[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!

 

[mgescuro]

Originally posted by desmo9@Dec 11 2003, 11:20 PM
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 held the Big 3 on top the only way they'll get back there. 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.

i still believe you need a refreseher, but not from an ego stroking school such as Stanford or the Ivy Leagues. I have little patience for MBA's from those institutions and believe the education is all paper and not real world. I have worked with enough of them to know. And I do not have an MBA from one of those aforementioned schools.

I don't give a damn if you fly to Hong Kong daily or live there. Or if you own the company with factories over there. Fact of the matter is... labor is cheap there. Cost of living there is cheap. laws for doing business there are far more lax and too many loopholes exist. As is much the way Eastern Europe is now, but with a better system on laws. China will be exactly where it is now 20 years from now... which is exactly where they were 20 years ago. Any you don't need an MBA to figure that out. Just a little common sense.

If you think the 9-2X is crap. Fine. But DO NOT discount the fact that it is a significant addition to the Saab lineup. You can sit there and type and bitch all you want about the 9-2X looking exactly like the WRX. In my eye, it has significant differentiating factors to be a Saab and not a Subaru. If you're so frustrated with GM... why don't you go ahead an pull a "Roy Disney" and attempt to oust the GM management.

 

[mgescuro]

Originally posted by desmo9+Dec 11 2003, 11:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (desmo9 @ Dec 11 2003, 11:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-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! [/b][/quote]
we're obviously very passionate about GM automobiles. But you also obviously feel the need to insult GM and its product, all from the comfort of your soap box. And that's fine too. But quite frankly, it's beginning to rub me the wrong way.. and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I am of the opinion that Saabs are at least the equivalent of Volvo. Sure, it is only a fifth the sales of Volvo, but what to do when you're a tiny company that can't take advantages of economies of scale for the past 50 or so years.

As far as I'm concerned, the 9-2X follows in the heritage of a Saab. (This argument won't pan out with the 9-7X... but we're not talking about the 9-7X.) Furthermore, Volvo and Saab actually target different markets. Volvo is the more family/luxury market, while the Saab is the more sport/luxury market. Yes, Volvo is trying to make inroads into Saab's territory with the new "R" series, but it's been stated already that Saab's working on high performance variants of 9-3 and 9-5.

I don't believe I'm clueless. I don't believe you're clueless. I think we're seeing the same forest, just a bit differently. Glass half empty/half full.

Whereas, I can point out all the good that GM is doing, you consistently point out the glaring flaws. Yes, I know GM has flaws. Their vans are crap. Their truck interiors are dated. But dammit they are making some awesome cars now... cars that never would have been possible a few years ago!!

 

[mgescuro]

Originally posted by desmo9@Dec 11 2003, 08:51 PM
:argue:

Uh-huuuuuh... :zap:

 

[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.

 

[tgagneguam]

Platform-sharing can work at GM, just like it works at other companies. Toyota certainly makes it work (Highlander/RX330, Camry/ES330), VW makes it work well (Passat/A4, Golf/A3), and Nissan does, too (Murano/FX, Z/G35), among many others. While people visiting this site clearly would be able to tell that the 9-2X is a mild reskin of the WRX, most people are not going to realize it. In fact, when I speak about such platform-sharing issues with my Aunt, a new 9-3 owner, and wax poetic about her 9-3 sharing some mechanicals with the new Malibu, all I get is this blank stare, a pause, and then "Yah, but I love my Saab!" In a phrase, she doesn't care.

Granted, GM takes an idea too far, with obvious examples being its mid-sized utlities (is there any division that's not going to get a verson?!). But in other ways, I think it's going to be well worth it. I always lament how cars in other countries never make it to the States, and now it seems like the opportunity is upon us. I think the Pontiac "Monaro's" coming to the US is great, despite it being a less-than-stellar looking auto. Let's face it, it's going to take GM several tries before it gets the platform-sharing thing right; it wouldn't be GM if they got it right on the first try! I do not at all think that the 9-2X is yet another Cimarron in the making. There was a lot more wrong with the Cimarron than its looking like a Cavalier.

Like I gather most people who visit this site are, I am impatient with GM and wish they'd deliver the goods consistently and right now! Realistically: it aint gonna happen. After watching the intro of the 9-2X on GM Experience Live, I think this is going to be more of a success than I originally anticipated.

 

[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.

 

[doh]

And also it's brand loyalty has a large part to do with it, Like when Oldsmobile stopped producing the H-car and C-car platforms, Buick and Pontiac didn't pick up all of Oldsmobile's customers. So some platform sharing is a good thing, but I wish sometimes they would try a bit harder.(i.e. Tracker/Sidekick, mid size suv,L/M vans)

I don't beleve that many customers will be comparasin shopping Subaru/Saab dealerships for there next vehicle purchase, so as long as each brand holds on to it's image with each vehicle I just don't see the problem.

 

[BigAls87Z28]

I dont feel like reading all 2000 flame-throwing posts, but Ill say this. Chassis sharing is cool and should be done to keep costs down while making a good car(everyone else does it). What should be discouraged is the sharing of sheet metal to almost exatly each model in the line. A grill isnt going to change the outlook of the car. Look at the Chevy Silverado and GMC Siera(sp?). Both share the same chassis, yet both are very different from the outside. Inside, there still trucks and I dont see why things need to get all fancy in them. leave that to the SUV,UUV, XUV's and other family friendly cars. I hope that if and when the sigma lite chassis gets here that the 2dr camaro doesnt look like the 4 dr bonnie with just a grill change and 2 door removal. GM needs to knw when to spend and when to hold back. If they want to define each of there brand of cars, they need to spice up the sheet metal. It doesnt have to be that much, I mean come on people buy cars like the Element and the Scion xB?? I have yet to figure that out. Somehow, japaniese designers have a hard on for UPS and other mail trucks designs.

 

[tgagneguam]

In my opinion, Saab needs to expand its lineup to remain a viable division within the "Kingdom." I cannot see how they are going to make cars that simply appeal to a specific audience of Saab purists while at the same time remaining an independent brand. I think it might be nice to have Saab diversify its product range by adding its unique perspective on vehicles to a host of other products, including crossovers, wagons, convertibles, et cetera, so long as it doesn't dilute its "Saab-ness" in the process. A broadened line of vehicles and retaining its Saab character are NOT mutually exclusive ideas for the firm. This, of course, will take time and attention to the brand identity.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure GM has the patience to do it completely correctly, as evidenced by the 9-2X. However, I still believe this is *not* a technically inferior car like GM's failed attempts at platform-sharing in the the 1980's; I guess some people on this site will have to agree to disagree on this point. It would have been nice had Saab designed a ground-up compact sports wagon (and a mid-size utility, for that matter), but in reality, it's not gonna happen.

All in all, and though I tend to be a tad on the critical side of GM, I think the 9-2X is a good (not awesome) and long overdue start to some necessary transformation at Saab.

 

[saabman]

Tried to post this earlier:

here's the $.02 of an old saab owner:

exterior: thumbs-up

interior: thumbs down, and not just because the ignition is in the worng place

worst mistake: offering a non-turbo. I think the current saab add campaing states something like . . . welcome to the state of independence . . . WHERE ALL CARS ARE TURBOCHARGED.

The 165 hp non-turbo'd version brings this car to down-market.

Overall, I guess it's ok if it keeps the brand alive and GM lets Saab, at least in part, be saab.

 

[mgescuro]

Originally posted by saabman@Dec 15 2003, 04:21 PM
Tried to post this earlier:

here's the $.02 of an old saab owner:

exterior: thumbs-up

interior: thumbs down, and not just because the ignition is in the worng place

worst mistake: offering a non-turbo. I think the current saab add campaing states something like . . . welcome to the state of independence . . . WHERE ALL CARS ARE TURBOCHARGED.

The 165 hp non-turbo'd version brings this car to down-market.

Overall, I guess it's ok if it keeps the brand alive and GM lets Saab, at least in part, be saab.

I guess they'll change teh ad campaign to "When most cars are turbocharged." :lol:

 

[yoblues]

My wife has owned Saabs for 2 decades. She was bummed when the hatchback 9-3 was discontinued then she saw the 9-2. She says, "nice car BUT. I was on the Saab website and the MSRP on the car is 22000 to 30000 dollars. This car works loaded at 25000 to 26000 dollars max. You start pushing it to 30 grand and you lose me. When I am thinking of 30k cars, it is not a modified Subaru WRX, no matter how well presented, I am thinking about. I think this car could be a big hit but they are making a big mistake if they overprice it." Another thing from a non Saab driver who likes them (me). There is a problem when your bottom of the line car, 9-2, has more horsepower and better handeling than your top of the line 9-3. Not for nothing but the new Acura TL or Infinity G-35 which cost the same as the top of the line 9-3, blow it away. There ain't nothing wrong with the Saab about 60 more horsepower or even AWD would not cure. (Study the Saab history GM, think Viggen or SPG). Saab always had that one real performence oriented car in the mix.

 

[Mr_Pringle]

vehicle as prices start below $25,000

I figure that the pricing of the 9-2X will be rather commensurate with the WRX pricing. MSRP for the WRX is right around $24,000. Basically we'll be getting the same car, with different styling, at roughly the same price, eh? I, for one, prefer the styling of the Saab to that of the Subaru. I would like to wrap my fingers around the steering wheel of my very own 9-2X-- but it seems the car won't fit into my pocketbook. But for now, I'm happy with my Intrigue. (<<play on words, double meaning )

 

[yoblues]

My 2cents again. There is NOTHING wrong with platform sharing. As a matter of fact it is good economics. BUT! Take the basic platform (Chevy Malibu-Saab 9-3) and you can have very different cars. That's what it is about. The design/style of the exterior and interior. The suspension, brakes, engine, (price), ETC. A Saab 9-3 is a totally different car than the Chevy Malibu but based on the same platform. This brings me to the Saab 9-2. I get what GM is trying to do for Saab in the intrim and that is OK. What would I do next model year (2005) if I were in charge, at least for the Aero model? Put the ignition in the console, put in an ecotec inline turbo 4, (about 220 hp) brembo brakes, 17inch standard wheels and dump the hood scoop. Priced between 26-28K. There is your platform sharing small Saab until Saab gets to design their own in 2007.

 

[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.

 

[mgescuro]

Originally posted by desmo9@Dec 30 2003, 11:00 AM
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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[mgescuro]

Originally posted by desmo9@Jan 2 2004, 12:08 PM
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.

I don't want to start another "branding topic" on this thread as well.
But suffice it to say... people who buy Subarus won't step into a Saab dealership... and vice versa.

Subarus are great niche cars. I wouldn't set foot in a WRX. I'm too tall and broad-shouldered for the tiny thing. But I'l take your word for it.

I think the 9-2X will provide a credible value for those Saab owners and Saab watchers out there who may have been eyeing a Saab for some time, but haven't found the right model... or may not have found a model in their price range.

Perhaps the 9-2X is a stop-gap measure. It's a far more credible stop-gap measure than the 1st Gen Escalade. Who knows what the next Gen 9-2X has in store?? Maybe it is a Cobalt with a high output EcoTec...

Who knows... but one thing's certain, the 9-2X will be a great hit for Saab.