backtop


Print 58 comment(s) - last by fxnick.. on Jun 29 at 12:17 AM


Koenigsegg CCX

Saab 9-3 Turbo X
Another week, another sale from GM

General Motors is a lot more efficient these days at lopping off its money-losing divisions, and even earning some cash for selling them.  Thanks to a bankruptcy and government guidance it has been able to cut through red tape and sell Hummer to a Chinese bidder and Saturn to the Penske Automotive Group, owned by American racing legend Roger Penske.

Now GM has announced that it has reached a deal to sell Swedish brand Saab Automobile AB, completing nearly all of GM's brand cuts and bringing GM's remaining laggard brands down to Pontiac (Opel was sold to a Magna International-led consortium, Vauxhall is being transferred to Magna as well).  GM President and CEO Fritz Henderson said in a statement Tuesday that it was a relief to sell Saab.  He said that GM continually poured money into Saab, but was unable to show a profit for it.  He says GM ran out of money during the middle of an effort to revitalize Saab with a new lineup.

Sweden's Koenigsegg Automotive AB, a low-volume sports car manufacturer, is purchasing Saab, with hopes to turn the laggard brand around.  GM will provide Koenigsegg with powertrain engineering services and other technologies.  It also says it expects to develop the 9-4x compact crossover for Saab.

GM's personnel cuts also continue.  The company is cutting 20 percent of its salaried workforce and 35 percent of its executive staff by the end of the year, as it continues to cut blue collar plant jobs as well.  The company looks to have about 23,500 U.S. salaried employees and a little more than 800 U.S. executives at the year's end.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Purchase price?
By MacDuff on 6/17/2009 11:03:23 AM , Rating: 5
Anyone know what price GM paid for Saab, how much money they spent destroying the brand, and then what the final liquidation price was?




RE: Purchase price?
By Sulphademus on 6/17/2009 11:32:21 AM , Rating: 2
Similarly, I'd like to know how a boutique car maker scrubbed up the dough for a major label!


RE: Purchase price?
By Mojo the Monkey on 6/17/2009 1:38:08 PM , Rating: 5
I believe a european bank gave them a tremendous loan. Its also interesting that this company of 45 people total will now own SAAB, with over 3500 people(after recent layoffs)


RE: Purchase price?
By Souka on 6/17/2009 12:01:36 PM , Rating: 4
in 1989 GM paid $600 millon for %50 of SAAB...with final control purchase in 2000.

From what I gather in the news, they're selling it for around $600 million....less than 1/2 they paid for it

Oh... and I heard a joke about the buying car company...soemthing that they only sold 12 cars last year? Dunno if its a true statement or not...but that puts it in line with GM sales!!!! (ha ha..joking of course).


RE: Purchase price?
By Spuke on 6/17/09, Rating: 0
RE: Purchase price?
By TomZ on 6/17/2009 12:35:19 PM , Rating: 4
I noticed from those stats that Ford outsold Toyota for May 2009 - yikes for Toyota!


RE: Purchase price?
By Spuke on 6/17/2009 1:27:16 PM , Rating: 4
They were hit harder than GM and Ford it seems. Even Honda's been hit hard. Considering that some people think GM isn't building cars people want, wouldn't the car companies that people want be doing better right now? And, why is a bankrupt company still outselling the cars from company's that people want? Hmmm.


RE: Purchase price?
By jconan on 6/17/2009 9:26:13 PM , Rating: 2
It wouldn't surprise me... Afterall the buy American brand preference still lives on for most gung-ho Americanas but with an added buy from mfrs that give a peace of mind that they'll be around after the recession stops.


RE: Purchase price?
By Sulphademus on 6/17/2009 1:48:17 PM , Rating: 5
12 cars a year but at a price tag greater than that of 40 Saabs each.

So yes, they are a very small company but they make some cool cars.


RE: Purchase price?
By ChristopherO on 6/17/2009 1:35:43 PM , Rating: 1
No idea, but I find a decent degree of irony in the fact that Saab, Hummer, and Saturn might actually be in a lot better shape than GM itself. Heck, they found new owners/investors who are willing to turn them around.

The problem with GM, is it's still GM. Just because they sold Hummer doesn't make me want to run out and suddenly buy a Chevy Volt, especially given that a 4-cyl Accord is going to be 1/3 to 1/2 the price, and I don't care if you use magic pixie dust... No matter how much you drive you aren't going to make up the 20-25K difference. Plus the Volt is still a GM. My mother owned a Buick SUV a couple years back and the thing started disintegrating once the warranty expired. Unless their quality is drastically better, no one with $40K to spend on a car is going to buy a Volt (for that money I'd rather have a Saab Aero X, 3-series, A6, Passat, loaded Maxima, whatever...)


RE: Purchase price?
By TomZ on 6/17/2009 2:09:28 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, GM's quality is on par with other global manufacturers. It's been that way for a while now - welcome to the new century.

Second, the problem with the Volt really is that electric technology is not near being able to compete with internal combustion and/or hybrids. Not in terms of convenience, cost, performance, etc. The only thing you can say against GM is that they shouldn't really have bothered in the first place.


RE: Purchase price?
By Spuke on 6/17/2009 2:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
The Volt is a hybrid. Other than that I agree with you Tom.

To the previous poster thinking GM won't sell any Volt's, there is already a waiting list for them. GM will sell every single one of those cars. The Volt isn't a Honda Accord nor does it compete with one. Since when did Honda install a serial hybrid system in an Accord. Oh! That's right, Honda couldn't sell a regular hybrid Accord and had to pull it from the market.


RE: Purchase price?
By ChristopherO on 6/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Purchase price?
By ChristopherO on 6/17/2009 2:43:40 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Sure, it has given me it's share of problems

Ugh... "its share of problems". Seriously, how many readers need to say, "Can we have an edit button?" before someone obliges us and provides an edit button?

I'd be perfectly happy if the thing were only enabled for 10 minutes after the post was made. At least then I could fix my glaring mistakes when I miss them during preview.


RE: Purchase price?
By Spuke on 6/17/2009 6:41:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Really? You could have fooled me given that the aforementioned 2005 Buick (which happens to be this century) required over $3,000 in repairs within 6 months of warranty expiration (A/C, transmission issues, gasket leaks, and on and on).
All of this is anecdotal. Actual statistics (you know facts) say overall quality both short and long term is on par with the rest of the industry. Here, I'll give you some worthless, anecdotal crap: My Solstice is the first American car I've owned and it's been, by far, the most trouble free out of every car I've owned. I'm not saying that my other cars (3 Nissan's, 2 Toyota's, and 1 VW) were junk (well the VW was fairly close to junk) but I've had MORE little niggling issues and recalls on ALL of those than on my Solstice (one recall and a radio replacement).

What does this all mean? Absolutely nothing!! One persons issue (or even 100) doesn't mean sh!t in a carmarkers overall quality. For every one person that has a problem, you could have 30,000 more that had NO problems. JD Powers is the accepted industry standard of measuring quality and Ford and GM are on par with the rest of the industry. Period!


RE: Purchase price?
By ChristopherO on 6/17/2009 11:52:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Actual statistics (you know facts) say overall quality both short and long term is on par with the rest of the industry.


But that is unfortunately the point. Facts don't matter these days. Look at Bose speakers, Rolex watches, Apple computers, and BMWs... They sell like hot cakes and tons of people *believe* them to be superior (quantitatively you can find "better" products for less money than all of the above). Heck, a lot of marketing is based on the intentional manipulation of facts.

Just run a simple web-search on "domestic foreign car perception" and you'll see a significant majority believe foreign autos are better (never mind the *fact* most of the common foreign models are built here). Are they better? Who knows, but most people *think* they are.

Personally I'd buy American if I found a model I liked... The Lincoln MKZ looks pretty sharp (and Ford didn't take bail-out cash), but it sounds like it suffers from unresponsive handling and is slow compared to comps from Acura, BMW, and most other brands (hopefully corrected in 2011 model year). Likewise the Buick Lacrosse (2010) looks absolutely stunning (reminds me of the Infinity M), but it's a Buick. The average age of Buick owners is 63 (search Google for that one). Maybe that shouldn't matter to a consumer, but people usually don't buy cool looking cars from an "uncool" brand.

That reminds me of Pepsi... They release a new cola with *real sugar* and call it "Throwback". Who in their right mind is going to see that in a store and think, "I need to buy that!" Semantically throwback is pretty much one step up from naming it "garbage". The problem, it tastes *good*, but will never last with a name like that. (although I prefer Coke and hope they get on the band-wagon).


RE: Purchase price?
By Spuke on 6/18/2009 1:36:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They sell like hot cakes and tons of people *believe* them to be superior
GM sold 190,098 cars last month. Ford sold 155,620. How many did BMW sell? 18,383 cars. LOL! Ford sells more pickup trucks than that in a month. Not saying BMW isn't successful cause they most certainly are but they are NO where near a Ford, GM, Toyota in sales. Those are the facts and I don't ignore facts. It seems the general public DOES believe in facts.


RE: Purchase price?
By ChristopherO on 6/19/2009 1:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Those are the facts and I don't ignore facts.


You just manipulate them like everyone else trying to make a point.

Comparing BMW to Ford and GM is patently absurd. Honda and Toyota are competing brands. BMW only competes with Cadillac and Lincoln (and wipes the floor with them). BMW's margins are also vastly superior to anything Ford and GM has ever made on their primary lines. Granted that's *only* BMW. Mercedes doesn't do as well, and some brands like Jaguar and Saab aren't profitable at all (but then again no major American brands is).

Stats can be manipulated in tons of different ways. You could subtract trucks, since generally speaking, foreign makers don't seem to have credible alternatives. Then you can subtract fleet sales (since that has no bearing on consumer sentiment)... Rental car companies almost always buy American due to longstanding agreements to get discounts (both on purchasing and the service-side).

And I never mentioned sales figures. You want facts, yet you ignore the hundreds of published reports that state the American populace thinks that foreign automobiles are of substantially better quality. Everyone of your messages has been, "buy American", etc... Why? Because *your* anecdotal evidence says they are better? And I looked at JD Power, which you keep citing. In those reports Ford and Chevy have *average* reliability. Their luxury brands are a little better, but generally they're worse -- Hummer, Jeep, Pontiac, Dodge, and Saturn are in the basement for reliability. Strangely enough, all of those brands have been terminated or sold.

I frankly don't understand why anyone would be loyal to *any* manufacturer. Everyone is going to have different needs, and as soon as you have "loyalty" you're reflexively not considering better alternatives. Case in point I've never purchased the same brand of car twice, home electronics, etc. I examine the best price, performance, etc, and so far that has never led me to double-up. For example, even though I love my Saab, I would rather buy a Jaguar the next go-around (unless the new 9-5 makes them competitive again). I was also going to look at the MKZ and CTX (although I might skip the CTX if GM still has funding issues). It's pretty safe to say you can count me among the majority of Americans that hate using bail-out cash for GM and Chrysler -- especially when others like Ford (and foreign makers) seem to be getting through the storm without tax-money hand-outs.


RE: Purchase price?
By Spuke on 6/18/2009 1:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
I will add that although the power of some of these new American sedans is adequate for me, the big turn off is the lack of a manual transmission (or even a DSG type) option and a bit too much weight.


RE: Purchase price?
By gamerk2 on 6/18/2009 3:14:59 PM , Rating: 2
I've had 3 Chrystler brands over the years, all dead by 105,000 miles (I mean dead, dead). Brought a Camry with 70k on it in 96 and havn't looked back.

Had to drive a Focus a few weeks ago, due to work and the agreement we have with the car company. I found it actually has to shut off its AC when breaking, and apparently, its DESIGNED that way. Yep, no problems there...

Call me when an American car makes it to 250k with almost no upkeep put into in, then we can start to talk about quality.


RE: Purchase price?
By Spuke on 6/18/2009 3:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Call me when an American car makes it to 250k with almost no upkeep put into in, then we can start to talk about quality.
I don't care about your anecdotal BS. The facts (gathered using scientific methods) speak for themselves. Believe whatever you want, buy whatever you want. I ain't changin my mind.


RE: Purchase price?
By fxnick on 6/29/2009 12:17:47 AM , Rating: 2
My crown vic has 301K on it, no problems since ive owned it

quote:
I found it actually has to shut off its AC when breaking, and apparently, its DESIGNED that way.Yep, no problems there...


If its DESIGNED that way than there are no PROBLEMS.


RE: Purchase price?
By Uncle on 6/17/2009 2:47:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'm just worried that we'll wake up tomorrow and GM will have mothballed the Volt as they did with their other electric car produced 20 years ago.


Glad to see Saab will live on...
By AmbroseAthan on 6/17/2009 10:36:08 AM , Rating: 2
I am one of those people who loves Saab. I had one of the older hatchback '99 9-3's, replaced by a '01 9-3 when a Ford Explorer decided to meet me head on. And now my father has a '08 9-3. Every one of those cars performed very well, had no maintance issues, great service at the Saab dealership shops for tune-ups, and were fun to drive (cars were/are all manual). Open those cars up, and they move pretty fast and handle very well.

Koenigsegg will likely take good care of the company and bring it back to where it was before GM bought it (GM killed them). Some of the concept cars might do very well under Koenigsegg's guidance:

http://www.saabusa.com/saabjsp/concepts/index.jsp




RE: Glad to see Saab will live on...
By fezzik1620 on 6/17/2009 11:52:27 AM , Rating: 5
So, wait, I'm confused. You said you love Saab. And you based this primarily on your personal experience with a Saab from '99, '01, and '08. Then you go on to say that GM killed them and implied that GM has made bad choices with the brand. But GM owned more than 50% of the company in '99 and bought out the rest in 2000, so it seems like most/all of your experience is with GM Saabs. According to Wikipedia your '99 and '01 Saab 9-3s were based on the GM2900 platform, same as the Saturn L Series. So, which is it? Are they good or bad? Or are you just determined to like Saab because you view it as a European car company and determined to not like GM because they are American and losing money fast?


RE: Glad to see Saab will live on...
By AmbroseAthan on 6/17/2009 12:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
The original two I owned were based on the Hatchback model, which you will notice is based on the original Saab designs. While GM owned them during much of this period, they micro-managed much less and let Saab handle the design work/engineering.

There as a very bad area in that mid 2000's of design and mechinical issues when GM started to influence a much heavier hand. GM did away with the hatchback, which IMO was a dumb move on their part as it removed the cars' more unique look.

The '08 Saab is pretty highly redesigned and with a lot of improvements, so they are a much nicer car then the '03-07's. My father actually chose it after looking into the BWM 3-series and a couple Audi's.

Also, I started to like Saab's well before my own cars when my Aunt and Uncle had them (since the late 80's). They put 300,000 miles on a Saab 900.

(And paragraphs are your friends)


By fezzik1620 on 6/17/2009 1:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
Fair enough. I figured I probably did not have all the details. I'm sure there was plenty of GM influence in the late 90's. To what extent we will probably never know.

I'll try to make my postings more readable next time. Thanks for the advice.


RE: Glad to see Saab will live on...
By cubdukat on 6/17/2009 4:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'm curious about something. Wasn't Saab doing just fine before GM sunk their hooks into them and forced them to slap their badge on GMC trucks and Subaru Imprezas?


By BikeDude on 6/18/2009 8:13:51 AM , Rating: 3
As I understand their history, they were in a crunch.

Saab basically changes owners every twenty years. (Scania, GM and now Koenigsegg)

At the end of the 80s, both 900 and 9000 were showing signs of age. The 9000 was revolutionary when it was launched. It was more luxurious than the Germans, much better quality, unrivaled safety, _very_ nice performance, and it (as I recall) cost a pretty penny too...

But the 9000 was what? Introduced in 1984? And it was co-developed with Fiat to save cost. (but much safer than the comparable Fiat model...)

They couldn't afford developing a new model from scratch themselves. A new platform costs a lot of money. Their collaboration with Fiat worked great, but Saab's owner (Scania) probably wanted a closer partnership with someone good at developing platforms.

So GM turns up and says Saab can build off their platforms. But Saab engineers had to modify these to a great extent, thus wasting both time and money. Finally GM buys the entire company and (as I understand it) orders Saab to not modify GM's platform that extensively.

Saab gave a lot of feedback to GM on how to improve stuff, so hopefully they had better platforms eventually, but the main motivation for getting involved with GM was the question of platform R&D.

Saab still made their own engines in the 90s. Very nice engines, with research being done on variable combustion and other nice ideas. There is a youtube video somewhere showing an emissions test where they hook up an old polluting car to the intake of the new Saab engine, and the output is still very clean... It was capable of combusting the waste of others...

But my question is this: What is more important to you as a customer? That the car company spends a little too much on R&D or that they show a profit of several million dollars every quarter?


Magna owns Opel/Vauxhall?
By voodooboy on 6/17/2009 11:17:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Automobile AB, completing half of GM's brand cuts and bringing GM's remaining laggard brands down to Opel, Vauxhall, and Pontiac.


Ummm...I thought Magna (Canada) had bought out GM's Opel/Vauxhall assets/brands a while ago. Infact, it was one of the first buyouts from GM's "laggard" portfolio.

http://automotive.speedtv.com/article/autos-magna-...

http://www.worldcarfans.com/109060319726/magna-una...




RE: Magna owns Opel/Vauxhall?
By Spuke on 6/17/2009 12:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Infact, it was one of the first buyouts from GM's "laggard" portfolio.
Not to mention that Pontiac is being killed outright. At the end of 2010 model year. As a matter of fact, the only Pontiac being sold next year is the Vibe. The brand is effectively dead.


Did anybody else think of this?
By nubie on 6/17/2009 3:21:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thanks to a bankruptcy and government guidance

So not only does GM need to be told when to take a dump it needs to be told how to wipe?

Freaking unbelievable.

I took my Auto Tech training at a community college with a couple dozen GM and Honda/Toyota cars. The one thing that seemed glaring was that Honda had a sense of pride in the quality of their motors, interiors, seating, comfort, and performance. GM seems to relegate only one quality per brand, except for interiors and seating, which they just ignored.

Every GM product gave me a sore ass from sitting on some sort of metal tube, while the rear of the seat would give me a rash as it put my back out of alignment with no lumbar support. The Cobalt looked OK (not great), and had a very nice engine and chassis, but the interior smelled and felt like a plastic Rubbermaid tub. I wouldn't be able to own one without re-doing at least the seats.


Automakers Eager as Axles Turn High-Tech
Mar 24, 2008
Automotive News

quote:
For General Motors purchasing czar Bo Andersson, an advanced axle is a high-tech precision part, not a commodity. "It is a safety-critical component that provides a vehicle's driving characteristics," he says. "It's one of the five most expensive parts, and it is 10 times more complex than seating."


So the fact that I have a highly tuned skeletal and muscular structure comprised of 200 bones that needs support is "10 times" less complex than my final drive? No wonder I am never comfortable in any GM product.

It is great that they finally are making engines you would want (like the supercharged Cobalt SS motor) and handling to die for (even if it is stolen from Australia), but they need to make a decent car. Notice that Ford brought over the Focus and they actually have a decent car to sell (and they aren't in bankruptcy. Although they let Volvo and Mazda have the 2nd-gen focus chassis, while the "Focus 2" is more like the "Focus 1.5", so time will tell if that was a smart move).

GM needs to pull its head out of its arse and get more decent cars to sell. Maybe since the government is in that region already with the dumping and wiping it can help them understand. I bet if GM designed a toilet the "10 times more complex" flush handle would work, but the seat would fall off.

Sickens me no end. The only thing they could do is buy Daewoo and make a couple e-"crapo"-boxes, they should have brought over some of the hot Opel or Vauxhall or Holden small platforms.




By BikeDude on 6/18/2009 7:59:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Every GM product gave me a sore ass from sitting on some sort of metal tube, while the rear of the seat would give me a rash as it put my back out of alignment with no lumbar support.


Saab's engineers kept GM's integration at an arm's length distance. Saab seats are very comfy. I've spent days in my Saab seat, and it is very comfortable. At night you can switch off the instrument lights, which makes the ride even more enjoyable. (it will only illuminate those instruments and gauges that are relevant, i.e. the speedometer is always lit and the fuel gauge lights up when you are about to run out of fuel, etc)


Not bad
By DuctTapeAvenger on 6/17/2009 10:29:24 AM , Rating: 2
At least it was sold to a company that knows performance and styling. Hopefully they do something good with the brand.




By Hyperion1400 on 6/17/2009 12:58:17 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously Jason? All you have to say about Koenigsegg is:

quote:
a low-volume sports car manufacturer


That is all you have to say about the company that produces the second fastest production car on the face of the planet, that also happens to run on pure alcohol and gets 15 MPG Highway?

Yes I know you put a link to another DT article about the CCXR in your article, but come on, Brandon's CCXR article has more flaws than an Ikea living room set.




Lies or just blind ignorance?
By BikeDude on 6/18/2009 7:40:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
He said that GM continually poured money into Saab, but was unable to show a profit for it.


Fritz can say so many wonderful strange little things.

2007 was another year without Saab showing any profit.

However... It was also a year where ALL profits from the sale of cars in USA went directly into GM NA's books. So Saab paid for the production and shipment of these cars and they never saw one dime from the sales...

If you factor in what they earned from the sales, then they turned a nice profit in 2007.

Also feel free to look into all the concept models Saab came up with, that GM simply stopped. Saab was about to show a hybrid a few years ago, but were ordered by GM executives to not tell anyone their car had an electic motor in addition to the traditional ICE. The 9-3 convertible being displayed had an electrical socket hidden behind the Saab logo. To accomodate GM's management, this logo was then glued shut.

So yes... GM probably gave Saab some money. Saab had to develop their BioPower technology in total secrecy to avoid being shut down by GM.

What good did GM hope to achieve, pouring money in at one end, and terminating R&D in the other?

This year Saab has no less than three new models up for production. The 9-5 being replaced dates back some 13 years...

Thank you GM, for "supporting" Saab. Now move out of the way and let someone with their brain still working take control.




They gave me the Penske file
By karndog on 6/17/2009 12:15:26 PM , Rating: 1
They gave me the Penske file




Still bjorn from jets?
By therealnickdanger on 6/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Still bjorn from jets?
By Finnkc on 6/17/2009 10:42:11 AM , Rating: 2
the old Saabs of day where good cars ... some electrical glitches but that is the price you pay for going Euro.

The new Saab is a GM covered in a "euro styled" shell, with about as much engineering as a Dodge truck.

ah I still have a soft spot for the 9000 :)


RE: Still bjorn from jets?
By therealnickdanger on 6/17/2009 10:59:30 AM , Rating: 2
I actually liked the older look too. I am, afterall, a Volvo 200-series fanatic, so I appreciate eccentric rides. Of course, I'm in the process of dropping a Chevy 350 crate motor and 6-speed manual into my old 1978 240D, so you could say that I have a penchant for speed... Lighter than a Corvette C6 with more power... hmm...


RE: Still bjorn from jets?
By Spuke on 6/17/2009 12:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course, I'm in the process of dropping a Chevy 350 crate motor and 6-speed manual into my old 1978 240D
Really? Sweet!!!! Why not a 302 from Ford Racing? Wouldn't it be a little lighter?


By therealnickdanger on 6/17/2009 2:49:13 PM , Rating: 2
Lighter yes, but my inspiration is the twin-turbo Corvette V8 Volvo on Youtube - although I'll never have enough money (nor would I want to) to do that. I've always been a big fan of the 350, it has better options for power and economy than Ford powerplants, IMO.


RE: Still bjorn from jets?
By Lord 666 on 6/17/2009 2:48:37 PM , Rating: 2
Just for clarification, you are putting a 350 into a 1978 MB? As in this car - http://media.photobucket.com/image/1978%20240D/eur... ?

I've seen 240Z and 911 use the 350 before, but never heard of this one.


RE: Still bjorn from jets?
By therealnickdanger on 6/17/2009 2:52:36 PM , Rating: 3
Nope, Volvo 240D (244DL, technically). It looks just like this except I painted it GM Black Pearl and I'll be putting some sportier wheels on it:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2076/2082383492_047...


RE: Still bjorn from jets?
By Lord 666 on 6/18/2009 12:21:04 AM , Rating: 2
Would have recognized the 244DL, thats definitely a different but great project. Have always been a fan of Volvo, wouldn't mind a diesel XC90 in the US and love the new S80 V8.

On a side note and might sound strange, but feel that VW should buy Volvo from Ford. The demographics are complimentary and would give VW a true mid-luxury brand they have been trying to build for 15 years.


RE: Still bjorn from jets?
By theapparition on 6/17/2009 11:58:02 PM , Rating: 2
What Chevy 350 are you putting in there?

I'm not aware of any crate 350 that puts out more power than their 376 LS3.


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 6/17/2009 11:36:57 AM , Rating: 2
Is that soft spot on your head? =)

I have heard too many "Saab" stories to have ever considered purchasing one, even back to the early 1970's, so that is the extent of my experience.


RE: Still bjorn from jets?
By omnicronx on 6/17/2009 11:58:41 AM , Rating: 2
I like Saab's and the 9000 (had an 88) and they are great when they are working, unfortunately this was not the case very often. It had more electrical components than some of today's cars and something always went wrong.

p.s to the guy with the Volvo 2** series fetish, I love them too! My parents had their 83 240 station wagon until last year! We once got rear ended and there was barely any damage, yet the other car was totaled, they were tanks and somehow had the best turning radius of any stationwagon I've ever seen.


RE: Still bjorn from jets?
By BZDTemp on 6/17/2009 11:25:20 AM , Rating: 1
Saab slow compared to what? An Indy car?

I you drove the top model Saab and it was slow you must have been doing something wrong. Maybe you focus on 0-60 which is not what Saab is about - they have always been made to what you really need in normal traffic and that is mid-range acceleration.

Besides a Saab is about much more than just the figures. It is also about drive ability and clever solutions. For one just take the thing about the key not in it's usual place - why? Because with the keys out of the way no one will hurt their leg/knee on the keys if there is a crash.

Finally Saab makes fighter planes so of course they use that in their ads :-)


RE: Still bjorn from jets?
By TomZ on 6/17/2009 12:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
they have always been made to what you really need in normal traffic and that is mid-range acceleration
LOL, I think I'm going to have to coin the term "Saab apologist" for you. :o)


RE: Still bjorn from jets?
By bldckstark on 6/17/2009 12:29:59 PM , Rating: 2
I noticed that if you replace the word Saab in your post with the word Mac, you can copy and paste your post into any Apple forum.


RE: Still bjorn from jets?
By JS on 6/17/2009 12:47:53 PM , Rating: 3
You mean when discussing the Mac fighter planes? They're great.


RE: Still bjorn from jets?
By Spuke on 6/17/2009 12:34:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Saab slow compared to what? An Indy car?
Compared to a Nissan Versa 1.6L.


RE: Still bjorn from jets?
By BikeDude on 6/18/2009 7:54:28 AM , Rating: 2
My 9-3 1.8t managed 245 kph on the autobahn...

Saab's strong point is usually the crucial acceleration between 80 to 120 kph. I.e. when overtaking other cars it can often match speeds with Porsches, Ferraris, etc... At one point, there was an Audi trying to pass me by. Finally I got tired, I didn't even downshift from 5th, and I pulled away and in front of him. That has happened to me more than one time.

True, Saabs rarely go faster than 250 kph. However, when they do, it matters little if the road is wet and slippery or plain dry. Saabs tend to stick to the road and their drivers rarely have to touch the brakes. Saabs going into the curve usually exits faster and more controlled than others. If you drive a fully loaded car, you do not have to worry about massive oversteering if you drive a Saab. However, if you drive a BMW 5-series, watch out... (especially if you try to keep pace with a Saab 9-5!)

And then you can look at the safety of these cars. Ever collided with a moose? I doubt you have, because if you don't drive a Saab and hit a moose, you would be typing using a stick now. My step-brother collided with a moose. The Saab kept everyone inside the car safe. Hitting a moose is like hitting a small car -- with your windshield. Think about that the next time you drive a Nissan...


RE: Still bjorn from jets?
By Spuke on 6/18/2009 6:12:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ever collided with a moose?
I hit a deer with my old '89 VW Fox. Car wasn't totaled either. That car had the best paint job of any car I've owned. You could shoot it with a AK-47 and it wouldn't crack. Too bad the rest of it was junk. Oh, and it did 0-60 in 2 weeks. God, I hated that car.


RE: Still bjorn from jets?
By BikeDude on 6/19/2009 8:36:01 AM , Rating: 2
wikipedia: "On average, an adult moose stands 1.8–2.1 m (6–7 ft) high at the shoulder[6]. Males weigh 380–720 kg (850–1580 pounds)"

The smaller members of the deer family can weigh as little as 10kg.

What did you hit exactly?

Again: The torso of the moose is high enough to shave off the roof of most cars. Saabs are one of very few brands (the other being Volvo, but don't ask them about how many models pass the test) that conducts moose-tests (crashing into a sack weighing as much as a moose).

A moose will easily flatten a car's roof, rip it off completely, or get inside and make life difficult for everyone inside. It is the last thing you want to hit with a regular car.

Not many deers can do that amount of damage.

Then there is the second part of the equation: Avoid hitting the moose... Mercedes had to make ESP standard, because their A-class almost rolled over when the Swedes tested its capability for evasive driving. The current BMW 5-series oversteers heavily (and suddenly/violently) when loaded with the maximum allowable weight. Saabs? They do fine, just fine.


RE: Still bjorn from jets?
By nuarbnellaffej on 6/21/2009 3:46:36 PM , Rating: 2
You make a good point, but
quote:
The smaller members of the deer family can weigh as little as 10kg.
that's a bit biased don't you think lol?

My father hit a massive deer last winter, and believe me it wasn't 10kg... Completely smashed the front end of his Ford ranger.


RE: Still bjorn from jets?
By Iaiken on 6/17/2009 1:01:49 PM , Rating: 3
You might want to check your facts.

quote:
Finally Saab makes fighter planes so of course they use that in their ads :-)


Saab of today has nothing to do with Svenska Aeroplan Aktie Bolaget (the Saab that makes jet fighters) and hasn't since GM bought controlling interest back in 1989. It has since become a wholly owned subsidiary of GM since 2000 with nothing in common with the jet manufacturer outside of the brand name that was licensed to GM as part of the purchase agreement.

I've played around with quite a few of the cars in their line-up and I'll stick with my 06 MCS thanks.

Their cars are heavy, with mushy suspension and their V6 turbos are a pathetic half-nod to automotive performance enthusiasts. Certainly not in the same class as the BMW's and Benz's they are priced to compete with.

Saab has a serious brand identity crisis right now and they need to address that before they bother addressing the consumer... Right now they are just a reasonably equipped "sport luxury" company that offers neither sport performance nor luxury accoutrement.

Hopefully Koenigsegg can help straighten them out.


"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki