17 responses so far ↓

• 1 ctm // Dec 11, 2008 at 9:50 pm

  They should stay inside GM as long as they are allowed to have their own skunk work in Trollhättan.

• 2 progolf // Dec 11, 2008 at 10:10 pm

  For the short term, they are depending on GM platforms, engines etc. The new 9-5, 9-4 and current 9-3 would have to be built in GM owned factories, with GM sourced parts. The next gen 9-3 and 9-1 could be based on platforms, engines etc from a new owner/partner. I believe that they will die or stay with GM Europe.
  Perhaps Saturn (basically US versions of Opel), Opel and SAAB could “merge” in GM Europe. The Saturn badge is dropped and replaced by Opel. They could build SAABs future cars based on Epsilon and Delta for sale in NA, in the Spring Hill factory together with Opels. Put them in the current Saturn show rooms. This would give Opel/SAAB more than 425 stores across USA. That’s what it looks like in many showrooms in Europe, Opel and SAAB together. VW and Audi do the same in many European countries. Very often they have a large building with Audi at one end (unique show room), VW at the other (unique show room) and with the work shop (repairs, service etc.) in between. Opel would compete with Ford, VW, Toyota etc. and SAAB with Audi, Volvo, Buick, Acura etc.

• 3 Markac // Dec 11, 2008 at 10:19 pm

  I think it is time for Saab to part company with GM. After the almost 19 years since GM accquired Saab, how much do we have to show? Very little, although there may be new models coming if GMNA manages to navigate through it’s current crisis, the odds are not good that it will succeed. In the meantime Saab will largely have to fend for itself whilst the mothership attends to problems close to home. IF GM starts to collapse, what happens to Saab? Of course GM would dispose of them at the drop of a hat!

  As one writer said recently, GM has taken far more from Saab than it’s ever given and I wholeheartedly agree. 19 years is long enough to give the benefit of the doubt and GM has failed badly. It has commited a whole litany of bad mistakes and judgment errors with Saab and it’s time for that to end. Saab needs a new direction and a new landlord, one that will finally understand it and give it a fighting chance. At the moment it’s tenaciously clinging to a deck chair on the deck of the Titanic and when GM goes down, it’ll most likely take Saab with it. Someone please throw it a lifejacket.

• 4 Iain // Dec 11, 2008 at 11:14 pm

  I think Saab should stay as part of GM, not reporting to GM Europe but to the R+D centre in Detroit.

  Plan breaks down as follows:
  Two groups of platforms:
  One for the US/NA/LatinAmerica (Chevy/Buick/Cadillac) devloped in the US
  One for ROW (Opel/Vauxhall/Saab), plus Saturn (this brand will become important … )
  Holden/Japanese subsidiaries assigned according to market’s tastes (sorry Swade but I’ve never been south of the equator)

  GMUS develop US platforms with input from GME
  GME develop Euro platforms, with input from GMUS and Saab, which keeps a distinct model range.

  GME develop car diesel engines
  Saab develop 4-cyl units plus high-efficiency (economy) motors
  GMUS maintain development of V6 and V8 lumps, commercial diesels.

  Brands positioned as follows:
  Chevrolet: mainstream US
  Buick: soft-luxury US
  Cadillac: top-luxury US
  Vauxhall/Ope:l mainstream Europe
  Holden: mainstream Aus
  Saab: sports/technology world-wide. Audi/BMW rival in US
  Saturn: US only brand. Returns to roots as import-fighter. Remodelled Opels, built in the US. Japanese build quality, nothing bigger than a Toyota Avensis.

  Hummer, Pontiac, GMC scrapped.
  Advertising to tie Pontiac customers to Saab (sportiness).
  Upmarket trim badges (c.f. Ford’s Eddie Bauer and Hardly-Davidson tie-ins) on Chevrolet SUVs/Pickups to compensate for loss of GMC).
  Cadillac engineers forced to strip Lexus, Honda and old Mercedes cars to understand quality because the next generation of Cadillacs MUST be able to take market share off Merceded in the US. Quality in this market = price premium and reduced warranty costs.

  Saabs, Saturns and smaller Cadillacs handle.
  Saabs, Saturns and Chevrolets are fuel-efficient.

  Develop the lower-value cars on platforms designed for the higher-value cars and not the other way round.

  All the cars need to look good, futuristic even. Get rid of focus groups as these lead to lowest-common-denominator design.

  Crucially, finally, very very importantly: the designers and engineers must run these cars for 6 months before release. They must use them as everyday cars. The cars must feel right. People stepping from a GM car into another make should find themselves asking “Why did they do that? Why can’t it be as easy as in my [insert GM brand here]?” From this you get repeat sales.

  If only it was that easy.

  No, GM have not been kind to Saab, although things now are not as bad as they were when the GM900 was released. Saab, however, is not big enough to survive on its own. GM has an Audi-shaped hole in its offerings and a need for some serious R+D to be done by people who will tell you when an idea’s bad, even if it was the boss’s idea.

  Oh, upping the sticker price of every Saab may actually make more sales. It worked for BMW.

• 5 Ned // Dec 12, 2008 at 12:16 am

  Iain, I couldn’t have written it better myself. That’s essentially the vision I have, with Saab/Saturn dealers combined, and serving as GM’s U.S. sales channel for European cars. Progolf shares this vision too, and in the U.S., VW/Audi dealerships are frequently combined in this manner, sometimes with Porsche in the mix too.

• 6 saabista63 // Dec 12, 2008 at 12:50 am

  Upping the sticker price did not work with Citroen’s executive sedan C6, although it is a great car.
  Saabs are not too cheap, they are too expensive for most people who’d like to buy one
  - and not attractive for those who can afford them.

  Yours

  saabista63

• 7 MarkS // Dec 12, 2008 at 2:03 am

  Saab’s product line was more diverse (and more interesting) back in 1989, so what does that tell us about the partnership with GM? It tells me they need to get away from GM in favor of a corporate parent who will invest in Saab’s philosophy of designing cars and the promotion of Saab’s ideals. GM’s mainstreaming or “dumbing-down” of Saab came just as the rest of the automotive world began to comprehend and embrace Saab’s way of doing things. GM has squandered its opportunity and it’s time for Saab to partner with a more progressive company.

• 8 Tim in Denver // Dec 12, 2008 at 2:28 am

  @ Markac – (After the almost 19 years since GM accquired Saab, how much do we have to show?) I agree with your comment, but one thing GM did gve Saab – breath! Saab is still around.

  @ Iain – (All the cars need to look good, futuristic even.) wouldn’t that be a great step?!

  All in all, this could be the best chance in decades for the world’s auto industry to remake itself. If the Senate Republicans prevail (Swade, I don’t think they’re just posturing for the camera) they could force these automakers to make the kind of deep structural changes necessary for their long-term survival. What a chance of a lifetime!
  GM can’t afford to pi** off the UAW (did you see the kow towing of Wagoner to Gettelfinger in front of the congressional hearings?), but they need this crisis, along with the help of Congress, to loose some chains.

  How should that affect Saab?
  GM kept them around for another 19 years – now it’s time for Saab to leave the Detroit fold, without leaving GM. Saturn/Saab dealerships in the US and Opel/Saab in Europe – with GM/Europe leadership – if they could stand alone and survive together – sounds awesome!

• 9 BaRa // Dec 12, 2008 at 3:04 am

  They should part. The only benefit Saab got from being bought by GM is that GM had the money to keep them afloat. The drawback however is that Saab lost a great deal of freedom when it comes to quality decissions. GM has a quality problem, and that trickles down to all of their brands. GM also has an inertia problem, which means that strategical decisions take too long. GM’s scale also implies that too many people have to give their vision on a certain problem or question, which leads to diluted visions. Saab needs more freedom to attract their traditional customer base, and it seems GM is not willing to give them that freedom.

• 10 Adam // Dec 12, 2008 at 4:16 am

  I think if you look at it from the perspective of Saab, their primary concern would be to have a real role. However, recognizing economies of scope and scale, they know they have to partner with someone.

  Therefore, they would want to joint with a medium-sized company. Preferably one that they wouldn’t be cannibalizing sales from. I think if those were the criteria, there would actually be only a few choices.

  GM, Ford, VW/Porsche group, Toyota, and Renault/Nissan are all too big.

  Saab would add little when paired with Fiat, Honda, Peugot/Citroen.

  Chrysler and Mitsubishi need to go away.

  I’m left with these:
  BMW, as the bridge between Mini and BMW.
  Mecerdes-Benz, as the bridge between Smart and MB.
  Subaru, as the complimentary, up-market brand.
  Mazda, as the complimentary, up-market brand.

  So I, as Saab, would go for one of those 4 arrangements.

• 11 David // Dec 12, 2008 at 4:16 am

  Whether they stay or go, they should remain Swedish/European to the core. A Euro-Caddy did not do well and I know I would not want a dumbed-down American SAAB. If I wanted an American car, designed and built in America, then I would be in one now. I would feel very slighted if this were to occur and would shop elsewhere. They can add models if they like, as with the 9-7X, but I do not have to buy them.
  This is just one of the problems GM and Ford are facing, and in Ford’s case, actively correcting. Having separate lines in separate countries adds cost. And for SAAB to have two different lines would either be financially crippling or we would end up getting a Buick with a SAAB badge. An E-Class, a 3-series, a Mini, a TT, a 911 are the same the world over, baring different engine/options. A 9-3 and 9-5 should be too.

• 12 Karen // Dec 12, 2008 at 4:44 am

  I’m with progolf, Ned, and Tim in Denver: Opel/Saab/Saturn. Surely that is enough for a standalone company? Add in Volvo if it works. Get out of GMUSA corporate structure, which is the business at the edge of bankruptcy.

  And agree with Saabista63: Saab should NOT solely be a faux-luxury car.

  Building Saabs, even if it’s the basic 9-3 for the NAFTA market, in Springhill, Tennessee would offset the currency problems of European imports.

  We are having a real ice storm today. Pefect Saab climate.

  The U.S. Senate can’t get the 60 votes today to end debate (our quaint filibuster rule) and take a vote unless Tennessee’s Bob Corker comes through with a compromise to satisfy a few more Republicans. Debbate continues as I write, with Michigan’s Carl Levin currently speaking about the military/national security aspect of preventing GM disorderly bankruptcy. He is giving a history of GM technology contracts for the military.

  The bill that passed the House is a bridge loan because of the sudden, global drop in auto sales in October. Maybe all it does is lead to an ORDERLY bankruptcy by March, but that sure makes sense to me.

  Chrysler is toast no matter what.

  I don’t know how a December GM bankruptcy affects GM OUTSIDE the U.S.

• 13 Alex // Dec 12, 2008 at 4:50 am

  It all depends on what GM has in store for Saab, so here are some scenarios I can think of and my ideas of what Saab ought to do.

  Scenario 1: GM keeps managing Saab the way they have for the past 19 years, giving the good engines and platforms to it’s larger brands while expecting Saab to be competitive with the leftovers. In that case, Saab needs to leave, and leave as soon as possible, and there are a few companies I could see them working well with.

  Renault: As a premium brand for Renault, using Renault’s excellent, safe platforms and turbocharged versions of their excellent engines. With Renault’s thing for the quirky, I could envision Saab returning to their stylistic roots under Renault ownership. Keep the R&D/design work in sweden but use the Renault factory infrastructure to keep costs down.

  Peugeot: Same as Renault, they have some very good platforms/engines but no premium brand. They also have a penchant for unique, polarizing, eye-catching cars with lots of personality and I think the Saab brand would do well under their ownership. Like Renault, keep the R&D/design work in sweden but use the Renault factory infrastructure to keep costs down.

  Fiat: They seem very adept at balancing what would seem at first to be an overlapping product lineup, so I don’t think Saab would cause them any real trouble. With the migration back to RWD going on at Alfa there would be even less overlap between the two brands and they would likely be able to coexist well. Maybe go back to the ways of the 80’s and have Saab and Lancia share their FWD/AWD platforms, with the Lancias set up for soft luxury and the Saabs tuned for sport.

  Tata: If they have the money, Saab would be the perfect brand to round out what they have with LR and Jag. Tata has been very hands-off with the brits and I see no reason why they would be any different with Saab. They could also combine Saab dealerships with Jaguar and LR ones to make 3-marque superstores as a way of cheaply increasing their market penetration.

  Scenario 2: GM pulls a 180 and begins to invest in Saab. The detroit management learns from their mistakes with taking Caddy global and decides to make Saab a global Audi-fighter. More funds and autonomy are given to Trollhattan to help them produce some seriously competitive product for once. In this case, Saab would be stupid to leave GM. I don’t think that GM is necessarily a bad company, I think that they have the potential to build a good car, but that the management all too often gets in the way of things.

  Scenario 3: The $15B bailout isn’t enough and things get worse at the renncen, the EU takes measures to split Opel/Vauxhall off of it’s GM parent in the interest of keeping jobs, etc. Holden would probably come along for the ride as well given the model overlaps. Saab would be smart in this situation to join with Opel as I have confidence that they would work well together. Opel would stay as the VW-type company that it is, and Saab would be their Audi.

  Scenario 4: GM goes into liquidation and the Chinese come a knocking. In this case, Saab ought to just shutter it’s factories and sell it’s name back to Saab Aero for some tiny, purely symbolic amount of money.

• 14 Troll96 // Dec 12, 2008 at 6:02 am

  I like progolf’s idea, except for dropping the Saturn brand. GM has already spent a lot of $$$ positioning Saturn as an outlet for Euro-design cars (i.e. Opel.) Saturn already has a very good reputation for customer service, has 400+ dealerships across the US and Canada, and already shares showrooms with Saab in Canada. Saturn has gotten good press for its latest model lineup and its car philosophy has always leaned toward being green and fuel efficient, though at price points below Saab’s offerings. There is a certain symmetry between Saturn’s appeal to middle America and Saab’s popularity with big-city import buyers. Saturn can capture younger buyers who could later trade up to Saabs. Having once had a very Saabish mojo, it would also be cheaper for GM to raise Saturn’s profile than to introduce a whole new brand (Opel) to NA buyers.

  For PR purposes, it would be nice to have Saab’s NA manufacturing co-located in Spring Hill, TN. However, since Saturns themselves are no longer produced there, I’m not sure why GM would make that move.

  All of this assumes that GM will finally stop killing off and/or delaying Saab’s neat new-car designs. If they don’t, Saab needs to file for divorce.

• 15 Markac // Dec 12, 2008 at 8:56 am

  A few people have commented that GM saved Saab when it bought into them almost nineteen years ago, but things at the time were a little more complicated than that. I did some research recently and read up on what was actually happening with Saab-Scania in 1989. I discovered a few things which I wasn’t aware of previously and it was quite enlightening. Much of what I write below is fact and some of it is conjecture from the motoring writers of the time. It does however, shed quite a different light on Saab’s acquisition of half of Saab in December 1989.

  Back in 1989 Saab-Scania had been looking earnestly at replacing the 900. It had considered downsizing the 9000’s platform, but the costs didn’t add up. Effectively to use that platform, the 900 would have been just as costly to produce as the 9000. So it looked at it’s options. It considered entering into an agreement with another manufacturer to co-produce a platform much the same way as it had done with the 9000, but unfortunately was unable to find a suitable partner. It then looked at selling the car division. It’s no secret that Scania was never happy with having Saab “on board” and was fairly amenable with the notion of selling off the brand. However there were others that disagreed with this idea and a compromise was suggested that at first, they would just try to sell up to half of the brand and retain a controlling interest. in the car division. Selling all of Saab in one hit would only be considered as a last resort.

  It is said that several manufacturers were interested in acquiring Saab, one of them was Ford. Ford had discussions with Saab-Scania early in the piece, but no deal was struck. It is believed that Ford wanted to immediately buy a controlling interest in Saab and Saab-Scania wasn’t happy with the deal. It felt it needed to explore it’s options. It is strongly rumoured that Volvo was interested in acquiring Saab, but a long lasting dispute with the Wallenbergs who effectively owned Saab-Scania meant no fromal talks actually took place. Ford then went on to buy Jaguar and this is where General Motors comes into the picture. It seems that GM was somewhat miffed that Ford had acquired Jaguar as it had eyes on the brand itself. So it made up it’s corporate mind it should look for a “second prize” and decided, rather half heartedly to pursue Saab. In the meantime Saab-Sania had been negotiating with Fiat and was close to a deal. However, this deal would have entailed releasing control of Saab to Fiat and Saab-Scania still wasn’t happy with that idea but was starting to run out of options. GM then came in at the eleventh hour and gave the Saab-Scania board the kind of offer it had been looking for. It would buy only 50% of Saab and so not immediately acquire a controlling interest. It would then have the option to buy the remainder after ten years. and the rest is history.

  At the time many considered GM only bought Saab as a “me too” thing because it lost Jaguar to Ford and there is little doubt that since then, it has continued to take a half hearted approach to what it must have considered as it’s “second prize”.

  Now just imagine if things had gone differently in 1989, if Saab-Sania had accepted Ford’s offer. Where would we be now? I can imagine that Saab would have gone on to produce a whole range of cars, because Ford would have treated Saab much like it was later to treat Volvo. We would have 9000s, 900s, 90s and crossovers. I use the old designations because I believe the later ones were a product of GM’s marketing men. To be honest I don’t think they’ve ever worked. The 9-3 and 9-5 were supposed to relate directly to the BMW 3 and 5 series, but in truth GM managed to fool nobody. GM has never learned that Saab just needs to be Saab including it’s names. Once you try and compare Saabs directly to anything else, it just doesn’t work. Perhaps Ford would have done a better job with Saab and GM would’ve gone on to buy Jaguar? I’m sure that one would’ve been a disaster.

  So no GM didn’t save Saab. There would’ve been other buyers. GM just happened to make a convenient offer at the time. Hopefully it’s next owner will want to own it for better reasons than just a “me too” thing with one of it’s competitors. Saab definetly doesn’t need another “half hearted” owner.

• 16 Smoke_Jaguar4 // Dec 12, 2008 at 12:11 pm

  0. Cadillac’s European operation is permenently closed. Other selling regions are evaluated on previous sales and profitability.

  1. In the U.S, move Saab out of the Cadillac/Hummer dealerships in into Saturn dealerships. Saturn becomes the U.S. sales outlet for Opel and possibly Vauxhall.

  2. The lineup gets refreshed:
  a. 9-1/9-3/Sonett. These replace the current 9-3 with a smaller, lighter design, built on a common chassis. The 9-1 is a sporting 3-door hatch. The 9-3 is a slightly larger 5-door design and the Sonett replaces the Convertible. Engines are mild hybrid turbo-4’s: The current 210HP LPT, the DI 260HP LNF, and a diesel.

  b. 9-5. Large 4-door sedan and SportsCombi. Mild hybrid engines include the LNF, DI and diesel versions of the V6

  c. 9-4. Crossover sharing the 9-5’s engines

  d. Aero-X. The Saab halo car built on the Corvette chassis. High Output V6 turbo and XWD.

  3. Using the loans from the Swedish government, new product releases is accelerated:
  2009: 9-5, 9-4
  2010: 9-1/9-3/Sonett
  2012: Aero-X

  SJ4

• 17 SaabKen // Dec 12, 2008 at 3:04 pm

  My simple & short answer:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S9ecXWCBCc