How's Saab Doing? It Depends On Who You Ask…

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

Reuters reports that Saab/Spyker partner Vladimir Antonov has questioned whether Saab will hit its ambitious 80k unit global sales goal this year, saying

This means that the company could face capital problems

Thelocal.se provides a little more detail quoting Antonov as saying

I’m not involved in how the company is run so I don’t have access to the numbers. But according to earlier versions of the business plan, they have to sell 80,000 cars this year to stay with the plan. From my point of view, I think that’s a bit too optimistic.

If the goal isn’t reached it would be nice for Saab to have €50-70 million ($69-97 million) as a little something extra to lean on. We’re ready to provide that money if we’re allowed to do so by the [European Investment Bank].

Antonov went on to say that bringing in outside investors would be difficult and that if the EIB loan fell through, something he does not foresee, Saab could be bankrupt “in days.” Needless to say, Saab’s Chief Optimism Officer Victor Muller didn’t take kindly to Antonov’s remarks and is firing back in the press.

According to the Reuters report, Muller has said that

the remarks made by Antonov, who last month agreed to buy the Spyker luxurysportscar business [link added], were “complete nonsense” and that Spyker was sticking to all Saab sales targets.

And when Reuters went looking for some third-party clarity on the conflict, Patrick Beijersbergen of Dutch sharholders’ group VEB told them

Muller is someone who is very positive and optimistic, which is good as a businessman, of course. Perhaps Antonov is more realistic. We have always said Muller was taking a big risk with the takeover. We have said before that Spyker may have to do a big share issue. That is still possible if one of the financiers reclaims his money

Finally, Saabsunited.com confirms (through a translated Russian interview with Vladimir Antonov) that the firm’s much-hyped “Phoenix platform,” which is said to be the future of the brand, is actually a development of a GM platform. Antonov explains

Saab – a niche company, we can not compare it to corporations such as Volkswagen, who works for the unification of models between brands. Plan for production – 125 thousand cars in 2012. But we also understand that the unification within the company needed. Therefore, our new platform PhoeniX – a development owned by Saab, although it is a modified platform GM. Saab will be able to build on it from multiple machines in length from 4.3 to 5.4 meters, including the SUV. The entire new model range, already saabovsky own, will be built on one platform.


Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 44 comments
  • Wolfwagen Wolfwagen on Jul 10, 2023

    I picked up a 2003 Saab 9-5 arc wagon (V6 turbo) last fall to be my dd for my 20-minute r/t daily commute and around town car. It needed some work and I finally got it up and moving this spring. It still needs some work (SID and radio are currently out for repair) but it is comfortable, economical and I love the styling, I also don't see one in every parking lot or road. I wish I had found a pre-GM Saab, but they didn't make wagons then.

  • Seth1065 Seth1065 on Jul 10, 2023

    Again I will ask , why the hate , have you ever driven one ? Please enlighten me what do you drive ? Btw I am still driving a Saab

  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh A prelude is a bad idea. There is already Acura with all the weird sport trims. This will not make back it's R&D money.
  • Analoggrotto I don't see a red car here, how blazing stupid are you people?
  • Redapple2 Love the wheels
  • Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
  • Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
Next