You don’t have to look too far and wide to find cheerleaders for the idea that GM should cut Saab loose, either within Saab circles or outside.
Those on the inside say it for the right reasons, because they want a Saab that’s free of the molasses-like progress that Saab has made under GM’s watch. Those on the outside tend to say it because they think GM’s continued ownership of an entity like Saab is pointless and just a drain on the General’s limited finances.
I’m on the record here as hoping for a GM recovery AND hoping that they’ll invest in Saab and allow it to become the company it has the potential to be. Saab’s design ethos is a big pointer to the way of the future for motoring and GM could definitely benefit from promoting them in the pecking order.
Edward Lapham is an executive editor with Automotive News and has just penned a short editorial that places him well and truly as one of those “outsiders” calling for Saab to be culled from the GM lineup.
It starts off smug…..
In these unsettling times, when giant automakers face bankruptcy and the automotive world seems to be turned inside out, it’s nice to have at least one benchmark that doesn’t move.
That’s why it’s reassuring when Saab Managing Director Jan-Ake Jonsson proclaims that the Swedish automaker is on the verge of profitability. Heck, it seems as if at least the last half-dozen Saab managing directors have made the same prediction.
…..and gets worse from there, to the point where he’s just plain incorrect.
The road to sustainable profitability has been long, winding and tricky to negotiate.
At first it was thought that all Saab needed to do was lower its costs by leveraging GM’s European vehicle architectures. That led to the 9-5 and a new 9-3. Saab tried to keep the brand’s innate quirkiness with unique design cues and features such as a floor-mounted ignition key, but everyone knew the cars were Opels — even if they were assembled by trolls somewhere near the Arctic Circle.
Lapham’s comments describing the 9-5 and 9-3 as ‘just Opels’ are typical of the same lazy journalism that permeates the industry when it comes to Saab. This typically plays out as follows: the writer quite likely just doesn’t really know the facts, so they resort to some glib comment denigrating their target.
Note that Lapham conveniently neglects to mention the contributions that Saab have made to GM’s repertoire by way of safety, flexfuel, turbocharging and soon, XWD expertise. I guess if it doesn’t fit your argument, it doesn’t matter.
The next thing Saab needed was an SUV. So GM gave Saab a version of the GMC Envoy and called it the 9-7x.
Ta-da!
But somehow Saab still couldn’t get enough traction.
Then came what was sure to be the game-changer: Since GM had an alliance with Subaru, Saab ought to have a version of the Subaru Impreza WRX. And sure enough, the 9-2x was created.
Time for a fact-check, Edward.
The 9-2x was actually added to Saab’s North American range before the 9-7x. The 9-7x joined Saab’s range in June 2005. The 9-2x had been on sale for over a year by that time.
But why let the facts get in the way of a good story?
Lapham’s a Detroit fan-boy and with one of his meal tickets at risk of extinction, he’s happy and more than willing to choose his side and be done with it all, accuracy be damned.
Let’s not criticise GM for the lack of investment in Saab. Let’s not criticise GM for the lack of vision when it comes to Saab prior to 2005. Let’s not bother looking at the fact that Saab have slashed their costs and earned the decision for continued operation of the Trollhattan plant into the future.
Just kill ‘em off and make more sugar-daddy Caddys, eh?
–
Good one Swade, I used to hold Mr, Lapham in some regard but that has now been revised. It is his job to give an opinion but it needs to based in some sort of reality.
I’ll chime in on your Screw You!
I decided to remove the “Screw You” as on reflection, it seemed a little too disrespectful. Despite his shortcomings in this editorial, he’s done a lot so credit where credit’s due.
But not for this article.
The Saab 9-5 and 9-3 are more distinct from an Opel than a Volvo is from a Ford, but why is it that some people call Saabs just re-skinned Opels, but those same people rarely ever call Volvos just re-skinned Fords?
This Lapham guy forgets the fact the even Audis are assembled from the parts of Seat, Skoda and VW, if you may call it so. And Volvos and Jaguars are assembled from the parts of Ford.
Nowadays it’s hard to find a car manufacturer which is truly independent and doesn’t share any parts between 2 or more car brands they have in their model catalogue.
OK, some “old school” die-hard Saab fans will tell you that “Saab sold its soul” when GM parts were integrated in Saab since GM900 (a.k.a. NG900) but lately I’ve seen these guys driving a new Saab. Well, at least you still have the brand and some of the saabism the cars have “always” had.
I’m not wondering that the Swedish government would be eager to help Saab and Volvo factory plants in Sweden. Since both car brands are owned by the US companies, in the end I think they really don’t give a s**t of small Swedish manufacturers or do they? The US labour unions will push the US government to give their support to GM and Ford but they really don’t like the possibility that the money could “flow” outside US to these Swedish manufacturers. So it’d be a whole lot easier to cut those Swedish manufacturers off and thus “save” the jobs in US. And I suppose that the Swedish government is then very eager to support their “own” car industry in order the save the jobs in Sweden.
And all this just because some car executives think they’ll know what the people want… Hell, how many Cadillac BLSes have been sold here in Europe…
Sensonic,
They sold 4 BLS in Sweden during November. That’s down from 6 one year ago…
The poor Australian to US dollar ratio should do wonders for the Cadillac CTS launch in Australia. Perhaps now it won’t even happen?
Has this Lapham character seen what Ford did with Volvo too simply to check weather there is some validity in his comments and views ??? Obviously he is too much of a Detroit dinosaur that has the same views and thoughts as the rest of the operators of that car industry that thought everything will be there forever. Well, if you keep on doing the same thing you’ll get the same results. So, you go back to your Detroit gang and see what changes you will make in your own backyard and give Saab what it deserved from the minute it was bought as GM has a lot to answer for the current status.
CTM wrote:
“Sensonic,
They sold 4 BLS in Sweden during November. That’s down from 6 one year ago…”
Wow. And now they’re even trying to launch the wagon model of that car…
I saw it in Trollhättan during Saab Festival 2007.
He is saying some chronologi events, but the thing is……..who is responsible of that mess?? I thing its clear.
I put a comment in autonews.com
regards
I wonder how Lapham would translate the following “Den som alltid vet bäst lär sig aldrig något”!
Sigh… It’s guys like this, so called knowledgeables, insiders, experts, that cause so much damage to Saab with their influential ignorance. Those that don’t know better would now take it for granted that the 9-5 and 9-3 are in fact Opels with a different badge. Just like the Chevrolet Matiz used to be a Daewoo… That’s what they’ll think and what will keep them away from a truly unique brand.
(Yawn.) Next!!!
Obviously he wrote the article without thinking things through or even knowing the topic.
Shutting-down Saab is just a diversion from GM’s real problems.
How many US jobs would be preserved by shutting-down Saab? Zero at best, but most likely jobs would be lost.
How much cashflow would GM protect by shutting-down Saab? A few hour’s worth? A full day’s worth? Again, it’s probably a negative number.
How many extra sales would GM get in its other brands if they shut-down Saab? Zero at best.
wow. THIS is the reason that no one realizes how GREAT SAABS truely are!! they just see a lack of funding as an epic fail and think it’s crap. When really GM just needs to realize what a GEM of a company Saab is and that they need to push it to its full potential!!
even though the 9-2x may be considered a failure in most peoples eyes…. it’s still regarded as the best STI ever built…. that has to count for something right??
Another thing he got wrong: the 9-7X was not an Envoy sibling as the author suggests. It was a Trailblazer sibling. Small point, but a point nonetheless.
And GM owned 20% of Subaru at the time of the 9-2X. Can that be called an “alliance”? I guess so, remotely.
I still can’t believe that a so-called “expert” can’t tell the difference between “badge engineering” and “platform sharing” in 2008. Why isn’t this gent torn-apart by peers for being ignorant of the difference? 9-2X and 9-7X? Badge engineering. Epsilon 9-3 and 9-5? Platform sharing. There, a non-”expert” knows the difference. Et tu, Mr. Lapham?
bornfromjets03: while I appreciate your enthusiasm, the 9-2X was a rebadged WRX, not an STi. Still the nicest-looking WRX I’ve ever seen. I really wish that the Saab-Subaru partnership could have worked better. Take the best of what both companies have to offer and merge them in one vehicle. Don’t just take a Subaru design and “Saab-ize” it like they were doing with the 9-6X. It’s my feeling that the failure was that of whomever was put in charge of these two companies working together.