The following is a guest post submitted by WooDz, a man with more than a little Saab experience.

——

IS GM/SAAB RIGHT?

For some reason, the news that the next generation 9-3 is to be built using a smaller architecture conjures up images of inferior quality. I’d imagine the immediate thoughts of many went like this: Physically smaller than its predecessor, second-rate technology, conflicts with a small vehicle that would share the platform. Then you have the market comparisons with Volvo and how bad the V40 and C30 are. These, in reality, bare no relevance to the market perception of Saab, who are still renowned for making quirky mid-size hatchbacks and not mammoth hunks of metal.

Before any of those assumptions can be made, maybe we should concentrate on the current model, where the platform first debuted as the Opel Vectra. If we add 4 years development time then we’re looking at a vehicle that was engineered over a decade ago. The 9-3 has just undergone an enhancement and as previous timelines would suggest, it will remain in this form for around the next 3-4 years. This means it could be as late as 2012 before we get to touch the all-new Saab 9-3.

When you look at the two global architectures Delta and Epsilon and consider that the next generation Delta platform, simply by systematic technological advancement, will be lighter and stronger than either the current 9-3 or the Insignia, you have to wonder where the negatives will be? An extended Delta could quite possibly be larger than the current 9-3 and more advanced, technically. If VAG’s Golf/A3 can carry a V6 engine then why not the next generation Delta? After all, Opel would no doubt like a comparable model to the Golf R32 or what will become the R36.

The 9-1 and 9-3 may end up sharing synergies and components from Epsilon 2 that could be utilised in the same way that BMW use the multi link axle and engines from the 3-series setup for the 1-series. This will greatly reduce development and production costs. Having that translate into more favorable prices will probably be unlikely. However, they will create a buffer zone when dealing with weaker currencies or generate profits for a future projects; a real Saab Sonett, anyone?

Trollhättan is also an issue and the potential to have the plant work at full capacity by producing a high volume of Saabs will show GM that the company can stand their own. Also, being able to bolster that output by building e-flex and other conventional vehicles destined for northern European regions will secure the facility further into the future. Having a strong manufacturing presence in their home country is of inestimable value for Saab.

Another issue is timing. If 2012 was to be the entry date for a new 9-3 using Epsilon 2, that would mean we’d have a new vehicle with a potential life of 10 years starting out on what will be a 4 year old platform. With Delta 2 the scenario is still not perfect, but it’s much better in terms of current engineering design.

It is without doubt the Audi A4 would be a larger vehicle but even the motoring media are starting to question whether the A4 has outgrown is market segment. It’s just as big as the current 5-series. We are finally seeing motoring markets, especially the US, turn the corner and accept that a smaller, more efficient car is the car of the future. Saab will still have a larger car, but this move will most likely make them the first to recognise the trend and design accordingly.

With Fuel prices that will only continue to rise and government regulations demanding lower emissions, larger heavier vehicles will no longer become economically viable for most families. In North America trends are already changing and even with the typical SUV no longer being of BOF architecture they will become obsolete as a family commuter. If you have money and want to drive a Caddy, fuel prices won’t stop you. However, the story will most likely be different for the rest of us. For those who want to pay the premium for a quality car where running costs are affordable something a lot smaller than a 9-5 might be the only answer in a global market.

We often feel that the big General seems to step from one blunder to the next, that little thought is ever given to automotive passion and that the whole company is bound by its financial analysts and accountants, who by natural gene-chemistry have zero creativity and the passion of a dormant snail. Yet for a company that has employed a load of dim-witted baboons, they’re still doing OK. GM are still producing nearly 10 million vehicles per annum and are profitable in all markets except North America. Maybe they’re more capable than we give them credit for?

The auto industry is heading for some big changes in the next decade and where most manufactures still want to make their next generation vehicles larger than their predecessors, I think GM are allowing Saab once again to show some of their unique lateral thinking. Consider the BioHybrid console, which has more of a horizontal 99 / 900 layout as opposed to a sweep around 9000 look – you never know the next 9-3 might even be a hatchback?

One can dream.

-