backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 60 comment(s) - last by Jalek.. on Nov 27 at 1:17 AM

2010 Saab 9-5  (Source: AutoBlog)

2010 Saab 9-3  (Source: CarGurus)

2010 Saab 9-3x  (Source: Gawker)
Yet another GM brand looks to fall as its sale falls through

One of General Motors' most important steps in emerging from bankruptcy was its offloading of stale, unprofitable brands.  GM had hoped to gain a small bit of profit off their sale, so it lined up buyers to all the stale brands.

Now those deals seem to be falling through left and right.  At the start of last month, news broke that the sale of the Saturn brand to Penske Automotive Group (PAG) had fallen through, leaving the brand to die. 

Now, Swedish supercar maker Koenigsegg Group AB has pulled out of its deal to buy struggling Swedish luxury car brand Saab.  The move puts Saab's future seriously in question.  Koenigsegg cited many reasons for pulling out, but wouldn't reveal what those reasons were.  One possibility is that its financing for the purchase fell through.  Another possibility is that it got scared off by the vanish number of Saab dealers internationally.

GM is unlikely to want to keep Saab - Saab has almost never turned a profit for GM and it doesn't fit with GM's vision of making Cadillac its global luxury brand (and doesn't contribute much in the way of unique engineering assets).  Thus GM must scramble to find a new buyer while the brand is kept on life support by the Swedish government.  If it fails, the likely outcome is that the brand will be killed, just like Saturn.

One possible buyer is Beijing Auto Industry Co., who originally made a bid on the brand, but lost to Koenigsegg.  The Chinese firm now seems more cautious following the fallout of the Koenigsegg-Saab union, stating that it will now "cautiously reconsider" making a new bid.

Even if the Chinese don't buy the whole firm, they'll likely opt to at least pick up the the assets to the already tooled-up, forthcoming 9-5 sedan. 

Regardless of what happens, the latest failed deal is a major disappointment and setback for a recovering GM.  States GM President and CEO, Fritz Henderson, "We're obviously very disappointed with the decision to pull out of the Saab purchase.  Many have worked tirelessly over the past several months to create a sustainable plan for the future of Saab by selling the brand and its manufacturing interests to Koenigsegg Group AB. Given the sudden change in direction, we will take the next several days to assess the situation and will advise on the next steps next week."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
GM is stupid
By bradmshannon on 11/25/2009 9:21:12 AM , Rating: 5
I still don't understand why GM would keep a brand that doesn't make money...and for 20 years?!? Was Saab a hobby for them?




RE: GM is stupid
By Ristogod on 11/25/2009 9:33:46 AM , Rating: 5
It's because GM was being run by failed business men who could afford to carelessly through caution to the wind as the artificially debt-based government-backed economy was there to support their illegitimacy as accomplished and successful players within the free market.

They were running with the idea that they had to "Spend Money to Make Money" attitude. Which some what can make sense if you revise it to be "Spend Money Wisely and Efficiently to Make Money". They were simply going with the notion of the former, rather than thee latter.

Don't worry though. I'm sure the government will steal again from its populace to further aid these failures and money-sinks of wasted resources.


RE: GM is stupid
By mcnabney on 11/25/2009 1:47:53 PM , Rating: 1
GM bought Saab because the executives wanted to get cheap Saabs for their wives and daughters under the employee purchase benefits.

Seriously


RE: GM is stupid
By Samus on 11/26/2009 1:08:15 AM , Rating: 4
GM buying Saab never made fiscal sense though. When GM purchased the brand, Saab lost all of its originality and quirkyness like the goofy ignition key in the center console (something I liked) and that really wack model with the C900 with the umm, 'unique' windows. GM's idea of quirkyness for Saab was mating them to Subaru platforms and installing LS2 engines. Nobody cares about that shit. People but Jaguars, Volvos, Saabs, etc, because they're different, not because they're Japanese platforms with American muscle-car engines.

At least Ford didn't completely destroy Jaguar like GM completely ruined Saab, but in hindsight, both were ridiculously dumb mergers in my opinion. The difference, though, is Ford got Jag cheap, and at a time when their reliability was probably the best it had ever been (not saying much, really :)


RE: GM is stupid
By Boushh on 11/26/2009 7:11:47 AM , Rating: 2
I have a Saab 9.3 (European model 2005), and it still has the ignition key in the center console. So has the 9.5 (only that has a normal contact slot and key, while the 9.3 has just a hole in the console and an 'abnormal' key).

So that has not changed. I'm very happy with my Saab, very good drive. Only the material used in the interior could have been of a higer standard (less flimsy and less plastic).

Hope they can get through this....


RE: GM is stupid
By Tuor on 11/26/2009 12:44:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't worry though. I'm sure the government will steal again from its populace to further aid these failures and money-sinks of wasted resources.


Only they're not stealing from the populace. The populace is broke. They're borrowing from the Chinese (and others) and further indebting future generations of Americans.

But why worry about the tomorrow if you can get what you want today?


RE: GM is stupid
By Spivonious on 11/25/2009 9:36:02 AM , Rating: 2
According to Wikipedia, Saab made a profit in 1995.

I think GM thought that the more brands they had, the more markets they could reach, and even if one brand lost money, it would be made up for with another brand. So if Saab lost money, Chevy would make enough to cover the loss.


RE: GM is stupid
By Oregonian2 on 11/25/2009 2:19:31 PM , Rating: 2
Or it may be a lot like the semiconductor business where everybody seems to go for marketshare rather than profits.


RE: GM is stupid
By bmheiar on 11/25/2009 9:42:12 AM , Rating: 3
Another prime example.. Buick anyone? They killed Pontiac off just to keep Buick. Pontiac sold almost 3x as many cars per year than Buick. But since Buick sells well in China and other foreign countries that was reason enough for the powers that be, to keep it over Pontiac. STUPID!!!

And also continue with two truck-SUV lines Chevy/GMC, that make the same vehicles. Why? Another STUPID move. Why two truck-SUV lines?


RE: GM is stupid
By Motoman on 11/25/2009 11:01:00 AM , Rating: 4
...what difference does it make what badge is on the car? Same plants, same parts, same workforce...

If they took the Firebird and put a Buick nameplate on it instead of Pontiac, would you not buy it? Would a Cadillac nameplate change a Tahoe into something other than a Tahoe?

"Brands" are irrelevant, at least as much as they relate to the brands traditionally owned by the Big 3. Saab is probably an exception to that rule, since it had such a long history and industrial base in Sweden...


RE: GM is stupid
By bmheiar on 11/25/09, Rating: 0
RE: GM is stupid
By Motoman on 11/25/2009 11:57:37 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think you're making any sense.

Let's assume that GM thought the Firebird was worth "keeping around" in addition to the Camaro.

Let's assume that they change *nothing* about the car (it's design, parts, where it's built, etc.) other than the brand badge on the ass-end. They peel off the Pontiac badge and put a Buick badge on there. Or for that matter, they stick on a Chevy, Cadillac, Saturn, or GM badge on there.

You're telling me that you wouldn't buy that Firebird?

Also, I don't know off the top of my head if the Cobalt and G8 share the same parts - I'm guessing they do - in which case a "Cobalt" part most certainly would work on your G8...and in fact, in such a case, the part number would almost certainly be the same anyway - it'd be a multi-use GM part rather than either a Chevy or Pontiac part.

While "Pontiac Enclave" and "Chevy LaCrosse" may not "sound" right...my point is that it makes not the slightest difference. Renaming the Corvette to "DesperateOldGuyMobile" wouldn't sound right - but it's still the same damn car.


RE: GM is stupid
By tallcool1 on 11/25/2009 12:29:50 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
GM is unlikely to want to keep Saab - Saab has almost never turned a profit for GM and it doesn't fit with GM's vision of making Cadillac its global luxury brand (and doesn't contribute much in the way of unique engineering assets).
Why in the world did they buy Saab in thie first place?
Answer:
quote:
It's because GM was being run by failed business men who could afford to carelessly through caution to the wind as the artificially debt-based government-backed economy was there to support their illegitimacy as accomplished and successful players within the free market.


Question
quote:
And also continue with two truck-SUV lines Chevy/GMC, that make the same vehicles. Why? Another STUPID move. Why two truck-SUV lines?
Answer: See previous answer.


RE: GM is stupid
By Oregonian2 on 11/25/2009 2:23:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Renaming the Corvette to "DesperateOldGuyMobile" wouldn't sound right - but it's still the same damn car.


Nope it wouldn't be. One of the big things (esp. higher end ones but true even for low end cars to some extent) people are buying is image. Changing the name like that would make it NOT the car it was previously (to the buyer).


RE: GM is stupid
By mindless1 on 11/25/2009 10:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
yes it would, you're obviously too young to remember the old GM muscle cars from decades ago.


RE: GM is stupid
By Oregonian2 on 11/26/2009 12:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'm 58 and once had a 375 HP car. It would have been worth less had it been called a crapmobile. IMO


RE: GM is stupid
By Spuke on 11/25/2009 4:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
The Cobalt and G8 are two totally different platforms. They're not even the same size. The G8 actually comes from GM's Holden division in Australia. Maybe you're thinking of the G5 which IS the same as the Cobalt.


RE: GM is stupid
By bmheiar on 11/25/2009 6:26:44 PM , Rating: 2
I still would not want or buy a Firebird if it was made by another brand. It would be a Firebird in name only, it would not have the history prestige heritage & etc., behind it. It be just like if Ford sold the rights to the Mustang to like Kia, and Kia decided to continue making the Mustang. No one would buy it, because it would not be FORD. Even thou it be the same damn car, it would not be made by FORD and that would make all the difference. It would not sell. I am just providing that as an example, improbable as it is.

It is not just the badge that changes, GM changes the front grills and etc., making Pontiacs more sporty & aggressive compared to family cars of Buick.


RE: GM is stupid
By Motoman on 11/25/2009 6:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
Ford -> Kia is fundamentally different than Pontiac -> Buick. Because Pontiac, Buick, Chevy, Olds, Saturn, GMC all = GM. Same company.

To be completely fair, I think Holden and Saab would be slightly different cases, in as much as Holden for example could be spun right back off and be the way it was a few years ago. But all the traditional GM brands are all the same company anyway.


RE: GM is stupid
By tjr508 on 11/25/2009 9:14:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it would not have the history prestige heritage & etc., behind it


Is this the history and prestige of being an exact Camaro copy with a different bumper for 30+ years?


RE: GM is stupid
By bigboxes on 11/25/2009 9:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
Pontiac. We build ugly.


RE: GM is stupid
By eddieroolz on 11/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: GM is stupid
By Jcollector1 on 11/25/2009 12:37:47 PM , Rating: 4
WTF are you talking about. My LS3 In my G8 sure as hell doesnt go with ANYTING in a Chevy Cobalt. The Pontiac G8 is a Holden Commadore built by Holden in Australia. The car was designed by a team of Australian and former BMW engineers and is truly the last real GM RWD Sports Sedan. Drive one and come back to see me.

And yes the decision to kill pontiac was absurd, but so was the general decision making by the GM brass for the past 25 years.

GM needs to bring holden over the states: www.holden.com.au


RE: GM is stupid
By gucio69 on 11/25/2009 1:41:09 PM , Rating: 3
For some strange reason bmheiar implied that the Chevy Cobalt is G8s equivalent, when the G5 was actually Cobalts counterpart at Pontiac.

And I agree, I'd love to see Holden sold in the states. They make some very attractive automobiles.

It would be a shame is Saab doesn't make it. I have a 2006 9-3 and it's a pretty fun car, though maintenance-wise it's not cheap.


RE: GM is stupid
By bmheiar on 11/25/2009 6:11:55 PM , Rating: 2
Nope.. I was not implying that Chevy Cobalt is the Pontiac G8 are equivalent. I was providing two different car models with two different body styles as an example to counter point Motoman comment,
quote:
what difference does it make what badge is on the car? Same plants, same parts, same workforce...
Because to me, Motoman comments implied that all GM cars are made at the same plants out of the same parts but the same workforce. Which they are not! And yes the Pontiac G5 and Chevy Cobolt are the equivalents of each other, so yes most parts are interchangeable between the two, but not all parts. But you can not take a part from a Cobalt/G5 and put it on a G8, it is not going to work, esp. if it is a body part.


RE: GM is stupid
By eddieroolz on 11/26/2009 4:28:57 AM , Rating: 1
It was a typo if you didn't realize, I'm not so stupid that I mix a rear-wheel drive car with a front-wheel compact.


RE: GM is stupid
By Samus on 11/26/2009 1:14:23 AM , Rating: 2
GM needs Buick because unlike Pontiac and many other axed badges such as Oldsmobile and Saturn, Buick is, for some odd reason, globally recognized.

I don't know the history of it all, but outside of the United States, it seems Saturn became popular in Canada and Mexico, Pontiac has been ever popular in Australia (Holden), but Buick is a gem in China and South Korea, which in contrast are substantially larger markets.

If I were going bankrupt, I'd probably axe popular vehicles in smaller markets over larger ones.


RE: GM is stupid
By callmeroy on 11/25/2009 10:07:44 AM , Rating: 1
Despite the hatred for GM by the bailout and the negative comments pretty much the whole US population have tossed their way -- one of the two most reliable and fun cars I've ever had so far was a Chevy (the other was a Mazda btw).

My least favorite and least reliable thus far has been a Dodge....while the closest I've come to owning a Ford was when I had the Mazda.

All that said -- the logic of GM with is brand whoring practice has always been something I could never quite wrap my head around. Its one of those things I just sit there while thinking about and go "Why? Just Why?!".

And I think the many brands is one of the major reasons they failed financially....it finally caught up with them.

I don't see (nor have I EVER btw - like in my entire life thus far) many Saabs around here and I've lived in this area of the country (the North East) my entire life. So what was the point of Saab to begin with -- they also never had any memorable ad campaigns around this area either. Sure some dinky sad/short lived half-arsed commercials here and there but nothing on the scale of BMW, Mercedes, Volvo or even Dodge (eck!) and Chevy....


RE: GM is stupid
By reboos on 11/25/2009 11:06:41 AM , Rating: 2
If I recall correctly GM bought an interest in Saab in part because of the Trionic engine management system. At the time it was extremely innovative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trionic


RE: GM is stupid
By Amiga500 on 11/25/2009 11:42:26 AM , Rating: 5
Saab turned a profit right up until GM bought into them...

Make of that what you will...


RE: GM is stupid
By Hoser McMoose on 11/25/2009 11:41:31 PM , Rating: 1
Not really, they were, at best, barely profitable in the late 80's under Scania and likely were about to drop deep into the red in 1990 if GM hadn't bought up half the company.

Quick quote from Saab's history:

"By the late 1980s, the Saab division had become a perennial financial loser"

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/S...

And from Google's way-back machine:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=4rMQAAAAIBAJ&...

"Ford is holding talks with Saab, the financially troubled Swedish car maker", dated Oct. 13th, 1989.

Note that Ford eventually abandoned Saab in favour of buying Jaguar. GM came next.


RE: GM is stupid
By mmatis on 11/25/2009 1:51:06 PM , Rating: 3
One word - UNION.


RE: GM is stupid
By BZDTemp on 11/25/09, Rating: 0
RE: GM is stupid
By Spuke on 11/25/2009 4:47:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Unions here in Europe and especially northern Europe is not a burden on companies but an active partner.
The US is not Europe and the auto industry unions are drain, not an enhancement here.


RE: GM is stupid
By BZDTemp on 11/25/2009 6:48:18 PM , Rating: 1
Eh - I'm sorry we are discussing SAAB which is a Swedish company so what has the US unions to do with anything.


RE: GM is stupid
By Spuke on 11/25/2009 11:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Eh - I'm sorry we are discussing SAAB which is a Swedish company so what has the US unions to do with anything.

1. SAAB is owned by GM, a US company.
2. Your memory is very short. Do you not know what post you replied to?


RE: GM is stupid
By BikeDude on 11/26/2009 12:10:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
SAAB is owned by GM, a US company.


Yes, but the unions who have the most members working for Saab are still Swedish.

But... There is one problematic union aspect to the Saab saga: The German unions demanded from GM that the production of Saab 9-5 should be moved to one of Opel's factories in Germany. The result was that the production costs of the 9-5 rose, since labour expenses are higher in Germany than in Sweden.

Despite this (and similar) acts of sabotage from their own owner, Saab managed to turn a profit in 2007 (if you add in the sales of Saabs in the US). AND they continued wasting money on additional safety testing that far surpasses anything the cars are subjected to over at EuroNCAP and similar organisations. ("safety does not sell" seems to be GM's catchphrase -- which they tried proving by making Saab's life difficult)


RE: GM is stupid
By BZDTemp on 11/26/2009 1:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
1. Yes, SAAB is owned by as us COMPANY not a US union.
2. Honestly! Just because I don't share your views it does not mean I can't follow a thread.
3. Do you get the difference between a company that was opened as division of a mother company and a company with it's own culture bought by a big company?

SAAB may be owned by GM but it is still a Swedish company with Swedish employees and a history that goes back more than 7 decades back.

Here is an example that is the other way round. The Holiday Inn I would suppose most Americans would consider a US company? In fact it is part of IHG which is a company that has it's HQ in London.


RE: GM is stupid
By Jalek on 11/27/2009 1:17:04 AM , Rating: 2
Some people won't get it unless it's explained by a talk show host. All they know is that unions ruined everything, life was much better before the labor movement and we'd be better off living in company villages and shopping in company stores.


RE: GM is stupid
By xphile on 11/25/2009 5:04:17 PM , Rating: 2
Was Saab a hobby for them?

Why not, wasn't GM a hobby for the US Government? We all need our hobbies...


RE: GM is stupid
By jjmcubed on 11/25/2009 7:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
There has been talk about GM doctoring the books a wee bit so they wouldn't have to pay the "high" taxes in Sweden.


RE: GM is stupid
By Hoser McMoose on 11/25/2009 11:51:25 PM , Rating: 2
It's more likely that they would doctor the books in the U.S. to avoid paying the high U.S. corporate taxes.

Corporate tax rate in "socialist" Sweden: 26%
Corporate tax rate in "capitalist" America: 35%

On the other hand Sweden has very high payroll taxes, which would strongly discourage companies like GM from hiring workers in Sweden. It's kind of hard to cook the books to avoid those though as they are taken straight off their employees paycheck. I guess maybe though they could have people being officially employed in some other country even though they live and work in Sweden. However this would probably stick out like a sore thumb and Swedish authorities would take a dim view of it.


RE: GM is stupid
By decapitator666 on 11/26/2009 3:24:41 AM , Rating: 2
And yet they had a huge collection of US brands of cars.. And all hugely profitable... NOT..

In other words.. That's what they do..

Keeping Cadillac as a brand in Europe is not very smart. Cadillac cars have a stale, sluggish oil tanker image. Cars that have difficulty negotiating a corner, guzzling gas, and sluggish. They have to do a lot of work if they want to sell Cadillacs in Europe instead of e.g. Opel or Saab cars.

I bet in Europe they outsold Cadillacs by Saab with at least 25-30 to 1..

Cadillac will never fly in Europe as a brand therefore GM need to diversify brands in Europe


RE: GM is stupid
By BikeDude on 11/26/2009 11:49:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
why GM would keep a brand that doesn't make money


As late as 2007, SAAB turned a nice profit if you factor in the US sales.

Saab's accounting books show that GM pocketed the money from car sales in the US, while Saab carried all the expenditures. I.e. Saab lost money for every car sold in the US, whereas their owner GM made a nice profit.

Accounting magic in action.

Then you can look into all the concept cars Saab have come up with. Saab wanted to bring the 9-3x to market in 2002 or so. GM OTOH waited until it was blindingly obvious that a cross-over model was something that customers responded to. They obviously needed a replacement for the ageing 9-5, but GM held them back and it is only now that they will finally (maybe) release the successor, more than ten years after the 9-5 first appeared.

If GM wanted Saab to make (a lot of) money, they could have done many things differently.


Not the way some see it...
By 306maxi on 11/25/2009 9:39:07 AM , Rating: 2
From the rumours I've heard GM was the one that pulled out. Either they think they can get Saab to a point where it's profitable (doubtful) or they thought that perhaps they'd do better to keep Saab alive a bit longer and make some money.

I think it would be very sad to see Saab go, Saab unlike a lot of other brands who've perished are actually a decent marque which with the right product could be doing very well. GM screwed up bigtime with the 900s which was the first GM model and with every new model the cars just became less Saab and more Vauxhall/Opel and that wasn't what Saab buyers wanted.




RE: Not the way some see it...
By aguilpa1 on 11/25/2009 9:49:23 AM , Rating: 3
Even if that were true, the only reason GM would have in keeping Saab would be for a European presence in their thinly disguised GM models under the Saab brand. Unlike Ford which has a strong and loyal European following GM except for a few off luxury imports like Cadillac are not really well known to that market.

Frankly GM can't afford to be holding on to extra assets in the hopes of a future revival. First make the Volt a success and then when the money starts coming in, expand.


RE: Not the way some see it...
By 306maxi on 11/25/2009 9:52:51 AM , Rating: 2
You seem to forget Opel and Vauxhall which are volume manufacturers here in Europe and which GM still owns. They sell loads of cars and the cars Saab makes are based on Opel/Vauxhall platforms with Opel/Vauxhall engines so the development costs for Saab aren't all that high as all they're doing is tweaking platforms and adding their own bodies.


RE: Not the way some see it...
By The0ne on 11/25/2009 10:01:32 AM , Rating: 2
They have no money to keep SAAB. They don't have much money to be doing much of what they've been talking about...

1. marketing VOLT
2. repaying the loans in billions monthly
3. marketing and selling current models
4. restructure, if any, of the organization
5. any improvements, which I 95% doubt anything will happen


RE: Not the way some see it...
By kattanna on 11/25/2009 11:35:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They have no money to keep SAAB. They don't have much money to be doing much of what they've been talking about...


dont worry, when they run out of money, some new tax on me and you will be made to keep them afloat


RE: Not the way some see it...
By The0ne on 11/25/2009 2:42:41 PM , Rating: 2
:(


Sell back to Swedes
By aguilpa1 on 11/25/2009 9:41:00 AM , Rating: 1
Sell the Swedes back what is left of Saab and let them do with it what they may. This was never an American brand, its not an interesting or exciting line of automobiles and the Americans have not attachment to it. That said, GM was apparently just trying to make as much money out of the deal as possible in selling off the brand, that fell through. Plan B should be sell it off for parts (inventory, manufacturing, brand) whatever and let it go. The government (US) better not give them one more cent of the American people for yet another bad business transaction by fat corporates.




RE: Sell back to Swedes
By 306maxi on 11/25/2009 9:49:21 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think anyone ever claimed that Saab's were exciting but they certainly were interesting. You may not like Saab or find the marque interesting but millions would disagree. Look at the pre-1990 Saab's and you see cars completely different to anything else out there.


RE: Sell back to Swedes
By callmeroy on 11/25/2009 10:15:14 AM , Rating: 1
Different doesn't always translate to "better".

I think the older model Saabs were hideous looking...the newer saabs (like in the pictures in this very DT article) look pretty nice though.

As I've said before though -- Saabs are rare around here..you see one here and there but here BMW's followed by Mercedes and then a distant third being either Audi or Lexus are the leaders of the "Luxury Sedan" market that I believe Saab aimed to be in.

(Especially BMWs...they are ALL over around here)....


RE: Sell back to Swedes
By 306maxi on 11/25/2009 10:21:18 AM , Rating: 2
True and I don't think my mums 900i is the best looking car but in some ways it's aged well and it's an interesting bit of design. I'd take my mums car over most of the bland blobby econoboxes out there today


RE: Sell back to Swedes
By Spuke on 11/25/2009 11:13:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
True and I don't think my mums 900i is the best looking car
I like the old 900's, they had character.


RE: Sell back to Swedes
By BikeDude on 11/26/2009 11:54:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Saabs are rare around here..you see one here and there but here BMW's followed by Mercedes and then a distant third being either Audi or Lexus are the leaders of the "Luxury Sedan" market that I believe Saab aimed to be in.


I do not get why, if you want something special and luxurious, why you'd want to buy the same car as everyone else...

That said, of the brands you mention, the Saab easily provides better safety. The biggest insurance company in Sweden, Folksam, investigates real accidents and release a report every year that ranks the safety level within various types of vehicles. The Saab 9-5 has been awarded a "30%+ safer than avg" rating for more than ten years in a row now. Only this year was it joined by a different model in its size class. And the new 9-5 is even safer.

They're nice cars to drive too. And nothing beats them when there's snow and ice on the roads.


By drewsup on 11/25/2009 11:04:01 AM , Rating: 2
As a previous owner of 4 Saab's, If you have never driven one, don't knock the brand. My first was 1974 99LE, it had features you could not find anywhere else, as standard equipment. Forced hot air defrosters for side windows and rear window, heated seats, and reliable front wheel drive. Now granted, these are made for cold climates, which will not translate well to those of you in warmer climes! But there was NO better car for barreling through the snow. The only other cars on the road would be 4X4's, that says a lot.

Now.. they were expensive to fix, and had some electrical "quirks", but you got used to it being these cars had a "personality" much like the VW bugs of the day.

When they switched to the hatchback 99 and then 900's, they had a cavernous interior , you could pretty damn well haul anything inside with seats down. The 99 and 900's were also the first cars to have factory turbo's, I could do 140 MPH and it felt like 60, the frame was that heavy and rock solid.

So before you bash the brand, at least recognize the history they have behind them, I thing the Swedes should buy it back, as they seemed to know how to build this style of the car the best.

My 2 cents worth.




By qdemn7 on 11/25/2009 11:35:11 AM , Rating: 2
Without trying something to keep those jobs in-country.




Oh no!
By Souka on 11/25/2009 11:35:18 AM , Rating: 2
What will Jerry Seinfeld drive now???!

http://www.saabhistory.com/blog/wp-content/uploads...




BAIC a possible bidder?
By BikeDude on 11/26/2009 12:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One possible buyer is Beijing Auto Industry Co., who originally made a bid on the brand, but lost to Koenigsegg. The Chinese firm now seems more cautious following the fallout of the Koenigsegg-Saab union, stating that it will now "cautiously reconsider" making a new bid.


That would be very surprising as Koenigsegg brought BAIC onboard as a minority stake holder. The rumours indicate that GM balked as BAIC demanded technology in return.

So how could GM now suddenly sell 100% of Saab to BAIC?




"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki