Comments on: A single EnG snippet that just won’t wait

By: eggsngrits

eggsngrits — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:37:41 +0000

1985 Grip: Not sure if this was where your comments were aimed, but I did mention at the end of the post that Fritz Henderson answered as you’d expect a CFO to answer. I wrote that on purpose pointing out that the comments were pretty much aimed at the numbers, not at the direction of the company as a whole. In other words, he answered as you would expect a CFO to answer even though he now holds the title of COO.

By: 1985 Gripen

1985 Gripen — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:47:23 +0000

I received a correction to one of my comments above. At the 2007 (N.A.) Saab Owners’ Convention in Troy, Michigan it was actually General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner who was originally invited to speak at dinner whom Fritz Henderson cleared his schedule to replace, not “Maximum Bob” as I’d stated earlier.

Sorry for the error.

Also, I’m assured how familiar with Saab Mr. Henderson is as his wife is a dedicated Saab ‘vert owner and in his former capacity at GME Mr. Henderson visited Saab on several occasions.

In this article he was merely stating the obvious that all brands are expected to make money. He wasn’t threatening the imminent demise of Saab or anything.

I explained to the person who corrected me while I appreciate this, but it seems a little unfair to me to claim that Saab needs to start making money when GM’s under-investment in the brand is the direct cause of sales being so low and long product cycles are the cause of poor 9-5 sales.

By: Tompa

Tompa — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:02:12 +0000

Alex wrote: “Oh I agree, I’ll be highly disappointed if the 9-3SS is a “SS” at all, it’s just that NG9-3 is a bit confusing. It had better be offered as a coupe/3-door fastback, 5-door hatch with a skoda-style twin rear gate, a convertible, and possibly as a wagon as well.”

Eeh? Alex.. Most 9-3´s sold in the nordic countries are wagons. Without it, Saab would flip over and die. So rest asure that the Next 9-3 will also be a wagon. And i guess the SS is needed in some markets. A coupe is a must. It surprises (overstatement) me that GM never invested in making the 9-3 coupe in 2002. They worked on it but caned it. The C900/NG900/OG9-3 all sold very well in coupe form. Looking out my window right now I can see one C900s-lpt 3d and one OG9-3 2,0T 3d… The latter being my baby

Cheers/Tom

By: Markac

Markac — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 04:30:24 +0000

Alex: I agree, the curent Saab numbering system is supposed to relate Saabs to BMW models, but it has never really worked and it never will. As MarkS said, let Saab go back to being Saab including the model designations.

Rogan: It’s debatable if the 9-3SS has sold better than the NG900/OG9-3. Everyone seems to agree that the 9-3SS would be a better seller if it had a hatch option and with the benefit of hindsight, I think the older model might have sold somewhat better with a 4 door sedan option too. It’s just that both cars were quite average until their major makeovers. Saab can’t afford to do that again. The new 9-5 and the next 9-3 have to be good from the very start and only get better. As I said before, GM seem to be implying that there won’t be any second chances this time. Unfortunately as always, Saab have to make a silk purse out of a proverbial sow’s ear of generic GM bits with minimal money and resources.

By: Rogan

Rogan — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:39:29 +0000

The 9-3 SS isn’t a bad car. Yes, I’m biased, I own one, but just look at the sales numbers. It’s Saab’s best seller and it trounced sales of the old 9-3. There’s certainly room for improvment, but the 9-3 SS was a huge step in the right direction for Saab (except they should have offered a hatch variant, not exclusivley, a variant). Now what Saab needs is another step in that direction, since the release of the SS in late 2002 they’ve been buying time with facelifts, interior makeovers, new engines, etc. XWD is nice but it’s not gonna make or break the brand.

By: MarkS

MarkS — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:41:15 +0000

Well folks, Saab’s presented us with some outstanding concepts since 2001 (the best of which, IMHO happened to be the 9-X and 9-3X…you know, the first ones). From that standpoint they’ve stepped up to the plate. GM is at fault for making a pig’s breakfast of it all from there. They killed off the hatch just when the rest of the world finally embraced more unconventional body styles, and introduced Saab’s first gas-sucking SUV (okay, not including the Trollblazer) just as fuel prices reached an all-time high. GM has it all wrong with regard to Saab. Saab does not need a broad product line, it needs to get back to being Saab (you know the virtues I’m talking about) and to get the message out to customers.

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:09:28 +0000

Oh I agree, I’ll be highly disappointed if the 9-3SS is a “SS” at all, it’s just that NG9-3 is a bit confusing. It had better be offered as a coupe/3-door fastback, 5-door hatch with a skoda-style twin rear gate, a convertible, and possibly as a wagon as well.

Personally I’d love to see Saab go back to the old number system which would be a great symbolic gesture to signal a return to the ways of old, let the 9-1/9-2 become the 90, the 9-3 goes back to being the 900, and the NG9-5 would be the 9000 and give the 9-4X some sort of “sonett”-like non-numeric name but that would make too much sense for GM)

By: Markac

Markac — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 01:02:27 +0000

From reading that article, it seem’s Saab is like a third world athlete, devoid of all the best resources and training but still expected to win medals. All we ever get is the same old line from GM, just different variations on a theme.

Alex, the next gen 9-3 needs to lose the “SS” tag and be offered in more bodystyles.
It’s taken along time to make the 9-3SS a resonably good car and it still doesn’t gel with many of us.
The last thing Saab needs is another 9-3SS. The new 9-5 and the next 9-3 have to be right from the start and not take 3, 4 or 5 years to get right. If you read between the lines, it’s like GM is saying that Saab is running out of second chances.

By: 1985 Gripen

1985 Gripen — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:50:12 +0000

The article states that Fritz Henderson is GM's COO (Chief Operating Officer), but I remember he was promoted to President of General Motors last March. I just looked it up and learned that Fritz "The Cat" Henderson is General Motors' President and Chief Operating Officer, having been promoted from Vice President and Chief Financial Officer in March 2008.

By: Tompa

Tompa — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:25:09 +0000

Kroum.. I´ve said it before, and hopefuly never again…
The Jet engines in Saab fighters are adapted to the aircraft by Volvo and Volvo has the service bit of things regarding engines.. But the origin of the engines is the US. I´d say Saabs DNA= Aircrafts and Turbo.