Meh, I don't miss Saab one bit, these new designs are nothing groundbreaking...
This 9-4 isn't that impressive either... Thats the kind of interior you find in a Saab? That bland and boring sea of black? You can have it... Hell IMO the GMC Terrain interior is nicer...
Front end isn't working to much for me right now either, who knows, maybe I will warm up to it.
The SRX is doing fine and sells out every month. The only problem GM has is they can not make any extra. The Saab will sell and it will have the same problem which is a lack of production capacity at GM to surge production with demand.
For Europe it is definately missing a diesel. Hardly any SUV is sold with petrol engine here. Especially the 3.0L t-diesels are popular for that size.
And I guess the euro-version is not speed limited and the US-version is. Hence the 209 vs 210/240 km/h difference. Same for the conversion 0-60 mph and 0-100 km/h; I guess the times are right (like 3.9s 0-60 for the CTS-V vs 4.2s 0-100 km/h)
OK, I've been trying to argue the contrary but now I see more and more proof the SRX is just an offshot of the 9-4X programme. Look at the U-Rail, the 2.8 V6 etc. I guess the Sigma/Alpha SRX replacement got cancelled and Cadillac hastily restyled the 9-4X, with production moving to Ramos Arizpe.
If you look at it, the 9-4X is built to be a platform mate of the 9-5 - they even share the interior. I would guess the original plan might have been to build it in the short series it will require alongside the 9-5 in T-hattan, with the 2.0T, 2.8T an the diesels, not complicating the logistics overly. Then, when GM became jittery about the future of T-hattan and Saab, the programme was moved to Ramos and quickly accomodated the 3.0 DI (which makes sense, as the 9-5 and 9-4X will shift to the 3.0 TT in lieu of the 2.8T in two model years or so).
ANYHOW
It's a fine piece of CUV, one can only wonder why it took GM so long to realize Saab is an ideal premium brand for that (they could and should have been in that market ahead of Volvo, BMW et. al.) - it still isn't without its shortfalls (3.0 DI, pfffff), but overall, it's a very attractive offering in a market full of mommymobiles. Certainly stands out against a sea of RXs.
Looks pretty good. It does a good job NOT looking like a Equinox or SRX. Only the steering wheel and window switched give any hint of GM engineering and parts.
This is a really, really good looking SUV. I'm not in the market for this kind of vehicle, but even if I were, I wouldn't be able to justify investing in a Saab. Saab's financial situation is just too precarious, and its dealer network is too small (too few places to get repairs). All this means that Saab resale values will continue to be in the toilet.
Too bad. With any other brand, this would have been a smash hit.
Can someone explain please? This shares a platform with the SRX? I thought GM and Saab split? (is Saab staying around, or going away completely soon, like Saturn and Pontiac?) OR, will they still share platforms? Kind of like in a divorce, the parents still share the kids.
Also, just curious....will Saab be getting a Lambda platform vehicle? (serious question, not joking)
What is the future of Saab now, since GM is not the parent company, who owns it? (sorry for not knowing this...just asking...in case someone knows)
The 9-4X shares Theta Premium platform with the SRX.
GM and Saab split. Saab is an "independent" company that is owned by Spyker (Dutch supercars). GM owns some stocks of Saab to keep some sort of tie there. The brand new 9-5 and this new 9-4X share platforms, parts, engines, etc with GM, as they were developed while Saab was still a part of GM. Saab is now creating its own platform that will underpin the upcoming 9-3 family and eventually the NG 9-5 and 9-4X (whole product life cycle away).
The 9-4X is the only CUV for Saab. They will not use Lambda.
I was looking forward to this car a couple years ago, but now that I actually see it, I am not to sure about it. Maybe its the paint scheme and the wheels, but this car kind of reminds me of some sot of creation from a ménage à trois between a Chevrolet Equinox, Subaru, and a Buick Rendezvous. It just doesn't work for me. Like I said, maybe it's the 2 tone white and grey paint, or the wheels which remind me of the launch Rendezvous (as well as the 2 tone paint). It just seems a little off to me. I wish the best of luck to Saab, they have a tough road to profitability. I did see a new 9-5 at a gas station in Lansing last week, and although I liked the cars in the pictures, in the flesh I was rather unimpressed.
Given that the car is built of GM-produced components and assembled under a contract by a GM plant, I'd say yes, it helps GM majorly. Not that I believe GM needs help now, Saab needs it much more. But I guess if you want to make Ramos Arizpe AND yourself happy, the 9-4X is a better bet than the SRX, as it looks a lot better and it seems like it's will have value and functionality.
Saab has most likely been part of initial design team, that was the aftermath of the 9-7X and 9-2X. Press-release talks about in-house crash-testing and such. Does SRX have Saab 3rd generation Head Restraints?
And of course different handling:
“This is a truly rewarding car to drive,” says Peter Dörrich, Saab 9-4X Vehicle Chief Engineer, who led the development team. “We are really pleased with its excellent handling and ride qualities. We can’t wait for the public and media to start driving it.”
Interior options are coming on board for the 2011 9-5 after supplier issues. I'd suspect the same for the 9-4X. There will be the plain black, wood, a carbon fiber esque look and an blue ice block look. Should help break up the console some, and opt for the parchment leather interior breaks up the door panels and such.
I am a big fan of this overall. I have a small issue with the front for two reasons. First, the grill/air dam look really busy on this model. The second issue I have is also shared with the SRX, the front overhang is so long! It's not proportional with the rest of the vehicle. Otherwise, I dig it!
Nice looking CUV. I agree that GM let SAAB go right as they were finally understanding how to let SAAB be SAAB and design vehicles that were appropriate for the brand. Reminds me of Pontiac...some of Pontiac's best cars came as the lights were shut out - Solstice and G8 (and of course the Fierro GT that came out right as the Fierro line was killed).
No one will buy it. Its too slow.
Luxury customers won't buy it for the same reason.
It won't have the panache to sustain sales to its intended buyer.
Its dated and should be a Buick.
Everyone at GMi will hate it.
It will have cash on the hood in 6 months.
Did you just cut and paste that from an SRX thread? LOL. Seriously- though- It'll be interesting to see this on caddy lots next to the SRX - wonder how pricing will differ? I only wish this had heads up display and nav directions like the 9-5- but i dont think it does.
Haha, you watched too many science fiction movies!
About the re-badge-callers and GM-design-pretenders: the 95 and 94X are completely designed by Saab with GM parts. That is why they are NO re-badges (like Insignia/Regal). Get your facts right!
I am getting very tired of people screaming "re-badge" like it's the plague and don't even get it right.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
GM Inside News Forum
3.5M posts
83.7K members
Since 2003
A forum community dedicated to GM owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about General Motors news, concepts, releases, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!