo is what they’re looking for)
Saab need to get in the game with new products- 9-3, new 9-5 and to a lesser extent the 9-4x ( plus 9-1 if its getting made.), get the design right and they might sell, advertise them right and they will appeal to the right people and they should sell…… which is something we haven’t seen yet.
after two month out – its nice to be commenting again!!
2 1985 Gripen
// Sep 10, 2008 at 6:19 am
The flip-side to advertising turbocharging is perhaps it’s not a “positive” to some people? While it would seem to most of us that turbocharging is preferable to having higher-displacement normally-aspirated engines, it does involve more complexity to the engine and therefore increases the odds of a mechanical failure.
I just had to replace the light-pressure turbo in my wife’s ‘01 9-3 at around 111K miles while stranded in a podunk town in the middle of the Arizona desert during a family driving vacation. It cost me in excess of $2,000 (not including the eight days of rental car I had to rent while waiting for the garage to get around to my car, or the two days hotel stay required when I returned for the car). I think the turbo blew due to excessive crankcase pressure forcing oil past the seals over a long period of time (it’d had the “blue smoke on startup” problem for a few years). I spent another $350 to update the PCV system to the “#6″ crankcase ventilation system to avoid my new turbo suffering the same fate. This is $2350 I wouldn’t have had to spend on a non-turbo-equipped vehicle. Sure, I’m saving money on fuel over a normally-aspirated 6-cylinder which outputs roughly the same horsepower (probably around a 3-liter) but $2350 worth?
My neighbor was telling me he’s regretting getting the VW “New Beetle” Turbo (he’s wishing he’d bought the normally-aspirated variant). He had his turbo blow-out and had to spend $1500 to get it fixed and that was just the start of other oil-related problems that I’m also seemingly now experiencing on my wife’s 9-3 since replacing the turbo.
Don’t get me wrong. I like the idea of using a smaller, lighter engine and eeking more efficiency of it using a turbo, but I’ve got to wonder if “turbo” might be a bad word to others, depending on personal and anecdotal experience.
Maybe Saab’s decision not to advertise turbocharging in the past is one they reasoned?
3 Talonderiel
// Sep 10, 2008 at 8:27 am
Gripen, I can relate with your post. Having spent most of my limited driving experience (a whopping 9 years) with naturally aspirated engines, I’ve become rather self-sufficient on an engine from the mid 90s and older. I know what to expect and reasonably how to fix/improve those engines when they brake… or if I wanna’ see more power out of them.
On the flip side, even today’s N/A engines are more complex and digitized. So, I think with the right advertising, the complexities of a forced inducted system could be minimized. Not to mentioned, for most performance junkies, save the rich ones, gas prices are cutting into our fun. Force induction is pretty much the way to go nowadays, and the turbo is the preferred one for efficiency in the gas department.
4 Andrew Baculy
// Sep 10, 2008 at 8:56 am
Volvo owns the reputation of safety, but Saab owns the safest cars!!
5 mark_belfast
// Sep 10, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Andrew – spot on! Saab does not make enough of this, and for family purchases (which many if not most purchases are) demand highest safety these days – in the UK anyone would think Renault or Citroen were the ’safe’ cars, not Saab!
I am weighing up my options at the moment to replace my lease 9-3 in 3 months time and am horrified that an Audi A4, fully spec’d with lovely i-pod compatible sound systems, 3-split climate control etc etc actually charges £250 for rear airbags that we take for granted on the modern 9-3.
Saab consistently rank highest in independent safety tests well above those other makes who might achieve 5stars in Encap, but in real life situations we know would crumple compared with a Saab.
The SOC video seeked to place more emphasis on safety and hopefully this is a corporate recognition that this a selling point Saab shold return to.
6 Danni
// Sep 10, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Gripen – I guess I saw you coming from a mile off on this one, but I think we need a little bit more focussed research on turbo failures. Just to pre-empt: are the Volvo engines equipped with turbo chargers also failing at the rate of Saab? I was under the impression Volvo sells more cars then Saab and if turbocharged cars has a tendency to calve when not properly look after or the manufacturer’s recommendations not adhered to when cutting off the engine after canning it or drive-stop-drive scenarious, then logically this problem should have surfaced in adequate numbers, right?
I also had a turbo blow-out at 124,000km on my MY01 9-5 Aero, and it cost me a fortune had GM Southern Africa not come to the dinner table by providing the repairs at cost based on the 8-year engine warranty and the service schedule which had to be adhered to meticulously to qualify. Is this a necessary evil we have to live with when the engine is turbo’ed or are there inherent design constraints? Some layman (when acquiring the 9-5 wayback in 2002) told me to idle it at least for 15 minutes after a long drive and to let the engine run for 2-5 minutes in typical sindicated town traffic. I am now on my 2nd turbo at 224,000km. Does this hold water?
7 Danni
// Sep 10, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Andrew – I see the safety aspec of Saab in a typical “the proof is in the pudding.” Saab does not emphasize it much (we know as we have been living with ‘em) though every competitor when reaching 5 stars (), they ram this into your throat allowing the buying public to believe that Saab is not at the forefront of safety or worse, not on par. Typical examples are Hyundai, Renault, Kia and Peugeot in this part of the world. Yet, very few people would confirm that they would be buying the brigade of Audi/BMW/Mercedes for safety, seeming that this is a given. Should Saab therefore perhaps not be a given as well when it comes to safety. But then again, who will know or notice if they don’t move that much metal as, after 30 years of turbocharging, the only thing a journalist worth his money cares to pen after testing a Saab is the word “quirky,” or some non-sensical comment about the night panel or cup holders.
8 Danni
// Sep 10, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Andrew – I see the safety aspec of Saab in a typical “the proof is in the pudding.” Saab does not emphasize it much (we know as we have been living with ‘em) though every competitor when reaching 5 stars (Euro NCAP), they ram this into your throat allowing the buying public to believe that Saab is not at the forefront of safety or worse, not on par. Typical examples are Hyundai, Renault, Kia and Peugeot in this part of the world. Yet, very few people would confirm that they would be buying the brigade of Audi/BMW/Mercedes for safety, seeming that this is a given. Should Saab therefore perhaps not be a given as well when it comes to safety. But then again, who will know or notice if they don’t move that much metal as, after 30 years of turbocharging, the only thing a journalist worth his money cares to pen after testing a Saab is the word “quirky,” or some non-sensical comment about the night panel or cup holders.
9 Bernard
// Sep 11, 2008 at 12:45 am
“This is $2350 I wouldn’t have had to spend on a non-turbo-equipped vehicle”
Don’t be so sure. All brands have their faults, and $2350 isn’t all that much these days. Try replacing control arms on an Audi for that price, or replacing run-flats on a Honda, or doing a brake job on an Infinity with the Brembo “upgrade”. Even my mother-in-law’s Chrysler minivan got quoted more than that for brakes and front suspension work the minute it was out of warranty…
At least the turbo problem is a known issue, and it can be avoided by installing the latest vent kit and using good quality synthetic oil. Most companies don’t offer update kits for cars that are out of warranty.
10 Barry
// Sep 11, 2008 at 4:57 am
Well my only note on turbo reliability is this …
Since 1988, when I got my first turbo (900 T), I’ve owned (or its been in my immediate family)
‘88 900T 105K miles (sold)
‘93 9000 CSE 115K miles (crash test)
‘95 9000 Aero 110K miles (bought used at 36K miles) (sold)
‘96 900T 50K miles (sold [major familysize increase])
‘97 9000 CS 130K miles (still driving)
‘01 9-5 Aero + Abbott Racing ECU update 125K miles (crash test)
‘08 Turbo X 3K miles (still driving)
I still have the ‘97 9000 and of course my X. Never once, in all my driving have I had any issues with anything in the turbo system except for a pinhole leak in a cooling line on my ‘88 900T. When I got my first turbo I was worried, but I don’t even think about it any more.
Barry
11 DMR
// Sep 11, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Huh? Saab did not invent turbocharging. Turbocharging has been around for almost a hundred years. The first turbocharged cars were actually GMs (Oldsmobiles and Chevys) in the 50s.
12 Danni
// Sep 11, 2008 at 4:13 pm
DMR – no one on this blog said that. The advert read: 30 years of turbocharging when at a time when everyone else was belting out bigger displacement engines in search of power and torque whilst Saab stuck to right-sizing: smaller displacement engines but with torque and power advantages at very low rpms. Let me illustrate: 169kW at 5500rpm and 350Nm of which 90% is available at 1900rpm. One of the local automotive magazines wayback in 2002 called the 9-5 Aero the “Overtaker.”
13 900_S
// Sep 12, 2008 at 8:51 pm
My dad was the one who got my family into Saabs in the mid 80s. I was very young at the time so I don’t remember the visit to the dealership, but the salesman talked my dad out of getting the turboed 900 on the basis that they’re expensive and a pain to take care of, and just a passing fad–meaning parts will be hard to find and even more expensive in the future.
My family did end up buying a turboed car much later: a 2000 Volvo V40, a 1.9 liter four cylinder low-pressure turbo. Maybe it’s because it’s a low-pressure turbo, but my mom drives that car into the ground and there has never been an issue with the turbo or engine–not that I’m a Volvo supporter. The keyless entry system and a/c failed, a seatbelt broke, but the turbo and engine are somehow running strong. I think like most products out there, there is a small percentage that are just destined to fail (it’s just too bad when you’re the one who buys the dud). Maybe there’s also a small percentage on the other end of the spectrum that perform long passed their expected use.
I am a walking testimony of the safety of Saab, and am quite proud to sport the third family-owned 900 (now mine), even if it isn’t a turbo. Although had that jerk at the dealership been of a different opinion, I could possibly be rolling around in an SPG today!