GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,947 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Didn't see this elsewhere on GMI - We've read rumors about this for some time on the 9-3 and DeltaII, but now we're also seeing that the 9-1 may shift to Gamma rather than on a shortend version of DeltaII as was predicted/rumored. Thought it was interesting enough to post.

SOURCE: Motor Authority

Saab looking to downsize next-generation models
Posted on Wednesday 23 July 2008

Saab is one of a handful of carmakers looking to buck the trend of building bigger and heavier cars with each new model generation, the carmaker confirming at this week’s London Motor Show that future models will be more compact. Starting with the upcoming 9-1, due to arrive in 2012, engineers have decided to drop a lower-medium architecture planned for the car and replace it with General Motors’ global Gamma small car platform.

The information comes from the boss of General Motors Europe, Carl-Peter Forster, who explained to Automotive News that Saab doesn’t want its future models to grow in size.

The story is the same for the next-generation Saab 9-3, due in early 2010. Saab originally planned to use the new Ypsilon-2 architecture, used in cars like the Opel Insignia and upcoming production Buick Invicta, but has since decided to use the lower-medium Delta architecture.
MORE HERE
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
This is the smartest thing GM has done since they bought Saab.

Hopefully Saab will be able to rework some of these cars to continue to provide class leading interior room as well.
It looks like GM is more or less giving up on getting fresh models to the fuel efficient crowd for CY2009.

Sucks becuase I have a lease ending next summer and I really do not want to have to go to a same-body Cobalt or Aveo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,418 Posts
GM will have to do this across the board in the future. Of course the ever expanding American ass will be a tough challenge to overcome as vehicles change to meet CAFE standards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44,433 Posts
It looks like GM is more or less giving up on getting fresh models to the fuel efficient crowd for CY2009.

Sucks becuase I have a lease ending next summer and I really do not want to have to go to a same-body Cobalt or Aveo.
GM's focus was on large trucks and SUV's, and they failed to make the necessary investments in small, fuel-efficient cars because they didn't feel they could make money off these cars. GM has never been able to make money off selling small cars. So their focus was on what they could make money on.

Can you blame them for trying to make money? No.
Can you blame them for mismanaging their product mix? Abso-friggin-lutely.

All the troubles GM has experienced in the past 35 years is self-inflicted.

Saab was the ultimate brand for small engine, high fuel efficiency, and high performance. Yet, GM has mucked up the works. Apparently, it's going to take 4 years to rectify their own stupidity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,660 Posts
Funny that this is posted today. I was behind a silver Jetta and a Silver Saab 9-3 was right next to it. I never realized how big the Saab had gotten until today! It was like the difference between a Charger and say a Corolla.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,874 Posts
O please, the 9-3 is freakin tiny. Most midsize cars dwarf it, in all dimensions. I feel like its right in the middle of the compact and midsize, which I find a perfect size.

Though I won't mind it Saab downsizes, as I'm eying the 9-1 for my car out of college.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
The 9-5 is near perfect size and I would definitely purchase again at the exact size. However, I wouldn't mind about an inch or two more rear seat room (I am short in my family at 6' tall) but, not at the expense of the trunk size.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
Sounds great, just hope Gm-Saab gets the brand image right this time and stops trying to be everything to everyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,660 Posts
O please, the 9-3 is freakin tiny. Most midsize cars dwarf it, in all dimensions. I feel like its right in the middle of the compact and midsize, which I find a perfect size.

Though I won't mind it Saab downsizes, as I'm eying the 9-1 for my car out of college.
Huh....come to think of it.....it must have been a 9-5! So disregard my previous statement! :eek: I should have known the 9-3 couldn't have grown that much! Maybe the Jetta was lowered an inch too...now it's bugging me, sorry for the confusion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44,433 Posts
this is good news. Does anyone know if the next gen 9-5 will be on the SWB or LWB for EPII?
Rumors are LWB Epsilon II -- probably 3-5" longer than the current 9-5. That's about 1-2 inches too long in my book.

9-5 as it is now is the perfect size in length and width, though I could do without the extra 1.5" of overhang GM seems to have added between 2000 and 2008.

The current 9-3 is actually just about the right size -- 7-8" shorter than a LWB Epsilon I.
9-3 is also about 4" longer than the 3-series, which keeps it in the ballpark.

9-3 on Delta II is a very smart plan because if you look at a Chevy Cobalt, it is only 2" shorter than the 9-3. A Delta II car would be within 2-4" or so of a Delta I car.

So it's feasible and very logical that a 9-1 can sit on the Gamma.
If you look at a VW Golf or Audi A3, they have a length of 165". Putting a 9-1 on Delta II at ~180-185" would make 9-1 too large.

GM just needs to make sure the Gamma and Delta II Saabs are wide enough.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,845 Posts
I agree I think its a great Idea to turbo the 2.8 Its just that, the other HF V6s breathe so well on their own, why doesn't the 2.8 breathe with 8 psi? The new DI 3.0 coming out is supposed to get 270 horse, I mean I know the torque curve wont be the same but, I drove the 255 horse Saab Aero, I LOVED the looks of the car, but it wasn't any better in the push department than my 2.0T FSI 6 MT Passat. Which I think is slow. That motor is rated at 200 Horse, but I dynoed it at 192 WHP, so its got like 220 horsepower or so, and again.. Just not very impressed with it.

I know the 280 horse version is better, but still... The 2.0 SIDI motor puts out about the same power if not more to the ground. Soo..... 2.0 I-4 2.8 V-6??? What happened there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
591 Posts
I agree I think its a great Idea to turbo the 2.8 Its just that, the other HF V6s breathe so well on their own, why doesn't the 2.8 breathe with 8 psi? The new DI 3.0 coming out is supposed to get 270 horse, I mean I know the torque curve wont be the same but, I drove the 255 horse Saab Aero, I LOVED the looks of the car, but it wasn't any better in the push department than my 2.0T FSI 6 MT Passat. Which I think is slow. That motor is rated at 200 Horse, but I dynoed it at 192 WHP, so its got like 220 horsepower or so, and again.. Just not very impressed with it.

I know the 280 horse version is better, but still... The 2.0 SIDI motor puts out about the same power if not more to the ground. Soo..... 2.0 I-4 2.8 V-6??? What happened there.

I would say gearing played a big role in the speedy feel of it. Now the 2.8 is probably last gen tech that became what we know as the HF 3.6, the new 3.0 will probably replace the 2.8, but I was thinking of it as a strictly marketing ploy really. a 255HP 2.8L V6 as an entry engine for the G6 Gt withe the GTP still getting the 3.6 and the base getting the 2.2 4 (which I don't understand because the mileage gain is so damn small over the 3.5...)

I'm hoping the new 3.0L DOHC HF V6 gets up there in the econ deparment cause I'm tired of GMs DOHC engine not getting the same milage as similar sized Pushrods. (which honestly I would rather have any ways. I like the simplicity of them.)

My other gripe is that for a long time GM has been up-sizing its engines.. the 5.7 became the 6.0 the 6.0 became the 6.2 and it only gained 75HP? granted thats a good bit, but I mean the 5.7 LS1 can break 500HP with a head and cam swap. (maybe hurt milage, but I'm sure they could have over came that)

I'm glad to see GM creating new engines that have good FE numbers and power. the new Cruze is on my radar if it dose infact hit 40MPG and can hold a child seat (my wife is expecting to go into labor any day now..) I'd prefer somthing malibu sized or larger honestly though. I'd like to see a LeSabre sized car come out and put down a real world 35MPG HWY and 23-24 city.. I say dust off the 3.8, and had DI. :)
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top