[desmo9]

Originally posted by Smilingoat+Dec 10 2003, 05:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Smilingoat @ Dec 10 2003, 05:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 12:46 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-chev454ls

@Dec 9 2003, 04:02 PM
Saab has made so many positive strides the last few years.  I I used to think Saabs were some of the ugliest car ever made (and some of 'em are), but now they are looking pretty sweet.

They were ugly before GM took them over. When GM took them over, they were made into nice looking vehicles

im not saying that GM only makes good looking cars koffazteckkoff but i have to agree with you here. after the gm takeover saab really started to look nice... finally [/b][/quote]
Well the new 9-3 is the only Saab that was done under GM's watch, and that doesn't mean it was influenced by the likes of Wayne Cherry, at all.

The 9-5 was well in the works when GM only had a 50% stake in Saab, and the 9-2 we see here is neither Saab nor GM influenced, but Subaru.

The first truly GM-influenced Saab will be the forthcoming 9-7 SUV. Save your praise of GM's handling of Saab until that release.

 

[desmo9]

One more thing -- although the WRX is a fine car... right, wrong, or indifferent, this is the first time in history that Saab has released a car that is not genuinely a Saab (sheetmetal and engine). So no matter how good the 9-2 may be, it's presence is a little disconcerting. There's barely a person in this market who won't see a rebadged Subaru when looking at this.

To some, it won't matter, because it's a good car. To others, it will be a "Saab story".

 

[desmo9]

Originally posted by mgescuro+Dec 10 2003, 08:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mgescuro @ Dec 10 2003, 08:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-desmo9@Dec 10 2003, 10:36 AM
One more thing -- although the WRX is a fine car... right, wrong, or indifferent, this is the first time in history that Saab has released a car that is not genuinely a Saab (sheetmetal and engine). So no matter how good the 9-2 may be, it's presence is a little disconcerting. There's barely a person in this market who won't see a rebadged Subaru when looking at this.

To some, it won't matter, because it's a good car. To others, it will be a "Saab story".

Yes WRX is a fina car, but 9-2X is defintely the first Saab that's not all "Saab."
But like I've said before, GM's not going to pump another couple billion dollars to develop a 100% new Saab platform.

Furthermore, all of GM's new global platforms are Saab (Opel) in origin. So... in some ways, all new global platform GM's are Saabs. [/b][/quote]
No offense, guy, but we keep going around and around about the difference between platform sharing and badge engineering. First 9-7 and now this. A platform can be shared, meaning the floorpan, basic criteria, and (sometimes) powertrain are common. But if the interior and all visible sheetmetal are totally unique between brands (with the possible exception of the roof ), only then do you have distinction...like Malibu versus 9-3. GM does not need to spend "billions" re-doing the platforms for each brand... but they'd better give Saab more than a fascia and redo the interior and sheetmetal or they'll dilute that brand into oblivion. Having now looked closer at the 9-2 on the Saab website, I'm going to be the voice of dissenting opinion and say it sucks. The car is good, technically, as the WRX is good...but a Saab that's such a close clone of a Subaru Impreza wagon is a sacrilege. The picture above does look sweet. But go to the website and look at other views...the front clip is the only Saab-like feature, but even it adds a bulky front overhang that makes the car appear patched together. Why would a Saab enthusiast choose this, really, when for a little more cash they can have a 9-3? And if others want a genuine version of this car, they can have a WRX for presumably less cash. If "Lutz-the-Czar" can't do any better than badge-engineering, he's not worthy of his paycheck. Do the cars right or not at all. First GTO, then the cloned Buick and Saturn vans, now this...and the 9-7 will be more of the same, I'm convinced. Those who just want to look to the tip of their nose and say "it's a nice car" had better look at the bigger picture if they want GM to succeed. The X-car philosophy was a mistake that cost GM dearly. It could be argued that this cost them over 10% of the market in the 80s and 90s. Just because you add another 130 horsepower and all-wheel drive and a competent chassis does not make the strategy any more correct now than it was 20 years ago.

 

[desmo9]

Yeah, a fair amount of folks wanted Cadillac Cimarrons too.

Isolated positive reception to the car, based on the strength of the Saab brand or the WRX's technical merits, doesn't mean squat. Even if these "quick fixes" raise revenue and market share in the short term, in the long run they can have the opposite effect.

I get the impression I'm talking to a fair amount of dimwits here when I read responses like that. This is why clinics don't work and have steered GM down the wrong path... Is that what we're about here? People counter an analysis with puddle-depth remarks like "I think it's cool"? Buy the car if it suits you.... The positioning of this car can be for people "too good" to drive a WRX... when the capitalist pig emerges and the yuppie quotient kicks in. They can show everyone how successful they are, and their logic of spending a couple grand more than an identically-equipped Subaru.

 

[desmo9]

Sorry, but there wasn't much depth to your earlier analysis other than that you think it's a cool car. You later touched on why it might be a good short-term business case, and I acknowledge that it probably is. But why is it a good long-term business case for GM? That's an important question. You think it will help Subaru's image by having a near-luxury halo? OK. Now what about GM? GM only has a minority stake in Subaru. So how's the 9-2 help Saab and GM in the long-term? Expand on that knowledgeably and I'd be alot more receptive...so would alot of others who like to read and participate.

I think it's a refined X-car case, and I think I'm right in my analysis... but I may not be on all counts... I want dialogue to help drive the issue. Maybe someone will make a counterpoint that I haven't considered, and I'll feel better about GM's decision. GM has made alot of bad ones in recent years. Who are you to write my post off with a five-word blurb about my "complaining"? As in I'm a glass-half empty personality because I see GM screwing up? I see alot of things they're doing right, too... but this doesn't happen to be one of them. My hope is that some influential folks are on this forum and forming their viewpoints, too.

Lastly, you don't know who I am, how many shares of GM stock I own, or much else about me... so why do you think this "shouldn't mean anything" to me? And even if I owned no shares, every American is a stakeholder in GM -- and in the American auto industry. I think there have been a fair number of clueless nimrods running the show there in the past couple decades. Their blunders have been bad for the industry, bad for the U.S. economy, and have robbed we enthusiasts of the ability to take pride in our American automobile establishment. I want to see this trend reversed...THAT'S why this matters to me.

 

[desmo9]

:argue:

 

[desmo9]

The X car started it all, the J cars finished the job, and went one better with the Caddy offering. The "X cars", and the "Cimarron", are generally the euphemisms for "how not to run an auto business."

The side sheetmetal, doors, and all the glass on the 9-2 is identical to the Impreza. Not a shred of difference save paint scheme. Sorry, but your eye is not too discerning if you think they're different. Better look more closely. ...and an A4 shares not one visual characteristic with a Jetta. People buy A4's because they're distinctive... put an A4 badge and an Audi fascia on a cloned Jetta and the A4 would be a dud. Same goes for the other VW/Audi examples you've used,,, and that's what we have here with Saab. If you're thinking the Jetta is to A4 as the Impreza is to 9-2, then friend, this discussion isn't worth my time.

I travel to Hong Kong and other areas in Asia about once every two months. Doesn't make me a economist, but I've been in dozens of manufacturing facilities and have seen the work ethic and motivation those folks have to improve their lives... much like the U.S. probably was 100 years ago. One needs little econ knowledge at all to realize that the Chinese have a mindset to succeed... and in the long run that's why they will. Will the curve be as steep as GM et al would like? Maybe not, but in terms of (auto) growth potential, Europe is fairly flat, China is anything but. That's the disctinction I was making.

A friend of mine recently finished his MBA at Stanford. He was a lot more arrogant than when he started, for sure, and had theories on how cars should be developed and marketed much like appliances. Totally ignored the passionate aspect of car buying, that which once kept Big 3 on top and is the only principle that'll get them back there. He's a smart guy, nice piece of paper from a good school, but absofricken clueless about the idiosyncrasies of the business.... this guy thought he could run GM from the finance office a la (Roger) Smith, and sell cars as diapers a la Smale. I have enough degrees, so I wasn't offended by your remark... but dude, the fact that you implied an MBA refresher would help me better understand the industry is a sentiment that reflects exactly what's wrong in the industry.

 

[desmo9]

Originally posted by mgescuro@Dec 12 2003, 03:34 AM


Sure, it's not on the order of a Volvo or a Jaguar.  But it's far better than a Ford and a Mercury.

Well this is where we differ after all. "Not on the order of a Volvo"?! A Saab ought to be the equivalent of a Volvo and better, dang it... Anything less is unacceptable. Chevy won't bow to Ford, and Saab shoudn't have to bow to Volvo. The next V40 is gonna kick the S%it out of this 9-2 in the market.

"Better than a Ford or Merc"? That's embarassing. Yup, you belong in GM's camp for the gifted all right. :zippy: -- picked him 'cause he looks clueless!

 

[desmo9]

I acknowledge some stuff's going right.. .Hummer, Cadillac, but getting on here and saying "I think that car is nice" does nothing for me. Nothing against folks that like to do that, like supporting their favorite football team... but it's a waste of type for me. You can either slam GM a little bit in print for things they do wrong, or let public opionion be the judge in the marketplace. I have spent alot of time exploring GM's use of re-badging as a way of picking up immediate sales, because I thought they'd never again revert to this approach so extensively. SO many of their efforts of the past decade, from Zarella to Smale and now Lutz, have been focused on rebuilding each brand's identity. So while seems to me they're taking a step or two forward with the lower volume specialties they're doing, there continues to be steps back in the middle of the market -- where the revenue potential is.

I think it was you that said it well that GM is like two companies in one. They do niche stuff (like Vette and Hummer) and stuff at the edge of the market (like Cad) very well, but they botch the middle of the market. Why the heck is that? That's telltale mismanagement if you ask me.

I don't know how most people feel when they read these posts... frankly I don't care. I'm not a journalist, but I know that divisive writing is perfectly healthy. If it rubs people the wrong way, at least they're getting rubbed. The alternatives are to either write wishy-washy crap that doesn't even make people think, or not to write at all. I won't be a part of the former, so maybe I'll save myself alot of time and heartburn and do the latter. In a way it's not worth my time. Yup, instead it's better for all to just "stand by our GM" and hope our allegiance will secure their (and our) future...just like it has as they've lost about 40% of the U.S. market. Just remember, if you own any GM stock, and I'm betting you do, then your opinion is as relevant as those running the company. The folks that ran GM down from 50% to 28% of the market are millionaires in Florida, sipping martinis and driving Ferraris and BMWs. Great thought.

 

[desmo9]

I think you've boiled it down well... and what it comes down to is just how smart the market really is. We on this forum may get the idea that most car buyers share our detailed perspectives. While that may be a reach, I think most people are more discerning that GM realizes. Some are like your aunt, just want a nice car... but many more do notice the details. Depends on the segment, perhaps. I believe folks in the 9-2's segment will notice. GM's continued market share slide, even though their quality has improved, is more than old perceptions dying hard..... I think it also reflects the market's awareness of things like dull styling and mild reskins sold at a premium. Underestimating the customer is a scary proposition. Either GM understands that, and these recent offerings are simply stop gaps, or they don't get it at all. Time will tell, as it always has.

 

[desmo9]

The thing I can't figure out is why they're offering 9-2 with the normally-aspirated engine at all? Yeah, they want a base model with a lower price point. But Saab does turbos, after all. Let Subaru keep that non-turbo engine in the base Impreza. By not offering the base engine, they could have distanced the 9-2 from the Impreza a little more. As it stands, the $24K 9-2 will have the 165hp base engine. For the same amount of cash, you can get a WRX with the turbo !!! For the $29K the turbo model will fetch, you're in 9-3 territory!!!

You gotta be a real Saab freak to choose a base 9-2 over the WRX, and I don't know what you are if you choose a turbo 9-2 over a 9-3. The 9-2, as it stands, will only work if there is a $5K or more price gap between it and the 9-3. Meaning, the turbo model needs to sell for around $25K tops (maybe about a grand more than a WRX, not six grand).

Now flip this 180 degrees and do it right....create a nice, small 9-2 hatch off the Delta platform (Astra, Cobalt), give it an all-Saab look, a little 1.8 or 2.0 turbo making about 180hp, and throw in the traditional Saab goodies like center ignition.....this would have appealed to the brand-conscious (think Mercedes C-class), the Saab diehards, and would have been a smash hit. When I heard about a 9-2 a few years back, this is what I expected and I was excited about it. Instead, we have something that's overpriced, not distinctively Saab, and is already a little stale before it even hits the market. I like some of what GM is doing, but the half-a$$ed 9-2 harks back to Roger Smith and his compadre of clueless noodles.

 

[desmo9]

Originally posted by mgescuro@Dec 30 2003, 11:11 PM


Wow... i finally agree with you on something.... the non-turbo 9-2X base model.
Who knows tho.  Maybe the non-turbo version is peppy enough.  And maybe people who buy the 9-2X will lean more towards teh turbo version anyways.

Maybe a Cobalt version of the 9-2X would have been a better choice, but I'm not complaining about the 9-2X at all.  True, it's not ideal, but it's not crap either.

And where are you getting pricing for the 9-2X?  MSRP starts at $22K & 30K, last time I checked.  9-3 Linear starts at $26K.  Aero starts at $33K.

You don't need to guess about the peppiness of the non-turbo version... just go out and drive an Impreza wagon so-equipped. My neighbors just bought one with a lot of options for $17K. Nice car, but identical to the base 9-2 for $6K less.

If the 9-2 base starts at $22, with some options it'll fetch $23. The turbo with the options is around $30. So, if you compare Impreza and WRX ($16K - $24K) vs. base 9-2 to turbo 9-2 ($22K - $30K), there is a $6K premium on the Saab. Worse, with this positioning, the top-line 9-2 is a couple grand more than a base (but decent) 9-3. Had this 9-2 been a nice, original Delta application, the $22K - $30K range would have worked...with the 9-3 overlap. But as it stands, with the near-identical Subarus down dealership row a couple blocks, there should have been only a $1K or $2K premium on the Saabs... plus ditch the non-turbo so you don;t take Saab into economy territory. Thus you'd sell this 9-2 turbo (THIS one, not necessarily an original 9-2) for $23-$26. Then you could decide between a loaded 9-2 or base 9-3. Good decision for a buyer. But right now, the decision (for me) is easy. It'd be an Impreza ($18K) or WRX ($24K) or 9-3 ($30K), each equipped pretty well at those prices.

Fact is, the squids (like me) in the 9-2 market are usually performance AND value conscious. Most are not really brand conscious. Few will spend an extra $5K on a WRX that has some Saab badging and a Saab fascia. Heck, put that $5K saved into a WRX mods and you'd have a rocketship. That's ultimately why the 9-2 is gonna have an uphill battle here... unless dealers discount the heck out of 'em. As GM knows well... if you don't do the cars right, you gotta price 'em light.

 

[desmo9]

Originally posted by mgescuro@Jan 2 2004, 11:51 PM

But suffice it to say... people who buy Subarus won't step into a Saab dealership... and vice versa.

Hogwash! I certainly would. Am I the only one in this 17million/yr market? There's certainly some emotional overlap, too, or Saab would not have chosen a Subaru as the basis for the 9-2 !!! Geez. This comment of yours sounds like the "VW is cheap" stuff.

As I said, the performance compact crowd is one of the least brand loyal. We're not talking F-150s here... people will jump around to whatever's hot. The 9-2X will wind up outside of that market, though, because performance/dollar is much weaker than the identical but less-expensive WRX. The 9-2X will be a chick car. Guaranteed.

 

[desmo9]

Originally posted by pbcello@Jan 21 2004, 10:16 PM
At best, these two badge-jobs will test the water for replacements with more Saab/Opel DNA if the segments seem viable under the Saab umbrella. I have heard rumor that the 92X, in fact, will have more Saab content each year of production through it's run, and then be replaced with a 92X built again by Fuji, or--if this experiment doesn't work out--on an Opel platform.

It sure beats seeing the brand fade into oblivion.....

There's an old proverb about testing the water.... something like..if you get scalded, you'll never approach it again. In a few cases, GM has experimented with something before going in full force, and the experiment was a half-baked effort. The experiment fails, so it misguided the company into backing away... even though the idea was truly right if done right.

There is absolutely no doubt a small, $24K Saab hatch would do well -- particularly now that 9-3 has gotten larger and become a sedan. If GM's gauging 9-2's success before investing in something original and great, good luck. Even stellar prospects for a nice Saab hatch won't guarantee the 9-2WRX alot of success. The WRX is a nice car, but people in that segment aren't idiots.

As for your other comment, that anything's better than loss of the brand? I, for one, would rather see the brand go away than cast into a pool of mediocrity. As I said in another thread...if all Saab's worth is a new face on somebody else's body, powertrain, and interior, then let it die. If ANY brand in a multi-branded company doesn't offer something the sister brands cannot, then let it die cuz it's just baggage.