Slashdot Mirror
A Requiem For Saab
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that auto enthusiasts across the country are dismayed by the news that General Motors is planning to shut down Saab, the Swedish carmaker it bought two decades ago, after a deal to sell it fell apart. Even with its modest and steadily declining sales, Saab, an acronym for Svenska Aeroplan Aktiebolaget, or Swedish Airplane Company, long stood out as a powerful brand in spite of itself. 'It wasn't designed to be a fashion statement,' says Ron Pinelli, president of Autodata, which tracks industry statistics. 'It was designed to provide transportation under miserable weather conditions.' Many Saab owners consider the brand's glory days to be the 1980s, when Americans began buying cars again after a recession and energy crisis. 'The cars were communicative,' says Pinelli. 'They didn't try to numb the experience like cars do today.' The cars had odd touches and appealed to those who appreciate the unconventional. Swedish engineers assumed drivers would be wearing gloves, so they designed big buttons for the dashboard. Though the cars were compact, with long hoods and short rear ends, there was plenty of headroom inside. Now Saab, a brand that once had one of the clearest identities in the industry, seems headed for extinction just as automakers are searching for more distinctive designs to help set them apart. 'It's a shame that Saab is a victim,' adds Pinelli."
Really? Does this belong on /.? Where is all the fanfare for Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Plymouth & Saturn? Companies come and go. New ones will come along and replace them.
I've got an idea... how about everybody who liked Saabs go out and order a Fisker Karma or the Tesla Model S!
Bill
It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
It was owned by an investment company called Investor. And they were just interested in cashing in money.
It seems like GM was mostly interested in technology and mot much in brand identity. The last decade of Saab has really went from something with at least some identity to something very average that can't compete with Toyota or other brands.
And since Saab was just another brand in the GM portfolio - and a small one - they weren't too keen on promoting it. Selling an Opel or Chevrolet would add more to the GM identity.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
It was GM themselves that turned down the offer from Spyker - seemingly a company that is in financial difficulty doesnt need the money. The timing of the decision speaks volumes as well.
the latest news is that there is another bid as of today from Spyker, so the nail isnt quite in the coffin just yet.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article6321526.ab
GM has woefully mismanaged SAAB, played accounting games and not used the company in the way it should.
SAAB has come up with fantastic technology over the years especially around safety, I think the engineers there have alot to offer in the future for environmental cars.
From the linked article, Saab had a highlight of sales at 48,000 and change in 1986, when they were a post-recession yuppie fad. They were always bad cars, and articles like this one reminiscing about the "glory days" of Saab are a bit myopic. They rusted out in key places, like where the control arms for the front suspension bolts to the body. They're a nightmare to work on, with the engine spun backwards in the engine bay. The "tight steering" meant nothing when coupled with a body that flexed terribly, especially on the convertible models. Big buttons for people wearing gloves? That's the best contribution the author can come up with in his requiem? The fact is that people don't want to spend huge money on mediocre cars. Saab was purchased to be placed in GM's lineup as a luxury foreign brand, much like Volvo's purchase by Ford. The new cars were built on better platforms than the ones Saab could engineer, with all the quirkiness still intact for buyers with too much money and not enough common sense. That GM can't give the company away, and can't make money selling weird cars is proof of this. The year GM purchased Saab they killed off Oldsmobile. Saab was selling ~40,000 cars per year, Olds was selling 250,000 cars per year. They killed a brand that made them far more money in order to have a more upscale image, only to find out what people really imagined the cars to be. They made a Saab out of a Blazer, they made a Saab out of a Subaru, and I'm sure if some marketing doofus thought it was a good idea they would have done the same with a Daewoo as well. Saab had some interesting ideas over the years, but they were cars that were constantly broken and difficult to work on. I've spent many years as an auto tech and diagnostician fixing these things. I'll always have many fond memories of working on Saabs. They've brought me so much laughter over the years.
You are obviously not much of an engineer.
Front-heavy front-wheel-drive cars had great traction in the snow. The reverse-engine placement made a reliable and compact power-plant. Nothing special about it, and I worked on them for years, models from the '70s through the '06. There were no special parts required for brake pad replacement, just a simple tool to rotate the piston which is quite common these days (see VW for instance.) This system has become more widely because of its superiority - the emergency brake uses disk brake pads and is integrated with the caliper, offering reliable and the best possible hand-brake.
Saab will be missed - engineering that was obviously superior, with other manufacturers later following suit with surprisingly similar designs. Such as the now-common front wheel drive arrangement Saab began using in 1948. How about cold-rolled steel body frames with crumple zones, heated seats, the hatchback, how about a standard-production turbo? - the list goes on and on. They may not have invented each one of those items but stuck with the good stuff throughout. I am driving a '93 9000 with >195k miles for a winter rat this year. That kind of mileage is not uncommon, in fact almost expected in a Saab. What companies can suggest that kind of longevity today?
It would be a shame to see a great engineering company fail.
"My point was that it was NEVER great."
What does "great" mean? They were not high performance in the manner of Porsche. They were not high reliability like a Japanese car. They were not luxurious like a Rolls. That's not the point.
But they were "great" at their original design goal as stated: a good car in bad weather.
Even Sweden will let the free market actually do its job. Kinda ironic seeing how the neocons of other governments like to describe us.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/19/report-swedish-government-to-meet-with-gm-officials-could-saa/
You were saying?
That said, I still love my car, and I find it truly blissful to drive in any other occasion, but Americans really do have different driving habits and driving needs. For example, being an even six feet tall with size 12 feet (which is barely above average for American males), I am physically unable to cram legs into the well of the driver's seat of an Alfa Romeo Quadrifoglio. Cars of European sizes I am literally incapable of driving.