|
At least there was the pre General Mess era. :) Some of the post 1990 were very good cars.
|
|
I've always had a real soft spot for Saab, ever since I drove a 99 in the late 70's. They're different and somehow appealing. Very sad they've disappeared.
I once did a little bit of marshalling in kielder forrest in the late 70's, still remember the sound and speed of Stig Blomqvist passing me - brilliant.
|
|
It was a good feature on Top Gear tonight about Saab, i enjoyed it. One good side of it was it essentially proved me right about Saab. The feature dispelled two big myths which have long circulated (especially on here) about Saab.
Myth One: Saab were a magnificent company before GM took them over. Clearly they werent. They were badly run, poorly managed, they made mostly bad cars backed up by senseless advertising. They wouldve gone bust years ago if but for GM. The key words uttered about the takeover were 'Saab were bailed out...' with bailed out being the truth.
Myth Two: GM made rubbish cars and put Saab badges on them. According to tonights feature, Saab largely ignored orders to do just that and continued to develop their own designs in house - and at considerable cost. The GM era cars were more Saab than GM and Saab threw GM's money down the drain in the same fashion which resulted in the original bailout.
General Motors have the patience of saints to have put up with them for so long, frankly. Saab Automotive's attitude towards money and balance sheets meant they were always going to disappear eventually.
|
|
Ditto. I expect many people were expecting TG to rubbish it for the sake, but it was a good tribute - even if they did have to drop one and a BMW E30.
Now if only there were a few more black 99 Turbo (saloons preferably) around with the red velour seats!
And on reflection, much of the 80s/90s marketing link with aeroplanes was, er, a bit naff.
Edited by RicardoB on 26/02/2012 at 22:07
|
|
The 99 Turbo on TG was really lovely - someone has obviously cared for that well!
|
And on reflection, much of the 80s/90s marketing link with aeroplanes was, er, a bit naff.
To be fair, most adverts from the 80s and 90s look pretty tragic now. The Ford Granada ad where the driver stops sort of suddenly and smiles, demonstrating its ABS. But yes, linking Saab's with planes has always been the most ridiculous marketing ever made.
The 99 Turbo on TG was really lovely - someone has obviously cared for that well!
Agreed. I was amazed they managed to find one of those old two-stroke things James was in!
|
|
Jamie goes from rock to jazz.
Mostly bad before GM. If that's your opinion after watching Top Gear, words fail me.
Edited by Trilogy on 26/02/2012 at 23:09
|
Mostly bad before GM. If that's your opinion after watching Top Gear, words fail me
They mentioned two good cars before the GM bailout. Two. Everything else about the company was poor most notably their financial management (hence why they needed GM to save them).
You probably stuck your fingers in your ear and just heard what you wanted to hear rather than what they actually said. Your skewed viewpoint that GM destroyed Saab has been proven to be bogus, GM saved Saab. They'd have died years ago if but for GM. They were on the verge of bankruptcy when GM bought them and Saab offered nothing productive and just lost GM money for years.
The fact Saab carried on making their own cars against GM's instructions to merely badge engineer is further proof that Saab's cars werent rubbish because GM made them, because GM didnt make them, Saab were making cars GM had never seen before they went on sale. Saab's cars were rubbish and failed to sell because Saab made them that way.
|
The best 2 cars I've ever owned were both SAAB's.
One was a basic 9000 and it was a fantastic car. D reg in Silver. I bought it with 92,000 miles on the clock and ran it for 3 years for both business and pleasure then px'd it for a 9000turbo SE. It had 275,000 on the clock and the only thing apart from servicing and tyres that it ever needed was the mid section of the exhaust and a clutch.
My 9000turbo SE was an auto on a F plate bought with 140,000 on the clock. I only kept it for 2 years then px'd it for a diesel Mondeo as the cost of petrol plus 16 - 20 mpg meant it was getting expensive to run.
I loved both of the SAABs and would have another in preference to BMW, Mercedes and Audi any day. If I could get my hands on a pristine 900 turbo and had the money for one I'd have it straight away.
Really upsetting to me that SAAB are no more.
|
|
The best thing SAAB ever made were the alloy wheels on the 99 Turbo. Magnificent.
Last nights tribute brought back memories as a spotty teenager, with posters on the bedroom wall of Debbie Harry next to a Saab 99 Turbo. Having driven a new 9-5 recently for a couple of weeks, its like blancmange after a curry. Very pleasant for a short time, but indistiguishable after a while.
|
|
I've always had a real soft spot for Saab, ever since I drove a 99 in the late 70's. They're different and somehow appealing. Very sad they've disappeared.
I used to but that was cured after I bought a Saab93 Diesel Vector back in 2004. I'd always longed to own a Saab based upon my experience of the 9000 and to some extent the 900 series. In one way I applaud Saab for going the extra mile on things like body strength and thickness etc, but that made them too expensive and so not having the marketing juggernaut and brand presence that the german marques have, they could not command enough of a premium price.
My 93 which I bought from new had a lotg of pros and cons as listed :-
Pros: Reasonably nice shape, great seats and comfort generally.
Cons : Very flaky electrics and software, very rough (2.2 diesel engine), quite a few trim quality issues like rusty wheel nuts, peeling dashboard coating, something in the front suspension which the dealer was always tightning and a few interior rattles.
Not a diabolical car, but not up to BMW/Audi standards of quality.
|
Hilton Holloway
So, who killed Saab? Ultimately, it was a tragically mis-matched marriage with General Motors. The small, quirky, car maker from rural western Sweden and the American corporate steamroller from Michigan were never going to gel.
Stop-start product launches and over a decade of models cobbled together from GM’s decidedly mainstream parts bin was the direct cause of Saab’s demise.
The problems began when GM swept in and stole Saab from under Fiat’s nose in 1989. A planned replacement for the ancient 900 was switched from being based on the admired Saab 9000 to being based on the aged Cavalier. The 1993 900 was a so-so car at launch that struggled on for a decade in the face of overwhelming premium-brand opposition. Saab was also embarrassed by the car’s poor showing in lab crash tests.
A major re-engineering in 1998 (when it was re-badged the 9-3) was a big improvement, but GM would not release the funds to allow the car to be re-styled, so a big opportunity was missed to give the only premium hatchback on the market a second wind.
The 1997 9-5 also suffered from being partly based (just 35 per cent by content) on the 1995 Vectra. But GM’s parts bin was just not sophisticated enough to build a car that could look Audi’s A6 and BMW’s 5-series in the eye. Saab’s unsurprising inability to make profits resulted in it being put on an investment drip-feed, which made its situation worse.
The 2003 9-3 should have been a breakthrough but Saab, mindful of the limitations of GM-sourced parts, extensively - and expensively - designed many unique components and systems for the 9-3. GM bosses were furious. It’s rumoured that the estate version of the 9-3, a crucial car in the European market, was delayed in direct response to Saab’s quiet and costly re-jigging of the Epsilon platform.
However, at the time of the 9-3 launch, GM boss Bob Lutz decided to take an active role in trying to save tiny Saab from getting lost at the back of the company’s annual report. Concerned that dealers, in the US especially, were dying away from a lack of the right kind of new products, Lutz pressed the panic button and got Saab to produce a badge-engineered version the Subaru Impreza (the 2005 9-2x) and a re-worked version of the Oldsmobile Bravada SUV (the 2006 9-7x). Although both improved on the base vehicles, both failed to sell in significant numbers.
GM’s predilection for canning Saab models at the last moment is probably unmatched in automotive history. At the beginning of the decade, Saab had prepared its own, near-bespoke, version of the Caddy SRX SUV, itself a pretty sophisticated vehicle and one Saab’s US dealers were crying out for. GM canned it at the last minute.
It also canned Saab’s version of the Subaru Tribeca SUV when GM’s relationship with Subaru ended. In that case, Saab’s 2005 New York show stand was left near-empty when GM’s decision to pull the vehicle was taken after the concept version of the proposed Saab 4x4 had already been built.
But perhaps the killer blow was GM’s decision, in late 1995, to cancel an all-new 9-5. Conceived during the GM-Fiat partnership, it was the sister car to the Alfa 159 and based on the all-new Saab designed ‘premium’ platform (the name gives a clear clue to Saab’s frustration at GM's limitations). Saab finally had a bespoke premium car, but GM’s split with Fiat saw the project canned. Saab simply never recovered from the loss of the 9-5 that never was.
In truth, Saab, as a carmaker, could never have recovered from these blows. But it is also not widely recognised that Saab’s incredibly fertile engineering centre turned out a huge amount of innovative work for GM.
Saab was well on the way to becoming independent with its clever Phoenix platform and we can only hope that its Chinese suitors can pick up the design rights and then keep most of Saab’s engineering team together in order to bring the Phoenix to life, under whatever future brand. Saab was never very good at shifting the metal, but its left-field engineering genius was one of the unsung aspects of the car industry.
And jamie this what HonestJohn thought of the 9-3 when it was launched. I don't think you know the meaning of the word rubbish. Avant has pointed out to you that Saabs were not rubbish. You seem to be suffering from the onset of a memory loss. You do have a very skewed opinion of Saab.
The 9-3 is up against the Audi A4, BMW 3-Series, Mercedes C Class, Volvo S60, Lexus IS200 and Jaguar X Type, which SAAB sees as its natural competitors. I’d have to add the Rover 75 and MG ZT. The A4 is a smarter, classier act, but doesn’t ride and handle as well. The BMW is more rear-drive sporty and more fun to drive, but doesn’t ride as well and equivalent performance costs more. The C Class is dearer and is only just getting its new high-tech supercharged 1.8 engines. The Volvo S60 isn’t as complete a car and lacks rear head and legroom. The Lexus IS200 is a one engine range and not such a good long distance car. For the same money, a 9-3 2.0t is a better car to drive than a 2.1 X Type. The Rover and MG have their Brit appeal, but their chassis aren’t quite as good.
Of course, at the end of the day you’ll choose the car that suits you. But the new SAAB 9-3 definitely deserves a place on the list and, preferably, an extended test-drive.
Edited by Trilogy on 27/02/2012 at 13:37
|
|
?? The best thing about the 75/ZT is the chassis - extremely tidy handlers with far above average ride quality in the class - nothing SAAB has ever made has even come close to the fantastic chassis dynamics of a Rover 75. My 900 Turbo's understeer/snap-oversteer was legendary! Indeed the guy that bought it off me oversteered into a tree at 90 mph - luckily for him the bodyshell was very, very strong!
Edited by SteveLee on 27/02/2012 at 22:06
|
|
|
|
|
|
