32 responses so far ↓

• 1 turbin // Jan 23, 2009 at 12:15 pm

  That’s one from left field. In some ways makes sense but how do they support that one down the assembly line?

  There might though be as much in common with the 9-5 as with SRX. Could be such things as common seats, inerior trim, wheels, even dash components, engines etc. that make as much or more logistical sense to be sent to the Trolls. Also then Caddy could dump the 2.8T and leave it as a Sweden only proposition instead of sending donks from Melbourne to Mexico as well.

  Also as far as sheetmetal is concerned, this may better utilize the beautiful equipment and processes they have in Trollhattan.

  Saab is Swedish!

• 2 Markac // Jan 23, 2009 at 12:35 pm

  They truly believe a pig can fly! Why would Saab bother building it in Sweden anyway? The 9-4x has quite limited market potential outside of the US, and it’s far more cost effective to build it in Mexico for a mostly US market.

  It will difficult enough for Trollhattan to build Epsilon II 9-5s alongside the existing 9-3, whilst setting up for Delta II replacement 9-3 and think about a (possible) different platform again for the 9-1, without trying to build SUVs alongside everything else!

  It’s possible a buyer for Saab may not like sourcing the 9-4x from GM in Mexico, but there is a limit to what Trollhattan can do.

  Thanks, I really needed a laugh today!

• 3 Kroum // Jan 23, 2009 at 12:40 pm

  It does come across as a mistake, but who knows. Seeing all new models will likely be paid for by the Swedish government, they may well demand the 9-4X be built in Sweden. But that would be a huge cost disadvantage – even Porsche builds the Cayenne in Slovakia.

  Markac, I travel to Europe frequently and I tend to see quite a lot of SUVs and CUVs on the roads there. They also tend to sell at good premiums, so don’t write this off as a U.S.-only model. Saab can make a few bucks on them in Europe, too.

• 4 zippy // Jan 23, 2009 at 12:44 pm

  The 9-4X is mainly for the US market so why build the car in high(er) cost Sweden when it could be made for next to nothing in Mexico? Never gonna happen – makes zero financial sense.

• 5 Markac // Jan 23, 2009 at 12:59 pm

  Kroum: I said mostly US. If the 9-4x is produced in Mexico traded in US dollars it will make it quite costly in many other markets. At the moment the Aussie dollar is way down against the US one and I don’t think the 9-4x would sell well here under those conditions. I for one would not pay a huge premium just for a Saab badged SUV, no that I having any liking for the things anyway.

  I could be wrong, but suspect that around 80% of 9-4x sales will be in the US and even there, SUV sales are declining anyway. I know that Saab probably needs the 9-4x at the moment, but I hope that in the future, crossover versions of all it’s models is the direction it takes, not SUVs.

• 6 Kroum // Jan 23, 2009 at 1:25 pm

  Markac, I am no SUV fan myself, but it looks like they’re here to stay. Perhaps the market is shifting more towards cross-overs (CUVs), but either way it is an established segment now.

  There is all the rage about gas prices, but every other car in Toronto is still an SUV – many of them brand new models. Some people just seem to like them better, period.

  So my point it, it would be very unwise of Saab not to tap this segment and profit from it. I bet you quite a few customers have been lost due to the lack of a proper Saab CUV (9-7X does not count as a Saab).

  If Saab manage to cover as many market segments as they could with minimal investment – and this makes perfect business logic – then even better. Yet all-road versions of regular wagons cannot substitute a proper CUV – the target clientele would never buy them.

  Sorry if I am a bit offensive, but the average milf would never cross-shop the Cayenne, Range Rover, Q7 or the X5 against a 9-3X. It just ain’t happening.

• 7 Markac // Jan 23, 2009 at 2:30 pm

  Kroum: Some people and perhaps women in particular, seem to have the impression that SUVs are safer when really the opposite is true. I think it comes from the high seating postion, but the roll-over characteristics for this type of vechicle make it less than desirable. I doubt if the 9-4x will do all that well against the Porsche Cayenne, Range Rover or BMW X5 except by substanially undercutiing them on price. Whilst it is a bit more Saablike than the 9-7x, many people will just consider it to be a badged engineered Cadillac.

  There seems to be a growing feeling here that SUVs are somewaht anti-social. To me they are just ugly thirsty barges with less than desireable handling and roadholding. Whilst SUVs have long been a cash cow for GM, they are hardly what owning a Saab is all about.

• 8 PT // Jan 23, 2009 at 3:24 pm

  Love the idea of all Saab mfg being in Sweden. The realities of shipping to the US are there for the 93 & 95 anyway so why freak out about the 94X?

  Markac – disagree with your take on SUVs. Drive an x5 3.0diesel ( if you have’t already) and perhaps you’ll see a wider perspective.

  Regardless, I hope that the 94X is an appopriately Saab-ish 4×4 and that will be something worth looking at when the time comes for me.

• 9 SaabKen // Jan 23, 2009 at 3:45 pm

  I too think the 9-4X is best manufactured in Mexico but that’s only if the N. America proves to be the single largest market for it. Otherwise, if it proves more popular and as a better seller globally, Trollhattan or another site (E. Europe ?) may be more favorable options.

  It all depends a lot on currency exchange rates, which have a huge impact on profitability.

  I like this quote

  “GM and Saab will remain connected technologically for at least a few years in an amicable supply partnership, but Saab will then be fully independent by the next generation of products in 2014 or 2015,” our source tells us.

• 10 Karen // Jan 23, 2009 at 4:56 pm

  Maybe GM is re-rationalizing production at Ramos Arizpe, which currently makes sedans:
  Products: Pontiac Aztek, Chevrolet Cavalier, Chevrolet Chevy, Pontiac Sunfire, Buick Rendezvous
  Engines: V-6, 3.4L and 3.1L; 2.8, 3.1 and 3.4 partial engines for SPO
  Stampings: Internal and external panels for Chevy

  If GM had to install a new line for the Cadillac SRX Theta platform that the 9-4X was to share, who knows what may be happening. Maybe GM decided to stick with the current Sigma platform in Lansing, Michigan for another two years. This is NOT the time for GM to be moving production from Michigan to Mexico (crucifixion for Wagoner on the Washington Mall?), and capital investments get delayed during a serious sales slump.

  Better for the Saab marque to be 100% Swedish, and hopefully 100% Swedish steel.
  The question seems to be if Trollhattan can quickly adapt the 9-4X to a common platform with the 9-5. And what is the mileage for the 9-4X. Saab can hedge the SEK in currency markets.

  As to the milf comments, you guys have never tried to climb into an SUV in a skirt! It is very difficult.

  I do think part of the insane US obsession with SUVs is because of highway driving with all those big tractor trailers. I sometimes feel like a tiny bug when I am surrounded by them on the Interstates. I can understand why people feel the illusion of safety just by being closer to the scale of all those trucks. A lot of commuting is done on Interstates.
  The SUV ’safety’ illusion has been widely covered – about the rollover risks.

  The premier of Burn Notice was earlier – and there was an ad for the 9-3X. about 10 seconds.

  My milf (in your eyes) neighbor traded her 900S for a small Subaru wagon, and her filf (once upon a time but only because he knows how to install his own windows) husband got a new pickup truck.

• 11 Grumpy // Jan 23, 2009 at 5:17 pm

  I don’t see much fact in the comments on the 9-4x from Edmunds. If the 9-4x will be built at all it will most surely be built in the plant that was set up for the task. The real question is how Fritz Henderson’s comment about Saab not being a US strategy impacts Saab. It could be that GM wants to show action tothe congress by kicking the brand off the continent, thus making 99% of congress believe Saab is gone period. I hope this is not the clever plan from the Ren Cen because Saab really needs the NA sales.

  I believe just bringing the 9-3 Vert from Austria and the 9-5 back from Rüsselsheim will be a fantastic success for Saab and really set the basis for a brighter future.

• 12 Markac // Jan 23, 2009 at 5:20 pm

  PT: I haven’t driven an X5 but I have driven a number of SUVs you might determine as ’softroaders’ as well as some more serious 4×4 ‘offroaders’, none have ever inspired me to own one. I usually feel like I’m in a sports car when I jump back into my 9-3 3 door and it’s a lot more fun! Fortunately I don’t have mud or snow or dirt roads to deal with and even if I did, I would buy something like a Land Rover discovery which would be far more capable. A 2WD 9-4x someone mentioned would have to be a joke surely? Sorry if I’m quite anti-SUV, but since reading TS I’ve discovered I’m not alone.

  Karen: Why did you suddenly give me a vision of Swade climbing into a 9-4x wearing a kilt!

• 13 mr_ebbot // Jan 23, 2009 at 5:35 pm

  It is very simple.

  They have mixed up the 9-3X with the 9-4X.

  They can’t produce the 9-4X in Trollhattan.

• 14 swade // Jan 23, 2009 at 5:52 pm

  I wish it were that simple, Mr Ebbot, but the 9-3x was never slated for building in Mexico. It’s the specifics they give that assure they’re talking about the 9-4x here.

• 15 ctm // Jan 23, 2009 at 7:27 pm

  Swade wears a kilt? Hmm…

  On the 9-4X subject… There is no room in Trollhättan for producing 9-3 (including maybe the vert), a new 9-5 and a 9-4X. I think their permissions for like everything say something like 120,000 cars per year. To cram everything in there would be stupid, since it leaves no room for rapid expansion. The 9-4X is a needed car and will probably sell, but it is also a model that could be a 4-5 year thing and then no more. It should be built in Mexico as planned, sharing the costs with other GM models.

• 16 ck1x // Jan 23, 2009 at 10:38 pm

  One thing for sure that we don’t know is how interchangeable these set-ups might be on which GM established these new platforms. 9-4x is scheduled to be on a mix of the Theta and Epsilon II so maybe they are compatible to some degree. Something else has peaked my interest quite a bit with these new spy-shots that came out recently, and that’s the fact of the similarities that both the new 9-5 and the 9-4 seem to share. The 9-5 photos show the car sporting the 9-4’s tail lamps and sloping roof line, which isn’t a bad thing by any means.For all we know maybe GM plans on utilizing and capitalizing on the Swedish government willing to back Saab by producing all of it’s vehicles right in Sweden. I hate to say this but it seems to be more prevalent that Saab bring new products to Europe and the rest of the world before the Americas at this moment. The American economy is hurting very badly and I’m not so sure during these times no matter how great of a product Saab releases right now if it would be given a fair shake at this present time.

• 17 ck1x // Jan 23, 2009 at 10:42 pm

  Oh yeah “ctm” Saab themselves said that they can handle a production somewhere of 175,000 annually in Trollhattan efficiently.

• 18 Bernard // Jan 23, 2009 at 11:03 pm

  The reason why people like SUVs is that the roads in most of North America are terrible.

  On top of that, most sedans have overly-stiff suspensions and low ground clearance, which makes them useless in bad weather. Add-in poor packaging, for instance small trunks/boots, low seating positions that are difficult to get into, no space for an adult in the front and a child seat in the back at the same time, and you can see why sedans make less and less sense.

  The SUV is a direct descendant of the Model T: high, go-anywhere, tough and practical. It is the blue jean of the automotive world.

  SUVs retain all of their advantages in 2WD form, especially with traction control and stability management. Almost nobody needs a car that can run the Dakar or carry a snow plow. Those that do can still get a Land Cruiser, pickup truck or Hummer (for now).

• 19 ctm // Jan 23, 2009 at 11:11 pm

  ck1x,

  In October 2007 (see post on TS), the Trollhättan plant could build 110,000 cars a year. They then planned some downsizing to get that to about 85,000 car. The unions complained about bad planning and waste of resources, and I don’t know what happened after that. I can’t see how they can go from 110,000 to 175,000 in the current plant without major investment. And it is not just about being more effective, building cars 24/7. They also need all sorts of permits from authorities if they want to increase production. And I don’t think they should put all eggs in one basket. They should have at two plants minimum, not at least to be able to avoid currency problems.

• 20 TTAero // Jan 23, 2009 at 11:19 pm

  Karen might have a point there.

  What if GM is forced to produce the SRX inside US to gain government support? The 9-4x can’t bear the whole cost of the Mexican plant. And the cost of building 9-4X inside the US might be way to expensive or politically wrong?

  Then this info might be correct in some way…?

  But hay, I’ve got an idea: Why not give the 9-4X the Finnish? And build it with some Porsches and stuff?!?

  And the Finnish government might also want too rescue some of the vehicles production in Finland?

• 21 Nate 9-3 // Jan 23, 2009 at 11:23 pm

  Swade in a kilt…I feel that its time for our photoshop experts to get to work!

  Just kidding!

• 22 ctm // Jan 23, 2009 at 11:34 pm

  Valmet would be a good partner. Read somewhere that after loosing the 9-3 production in 2003, the only use 50% of the possible capacity. They have assembled over 200,000 Porsche’s there with top quality since 1997. This deal is now being downscaled and will run out in 2012. They have signed a new deal building a maximum of 15,000 cars a year for Fisker from 2010. So I think that Valmet be nice partner for Saab. In Finland they have the Euro, and I don’t know how that effect things when selling cars in the dollar zone.

• 23 Mailr // Jan 23, 2009 at 11:50 pm

  Kroum, there are SUV in Europe as well, but in lot less numbers and I don’t think they are bought for the same reasons. The situation may be different in Germany, but here in Sweden they are often bough by people that need the space or 7 seats. Volvo sold about 900 XC90 here last year, to compare with 25000 V70+XC70.

  As an aside, the main Stockholm dealer chain (they probably account for about 10-20% of Saab sales in Sweden) brought in first 30, then 30 more 9-7x to Sweden: the first 30 sold fairly briskly, most of the remaining 30 were hard to sell. Altough I expect the 9-4X to do better than that, I think it (together with the numbers for the XC90) is a good indication of how slow it will sell here.

  The only major exception i Europe is probably the russian market.

• 24 gordon // Jan 24, 2009 at 1:11 am

  I look forward to reading what Swade finds out. The big criticism of GM seems to be that they have too many brands in the US. I think that’s silly, they have too many redundant models. (These brands didn’t always have 8 models each.) A better criticism would be that for decades they have had too many different inconsistent visions of the future. I bet Edmunds got this from a bona fide source inside GM and there are doubtless other bona fide sources that will say the opposite.

  The interesting question now is whether SAAB is going to build 2010 Delta Astras for GM or if that has been swapped with Russelsheim to get the 9-5. In that case, does the 2011 9-3 go back to a shortened Epsilon II? Someone in Sweden probably knows if that Astra tooling has been moved in or if that was planned to be done in the summer.

• 25 mr_ebbot // Jan 24, 2009 at 1:37 am

  Swade:

  No i know that the 9-3x was not ment for Mexico. My thought was simply that AB missed the fact that 9-3x and the 9-4x is two difrent cars.

  In the article (as presented here) they missed where the production of the 9-3X will be.

• 26 Karen // Jan 24, 2009 at 1:51 am

  @TTAero: I didn’t think the 9-4X could be built on the Sigma platform in Lansing MI where they build the current Cadillac SRX. If they could, am sure the UAW would be happy to build the 9-4X for NA market. (no sarcasm – Cadillac is a premium product)

  Valmet in Finland makes so much sense…

  If I wore a kilt, climbing into an SUV would be easy. Men in kilts climbing into a SUV would really boost sales to women – we always wonder what is underneath a kilt since Liam Neeson was Rob Roy, on-screen uber-filf…

• 27 SaabKen // Jan 24, 2009 at 2:03 am

  I prefer if the milf and filf comments can stop. This is not the Civic Si forum. Thanks.

• 28 Pedro // Jan 24, 2009 at 2:21 am

  IMHO, the 9-5 + 9-3 @ Trollhättan makes perfect sense if Trollhättan is flexible enough, because that means production mix can be adjusted for more 9-5 (good times economically) or for more 9-3 (when the economy is down). The 9-4X @ Trollhättan not so much…

• 29 Karen // Jan 24, 2009 at 3:53 am

  @SaabKen: my sincere apologies. didn’t even know what it meant. would edit out if I could.

• 30 SaabKen // Jan 24, 2009 at 4:36 am

  No worries Karen.

  Sorry I left my SC moderator’s hat on when I made my last comment. Saab forums like TS and SC have demonstrated themselves to be particularly civil and sophisticated. The people and the community are as good if not better than the cars themselves !

  Cheers

• 31 Edags // Jan 24, 2009 at 6:44 am

  Might moving the 9-4X to Trollhatten be simply a consolidating move to better allow Saab to be readily packaged for sale? It’s clearly not the best move for the 9-4X itself but perhaps better for facilitating the sale of Saab?

• 32 PT // Jan 25, 2009 at 1:07 pm

  Hi Markac,

  Of course you’re entitled to your opinion but I would challenge the view SUVs are gas-guzzling barges and that was the point of my refernce to the X5. Its gets 8.6/100/km no matter how I drive and is the safest, most confortable car I’ve owned. Its kind of the Swiss army knife of cars. Its not a sports car and won’t argue for a second about the on-road feel of the 93 or even 95. I’ve driven a few HOT Saabs and when I can justify a 3rd car, thats what it will be. In the meantime, compromise means that the X5 ticks the most boxes. And its fun to drive, believe me.

  Its not about one vs the other, its more that SUVs are a legitimate market segment which make sense for lots of people. Even without needing the full off-road capability of a Discovery or similar. Look at what the Cayenne has done for Porsche in terms of profits, marketshare, customer retention etc. Its even won some rallies in its own right. Done well, SUVs are a very practical & utilitarian vehicle and thats what the 94X needs to be. I’ve envisaging something akin to the new Volvo XC60 or Audi Q5.

  Anyhoo, See bernards comments – they’re pretty close to my POV as well. Except for the 2wd bit. I don’t buy that I’m afraid.