Rick Waggoner made $15.7 million in salary in the last complete GM fiscal year.
Alan Mulally made $22.8 million in salary in the last complete Ford fiscal year.
Robert Nardelli’s salary isn’t publicly known since Chrysler is, ostensibly, private.

Even if Mr. Wagoner forgoes his salary, and Maximum Bob Lutz and all of their cronies over at GM took $1 million pay cuts in 2008, how much would that help? For argument’s sake, let’s assume that about 20 or so executives at GM (other than Mr. Wagoner) make enough money each year that they could pony up a $1 million pay cut in 2009. That would be $35.7 million returned to the coffers next year. For the 74,000 UAW employees in GM’s employ, that amount would buy another 6.3 hours of pay for each UAW worker at the current rate of $77 per hour. It doesn’t even buy another day of operating cash!!

Even if we expand the executive pay cuts and reduction in executive privileges to $100 million in savings for 2009 (a number that likely exceeds reality), that only buys 17.6 hours of employment for all UAW workers employed by the General. Just over two additional days of operation.

On the other hand, if the UAW cuts to the same pay structure that Toyota workers in Georgetown, Kentucky or Honda workers in Marysville, Ohio enjoy, that’s a $30 per UAW employee per hour savings. Multiply that by a standard 40-hour work week year (2080 hours), you’ll derive over $4.6 Billion in additional cash for the corporation. As a point of reference, I estimate that Saab’s annual sales are just below that amount (about 125,000 vehicles at $35,000 per car*). The delta in UAW vs. Toyota pay is, for GM, larger than Saab’s entire budget.

Do I agree with exhorbitant executive pay and privilege? No, I don’t. I don’t think that Rick Wagoner or Alan Mulally are worth anywhere near the amounts that they get paid. For that matter, I hope that the GM board gets their come uppance for steering this company into the rocks in the first place, and those rocks include this inflated executive pay and lifestyle.

However, my point is this: the cost of the UAW is so huge that other cutbacks pale in comparison to the reductions needed there. Yes, cuts are needed across the board, but unless the UAW cuts to a competitive wage, everything else is for naught.

* – Remember that you have to consider that Saab only makes money on dealer cost, not selling price, so I feel that $35,000 per vehicle is about right.

Most car makers still charge a premium for certain colors of paint. Saab is no different. Buy a Fusion Blue Metallic 2009 9-3 and the car will set you back US$550 over the same model with Polar White paint. On a 9-5, the same privilege will lighten your wallet by the same amount. In fact, only three colors, white, red and black, are offered at the “base” price.

Is this additional cost justified, or is the option up sell for metallic paint simply additional margin for the automaker?

First of all, let’s explore the roots of metallic paint and why automakers charged a premium in the first place.

The obvious question: does metallic paint and it’s close cousin pearlescent paint cost more than solid color paint? The answer: not much if any. Metallic paint simply has a very small amount of aluminum flake added to the formulation while pearlescent paint has an equally small amount of mica flake added. Certainly these raw materials are very inexpensive, and the remainder of the mixture doesn’t vary to any great degree. If you want to test this theory, call an automotive paint supplier and request pricing for any color in both metallic and solid. There will be no difference.

The next question: does metallic paint cost more to apply? Well, that’s debatable.

In the 1960′s, metallic paint really was something special. Without the automated paint booths that create today’s perfect finish, paint was either applied with hand-held sprayers or with full-component paint baths, neither of which guaranteed even coverage and therefore even distribution of metal flake. Therefore, paint rework was more common and more difficult with metallic colors and thus metal flake was more expensive overall.

By the late 1970′s, the environmental regulations and workforce protection laws changed paint formulations dramatically to reduce airborne pollutants released in the paint manufacturing and application processes. Faced with the differences, automotive finish experts were forced to change many established practices to make the new paint work. Because I can find almost no data on the comparative costs, I’ll give the car makers the benefit of the doubt here — let’s assume that some difference in cost existed during this period.

Therefore, there was likely some historic precedent of increased production cost for metallic paint.

Today, however, I believe that most of the cost differences for application of metallic versus solid paint are miniscule if any real difference exists. Certainly, automation is a huge advantage overall for auto builders, but no place more so than in the modern paint booths employed in all current auto assembly plants. Once the correct procedures are dialed in, all cars are produced with similar results. Sure, certain paints my need slightly different procedures, but those changes easily happen on the fly with the manufacturing computers remembering the “recipe” for each configuration.

Certainly there are many that agree with me.

From drive.com.au, Mr. Tim Colquhoun finds that auto OEM’s are keen to defend their position that metallic and “special” paint colors cost more, but paint experts differ:

Darren Kenney, owner of Kenney’s Automotive Paints in Carramar, says that there is little justification for car makers charging a premium for metallic paint.
“It’s a bit of a rip-off really,” he says. “The only difference between standard and metallic paint is that metal flakes are added to the tinter in metallic paint.”

Wikipedia has this quote, which is, in my experience, true:

Manufacturers almost always charge a premium for the “option” of metallic paint on a new vehicle, although metallics usually account for all but one or two of the colours from the palette available (only red and white are available as solid colours from many makers).

The same article goes on to say:

…many consider the price premium for metallic paint as a way to boost the base price of a new vehicle.

In the end, I find these sorts of games with numbers annoying. You can view the inflated cost of the metallic paint “option” in two directions: either the auto OEM is attempting to raise the profit of the car with a low-cost, high-priced up sell, or the maker wants to advertise an artificially low starting price. Either way it’s attempting to obscure the truth. When the consumer doesn’t have a firm grasp of the truth, the relationship deteriorates. It’s really that easy in my view.

Does it have to be this way? I think not. In fact, consider the Saab 9-7x. For the Saab 9-7x, your choice of available colors adds nothing to the price of the vehicle. That’s right: for the 9-7x, easily the largest vehicle in Saab’s line up, the additional cost for metallic paint is zero.

So, tell me this — how can this be? Does Swedish metallic paint cost more than American metallic paint? Does Saab simply think that they can get an extra $550 per car, but not on the SUV?

Your opinion, as always, is welcome.

See, I’m ticked off at the fact that in a time of financial crisis, they went and spent X-thousand dollars on a company that put together a Build Your Own Saab website that is a really poor reflection on the brand, one that pales in comparison to the one that existed previously.

My original rant about this website is here. Read that article for the full details.

I’ve just been over there and checked it out, thinking that it might have been upgraded or finished off, but here’s my Fusion Blue sport sedan:

As you can see, it looks pretty much the same as my Titan Gray 9-3 sedan from a week or so ago:

In chatting with Eric Geers from Saab Sweden last week, he conceded that whilst Saab would ideally like consistency in their websites around the globe, some countries like to put together their website in a way that speaks to their market.

The SaabUSA website does feature some pretty good graphics and whilst not looking as sophisticated as the global site, it’s not bad by any means.

But that BYO site – it’s got to go!!

It’s plain to look at. It doesn’t match the flashier main SaabUSA site. And of course, most of all, it just plain doesn’t work like it should.

SaabUSA: please, please, please – demand that the people who put this thing together finish it off properly. Or get your money back and get someone else to do it properly.

–

The backstory: In April 2008, General Motors appointed Mark McNabb as the head of their Premium Brands operation in the US. Eggs n Grits raised the legitimate question back then: what does that mean for Steve Shannon?

So, if there’s a new man in town to market Saabs, does that mean that Steve Shannon has a new boss? My guess is that the leadership of the brand and the leadership of the sales channel can be seperate, however, Mr. Shannon previously said grace over the Saab dealership network, and now may not.

SaabUSA’s PR guru chimed in via comments to that post to say the following:

Steve Shannon stays on in his current role as general manager for Saab Automobile U.S.A. For us, this means business as usual, keeping our focus on the launch of the Turbo X, Cross-Wheel Drive in the 9-3 and even more exciting all-new Saab products quickly growing bigger on the horizon…

Well, as S.E. Hinton wrote when I was a kid: That was then, this is now.

The press articles about Jim Taylor’s being passed over for McNabb move to Hummer also include the following:

The three general manager positions reporting to McNabb are being eliminated, spokeswoman Joanne Krell said in an interview…..

….GM plans to appoint Hummer’s Walsh to a new job, Krell said. Steve Shannon, 50, Saab’s general manager, will become executive director of product and marketing for the premium channel, reporting to McNabb

And that’s it.

So it looks like we’re now in a position where Saab’s largest market division has a guy at the helm who’s also dealing with Cadillac (the company darling) and Hummer (find a way to sell it), so how much attention is he going to give the-little-brand-that-could (if it just had a chance)?

It also raises the larger question as to whether SaabUSA will continue to exist or whether it will be folded into a larger entity called GM Premium Brands as has been done here in Australia and in the UK.

If so, who’s at the helm? Who’s sitting in a chair in an office somewhere in the United States saying “I’m the one who gives a rat’s about Saab?”. Who’s making the decisions? Who’s having input as to what the US market needs from Saab? Who’s the go-to guy? Who’s talking with the ad people? Are there ad people?

McNabb’s been in de-facto leadership of Saab since his appointment in April. Back then we thought Steve Shannon was reporting to him. Now it looks like Shannon’s been set aside and McNabb’s the man.

So why haven’t we heard a solitary word about Saab from the man who’s supposedly been responsible for them for the last six months?

I’ll email Jan-Willem Vester at SaabUSA and invite a response, either from himself or McNabb.

And I’d like to take this opportunity to wish Steve Shannon well for what’s sure to be an interesting future. I’m not sure that he ever really “got” Saab and I’ve been critical at times (as scribes are wont to do), but he’s a good guy and I hope his personal and vocational experience has been adequately broadened by his association with Saab.

–

Today I figured out why Saab (and Volvo) are so important to the North American market. Why GM can’t let Saab fall into a generic design haze. Why they HAVE to retain their Swedish identity if they’re going to remain viable as a brand.

I spent a lot of time on the road today and the subconsciously obvious took front and center in my conscious mind – around 98% of the vehicles on Canadian roads are either from the domestic North American market, Japan/Korea (which I deliberately lump together) or Germany.

Around 85 of the 98% is North American or Asian, and almost all of it is either totally uninspiring or derivative, with a small proportion of the vehicles warranting a second glance.

I knew with my head that this would be the case before I got here, but there’s something about actually seeing the situation for yourself that brings it home. In my home market, in Australia, we also have a large proportion of domestic and Asian cars, but we also have a faithful and pretty interesting French and Italian presence as well. They may not sell a LOT of cars, but they certainly add color and interest to the automotive landscape.

GM have to make Saab more distinctive if they’re going to have a presence in the North American market. “Distinctive” is what brought a great number of us to Saab in the first place. There was nothing else like a 99, or a 900 or a 9000. Saab needs a presence in the sports sedan market, but the fact is that they aren’t doing 3-box sedans well enough to survive here, and I don’t think I’d really want them to. If all I wanted was a basic sedan as adequate transport then I’d buy a Honda.

But that’s not what I want, and I don’t think it’s what many Saab buyers want, either.

I’ve seen a lot of new Mustangs on the road since I’ve been here, and I’ve got to congratulate Ford on the design job they did with that car. It looks exactly as a modern interpretation of the old Mustang should. I’m yet to drive one, but hopefully the opportunity might arise.

I’m not suggesting that Saab should do a modern take on the 900, though I’d love it if they did. But like Ford did with the Mustang, Saab need to do something that captures the essence, the spirit of what made them great.

Unfortunately, North America is too important a market to let go of. Saab have to stand out if they’re to make an impression here and the best way to do that is outstanding value and superb Saab design.

Right now, and contrary to what we might think and what we know is historical fact, Saab are rated lowest in terms of customer retention by JD Power. The all-sedan lineup hasn’t worked and the addition of the SportCombi was too little, too late.

Saab needs it’s mojo back, and quick. Seeing GM have committed themselves to Saab for the long haul, it’s in their best interests to let the designers off the leash a little and let Saabs be Saabs. They’ll drown in a true sea of mediocrity if they don’t.

-

Earlier this week I drove my 900 for the first time in quite a while and it was magnificent to get back into the car again. The seats were supportive, the gearshift perfectly placed, the steering wheel just the right size, and all the controls were solid (for their age) and positioned just where you thought they should be.

As much as I like the Saab 9-3, it misses a few core Saab elements on the inside, things I’d really love to see remedied in future models. A real fear of mine, actually, is that the next generation Saab 9-5 will head in the 9-3′s direction rather than establish a new distinct interior for Saab.

What’s encouraging, and scary at the same time, is that GM do understand the importance of the interior. This is from today’s entry at GM Europe’s blog:

70-80 percent of what you experience in the interior of a car is purely subjective, sensual, perception…. In simple terms it’s what you see, touch (feel), smell and hear while sitting inside your car but cannot directly point to when asked. It’s still integral in forming your perception of the car.

In this post, they’re talking more about quality materials and the way buttons etc ‘feel’ during operation, but all that forms a part of that blanket term, interior design. GM seem to know it’s important, which begs the question as to why Saab interiors have been dumbed down a little in recent times.

There are certain things that are almost essential in a Saab interior. For example, it’s my belief that a modern Saab interior should have its window controls in the center console, just back from where you insert the key. Own a Saab with it’s switch arrangement set up this way and you’ll see that it makes perfect sense. And how many cars have you driven with window switches on the doors that are either awkward or unnatural to reach?

This one’s going to sound snobbish, but I don’t care, because when it comes to Saabs, I’m a bit snobbish.

GM talk themselves about ensuring that the interior of the car is fitting for the brand. So why on earth do their premium European cars – Saabs – share the same radio fascia and button mechanism with their base range Chevy’s?? This is not a new question and it flies directly in the face of what GM themselves have written in this article. That gives me a modicum of hope for the future.

It’s not that form is unimportant, but Saab have always proclaimed to give function preference over form when it comes to car design. This is an essential part of what made them different and whether you realise it or not, if you love Saabs then their distinct design characteristics are probably a big reason as to why.

Here’s hoping that GM are good to their word when it comes to interior design and the coming range of new Saabs.

-

Lance has graciously agreed to being added here as an occasional author, hence his name on the by-line. His input here is truly appreciated.

——

We all have our opinions, and, contrary to that hoary old phrase about opinions being like arseholes – everyone’s got one – the fact remains that we are all entitled to have one. An opinion that is…

But some opinions make it into reality and some opinions remain in the bonfires of the mind.

So, while you might think you know what a Saab should look like, someone else, some other opinion, will have a differing view of what a Saab should look like.

If that opinion holder happens to be a car designer working for GM then let’s face it: their opinion is going to see the light of day and yours is going to stay where the sun don’t shine – in your mind that is.

So, that old debate about what a Saab should look like, is a matter of opinion. As such, it is a minefield – which I will now enter…

The Saab 99 and Classic 900 with their Sason and Envall designed lines, are often held up by many opinions as representing the design language of Saab. It is, say the opinions, all in the hockey stick side swage, the clamshell bonnet (hood), the curved windscreen, the ‘top hat’ roof turret, the swoopy boat type rear end and the whole arrow shaped style of the things. And some opinions rave over the 99s concave rump and others love the upturned aerofoil that is the front end of the 99.

And I will not argue with that.

I love the flat fronted ‘face’ of the classic early 900s, and that swooped rear end with a lip spoiler and the sheer style and stance – that down-the-road graphic of the C900 hatchbacks. I also really get moved by the sheer Scandinavian sense of design evoked by Bjorn Envall’s rear windscreen design on the 900 four and two door cars (also found on that weird thing, the Saab 90). Saabists often ignore the four door C900 and they are getting rare in Europe.

What about those Saaby-weird floating ‘opera’ windows in the five door 99 and C900 models? Weird but elegant, and they worked in design terms.

And Envall added the curved indicator shapes and headlamp graphicals to the early 99 when he worked the rubber bumpers on to it in 1972. And that gave us a recognisable Saab ‘face’.

So these are the essential elements of Saab design iconography then – aren’t they? Well, hang on. There’s more.

Before the 99 and 900 there were other Saab cars and they had a different set of stylistic values and themes – albeit drawn by Sixten Sason. So I would suggest to you that we cannot see Saab design in isolation as beginning with the 99 and its themes, and then demand that any future Saab should mimic the 99 and C900 themes – as so many Saabists so often do.

The Saab 92 and its progeny, right through to the the 96, had flat windscreens, no clamshell, tapered rears, bulbous side ‘shoulders’ (now claimed as a Volvo design theme because that is a design motif Volvo have redeployed from their own design history) and other features not seen in the subsequent Saabs that are the 99 and C900.

And Sason, who made many trips to his friends in Italy at Bertone and Pinin Farina, loved Italian style as well as American style, so his works feature these influences. And Saab did have an ‘Italian Front’ version of the later 93 model that was very Alfa…

So, whilst the later GM900 and 9-3 may ape the C900, they owe little to the 92-96 range. And although the current 9-3 may evoke Saab design shapes in its details, it hardly shouts C900 three door geneology does it?

And then we have that Saab slab- the brilliant 9000; actually it was less of a slab in its Mk1 guise and more of slab when it got beefed up by Saab in its Mk2 version. Ok, so Guigario is credited with the genisis of the Saab/Alfa/Lancia/Fiat ‘Type Four’ design that gave us the 9000, 164, Thema (say ‘Tay-ma’) and Croma ranges. Envall of course, Saabised the 9000 brilliantly, but it was and could not ever be a retro pastiche of the 99 or C900.

So where does my wander through the design woods leave us?

I think it gives us camps of people who have differing opinions on what a Saab should look like. Now, that, is a luxury not viable in the world of car design beancounters…

There are those vocal people who insist that a curved windscreen and clamshell are ‘must haves’ in the Saab design check list. There are those – possibly fewer in number – who long for a curved little bob-tailed aero bubble of a small car that reflects the 92-96 range, and then there are those who want to see a complete break with a new shape – a new Saab design iconography – perhaps represented by the recent crop of Saab concept cars such as the Aero X and 9-X BioHybrid etc.

And to prove my point, above, it should be noted that these current Saab concept cars show little actual homage to the 99 or the C900, yet they reek of Saab and Scandinavian design. So they must have moved the Saab design debate on then, have they not?

I think I can sum this important point up in the words of Trollhattan Saab’s own Eggs n Grits -when he said of Saab design themes in this site’s coverage of the 9-x BioHybrid’s design and its designer Anthony Lo:

“Mr. Lo is spot on as well. If the traditions work, so much the better. However, if the traditions dictate, you run the risk of eliminating worthy options.”

Saab, this is why grand design stems from vision rather than from reinvention.

But Saabists may be be happy, or disappointed by the forthcoming real world Saabs.

The 9-4x boasts a Saab grille/headlamp ‘face’: It also boasts a classic Saab 900 derived side hockey stick type swage and some Saaby side window shapes – thus arguably proving that these are defined as essential design ingredients for the marque for now – yet one that is less obvious in the current concept cars. The new forthcoming 9-5 looks to me as though it uses the same windscreen and door side shapes as the 9-4x, and feels more cubist than curvist as a result – and really, not that advanced.

We will have to wait and see if the new 9-5 has a high tail Kamm back, or a swoopy arse, but if you look at the new Opel Insignia shapes, they could very easily be dressed up to be Saaby shapes. That rear end is very Saab. And as for the two door coupe- WOW!

And go and check out Volkswagen’s new Passat CC – all clamshell, curve and a lovely swoopy arse and rear window. Very C900, especially from the rear.

I also reckon that the little Opel / Vauxhall Corsa three door has some lovely Saab 92-96 design shapes- especially in its rear windscreen and wing shapes – it’s a cute little blob of a thing – just like the 92-96.

——

Anyway, back to the ‘what should the next Saabs’ look like’ debate:

Where are we going, Saab?

Is it going to be re-tooled exterior panels with Opels and Caddys underneath? Is it going to be some damned Rover 75 or Jaguar S type, retro-pastiche homage to the C900? Or will you Saab, give us an elegant blend of your lineage and genealogy in a lithe and classy tool? Can the new 9-5 achieve this? Or do we have to wait longer?

And will the next 9-3 have a hatch; remember them Saab?

Or is the definition of the Saab look going to be a wonderful blend of ALL the Saab themes into a modern redefinition of Saab and Scandinavian design motifs – rather than just one of them?

You see, Saab, form can follow function, but that is easy. Much harder to grasp is the fact that it is brave conceptual thinking that creates grand design.

Tradition should not limit thinking.

And do we in fact already have that in the form of the 9-x BioHybrid or the Aero X? Maybe. But I suggest, Saab, that you are not quite there yet.

——

This debate is crucial to the future survival of Saab.

Remember how in the early 1990s Citroen went all sensible to appeal to a wider market to sell more cars – and lost its way – and had to return to making individualistic shapes, to dare to be different again. A point proven by the strong sales of the C4 and new C5 ranges.

And Renault went weird too: Where on earth is the company’s design lineage in the shape of the new Laguna?

Go back decades and just think how the NSU RO80 or the Rover SD1 would have owned the world if they had not been plagued by bad engines and poor build. Above all they had DESIGN, as did the Lancia range.

And isn’t the new Skoda Fabia a peach of what a new small Saab could have been? Many think it looks like one.

And to prove my design-rules-all, point, think of the old Suzuki Swift. The old one was a pensioner special, a cat lovers tin can on wheels that no real car lover would buy – even when GM badged it up for sales to girlies in the USA as the unloved Geo Metro or some such nonsense. It was not to hot in a crash either. Generally, it was nearly as bad as the Mazda-121-slash-Ford-Festiva (the Ford Fester – much worse than the Ford Fiasco) from 1980 something.

And now look at the current new model Suzuki Swift – one of the most accomplished pieces of small car design and engineering seen in years and one that has put Suzuki firmly on the map in Europe – where it is also built. How did the men at Suzuki do it?

By design: Brilliant design.

And yes, Saab designs the best range of wheels in the business, and nice seats too. Oh and the best range of accessories. But it is not enough. We need design, total intergrated design.

So Saab, don’t repeat the Citroen mistake in search of volume sales by turning out bland Euro-dross design. I really fear Saab is aiming to sell more cars through the misguided belief that making a blandobox of a car will shift metal.

Listen carefully Saab: it will not.

To prove that point, compare and contrast the new Toyotas Auris with (A) its predecessor the Corolla and (B) with the VW Golf. The Auris is a good car, but is a bland, boring box with no soul and it ain’t selling like Toyota thought it would.

And Saab, I don’t mind if the floorpan and base of a new Saab are off an Opel, just as I dont mind that the Skoda Fabia shares bits with a VW. Frankly, I don’t mind where you build it, either. But I do mind if the car, the shape, the spirit, the smell, the handling, the essence of the thing that is a Saab, is not a Saab.

——

So, reader, do you agree that Saab design means: subtle style, a unique motif, a unique face and feel, an essence inside and out, and a look that draws on themes from ALL the cars in Saab’s past rather than just one?

And this does not mean ‘unique’ at the expense of sales appeal (in a Citroen GS or CX kind of way) but unique in a Saab kind of way – but appealing to wider base – just like the new Citroens then. And remember Saab, a notable design-led individuality does not stop Audi or BMW selling their uniquely shaped cars beyond a core customer base, does it? So why not Saab?

I think Saab needs to define its design. It is going in the right direction, but a crossroads approaches. It’s time to decide where you are going Saab. And we out here all have an opinion which you could ask us about.

I am just off to sit on a mirror and examine mine.

-

-

Whatever the origin, though, it can’t be ignored that Saab were pioneers in turbocharging, getting more from less and providing exceedingly utilitarian vehicles in the process. In 2008, that last sentence describes what most car-makers are aiming for, so is it now Saab’s time?

It should be. But with a corporate parent like GM, who knows?

Steve Shannon gave a state-of-Saab presentation to various interested parties at a Saab dealership in Los Angeles last week. Motor Trend provided some coverage of that event and now seems as good a time as any to tease out what they discovered and what would be ideal for Saab, and for the GM mothership, moving forward into the future.

For as long as this site’s been on the air I’ve been saying that GM should pour more investment money into Saab to grow the brand, especially in Europe where there’s so much unrealised potential. The brand has a history of small-but-powerful engines. Given that the price of fuel is only going up, it makes complete sense.

I remember reading one individual at SaabCentral some time ago saying that Saab should be GM’s primary focus due to the nature of the brand and the capability they had for growth. Whilst I was definitely cheering from the sidelines, we all knew that that wasn’t going to happen.

I still don’t think it’s going to happen, but it appears to be more logical than ever in 2008. GM’s current circumstances and actions might just be showing that it’s coming to fruition, too.

A few dot points first, then we can draw it all together.

1) Alberta shows the way

In Alberta, Canada, they’re extracting oil from sands that were left dormant for years because the cost of extraction was too expensive. Now that the price of OPEC oil has gone up so much, the cost of refining the oil sands is much less prohibitive and the Canadians have a viable oil industry on their hands.

Where’s the connection?

When oil was cheap, GM tied itself to the high-margin SUV cash cow. I’ve not looked into it, but they probably had more trucks in their range than cars at some point. I wouldn’t be surprised. That was then, this is now.

GM can’t use that model anymore and they know it. They’ve recently annouced a slow-down in SUV production and stated quite clearly that the future of the HUMMER brand is being reconsidered. There’s rumours about GM shutting down another brand like they did with Oldsmobile some years ago and whilst some are nervous that that brand might be Saab, I’ll lay odds that it’s most likely GMC that’s threatened. Maybe Pontiac.

The point of all this? Now that oil and fuel efficiency are at a premium, Saab has some real currency with GM. They’ve been allowed to dwindle and they don’t have the range topping efficiency that Saabs used to have, but they have pretty good numbers and plenty of great experience to draw on.

2) Learn from the past, work for the future*

Motor Trend’s article starts with the following:

After unsuccessful attempts by its GM masters to repackage vehicles in the form of the 9-7X (upscale Chevy TrailBlazer) and 9-2X (Subaru WRX clone), Saab is attempting to re-focus its brand’s cachet by drawing on its core principles of quirky yet attractive styling, highly efficient turbocharged powertrains, and its distinct aerospace heritage.

GM tried to do the GM thing with Saab twice already and hopefully they’ve realised that it didn’t work. They’ve admitted as much about the 9-2x in recent times, but the 9-7x is still selling, so I’m sure we won’t hear anything about that any time soon. As good as these vehicles were (and technically, they are/were great motor vehicles) they just weren’t Saabs in the purist sense.

If GM want to get the best value out their Swedish brand, they’ve got to build real Swedish Saabs with Saab brand values designed into the core of the vehicle. Being a Saab should be a point of difference, not just a point of identity.

3) It’s time to go to college

Whenever I’ve talked about my dislike for Cadillac in Europe with one of SaabUSA’s staffers, he always uses the college analogy. It goes like this: GM has a bunch of kids and all of them will get to college eventually, but it costs money and time and they can’t all benefit from it at once.

Whilst I understand the analogy, I’ve always maintained that the career path GM was choosing for its kids was misguided. They were putting too much into Fredo and ignoring Michael (I get the feeling that Sonny’s HUMMER brand is pulling up to the toll booth right about….. now).

GM have a cash-burn problem and to pour heaps of cash into an inefficient brand (Caddy) to expand it into a market that doesn’t like it, nor accept it (Europe) is just plain ludicrous. Even more so when you consider that GM have a premium brand with some market acceptance in Europe, one that’s been withering on the vine for years.

GM’s financial injection into Cadillac for Europe is something you do when things are going really, really well. It’s gravy. It’s not the foundation for what they should be doing in Europe, it’s the icing on the cake (should the cake ever get made).

——

Tying these things together….

Saab have a new 9-5 on the way. They have a 9-4x SUV on the way. They have a revolutionary all-wheel-drive system coming online right now. They have a brilliant twin-turbo diesel in Europe. They have a decision to make the next generation Saab 9-3 in Sweden on a smaller architecture. We’ve been told that they also have hybrid technology on the way, too.

Seeing all of that in one paragraph, it looks like maybe Saab are starting their college education, finally.

GM need to develop more fuel efficient vehicles and they also need to bring a refined European brand to market and promote the daylights out of it so that they can build margins that make it sustainable. Saab can fit the bill on both counts – fuel economy and premium European. All they need is continued investment and the promotional support that GM have given to all their other brands over the years.

It is very, very possible that Saab could become a beacon for GM, if only they allow it to happen. Distinctive design, great use of technology and sustainable development for increasingly fuel conscious times.

There’d be no better vehicle for that than a Saab 9-1, by they way, and that vehicle is yet to receive the green light.

If GM are looking to build on potential – as opposed to building despite a heap of inherent baggage – then it’s time for them to cast aside their US-centric vision of what Saab should look like (the 9-2x and 9-7x experiment, subservience to Cadillac in Europe, etc) and allow it to spread its wings.

Here’s hoping.

——

* And if you know the early-80s rap song from which the title to point 2 is taken, then kudos to you. Hint: the line appears in the title track to a movie soundtrack.

For me, it’s a question of identity that goes right to the root of who Saab are and what they represent in my own little world. The recent news that the upcoming Saab 9-4x will arrive in some markets with a naturally aspirated V6 in the base model poses a classical identity crisis and makes me question where Saab are going and for how long I’ll be hitching a ride.

The 9-4x could carry seven people, bake a pizza, pour a beer and re-wire your house, for all I care. I hope 9-4x customers are happy with the vehicle but it’s not something that I’ll ever be in the market for. But the choice of drivetrain does concern me. It speaks to the heart and soul of the car and where GM are taking Saab.

The Saab that I came to know and love was quite different from all the rest in terms of design and powertrain. I liked that. Mainstream cars bored the crap out of me and the fact that Saab had so many points of difference was an instant selling point. A car is much more than just adequate transportation to me. If I’m going to spend X-thousand dollars on something then it’s going to be something that I love. No mainstream car’s going to satisfy that connection.

Now Saab are developing a non-turbocharged car? Is there any good reason for this decision? If there is, I’ll listen to it, but if it’s just “this is what we can afford in this segment and it’ll satisfy the market in XX” then I’m afraid that’s not going to wash.

It shows a lack of imagination. A lack of commitment to a set of core values. Sadly, it shows the Saab Brand Center to be a bit of a toothless tiger and it shows, in a very concrete way, that GM are more intent on harnessing Saab’s expertise for use on their other brands than they are on building up Saab’s identity.

Bob Lutz, at the Geneva Motor Show, said that the Saabs they’re developing now will be the most Saab-like vehicles that have come from the brand in the last 30 years. If this non-Turbo SUV is an example of what he’s talking about then either I bought a ticket on the wrong train or Bob’s spending his twilight years reliving his herbal heydays of the 1960′s.

Here’s another pointer as to the lack of identity at Saab, especially in the US.

Back when Steve Shannon was appointed to take over from Jay Spenchian, I wrote an open letter to him and the one thing I implored him to do, more than any other, was to hang around. More than anything else, Saab needs some continuity in leadership. It needs some people that 1) have the authority to develop the identity of the brand, and 2) have the commitment to stick around and see it through.

I’m pleased to say that Steve has stuck around so far. I have to call into question the level of authority he has now that GM has bought in the Cat In The Hat to oversee his work (and that of Hummer and Cadillac), but at least he’s hanging in there.

What’s disturbing, though, is the lack of press that SaabUSA are generating under his watch. There’s been a number of reviews thanks to the 2008 Saab 9-3 coming out and there’s been positive press with regards to the XWD system, however SaabUSA have been pretty quiet about generating press material to round out the identity of the brand there.

As an example:

In 2005 there were 32 official press releases from the offices of SaabUSA. In 2006 there were 30 press releases. In 2007 this number shrank to 24 press releases.

We’re nearly half way through 2008 and so far there’s been just 7 press releases from Saab USA.

If exposure is a problem for Saab in the US (and it is) and if the advertising budget has shrunk (and it has) then surely this back-to-basics stuff should be in full swing. When a car company releases one of these, all the media outlets publish it. It’s no-brainer content for them. Easy.

It’s not high impact but it’s inexpensive and gets the name out there. Even if it’s just a little.

——

Saab are a brand with a whole heap of potential.

The brand’s philosophies of efficiency, design and sportiness go hand-in-hand with what will become the industry-wide perspective on motoring in years to come. We’re already seeing more and more companies get into turbocharging – an area that Saab should absolutely own by now.

I suspect that the V6 decision isn’t quite the thin end of the wedge. I think they got the thin end of the wedge past us back in 2003. As Saab become more and more mainstream in coming years the enthusiasts will be left in their 900s, their SEs, their Viggens and their Turbo Xs, contemplating what could have been and asking “why?”

-

For those who haven’t seen it before, what you’ve got is two rather corny English hosts, an equally corny but endearing script, you’ve got two teams of three people each, a scrapheap (of course) and a challenge (of course) to build something out of scrap in 10 hours. The “something” might be a powerboat, a spy-car, a submersible car, a Mini-flinger, a giant rapid-fire arrow shooter, a motorised chariot…. the list of challenges has been long and a great deal of fun to watch.

To complete each challenge, the team is given an ‘expert’ to guide them on their build. I’m consistently surprised at how they manage to fabricate and motorise their projects, and actually get them to work (most of the time).

The one thing that seems to come through from the show is that more often than not, the simple but effective design wins. If I were to counsel a team going on to the heap, I’d drum it in to their heads so that they never forgot – keep it simple, stupid!

The lesson I’d hope Saab could apply from this rather long introduction? Make sure you know what works and keep on making it better, and better, and better.

This all stems from the story doing the rounds today that BMW is considering adding a hatchback variant to it’s next generation of the 5-series. Auto Express claim that spy photos show an enlarged back window that could well point to a Skoda-style twindoor hatch opening on the next 5-er.

In all honesty, this seems to be a little bit of speculative opportunism on Auto Express’ part, a past-time they’re not unfamiliar with. But suppose it did happen to be true….

Around six years ago, the last of the turbocharged Saab hatchbacks made way for a Sports Sedan. Whilst it looked OK at the time and had a bunch of body-variant siblings on the drawing board that might have satisfied the traditionalists, the Saab 9-3 SS came with serious baggage in terms of costs and inflexibility. That baggage led to a freeze of sorts on Saab development whilst the place was restructured. The hatch was dead and despite the place held in people’s hearts, it was unlikely to be resurrected any time soon.

Two years ago BMW got a lot of people excited, and a lot of Saab fans a little worried, when they announced their 3-litre twin turbocharged engine. That engine has gone on to win a Best Engine award two years in a row and when you drive it, you can see why. It is a very good powerplant.

Now, if AutoExpress are right, it seems that BMW are exploring the world of the hatchback. A world that we who are immersed in it know to be a place full of good common sense, sporty profiles and heaps of luggage room. A world that Saab claimed as their own for many years before abandoning it in a fruitless chase for more market share, primarily in the US market.

So perhaps a reminder is in order. One that I’m pretty sure Saab designers are mindful of themselves, though their pencil-wielding, beancounting colleagues may not quite understand.

Saab’s formula should be fairly simple – intelligent vehicles that provide comfort, safety, performance and utility. For many years, Saab achieved that with the use of wagons and hatchbacks, which were an economical and very Swedish solution for the problem of being able to get a lot of gear into your vehicle.

Saab have already given up a lot of the high ground on turbocharging. They don’t have a hatch in the range at the moment but there’s still a lot of credits in the bank thanks to the 900 and 9000. It’s time to cash in.

Please bring back the hatch, at least as an option on all these future models that are coming out. Make Saabs that are Saabs. It’s fairly simple.

——

If you’re reading from Australia, Scrapheap Challenge is shown on ABC2 at 6.30pm, six nights a week, though I fear they’re rapidly running out of episodes to show.

——

And thanks to the many people who emailed me about the BMW hatch story.

-