Comments on: Saab to downsize future lineup

By: angelo

angelo — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:19:54 +0000

Wait, Saab has any future lineup?

By: Get Real

Get Real — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:14:29 +0000

That wailing sound is University Professors crying.

By: inline6

inline6 — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:01:11 +0000

Wow…Sick of GM…you have NO idea what you’re talking about.

Suzuki has posted record sales every month in the last 3 years. The Suzuki brand is growing and growing fast, and GM only holds about 3% of it.

Isuzu started marketing vehicles here against the express wishes of GM. GM used their Gemini as the 1975-79 Buick Opel, and then later the Chevy/Geo Spectrum. And the second-gen Impulse GM facelifted to make the Geo Storm. GM was never running Isuzu and never had a controlling interest in the company, IIRC. In fact, when GM’s ownership stake in Isuzu was at its highest, Isuzu was selling vehicles to HONDA (Trooper/SLX, Rodeo/Passport), while all Honda did in exchange was rebadge their poor-selling first-gen Odyssey and give it to Isuzu to sell. No, Isuzu basically gave up on the passenger vehicle market, and by 2004, they offered no original models. That wasn’t GM’s decision.

Saab hasn’t blossomed under GM like Volvo has under Ford. But GM is certainly not running them into the ground. In 2003, it might have looked like that. But the new 9-1, updated 9-3, new 9-4X, and new 9-5 all look to more than hold their own and stand to do justice to and grow the brand appreciably.

By: SickofGarbageMotors

SickofGarbageMotors — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:04:52 +0000

Look no further than Isuzu to see the eventual destruction of this swedish niche brand. GM ran it into the ground while raiding Isuzus diesel expertise to create the Duramax line for Chevy. They would have destroyed Subaru too had they not been in a financial crunch.

Nothing good will ever come of Saab while they are under the umbrella of the General. Same with Suzuki. Both of them are dead brands walking.

By: xyunya

xyunya — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:35:07 +0000

global_lightning, good point. GM done the same rape to Saab as Ford to Volvo. Saab was a very tightly screwed car with a great little engine. The same engine is now in Chevy. Does anyone wonder were the expertise in 2.0L turbo all of sudden came to Chevy, when in the past they did not build anything less then 2.5 L of horrid quality (I am talking Chevy 4 bangers).

By: RaineMan

RaineMan — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:32:08 +0000

Sadly enough… the last Saab I was interested in was the 9-2X. That’s just b/c it was a rebadged WRX and could be gotten with GM’s sweet 0% financing. But by the time I started trying to find one they had all been sold.

By: global_lightning

global_lightning — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:38:19 +0000

The problem with Saab is it’s getting crushed between GM’s two “Big C’s”: Cadillac and Chevy.
As an enthusiast, I have no reason to look at the 9-3 when the Cobalt SS is lighter, more powerful, and better handling. To add insult to injury, the Cobalt’s turbo is an improved version of the Ecotec engine found in Saabs .
If you want luxury, then the Cadillac CTS is a much, much better option than the geriatric 9-5. Especially with that 300HP direct injection engine, Saab simply can’t compete against it.

By: fuk-u-asshole

fuk-u-asshole — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:13:19 +0000

although alot of gay people actually drive saabs for some reson.
im not being judgemental when i say that, im just saying.

By: shaver

shaver — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:07:58 +0000

As bad a shape as they are in now, they were actually worse off atleast financialy before GM. They really need to find their niche because the tweed jacket wearing pipe smoking professors are a dying breed.

By: brassmonkey

brassmonkey — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:57:14 +0000

Anyone see the TV commercial on now for Saab? I don’t remember the model, but the whole commercial talks about the turbo engine, and “we capture the exhaust and recycle it to produce more power”, and it plays over like 3 times. Are you fu.cking kidding me? Do they think no one has any idea how a turbo works? Are they trying to reclassify themselves as an earth saver? This might work for the euro-trash metrosexual partially hetereosexual posuers that live in Santa Monica, but attention Saab, you suck! Blame GM for your misfortune. They should whore themselves to Fiat. They could make a car that you might notice without it having to be painted caution yellow.

By: RaineMan

RaineMan — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:21:12 +0000

Saab needs to jump on the LNF bandwagon. 260hp/260tq in a smaller 9-3 would make for a very quick ride.

By: inline6

inline6 — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:19:21 +0000

Since the late 1970s, the entire Saab lineup has been between 180 and 190″ long for each car. The 900 was, the 9000 was, too.

My ‘89 900 is bigger (185″ overall) than the 1998-02 Accord and 1997-01 Camry. The 9000 was actually slightly shorter than the 900.

And, folks, SAAB STILL RUNS A NICE 4-CYL TURBO. It’s the main engine in the 9-3, and the ONLY engine in the 9-5. The 9-5 is the only midsize luxury car to come only as a 4cyl.

So before you start to bash, check your facts. I think the plan they’re talking about is spot-on.

By: RaineMan

RaineMan — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:08:33 +0000

Saab just needs to downsize itself right out of existance. But on a positive note… yay for cars that are actually getting smaller instead of bigger!

By: 61Vette

61Vette — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:05:39 +0000

Two points. Yes, GM should sell Saab. Give them back their “creative” freedom. Second, if GM does NOT sell Saab then I like this idea. Anybody remember the old 900. 900 Turbo used to be a poster car (literally) and it had a 4 cylinder turbo. Great car. Small for a 2+2 hatchback but nice and different. If Saab can get back to their roots then they might be good for a few thousand interesting cars per year. I don’t that going smaller is a bad thing for them – they used to be smaller and they used to run a nice 4-cylinder turbo.

By: Need4SSpeed

Need4SSpeed — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:49:35 +0000

^ Haha oh gosh umm any way to delete howsmydriving’s 9th comment… lol

By: xyunya

xyunya — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:47:41 +0000

howsmydriving, don’t say. Assholes may execute it

By: howsmydriving

howsmydriving — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:44:56 +0000

GM needs more divisions. Bring back Olds and Geo. Buy Mercury from Ford. Buy Volvo from Ford. Develop a green Hummer hybrid to be marketed to militant lesbians in Berkeley. Divide Saab into a luxury division, a sporting division, and a youth-oriented economy division.

By: xyunya

xyunya — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:24:58 +0000

SickofGarbageMotors, you have a point: GM should sell Saab, just like Ford sold boutique brands it could not manage (frankly I don’t know what Ford and GM can manage).

By: Need4SSpeed

Need4SSpeed — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:24:18 +0000

yeah GM/ Saab really marketed that a little inaccurately didn’t they? Well Saab eventually came out with a jet fighter… the Draken, Viggen, and Gripen… and the A340 turbo prop commercial aircraft…

But yeah Saab was born from 16 aircraft engineers to be more accurate…

By: SickofGarbageMotors

SickofGarbageMotors — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:18:40 +0000

How about downsizing out of business? Jeeze, they’re close enough already, why invest any more into this moneypit.

By: xyunya

xyunya — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:15:05 +0000

Those were beautiful machines, before GM liberated them. Saab was never meant to be large. It was a mid-size hatch even by European standards. Coming from Scandinavia it was also tough (few roads to speak about) and very frugal (Scandinavians are more frugal then Scots or just about on par). Original Saabs were 3 cylinder 2 cycles. Jets were not flying then (over Sweden) so technically they did not come from jets.

By: johnnycanuck

johnnycanuck — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:02:17 +0000

For gawds sake they’re invisible enough already. Maybe they could just stick the current ones in cold water, that always seems to cause major shrinkage.

By: Need4SSpeed

Need4SSpeed — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:58:51 +0000

lol, well Saab’s were always known for getting pretty decent gas mileage w their turbo charged engines, since GM bought them and put them on larger platforms, that may have changed…

But I thought the 9-3’s got pretty good gas mileage already…

By: cookie4me

cookie4me — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:57:32 +0000

Ugh… the 9-3 is already a “snug” vehicle, I can’t imagine them downsizing that. Why don’t they turbo charge a 4 cylinder and get the fuel economy that way?

By: MugenSentraKen

MugenSentraKen — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:54:23 +0000

===>>Saab: Born from Jets. …….what kinda fuel economy do Jets have? lol