Leave it to the Germans. When it comes to resurrecting, producing and managing foreign niche marques, the Aktiengesellschaft do the job right. While German ownership is not without its faults (think BMW’s troubled relations with MG Rover), their batting average is league leading. Meanwhile, at the bottom of the pile… Not to put too fine a point on it, GM does European automobiles as convincingly as Chinese Premier Jiang Zemin sang O Sole Mio in karaoke; the results are muddled, embarrassing and on view for an international audience.
Yes, Ford’s been farting around with foreigners as well. But you can almost forgive The Blue Oval’s lazy and misguided stewardship of the venerable Jaguar brand when balanced against the fine products coming from their Volvo, Aston and Land Rover subsidiaries. In contrast, GM’s husbandry of Saab is cynical, invasive and, ultimately, unpardonable.
Whenever I hear Vice Chairman of Global Development Maximum Bob Lutz talk about Saab, my skin crawls. In fact, his comments about the brand’s products often reveal willful contempt. In GM’s FastLane blog, Maximum Bob “playfully” commented on the Swedish design elements incorporated into the Saab 9-7X, an Ohio-built SUV based on GM’s 2005 GMT360 chassis (better known as ye olde Chevrolet Trailblazer). “The center console is not only 100% Saab in design and execution, but also features the famed ignition in the area where the Golden Retriever can turn it off.”
Obvious SUV – dog jokes aside, Maxi Bob’s flippant description of a characteristic Saab safety feature leads me to believe that if GM owned MINI, Bob’d be pushing a Chevrolet Aveo with faux aluminum rocker switches, lauding how it succeeds in maintaining MINI’s mojo (if MB knew what a mojo was). Why, he would proclaim, we even painted a Union Jack on the roof! That kind of heritage costs money you know. It sure does Mr. Lutz. As does your $1.8m annual salary.
If GM had the same respect for Saab as the Germans have for their foreign brands, the picture would be a lot rosier. The General would understand that a Saab shouldn’t be badge engineered anything. While the [Bimmer funded] Rolls Royce Phantom was hardly a runaway sales success, at least it preserves the marque’s elite heritage, and affords Rolls a chance to try again. The 9-7X is a bad joke that makes Saab into a bad joke. GM would also know not to pitch the resulting products to Audi or Volvo buyers; just as BMW realized that the new MINI and Rolls-Royce should be marketed to their own, singular clientele (they don’t call ‘em niche markets for nothin’).
Clearly, GM’s flair for cutting edge design and brand management is long gone. It’s as though The General has turned from an affable old geezer into a cantankerous son of a bitch who’s obsessed with the bottom line, but refuses to cough-up the dough for new product. “Goddammit, use watchya got!” Wait! It gets worse. Now the same badge engineering that sunk Oldsmobile and continues to threaten Pontiac and wounds Saab’s credibility and could bland Saturn to death is being exported to Johnny Foreigner.
GM Europe (and now South Africa) have recently introduced a Cadillac built on the same Epsilon chassis as the Saab 9-3 and Opel Vectra. Remove the “L” from the Cadillac BLS and the acronym is more indicative of what GM has accomplished with this "new" car. What happened to the magnificent Eldorado convertible in La Dolce Vita that paraded down the cobbled streets of Rome oozing the chromium of rich, victorious, post war Americana? Gone. While the STS is busy not selling abroad as well, European buyers now think of a Cadillac as mid-sized motor that can be ordered with an “economical” four cylinder diesel.
Even more bizarrely, GM’s thinking about importing the unholy Caddy– a foreign-built badge-engineered Cadillac– into the US. If you need proof that GM knows everything about bean counting and nothing about selling automobiles, well, there it is. Again. The fact that GM green-lighted the exact same mistake that nearly killed Caddy in the US some thirty years ago eliminates any hope that Bob Lutz’ enthusiasm for global platform sharing, for Opel-izing Saturn and Holdenating Pontiac, will create a coherent model line-up. GM is far more likely to import more penny-pinching half-breeds, mutants and unlovable bastards.
Obviously, shared engineering is not in and of itself a liability. Seat, Audi, Lamborghini and Bugatti all benefit from corporate parent VW's technological resources. No, the real enemy is willful ignorance. Niche brands require careful nurturing. More than anything, niche consumers demand products that display brand-faithful individuality. Anything less is a new 9-3. So now The General is faced with two solutions to its money-draining mismanagement of Saab: either embrace the German model of ownership or set it free before it faces an ignominious death. Needless to say, they’ll do neither.
Tagged as
58 Comments on “A Car Czar Too Far: Why Bad Things Happen to Good Saabs...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Maximum Bob was quoted last year saying that Pontiac and Buick are damaged brands.
I’m thinking he left out Saab, too.
Before we purchased our Volvo, we considered Saab 9-3 combi. A nice car, the GM influence just kept us away. Fears of a bankrupt GM or Saab being purchased by another brand stopped the purchase.
Saab is so unique and different. They’ve only had a few models, why not keep it that way? Subaru has succeeded with a small stable of cars, why can’t Saab offer just a few variations on the small (9-3) and larger (9-5)?
The 9-7 is really what looks like the nail in the coffin. The 9-2 wasn’t that bad, totally unnecessary, but…
The 9-7 just demonstrates how little GM management understands its brands or even the market. That they could not see the inevitable increase in oil prices or that the thing just looks ugly. It doesn’t fit into the Saab look of the 9-3 or 9-5, was the short term profit of having a Saab SUV so necessary to dilute the brand. Volvo, although certainly there are elements of Ford, looks all Volvo. The XC90 is not just a rebadged Explorer and I relish that so many small parts say “Made in Sweden” on them. Saab has so much potential, to be a great, unique car brand, instead under GM’s leadership it becomes another Buick or Pontiac. Is the 9-7 actually supposed to compete against the XC90, X5, M-Class or Toureg?
K.
GM/saab is like a mother that finds it necessary to keep a child ill so there is a needy body to attend to and eventually smother out of existance then mourn for even more attention whoring. Not exactly… but its sorta sick and disgusting in the same way.
GM’s got Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy? And I thought I was tough on The General.
Saab 9-2 and 9-7 epitomize GM’s general stupidity and its utter lack of understanding of how to run a near-luxury/luxury car business. All they have done so far is starve Saab of the funding that this brand needs so badly for new product development and dilute it with badge engineered products. Platform and engine sharing is a good thing when done right. No one was whinning that the previous A4 was a rebadged VW and viceversa. However, selling a thinly disguised Chevy Blazer as a Saab is bad. Claiming that 9-7 was “born from the jets” was plain insulting to whatever loyal Saab customers that this brand still has. Yes, perhaps the Saab dealers needed an SUV to satisfy the customers who are to snobby to buy a 9-5 wagon, but that didn’t mean they had to be given a bandge-engineered Chevy. Ideally, it should have been a CUV based on a GM-car platform that was designed with a significant input from Saab. Although, I personally don’t see how it is possible to justify spending money on SUV development while Saab’s bread’n'butter flagship sedan is being allowed to age so badly. I am living in a Saab/Volvo friendly college town, and even here I rarely end up seeing a new 9-5. No one wants a $35K luxury car that was designed when Clinton was in the office. Besides, it also looks like neither BLS nor 9-7 are selling well. Perhaps the GM assholes will finally learn their lesson now?
Honestly, I miss the charm of the old Saabs – the look, the way they drove (albeit with a bit of body roll), they way they felt – it was old skool kool – my mom has a 9-3 Aero and while it has plenty of tractable power and very flat handling, its lost the flair that makes Saab a Saab.
The Epsilon platform underpins the Saab 9-3, Opel/Vauxhaul/Holden Vectra, Chev Malibu, Pontiac G6, Saturn AURA, and more. It is a GLOBAL platform. So why pick on Saab for the ‘birth’ of the BLS? Sure, the BLS is built in Trollhatten, but that’s just logistics. It could have been built in one of a dozen plants set up for Epsilon. Almost all of the hardware is used or shared with other GM global products. The 2.8L V6 Turbo is used by Saab, but also Opel, et al. And the 2.8L V6 is, for the most part, the same used in the CTS and of-the-same-family hi-feature V6 as the 3.6L used in many, many GMs stateside.
The BLS appears to be a nice car, despite (or thanks to?) its heritage. Forget the badge it wears or the husbandry behind it and maybe your reviews would start sounding like truth, and less like regurgitated opinion.
Munchausen’s syndrome?
Could this article be a corollary of GM Death Watch serie:
Saab’s velorium
The BLS is actually one of the nicest expressions of Cadillac’s Art and Design styling motif. The interior looks pretty un-badge engineered…dare I say it, it looks like a nice car.
If it wasn’t for Saturn reselling Opels in the states, I think rehashing the BLS for America might not be a bad idea. Lincoln seems to be riding high(er) with sales of the Zephyr.
If you compare the interior of the 9-3SS and the BLS you’ll see that other than the center stack the cars are nearly identical.
Word that GM would bring the BLS to the US and have it compete directly against SAAB’s version of the car shows you how much they think of SAAB. I own my third SAAB, a 2004 9-3SS Aero – it’s been a good reliable car with a few fit and finish issues. The interior durability is poor and the sports suspension a chiropractor’s dream, but it is still a very fun car to drive on the mountain twisties. Unfortunately the 2007- versions of this car show a marked dumbing down of the dash with GM parts bin garbage (I say that in the nicest way) – you will find in the 2007 9-3 the exact same A/C and audio controls in some of GM’s chinciest products – a very BAD sign. I hope that GM will have a revelation before releasing the full redesign of the 9-5 and later the 9-3 but if they don’t, you can kiss the brand goodbye – it makes me sad.
GM’s incessant badge engineering undermining every single brand that they own.
Thinking about the German’s management of their “core” brands is pretty insightful: BMW and Benz have sedans that are for the most part “small, medium and large” versions of the same archetype. Obviously one is more superior than the other, but they exude the same qualities: All are RWD, all emphasize driving dynamics (for BMW) or “composure” (MB). Regardless of “size, or trim level” these cars maintain the same character (values, even).
A 316i and an M3 or a 745i are most certainly in the “family.” They don’t share many parts, but when you drive a 7-series and the turn signal stalk functions the same as the 316’s you don’t feel ripped off. The brand image reinforces itself. Same for these automakers’ newer lines (Z-series, X-series, etc.).
The acquired BMW brands say allot about how much they value the “identity” of the brand that they now own. Mini is essentially one car, hopefully they will find a way to expand the line, but the DNA will always stay coherent. Same with Rolls.
Hummer is the only image-consistent GM brand they have, and they have done a wonderful job of undermining that as well.
Ford is seeing success for the same reasons: Each brand is allowed to maintain its own DNA. A Volvo is still a Volvo, Land Rover and Jag the same, more or less.
What GM really should do is “distill” each brand down to a core vehicle: Massive, no compromise Sedan, and on down the line.
I rather liked that my diesel Chevettes had at least some faint Deutsche DNA from ’70s Opels (rehashed as they were from ’60s Opels).
US steel, German blueprint, Japanese Isuzu motor, can’t we all just get along ?
BLS in America? Where did you hear that?
It’s tempting to have as few platforms/engines combinations underpinning as many models as possible. But in the end, you only have one car, slightly different sheetmetal and interior color, and identically driving cars.
Your 7 brands for one model end up competing with each other on the same square foot of field. Should I buy an aura, a G6, a malibu or a bls? The price is different but the car is the same (save sheetmetal and interior color).
Same thing for the 9-7. Do you want a TrailBlazer, Bravada, Envoy, Rainier, (Isuzu) Ascender or a 9-7x?
And a saabaru. When they’re done with the current 9-5 (to be replaced by an epsylon car) they’ll be done killing Saab. Wait, they’ve done that, the 9-5 is the old Vectra platform.
Try this – slated for 2009 – I have no idea how reliable this is:
http://www.gminsidenews.com/index.php?page=Future_Product_Guide
-Cadillac-
Cadillac BLS: Bob Lutz himself has said that the currently Europe-only BLS will come to America when it is redesigned. A wagon version may follow. The BLS will be based on the Epsilon II platform which will offer GM a variety of body styles and configurations. We could see the BLS on sale here in 2010.
>>Now the same badge engineering that sunk Oldsmobile and continues to threaten Pontiac and wounds Saab’s credibility and could bland Saturn to death is being exported to Johnny Foreigner.
Saturn was blanded to death back in ‘96, when GM dragged it back into the small car division. The original Saturn was a nice sporty car, distinctive enough that I knew what it was the first time I saw one even though I hadn’t seen any pictures. The first time I saw a ‘96 I didn’t know if I was looking at a Hyundai, a Tercel, or an Olds.
Mr. Mehta > Respectfully, I challenge you took take a look at a Saab 9-3’s interior, an Opel Vectra’s interior, and the Cadillac BLS’ interior and again say that there’s no badge engineering there.
It’s the exact same interior from the steering wheel to the door handles. It’s like saying the 9-7X’s interior looks nothing like a Trailblazer’s because the ignition’s in the center console.
I bet it zigs, too.
Why is the key in the center console a safety feature?
It seems like Saab is nothing much more than a nameplate at this point. The 99s and 900s were revolutionary vehicle for their time – fun-to-drive mid-sized front-wheel drive hatchbacks with great winter traction, maximum utility and unique driving dynamics. The first 99 turbos were fearsomely fast for the late 1970s and would easily humiliate slow-witted muscle cars on back roads. The point is Saab made its name developing innovative products that offered a real alternative. There’s just no point to the brand as yet another entry-level upscale sports sedan built on the same basic architecture as dozens of other cars. Set it free or let it die a merciful death.
kaisen:
October 13th, 2006 at 11:57 am
The Epsilon platform underpins the Saab 9-3, Opel/Vauxhaul/Holden Vectra, Chev Malibu, Pontiac G6, Saturn AURA, and more. It is a GLOBAL platform. So why pick on Saab for the ‘birth’ of the BLS? Sure, the BLS is built in Trollhatten, but that’s just logistics. It could have been built in one of a dozen plants set up for Epsilon.
It’s my understanding that Saab tweaked the Epsilon platform and the resulting 9-3SS enough that it can only be built on the Trollhatten assembly line.
I recall reading some GM high muckety-muck saying years ago that Saab would have required a billion dollar investment to become profitable. Instead they opted to lose millions for years. Huh?
And speaking of Lutz, is anyone else of the opinion that he’s the most overrated executive in the auto industry?
C’mon Renault, take Saab away from GM as a consolation prize. Please.
Hmmm…
I don’t see too many Saabs around here that are older than 10 years… well, unless you check the junkyard.
Speaking of such I have a direct ignition module for a 2.4 9000 Aero Turbo for sale. Only thing worth any money after the engine wiped out 3 main bearings and one rod with 140K.
Saab, good old days?
9-3 production is moving either Germany or Austria – I don’t recall which. Cars on the Epsilon platform don’t necessarily drive the same. Try a Malibu vs the 9-3 and see. The Malibu doesn’t rattle but it’s also a slug even with a V6. The SAAB rattles but you get the turbo thrill.
Martin Albright:
October 13th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Why is the key in the center console a safety feature?
In a collision, your kneecap could potentially strike a key jutting out from the ignition switch’s typical position on the dash or steering column. SAAB sought to minimize this risk by relocating the ignition to the center console.
This is a non-issue only to concern to self-important hobby auto editors who opine on cars they haven’t driven and wanna-be auto CEOs. Owners and potential buyers of Auras, G6s, Malibus, 9-3s, Vectras, and BLSs are not going to care or even know that the same platform underpins all these cars. While platform sharing isn’t ideal or even desirable, it’s a reality of capitalism at its finest: globalism. It makes no sense in comparing a small company like BMW to a giant transnational corporation like GM. Yes, they are going to do things differently. Ultimately, when it comes to badge engineering- even at its worst- the truth remains that the 9-3 isn’t less or worse of a car just because Cadillac also sells an Epsilon.
I always thought that rebadging a Camry as a Lexus was a bad idea, but it doesn’t seem to be bringing down that luxury mark at all.
Could the BLS be Cadillac’s ES?
Chaz_233-
Why bother commenting at all? I honestly don’t care if someone buying a Saab doesn’t realize its built off of the same platform as the Malibu. The point is, this plan doesn’t seem to be helping Saab or GM create wonderful cars that everyone wants.
BMW is not a small company and yes, GM is much bigger than BMW. However, BMW seems to be doing much better than GM in the car making department. I think GM would do much better eliminating all the badge engineering, something totally different from platform sharing. They may be like BMW and able to offer distinct cars in each of their brands. The problem is they are so invested in sharing (word to the 9-3 interior seeming cheap) that stopping is almost impossible.
K.
I understood the center ignition was a carryover from Saab’s competition during their road rally days. When a new driver climbed into the car and fastened his seatbelt, his right hand would only have to move a few inches to start the car, rather than move “all the way” up to the steering column. Hard to believe that would have saved much time. Maybe Saab dealers have 2 stories on the ignition – The “safety” story for female buyers, and the racing legend story for men???
Speaking of saabaru, I test drove a 9-2X Aero when they first came out and it still had the clear plastic seat covers from the factory. They had the name “Subaru” on them, and it was comical that Saab made no attempt to conceal the fact this thing was made in Japan.
If they bring the BLS Stateside, it’ll be due to the fact, that the Europeans won’t buy enough of em…
When they import the car, they will call it the Cadillac Cimarron.
I see GM making Saturn into what Saab & Pontiac were supposed to be. Saturn get’s a 2 seater rebadged convertible (same as the Solstice which is the same as the Opel Vectra GT). Now Saturn got a rebadged Opel in the Aura built on the same platform as the Saab 9-3. How long before the Saturn image first an economy import fighter starved of new product that evolved into handme down Chevy Cobalts/Malibus with plastic siding and now to psuedo Euro luxury/sport is changed once again?
Seems GM thinks that slapping a Saab grill, lowering the car a little, and relocating the ignition switch keep the “essence” of the brand. This is idiotic to say the least.
Saab was unique in their ability to offer a nice powerful fwd luxury/sporty vehicle. Add a Subaru and a GM truckbased SUV to the mix and identity suffers. Take Opels and Chevrolet platforms and Saabify them ruins the image. I really see satire of severely mental handicap porportions when I see the Saab 9-7x commerical with the “born from jets” – do they mean jumbo jets in this case?
The center console ignition was touted as a solution to a safety issue but I have also heard the safety benefits were an afterthought — the ignition location probably came about primarily because at the time US rgeulations were requiring ignition interlocks to effectively immobilize cars as a theft deterrent issue. For most cars this meant locking the steeing. For Saab’s unique view of the world, what better way to immobilize a car than lock the gearshift — with an anciallry benefit of not breaking kneecaps in a collision?
I am a long time Saab owner (classic 900 and Viggen) who now owns a 9-2x Aero. Obviosuly, I knew it was a badge job (and I got a csreamingly great deal on it), but I really truly feel that if there are two manufacturers in the world who should partner, it’s Saab and Subaru. The pairing actually makes sense (provided that the products of that pairing are *not* badge jobs but merely platform sharing ). Both manufacturers are well known for provising unique engineerig solutions to automotive issues, both favor utility, both utilize somewhat oddball styling, both believe foul weather security and traction are necessary components to safe driving. Of course with GM liquidating non-core assets (like its stake in Fuji Heavy Industries) this partnership is done.
While I am no fan of badge engineering, I think we should keep in mind the shape SAAB was in when GM took over. No product pipeline, an archaic factory, a terrible dealer network and declining sales and reputation. Without GM (or another large automaker with deep pockets), SAAB would have gone under a decade ago.
I don’t like most of what SAAB has become to date — the 9-2 and 9-7 are whorish and the 9-5 was a generation behind 5 years ago. But the 9-3 variants are decent, if a little short on character.
Give GM credit for keeping SAAB in the game at least. As long as they are alive, SAAB could sport a comeback. Cadillac, Nissan and Aston have all done it in the past 5 years.
Can you say Cimarron? Aye Carumba!
Respectfully, I challenge you took take a look at a Saab 9-3’s interior, an Opel Vectra’s interior, and the Cadillac BLS’ interior and again say that there’s no badge engineering there.
gunnarheinrich: thanks for the wake up call. I don’t know how I missed it, but yeah, there’s way too much Saab in that. At least the Zephyr has a totally different interior from a Fusion.
I always thought that rebadging a Camry as a Lexus was a bad idea, but it doesn’t seem to be bringing down that luxury mark at all.
No, Lexus does a good job hiding the Camry underpinnings. Different sheetmetal, interior, suspension tuning…it all adds up to a car completely different than the BLS.
My Lexus ES road test shall be in RF’s inbox very soon.
A few years ago before I left the GM universe, they were sending a lot of seat and body electronics sub-programs (and a few engineers) to Saab because “they do that stuff better”. “Brilliant”, I thought at the time.
The end result is that Saab will be shown how to do that “stuff” the GM way, because at the end of the GM day, cost wins over all other priorities. So after GM dumps Saab they will have lost their ability to survive alone and they will just fade into oblivion or end up as another Chinese-purchased name.
Talk about preaching to the choir, Gunnar!
As has been mentioned above, the whole platform thing matters most to enthusiasts who have a clue that it even exists. Your average well-heeled SUV-buying couple don’t necessarily fall into that category.
In an ideal world, Saab wouldn’t have had to build the 9-7x. Given the situation they’re in it was a decent short term solution. It’s been getting great reviews, is the second best selling Saab in the US this year behind the 9-3 and the only people that are crying out about it are ‘the purists’ – many of whom don’t even own a Saab! They just like having a dig at the general.
The 9-7x will retain some customers in the fold until the 9-4x comes and introduce some new ones as well. And that situation is much, much better than a rushed Saabification of the “flying vagina” B9 Tribeca.
Anyone else here remember the rumor years ago about Saab getting a Sigma-based crossover? That the SigmaSaab looked so good compared to the Cadillac SRX that it was canned, or something like that?
Instead, Saab got sloppy seconds. The 9-7x competes with, uh, the Buick Ranier.
Competes poorly, as the Buick is less expensive.
I just spent a couple of days in a 9-3 SportCombi with the 2.3L Turbo engine. I recommended my brother and sister and law look at it while they were shopping for a new wagon (or SUV).
They chose it over comparable Audis, Volvos and Bimmers. Price had a lot to do with it but overall the vehicle was very competitive with those other cars in their eyes.
I drove it: nice ride, good handling, decent level of equipment and more than adequate performance for getting around.
Next question: why is everyone so against the Epsilon platofrm? By all accounts it is an excellent platform to use.
A couple of good things enthusiasts should THANK GM for giving to SAAB:
GM gave SAAB the means to gain access to a modern V6 engine that can be turbocharged and used to good effect in the 9-3 Aero cars. For all you purists, SAAB still gets to monkey with turbo 4’s.
Regardless, of what we all think of the 9-7X it still filled a gap in SAAB’s model line. North American SAAB dealers were screaming for an SUV to show their customers, GM gave them one that could easily be given to the NA guys only. The 9-7X gave those dealers an opportunity to hold some market share, some profitability and some customers. All of that means there’s more opportunity to hold on to them again when the 9-4 comes due.
As was said before, SAAB would have been toast years ago if not for GM (as Jag would be without Ford).
Have they completely screwed it up? I don’t think so, could they do more? You bet, but my guess is revitalizing SAAB is waaaay down on the priority list at the moment.
If GM survives, SAAB will survive and potentially be given a new lease on life. GM has the Cadillac model (and it is a good model) to go on.
Saabs have never been for everyone. They’re for people who love to ask why. They’re for people who don’t give a crap about a badge when they pay 30-40 grand for a car and buy it because they like it. As much as some GM execs would like to disagree, Saabs will never be for everyone. The current 9-3 is the same way. It may use a ton of GM parts, but even the most iconic of Saabs (the old 900s) used a number of Triumph parts. That’s why the 9-3 doesn’t make a good Cadillac. It’s a decent car, but it’s not a good Cadillac.
And everyone bad mouthing Saabs in general, when was the last time you drove one? I can’t really defend the 9-5 because I think it’s a bit old, and the 9-7x is an SUV (it’s ok, but it’s not really a Saab), but the 9-3 range is damn good. You can’t say anything bad about Saab if you haven’t driven one lately.
Tiger Commanche, I think you’re confusing your imaginging the Saab racing-related key location with Porsche’s. Porsche originally put the ignition key to the left of the steering column–where it still is in every Porsche–so that Le Mans drivers, back in the days when they sprinted across the pit straight to their cars, jumped in and fired up–could leap in and put the car into gear with their right hand and fire up with the left. (I think there was a rule that the car couldn’t be parked in its starting slot in gear.) This also helped during driver-change pit stops.
In WRC rallying, however, there is no such thing as a “driver change.” Same person drives the entire race, no such thing as multi-car teams or lightning-seat-change pit stops. So there would be no reason to have a zoomy ignition key for that reason.
It’s safety related, as has been pointed out above.
Actually, the reason I like the classic Saab key location, having owned countless Saabs, is that I spend a lot of summer time driving while wearing shorts. (If I were 50 years younger, I’d claim to be wearing surfer baggies, but they’re just “shorts.”) And to me, there’s nothing more annoying than the feeling of a key fob constantly tickling my thigh,
No thigh-tickling jokes, please.
In this thread I’m seeing at least four major myths that excuse GM’s disastrous stewardship of Saab.
Myth 1: Saab would have been “toast†without GM. “CSJohnston,†that’s silly. Since the late 1980s, acquisition fever has been high enough that someone else would have bought or merged with Saab if GM hadn’t. Furthermore, I would argue that GM has shown such tone-deafness to Saab’s needs that pretty much any other partner would have likely resulted in better outcomes.
Myth 2: Badge engineering was necessary. This myth is even sillier. For example, “Trollhattan Saab†argues that only purists will “cry†about the ultimate in badge-engineered absurdity: the 9-7X. What Mr. T conveniently ignores is that, in Saab’s rarified market niches, purists can make or break a brand’s street cred. Even if this weren’t the case, the 9-7X and 9-2 would have been entirely unnecessary if GM had been willing to cut loose a few pennies on the dollar to more frequently update and expand the 9-3 and 9-5 lines.
Tell me this, Mr. T: Why is it that Saab did not start offering 4WD or AWD variants 10 years ago? That’s utter negligence given Saab’s Scandinavian heritage. As for the need for a stop-gap SUV, look at how effectively Audi, Volvo and Subaru used AWD versions of their core products until their true SUVs came to market.
Myth 3: Saab needed GM technology. “CSJohnston†says that GM gave Saab access to a “modern V6 engine.†Sure. But even if Saab had remained independent it could have purchased a better-quality engine elsewhere.
Myth 4: GM improved Saab’s operations. “SherbornSean†says that when GM took over, Saab had no “product pipeline, an archaic factory, a terrible dealer network and declining sales and reputation.†Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that this was true. Based on the press accounts I’ve read, GM has made an all-too-long string of embarrassing mistakes in marketing, engineering and production (e.g., how about that reliability?). Those mistakes would have quickly killed an independent Saab . . . and may just yet finish off a captive Saab.
Bottom line: GM needs to be held accountable for its rank mismanagement of Saab. No more excuses.
Why hasn’t anyone mentioned that the BLS is MORE expensive than the 93 in Europe. That’s the real kicker.
Traditionally, SAAB never listened to their critics. The SAAB idea was to build cars for the enthusiasts who liked the cars for their individuality, never mind what it was. But the very good winter road holding obviously wasn’t enough, most of the years SAAB was losing money. God knows how they survived before GM. When Volvo sold lots of wagons, SAAB claimed for two decades that a very odd hatchback was a better choice.
I have never liked the center console key placement, but I think the main reason for it was that a malfunctioning lock mechanism wouldn’t block the steering wheel.
But even more, I dislike the cigarette pack size “ignition key†in the latest cars. I’m 60, and I don’t want people to believe that I suffer from hernia when I put the key in my jeans pocket.
My son looked at a new Cadillac BLS at a dealership the other day, and was offered a 25 % price reduction on the spot. But he turned it away: “If I wanted a french fries cutter, I can get one ever cheaper at the cook shopâ€.
All of you Saab experts out there – can anyone shed any light on the variable compression engine developed by Saab a couple (?) of years ago, and never heard from again?
Engineering-wise, it was an exciting and novel concept.
@ Tiger.
Studies by Saab, in collaboration with insurance companies, showed a disproportionate number of injuries to the right knee, and tendons in the area, due to the leg smashing up against the ignition key. So Saab put the key between the seats, which also ergonomically made sense, as that’s where your right hand was when you leaned back against the seat after getting in.
Next, your hand would go to the handbrake lever and the gear shift …
@ Steven T
What GM has done to Saab is a crime. I happen to have been involved with the international marketing of the Saab 900 Cabriolet, the Saab 9-3 and the Saab 9-5 wagon.
Throughout, working with GM “honchos” was a nightmare, and a lesson in wilful cluelessness from the spreadsheet johnnies who were temporarily responsible for the brand.
All they thought of was badge engineering and cross-platform synergies. And they resisted, with great energy, any attempt from designers, developers, engineers and us in marketing at trying to latch on to the brand’s essence.
GM bought Saab as a consolation when Ford got Jaguar in front of their noses. GM then sought to turn a car with a rally and aircraft heritage into a luxury sedan. (The first 9-5 prototype was well over 5 meters long). In fact, GM spent the first 6-7 years after its purchase working hard to create a luxury sedan Saab, with the Asian market in place. “Move the metal!” was the mantra.
Where to start on this topic is really hard to figure out. But I’ve been in meetings at Trollhättan with GM exec’s, as Saab Viggen and Draken fighters were landing on the strip outside the meeting room, discussing aircraft heritage (back in the late 90s) and with them saying that this is old hat and uninteresting. When Saab engineers suggested HUD in Saabs, years before BMW ever thought of it, they shrugged and said forget it.
The fact that Saab sales haven’t moved at all under GM stewardship speaks volumes of how catastrophic GM has been to the brand and I could fill pages with lists of the inane decisions GM exec’s made as they went about deconstructing this great brand.
Try this on for size: they hated the fact that the car was popular on the East and West coasts of the US, and worked long and hard (spending oodles of money) on trying to sell it to Texans, before moving the headquarter for Saab USA to Atlanta from Fort Worth, as if Atlanta was a better location.
They hated the intellectual, quirky image of Saab. Rather than working with it, they fought it. I doubt there are any other, similar cases of total brand mismanagement around.
Saabaru 9-2x is a a case in point. Initial interest for this disgusting brandmash of a car was so low that it looked set to be the least successful model launch in US history when it was set loose on the world. When it was “conceived” GM saved USD 25/car by sticking with the key on the steering column, saying that having it between the seats didn’t matter …
A Saab should be the lowest you can fly, while in a production family car. They were, when they won all the rallies — and they should have kept building on the credibility that this gave them.
It pains me, but I think the brand is unsalvageable now, it’s been run off a cliff by GM.
@ CasterOil
You’re thinking of the SVC engine that Per Gillbrand developed, and which was suggested as a concept back in 2000. GM didn’t put any money into it. Variable Compression was brilliant, and mechanically sound. Do a google on Gillbrand and SVC and you’ll find quite a bit of info.
Mr. Wilkinson, thanks for clarifying the true history of the ignition placement. I’ve been mis-informing passengers in my Saab for the last 4 years when they ask about it.
Regarding the Cadillac BLS (the Saabillac?), I can’t wait to see the new commercials with Cindy Crawford and some sort of cartoon animal in the passenger seat.
You can find a bit of smartness in the SAAB management in that they haven’t put four wheel drive in SAABs. I would say that this is a typical SAAB-ism. That is because it is absolutely unnecessary in any standard car, adds to the weight, adds to the service costs and failure record, adds to the gas bill, subtracts from the inner space, subtracts from the resale value, and make people drive faster than what is healthy. The BRAKES in a four wheel drive are not better than in a two wheel drive.
I agree with Jan. All-wheel drive is the most over-sold, over-hyped automotive mechanism since Pontiac Wide-Track. It has all of the negatives that Jan lists, and it is only useful under positive torque–like cornering in the wet if you’re a WRC driver, which none of us are. (And even if there is a world-class driver hiding amongst us, it certainly isn’t within the capability of 99.9999 percent of American drivers.)
Yes, it’s useful for going uphill in the snow (under positive torque, obviously), but only a moderately small percentage of AWD drivers buy it for that reason. And after all, if the Swedes, of all people, have found FWD Saabs and RWD Volvos lousy in the snow, they must be even more obstinate than their cliche reputation.
Those of us who have owned Saabs, by the way, know that if there’s ever a snowy hill too steep for a 99 or a 900, you simply turn around and back up it, with a car that you have suddenly converted into a rear-engine, RWD vehicle with a huge rearward weight component, particularly if the hill is steep.