Saab Cars – Trollhattan Saab random header image
A summary of where Saab are now
← Anticipation Wednesday Snippets →

A summary of where Saab are now

January 13th, 2009 · 21 Comments



Trollhattan Saab has changed!
The site you're viewing now is the original Trollhattan Saab weblog, though it's now an archive only and no new material is posted here. As of February 2009, all new material is posted at our new site - Saabs United.
Please join us at Saabs United and get your daily Saab fix from Saab sources all around the world.



The last few days have been quite overwhelming – and more than just a little pleasing for a Saab nut :-)

If the press briefings from various GM and Saab executives and representatives from the Swedish government are correct, which we have to assume they are, then the situation we’re looking at for Saab is as follows:

* General Motors have received one expression of interest in purchasing Saab, but it seems that it was one that wasn’t serious enough for them to entertain. Dagens Industri claim that the interest was from an Asian car company, but did not name the company or more specific detail on where within Asia the company was located.

* The Swedish government are ready to initiate the loan package they passed in their parliament last month, but need certain conditions met. The money must be spent within Sweden, for example. The Swedish government were offered the chance to take an ownership stake in Saab, but have declined and state that there is no intention of taking up such an offer.

* With no opportunity to sell Saab quickly and no chance of getting Swedish support for current production plans in Germany, Austria and Mexico, General Motors are facing the possibility that they may have to move production of the next Saab 9-5, as well as production of the 9-3 convertible, back to Trollhattan.

* GM may move to make Saab a mostly-autonomous entity within the GM family. This has a payoff in terms of credibility and reputation, but Saab will have to get their plans ready and execute them well. They may have only one shot at their next few models and a false move could kill them.

* Part of that autonomous stance may involve Saab and General Motors invoicing one another for work done by one on behalf of the other. Saab’s turbocharging expertise, for example, would be billable when applied in a new GM vehicle (charge ‘em heaps for the Cadillac SRX, fellas!). GM are looking to Tata’s relationship with Ford in terms of owning Jaguar as a possible template for the type of contractual agreements that would be drawn up.

* The future of the Saab 9-4x seems to be up in the air a little, but it would make sense for them to proceed subject to that billing arrangement mentioned above being sorted out. The vehicle has plenty of potential in the US and being made in Mexico, the profit margin should be good, too. As Jan-Ake Jonsson said, if GM cancel the 9-4x, it’ll only raise the unit cost of the Cadillac SRX’s produced at the plant.

——

So, you have production quite possibly coming home to Trollhattan. The big bonus will be if R&D and design can come back to Sweden as well.

Then we’ll have a truly Swedish Saab operation again, with the autonomy and freedom to design cars the Saab way.

I have all the faith in the world that given the chance, they can pull off something wonderful.

——

The other big questions, aside from R&D and Design, relate to the national Saab distributor channels, marketing and all the other back-office functions that are currently serviced under the GM umbrella. Building great cars is one thing. Getting them to market can be another thing all together.

It’s going to be a very interesting time.

–

Material from Dagens Industri was used in this report.

Thanks Daniel!!

Tags: Saabology

21 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Eduard(Edusaab)No Gravatar // Jan 13, 2009 at 10:44 pm

    It seems that the accountants and financial experts are going to play a big role in this phase. Saab if I could participate on this, don’t hesitate to ask!!! jejejeje

    About Invoicing based in Engineering services. What happen with all those patents under GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS, INC but come from Saab???

    All the comments from Bob Lutz, I thing this is a simply “bad police” theater, to push Saab a decision of looking for a buyer and kick it quickly.

  • 2 Daniel BentzerNo Gravatar // Jan 13, 2009 at 10:49 pm

    No problems mate, glad to contribute a tiny bit:) Thank YOU for this site!!

  • 3 Eduard(Edusaab)No Gravatar // Jan 13, 2009 at 11:18 pm

    On interesting detail, about GM investment in Sweden,

    http://www.isa-northamerica.org/literature/gm_eng.pdf

    check isa.se website and Do a “SAAB” search, mmmmm very interesting. Hybrid technology leaders, investment clusters…

  • 4 TuuSaRNo Gravatar // Jan 13, 2009 at 11:22 pm

    Lutz is going nuts and giving hazy comments because his vision of GM is falling down. GM is giving-up brands that is entirely against his long term work and plans.

    What comes to Asian car companies. Honda might have cash and need for Saab, or Hyundai Kia Automotive Group.

    Toyota already has Lexus. Mazda is too weak to buy Saab.

  • 5 DippenNo Gravatar // Jan 13, 2009 at 11:46 pm

    What we will maybe see is a Saab Automobile in their pre 1990s as we used to know it.

    this sure will be interesting

  • 6 riku1100sNo Gravatar // Jan 14, 2009 at 12:13 am

    Does anybody else see a 9-3 platform change ahead, if Saab is to get 9-5 production in Sweden ? To me it sounds too expensive to tool Trollhättan both for Delta and Epsilon (II) production. Some comments about smaller Saabs (than the 9-3) being less important also point that way.

    (Which, to me, would be going back on the right track as the 9-3 should not have a lesser platform than the Insignia…)

  • 7 DMRNo Gravatar // Jan 14, 2009 at 1:02 am

    The phoenix shall rise from the ashes…err, I mean the Griffin. Swade, if your line of reasoning comes to bear, this might be the best opportunity that Saab have had since the 80s (although in a do or die sort of way)

    The one point that I have a hard time believing is interest from any Asian carmaker after Tata’s fiasco with Jag/LR. Plus, Volvo has a strong presence in countries like India. Saab does not. At least, not yet. In my mind, Saab’s identity is intertwined with Sweden and America in a way that Land Rover’s was not.

  • 8 WulfNo Gravatar // Jan 14, 2009 at 1:06 am

    How about making the Saab 9-4x in the USA in a non-union factory? I am sure there will be 1000s of people lined up to take decent-paying jobs, especially here in Michigan or Ohio where they made the 9-7X/Trailblazer.

  • 9 KroumNo Gravatar // Jan 14, 2009 at 2:03 am

    Very good summary, Swade. Almost as good as the 9-5 tease. :P

    I am inclined to believe the mystery Asian car manufacturer is either Hyundai or the Chinese. Or Proton! :) Neither of the big Japs have a need for Saab, each have their own premium badge.

  • 10 KroumNo Gravatar // Jan 14, 2009 at 2:03 am

    Very good summary, Swade. Almost as good as the 9-5 tease. :P

    I am inclined to believe the mystery Asian car manufacturer is either Hyundai or the Chinese. Or Proton! Neither of the big Japs have a need for Saab, each have their own premium badge.

  • 11 ctmNo Gravatar // Jan 14, 2009 at 2:41 am

    TuuSaR wrote: Lutz is going nuts and giving hazy comments because his vision of GM is falling down.

    I definitely agree. What I have seen the last days is Lutz (and maybe some more) running around saying that Saab is small insignificant operation that they don’t want or need and that he couldn’t care less what happens to it. Then I see and listen to Forster and JAJ expressing a different view and (even openly in media) questioning Lutz.

    Sure, Lutz could just be out of order for some reason, not really representing the view at GM. Or, TuuSaR is right. He sees his vision of a global GM vehicle without any uniqueness at all failing miserly. And not just because of Saab. Look at GMs sales figures in the US. They have been going down for four years, almost all over the line and long before this financial crises. His vision and way of doing things are losing out big time, but he refuses to admit it. Instead, only weeks after the tax payers bail them out, he complains about the politicians and tax payers attitude towards the auto companies and stat that no problems at all are because of the auto industry itself…

    Is the rift between Forster/JAJ and Lutz that I sense due to the fact that they know that Lutz is on is way out because of the bailout package, that he has no power anymore, and that Saabs problem and planned independence will eventually effect Opel and thus must be handled with care?

    Consider if JAJs optimism turns out to be true. That they have a plan, that new models are on the way, that with a 9-3X, a new 9-4X, and a new 9-5 Saab will reach 150,000 sold cars in like 2-3 years time and they are on break-even? And then, with a new 9-1/9-3, there will be even more sale? Sure, they will still be a small player selling maybe 175,000 cars a year, but the important thing is that they may make a profit.

    Where does this leave GM? The way of life everybody (especially industry experts and Lutz) claim is absolutely necessary today – everything integrated in giant corporations, reducing the brands to just some badges – has failed, and doing the opposite – more independence – has succeeded. Will GM sell Saab then, when it finally is profitable? If not, how will it then treat the other brands? Give them the same freedom to compete with each other? I guess Lutz has a lot to think about and he is not happy…

  • 12 montsaabNo Gravatar // Jan 14, 2009 at 2:47 am

    when my parents bought a saab 99 in 1972 from our local dealer, saab made two cars. My parents chose it because it was front-wheel drive, small, solid, and fuel efficient. It had a noticably wide stance, taught styling. It had a triumph sourced engine and a bosch fuel injection system, an energy absorbing bumper, ignition on the floor for safety, great seats, and a terrific exhaust note. It was a blast to drive. There was nothing else like it on the market. Back then, a little company making two cars like this could do so profitably, but now there are a dozen cars that fit this description. How does saab make it as a global company with two cars unless these cars are really unique? I guess I think a case can be made that, despite GM’s best efforts, the 9-3 is still unique in its use of 4-cylinder turbo technology, scandanavian design, and its heritage. But the real key to saab’s survival will be the uniqueness of the 9-5. It will have to be very unique. It will have to make the case for saab very forcefully.

  • 13 KroumNo Gravatar // Jan 14, 2009 at 3:07 am

    Ctm, I think it will be exceptionally hard for Saab to survive independently on 150,000 or even 200,000 vehicles annually.

    Let’s not forget that the moment the new 9-5 hits the showrooms, they’d need to start working on the next generation. Such is today’s marketplace.

    Even if going solo is the short-term solution, in a year or two Saab would need to partner up with someone. Perhaps a pan-European union of smaller independent manufacturers is the way things will unfold – this will allow the sharing of platforms and various expertise.

  • 14 Dan9-1No Gravatar // Jan 14, 2009 at 3:10 am

    ctm.: do you think (or does anyone else think) that this will really good for Saab’s product development in the long term. I think so
    JAJ I seem to remember said that they weren’t 100% sure if a 9-1 was going to be made what platform it was on. Surely now this gives Saab some breathing room to give it a go with a bespoke chassis, a breath of fresh air for the Brand.

    Hasn’t Ford sort of been doing this for years with Volvo, their products are integrated too a point but not too integrated?

    Who knows, this may help GM long term if it means that Saab is under improved management? Maybe they will look into this for other brands?

  • 15 MarkacNo Gravatar // Jan 14, 2009 at 3:40 am

    `Saab will need to be more than autonomous from the dinosaur when it keels over. An autonomous Saab has to start looking for a new corporate parent straight away. The current generation of Saabs might be GM based, but the next generation can be differently entirely. Saab can buld multiple platforms at Trollhattan, it has been doing that for ages.

  • 16 TuuSaRNo Gravatar // Jan 14, 2009 at 4:11 am

    GM cant get USA loans if money flows to Saab and Saab cant get Swedish money if money flows to the USA.

    Due to near bankruptcy of GM, anything clearly sellable must be sold. I would think that USA loans require this too as Saab is foreign entity.

    To make sure that USA and Swedish money wont flow into wrong places AND to make Saab sellable, they must separe Saab more clearly from GM.

    In coming years entire Saab or 50% will be sold to some other car company.

    Saab needs to share platforms, engineering and components in a big way to be profitable.

    Saab’s lineup will soon be stronger than ever and Lutz knows that selling Saab doesnt make any long term financial sense for GM.

    Buyer knows that GM is forced to sell Saab and this means bargain price.

  • 17 Eduard(Edusaab)No Gravatar // Jan 14, 2009 at 5:01 am

    For me the future of Saab is based in a powerful Technological center. Check http://www.isa.se were could supply to other manufactures key technologies. And after that a competitive plant, higly automated and capable of producing differente range of models, high productivity and flexibility. To achieve that is basic that Saab do vertical synergies in its product range, common basic elements in its whole range and key development with other brands or a partner.

  • 18 ctmNo Gravatar // Jan 14, 2009 at 6:26 am

    Dan9-1,

    Yep, I think so. Not only because it couldn’t be worse, but I do think they can develop cars within a smaller group in Trollhättan that will sell and have some real Saab mojo.

  • 19 moNo Gravatar // Jan 14, 2009 at 2:46 pm

    even if GM lets go of saab, whats going to happen to all the patents ( i assume) they have on all the concepts that are supposed to shape saab for the next gen. does saab have to start over?

  • 20 Daniel BentzerNo Gravatar // Jan 14, 2009 at 4:08 pm

    Depending on what company holds the patent (GM or Saab) it shouldn´t be a problem to keep the patents in Saab.
    How great wouldn´t it be if Saab could start up with SVC, SCC, hydrid etc for the next gen 9-3 on a delta platform..:)?

  • 21 AutofixerNo Gravatar // Mar 24, 2009 at 5:39 pm

    Hello,
    I do believe that the Person that wrote !.
    TuuSaR // Jan 14, 2009 at 4:11 am.
    is Partly Correct, the first part!, But It is GM that Needs to Let go of SAAB AB and it Hostel Take over from back in the Early 80’s at a cost of 1.8 Billion and Sell SAAB AB Back to SAAB Scania for the 60+ Billion that is on the Table, and run to the Bank! as well as stop Ripping OFF SAAB and there R&D and claiming SAAB’s R&D as GM’S R&D.