[Desert_Fox]

SAAB needs to be dramatically changed if it is to survive. The local dealer here is stuffed with unsold 9-5's... even though they stopped making them almost a year ago. The appeal just isn't there, and while i'd like to see some new designs from a european company- if I were BMW i'd save my money.

[GeeRam]

Originally Posted by az34

saab need BMW; BMW does'nt need Saab.

BMW 'might' need a European modern, production facility, that is ready to go, and a fraction of the price of building a new somewhere else

If BMW's angle is competing in the fwd Euro 'family' market then buying the Saab brand is a LOT better than putting the BMW badge on a fwd...... as many others have said, so gets my vote.

As a previous Saab owner as well, I'd rather see a BMW owned Saab than a Chinese one.

[GeeRam]

Originally Posted by jmsent

I keep reading how GM ruined SAAB. But if SAAB had been a viable company they wouldn't have ever been acquired by GM. When GM bought them, SAAB was out of money, and was still selling ancient models. The pre GM SAAB 900 dated all the way back to the 99 with a few modifications. They had no money to develop a new generation. The 9000 was never a pure SAAB vehicle, with its platform sourced from Alfa, as I recall.

Not quite recalled correctly.
The 9000 was a jointly developed Saab/Fiat-Lancia platform..... the design being led from Sweden.

And................ Saab DID have a 'old 900' successor very well ahead in development prior to GM buying a 50% stake in Saab back in 1990. However, GM looked at it and said, it's too expensive, dump it and told the Saab engineers, "here's this old Vauxhall/Opel platform, go and do something 'very cheap and quick' with this instead"

[Fraggy]

Originally Posted by JB135MDCT

As long as China doesn't get Saab, I'm happy.

Absolutely, anything to keep it out of those hands.

[dj john]

Originally Posted by Desert_Fox

SAAB needs to be dramatically changed if it is to survive. The local dealer here is stuffed with unsold 9-5's... even though they stopped making them almost a year ago. The appeal just isn't there, and while i'd like to see some new designs from a european company- if I were BMW i'd save my money.

I think Bmw know what ther plans with Saab is..if they buy it.

[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by jmsent

I keep reading how GM ruined SAAB. But if SAAB had been a viable company they wouldn't have ever been acquired by GM. When GM bought them, SAAB was out of money, and was still selling ancient models. The pre GM SAAB 900 dated all the way back to the 99 with a few modifications. They had no money to develop a new generation. The 9000 was never a pure SAAB vehicle, with its platform sourced from Alfa, as I recall. These cars were quirky to say the least, the dealer network was terrible, and they were falling further and further behind. Yes, GM failed to keep SAAB going in the long term, but SAAB was in big trouble long before GM came along. As for BMW saving them, I really don't see the point. BMW's reputation is far better than SAAB's in virtually every respect, SAAB's sales have never been very large, and their dealer network is in shambles.

Thank you. This is exactly on point. GM's mistake was buying Saab in the first place. Saab should have died in the early '90s. The only thing GM could do with it was share common parts and platforms in an attempt to make Saab profitable. Which is what also led Ford into trouble as well, trying to save small, boutique car companies that design great cars (in most instances) but are expensive, unprofitable, and don’t appeal to a wide automotive consumer base to justify their existence.
Large automotive companies are only profitable when the costs of engineering and production are amortized over a vast array of vehicle sales, which is why every car company (regardless of what BMW tries to advertize) shares platforms between models and brands. Volkswagen is currently on a quest to become the world’s largest and most profitable automotive company. Their strategy to achieve this goal is to design, manufacture, and sell as many cars as possible from one (or a few) base platforms. Right now VW AG makes something on the order of 12 different cars off of one platform.

Saab would have never survived as an automotive company past 1993 as the global auto industry was consolidating to fewer and fewer platforms to build cars from. Saab was too small to remain in business and undercapitalized to develop new products.

All this means is BMW will just increase the price of the 3 series even further to offset the massive financial burden Saab will bestow on BMW.

Please just let Saab die.

[DASHOCKER]

just look @ mini's success under bmw. it will work.

[rfx45]

Originally Posted by GeeRam

However, GM looked at it and said, it's too expensive, dump it and told the Saab engineers, "here's this old Vauxhall/Opel platform, go and do something 'very cheap and quick' with this instead"

Anybody saw the Top Gear segment on Saab last night? They explained that GM gave Saab the Vauxhall platform and told them to just change the body and nothing else but Saab went the other way and built a different vehicle and it flopped. The next year/gen, GM said the same thing by giving them a platform and to just change the body and nothing else but again Saab pretty much said "F U" and made whatever they wanted and flopped once again.

It seems like Saab was just very stubborn and didn't want to evolve or change, which could be a good thing but if no one is buying their product then what is the point? So can BMW actually push Saab to change if they do acquire them? I guess time will only tell.

[MikeyV]

What Saab models are you talking about, all current Saabs sit on Opel plafroms and have done for a long time. FYI the Subaru Tribeca was co developed with Saab, there was a model with a Saab front and rear end with a Saab interior booked for the Geneva show in 2005, GM killed it at the 11th hour, instrad we got the 9-7.

[JB135MDCT]

Originally Posted by rfx45

Anybody saw the Top Gear segment on Saab last night? They explained that GM gave Saab the Vauxhall platform and told them to just change the body and nothing else but Saab went the other way and built a different vehicle and it flopped. The next year/gen, GM said the same thing by giving them a platform and to just change the body and nothing else but again Saab pretty much said "F U" and made whatever they wanted and flopped once again.

It seems like Saab was just very stubborn and didn't want to evolve or change, which could be a good thing but if no one is buying their product then what is the point? So can BMW actually push Saab to change if they do acquire them? I guess time will only tell.

Get your story straight, GM FfUuCcHhTt Saab!!!

[MikeyV]

Also interesting to see that BMW have applied to the trademark the Triumph badge, looks like I was thinking along the same lines as BMW, why buy Saab when you already have a cool badge which you already own and can use without sorting through the baggage which would come with a Saab purchase.

[tranism]

Originally Posted by MikeyV

What Saab models are you talking about, all current Saabs sit on Opel plafroms and have done for a long time. FYI the Subaru Tribeca was co developed with Saab, there was a model with a Saab front and rear end with a Saab interior booked for the Geneva show in 2005, GM killed it at the 11th hour, instrad we got the 9-7.

They were referring to the 9-3 and current 9-5. GM apparently told Saab to create a variant of the vauxhall vectra aka opel vectra. The Saabs ended up sharing only about 30% of the same parts. Everything else required custom tooling and parts. Moreover, GM felt Saab wasted resources like spending loads of money on creating their own navigation system instead of using GM's. On top of that, Saab was falling way behind BMW, Audi, and Merc in the infotainment research space. By the time they created their Phoenix platform and new iQon infotainment system, the company had no money left. They lost money on every 9-3 sold. The 9-5 was rushed to production before it was completed to try and make some cash. In the end, it was all too little, too late. Their new owners Spyker simply did not have the finances to keep the company afloat.

[rfx45]

Originally Posted by JB135MDCT

Get your story straight, GM FfUuCcHhTt Saab!!!

Pretty much this.

Originally Posted by tranism

They were referring to the 9-3 and current 9-5. GM apparently told Saab to create a variant of the vauxhall vectra aka opel vectra. The Saabs ended up sharing only about 30% of the same parts. Everything else required custom tooling and parts. Moreover, GM felt Saab wasted resources like spending loads of money on creating their own navigation system instead of using GM's. On top of that, Saab was falling way behind BMW, Audi, and Merc in the infotainment research space. By the time they created their Phoenix platform and new iQon infotainment system, the company had no money left. They lost money on every 9-3 sold. The 9-5 was rushed to production before it was completed to try and make some cash. In the end, it was all too little, too late. Their new owners Spyker simply did not have the finances to keep the company afloat.

I can't say I am an expert on Saabs history but TG UK certainly made them out to be some stubborn SoBs. From what I understand, GM actually tried to help them but just completely ignored them so it seems their downfall is from their own doing.

[youmeill]

I've always liked Saabs for some strange reason, and I'm sure whatever they would do to Saab would be an improvement. But really? Saab just came back with 2 refreshed models and it's in bankruptcy?

[SE3P_to_E90]

SAAB = Something An Ass Bought

please don't buy saab. BMW will sob.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

Thank you. This is exactly on point. GM's mistake was buying Saab in the first place. Saab should have died in the early '90s. The only thing GM could do with it was share common parts and platforms in an attempt to make Saab profitable. Which is what also led Ford into trouble as well, trying to save small, boutique car companies that design great cars (in most instances) but are expensive, unprofitable, and don’t appeal to a wide automotive consumer base to justify their existence.
Large automotive companies are only profitable when the costs of engineering and production are amortized over a vast array of vehicle sales, which is why every car company (regardless of what BMW tries to advertize) shares platforms between models and brands. Volkswagen is currently on a quest to become the world’s largest and most profitable automotive company. Their strategy to achieve this goal is to design, manufacture, and sell as many cars as possible from one (or a few) base platforms. Right now VW AG makes something on the order of 12 different cars off of one platform.

Saab would have never survived as an automotive company past 1993 as the global auto industry was consolidating to fewer and fewer platforms to build cars from. Saab was too small to remain in business and undercapitalized to develop new products.

All this means is BMW will just increase the price of the 3 series even further to offset the massive financial burden Saab will bestow on BMW.

Please just let Saab die.

+1000!