Auto Motor and Sport in Sweden have published a series of items drawn from a press engagement with Saab Sweden chief, Jan-Ake Jonsson.
Following is a translation of the article, which I’ve tried to tidy up as best I can. There’s a lot of good stuff in there, most notably about the proposed Saab 9-1, which Saab still want to build if they can only nail down a platform to build it on.
——
“Our new model does not necessarily have to be based on GM’s global Gamma platform.”
So says Saab’s CEO Jan-Ake Jonsson, and indirectly admits that Saab is working on its own platform for the new smaller 9-1 model likely to be built in Trollhattan.
A lot depends on the size of the 9-3.
“We want to create a model for 9-3, but the question is how to do it,” said Jonsson. General Motors has produced a new global platform, developed by GM’s Korean division of GM-DAT. It is called Gamma II and will form the basis of several models from Chevrolet, Daewoo and Opel/Vauxhall. It is about the size of the Opel Corsa.
The architecture is, therefore, an option for Saab’s technicians. But the Saab chief is not convinced that it is the right basis on which to build. “Our new car should not necessarily be built on the global Gamma,” he says. “It may not have everything we want, for example, four-wheel drive.”
Another option is to use a shorter version of GM platform Delta II, as the next generation of the Opel Astra is based. Delta II is the platform that the next Saab 9-3 will be built on.
But none of the options appear to speak the Saab language properly, which is why people in Trollhattan are also working on a full-fledged solution for the Saab 9-1. The model is supposed to be between BMW’s Mini and 1-series and the Audi A1 and A3.
The next generation of 9-3 was originally supposed to be built on the same platform as the new 9-5, namely GM Epsilon II, but Saab changed and chose the smaller Delta II instead. Production of the new 9-3 is scheduled to start in Trollhattan late 2012 or early 2013.
Saab will premiere the 9-X Air cabriolet concept at the Paris Salon this week, which it is relatively safe to assume is a fairly complete specimen of the new 9-3 convertible. One could therefore assume from the dimensions of the concept, that the new 9-3 will be shortened from the current 460 to around 443 cm. At the same time the width may be increased by 5 cm and axle distance from 267 to 270 cm.
“If we take fuel economy and carbon dioxide seriously, we can not make cars bigger for each new generation”, has Jan-Ake Jonsson said earlier.
In the case of Saab’s continued production, Jonsson is careful. He believes that the volume should be between 150,000 and 175,000 cars per year. However, the distribution between the models will change. Today, the 9-3 comprises two-thirds of Saab Sales and the 9-5 makes up the remaining third.
The change starts next year, when the new compact SUV 9-4X commences construction in Mexico. Jan-Ake Jonsson explains that the SUV is expected to take just over 22% of Saab’s total volume, while the new luxurious 9-5 takes about the same proportion. Thus the proportion for the 9-3 will drop to about 55% of the entire Saab cake, according to Jan-Ake Jonsson.
A very wise person recently told me that GM is a bit like a slightly deaf old man. You really have to yell loud to get your point across but eventually, he’ll hear you. The silly old bugger may not agree, may be pig-headed, stubborn and given to clinging to his youth, but at least you’ll get a hearing.
This may be an exercise in futility and we probably won’t get a direct answer, but there’s one thing I do know: people from GM still read these pages. And that means that if we want a 9-1 and we can spell out why we want a 9-1 in straighforward and sensible terms, then GM have a chance to hear something direct from their customers.
Some perspective for the newbies:
Saab built up a cult following by producing small, nimble cars that acted a lot bigger than they really were. They were brilliantly designed, safe, practical and really rewarding to drive. Modern Saabs share some of that old Saab DNA, but Saab lovers long for that more nimble, practical, turbocharged hatch.
We thought we were going to get it when Saab showed the original Saab 9x concept many years ago. Same again when they showed the 9-3x concept a few years later. Earlier this year they showed the 9-X BioHybrid concept vehicle and that really got people’s hopes up……..but the fact remains that Saab is still yet to give this compact car project the green light.
So……
If you’re willing and able, please feel free to communicate your feelings on the matter to the people that make the decisions. Like I said, we may not get a direct response (in fact, I’d say it’s 99% likely that we won’t), but they do read this site and the more convincing and numerous the arguments we get here, the more they’ll know.
I remember last year hearing a GM decision maker say that they didn’t think the lack of Bluetooth in the US Saab range was a problem because they never heard many complaints. Let’s not let the Saab 9-1 go the same way.
The Saab Owner’s Convention in the US is less than two weeks away. Wouldn’t it be great to get a bucketfull of comments here, print them out and present them to Steve Shannon so that he can pass them up the chain?
——
For me, personally, I love the idea of a Saab 9-1 for a number of reasons.
As a lover of the brand, I want to see it thrive and I think we’ve got enough evidence now to say that an iconic reason-for-being is a big help with that. Porsche’s icon is the 911. Mini’s icon is….the Mini. BMW’s icon is the M3. Toyota’s icon is reliability. Hyundai’s icon is perceived value. Saab’s icon is (still) the 900 and I’d love to see a modern Saab that emodies the principals that made that car so great.
The Saab 9-1 should be that car.
I want a Saab with a cutting edge profile. I want a turbocharged Saab that goes where you point it. I want a small Saab that carries a big load. I want the performance version. But I want my young bloke to be able to get a base model, too. And his mates. I want the best seats in the business, because Saab are (or should be) famous for that. I want a combination hot/cold vent setting for my feet and my face. I want it to have heaps of grip. I’d like a hybrid version for my wife, too.
Saab needs this car. Saab customers want this car and non-Saab customers will want to check this car out if it’s done right.
Let the Swedes have their way. Build it and they will come.
——
I’m going to leave this entry at the top of the page for a few days. Please enter your comments below and tell the powers that be why you want this car, and maybe a bit of what you want it to be.
No promises, but I’m sure the old man will hear you – eventually.
Hot on the heels of ctm’s convertible photochop being reprised by Autovisie, here’s a fresh take on a production version of the Saab 9-X concept vehicle, courtesy of Chris S.
As you can see, there’s a more conventional take on the rear end, regular mirrors and door handles on this version, which looks pretty decent to my eyes.
Click to enlarge:
Of course, just what form the 9-X takes when/if it finally gets a name and makes production, we’re yet to find out. It’ll probably be called the 9-1 and Carl-Peter Forster calls a home on the Opel Corsa’s Gamma architecture ‘imaginable’ but Autocar say that the vehicle’s on ice while the powers that be make their decisions.
Jan-Ake Jonsson, Managing Director of Saab, has admitted that the 9-X concept – which was expected to be badged 9-1 – now has to be “re-defined”.
One highly placed GM source told Autocar that the case for the Saab 9-X, as it was shown at the recent British motor show, is currently being completely re-argued by Saab staff.
Hit that Autocar link for more, though I think just about all of it ha been covered in the various writings here to do with the Saab 9-3 and 9-1 in the last week or so. It’s good to get it all in the one place.
-
Thanks again to Chris S for the excellent photochop!
The good news in the recent Edmunds story on the Saab 9-1 is that they’re talking about the 9-1 as if it’s a definite production vehicle for Saab. That decision is yet to be announced, but they’re talking like it is, so that gives me some comfort.
To the question at hand, then…..
Saab is going full-speed ahead with development of an all-new subcompact car based on the achingly rakish 9-X BioHybrid concept unveiled at the 2008 Geneva Auto Show this spring. A 2010-ish production version, likely called 9-1, will compete with the likes of BMW’s Mini and 1 Series, not to mention the Volvo C30 and Audi A3. But a senior U.S. executive tells Inside Line one point of contention is how many doors the 9-1 should have.
I think the author’s being a bit bull-ish about the 2010 date there. I mean, it’s almost June 2008 and they haven’t figured out the door count yet…..
I think common sense and sales figures will tell you that they can have anywhere up to five doors, with the proviso that they don’t make a four door. The appeal of the Saab 9-1 idea is tht they’re bringing back a hatchback into the Saab lineup. That means a 3-door or 5-door (counting the tail as one of the doors, of course).
Practicality would demand that they make both. The purists will go with the 3-door and those with small kiddies or a need to regularly carry people/things in a back seat will consider the 5-door. The only trick will be to get the 5-door styling correct.
The one thing we don’t want is a 4-door. If you look at every entrant in the small car segment, they look cool and whippy in a 2, 3 or even 5-door style, but downright dork-ish as a four door. America’s been averse to hatchbacks in recent years so the temptation to do a small three-box sedan will be there. I just hope they don’t succumb to it.
So, to Anthony Lo and the team – make it a 3-door or a 5-door only. If they demand sketches for a 4-door then please make is so ugly that there’s no way they’ll make it.
UPDATED – new translation of the original article, with thanks to Albert!
——
There’s been mumblings here previously about the possibility of the next Saab 9-3 being built on the compact Delta platform instead of the next generation Epsilon II. See the following links for the background:
In short, those articles cover the possible decision to make the next Saab 9-3 on a compact vehicle platform, the same as will be used for the next Opel Astra. Currently, the Saab 9-3 is built on the larger Epsilon platform and it was assumed that it would be produced on the new Epsilon II platform eventually, in Russelsheim, Germany. The new Saab 9-5 will be produced on this platform starting in 2009.
In the article noted above as “the Saab response”, Saab’s PR manager in Sweden, Eric Geers, confirmed that they were looking at the compact Delta platform for the 9-3 as a means to reduce weight and better meet emission requirements. He pointed out that the vehicle architecture is just a modular basis for the vehicle and that vehicles of varying sizes and specifications can all be made from the one architecture.
That’s the history.
Today there’s been another article appear in Hendelsblatt, in Germany, that all but confirms that the Saab 9-3 will be built on this smaller architecture. The report states that the next Saab 9-3 will be built in Trollhattan rather than in Russelsheim.
The Trollhattan factory is soon to be re-tooled for the Delta platform in the near term and will be producing the current Epsilon 9-3 and the new Delta vehicles concurrently. It seems this will continue until the current 9-3 is phased out and the new version moves to Delta as well. New Epsilon II vehicles such as the Saab 9-5 will be produced in Russelsheim and the withdrawal of the Saab 9-3 from those plans will leave Russelsheim with a fair amount of excess capacity.
An updated translation from the original artical in German is as follows:
GM draws back production job from Opel.
The Opel-mother company General Motors (GM) has made a course correction with the production plans for Europe. The company plans apparently to give the production job for the next generation Saab 9-3 to the family plant of the Swedes instead of to Rüsselsheim.
FRANKFURT. According to information from business circles, the GM Board is expected to deal with the issue in June. With that the automobile manufacturere is giving the precedence to a badly filled aout Trollhättan Saab plant in preference to the Opel family plant in Rüsselsheim, that was originally planned to build the car.
To compensate the GM management around GM-Europe’s boss Carl-Peter Forster considers to give build jobs based on the Astra platform or the Chevrolet Epica to Rüsselsheim, it is said in the company.
A spokesman for GM Europe (GME) would not comment on the plans: “Our management cannot comment to the production site of the future Saab 9-3 at the moment.” The management although has just made clear commitments to order volumes to the works. To this the manufacturer will keep itself, said the spokesman.
In 2005, the Rüsselsheim factory promised that the future Saab middle class car would be made there. According to information from business circles the car company is planning now, however, to build the successor to the Saab 9-3, which is expected on the market in 2012, no longer on the old Vectra platform, but on the basis of a new compact car platform.
The works council chairman of the plant in Bochum, Rainer Einenkel, had already announced in the specialist magazine Auto, Motor und Sport “,that its location would apply to the model. Bochum is one of four future GM Astra plants in Europe and would be able to build the next Saab 9-3 also on this basis. But the U.S. company seems to prefer to fill the capacity at the plant in Trollhättan with the model, where in the future – according to business circles – the planned Saab 9-1 small car is expected to be built.
One year after the decision where to build the most important for GM model in Europe, the Astra compact car, the race for the manufacturing site for the current smallest model Saab is internally as good as decided. Open, on the other hand, is still with which cars GM management will ensure the production capacity and models in the Opel headquarters in Rüsselsheim.
Opel company works council chairman Klaus Franz said recently that he assumes that GM will keep to its assurances. “We have a signed contract with the management, capacity and the volume is definitely ensured,” he said. GM had promised the works council in an agreement in the autumn of last year to produce up to six GM models in Rüsselsheim by 2012. Currently in Rüsselsheim only the middle class models Vectra and Signum are produced, that will be replaced by the Insignia from November,
GM restructures further with this its production plans for its European operations after the reassignment of the important Astra production in the works Bochum, Gliwice and Ellesmere Port.
Only last week the company, that writes its books deep in the red on the home market, had announced investments in a total of 9 billion Euros in its core brand Opel until 2012 and announced a guarantee for the Astra plants, including Bochum until the year 2016.
Once again, I’m going to write to Saab Sweden and seek a response to what appears to be a measure of progress on this issue.
——
The possible threat here is that the Saab 9-3 could be too close to the proposed Saab 9-1 idf they are both built on the same architecture. The move to Delta would definitely make a marked difference between the Saab 9-3 and Saab 9-5, however, something that hasn’t been around since 2002.
Eric Geers remained confident when I last heard from him (again, the link above) that the Saab 9-1 would see production. I guess the challenge here is to make sure the 9-1 and the 9-3 are remarkably different vehicles.
I sent off a few questions to Saab Sweden and Saab USA earlier this week with regard to a number of issues.
The questions to SaabUSA were concerned with the appointment of Mark McNabb and the effects that might have on Steve Shannon’s role there. I haven’t received a response on that issue yet.
The questions to Saab Sweden involved recent stories that cast shadows of the future of both the Saab 9-1 and the Saab 9-3. Click here if you want to review those issues.
Today I received a response from Eric Geers, Director of Communications for Saab Automobile.
On the issue of the Saab 9-1 not being declared as a production car as yet, Eric writes as follows:
We are very confident we will make the car. There are a number of steps in the process that have to be taken before you can call a program ‘final’ and that’s what’s happening now. We wouldn’t have shown the 9-X Biohybrid in Geneva if we hadn’t any serious plans with it.
And on the issue of the 9-3, where it will be built, when it will be built and what format it will take, Eric wrote the following:
Bob Lutz said at the Geneva autoshow that we study the posibility to build the 9-3 of a new premium compact architecture. One of the reasons being the C02 legislation as we would be able to reduce weight. Note that architectures are not rigid platforms that do not allow for any type of flexibility. See it as modules. Nothing decided yet but indeed lots of speculations as to where this car would be build and when it would come.
As to size we know what the competition of the 9-3 is f.e the Audi A4 and we will obvioulsy come out with a car that is the premium alternative to that with great looks and the best proportions. (remember the Volvo C70 which is build of the Ford compact car platform. Not a ’small car’ exactly)
In the end, like always, will we not comment on timing of our future products. Note that last summer we came out with a renewed 9-3 with XWD and you might see an interesting addition next year…
The mind boggles!
Either he’s referring to the raised XWD Combi that we’ve head was coming later this year, or there’s another iron in the fire. I hope it’s the latter and takes the form of a TTiD with XWD as that’s the car that Europe is really calling for.
——
So that’s the low-down on the 9-3 and the 9-1.
It seems that the 9-3 in its current for with XWD will need to carry the torch for some time. How long is unknown, but it’s a good vehicle and by the sounds of it the variations are set to expand.
My thanks to Eric Geers for taking the time to provide a response to these queries.
Tonight I’m emailing representatives from both Saab Automobile (ie. in Sweden) and SaabUSA and I’ll be trying to get answers to the following issues. These have grown in prominence recently, and for those of us who like to be reassured about Saab’s future, I think requesting some answers is fair enough.
The Saab 9-1
The fundamental question about the Saab 9-1 is whether or not they’re actually going to build it. The concept was great but since it’s unveiling there’s still a giant and silent question mark hanging over the car. Motoring rags all over the web have gone with the assumption that it will be built, but GM execs were very specific in keeping their options open.
The Saab 9-3
I don’t want to express any dissatisfaction with the current 9-3 at all. I think the 2008 re-styling is a hit and I think the additions they’ve given to the 9-3 range in the form of the TTiD engine and XWD are absolutely brilliant. BUT….. The recent stories of indecision have stoked a fair bit of uncertainty about the Saab 9-3.
Is it going to get smaller and be made on the Delta platform in Trollhattan as suggested in last weekend’s article in Automobilewoche? Is the indecision about the car really going to push it’s release out from the expected 2010 to around 2012 as suggested? If it does get smaller does that mean that the 9-1 is off the menu?
Steve Shannon
The appointment of Mark McNabb to oversee GM’s three premium brands in the US certainly seems to encroach more than just a little on Steve Shannon’s job description. Steve was responsible for Saab in the US and now someone else is.
I wrote in my open letter to Steve Shannon last year that what Saab really needs in the US is someone who will stick around for a while. Someone who get to know the beauty of the company and their philosophy, and thereby be willing and motivated (beyond their own interests) to go out on a limb for them. I hoped Steve would be that guy.
McNabb’s hiring definitely opens a window of opportunity for Steve Shannon to bail if he so desired. I like Steve Shannon and I think he’s grown to have a real appreciation for the brand but I wonder, deep down in that quiet place, whether he thinks Saab is the right place to advance his career.
The world is looking at McNabb right now but I’m looking at you, Steve.
——
So there we go. Three important issues and two important jurisdictions. I’ll let you know how we go.
This is an excellent video produced by General Motors Europe, and packaged and posted online by theautochannel.com (boy, and if you ever wondered about the Michigan accent, take a listen to the woman in the AutoChannel spots at the beginning and end of the clip. “Daaaaht Caaahm“).
I take the following points from this little window into the design process:
- These guys are pros. Mr. Lo, your folks are on the right track.
- Using a spoiler to significantly change aerodynamics on a small car is something of a lost art, but I’m glad to see the Saab is there, making a great leap forward. In the case of the Saab 9-1x, the spoiler makes an even larger difference than with many other cars simply because it helps to avoid the pitfalls of the blunt rear shape (blunt-end causes drag due to flow separation). I’m happy to see this type of attention to detail.
- Concept cars used to be mostly about fanciful ideas that weren’t truly ready for technical execution. In this round, Saab has proven that many or most of the technical details are worked out while the car is built as a concept, and this video shows us a few more of those examples. I like that, because it means that the Saab 9-1x can be built more directly from the concept.
Question: Do all designers wear black suits and white shirts to work everyday? It’s becoming a trend, methinks.
