The Future of Saab?

jchan2 · October 2005

True. Neither does Honda.

Fuji Heavy Industries is a possible suitor, but do they have the cash?

blckislandguy · October 2005

I live in Northeast and have, on and off, for 61 years. SAAB used to dominate the New England market. It was a great winter car. It was the Official State Car of Maine, people in other rural areas loved them, many professors drove them, even putting on Kenworth/Peterbilt type shutters on the front of the grills for cold mornings in Ithaca or Amherst. Then Volvo moved upscale (as did academic salaries) and went AWD. Along came Suburu to capture the bottom end of the winter market with their AWD. Quirky women in Northampton, MA were attracted to the Lezburu and poor Mainiacs adopted Suburu as the new Official State Car. Audi went Quatro with V8s and leather. SAAB soldiered on, stuck, pardon the pun, in FWD.

What was the SAAB market is now AWD. This loss of market share is amazing considering what one phone call to Haldex Clutch Co. (you don't think Volvo engineered their AWD system do you?) could have done. Afterall AWD only costs about 2K at retail. SAAB blew it. I don't even think that one can blame Big Bob Lutz who IMHO is simply a blowhard, know it all.

Potential dance partners. What about Alfa? They are supposedly planning a comeback to the North American market. Ditto for Peugeot. The Japanese? What do they need that SAAB has?

Slight digression: how much would have it cost GM to have a Lotus Engineering, Porsche, or even just a California tuner figure out how to hang a turbo off each bank of the V6 (that is, twin turbos, Olaf) , install some drilled throttle and brake pedals, and have a real head turning Aero that might compete with an Audi S4? Instead the Aero had real BBS wheels for only a year before they dropped them. Nice.

anythngbutgm · October 2005

That was an awesome post. Basically sums it up perfectly.

Saab could've, should've, would've been something great had the right decisions been made when the competition got tough. Now it's just too late and the damage has been done.

ateixeira · October 2005

I can't see FHI buying Saab simply because I doubt they have the capital. Toyota just bought a large part of the shares that GM sold off. FHI bought back some shares, so they may be short on liquid assets right now.

Toyota just bought 8+% of Subaru, so they'll probably try to sort that out before they make any more moves. They have Scion at the entry-level, then Toyota, then Lexus, now a quirky partner brand. Why get a 2nd one? Maybe just to own a European nameplate?

Subaru's AWD focus also means there is little overlap with Toyota products. Existing Saabs would overlap:

9-2x is an Impreza (Toyota owns part of Subaru)
9-3 is FWD, might compete with Camry, ES
9-5 is FWD, might compete with Avalon
9-7 is a 4WD truck, might compete with 4Runner

I see total overlap. Toyota would have little to gain besides the European name, perhaps.

-juice

nippononly · October 2005

I can't see too much competition between the 9-5 and an Avalon. Ditto a 9-3 and a Camry. They aren't even the same size, which I think was maybe the basis for pairing them up in that manner. And driving dynamics are very different.

The way the cars are actually ordered by dealers, you can't get into any Lexus for less than a sticker of about $35K. Toyota could maybe use a nice little European brand with cars priced in the $25-40K range, FWD or AWD, can't see it competing much with anything Toyota currently has, even if they were to add the Sonett concept to the line-up. Now, they would of course dump the 9-7 and 9-2 instantly.

Again, this is all an exercise because it is extremely unlikely Toyota would ever consider doing something like this. But it could work out well if they did...

ateixeira · October 2005

But who does it compete with, then? Maybe the S80 alone? That's not much of a segment to chase.

Is Toyota even interested in such a small niche? They can't produce enough Avalons to meet demand as it is, why get another large sedan with such tiny (for Toyota) volumes?

-juice

nippononly · October 2005

doesn't it compete a little with the A6? Of course, that car is more expensive, but by how much? And, "euro cachet" aside for a second, doesn't it compete with the TL as well? They always list them in the same report when comparing sales, in which segment TL is always the sales leader. And yes, the S60/S80 are competitors as well.

ateixeira · October 2005

On paper, I guess it does. But transaction prices are well below Audi's.

-juice

stmss · October 2005

Yeah, in Canada, I think the final price point on the 9-5 compares with A4 for similar equipment (aero aside). Ditto for 3 series, C class etc which are all smaller cars and be will equal to or more $$ than 9-5.

blckislandguy · October 2005

Transaction prices for a SAAB? They seem to have so few transactions that this metric would seem to be statistically invalid. I saw ads until early summer for left over '04s for chissakes! If you can fog a mirror, you can get 10K off MSRP.

How ironic that GM "gave" the SAAB franchise to many dealers to replace Olds when GM dropped Olds. Now what are these guys going to do? What is a SAAB franchise worth?

I think, though, that some money could be made if after GM drops the line, but not by GM. If one were to establish an on line catalog company to support the newly orphaned line you would do OK. There is a lot of money in the low status world of supporting obsolete vehicles. Quick: someone should get the domain name, www.SAABPARTS.com.

dhanley · October 2005

porsche, rolls, bentley, all those low-unit number companies are garbage.

andys120 · October 2005

I agree w you that Saab and GM blew it by not offering AWD before it became a widespread option. Saab already had the "all-weather car" position in the minds of many Snow-Belters (me included) but let it slip away due to letting Audi and Subaru take that position.

It's too late now, everybody's got an AWD now,even BMW.

R.I.P SAAB.

jchan2 · October 2005

could be retooled as a niche automaker.

Wouldn't make too much money, but it'd keep the brand alive.

And if I had known that I could have snagged a left-over 2004 9-5 Arc in March 2005 for just under $30,000 I would have at least taken a test drive.

nippononly · October 2005

if the artsy fartsy trim names would go - who can remember which order Arc, Aero, Linear and whatever else go?

jchan2 · October 2005

How about S, SE, and Aero?

blckislandguy · October 2005

I think you could have bought an '05 Arc in '05 for under 30K. Not just an '04.

ateixeira · October 2005

Bargain prices, no question, but resale is similarly low. I don't think your overall TCO will be lower than competitors. A friend of mine here at work picked up a lightly used one for $10 grand, about half the price of a similar-age S80.

-juice

andys120 · October 2005

If our present Saab wasn't running so well I'd be temted to snag a leftover 9-5 wagon , they'll be even cheaper with a new one on the way.

jrosasmc · October 2005

When is the next-generation 9-5 slated to arrive in America?

ateixeira · October 2005

If there is one, you mean?

The face-lift is arriving now. My guess is that means they will keep milking this platform for at least 2-3 more years.

-juice

jchan2 · October 2005

They wanted to do a 9-5 on a stretched Epsilon 2 platform.

A used 9-5 for 10K? What was the mileage? Model year?

If an 05 Arc sedan was running for $30K, does that mean a leftover 2004 would be about the same price as my leftover 2004 I35?

ateixeira · October 2005

A co-worker got one a couple of years ago, I don't recall the exact model year (or when he bought it) but it was about 3 years old, not sure about the miles, he told me he paid $10,800, which was a steal.

Actually had me thinking about one, but I like small AWD cars, not large FWD. I did actually drove a CPO 9-5 just to sample one, but some turbo lag and the big-car feel isn't my style.

It's amazing that the large Saab costs about what the small BMW costs without options.

I recently looked again at 02-03 used cars because my wife wants an automatic sedan (has a 5 speed wagon I pushed for), and again the 9-5 popped up repeatedly as one of the lower priced alternatives (along with the Acura TL).

-juice

dhanley · October 2005

Has been bad, at least in perception, due to the huge rebates. Most TCO calculations that i've seen look at MSRP-resale, and don't account for if there's $10,000 off sticker.

I really did look at a 9-5 aero about a year ago, CPO, 4 months old and 3,000 miles. Loaded, even those ventilated seats. Was $30,000. I really thought about it, but it's not as fun to drive as my bimmer, and i'd miss that. Larger, FWD, turbo lag.

blckislandguy · October 2005

RE: TCO. Wouldn't a comparison of one year old vehicles get around the MSRP vs. Transaction price difference?

blckislandguy · October 2005

Re: "Its amazing that the large Saab costs about what the small BMW costs without options"

Maybe not. IMHO you can't buy a 3 Series without a lot of expensive options and everything with Bimmer is an option. Everything.

Moreover, for a person in the Northeast who doesn't have to have a 3 Series to keep up with his fellow law school students, a 9-5 is offers more value, no one is going to steal it on Comm Ave, and you could get to Stowe on any weekend.

jchan2 · October 2005

is actually a good deal both new AND used if you think about it.

If you buy it new though, you'll probably have to hold on to it for a while.

And the 9-5 is CR Recommended...

But you can't hide the fact that it rides on an old platform...

ateixeira · October 2005

Good point, for both TCO and actual resale value you'd have to know what was actually paid in the first place. They usually go by MSRP, and the problem with that is - MSRP is completely insignificant!

-juice

jchan2 · October 2005

And nobody in their right mind pays MSRP on a Saab.

So TCO is inaccurate.

dhanley · October 2005

"Re: "Its amazing that the large Saab costs about what the small BMW costs without options"

Maybe not. IMHO you can't buy a 3 Series without a lot of expensive options and everything with Bimmer is an option. Everything. "

Hm. Well, the 9-5 arc stickers at $36,970
A 330 stickers at $36,600, and does come with xenon lights, sunroof, etc.

I've certainly driven both--the 330i destroys the 9-5 in handling and compliance, so competing at law school isn't the only reason to prefer a 330i.

IMO, TCO is a tossup. The Saab is cheaper upfront, but depreciates faster. And, i spent a lot more money keeping my saab running.

dave

merc1 · October 2005

Could it be? I still feel something for Saab. I saw a commercial tonight for the 9-3 droptop with the new 2.8L turbo V6 and it made me want a Saab. :surprise:

M

ateixeira · October 2005

The 9-3 is handsome, IMO, and the convertibles have always looked great.

My bet is that V6 is under-rated for power, Saab is sand-bagging. Just 250hp, from a V6+turbo? I bet it makes 280.

-juice

dhanley · October 2005

I think the best way to guess at TCO is to look at what you can get out of a lease. The lease companies & manufacturers know pretty well what true depreciation will take place. If i were buying and not 100% sure i'd hold onto the car for a long time, i'd look at the lease price to try to estimate the pain if i sold/traded the car in 2-5 years.

Saabs are ok on leases, compared to bmw, acura, audi, etc.

I don't think the 2.8T is underrated, but saab could doubtlessly get more out of it, 300/300 ought to be possible. I think the limiting factor is the car is still FWD. Too much more power, and you'd just spin the front tires.

I agree the 9-3 looks great and even better as a 'vert. I seriously looked at one of the 2004 leftovers.

dave

jchan2 · October 2005

I saw a commercial for the 9-3 Aero Convertible last night. The slogan was "Born from Jets"

A nice way to use the airplane heritage, but do the 9-2X and 9-7X have ANY aircraft inspired items?

kyfdx · October 2005

We saw the commercial last night...

My eleven-year-old boy's reaction: "Born from jets? That is dumb."

But, the car looked great.... It made me want it.. even with the bad tag line...

There has to be a better way to use the aircraft heritage in their marketing....

anythngbutgm · October 2005

Born from jets...Went down like a Submarine...

ateixeira · October 2005

Funny enough, yes, the 9-2x is made by a former aircraft manufacturer, Fuji Heavy Industries.

Saab no longer does planes. When GM bought Saab, they seperated the automotive division. So they are now indy from the aircraft division.

Saab Auto != Saab Aero

The ad is outdated.

-juice

stickguy · October 2005

I don't know if GM ever made planes, but they did make tanks. maybe they can play up that angle?

PF_Flyer · October 2005

http://www.shanaberger.com/gm.htm

In 1929 Fokker Aircraft Corp of America and its subsidiary, Atlantic Aircraft, were acquired by General Motors. GM renamed the company General Aviation Corp.
General Aviation failed due to the Depression and a much-publicized crash of an F-10 killing Notre Dame football coach Knute Rockne in 1931. North American Aviation acquired the assets of General Aviation in 1933.

In 1942, General Motors formed Eastern Aircraft to use several automobile plants to produce over 13,000 Grumman F4F Wildcats and TBF Avengers.

dhanley · October 2005

Yeah, i haven't seen the ads, but that is a pretty dumb tagline. I wonder if it scans better in swedish?

The main reason i didn't get the 9-3 'vert before was:

1) engine : still significant turbo lag, and it sounded a bit tinny

2) Suspension/fwd.

It sounds as if the v6 may have corrected #1. Apparently there are some suspension upgrades, but i wonder how much.

The 2006 9-3 came in last in the last C&D comparison test, but i _always_ take those tests with a big pile 'o salt. I've driven cars from tests, and wondered what those guys were thinking. I take it as "one guy's opinion."

dave

anythngbutgm · October 2005

At least they dropped the "State of Independence" farse. Considering they are about as Independent Pontiac... The 9-3 Aero convertible in the commercial is pretty nice but I think one of those suckers goes for around 43 grand... BEFORE options. That's alot of $$$ and that puts it into 330ci territory as well.

Trade-in value on an 04' Aero per kbb is about 27k and for an 03' SE, about 21k so depreciation is a huge negative. Might make a great used car purchase for someone in a couple of years...

kyfdx · October 2005

They usually run pretty good lease specials on the Saab convertible (which is definitely a car you want to lease, not own)...

And, if you shop for a BMW 330Ci convertible, you'll find most of them are in the $50K-$52K range... :surprise:

Of course, you can drive a BMW convertible for 3 years, and still get 65% of the MSRP back out of it.... not a bad deal, if you can swing the payment in the meantime...

regards,
kyfdx
Host-Prices Paid Forums

dhanley · October 2005

The 9-3 'vert aero with metallic paint (lime yellow--HOT) , cold weather package, and touring package is $44,915. A 330 'vert with cold and xenons is $47,620. Unfortunately, the 330 still has the old engine & platform. However, even the "old" 330 handles better. It's the engine that's the issue. 258lb-ft@1900RPM is delicious. Pity it all goes through the front wheels.

With the saab 'verts, the best deal is either to lease it on one of the advertised lease specials, or euro deliver it. Euro delivery is 9% off the sticker, and $2000 travelling cash, and you have a car to drive in europe. So for "my" vert above, $38,872, and i save whatever a 4 week rental of a nice car would cost me in europe.

I still think that when you factor in depreciation, you come out more or less even, considering everything. So, you ought to get what you like. I'm still not sure myself. The new 3-series has some great aspects, but i'm not sure about it's overly tecchie nature( runflats/no spare? no dipstick? Etc ).

dave

jchan2 · October 2005

My son wants a 2003 SE Convertible when he learns to drive. (or whenever he can afford one)

The steep depreciation certainly works in our favor.

But nobody pays MSRP for a Saab, and $43K is MSRP. Perhaps you can get it out the door for $40K.

Which certainly makes it cheaper than the 330Ci or the CLK. Then again, its not exactly the car the 330Ci and CLK are either...

blckislandguy · October 2005

Dave,

I don't think you are comparing apples to apples. Doesn't the Saab have far more standard items and for the Bimmer the roof, slush box, leather, etc. are all options? Does your 330 sticker price of $36,600 include these?

Handling. Sure the 330i out carves a 9-5 but for 6 months a year in New England no way does it "destroy" a Saab. Some days you just aren't going to be going to work or business school in a Bimmer.

dhanley · October 2005

"I don't think you are comparing apples to apples. Doesn't the Saab have far more standard items and for the Bimmer the roof, slush box, leather, etc. are all options? Does your 330 sticker price of $36,600 include these?"

Well, sunroof is standard on the 330. Slushbox isn't standard on either, but the 330 has xenons standard which the 9-5 does not. You might be more right for 2006, i think saab has cut prices and put on more standard equipment, but it's not on the saab site yet.

I think the winter thing is overblown. When i had a BMW and a saab in the garage, the saab was absolutely hopeless in the snow because of the z-rated tires it came with. I drive alll over hilly wintery wisconsin in my 3-series with snows.

ateixeira · October 2005

That's odd, why would you mount snows on the Bimmer? Was that the car that had to commute a longer distance or something?

With the wrong tires any car will stink in the snow. STI and EVO come with summer tread, for instance.

-juice

dhanley · October 2005

I mounted snows on the bimmer when i moved back to the north. By that point i had already parted ways with the saab. I might have still chosen the bimmer otherwise. The bimmer was stick ( better in the snow ), has traction control ( the saab didn't ) and the turbo lag made driving in the snow a little iffy. That would overbalance the extra FWD traction, i think.

My point was a 9-5 won't automatically be great in the snow, and something else awful. Tires matter most.

ateixeira · October 2005

Has traction control been standard for a while now? Probably, not sure what year that started, though.

It probably comes with all-seasons, unless they've been replaced with something else. I doubt a 9-5 owner would use summer tires, it's not that type of extreme performance car, not to mention Saab has a lot of owners in the snow belt.

I agree about the turbo, you do not want that kicking in suddenly just when you've gained traction!

-juice

dhanley · October 2005

TCS is standard on the 9-5 and it has "high-performance" all seasons.

I still maintain that tires matter more than drivetrain layout, but i'll say no more since this is off-topic and has been beaten to *death*.

dave

blckislandguy · October 2005

C & D had a long article a year or so ago comparing RWD, FWD, AWD with and w/o "modern" winter tires like Blizzaks, Arctic Alpins, etc. Visualize a 3 X 2 table. It turns out that just putting on winter tires moved the stopping and starting capability forward one category (RWD, FWD, AWD) in traction. In other words a RWD car while hopeless w/o winter tires, if it had the winter tires was equal to a FWD car w/o winter tires, a FWD with winter tires was almost as good as an AWD w/o them. Interesting piece and one that confirms your thoughts on a Saab vs a properly shod bimmer.

The Future of Saab?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles