The reasons laid out in the article make sense as a last ditch effort on the part of GM to get some form of return on their Saab venture. However, the article ignores the fact that GM is now much more intertwined with Saab...namely through its model lineup: the Saabaru 92x, the upcoming trailblazer/97x and cadillac BLS to be produced at Trollhattan. It wouldnt be easy to disentangle themselves from all of that.
An hour later, GM denies...
formatting link
Would a sale of Saab be good? It would certainly lose the marketing power of GM. There'd be no guarantee that Trollhattan would remain open even with a new buyer. Does Saab need its own manufacturing plant to _be_ Saab? Would they not be better off spending money designing, engineering and marketing cars, rather than actually building them? Or perhaps just build the engines?
I think that that Saab will be a lot better under Renault or Nissan. GM's leadership for Saab was disastrous, a change could be welcome. Nissan has been extremely successful recently, and Renault makes nice cars. Besides, because of traditional rivalry between Renault and Peugeot, perhaps Renault could do to Saab what Peugeot did to Citroen - which was, let it be itself?
If GM says Trollhattan's survival depends on that car then Trollhattan's finished !
They actually think that car will appeal specifically to the *European* market ? They're dreaming or on drugs or both.
Looks like an undersize Escalade from the front. The ultimate bad taste 'bling' / gangster look vehicle.
Saab would benefit from being detached from all those projects IMHO.
Thankfully it would also lose the apparent desire of GM to convert an attractively uniquely quirky and technically competent car manufacturer into some halfbreed shadow of its former self.
Is the marketing power that big a deal? In Europe Saab is marketed quite separately from Vauxhall/Opel and has separate dealer networks; I assumed the same was true elsewhere? The real economies of scale - and the reason that a completely independent Saab would probably not be viable - are to do with design and manufacturing.
Carlos Ghosn (mentioned elsewhere in the thread) was nicknamed 'Le Cost Cutter' and he certainly made it clear that he was prepared to move production away from Nissan's Sunderland plant, which has a tremendous reputation for productivity, if they didn't make a strong enough case for a new model to be built there.
Nissan/Renault in some combination would be a good fit with Saab in terms of product range, but don't expect a particularly easy-going management style if they take over. Incidentally GM and Renault already have a joint venture for delivery vans (Vauxhall Vivaro = Renault Trafic = Nissan Primastar all made in the same factory in Luton) so there is some precendent for sharing engineering knowledge, as would be necessary if Renault find themselves making cars based on GM's Vectra
In Sweden the Saab/Opel dealer network is not separated. Most Saab dealers also sell Opel, although in some cases they have Opel cars in the basement/ground floor and Saab cars on the first floor.
The question would be how to obtain all parts that are now "GM common" parts (brakes, the new 6 cyl engine, etc.)
Volvo already tried cooperating with Renault with little success. Saab, being another Swedish company, could possibly have the same problems in terms of culture, management style etc. Saab/GM and Volvo/Ford cooperation is probably simpler although there is a difference in management levels as Swedish engineers are much more independent in their work. Basically a US engineer does what the boss tells him to do even if he knows that the boss is wrong. A Swedish engineer at the lowest level typically makes makes the same kind of decisions as the lowest level US manager and is more prone to put in question the decisions of his nearest manager. Thus a Swedish department manager typically discusses best with a US division manager as they are on the same level from a responsibility point of view.
The Japanese have a similar way of working as the Swedes. Decisions are more taken on consensus basis rather than one manager deciding in most aspects (as is the typical French way of working). So why not, a Saab/Nissan cooperation could be successful. Saab has already used a Nissan automatic transmission in the 9-5 and why not use more Japanese parts. These are anyway known to have much better quality than US parts, just look at the semiconductor market: it was not until the Japanese manufacturers entered the market that quality and reliability of complex semiconductor products like memories really improved. The US manufacturers were not fast enough in improving their quality and quickly lost most of the market.
Generally Japanese cars are considered to be quite reliable, this can also be seen in annual statistics from mandatory tests. From several people in this group it seems that GM reputation is quite bad in terms of quality (I've only noticed it on the really poor fast-rusting brakes of the 9-5). Thus, Saab being sold to Nissan should improve the car quality compared to a GM ownership.
Well, that's no different than the Ford engines in the 1960's to 1980, or the GM power steering rack in the c900, or the battery, or any other part made by not-Saab. Not a concern.
Yes, the French are difficult to deal with on an engineering standpoint, at least from a USA'n perspective. And the PRV-6 engine was an unmitigated disaster. The joke at the time is that the French didn't tell the Swedes where the meetings were, so they did it themselves.
Well... only if they can't get away with making it right while the boss _thinks_ they're doing it the boss's way. Direct personal experience. (I also no longer work there. Hmmmm...)
I would tend to agree. If engineering quality of Saab is the rule, rather than the exception in Swedish engineering, I think you're right. Then again - Husqvarna, or any of the other Swedish products I own are equally well designed and built.
You're right there. Nobody will buy Saab if the parts/subsystem supply chain is not secured, whatever the source.
Now you're a bit too nasty. French engineers are well educated, skilled and quite nice to work with. Any cooperation problems should be found on other levels.
Probably the situation has diverged the last decade. I've met/heard about both the _very_ management controlled type but there seem to be a trend towards a more independent engineering staff, maybe the trends are more linked to company culture than to the society.
Don't forget Hasselblad cameras (not owned by many people), SKF bearings, Scania trucks, Sandvik tools and Saab aircraft (the latter luckily still mainly Swedish owned and managed)
IS GM really that bad? Not being from US I have no generation long prejudices towards a company that you never basically hear about in Europe. Now we've lerned that Opel, Saab and Cadillac belong to that group but otherwise it is quite anonymous over here. What are the other GM brands that have caused this bad reputation?
Right. GM won't stop selling engines to Saab just because they're not part of the same company.
That's possible.
My experience differs, profoundly. At least amongst the engineers in the French division of my former employer, there were exactly two of them who could be worked with. Standards were disregarded (important when you're designing medical equipment), schedules were ignored, and a lot of passive-aggressive project non-participation was going on. Maybe it was just a case of bad morale at a place which had been bought by a large corporation, but I'm not sure about that.
Could be. I'd rather work for a boss who hires me to be the expert at something and _lets me_ be the expert at something, than a boss who tells me where I should double-click my mouse.
I sold mine, but loved it. You know the Saab connection there, I assume?
Use 'em all the time
Got a bunch of those too.
I really wish I had a Safir. Looks like fun.
Well, there are things happening now that never happened on the pure Swedish cars. Timing belts for starters. Rubber bands do NOT belong inside an engine, period.
GM has a long history of engineering defects and "hidden recalls". The Cadillac HT4100 engine (4.1 litre aluminum block V8) was a (pardon) clusterfuck of biblical proportions. Steel sleeves, aluminum block, rubber sealing o-rings. Thermal expansion between sleeves and block differed enough that the sealing o-rings let coolant into the oil (!), which is rarely good for, for instance, camshaft lobes and all those spinny parts. GM's "fix" was to dump that silver stop-leak powder in (without telling the customer...) and hope for the best. Result? Lots of plugged heater cores and radiators, and a temporary fix for rubber o-rings. They'd only pay out if things got ugly.
Hopefully this isn't where the 2.3L B235 engine problems will end up. Having a b0rken one at the moment, the issue is close to my heart. I can't help but think that some GM-ish engineering influence has made that engine's PCV problems exist. Maybe unfair, but it's my opinion that priorities were GM-ized rather than being SAAB-ized.
Here in Australia the 'ultimate bad taste gansta-look vehicle' is the PT Cruiser. Damn those are f@#king ugly cars.
Saab would benefit from being a seperate marque all on it's own again. I don't see any reason why GM wants Saab except (for reasons I outlined in a couple of posts earlier) because Saab has rights to technology that GM wants to own. Most notably with regard to turbochargers and some aspects of engine design, but there's bound to be a lot more than just that.
It's typical GM - just look at all their 'trucks' (aka SUV's, or whatever the 'giant pickup' market wants to label them) and see how that shape is coming into every new vehicle GM's designers stick their noses into.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.