Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevroletRevived
I don't quite understand you there; did they have a choice to do anything different?  I do like what I'm seeing in future product like the 9-4X, however you might be right that it's too little too late. Brands that haven't done well have been turned around before though, so nothing is a lost cause. Unless GM has real plans to give Saab what it needs (which I doubt, espessially at this point in GM's history) I think it'd be better to just sell Saab, get the money and let someone else manage it. Saab never did get much attention, and I do believe it could see it's strenghs best realized by another company or even if went independent. |
I think Saab had the choice. They co-developed a new Epsilon with Alfa. That should have been the 9-3 MCE 2 years ago.
I'm not convinced this is the appropriate design direction for Saab. But we'll see. I actually don't like the 9-4. It's very nondescript. It doesn't look athletic. It doesn't look like it can run and drive aggressively. I think 9-4 will flop quite badly.
Brands that haven't done well have been turned around. None of them have been done by GM.
$6B to Cadillac to get what? A reboot 8 years later, crappy dealerships, and an inconsistent image?
Saturn's "turnaround" allowed them a complete revamp of their product line.... and spotty marketing.
Nissan was capable of a full turnaround in 1 model cycle.
Fiat did it in about a full model cycle.
Jaguar is now half way through a turnaround.
Land Rover did it in about a model cycle and a half.
I don't think these changes are enough. It probably is too little too late at this point. Saab's image of safety and security and its green image are damaged.
I'm very interested in seeing how these future Saab spec out. Will it retain Saabs consistent 5-star crash and rollover ratings? 9-3 is considered one of the safest in the word.... because Saab modified the platform significantly. And 9-5 only gets like 4/4.5 stars because it doesn't have a head curtain airbag.
We'll see....