Comments on: Saab 9-6x story given oxygen by TurboNines and Jalopnik

By: SaabKen

SaabKen — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:48:51 +0000

Saabyurk – yeah I laughed reading that too. They must also moonlight as weather forecasters: “There is a 40% chance of precipitation tomorrow, but otherwise sunny with blue skies ….”, LOL

By: gordon

gordon — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:47:06 +0000

Here in SUV and Subaru land, Colorado, you just don’t see Tribeca’s on the road. Outbacks, Foresters, Tahoes, Explorers, Cherokees, almost never a Tribeca. Does it look too much like a minivan?

By the way, the issuance of a design patent does not mean much about today. They don’t cost much to file and if they are allowed by the Patent Office, almost every company will let them issue. That costs even less. It means a lot about what GM was thinking on the filing date. (Let’s discourage people from making aftermarket replacement body parts for our new car.) As for today, it probably means that GM would rather have an asset on the books to offset the cost of filing and prosecuting the patent. Investors and market watchers like companies that have patents even when the patents are for products that don’t exist. I’m a patent attorney for Fortune 500 companies, but not GM. This is just my guess.

By: Tompa

Tompa — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:34:53 +0000

The 9-4X IS a Saab.. and the Caddy sybling is a Eurofied american 4×4.

By: Adam

Adam — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:12:37 +0000

Taking an extra year to get the interior right on an Impreza/WRX-based 9-2X and Tribeca-based 9-6X would have been the way to go and would be on the market gaining market share for years now. But that ship has sailed as they say.

By: saabyurk

saabyurk — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:00:14 +0000

Seems like Motor Authority have discovered that the registered U.S. patent publicly available at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office web site, has “leaked onto the Internet”. They say “If the images turn out to be authentic…”. I wish I was more clueless so I could get a good-paying job writing nonsense like that. Oh well, I needed a good laugh to get my day started.

By: Martin N

Martin N — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:08:46 +0000

“they probably just wanted to keep control of the name in case they need it later.”

The name? I thought this was about the design.

The name is of hopefully protected since way back, together with all other possible extrapolations of current and historical Saab model names. From 91 to 99, from 9-1 to 9-9, from 9-1x to 9-9x.

By: The Fop

The Fop — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:32:20 +0000

Storm in a tea cup. If they wanted a “stop gap” model and started work now, there is still no way it would ever be ready before even a delayed 9-4X. Sorry if that dissapoints anyone – though personally having seen a Tribeca for the first time a couple of weeks ago I can’t see what good this mish-mash could possibly do.

By: Mag-X

Mag-X — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:17:26 +0000

They probably just want to keep tabs on the IP.Patent trolls will do anything for quick cash.

However, I don’t think the 9-6X would be that bad of an idea. With the short memories of American consumers, gas prices falling, and the 9-7X coming to an end, there’ll be a slot open at the top end of the model line up. They’d have to redesign the sheet metal again though as it would appear Subaru took what they did and used it for their own model redesign.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:35:45 +0000

Alex – “Just as much of a Saab as the 9-4x would be?” Really? The 9-4x was new from the platform up. The 9-6x would be another Saabaru. I like Subaru, but we don’t need to repeat that fiasco. The idea that it would be a unique interior is a total pipe dream. At least the 9-4x was designed by Saab to be a Saab.

I’m with Swade on this one, they probably just wanted to keep control of the name in case they need it later.

By: SaabKen

SaabKen — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:29:51 +0000

Alex, IMHO I don’t believe the delayed 9-4X implies it’s cancelled. For pete’s sakes, even the BioPower concept was a drivable one:

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/carreviews/firstdrives/223029/saab_94_x.html

And we’ve seen it virtually un-disguised this year in testing. As the sister vehicle Caddy SRX Mk.II is slated for launch, it would be idiotic for GM to cancel 9-4X at this late stage in the game and not exploit the economies of scale in terms of R&D and all manufacturing costs across both models than just the SRX.

Frankly I think this 9-6X speculation has gone off on a tangent. Just because Anthony Lo re-patented the name, and prolly re-hashed the original Saabaru 9-6X to become a 4-dr version, doesn’t mean it’s anywhere near production. We have heard absolutely nothing about a second, larger sibling to the 9-4X anytime in the past and I very much doubt it’s in their immediate plans to do so, esp. with the current dire situations at hand. I believe Lo simply re-applied for that patent as a placeholder for a future, longer-term possibility. I mean LONG TERM.

my $0.25