What Saab nuts can learn from the Chevy Cruze
The Chevrolet Cruze was shown in the US recently when it was announced that a plant in Ohio will be redeveloped to produce it in 2010. More recently, it was shown at the Paris Motor Show a few weeks or so ago. The Non-US-built version of the car will go on sale in March 2009 in Europe and will hit other markets shortly thereafter.
So what’s all this got to do with Saab? Plenty, especially if you’re after an initial glimpse of the next Saab 9-3.
We’ve heard several important things about the next Saab 9-3 in recent months. the most important of them is that the next generation Saab 9-3 is going to be built on the latest generation of GM’s Delta compact car architecture. The most recent thing we heard about the 9-3 was in an update to the recent timeline info from Djup Strupe, i.e. that the 2011 car won’t be just a facelift, but according to our updating insider, it should be the new, Delta-based car.
So again, what’s the Chevy Cruze got to do with the next Saab 9-3?
Well, the Cruze is the first car based on this all-new Delta architecture. This is the first impression we’re able to get of the new underpinnings and it provides an important glimpse as to what Saab might be able to do.
Size matters
If my memory serves me correctly, the public reaction to the news that the Saab 9-3 would move to a smaller architecture for its next generation was positive over all. I think people saw Saab bucking the trend of bigger-is-better as a typically Saab thing to do. The notion of a smaller, whippier Saab 9-3 is certainly an attractive one and in line with a fair chunk of Saab’s heritage. And if they can manage a little more than just a sedan and a wagon this time around, more the better.
For all that positivity, though, there’s also some concern about the fact that Saab’s volume seller, which already has a cramped back seat, might be even more compact. For every guy who likes the idea of a smaller car, there’ll be another who like his space.
From what I’ve just heard, it looks like the 9-3 will have both bases covered.
What GM haven’t told people about the Cruze just yet is the actual size. The press releases contain information about the engines, etc, but there’s not tech specs sheet as yet.
I heard from another Djup Strupe yesterday, one who’s familiar with the Cruze project, and he had what I consider to be good news for most. The Chevrolet Cruze, GM’s first “Delta II” vehicle, is only 4cm shorter than the current Saab 9-3 and it has the same wheelbase. So whilst Delta II is a compact car platform, it’s still sizeable enough to be serviceable and I’m sure that Saab’s engineers and designers will be able to make all that space useable.
Interior Matters
GM claim that the Cruze is wider than it’s competitors, which will be an important consideration for Saab customers when they develop the 9-3 on this architecture. Saab were able to take relatively small car in the Saab 99 and give it heaps of interior space back in the 1960s. They did it again with the medium sized Saab 9000 in the 1980s, so much so that it was classified as a ‘large car’ in the United States. Saab designers will need to repeat the dose when this new 9-3 is drawn up.
Whilst the Cruze interior is interesting, I hope they get different guys working on the Saab 9-3 interior. Give us a proper SID once gain, centrally positioned window controls and no controls around the knees, please.
Ach. I’m sure they’ll do the right thing.
Power Matters
The character of the car is going to come down to one thing - the powerplant. Saab must push for the right engine.
For the Cruze, the choices will center around 1.6 and 1.8 litre, normally aspirated petrol engines and a new 2.0 litre TiD. Autoblog say that when US production commences in 2010, it’ll also get a turbocharged 1.4 litre engine.
Saab, of course, have to go turbocharged, will be laughed off the premium stage if they don’t go direct injected, and should be producing somewhere north of 170hp for the base model vehicle.
The current engine sizes planned for the Cruze show that the car’s big enough to take it, so let it be.
The Bottom Line
The Cruze is but a small glimpse of what might be possible for Saab on this new compact architecture.
To make a great 9-3 happen, they’ll need two things: a green light from the suits, and a Saab load of their own fantastic design flair and ingenuity.
From this glimpse, I’m quite sure they can make a very special vehicle happen on Delta. It won’t be any bigger and it won’t be much smaller. I just hope they get the backing to do it.
——
photos from autoblog
-
More from this category
- In defence of the Saab 9-3 Sport Sedan
- More Djup Strupe and the Saab 9-3 (with a 9-5 bonus)
- Djup Strupe and the Saab 9-3
- What Saab nuts can learn from the Chevy Cruze
More from this author
- Saab Hybrid spotted in Netherlands!
- Wednesday Snippets II
- Wednesday Snippets
- Saab Barn Find (sort of) - for sale!
Subscribe to this author
Recent Comments
- Robin M on Saab Hybrid spotted in Netherlands!
- MarkoA on Saab rumours abound….
- Ken H on Wednesday Snippets
- Talonderiel on Wednesday Snippets II
- Joel on Aero-X in alt colors
- MitchbSC on Wednesday Snippets II
- me on Wednesday Snippets II
- tom on Wednesday Snippets II
- Jeff on Wednesday Snippets II
- swade on Wednesday Snippets II
Very interesting perspective. Already, I thought the Cruze was the most promising news to come out of GM in a very long time. As you say, this could be a great opportunity for Saab. Let’s hope they can hang on that long…
I like to think that all GME design engineers travel to Trollhättan at least once in their career, visit Peter Backström at the Saab museum, and sit inside the 9-X and 9-3X concepts (the Michael Mauer-designed ones). Instead of throwing out all the ideas from the past, maybe see if they can glean some inspiration from it. I remember liking some of the innovations in the interior of those two concepts as well as the removable top and fold-down tailgate design of the 9-X.
Hope they don’t go too small on the new model 9/3. I like the interior room in my 2004 better than the 2001 it replaced. Miss the hatch back, though.
In the 90s Chrysler had something they called “cab-forward design“, which maximized interior space. I’m not saying I agree with the look of these beasts, but I’m pointing-out that there are ways to increase interior space without having to increase the overall size of the car.
Bob Lutz (when he was with Chrysler) and Lee Iococca were early champions of the idea. Read the text at that link.
In an Automotive News article in January of this year Chrysler is said to be interested in “cab forward” design again, with Chrysler’s chief designer mentioning it while introducing the Chrysler ecoVoyager at the Detroit auto show.
Wow, it is just me, or does that front end really look like the new Camrys?
My goodness, Cruze is an awful name. It’s bad enough that I’d be embarassed to drive the thing. “What did you get?” “Well, I got the new Chevy, ummm, *cough* Cruze.” It’s right up there with Catera (perhaps the most contrived name ever) and the Dodge 024 Miser.
Just one problem with the delta II platform : it still has a torsion beam instead of an independant suspension on all 4 wheels. That does make a big difference when it comes to driving.
Moreover, in Europe it is unacceptable for a “premium car” not to have an independant suspension. Ford gave, already back in the nineties of the past century, the focus I an independent suspension.
Note that the present 9-3 also has an independant suspension. From a technical point of view, the next gen 9-3 will use a less sophisticated platform than the present generation 9-3.
And when it comes to diesel engines, GM will now buy their diesels from VM Motori instead of the fiat-group. The VM Motori diesels are known to be not as state of the art or as good as those fantastic fiat multijet diesels.
As a conclusion one must say that, unfortunately, the next gen 9-3 will be a technological step backwards compared to the present generation.
I hope that GM realises that it takes more than leather seats to make a “premium car”.
The torsion bar set-up is indeed a very big handicap, even though the Astra has that set-up and beat cars with 4 wheel independent suspensions on the track. But I agree, it would be a set back for the 9-3, although it would probably cost less in maintenance. I thought it was mentioned the next 9-3 would retain the reaxx set-up introduced on the 2003 9-3. Could have been a dream…
I’m fairly certain that Saab will get it’s own rear suspension, not the torsion beam, especially since there will be AWD versions and rear-wheel drive is physically impossible with a torsion beam suspension. What Saab really needs to work on is handling and driving dynamics, that will make or break this car. Now that they have a light, tossable platform, the FWD cars will need to handle like GTI’s or the old TSX, and the sporty XWD models will need to have R32 reflexes. Likewise, the next-gen halo model can’t just be “great for a Saab”, it fully needs to offer evo/STI acceleration and reflexes combined with everything else that we love about Saabs. If they can do that, and do it in a package that’s as beautiful, practical and unique as the NG900/OG9-3 were, then we should have something really, really special on our hands.
Oh and there need to be choices, IE choices between a 3-door fastback hatch, wagon, 5-door hatch, and vert, choices between that 320hp direct-injected high-pressure turbo 4, the TTiD, the 170hp 1.4T base engine, the 260hp 2.0T Arc engine, and the 200hp 1.4t hybrid.
A good torsion beam suspension is much much better than the average independent suspension, especially if the independent suspension needs an anti-roll bar (which makes it semi-independent just like a torsion beam).
My mechanic and I were looking at the rear suspension from a Maxima the other day, and it had 10 different bushings and roughly CDN$4000 worth of components that will absolutely wear-out and need to be replaced (prices not including labour).
I don’t know how many people here have driven a Maxima but, compared to a Saab, the car has no trunk/boot space, doesn’t handle and is crap over rough roads.
The only reason that this car has a “multi-link rear suspension” is that it fills-out the brochure and impresses people who don’t know the first thing about cars. Salespeople can go on about the “multi-link rear suspension” until customers’ eyes glaze over and they are sufficiently hypnotized to sign on the bottom line. Five years later, the car is basically junk because no one can afford to fix the suspension.
Just my personal opinion, of course.
Saab can fit in any suspension they want on the platform. These new global platforms are so advanced and modular you can have completely different cars riding on the same platform.
I personally find the current 9-3 suspension to be very good, and I’m on my second 9-3 SS. The only downside with the Turbo X suspension is driving on Toronto’s “postwar” roads.
Interior quality and engine choices will be the big tasks for Saab engineering to get right for the new 9-3. I am not sure why everyone is whining about driving dynamics on the 9-3 - they are not that bad, esp. with XWD. And I won’t be surprised if all 2011 9-3s have XWD as standard, just like the new 9-5 will.
Good points by Bernard which echo what I was trying to say. Auto journalists are very snobbish. For example, they will knock down a car because it doesn’t have the latest multi link suspension (that will cost a fortune down the line), even though the car performs very well on track. Let’s not forget that ideally, a Saab offers a balanced approach to motoring, providing many qualities within the same car, which very few manufacturers have achieved. For example, I prefer a simpler but efficient suspension in a car with a real trunk, as in our 9-5.
To echo Bernard’s point, the road test I saw of the Saturn Astra on TV was very revealing. Before the test, the pseudo journalist was reading the spec sheets. When he read semi-independent rear suspension, he discarded the term as just another a marketing scheme and decided the Astra had a rigid rear axle. But when he attacked the pylons, he couldn’t believe how well the car behaved, even ranking it better than the benchmark VW Golf. Let’s not try to make Ferraris out of daily drivers…
Who told us:
a: that the Cruze and/or the Astra have a torsion bean rear axle,
b: that the next 9-3 will have this axle.
I haven’t read anywhere about the type of axles GM will use in the global premium architecture, so it is all speculation.
What we know is that the current Astra has a torsion beam. What we also know is that according to more than one GM executive, the new architectures will be very flexible. In fact, mr. Forster already stated that Epsilon and Delta will have a lot in common.
What we see in the Insignia is that there are two rear axles, so it probably can be done on Delta too.
BTW: a torsion beam axle is to be considered as “independent axle construction” and not as a live axle. Depending on the position of the torsion beam it has more or less the characteristics of a live axle (when the position of the beam is at the rear) or more the characteristics of an axle with longitudinal arms (when the position of the beam is at the front of the wheelarms).
The current Astra versus the Golf V showes that as far as roadholding is concerned a torsion beam axle can be quit good. It is in the comfort zone however that you pay a price.
I hope you guys are right with regard to the torsion beam but I have my doubts. If it doesn’t make such a difference, why do cars then have those multilink suspensions ?
I think it’s the same with engines : yes, those older petrol engines are still relatively good but compared to modern direct injection engines, they aren’t as good.
So I do believe there are (very) good torsion beam suspensions but a multilink suspension is simply a better system.
Just for the record :
1) I’ve been driving multilinks for 10 years or so now and never had any problems with them, nor high maintenance costs.
2) the VW golf is not the benchmark. The ford focus II is.
3) the 9-x air concept has a torsion beam, it would surprise me that gm would - for once - technologically upgrade the production car compared to the concept car.
links :
It’s in the technical specifications
eggsngrits: did you forget about the Subaru B9 Tribeca? It’s not the Tribeca part that I object to, it’s the B9. I mean, was Subaru worried that people would get the Subaru Tribeca confused with the Mazda Tribute or something so they had to throw-in that “B9″?
van god los: The golf was the bench mark on that particular comparo (We don’t have the Focus II in NA)