Million Mile Saab 900 SPG

That'd be Peter. I was wondering when he'd hit it, I figured it was about due. Pity that Saab won't take it for their museum in trade for a new one, before the buyout that was the plan from what I understand.

Dave Hinz

What a bunch of chumps. It's only the world's greatest advertising opportunity. Film him with the Saab, highlight that he went 1 mil miles, say something like "Peter xx drive his Saab one million miles without any major repairs. As a reward, we gave him a new one asked him to do it again".

I can't believe they'd be stupid enough to miss an opportunity like this. Even if we know that a newer one won't go the distance like his

900, the public doesn't. Some marketing genius probably decided that it might encourage people to hold on to their cars longer.

I was about to post this story. Even have him drive to the Factory gates, hand the guys to the security guard and say "The test drive was OK, I might buy one", then finish the ad focusing on the 1million mile ODO. With a strapline like "Saab, take your time" or something.

in article snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net, Dave Hinz at snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote on 05/12/2006 23:04:

Peter Gilbert - I saw some pictures from this year's US SOC National where he was placed "pride of place" at the front of the group photo. According to an article on the Trollhättan 'blog, he has donated the car to the Wisconsin Automobile Museum.

I heard about a one million miler Mercedes, somewhere in India, but it was nowhere near as good condition at this SPG. Outstanding! Hmmm ... Just

850,000 miles to go :)

Paul

1989 900 Turbo S

And that is the least thing they would want... They would prefer us to buy a new one and total it on the way home from the dealer, so we would have to buy another one.

Funny, Toyota seems to think this is a good idea. But their top mileage owner is some guy with only a little over 300k miles AFAIR. I guess their marketing doods went to a different school of business?

That kind of advertising goes a long way toward creating the "perception of reliability" which is far more important than any reality. Toyotas are not really any more long lived than SAABs, in fact the reverse is probably true, but that isn't the public's perception. Just ask someone not in tune with either brand...

Never underestimate the stupidity of "Nobody wants electric cars" GM. Next to Michael Dukakais riding on the tank one of the biggest public relations fiascos in history.

Ya know, I saw all sorts of problems with Dukakis as a candidate (the Democrats don't have a clue when it comes to picking someone who is actually electable and always let the extreme wing of the party pick candidates), but I never really understood why that tank shot got so much press.

And buy the way, no one here wants electric cars either, unless the figure out some kind of a turbo system for them :-)

You say they're missing an opportunity - you may be right. But they may feel it's not the message they need at this time. The worst thing for any car manufacturer is to build a car that people hold onto for 15 years. The next worst thing is to become their own strongest competitor through the used market. The "long lasting car" myth is one of a series of strategies that assured SAAB fanatical following from a very restrictive fan club, whilst protecting them from greater success among an enlarged public. The "intelligent" or "thinking man's" car is another, along with the "car developed by aircraft engineers" whereas the strong emphasis on safety features probably improved their general market appeal - not good enough, obviously, to vindicate the overall approach, which just could not cut it in our tough, SUV world, where our greatest ambition is to buy a new car every 18 months.

They may still be missing an opportunity though - not the purported longeivity of the car, but the opportunity to show that the company notices and cares about their customer. Maybe there's just no one left there who really cares.

GF

Yes, I noted that in my post. I think what the Saab marketeers missed though is what you pointed out: most people buy new and trade their cars frequently. No advertisement is going to change that. Those of us who drive cars for many years will do that for as long as they last - regardless of whether the marketing folks tell us about it. The general public, OTOH, will look at the longevity as a measurement of reliability (which it is not). But, it will be interpreted that way - and therefore greatly increase cars sales to the people who will always buy new and trade them anyway. MHO.

Yes, that is a strong point. Showing that loyalty to the long term customer would again be a major marketing ploy - even if we know it does not exist at the dealer anymore. Another big mistake on their part.

I bought my saab (1985 900s) because it was cheap. I just came off unemployment and my wife was tired of me using her car. I figured that if the car lasted 6 months I was ahead. It has now been over 2 years and I am still driving that car. And I might add proudly driving. I can't imagine driving it 17 years from now unless they find a new source for gas. If Mars has water, maybe it has oil fields too.

We should know soon. That dimwit passing himself off as US president plans to send some people there soon (oil company execs, I expect, that's who he usually sends in first).

Hey, you could always convert it to run on E85 or even E100. :)

John

Economically? We're not there quite yet. 5 years from now, let's talk.

Expect the oil companies to start buying up farms, or at least all farm contracts, when we reach that economic breakpoint.

Start? And really, so what if they do? Someone has to do it. You can, I can. There's an etanol plant going in about 6 miles from here, will be up to full production in 3 years. The coop where my sister lives in Oklahoma, same deal on a bit of an earlier schedule. Much of the cost disadvantage right now is in economies of scale and startup costs. Far as I'm concerned, we should subsidize the hell out of those startup costs & get this thing going.

Yeah, great idea... subsidize the farmers some more and some startups and/or oil companies that will then screw us on price and walk away with large profits. I see the advantages.

There's nothing stopping _YOU_ from being one of the people profiting from this, either through direct ownership or by owning stock in a company doing it. And, I'd rather give money to farmers in this country, than people in other countries who don't like us. Let them drink their oil, far as I'm concerned. Sooner we get away from using imported oil, the better. If that means tax breaks and outright expenses to get there, well, how many days of Iraq war expenses would it take to get us ready to be self-sufficient?