It's Official--Saab Saved!
I'm taking a few seconds off from dancing in my cubicle to help spread the word--GM's rumored sale of Saab to small Dutch carmaker Spyker is now official. As always, Saab United is the right place to go for the latest news and analysis.
The rumored deal seemed to have picked up momentum over the last few days, but now, with Saab's $564 million loan from the European Investment Bank guaranteed, the $400 million sale has been finalized.
I love this quote from the Reuters story linked above; it's not often you see commentary as scathing as this in a Reuters news story:
"It's a really brilliant brand. It's probably one of the biggest brand mismanagement stories in the history of the automotive industry," said Tim Urquhart, analyst at IHS Global Insight. "Saab could have been the Swedish Audi if it had been taken on in the right way 20 years ago. It's been completely mismanaged, underinvested in by people who don't understand what the brand means, and what it has the potential to mean."
It's too soon to know exactly what this means; it's hard to imagine that a tiny company like Spyker will have the resources to keep (make?) Saab a relevant mainstream brand. But, if Saab traded volume for quirkiness, I for one would be satisfied. And right now, I'm just pleased that the brand is surviving.
--Chris H.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on January 26, 2010 at 11:40 AM
"...people who don't understand what the brand means, and what it has the potential to mean."
I believe that's a synonym for "General Motors."
I'm not particularly a fan, but a world with quirky turbocharged Swedish cars is more interesting than a world without such things, so I'm glad to see it.
That Car Guy on January 26, 2010 at 11:51 AM
Truly a SAAB story with a happy ending.
Tommy's Dad on January 26, 2010 at 12:28 PM
Truly good news, and one of the most succinct and accurate quotes ever about how GM has mismanaged Saab over the years. Saab needs to do three things if they want to survive and succeed in the long run:
1. Emphasis on Reliability and build quality: this should go without saying, but it's still worth saying. With the internet around to shine flaws on your every single quality/reliability foible in short order, they really can't afford any missteps on this front. Besides, there's plenty of manufactures with good or perceived-good reliability, and look at what a focus on just that has done for Hyundai over the last 5-10 years.
2. Don't worry about volume: of course, if they're doing things right and focusing on build quality and reliability, they shouldn't be too worried about cranking cars off the assembly line as fast as they can anyways. Take a page from Subaru of a few years ago: make the cars bullet-proof reliable, well built, and good at their purpose, and eventually word of mouth and reputation will take hold and take care of the rest. How long has Subaru been a relatively low-volume niche company? How well are they doing right now? Volume will come in time, if you take time to establish the reputation first.
3. Keep the quirk! Saab buyers buy and love their cars for very particular reasons, because there's just something distinctly "Saab-y" about them. So keep the center console ignition, the hatchbacks, the AWD and turbocharging. Get back to the unique and flat-out excellent control ergonomics of the 900 (best control layout I've ever driven, literally right at my fingertips without my hand leaving the wheel or eyes leaving the road). Keep the quirky bits that make Saab distinct and unique, and over time that stuff can be massaged and adapted into more mainstream stuff. Again, see Subaru for a prime example of how to do this right.
Of course, right now they just need to focus on immediate survival, but that doesn't really change the need to succeed on the above points if they're going to sustain themselves and grow in the future.
...m... on January 26, 2010 at 08:47 PM
...i hope they don't stay too mired in saab tradition, though - i'd love to see a new sonett...
The Green Ranger on January 27, 2010 at 06:19 AM
General Motors has mismanaged Saab over the years, but I dont know if this small Dutch carmaker can make the future of Saab any different. After all Saab is a mainstream brand will this small carmarker be able to pull Saab out of the hole GM made them?
Koblog on January 27, 2010 at 06:37 AM
If Saab was such a wonderfully run company, why did it sell itself to GM in the first place? There must have been other problems besides Saab's trademark ugly design ("quirky," as some say).
Saab at best was Sweden's Citroen, not Sweden's Audi.
JoeInVegas on January 27, 2010 at 07:15 AM
Will be interesting to see what Spyker does with the loan proceeds.
Bet this just adds another chapter in the Saab saga before it folds in about 5 years.
jacobbell on January 27, 2010 at 07:27 AM
When the current 9-3 came out I thought there was hope. The car was not as "quirky" but it was a nice car nonetheless. But the car never changed from the first year it was introduced (unless you could some butt-ugly tail light changes and some stereo evolution). There was no investment at all. And the poor 9-5 has been the same for even longer. That's all on GM IMO. Why buy Saab and not invest enough to do something with it?
At this point I wonder how much is left. Both of these models are fast getting outdated and there's nothing in the pipeline. They could evolve them a bit and stem some of the bleeding, but it will be a decade of investment before it can be truly turned around, at best.
Mustang0302 on January 27, 2010 at 07:34 AM
Pairs, possibly even tens of Saab fans are thrilled!
JEM on January 27, 2010 at 07:46 AM
Saab was a small company trying to play in the big leagues. For a while they almost pulled it off. In their early days they competed with VW and DKW, with the introduction of the 9000 in the mid '80s they were playing at the BMW table.
What happened from there?
The horsepower race, SUVs, and GM.
GM starved the company for product. This was nothing new; they were doing the same thing to their home-market stepchild, Saturn.
The 9000 hung around for 12 years. By the time the 9-5 was introduced FWD and 200HP was no longer competitive. The 900/9-3 product cycle was likewise far too long and the hardware unconvincing.
The 9-5 got a nice wagon, but where was the Allroad/XC crossover?
The 9-2X was a perfectly nice Subaru but the fact that it showed up in Saab showrooms was a clear indication that GM had lost most of whatever clue they'd ever had regarding Saab.
The 9-7X was ridiculous, everyone involved in that exercise should have been frogmarched out of the building with the contents of their desks dumped on their heads.
David Colborne on January 27, 2010 at 07:56 AM
I'd say Saab was less "saved" and more "restored from backup". Either way, though, they definitely have their work cut out for them. GM did a nice job of dissolving most of Saab's dealer network at the end (Reno no longer has a Saab dealership, for example), so Spyker is going to have a ton of fun getting that back off the ground. Then there needs to be some fresh product to put into dealer showrooms, which isn't going to be trivial.
It's an uphill battle. I hope Saab can pull it off.
(Saaved!)
Chris Hafner on January 27, 2010 at 08:19 AM
Koblog: "Saab at best was Sweden's Citroen, not Sweden's Audi."
In the 1960s and 1970s that might have been true, back in the 1980s, Saab was truly hot and was just as popular as Audi with Yuppies. Audi had the 5000, 4000, and Quattro; Saab had the 900, SPG, 900 convertible, and the 9000. Both companies made fast, stylish European cars during a time that such cars were status symbols and very popular.
Of course, both companies lost the plot - Saab faded and Audi fell on its face thanks to the (ridiculous) unintended acceleration scandal. But Audi came out with hot products in the late 1990s that restored it to front-of-mind popularity and Saab never did.
JoeInVegas: "Bet this just adds another chapter in the Saab saga before it folds in about 5 years."
It's certainly possible; but win or lose, this will be interesting.
jacobbell: "At this point I wonder how much is left. Both of these models are fast getting outdated and there's nothing in the pipeline. "
I agree that both models are outdated, but there is some stuff in the pipeline - a new 9-5 and the 9-4X, I believe. SaabUnited.com has done a good job previewing those cars.
Mustang0302: "Pairs, possibly even tens of Saab fans are thrilled!"
Okay, while I'm one of those tens, I have to admit that's really funny.
Anthony Cagle on January 27, 2010 at 08:34 AM
I have to admit that, while I've never been much of a Saab fan (and around Seattle I've gotten the impression that Saab drivers were bigger @$$h0les than BMWs), but this discussion has rather fascinated me.
I hope they do maintain viability, more from a diversity (in the evolutionary sense) standpoint than any real love.
Ted B. on January 27, 2010 at 08:53 AM
The real question is what is the 'New Saab' going to sell? GM has already sold the current 9-5 design...and tooling...to SAIC in China to be built there for Shanghai Automotive. And perhaps the current 9-3 also, so what's there for Saab to put on the dealers' floor.
Can they really build the 'new 9-5' sedan without access to the GM-Buick-Opel parts bin? One negative from the GM-management days at Saab was they lost a lot of their best engineers and product designers when GM "opelized" Saab's prodution-line to replace the old 900 with the 900/9-3 series and the 9000 sedans with the 9-5...and that lack was evident when the re-designed 9-3 came out. And for almost two years Saab didn't have a turbo-convertible, which is really their bread-n-butter car here in the US.
Mustang0302 on January 27, 2010 at 09:02 AM
Sorry, Chris, no malice intended. I'll never own a Gov'mint Motors vehicle, I've never driven a Saab, and I've never encountered a Trabant...but so far I've never met any vehicle I didn't like!
Tim Patterson on January 27, 2010 at 09:38 AM
My wife is driving our 6th Saab. I think it is one of the most intelligent cars we have ever owned. It is a 1995 Aero and it will outrun and outhandle most any car on the highway and do it while getting 31 MPG. It has gotten 31 while averaging 70 MPH as long as we have owned it. We have had very little trouble with the car in its life with us and we are not looking forward to trying to replace it. It has always amazed me what GM did to this great car maker. I hope that Saab can be brought back from the brink. While my wife has been driving Saabs, I have had Volvos, Mercedes Benzes, 2 911s Porsches, I still love driving the Saab, the 1969 911s was the most fun to drive car we ever had, though a bit impractical, it did get great MPG numbers at speed as well.
JEM on January 27, 2010 at 10:38 AM
The Saab 9000 had the best ratio of interior-to-exterior volume of any midsize car ever built, great outward visibility, a really nice chassis.
It was a great car in 1986, a very good one in 1991 when we bought ours. It suffered, as all Saabs of the era did, from 'customer QA' because the company didn't have the resources to do the kind of testing big automakers did. Lots of electrical problems, but in 200K miles the most extensive mechanical powertrain work required was a cam-chain change. Original turbo, original transmission, original head gasket, etc.
By the mid '90s the platform was rather aged, and competitors were pushing HP up to levels FWD can't comfortably handle.
The 9-5 was a couple years too late and far short of the car it needed to be. It was a nice car, but not a great one, and with competitors like the E39 5-series BMW and the C5-platform Audi A6 it needed to be great.
Likewise, the 900/9-3 claim to fame was always that it was a little different and a little more useful than competitors like the 3-series BMW. The '94 car lost a little of the uniqueness and inherited some platform squirminess from its J-car underbits, while the most recent 9-3 sacrificed the last bits of Saabish utility and driving position in order to be a me-too sort of Acura TL competitor.
jacobbell on January 27, 2010 at 10:42 AM
I did not realize there was a 9-5 in the works... but just on the face of it I doubt it's gonna fly. We're talking several years at best before that car can hit dealerships and that assumes it's not overreliant on GM engineering/parts. And any Saab car with an X in the name has been disastrous IMO.
I am not nostalgic for the 1980'd glory days and I think Saab/GM had the right idea with the 9-5 & 9-3. They are (were) both attractive cars that could have evolved. I thought the Saab brand could have fit in somewhere between Audi and Suburu. But those days are gone, and it seems to me that the "new" Saab will be starting from the ground up.
The most interesting thing here where the new company tries to take the brand. Will it try to be an luxury line to compete with Audi and BMW? That seems likely to be disastrous. Will it be a quirky niche brand? That might work, but would of course require a real refocusing of their engineering and design efforts. Or maybe they will try to be a slightly upscale brand with cars that find a place on the fringe of the mainstream? That's about where GM seemed to be bringing it before it abandoned ship. It could work if the cars are distinctive enough. There certainly is no clearly superior strategy at the moment.
roger f on January 27, 2010 at 01:46 PM
Former Saab owner here. Former as of 5 weeks ago, when my 9000CS spontaneously burst into flames and self-immolated as a final act of treachery. Thought the cars were made by Swedes, not Loved the car when it ran, but that wasn't very often. Cracked head, ruined gearbox because the tranny cooler ruptured inside the radiator, electrical problems du jour, cruise control that wouldn't stay on.....i could go on and on and on.
Let's just say I now know my mechanic well enough to inquire after the state of his little daughter's asthma.
Loved the Saab. Terrific highway car and the most comfortable seats I've ever rested my bottom upon.
But raliability-wise? Rather have a yugo.
tom_in_georgia on January 27, 2010 at 02:25 PM
So Saab was sold to a company that made exactly 23 cars last year...that is NOT a misprint....23 cars. Considering Saab's sorry sales in the US, it should be a good marriage.
Bernard on January 27, 2010 at 03:54 PM
Ted,
"And for almost two years Saab didn't have a turbo-convertible, which is really their bread-n-butter car here in the US."
Which two years would those be? Certainly none since 1985.
Jacob,
The new 9-5 is already in pre-production and should be here in the spring.
A lot of people don't "get" Saab, and that's O.K. Cars are very emotional purchases (either that or you buy a Camry and never read this blog). Even the most ardent Saab non-fan has to admit that the auto world is better with Saab around. They get other makes to up their game. That's how you end-up with turbo BMWs and Honda Accord hatches and Hyundais with heated seats and front wheel drive cars that can handle big power, and relatives that walk away from serious crashes.
Welcome back, my Swedish friend.
kfh on January 27, 2010 at 04:04 PM
Was glad to hear about the Saab deal have two and love them. Round trip to Seattle averaged 80 in Wa (to stay alive) and 34 MPG. Antony, It's not Saab or BMW drivers in Seattle that are A-holes it's Seattle Drivers. Don't beleive me, just check you rearveiw mirror
Koblog on January 27, 2010 at 04:27 PM
Chris Hafner: good comments.
Totally agree Mustang0302 wins the comments pithiness award.
However, I base my comment on knowing precisely one yuppie who owned one of those 80's Saabs. It did not age well at all.
Then again, a lot of BMWs don't age so well, either.
Koblog on January 27, 2010 at 04:39 PM
You know what's really important about a company like Saab? It proves its home nation has the design, engineering, manufacturing and marketing chops to make a car.
That is saying something.
To bring a car to market is excruciatingly difficult. It's like being in a very exclusive club. How many nations can build an airliner the world is willing to fly in? How many nations can build a world class military fighter? How many can build a car the world will buy?
Little Sweden built that fighter and a car. Good for them. It's extraordinarily difficult to do.
The mighty USSR couldn't do it. China hasn't...yet. India? Pakistan? Some stirrings. It's really risky. You have to sell the public...and people like the readers here who brook no tomfoolery.
The fact that "pairs, even tens of Saab fans are thrilled" is something many nations only dream to achieve.
CJinSD on January 27, 2010 at 05:27 PM
Bernard,
The first Honda Accord hatch came out in 1976, before Saab had one to offer. The first BMW 2002 Turbo was a 1974, preceeding Saab's 99 Turbo. The current Accord Crosstour and BMW turbos are abominations, but one certainly blame Saab for having led anyone anywhere in recent decades. Saab may well have been a heated seat leader. They certainly weren't one of the car companies to figure out how to get a high power front wheel drive car to handle the power gracefully.
Automotive variety is nice enough, but this is just going to amount to redistributing Swedish tax dollars to Dutch businessmen.