According to Denmark’s Børsen.dk, “General Motors is now giving Saab Automobile 3-Months To Find Buyer, in discussing this with Eric Geers, Global Communications for Saab Automobile AB in Sweden.” Hüsker Dü? That’s the same three month deadline when GM returns, pre-pubescent Mark Lester-style, to Congress– or just the President of the United States, as is the way of things these days. The Danish report is semi-confirmed by a previous CNNMoney report on GM’s Marketing Maven’s pep talk to dealers. “LaNeve said the auto maker expects to announce significant developments in efforts to sell its Saab and Hummer brands by the end of March 2009.” So, who would buy Saab in this sales climate? And what if they don’t sell the brand? What then? Well, I suppose they could always slip the closing cost into the receipts submitted to Uncle Sugar on the day…
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I quite like the Saab 9-3, it’s just ridiculously expensive for getting essentially a tarted-up G6 GTP with a smaller turbo motor installed for the sake of being a turbo. And the key goes in the middle.
Poor Saab…
GM never really got it. Of course, they never really got any of their brands, but Saab is probably the most suffering. The whole point of Saabs is to be different, and the whole point of GM’s management was to suck the personality out of every car every one of their divisions cranks out.
Saab ought to have had a hybrid car. They ought to have had a decent crossover. They could have been a competitor for VW and Acura, selling to young, well-off urban professionals. What they actually are is a store selling reskinned Opels (9-3, 9-5) or Adventures in Brand Dilution (9-2, 9-7) with mediocre trim and poor reliability.
As far as I’m concerned, I think they should die, rather than suffer on in a sort of half-dead state as a storefront for Chinese reskins. If they actually had their own engineering, I could see a point to someone buying them, but Saab has nothing left: they’re just another nameplate in GM’s drawer-full of badges.
Saab is dead in the US and dying everywhere else. In the US in November, they sold 852 vehicles. Total. That was 40% less than Hummer, even (which sold 1,454). Both Saab and Hummer will be killed if there are no buyers by the next time GM has go begging to the US government. The only people who would buy Saab would be the Swedish government, IMHO.
Saab really was never anything. At their pinnacle they were the 900, and a rebadged FIAT, the 9000. Quality was always horrible.
Saabs had really nice interiors before that became a commodity, and before traction control and AWD became common Saabs had FWD for rust belt yuppies.
I feel much worse for Volvo. They have made a lot of really great cars. Ford’s best cars come from Volvo platforms, something that definitely cannot be said about the Saab-GM relationship. And Volvo will likely end up as a Chinese distribution channel.
If the Volvo car brand is lucky it will be repurchased by the Volvo/Renault/Mack truck empire simply to spare the embarrassment of rebadged Chinese “Volvo” cars.
Considering GM’s total market capitalization is peanuts, someone should be able to snatch up this tiny portion for next to nothing.
Like maybe a symbolic €1?
It’s really quite striking how badly GM blew Saab. How could they not see that slapping a kidney grille onto an Opel was not a sustainable direction?
In a way GM is merely a presenting symptom of a malaise that consumed much of the automotive industry over the last few decades. The tendency has been to assume that buyers are stupid, and that they can be tricked into embracing a brand as long as it has the right sheetmetal and marketing.
Thus, we got the New Beetle and two-seater T-Bird, which stylistically evoked the originals but had none of their essential spirit.
Saab was only viable when it emphasized quirky innovation. Once Saab unveiled the bland 9000 its days were numbered as an independent automaker. GM had the deep pockets to invest in innovation, but it literally didn’t know how. After all, a major part of GM’s corporate DNA has always been to emphasize styling and marketing — it has never been much of an innovator when it comes to engineering.
Not that Ford would have saved Saab, given its mediocre stewardship of Volvo, Jaguar and Land Rover. But at least Saab’s operations might have maintained a bit more independence.
Not that Ford would have saved Saab, given its mediocre stewardship of Volvo, Jaguar and Land Rover.
Dr Lemming, I have to disagree. In Volvo’s case, I think Ford provided the financial muscle necessary to take them to the next level, from boxy to decent design. Starting with the 850/FWD switch, Volvo had lost their reliability nuance. Like on a lesser extent Mazda, I think Ford has been a good master. They also helped guide Jaguar as well, perhaps not as successfully.
I for one will miss the Ford/Volvo relationship.
GM/Saab? GM has ass-raped that poor little defenseless company. As a Saabophile and 9-3 Aero owner, I love my car, but the GM has screwed the pooch on this one.
Ideally? Volvo and Saab somehow ‘hook up’, with Saab being the enthusiast side of the house.
Let’s just hope to God that the Chinese don’t buy it.
“Hüsker Dü”
There’s no ü in any of the Scandinavian languages or any individuality left in SAAB, for that matter. That’s what comes from letting foreigners mess with your stuff.
Yeah…get rid of the only thing worth saving in GMs stinking shitpile. “Saab is just a tarted-up Pontiac with the key in the middle”? Dbag! Heres a great idea…lets put the 260hp turbo DI motor in the $22K Chevy, not the $30K Saab. The sooner GMEurope splits from the rotten mothership, the better. Good riddance GMNA etal and take your stinking dealers with ya!
“Husker du” (of course without the umlauts) means “Do you remember” – I remember Saab stories from back in the day when Saabs looked like the one standing by the airplane. Most owners had more than one of them – it’s like they were the ultimate hobby car, and you needed more than one so you could keep one running. I guess that’s “quirky” though.
I have a soft spot in my heart for SAABs. When I was a boy, I spent part of each summer in Sweden. My uncle Eric had a series of SAABs, 92s and 93s like the one in the photo. One day we were blasting down a wooded road north of Stockholm when suddenly the road widened and straightened out. “This is a runway. There are Drakens hangared nearby”. Suddenly the airplane outline that was the SAAB logo on the steering wheel took on a new signifigance.
The old 92 with 3 cyl 2 stroke engine was a real hoot.
So many off road races were won by them.
One guy had both a Saab & Mitsubishi AWD, he drives up to Whistler BC the infamous killer hwy here, u could pay the ultimately price if not careful.
He preferred the handling of the Saab over the AWD, I guess so much is said.
The famous free wheel in these early Saab has a reason. Being 2 stroke, prolong engine braking can kill the engine, as no oil is passing thru the crankcase. The freewheel is there to release the engine from turning as fast as the wheel.
Probably that may even give better traction on the snow & ice, reason u have no dragging when engine is slower than road speed. U have both front wheels turning same speed as the road speed.
Didn’t someone famous escape the Nazis in one of those planes?
Dave: Ford bought Volvo after the intorduction of the 850 with FWD. But they did own them when the S80 came out with its much better styling. and probably were influential in the styling improvements to the 850 after it had been rebadged S70
If Saab and Volvo hook up, would you call it a Salvo?
So, who would buy Saab in this sales climate?
Honda and Nissan. So they can finish the job Acura & Infiniti started and finally off the brand. Having to compete with the TL and G might as well be death buy a thousand cuts.
True, GM did not support Saab like it should have. Badge engineering was never a good idea in my book, but sustaining Saab with separate platforms would never have gotten past the bean counters.
Some comments are correct here… Saab was always different and should always be different. The current 9-5 is not a bad car, it is just at the end of it’s product life expectancy. The 9-3 is truly a re-badged previous generation Malibu with a unique but cheap interior.
A new 9-5 is scheduled to be released in 2010, so the big question is whether the new design/engineering will be enough to make another company interested in keeping the brand alive.
I for one hope so.
The current 9-5 is not a bad car, it is just at the end of it’s product life expectancy.
It’s a comparatively bad car, utterly outclassed by everything in it’s price range. The only way the 9-5 would be competitive is if it cost about 40% less.
Compared to a V70, TL or even a Passat 3.6, it’s utterly and completely outclassed. Other than the otherwise-brilliant H-Engine—which will go away soon—what’s the point?
The 9-3 is truly a re-badged previous generation Malibu with a unique but cheap interior.
The 9-3 is actually a reskinned Opel Vectra**, which isn’t a bad thing per se. It shares basic platform traits with the Malibu, but rides on a shorter wheelbase with a much different rear suspension. It rides reasonably well, but it’s kind of unrefined for it’s price tag. Saabs generally are unrefined, but it’s a little hard to swallow how much more luxurious the TSX, S40 or even the friggin’ Jetta GLI are.
If Saab charged less for it, offered a lifetime warranty and/or had released the wagon version in 2003, it might be looked upon much more favourably.
A new 9-5 is scheduled to be released in 2010, so the big question is whether the new design/engineering will be enough to make another company interested in keeping the brand alive.
The new 9-5 was supposed to have been released years ago, but GM kept changing plans. What we’ll eventually get, if GM survives, is a reskinned Opel Insignia, at or around 2011. Again, not a bad car, but with all of Saab’s engineering now done at Opel, what’s the point?
** the Vectra*** is not related to the Aura, other than donating some styling cues. The 9-3, Vectra and BLS are more or less the same; the Malibu (the first gen) rides on a longer, simpler chassis; the Maxx, G6, Aura and new Malibu all ride on a platform that’s longer still, and has been incrementally improved since.
*** the 9-5 is actually based on the older Opel Vectra, which provided the bones for the Saturn L-Series. That should tell you how old this platform really is.
Folks,
I’ve already addressed all of this on my site here:
http://www.saabhistory.com/2008/12/29/general-motors-gives-saab-3-months-to-find-buyer/
Okay, I’ll bite. What’s there to buy for other European manufacturers? Saab could provide an increased production capacity from an expensive work force (not needed), a dealer network in the U.S. (to sell what, exactly?) and a brand (that nobody seems to understand.)
Look around in the news and you’ll see that all of the prospective buyers named in the article do not seem to be in the position to buy, unless Saab is sold at pennies on the Euro, so to speak.
It’s a darn shame too. Pre-GM, Saabs were fun to drive and practical as all get-out. But unlike the Japanese cars I’ve owned (or still own) it was relatively expensive to keep.
Too bad.
I always thought they were neat.
There was one time at my school when you walked down the main road, you couldn’t go more than about 100 feet without seeing another Saab.
One time, a dealer loaned me a Saab when my car was in the shop. -Biggest Bi-Polar Jekyll/Hyde Turbo Lag I’ve ever seen, but a lot of fun.
Someone really should save that company and give it a proper lineup. -It could be like a Swedish Audi if done right.
GM was never cut out to own Saab anymore than Bob Dylan should be asked to perform for Dick Cheney.
The wonderful thing about Saabs is what a great 3-4 year old car, with less than 40k, you can buy for only 20-25 percent of the original MSRP. A 2005-2006 9-3 convertible, pretty much loaded, can be had for under 14K, or less. For a four seat convertible with over 200hp, leather, great brakes and good crash scores, (and the balance of a factory warranty) that seems decent. I suppose you could buy a BMW with five more years and 75k more miles for the same price.
I have never found Saabs to be of poor quality or unreliable. I put 135k on my ’89 900 Turbo, 90k on my ’97 9000 for example, with, outside of normal maintenance, nothing worse than a slightly weeping head gasket (leaking a few drops of oil externally), and a dead battery.
My Honda Odyssey, on the other hand, required a $2000 ABS unit replaced. Not that I don’t like Hondas. But no question about it, no one who is not mechanically inclined should own a Saab if you are strapped for cash. Buy a Corolla instead.
But Saab cars are fairly thrifty to buy and maintain yourself; they drive decently, and I am not sure they are worse than Audi for reliability, based on my friend’s experience with the latter (multiple expensive AC replacements).
Saab would do better if purchased by Renault or it could work nicely for Tata or a Chinese company, especially if it could establish some kind of green-performance-safety niche. Saabs remind me of Alfa, Fiat, Peugeot, Renault, and other European cars that have a bit of personality and can be fun to drive and maintain but are niche market cars never intended to compete with a Camry.
If Saab and Volvo hook up, would you call it a Salvo?
That stands to reason, they have already graced us with the “Saabaru” aka the 92x.
Seriously though, my parents have had at least one Saab since 1971, when they bought a new 99 for around 3k, they now have a 9.3 turbo x and don’t really like it much since GM has milked all the Saab-ness out of it. I guess the best one they had was a 1999 Viggen, wonder if GM had been involved at that time if it ever would have been built?
Saab is done. There is no one left to buy it. GM has no choice left but to shut down Saab.
Tata is clearly deeply regretting its purchase of Jaguar and Land Rover. The Chinese car companies are now hurting. Private equity companies couldn’t get the financing to buy Saab even if they were stupid enough to want to do so — but the Chryslerbus fiasco has sobered them up.