If one word describes Saab’s recent past, it’s underinvestment. Back when the Swedish brand was self-sustaining, they operated their R&D department on a sko sträng. Despite the limitations, Saab created distinctively styled, innovatively engineered automobiles. Then, in 1990, GM bought half of Saab. Ten years later they bought the rest. Since that time, Saab has faced the same financial limitations as before, but without the managerial freedom to overcome them. Late in 2007, it looks like Saab is finally getting the money– and respect– they need.
This nascent renaissance began last year, when GM began spruiking a newfound commitment to Saab. That’s when Saab unveiled the stunning Aero-X concept car. Launched at the Geneva Auto Show, equipped (at least theoretically) with a 2.8-liter BioPower V6 twin-turbo engine, the 400hp prototype gave Saab the kind of techno and style cred it hasn’t enjoyed since flowers had power. Suddenly, no one was talking about rebadged Opels, not even Saab.
"This concept shows the exciting possibilities that are open to us as we evolve a more progressive design language for the Saab brand," said Jan Åke Jonsson, Saab's Managing Director. "Our designers, engineers and marketers in Sweden are ideally placed to nurture and communicate the unique DNA of the Saab brand.”
That newfound commitment has finally begun to take shape in the 2008 model year, with the refreshed Saab 9-3. The improved model is more physically aggressive, but it’s not just another facelift. It’s much quieter, more surefooted and incorporates a couple of genuine mechanical innovations: the twin-turbo diesel engine (TTiD) and Haldex’s all-new Cross-Wheel Drive system (XWD).
XWD is a box fresh all-wheel-drive (AWD) system; Saab is the first company to use it. (Remember when Saab was all about innovation?) Like most modern AWD systems, XWD can split power between the front and rear wheels, as one or the other loses traction. But it’s also capable of splitting power to the rear wheels from side to side, via a new electronic limited slip differential. The end result: Saab’s own testers put an XWD-equipped model through slalom tests quicker, and with greater control, than several premium German and Japanese AWD competitors-– including the Porsche 911 Turbo.
The brilliant new TTiD engine is an oil-burner that delivers a heretofore unseen combination of performance, economy and smoothness. It’s a 180-horse, in-line common rail diesel, with direct and multiple injection, turbocharged and intercooled. While US consumers won’t get a shot at purchasing this engine– GM reckons it can’t be made compliant with U.S. emissions regulations and remain competitively priced– European customers will.
In the medium term, Saab is busy creating an expanded range to boost sales to finally rid the brand of all that annual red ink. To that end, Saab’s crafting an all-new 9-3, an all-new and bigger 9-5 flagship, a midsize 9-4x SUV (a ground-up replacement for the TWAT-winning 9-7x), and a new smaller Saab (called 9-1, for now). All these models are set to hit the streets by 2011.
Saab’s value to GM isn’t just about what it can contribute to the bottom line through additional sales. Saab also brings to GM’s table a varied and valuable technological contribution; one which The General can use to benefit cars right across its brand portfolio, right across the world.
Recently, Saab has begun to expand their areas of technological expertise. With an outlook toward cellulosic ethanol, Saab have been given the lead role in developing GM’s future E85 capability. GM’s previous E85 efforts have been an exercise in CAFE dodging, resulting in low-mileage utes that rarely use the fuel. Saab’s E85 technology uses turbocharging to take advantage of ethanol’s high octane rating. The end result? Around 20 percent more power and torque when running on E85.
Saab served as a “test bed” for XWD technology– debuting in the 2008 Saab 9-3– and will handle the roll out for this technology to all of GM’s FWD-based offerings. And, lest we forget, Saab has been offering turbocharged cars for 30 years. They’re already GM’s leader on the technology, which is key to helping the General create desirable products in these CO2-conscious times.
Saab didn’t build its heritage and cult following based on doing things differently for the sake of difference. They have a noble history and loyal customers because their innovations made sense. Make no mistake: that same spirit of innovation is still alive at Saab– even if it’s somewhat muffled by being part of GM’s bigger picture. Saab are still GM’s only global premium brand, and it looks like they’re finally starting to make the contribution that a premium player needs to make.
All that said, it remains to be seen if the “new” Saab is GM’s latest flavor-of the-month– or a company finally ready to capitalize on GM’s patronage.
[Steven Wade publishes www.trollhattansaab.net ]
concept says nothing about going the right direction. oldsmobie was also cranking out nice concepts, but died anyway. by the way a concept costs on average 2-3 million dollars, a new generation of a car- approximately 1-2bn dollars. feel the difference? and saab`s prospective of launching a new plethora of models by 2011, actually tells only one thing- they even haven`t started those cars yet. why saab is so poor today? because it belongs to an american company, GM. what did Gm plan to do buying saab? they planned to suck out platforms and engines. why failed? because saab was not good enough. did gm do some engineering elbowgrease to put saab back on track. no. because engineering deals with details ,precision and real physical presence, the only thing gm could do is shovel a german vectra platform underneath. Is there for gods sake any company in the world that think that any detroit 3 company could make a joint venture and offer something engineered? when was that last time? working with american companies mean- you give us the damned product, we give you the dealers lot, and we build the stamping facility. and Jesus, of course with japanese workbenches. US Robotics? what the hell you`re talking about? have watched too many Will Smith movies or what? yeah gm regurgitated the trailblazer, then saabaru( because of stakes in Fuji heavy Industries), bot not a single goddamned bolt was designed inside gm that would be given to saab. If gm can`t build themselves even a compact-sedan, why you think they could build a near-premium Saab? swedes, get independent, otherwise you will be drained dry.
In my humble opinion, I wish Saab all the best. To use a rather fatuous analogy:
Toyota and Honda are given top quality ingredients and they make a nutritious, wholesome dinner, but is rather bland.
GM and Ford are given top quality ingredients and they make fast food. You know it not going to do your body any good, but it’s better than nothing.
VW are given top quality ingredients and they make a rather nice dish, but is spoiled by sloppy mistakes which could have been easily avoided and costs 30% more than the Toyota and Honda meals.
Saab are given stale and old ingredients and they produce a rather boring and slightly tangy soup which is the best they can muster.
What annoys me about Saab is how GM took a rather quirky car maker (think Citroen on a more global scale) and crushed any trace of individualism out of them. I look at their line up and just see boring cars. I’m sure they function well, but they just bore me. It’s like looking at Toyota’s line up.
Saab needs to be cut loose from GM ASAP. They’re probably too small to survive on a global scale and will need to tie up with another car maker (Chrysler, perhaps? Renault? Peugeot-Citroen. Mitsubishi?) to achieve some economies of scale.
Saab are like Chrysler, I do want them to succeed but they need to have a minor miracle to acheive it. They have a boring (and in some cases, downright ugly) line up and very little creativity or money to move forward.
Hopefully, I will be proved wrong……..
Poor Saab, struggling in the mother ship’s shadow. I’m glad for them that you see hope instead of feeling bottomless pity.
In the meantime they’ve picked up GM-size rebates on the remaining 2007’s – $4k on a 9-3, add $500 for the Combi, $5k on the convertible and 9-5, $5.5k on the Saablazer.
If GM wants Saab to survive their first move should be firing everyone in the customer service department and hiring some people who realize that without excellent customer service even good cars are meaningless.
Spreading out technology? It always ends up meaning the same thing: badge engineering. If there is nothing to make a Saab unique or different than a Chevy, then nobody will buy one.
And Saabs used to have an image. They were quirky, cute hatches driven by guys with patches on their tweed jackets and by women. Usually affluent white people with Europhilic tendencies.
Does anyone think a single Saab concept that has been shown by GM is at all aimed at that demographic. Instead, the Saab concepts look like the new IROC Z Camaro.
What is even more funny is that now that Saturn is bringing over Opels in US guise (I imagine they will eventually phase out the Saturn name in favor of unified marketing under Opel.), Saab would make perfect sense again: slot it above Saturn/Opel, make the cars very European (read: not designed for fat American asses), and you should be able to upsell former Saturn owners.
Oh wait, that would be a long term strategy that might take more than 1 year to see profits from…
And all of Saab’s investments come at the expense of critical funding for GM’s core brands. Brands that used to make plenty of money with none of the nurturing needed to revitalize Saab.
I don’t know how well Saab fares in Europe, but until I see them make a significant dent in Lexus/Infiniti/BMW sales (without resorting to GM levels of rebates) I don’t see how this investment did GM any bit of good. Who else benefits from the gains but the Saab loyalists? (not that I’m complaining, just curious)
That, and Saab’s torque steer way too much for a premium vehicle. They were fine in the 1980s, but there’s too much HP these days for a wrong wheel drive car. Then again, so does the Lexus ES and people blindly pay sticker price for them. But maybe that proves my point: Saab isn’t selling, and its hurting GM’s big picture more than this editorial shows.
The sad thing is, Saab is a joke even in Sweden. I’ve been to Stockholm. There were about 800 Volvos (mostly V70 wagons) to every one Saab 9-3. I didn’t see a single 9-5, and Swedes wouldn’t be caught dead in a 9-7X or 9-2X.
I liked XWD the first time I heard about it, when it was called Honda SH-AWD. Saab may have been building turbos for a very long time, but how many of their engines have shown up on the 10 best list? The BMW 3.0TT sure made it on the top 10 list mighty fast considering they aren’t “turbo masters” like Saab.
“The great products are right around the corner” is what Chrysler always says. It’s no different in this case. The great products are coming real soon! Sure everything we have in the showroom right NOW is awful, but just wait! We’re confident that if everyone else in the industry takes a 10 year coma, we’ll be able to catch up! I don’t think so. By the time 2011 rolls around, BMW, Audi, Mercedes, Infiniti, and Lexus will all be that much stronger, and none of them are saddled with ChevyPontiacOpel platforms that they have to try and figure out how to make handle like something. Even Volvo at least gets high quality Mazda parts to use, and still has some semblance of its own identity. Born from jets! Whose jets? GMs? There’s certainly no Gripen or Draken in anything Saab makes.
So…new engines, new drivetrain, and all of a sudden, Saab is reborn?
Right now, it still looks like more of the same – corner-cutting rebadged Chevys, a futuristic concept car, Euro-techno and a non-sensical tagline (Born from Jets? Really?). A few examples of technical excellence, and a lot of mediocrity.
These developments are encouraging, but it will take a lot more for this to qualify as a renaissance. Even with flawless execution, it will take decades to develop from a niche brand.
OK, so what is SAAB exactly?
As Katie says SAAB is a “rather quirky” car company that is too small to survive as an independent auto maker.
Designing and engineerng a new model car is very expensive. AS Jurisb stated it cost well over a billion dollars to bring a new car to market. This cost is basically fixed whether you sell 400,000 per year of only 50,000. Once you do the math you can see that there is little to no room for niche players like SAAB that need to be concerned with the selling price of their products.
A better question to ask is; “Who needs SAAB today?” Face it SAAB had a very nice 20 year run of success in the US market. SAAB’s cars were truely unique and special from the late 1970s to the early 1990s. The competition SAAB faced was also very limited. Think about it, exactly how many FWD sports sedans were on the market then? At the height of SAAB success in the mid 1980s a SAAB 900 was equiped with a 150hp turbo4. This was a time when 150 hp was a big deal and the average Japanese compact sedan was powered by a 90hp engine. Hell for that matter the Japanese were not even attempting to make sport sedans then. The competition for SAAB was Volvo, Alfa Romeo, Peuguot, and Audi. Witness Alfa and Peuguot are gone from this market. Volvo is like SAAB trying to find a life today. Audi was lucky to have been the child of a wealthy parent who invested $$$ and moved Audi upmarket to do battle with the big boys, BMW and MB.
SAAB’s days of relevence became numbered back in 1986 when Honda launched the Acura Legend in the USA. The SAAB 900 was completely outclassed by a bigger and better car powered by a silky v6 that sold for about the same price. At the same time the 9000 stuck with only a hatchback configuration.
The mistake GM made was buying SAAB in the first place. GM purchased SAAB as thought Acura, Infiniti and Lexus were not happening at the same time. GM and SAAB had nothing to offer each other anyway. Like GM really needed a turbo4 or SAAB needed a BOF truck chassis!
Today SAAB is simply being squeezed out of the market from just about every direction. You have new upstart Japanese brands; Acura, Infiniti and Lexus making the best FWD cars for sale today. The high-end Germans have moved down market to eat SAAB’s lunch with products like the A3, 1 series, a CLK at the same time VW has moved up-market. There are also a host of other cars coming from bread and butter brands like the Honda Accord, Mazda 6, NIssan Altima, etc that all can equal or surpass SAAB in terms of performance and/or luxury.
BTW, SAABs will make for interesting quirky collector oddities in the near future.
I will believe all this when I see that great Saab finally land on US shores. Unfortunately it’s always around the corner but never quiet arrives. Right now Saab is just another cheap GM badge engineered product that they have to give away. I don’t see this transformation happening, Saab is a low priority brand for GM and has been for some years. They have too many brands to fix all at once and someone has to fall to the wasteside.
I really hope Saab makes it too I miss the quirky cars with character they used to make, not going to happen with GM running the show unfortunately.
The Great Saab Experiment = How to kill a brand in a decade or less
Davekaybsc :
I liked XWD the first time I heard about it, when it was called Honda SH-AWD. Saab may have been building turbos for a very long time, but how many of their engines have shown up on the 10 best list?
The Saab 2.3L turbo 4 made it to Ward’s 10-best list in 1995 and 1996, and in 2006 the Saab 2.8L V6 turbo made the list.
XWD is not Honda’s SH-AWD. XWD is made by Haldex, and SH-AWD by BorgWarner. I don’t remember the details, but while the effect is similar (transferring torque to outside rear wheel in turns, for example) the implementations are different.
Having recently looked into a 9-3 aero wagon, and learning the awful truth, this article caught my attention.
I have watched a 9-3 light itself on fire before my very eyes, so you can place me firmly in the skeptic camp. Oh, and by the way, the owner relentlessly endorsed the car as I watched it burn. THAT, kids, is ‘faithful’.
AWD? Ummm, you can get that in a Taurus now.
I can just imagine the full spread glossy mag layout of a jet fighter with monster mudder tires on it now….BORN FROM TRAIL RATED JETS!
“Davekaybsc :
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:55 am
The sad thing is, Saab is a joke even in Sweden. I’ve been to Stockholm. There were about 800 Volvos (mostly V70 wagons) to every one Saab 9-3. I didn’t see a single 9-5, and Swedes wouldn’t be caught dead in a 9-7X or 9-2X.”
Dave… I understand your point entirely. But just as a point of information for those who might not know, both the 9-7X and 9-2X were created for the North American market. Swedes never could buy them.
Meanwhile… I hear a lot of talk on these boards about how Saab has lost its relevance under GM leadership (a point with which I don’t disagree) and how Saabs can’t compete with Lexus, Acura, BMW, et al. But somehow, I still find them somwhat interesting (call my tastes strange… I loved the old Saab 96) and, like Steven Wade, I find hope for the future.
But having said all this… I’d like to ask my fellow posters just what kind of cars should Saab be building right now? I’m not being rhetorical. If you had some real decision-makers from GM in a room with you and the topic of discussion was Saab only, what would you tell them? Of course, you’d tell them to get the realiability way, way up. You’d tell them to improve customer service. Okay. But what about the KINDS of cars Saab should sell?
Saab was in trouble when GM acquired it, and is likely doomed to either fail over the long run or become very tiny.
The poster whatdoiknow1 made reference to an economic reality in the automotive business. There are basically three kinds of automakers that succeed:
-Mainstream makers that make a variety of vehicles at low to medium-high price points, and sell several models in large volumes
-Luxury makers who sell moderate volumes at above-average prices
-Exotic makers who sell small volumes at very high prices.
This makes sense, because the cost of launch (R&D, tooling the factory, etc.) is so high is that it’s the only way to stay in business. If you are going to sell just a few cars, you have to be able to sell them for a lot of money, as would Ferrari, Bugatti, et. al. You can’t do low volumes at low prices and survive for very long.
Saab is a victim of modern times, with its vast field of efficient competitors. It’s a niche automaker in a highly competitive space that can’t sell its cars for even as much as its direct rivals.
And GM was never the right owner for it. Clearly, GM wanted Saab because it envisioned it becoming its version of BMW, but Saab could not have become the next BMW without being completely reinvented. As Mr. Mehta hints, what GM should have done was to take one of its own existing brands and made it a bona fide contender in the Mercedes/BMW arena, instead of buying a quirky niche player that was already on the slide. It simply amazes me, again and again, how the company that helped to invent modern brand management couldn’t today manage a brand to save its life (literally.)
I see someone has already responded to Davekaybsc’s lack of knowledge regarding Saab’s engines and Ward’s 10-best list, and XWD vs. Honda SH-AWD. One thing not mentioned, however, from the Honda website, only a max of 50% of the power can be directed to the Honda’s rear wheels, not up to 100% like the Saab. The Saab will win cornering dynamics hands-down. Also, before take-off, the Saab preemptively locks in the rear wheels so they have immediate torque.
But, why so much negativity about Saab? Or is it really about GM? I suspect very few of you talking about Saab being boring, or having too much torque steer, or being unreliable, etc. have ever driven a recent Saab. I own one (2004 9-3 Arc 5-speed), and you are dead wrong. I wish Saab could be released from GM, kinda like in Frida Öhrn’s “Release Me”, but I see hints that GM realizes what a gem they have now, and won’t neglect Saab anymore, and will allow them a lot of design leeway.
So GM will be done turning Saab into Volvo by 2011?
Overall, they could do worse than that. I don’t see Saab ever becoming a high-volume brand.
That picture looks distinctly like… Chevy Volt. Must be my imagination… GM would never do that…
I have to disagree with SAAB being irrelevant in the market place. Not everyone wants a BMW or Mercedes. I could have purchased one just as easily as I did my 07 9-3 Convertible. After a new purchase of an 03 9-3 Sedan, I considered nothing other than a new SAAB for it’s replacement.
Contrary to Consumer Reports, I had a wonderful experience with my old SAAB and have an even better one so far with my new 9-3. I have several friends with BMW’s and after listening to their experiences (two of which have had so many problems with their BMW’s that they were each given new replacements for their 7-Series and X5!) Why would I want to put up with that?
I love the rapid, smooth acceleration of my SAAB. The ride in the 07 is even better than in my 03. The handling is very good. The seats are the most comfortable, period. The safety (not including the 9-7X) is industry leading. My dealer service is top notch to boot! The only thing I see I am missing out on compared to a BMW is a bit faster acceleration, a few tenths more lateral acceleration, a trunk full of quality problems and the ability to see myself coming and going all over town. No thanks!
In short, SAAB makes cars that are good in all categories rather than cars that excel in one or two areas. Drive one, and you will understand.
“I suspect very few of you talking about Saab being boring, or having too much torque steer, or being unreliable, etc. have ever driven a recent Saab.”
Saabyurk, my wife and I owned a 2002 Saab 9-5 Wagon, and it was the most unreliable car we’ve owned. We bought it certified pre-owned, and suffered endless electrical problems, to the point the car was unsafe to drive. Saab’s customer service department refused to help, and stalled us at every opportunity. We had several 2006 Saab 9-5 loaner cars while our 2002 was in the shop, and my 1994 Volvo 850 Turbo drives better than any of the Saabs we borrowed.
Even if Saab manages to build a decent car again my wife and I will never consider one because of our abysmal customer service experience. Won’t bother us a bit if Saab goes the way of Oldsmobile and Plymouth. They deserve it.
How thrilled must Saab be that the primary purchase motivation for their customers seems to be that “you don’t see too many of them on the road?”
And how many cars do they have to sell before this, umm, “advantage” is nullified?
johng,
Why would you want to spend $40,000+ on an automobile and see tons of exact copies every where you go? I don’t buy things just because everyone else has them. I don’t mindlessly follow the crowd. That alone does not make something good.
I like that SAAB is a low volume make. I just want them to be profitable at a low volume, and from what I have read, they will be.
Saab might be the first within the GM family to use what they call the XWD, but it sounds a lot like systems already in use at other manufacturers. At least BMW and Mercedes offer it already (don’t know about others).
Other than that, Saab might get more attention, but even less freedom. They have to work with Opel platforms, which makes sense to increase profits, but it could hurt a former quirky brand like Saab as it might not be able to distinguish itself as much as it needed to.
GM should really look at PSA. While PSA has its own problems at the moment, their Citroen brand is a good example of how to remain different while at the same time sharing almost all components with Peugeot.
Steve Biro asked “But having said all this… I’d like to ask my fellow posters just what kind of cars should Saab be building right now?”
Well, they probably would tell you they think they are building (or getting ready to build) the kind of cars they should be building to be successful (survive). That means SAAB’s that are somewhat generic compared to the “quirky” SAABs of the early 90’s and before.
That said, if SAAB had all the money in the world, they should go retro with the 900 hatch much like VW has done with the Bug. Go back to your roots – a turbocharged 3 or 5 door hatchback with lots of utility AND performance but boatloads less penny-pinching. They’ll never do this because it smells like a niche product and to survive it’s exactly the type of product they can’t build without charging more than most folks will pay.
After test driving, amongst others, the A4, MINI, and CLK convertibles, I bought the 9-3 Aero. I love it, and I learn new (positive) things about it’s abilities every time I drive it.
I just wish Saab’s dealers and customer support were better. I’ve had some horrendous experiences just getting a service advisor to return calls, never mind serving with a smile….
So here’s my perspective as a Saab owner for the past 20+ years (only 3 cars in that entire span)–
I didn’t know much about these cars back in the 80s, other than they seemed…weird. But my wife always wanted one, and when we got our classic 900, it was to replace a nearly new VW Jetta with numerous electrical problems (talk about history never changing!)….the car lasted 18 years and more than 220k miles, no major problems, though it had its share of minor irritations. But it was safe and handled better the worse the weather got. The dealership and other shops we patronized did fine by the car, and so we had no issues.
We’ve now an old-gen 9-3, and 9-5 wagon, both some years old. Neither I would call competitive with the top of the line German iron out there, but on the other hand these cars have been much more reliable than our 900, and from what I gather, any German alternative we might have gotten at the time, let alone a contemporary Volvo. The cars are again safe, handle well in bad weather, get 30-35 mpg on the highway with no problem, and still have more oomph at low speed acceleration than your typical Japanese “torqueless wonder”, at least for the same engine class. And if the comments about the interiors of just about any new car these days (save Audi or VW) are true, I don’t feel the interiors (especially the great seats) hold up so badly say, vs. a new Camry. RWD purists sniff at these cars, but with some modest suspension mods and KNOWING the characteristics of the FWD setup, cornering fast isn’t as dramatic as the purists may carp about.
That said, it’s hard to see more in the way of management and marketing screwups than what GM has done with Saab, from starving new product to incessant promises of better to come, and lame slogans, of which “Born from Jets” is just plain historically inaccurate. At the time Saab began producing cars, Svenska Aeroplan AG was producing PISTON-engined aircraft. And there is no current corporate tie between the GM car company and the SAAB company that produces the Gripen. The 9-2 and 9-7x, no matter what tweaks the company did to distinguish them from their corporate mates, were disastrous from a marketing credibility standpoint.
At this time, we’ll have to see what the future holds. I tend to see some schizophrenia in the Saab bashing here, seeming to want contradictive things (e.g. be mainstream and boring to sell more lest it become extinct, or be less mainstream to distinguish yourselves–or be more like Volvo or BMW, but you’ll never get to be that way, so why bother?). I’m waiting especially to see what the new 9-5 will be like. But I can see why GM, with limited resources, MUST concentrate now on getting product like the Malibu off to a good start to retain their ability to support other marques and vehicles in future years, as well as an assembly base in the US.
Very few of the current offerings from other companies have much appeal to me, from the standpoint of overwrought styling, overgadgeted features, and lack of enthusiast options such as real manual trannies. Whether the new ones from Saab will either is TBD, but I’m still open to what they might have that’s an alternative to both the Teutonic I-Drive Prestigemobiles and Asian Appliances.
If that makes me a TWAT twit, so be it.
SAAB needs to go back to the ‘born from jets’ advertising. Just show a C-141 Starlifter morphing into a 9-7x.
Re: MGBMAN72
“Why would you want to spend $40,000+ on an automobile and see tons of exact copies every where you go?”
The heart of the problem for a fringe brand like Saab, to me would be that it isn’t an aspirational brand for those who aspire. I live in Vancouver where every second car is a 3-series or A4. I agree that I wouldn’t want to have one of these brands precisely because of their ubiquity, but the aspirational amongst us clearly do.
And these people don’t want a Saab. Maybe ’cause you can’t show off by buying a brand that isn’t trendy.
Lincoln has shown some amazing concept cars over the past decade as well, but has little to show for it.
Saab recently stuck it to a friend of mine badly when his certified used 9-5 purchase turned into a disaster thanks to sludge buildup, even though it was maintained by the book. This is a guy who routinely runs Volvo 240s to 350-450k miles, so obviously he doesn’t abuse his cars. Apparently Saab had multiple TSBs out to change the PCV system on a large range of cars but never made those into notifications to the customers and never issued a recall. When push came to shove all Saab would do is to offer him $1000 off the purchase price of a new Saab. That kind of offer is an insult.
Other than a few station wagons there is no reason right now to buy a Saab instead of an Acura.
The other problem is that GM does not have the financial or mental resources to be world class in every one of its zillion brands. Saturn has come out with a pretty strong entry in the Aura, but it doesn’t matter because Saturn is an also-ran brand. Chevy and Cadillac is all they need in the US market. Everything else is just a massive dilution of effort. Imagine how potent GM’s US operations would be if all of the engineering and marketing dollars where lined up behind Chevy and Cadillac!
Diehards:
I guess can best be defined as that last holdouts for something when the rest of the people who once cared have moved on to better things.
SAAB fans need to get a grip on reality here. Face facts, 160,000 units a year world wide does not a brand or independent auto company make. As the market has soon us over the last 10 to 15 years a non-independent SAAB does not make much sense. If the products are not unique they serve very little purpose.
The SAAB 99/ 900 was unique for many reasons, not just the simple fact that it was a FWD hatchback. The 900’s engine was mounted the long way with equal length half shafts, this gave the 900 excellent weight distribution and a very good direct shift linkage. The 900 also had a upright seating position with a wrap-around windshield for excellent vision. In addition to these traits the SAAB sold about the only turbochargered car you could buy in the USA outside of a 911/930 porsche. On top of all of this the 900 came with 4 wheel disc brakes in the late 1970s, now that was special!
While SAABs were special cars 20 to 30 years ago they are nothing more than generic transverse mounted FWD sedans today. Kinda like your average Accord or Camry. One problem facing SAAB today is that both the Accord and Camry with a V6 will eat a SAAB 9-3 or 9-5 for breakfast, lunch, and/ or dinner. Why pay a premium for less power? As mentioned before SAAB are now transverse mounted FWD cars, and they handle like such, they torque steer and understreer all day. Feature wise SAAB offers nothing that lesser brands do not. Fit and finish and materials are no better than a Accord.
At the end of the day a SAAB is nothing more than an over-priced FWD car that does nothing exceptionally well. Other than the few diehard fans today, who exactly is in the market for a $45,000 FWD (AWD not available yet)4 cyl car with a turbo?
One of the bad things about living in Australia is that all these comments go up while I’m sleeping. I now have 10 minutes to write something in response prior to going to work. Please forgive the bullet points here.
– First, to the guy who complained that Saab don’t make something specifically for the elbow-patched demographic anymore, what would you encourage them to make? And who is catering to that group?
– Several have mentioned that the V6 in the Saab 9-3 Aero was a Wards Top 10 engine just two years ago, but it bears repeating.
– Torque steer is very, very well managed in both the 9-3 and 9-5.
– Again, the differences between Saab’s new XWD and the Honda system have been spelled out in previous comments, but again, it’s worth reinforcing. XWD is totally new (and to the commenter who claimed BMW and Audi have it, they don’t) and it does provide for a brilliant drive.
The point of the article was to shed some light on the fact that Saab do have some new stuff both here right now, and coming soon. We’ll get our first look at a proper Saab crossover in just three months from now. Claims of badge engineering have been true in the past and they’ll be somewhat accurate for a little time to come, but Saab has some great stuff both now and in the pipeline.
I’d encourage a few of the independent thinkers out there to open their mind, swallow their preconceived notions and actually go and drive an 08 Saab 9-3. Wait a few months for the XWD model if you have to, but do yourself the favour of having an informed opinion about it. It’ll surprise you.
Having said all that (directly above), Saab’s customer service does need to improve. Like most brands they have some great dealerships and some poor ones. GM are squeezing SaabUSA at the moment and it’s not giving them a very good footing.
@ whatdoiknow1: I drive Camry’s for work and I’ll gladly have the Saab, thanks. They may have some motor, but are about as comfortable as a builder’s lunchbox, but with less character. And let’s not touch safety. Also, the only Saab that’s around $45K in the US wold be an Aero convertible, and that’s a six, with options and without rebates. (sad as it is that I have to mention them).
Saab’s got work to do, but they’re doing it. All I’m asking for here is an open mind to see it.
One problem facing SAAB today is that both the Accord and Camry with a V6 will eat a SAAB 9-3 or 9-5 for breakfast, lunch, and/ or dinner. Why pay a premium for less power?
I’d rather not see myself 400,000+ times a day (exaggeration of course).
It’s not always about the power. Right now you can get a SportCombi with leather and moonroof for the same price as a Camry LE or Accord EX. Of course, the Camcord will hold it’s resale better, etc, but I bet the Saab is more of a driver’s car. And unique.
“Saab’s got work to do, but they’re doing it.”
We shall see. Right now there is nothing in Saab’s US lineup which doesn’t have a much superior competitor. Even the slow selling Acura RL is a far nicer overall vehicle than a 9-5 is. If one must have a Swedish wagon, the Volvo V70 is a better choice than any Saab. Then there is the 9-7, a vehicle which is inferior to just about all of it’s Asian and European competition. I would much rather have an XC90, MDX or an RDX than the mutant son of Chevrolet.
What does a 9-3 offer that is superior to a Volvo S60 (another aging Swede), an Acura TL or an Audi?
A next generation product coming to market with an unproven new Haldex AWD system is hardly a game changer. Just how many customers care about whether a car can transfer 50% or 100% of it’s power to the rear wheels?
My last vehicle was a Saab, and I must say, I see no reason to be optimistic regarding their future. So long as their customer service and warranty claims service mirror GMs’, they will continue to be a non-factor in most people’s automotive decision.
Also, for a ‘premium’ brand, Saab interiors are abysmal. I now have a MkV GTI, and the interior materials and construction (and thusly the sense of luxury) are far ahead of any of the new Saab’s my old dealership tried to put me in.
Just how many customers care about whether a car can transfer 50% or 100% of it’s power to the rear wheels?
Most of the people on this website.
Right now there is nothing in Saab’s US lineup which doesn’t have a much superior competitor.
A large part of Saab’s problem in the US market is that with their notable lack of competitive attributes and with the fierceness of the competition, the only competitive advantage left for Saab is price.
There is far more competition in the near-luxury segments than there was 20-30 years ago, so without any exceptional qualities or appeal, the only thing Saab can count on now is very steep discounting. In theory, a 9-3 should compete with an A4, Acura TL, Infiniti G35, Lexus IS, C-class Mercedes or 3-series BMW, but in practice, it has become necessary for Saab to undercut the market leaders by several thousand dollars in order to maintain even a fraction of their sales.
If that sounds eerily familiar, that’s of course what GM does across the board with virtually all of its North American products. Instead of making the products better, they instead first target a market that they can’t reach, optimistically ask for a price that they can’t generate, only to later give the products away when the sales targets aren’t met. Buyers have learned to wait for optimal discounts, which further perpetuates the incentives cycle. Not a good way to run a business, irrespective of whether it is based in Detroit or Trollhatten.
I have always believed there are 2 kinds of car people. Those that “got” SAAB and those that did not. I firmly am in the those that did not group.
I actually did “get” Saab for many years. I loved the old 96’s, 99’s and the 900 turbo. I wish Saab made a two-door coupe or two-door hatch again.
And, despite the watering down of the Saab concept in recent years, I still want to like the cars. Perhaps they don’t compete well with the 30K-plus BMW’s, Audi’s and Lexuses (Lexi?), but for 25K, I could be talked into a 9-3.
Right now what concerns me is reliability. If the 2008 9-3s are anything like the previous-generation 9-3’s, then I don’t want know about them. The problem is, how do you know?
And for those who ask which auto brand is serving the tweed-jacket/elbow patch crowd these days… it’s Subaru. But that may be shifting over the the Prius even as we speak.
OK, disclaimer: I own a 2007 Saab 9-5. Many of you have said exactly what I would expect: torque steer, design, rebates, etc.
Here was my take on the car when I bought it a few months ago: The sticker price was $40K. Laughable. But, with incentives and good negotiating I bought the car totally loaded for slightly more than $30K. Now, look around at what else out there in the $30K range is comparable? Basic Passat? No thanks. Jetta? Nope. You cannot even get an A3 for that kind of cash.
There are still some things that the Swedes do right, and this car shows it. It is flawless down the road, it is plenty quick with the 260hp 2.3T, gets nearly 30mpg when you are not booting it. I love the seats, and the interior design is well done. I know it is dated, but I still like the style. Mine also has a “parchment” interior. It is essentially off-white leather in an otherwise dark-gray environment. Brilliant, and well done.
Now, torque steer: yup, but is it no worse than other front drivers with this much power. How about the Acura TL? All over the road. Lexus ES? Ditto. Camry? Yup. Passat VR6? There too.
So, did GM ruin Saab? Maybe. Maybe not. Are the cars re-badged? Sure, but who isn’t these days? Acuras are Honda’s in drag. Lexus? Some are Toyota’s in a snappier dress. Let’s look at the Europeans that are NOT sold in the US: Alfa? Yikes, Fiat! What about the quirky (and still SO cool) Citroen? Peugeot underneath!
Would everyone that is making comments be happier if Saab were still quirky? How many of you that commented own any of the competitors?
I don’t know about you, but I looked at Volvo. Yawn. BMW? Been there, and the warranty record of my 3-series was hideous. I don’t know if I could go back. Mercedes C? VERY nice, but to get it equipped as my 9-5 is equipped it would be over $45K.
I still stand by my choice to drive a more individual car. I wish Saab all the luck. I just hope that Bob Lutz remembers that the brand was never meant to go head to head with BMW and Mercedes, or Lexus for that matter. They should stop trying. Just build cars that are safe, well equipped, and yes a little quirky. That is what a Saab is.
OH, one last tidbit: Drop the “Born from Jets” crap… it is such BS, and it is insulting. Ad agencies could do SO much better.
Steve Biro: with regard to reliability, the 2003 Saab 9-3 took a hit, and so has Saab as a brand because of it. Electrical issues mainly. All reports tome indicate that these have been addressed and I hear very few non-routine complaints from people with more recent model 9-3s.
As the 2008 is basically a much-enhanced 2007, the only real unknown is the XWD system, which is brand new. I’d suspect that the reason they’ve kept the XWD at 280hp is to make sure it’s reliable. I’d be looking for higher hp numbers in the next model year or two.
The 9-5 suffered sludge issues in it’s early years, and despite people ragging on about it’s age, it’s now a rock solid car. Has been for a while now.
SAAB95JD – the commenter directly above this comment – relays a story I hear every week from a recent-model 9-5 owner. Older ones definitely have to be checked out, but the newer ones are still great, and still amongst the safest cars in the world.
A lot of people are waiting for the new 9-5 with no small amount of anticipation, but here’s a comment I had on my website just this morning:
I recently took a 9-5 on a 1750 mile trip and I found out a few things.
* The car has outstanding power and my highway fuel economy was 29/30. And this is outdated technology? I know, I know, it should be a V6 with a little less horsepower and getting 27/28 MPG.
* The back seat is more comfortable then the front seats. And the front seats are very comfortable. This needs to change?
* The car is a dream on 2 lane roads. You can pass on a dime when starting from 70 MPH. Apparently there needs to be less acceleration and more engine roaring during this movement?
* The car works beautifully as a touring car but also feels very nimble in city driving. This is kind of rare folks.
* We needed to display a piece of paper on the drivers side of the windshield so security gave us the paper and a piece of tape. We told them we didn’t need the tape as we had a Saab! That was worth about $1000 right there.
I beg you Saab, be careful with the changes.
There’s another AWD car that can send 100% of its torque to the rear wheels, the G35x. I’ve driven Saabs before, including the infamous Viggen. I’ve never driven a Saab thats even remotely made we want to buy it. The latest 9-3 is so good it placed dead last in C&D’s last huge entry-lux comparison test, trounced by the 3, A4, G35, TL, and IS. Even the mediocre Volvo S60R beat it.
The new G has a great interior, superb reliability, amazing performance, and state-of-the-art electronics. The Saab has none of those things. There’s no Chevy Malibu underneath the G, there isn’t even a Nissan Altima underneath. There’s a 350Z underneath. Without a good platform, you simply cannot make a good car. Saab has yet to figure that out.
This article assumes that while Saab makes these “decent” improvements, that the competition will be standing still. BMW, Audi, Mercedes Benz, Infiniti, Lexus, even Acura, are 10 steps ahead of Saab right now. And for every 1 improvement Saab makes, they will be making 5. So Saab can improve all day and all night, but the competition will be doing so quicker and more efficiently, as it has been for years. I honestly do believe Saab is in a pit and will never get out fast enough to truly compete. Tell me the next 9-5 will be able to compete with the next 5-Series or E-Class. Not possible.
Davekaybsc: “There’s another AWD car that can send 100% of its torque to the rear wheels, the G35x.”
Yeah, because the G35x was RWD to start with. Duh.
How much torque can it distribute to the front? Only 50%. Okay, you don’t need normally more, but the Haldex system is still unique in that it can go 100% either way (maybe only 95% to the front) if need be, e.g., to help straighten a serious oversteer.
Some of you cite comparrisons to Camrys and Accords. Other than configuration and general size, the 9-3 could not be more different. Or better, depending on your perspective.
I do instructing for an advanced driver training outfit, and we recently ran a class sponsored by a Honda dealer. The dealer rep was there with a 2007 Accord V6, so between classes, the instructors talked him out of his keys so we could put the Accord through its paces. It was a beautiful car to sit in. Then, we all took turns at pounding the car. It was not very impressive. I noted that the sticker price on that car was within pennies of the 2007 9-3 2.0 that I was driving that day. The instructors piled in. The 9-3 was so stark and cold in comparrison to sit in. However, one turn down the slalom revealed the dramatic superiority of the 9-3. With little effort, we could bring that car to 40 mph, even with the ESP off. The Accord could do no better than 35 mph, and at that speed it had totally lost its composure.
Money goes in different places in different cars. Just depends on where you want yours to go.
LamboZ – I can’t get into comparatives with regards to a car that doesn’t exist yet, but I can promise you that the next 9-5 will be an absolute corker in its own right (that’s Aussie for it’ll be bloody good). I’ve had talks with some that have seen the full size model in development and they’re all very, very positive about it.
Davekay – that test was in September 2005. What I’m writing about here is the 2008 model, and it’s very, very different. The 2008 would still lose some marks to those competitors on materials qaulity, but it’d make up a whole bunch in driving dynamics and improved NVH.
What needs to be said to mollify the Saab diehards here (sorry to be condescending) is that Saab’s current offerings are not bad cars. They all go, stop, and turn well. They’re comfortable to sit in. They’re not bad to look at.
That said, none of these are strong selling points in a market where there essentially are no bad cars. There are just good ones and better ones.
Saab needs to get their design mojo back. Now that safety, turbocharged speed, and Euro cachet aren’t the scarcities that they were in the ’80s, the only legacy left for Saab to capitalize on is unique, quirky, charming styling. The 9-3 and 9-5 are pretty, but inoffensive and forgettable. When your primary selling point is that your car “makes a statement,” well, they ought to make one. The Saab name itself has lost too much cred to do the job by itself.
As an aside, I find that the “I drive Saabs because I’m not like everyone else” defense rings very, very hollow. It’s a mass-produced commodity from the world’s second-largest (largest again?)automaker. With all due respect, get over it.
After months of lurking, I must post on the only Saab thread ever to show any signs of life here.
I began my 20 something odd year (so far) run in the auto industry as a manager of a Jaguar/Saab store. Jag was on fire in the early eighties, Saab not so much. I must admit, I was there for Jaguar, being a hard core fan. That’s a long story.
Back to Saab, of course there were lots of these things around the dealership. I wish I knew then what I know now, service was and still is horrid. The hot shot tech’s that understood these vehicles were making much more money over at the generally bigger and better funded Volvo and Benz stores.
Oddly enough, the cars were study and so far ahead of the “big deal at the time” Japanese cars (83 Accord anyone?) it wasn’t funny. Even the old Saab trades. Domestics weren’t even in the picture. If your in any major city, do an auto trader search for an 83 Accord and then try an 83 900, most likely, you will find at least one Saab “sort of “running, Honda not so much.
I swapped a clapped out 83 Prelude, 300k, rusted and not a wheel bearing or radiator fin left on it, even for my first one, an original paint, 60K one owner base, no air or radio 900 hatch with a big dent and faded flat burgundy paint. I felt genuinely bad for a while, but the kid was happy and I figured I did my part to save this car and would be rewarded according. I forget how many kms I put on that car, but it was plenty, and generally at some stage of higher hoonage. I’ve owned at least one ever since 1985, mostly well used and bought for a song. Parts interchangeability was incredible.
After 6 or 7, one of them 3 times and hundreds of thousands of kms, I purchased a just off lease NG900, thankfully with extended warranty, and drove it for 7 years. Every thing imaginable was replaced on that car, fighting the dealer all the way; yes I was fussy, but not unreasonable. My wife left the dealership on several occasions in tears. The treatment and competency of this dealer was simply beyond belief. Complaints to General Motors just brought the standard “we support our dealer response. Thank God for the advent of the internet, I became able to purchase significant amounts of OE parts for 1/3 of the over MSRP prices being quoted by my dealer. At the time, I was working as warranty analyst for a German auto manufacturer, and just marveled at the treatment. Once off warranty, it was straight to the Lexus dealer, where I paid plenty, but was VERY well treated. Fortunately, they employed an ex Jag tech who somewhat adopted it.
I have been waiting since 1991 for GM to amalgamate Saab and Cadillac. For the sake of quality customer service, if nothing else. That Saab and Caddy don’t collaborate on the CTS and a 95 replacement is beyond me! Saab and Caddy should have also done the CSUV or what ever that thing is together and given the XC-90 a run. As a note, the turbo 2.3 liter 4 is one of the best mass produced motors of all time and I think still relevant today.
The 99 was a ground breaking car, the classic 900 an icon, as for the 9000, check UTube for some video about the Long Run. The 9-5 was and still is a great car for the price, with unequaled safety. Sadly, plenty of mistakes were made. The NG900 only became a decent car near the end of its run as a 9-3. Two recent efforts should not be mentioned.
My 86 year old father is on this third Saab, a 9-3 Turbo, a beautiful 1993 900, one of the last several hundred ever made, laid down its life for him when a car load of kids in a Hyundai broadsided him at 70KPH running a red light. I bet they are still picking glass out of their foreheads. The door glass in the Saab didn’t even shatter. Like me, he would look around, but came back to Saab at trade time.
I recently purchased a 05 9-3 for my wife. Just happened cruising a GM lot as it was being traded for a Buick Enclave. Mint, spoke to the owner and with 2 years warranty, I stole it for less than a 05 Corolla with similar kms. What a car! frankly not in the league of Audi, BMW or MB, but I like to think of it as the natural extension of the original 99 with wonderful leather seats and a full complement of safety equipment. Now if they would only do something about that lack of a hatch and put the power window switches back in the center console where they belong……..
GM needs Saab; it’s been a mismanaged shame. Saab can do so many things, like interiors, engine management and safety engineering far better than any recent GM efforts. Saab should be working on a replacement Impala project with Chevy. The 97 is so far ahead of the rest of that Blazer badge engineered junk; it begs the question why do they bother to make any other version, just not at the Saab store please! Most of all, they should stay in touch with its middle class roots that have been all but abandoned by other European manufactures.
To Quote:
“As an aside, I find that the “I drive Saabs because I’m not like everyone else” defense rings very, very hollow. It’s a mass-produced commodity from the world’s second-largest (largest again?)automaker. With all due respect, get over it.”
Pardon if I missed it, but somehow I don’t recall this being a big argument in this discussion. In any case, assuming the motivations of the Saab drivers here on that basis rings poorly in itself. With all due respect!
Seriously. Do you guys have to sit in a Sebring to know it is an utter turd?
I don’t have to eat dog turd to know I won’t like the taste.
Sometimes, these truths are held to be self-evident.
Thanks for sharing your story Rollmo, it was an interesting read… and I agree with you 100%
Bill H,
I wasn’t intending to refer to anyone posting in this thread; the attitude is generally associated with Saab, coming from Saab owners and the manufacturer itself. What I (poorly) attempted to communicate was that I find it grating when Saab’s “nonconformism” is trotted out as a selling point, for the reasons mentioned in my prior post.
P. J. McCombs,
Message received and understood. Thanks.
I have to say that the best part of this thread is that it brings the Saab enthusiasts out of the woodwork. This has been a great read, thanks everyone.