Jan-Ake Jonsson on the Saab 9-1
Auto Motor and Sport in Sweden have published a series of items drawn from a press engagement with Saab Sweden chief, Jan-Ake Jonsson.
Following is a translation of the article, which I’ve tried to tidy up as best I can. There’s a lot of good stuff in there, most notably about the proposed Saab 9-1, which Saab still want to build if they can only nail down a platform to build it on.
——
“Our new model does not necessarily have to be based on GM’s global Gamma platform.”
So says Saab’s CEO Jan-Ake Jonsson, and indirectly admits that Saab is working on its own platform for the new smaller 9-1 model likely to be built in Trollhattan.
A lot depends on the size of the 9-3.
“We want to create a model for 9-3, but the question is how to do it,” said Jonsson. General Motors has produced a new global platform, developed by GM’s Korean division of GM-DAT. It is called Gamma II and will form the basis of several models from Chevrolet, Daewoo and Opel/Vauxhall. It is about the size of the Opel Corsa.
The architecture is, therefore, an option for Saab’s technicians. But the Saab chief is not convinced that it is the right basis on which to build. “Our new car should not necessarily be built on the global Gamma,” he says. “It may not have everything we want, for example, four-wheel drive.”
Another option is to use a shorter version of GM platform Delta II, as the next generation of the Opel Astra is based. Delta II is the platform that the next Saab 9-3 will be built on.
But none of the options appear to speak the Saab language properly, which is why people in Trollhattan are also working on a full-fledged solution for the Saab 9-1. The model is supposed to be between BMW’s Mini and 1-series and the Audi A1 and A3.
The next generation of 9-3 was originally supposed to be built on the same platform as the new 9-5, namely GM Epsilon II, but Saab changed and chose the smaller Delta II instead. Production of the new 9-3 is scheduled to start in Trollhattan late 2012 or early 2013.
Saab will premiere the 9-X Air cabriolet concept at the Paris Salon this week, which it is relatively safe to assume is a fairly complete specimen of the new 9-3 convertible. One could therefore assume from the dimensions of the concept, that the new 9-3 will be shortened from the current 460 to around 443 cm. At the same time the width may be increased by 5 cm and axle distance from 267 to 270 cm.
“If we take fuel economy and carbon dioxide seriously, we can not make cars bigger for each new generation”, has Jan-Ake Jonsson said earlier.
In the case of Saab’s continued production, Jonsson is careful. He believes that the volume should be between 150,000 and 175,000 cars per year. However, the distribution between the models will change. Today, the 9-3 comprises two-thirds of Saab Sales and the 9-5 makes up the remaining third.
The change starts next year, when the new compact SUV 9-4X commences construction in Mexico. Jan-Ake Jonsson explains that the SUV is expected to take just over 22% of Saab’s total volume, while the new luxurious 9-5 takes about the same proportion. Thus the proportion for the 9-3 will drop to about 55% of the entire Saab cake, according to Jan-Ake Jonsson.
–
More from this category
- Saab rumours abound….
- Update on Euro Delivery Program for US market
- “Saab is working according to plan”
- US dealers flogging courtesy cars as things get….touchy
More from this author
- Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!!
- Old vs New (again) - Saab 9-5
- Thursday Snippets
- Pollhattan Saab - Old vs New
Subscribe to this author
Recent Comments
- ELBOBO on Old vs New (again) - Saab 9-5
- Kroum on Pollhattan Saab - Old vs New
- Wulf on Old vs New (again) - Saab 9-5
- wilfried on Pollhattan Saab - Old vs New
- Alex on Old vs New (again) - Saab 9-5
- PGAero on Old vs New (again) - Saab 9-5
- Alex on Thursday Snippets
- Dan S. @ Racing Ready on Thursday Snippets
- MitchbSC on Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!!
- NJ_Nick on Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!!
I’m really hoping for at least one unique SAAB platform, and on a smaller vehicle like the 9-1.
I like the way Just Auto put it, a bespoke (custom) “new go-it-alone platform for its proposed entry-level 9-1 model, managing director Jan-Ake Jonsson told just-auto.”
I don’t have access to Just Auto but I suppose it says the same thing as Swade’s translation.
Ted,
I think the AMS one was based on the Just Auto one and they’ve tied in a few of their own past stories as well. Sort of creating news out of someone else’s news.
Anyway, I really find it hard to believe that GM will give Saab an architecture all its own. It would go against everything GM have shown us in recent years.
I agree, though, it’d be awesome if they did.
The impression I got from the article is that if a 9-1 comes at all it’ll still be some time off. Not this fall, as I just saw you were advised elsewhere.
Swade, I’m not really optimistic about anything uniquely SAAB coming, even in the distant future. Just hoping. I still remember the excitement from Bob Lutz (99% sure) saying they would build the 2001 9X, and all the talk about the 2002 9-3X, and the disappointment that followed. But again, there’s always hope, it’s not yet too late, but close.
I don’t see it happening. GM isn’t going to want some odd platform that will only be able to be built in Trollhattan. Saab will take whatever crap GM has and they’ll like it!
Allowing Saab to build one vehicle on its own platform makes perfect sense if you look at it from a seller’s perspective. I think GM has realized a brand has a lot less value than a fully-operational subsidiary, with its own independent R&D and production facilities. Hence the decision to keep assembley of the all-new 9-3 in Trollhattan. In 2-3 years, with a proper product portfolio , and with the economy on the rebound, you could see Saab Automobile AB fetching a far better price.
What could be the reason for using their own platform for the 9-1? I see the explanation why they can’t use Gamma II (it’s not AWD-capable), but I don’t see the reason why they can’t use a shortened Delta II. I thought one of the problems Saab was having when GM first bought them was that they were not taking advantage of “economies of scale” and using existing GM platforms. Saabs were too expensive to build at the time (I remember reading how expensive it was to build the C900 in the later years and the 9000 reduced costs by sharing with Lancia and Alfa Romeo) and their price tags reflected that. Because the cars were so expensive they decided to start trying to sell them as “premium” to justify the price, which fooled few. They corrected this problem and now they’re looking to go back? Was this a failed experiment?
Heck, one of Saab’s biggest conflicts with GM was when Saab decided on their own to modify the Epsilon-based 9-3SS so that it couldn’t be built anywhere but in Trollhattan. This upset GM so much and cost so much money that it delayed other planned models (probably leading to the cancellation of the 9X and 9-3X Saabyurk mentions above in his comment) and killed the NG9-5 they had on the drawing board at the time.
As we all know, smaller cars have to be sold at a lower price than larger cars, meaning there is less of a profit margin in smaller cars (explaining why the American auto manufacturers stuck with the cash-cow SUV for so long). Therefore, the 9-1 needs to be produced as inexpensively as possible to maximize the profit margin between what it costs to build and what they can sell it for. I believe taking advantage of economies of scale will play an integral part in this, so I believe it’d be better if they adapt an existing GM platform to underpin this car. Of course, the independent Saaber in me would like to see a truly unique Saab, but maybe this is something they do with a bigger Saab they can sell for more money, not their smallest car.
Wow, production on the 9-3 has now been pushed-out to 2012 or 2013 (I thought we were hearing 2011 previously. Time to update the TS timeline, Swade!)? So the current “worst-case scenario” would see production begin in early 2013 for a MY2014 (or a MY2013.5) vehicle? The current 9-3 would be 11 years old by then, the same age as the current 9-5. Sure, they can do another refresh down the line, but that’s just putting lipstick on a pig and we’ve seen how successful the most recent 9-3 refresh (and the 9-5 refresh for that matter) has been looking at the sales numbers. Saab buyers are NOT stupid. They know what they’re getting. They don’t just wander into a Saab dealership. They research what they’re about to drop $30K+ on. I would HATE to be a Saab dealer right now (no offense, Saab dealers reading this).
Sorry if I´m putting someone of by writing about the 9-1 competition.. But I can´t help it.. The Audi A1 Concept. I´ve always disliked Audis design or atleast found it boring.. But now!!! Look at this!
http://www.worldcarfans.com/9081001.012/official-audi-a1-sportback-concept-unveiled
A looker! Serious competition for the 9-X
Tompa: Audi has decided not to sell the A1 in the U.S. according to this. Building the car in Europe and selling it in the U.S. with the U.S. Dollar being so weak would be a money-losing prospect. This is another thing that concerns me about the prospect of a 9-1: unless they build it in Mexico or Korea or China or somewhere with low labor costs and a favorable local currency to Dollar conversion, it’s going to be hard to profit on such a vehicle.
The A1 is cute but it’s no 9-X Biohybrid. Damn it SAAB, build it already!!!! That thing would sell like hot cakes! THAT IS WHAT SAAB NEEDS RIGHT NOW!!!
“Production of the new 9-3 is scheduled to start in Trollhattan late 2012 or early 2013.”
Jiminy Crickets !!! That means the Epsilon-I’s 9-3 will be 10 years old when its replacement arrives. What the ?!? I thought SAAB is shortening product cycle time. We can’t do another 10-yr old 9-5-style product cycle, esp. on the primary volume model.
Please someone tell me there’s other good news between now and 2012/2013 !
Thanks for the article, Swade.
The article is somewhat confusing because 9-3 was typed instead of 9-1 a couple of times: “A lot depends on the size of the 9-3″ and “We want to create a model for 9-3…”. (I blame Auto Motor and Sport for that, not you Swade!)
I think Saab’s sales predictions for the 9-4x are too ambitious. I’m guessing the new 9-5 will outsell it two to one. To many people, Saab’s just aren’t SUVs and those things are currently on the nose in most places anyway. Unfortunately 9-3 sales will decline very steadily between now and when it’s replacement arrives and if that happens to be 2013, I doubt if the 9-3 will even make up 20% of total Saab sales by then.
If Saab creates it’s own platform for the 9-1 it will probably take even longer to arrive than the new 9-3, perhaps 2015? So much is riding on the new 9-5. Perhaps Saab’s whole future?
A really scary thing is I don’t think Saab’s larger car has ever outsold the smaller one in the 23 years since the 9000 launched.
I don’t think the 9000 ever outsold the 900 and I don’t believe the 9-5 ever outsold the 9-3. Between late 2009 and 2012/13 (between the debut of the new 9-5 and the new 9-3) I believe Saab’s wellbeing is going to depend on 9-5 sales and to a lesser extent 9-4X sales. If you think it’s hard to sell a 9-5 now, imagine how hard it’s going to be to sell a 9-3 in 2010/2011…
Gripen,
What you said about past sales of 9000 vs. C900/NG900 and 9-5 vs. 9-3 is true. However I do believe that SAAB has done enough soul searching in the past 3-4 years (in many ways attributed to dismal flops of product portfolio and marketing) that they’re now trying to stay “ahead of the curve” from technology, innovation and root philosophy standpoints. The Haldex XWD was a good example where they didn’t simply adopt a “me-too” AWD system just to keep up (or is that a few days behind ?) with competitors like Acura, Audi, BMW, Subaru, VW and Volvo. And the concepts showcasing the BioHybrid and BioPower technologies tell me they are willing to take more risks than in the past 10 years or so.
And from what I’ve read about the coming 9-5, it sounds like they were committed to make it a “game changer”. That is, not merely competing with current competitors but leaping a few steps forward. The recent 9-X BioHybrid and 9-X Air seems to tell me they’ve got some wild ideas cooking back in Trollhattan/Russelsheim. The problem still seems to be implementation and timing. SAAB really needs to step up to the plate and get into 4 to 5-year production cycles, no more no less. Cars in this segment get stale awfully quick as we all know, and quickly become laughing stock in the eyes of the automotive media and eventually the public. Hopefully increased production synergies with GM Europe will improve the situation.
I agree with 1985 Gripen. Though a unique to Saab platform sounds nice it doesn’t make any sense in the business aspect and to be honest it would be horrible for consumers considering the price would be way higher than anyone is willing to pay for a Saab compact.
I say go with the shortened Delta II platform. The ability to share parts will make it less expensive to produce and less expensive for consumers to buy. On top of that we would get it alot sooner as most of if would already be developed along with its big brother 9-3.
BUILD IT ON THE DELTA II PLATFORM PLEASE!!! I WANT ONE NOW!