Third Model Will Help Make Saab Profitable

[1969CamaroSS350]

Although not a true Saab, I like the 9-7x. Out of all the GMT-360's, it was the best looking IMO and the interior was far better than anything. Would have been nice to have the 4200 twin-turbocharged as the top model in keeping with Saab's heritage a little bit. I think their new SUV should be a X3 type vehicle.

[jc7222]

Why do people knock GM for others are also doing? Isn't a Infiniti QX45 an Armada, ES350 a Camry, the TSX is an Accord everywhere but here... why can't a Chevy be a Saab.
And as for GM destroying Saab... there'd be no Saab if it wasn't for GM.

All the cars, except 1, that I've owned were Saab; I currently own one hot 9-5 Aero (stick of course). I love the cars but, please give the GM-is-destroying-Saab talk a rest. Saab sales have been rising over the past couple of years. Some would have Saab stay a little niche player but, why shouldn't they compete more directly with BMW and Benz. Audi and BMW weren't always what they are today. Change isn't always that bad. That said I do think Saab must keep some of the tradition and I would love to see a hatch revival but, certain realities exsist: too many luxury car buyers will pass on a 3000lb 4 cylinder car no matter how much horses it has. Saab needs to move up in the engines to be competitive. No Saab above a 9-3 should have 4 in it. And I love the 4...I have a 4 but it is perception.
My suggestion to GM. If you are going to share a platform between Saab and one of your non-premium brands, let the Saab be released first just for the perception.
Suggestion #2 Don't listen to the people who think Saab must be a 4cylinder, FWD, hatch back.
Saab has always been technologically advanced. Trumpet that! And allow AWD, twin turbo, bio-power and such to come from Saab keep the general theme of the hockey stick shape and jet interiors and Saab will be just fine.
Oh yeah... BUILD THE AREO X!!!

[jc7222]

Why can't Saab have a Chevy?
Infiniti has an Armada, Lexus has its' Camry.
Why doesn't anyone knock that?
BTW no GM no Saab.

[desmo9]

Originally Posted by jc7222

Why can't Saab have a Chevy?
Infiniti has an Armada, Lexus has its' Camry.
Why doesn't anyone knock that?

Lexus and Infiniti are generic luxury brands. It's all Japanese. Lexus is just a more dowdied up Toyota. People accept that.

When it's OK for IKEA to sell La-Z-Boys, it'll be OK for Saab to sell Chevys.

Your analogy is totally apples and oranges.

[asim]

Hopefully GM can build a profitable vehicle to share platforms with another brand, most likely an SUV. They have SO many options, it is not even funny. So I expect a new Saab to be out soon, with all the resources they have.

[Xenon]

When 2.8t prices dip enough used, Saab would be considerable.

[DuSpinnst]

Originally Posted by desmo9

Lexus and Infiniti are generic luxury brands. It's all Japanese. Lexus is just a more dowdied up Toyota. People accept that.

When it's OK for IKEA to sell La-Z-Boys, it'll be OK for Saab to sell Chevys.

Your analogy is totally apples and oranges.

Saab "purists" need to realize that they have two options, get shared cars and platforms or let the brand die.

IKEA on the other hand isn't going to die if it doesn't sell La-Z-Boys.

[desmo9]

Originally Posted by DuSpinnst

Saab "purists" need to realize that they have two options, get shared cars and platforms or let the brand die.

IKEA on the other hand isn't going to die if it doesn't sell La-Z-Boys.

Shared platforms like that underpinning the current 9-3 is a vastly different concept than shared cars like 9-7 and 9-2. The 9-2, for instance, wasn't a Saab body and interior on a slick little shared AWD platform ... it was a thinly-veiled Impreza sold by a company stupid enough to think that buyers in that segment wouldn't notice or care.

Funny that Ford, despite its many issues, didn't resort to peddling verbatim Explorers and Mazda 3s in Volvo showrooms. Last I checked, Volvo's doing superbly.

Saab sold a derivative of one car for 20 years when it had its own corporate structure to fund and its own dealer body to support. Why GM, leveraging huge economies of scale, can only work with a Saab of pluralistic corporate grocery-getters is anyone's guess. Well actually, the "why it happens" is quite clear.

You comment is all about the type of short-term "profit today, die tomorrow" thinking that's at the heart of most of GM's woes.

[amsnare]

There was a time when both Saab and GM were making money - and they were doing this by making ONE platform or body shell per make..More than one, and the profits are diminished - the second, third and forth platforms take away sales from the first..
At one time GM used 3 shells spread over 5 makes with clever and minimal changes between the makes.
This GM must return to.
Euro-GM must do the same - maybe 2 shells for Saab, Opel, Vauxhall; good designers can make economical changes between these in the interest of customer specifications...
So, IMO, to make Saab profitable, just use ONE shell, with clever changes, but nearly identical to Opel.

[tomprice]

Agreed Saab need a 1-series/C30/A3/Golf fighter and pretty quick too. A SUV can wait, as small hatches will be ever present, the SUV market may die out.

Next on the list would be a 9-3 replacement though - the current one isn't fairing too well I'm afraid. I quite like the antiqueness of the 9-5, it's old age has made it very appealing somehow, especially the early models that are worth about the square root of 3 pence nowadays - that'd be a lovely old barge to tool around in and throw away when you're done with it.

[DuSpinnst]

Originally Posted by desmo9

You comment is all about the type of short-term "profit today, die tomorrow" thinking that's at the heart of most of GM's woes.

No it's not. I didn't say that the products where executed well. I in fact dislike the 9-2x with a passion.

My point is people who expect exclusive platforms and exclusive cars are nutty, companies don't make money selling you things that have nothing in common.

No, and I mean NO ONE would have complainers about the 9-7X had it not been the FIFTH GMT-360 to be created. Had the Trailblazer and Envoy been the only models, the 9-7X would have worked better than it already does. Which contrary to popular belief the 9-7X sells VERY WELL (better than the 9-5).

Also, profit today matters, if you don't make money now you won't be in business long. The point is to have a LONG TERM PLAN as well, something that GM has not had for many brands until recently.

[AbsoluteSaab]

I think you should looking at this from a different angle.
GM want Saab to build more cars than they are bulding today. But the Brand can't support it. Saab has always wanted to expand it's lineup but never had the funds to develop beyond 2 products.

Saab was given a budget at the turn of the century. Some say they burnt it all on the 9-3, when they could have rebadged an Opel which would have left enough money to launch a new 9-5. Others will say Saab engineered the best Epsilon variant that GM has. Why Saab used all the money on just the 9-3 and engineered it so much, that it cannot be built at any other plant, we will never know. Maybe Saab wanted to make sure it was going to be a 'True' Saab and in doing so deliberatly altered the jig. Maybe GM told Saab the money was for a new 9-3 and further money would be given for the 9-5. But then GM hit trouble and the funds dried up. Like I mentioned above the truth will likely never come out.

Today Saab is now in a position to bring new products to market when the timing is right. GM see Saab as a global premium brand but like Audi, must use what is available at VW. The situation is slightly different at VAG in that VW will let Audi launch a new product before it arrives at VW. The new A5 for example will be the basis for the next generation Passat. But from a GM point of view this is a luxury Saab cannot enjoy. With over $2bn at thier disposal Saab now have the funds to co-develop with GM's other brands and launch new products on shared platforms. GM need Cadillac to be global and with Saab's input, Cadillac should be able to make its place as a niche US luxury Brand. Saab then just need to tweak the platform to suit them.
Saab use Cadillac's budget to develop the platform, therefore only needing a few $100Mil to 'Saabify' it. It's seems as if Theta-E is the next new Platform in the pipeline so the 9-4x is likely to be the 3rd product.
From what I've read and heard it is due next Year. Size will be simular to the Captiva / Antara / Vue, so 7 Seats is 100% on the cards. Classification will be SUV not CUV. This will not just be a rebadge. It will in effect be new platform, technically differing to the base Theta platform and with good reason. Sharing a Saab platform is one thing as it is only one step down in class segment however; GM cannot afford to have Cadillac sharing Deawoo platforms.

Next in the pipeline is the new Delta platform due 2009. This is the sole reason why the 9-1 will come later. This time Saab will use Opel's money for the engineering, and again saving fortunes in only having to 'Saabify' the rest. So 2 new products and only having spent approx. $600.

If you think this sounds stupid of Saab using other brands money to cover costs in some underhanded cheating manner. This is what GM has had Saab doing for the past few years. The new 2007 9-3 facelift came from the BLS budget. But it goes deeper than that. The only workers on the Saab payroll in are those that GM can't move under the parent Corporation. Example: The only person that uses Saab's money in the Germany is the Saab MD. Everyone else is either under GM or Opel. Why else has Mr C P Forster been able to say that Saab doesn't need to produce so many vehicles to make a profit.

Personally I think this is a very clever use of money. As long as the end product looks, feels and drives like a Saab why should anyone be dissapointed?