Just How Saab-like Is It?
By Bob Lutz
GM Vice Chairman
Saab 9-7x
Tuesday’s New York Times featured a story about the “Saab-ness” of the new Saab 9-7X SUV that raised a lot more questions than it answered. Let me see if I can’t clarify the issue here.
As you may know, the vehicle is based on GM’s midsize SUV (GMT360) platform. This practice is no different from many Toyota-to-Lexus, or Nissan-to-Infiniti transformations, particularly in utilities.
No one should have the impression that this is nothing but a re-ornamented TrailBlazer – especially after driving it. I can assure you we made certain the 9-7X both looks and acts like a Saab, with plenty of mechanical changes as well as cosmetic ones.
Although produced in Moraine, Ohio, along with TrailBlazers, Envoys, Rainiers and Ascenders, the 9-7X is by far the most differentiated, with special focus on making it an authentic driver’s vehicle.
The 9-7X underwent extensive suspension modifications to give it a more responsive, “European” feel. It has stiffer springs and bushings, a larger front stabilizer bar, and revised shock valving, all of which required beefing up the frame and control arms to handle the increased loads. A quicker 18.5:1 steering gear reduces steering friction, and increases on-center feel. We also stiffened the front part of the frame with additional braces to boost steering response. High-speed stability was enhanced by a limited slip differential, coupled with Saab-specific 18-inch tires and suspension tuning, which included lowering the vehicle one inch. Larger diameter ventilated disc brakes in the front provide better brake pedal feedback.
It not only feels like a Saab, but looks like one too. We focused on fits and broke the mold in designing the front-end appearance. An integrated fascia on all-new front end sheet metal gives the truck a clean look with tight gaps and flush fits. A new chrome roof rack accepts existing accessories from the Saab portfolio.
Inside the cockpit, you’ll notice the zero gap skin-to-trim fits, low gloss surfaces, and beautiful graining created using cast-skin processing. We paid a lot of attention to interior details, even moving the controls to their “trademark” Saab locations. Dual stalk controls on the steering column include a new left-side control stalk for the headlights and the fog lamps and front wiper controls were moved to the new right-side stalk. The center console is not only 1OO% Saab in design and execution, but also features the famed ignition in the area where the Golden Retriever can turn it off.
The effort, which took nearly 2 1/2 years to complete, was to create a silent, refined, European-feeling sports-ute BASED ON the GMT 36O. I’m confident we have created a great Saab.
113 Comments
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
I love the way this vehicle looks!! I have two points to make though that bear consideration…
First of all, from what I gather viewing the web site, I will need to choose between a sunroof or a rear DVD entertainment system. If that is true, it’s EXTREMELY frustrating! I presume the room needed for a retracting roof may not allow a roof mounted DVD but why not locate one on the back of the driver’s armrest like you do in the Cadillac SRX??
Speaking of the SRX… I’m a Cadillac guy, I drive a 2004 CTS, fully optioned and have convinced my girlfriend that her new ride should be an SRX. However, the 9-7 offers a compelling alternative (I know about the differences in vehicle architecture, etc.) for about $10,000 less comparably equipped. Does this concern you?
In any event, keep up the pressure on product and quality and a “Best in class” approach to the new products, and we will keep buying them!! (I’m going to need a bigger garage though; my CTS, her 9-7 or SRX and a yellow Solostice… Hmmmmm)
I guess I can simplify the issue. I have owned or driven 4 Saabs – ‘82 900T, ‘87 9000S, ‘91 SPG, ‘98 900SE. I am in the market to replace the ‘98 turbo. I will buy an Audi allroad as there is no Saab which fits my needs and competes with the 4wd wagons. The 9 should have been offered with 4wd ages ago. While the 9-7 may extend the brand to new buyers it will not retain loyalists. Somehow Audi, Volvo and BMW have always been able to excite loyalists and expand their customer bases.
Bob,
Good job on the Saab. Looks like a winner. It better be priced competitively. (Look at the Lincoln Aviator). It may be a hard sell.
Now for my question. If we can put so much dedicated effort into making a “decent” everyday product –Envoy, Trailblazer great (and calling it something different) — why can’t GM do that with all of its “perceived” marginal cars and trucks? If we know people don’t like certain things about our products, why don’t we fix those too? Like cheap uncomfortable seats and ratty looking interiors? Plus, why don’t we put the “correct” dual stalks on all of our cars? Most competitors are now putting the wipers on the right hand stalk and the lights and turn signals on the left. I would no longer buy a product that did not feature this setup. Why didn’t our new LaCrosse feature this setup? I think someone missed the boat here.
Bob,
So you went to great lengths to re-engineer the platform to make it more of a Saab…unfortunately, however, what the viewing public sees is the general shape of a Trailblazer: the same I-6 engine, same tail light design, same 4-speed auto, same GM-parts bin steering wheel. The Saab-ness that was engineered into this vehicle cannot overcome the glaring GM traits. Fact is, the real Saab, the Swedish Saab that is, would never build a truck-based traditional SUV with mediocre gas mileage…it’s too, uh “mainstream” and American.
Saab has always been a very Euro-oriented marque…I know you have to increase sales to save the brand, but a car-based SUV from the Equinox or SRX platform (like the one coming from Subaru) would have fit the mark much better, in my opinion. Especially if it had Scandanavian styling, in and out, and a fuel-efficient powertrain. I realize you are probably creating such a vehicle as we speak (from the Subaru Tribeca), and that this 9-7x may just be a short-term profit center. My argument, however, is that the brand damage this vehicle will generate will hurt Saab possibly more than the small profits that may be made on this vehicle. Many Saab loyalists see this and decide the real Saab is dead. There goes your small, but loyal, customer base.
Saab used to be a quirky maker of well-designed, practical, fuel efficient, and different cars. What is Saab now?
Platform engineering is a great way to spread resources and is perfectly acceptable in today’s market…but this attempt is too blatant…there’s already 5 over nameplates on this same basic vehicle.
I really want Saab to do well and I have no doubt things are quite challenging. My impression of GM is that it is quite lost when it comes to Saab. Perhaps someone can talk about the vision on the blog, with minimal marketing spin. Initially I was quite horrified by the 9-2X but it does makes sense in some ways. It’s too bad it had to be based on an old vehicle however. Shared platform but otherwise unique would have been much better. But that wouldn’t have been quick and cheap like the solution that was required I guess. Something for the future perhaps? Unfortunately I doubt it will do well.
The 9-7X is a vehicle that really irks me however, its so incredibly un-Saab. GM has done its best I suppose. It may have been the necesary vehicle to bring some money in to Saab but hopefully its not a sign of Saab’s future.
How come these upgrades were not good enough for my wife’s lousy Rainier?
Mr. Lutz,
In regards to platform-sharing, I believe General Motors gets penalized because of past mistakes. You make a great point that many manufacturers share platforms yet they don’t take heat from the press or the public. The Saab 9-7X is unique in its own way and you do a good job explaining that. I think General Motors should only use platform-sharing when the products will have noticeable differences from each other.
On a side note, Is there going to be a Z06 convertible? I really need to know.
Dear Mr. Lutz:
Sorry, but I don’t buy it.
The overall appearance still says “TrailBlazer.”
Moreover, the TrailBlazer has not been exactly a stellar performer in crash testing – and safety is a hallmark of a true SAAB.
Along those same lines, I very much doubt that the roof structure has been modified to bring its rollover protection to being on par with its competition (e.g., Volvo XC90) or other “real SAABs.”
Looks to me like it’s just a TrailBlazer equipped with an optional handling package and slightly upgraded interior.
Bob,
No matter how much I look at this truck, I can’t force myself to think of it as a SAAB. And I’m not even a SAAB fan. Your development efforts on this are admirable for sure, and it looks like a good vehicle has been developed. But why put the SAAB marque on it? Why not offer this enhancement package to the GMT360 platform as a sporty “Trailblazer SS” or somesuch?
My point being, I am struggling with this question: how much of the development and sale of this vehicle was driven by research into the wants and needs of SAAB’s customers (an enthusiastic base of living, breathing, and particularly brand-loyal people), and how much of it was borne from GM’s desire to generate greater profits by further leveraging the GMT360 platform? My feeling is that it’s much too little of the former, and much too much of the latter.
Mr. Lutz,
It’s not the fact that the 9-7x shares a platform with the Trailblazer. It’s the fact that other than the front facia and the wheels that it looks exactly like a Trailblazer.
When the 9-2x went on sale, I can almost guarantee you that buyers knew it was a Impreza WRX wagon in Saab clothing and cross-shopped the two, sending some of your sales over to Subaru. Although, at least with the 9-7x, buyers may be looking at the Envoy or Trailblazer as well.
Let me put it to you this way: when Ford decided Volvo needed a SUV, did they take an Explorer, tweak the suspension and interior, and put a Volvo badge on it? The XC90 shares its platform with the S80, V70, and Ford FiveHundred but you wouldn’t know it from looking at it.
To me, SUV’s do not fit Saab. Now that Saab SportCombi I saw a few days ago looked very nice.
I will give you props for putting the ignition between the seats; exactly where it’s supposed to be
Where’s the turbo I-6?
Bob –
This blog gets into the weeds sometimes. Think mass market. Here’s what we (I ) want to know…
Who names the cars at GM? Terrazza, Lucerne, Bravada??? I don’t get it.
http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/blog.php?thread_id=8&post_number=185
“This practice is no different from many Toyota-to-Lexus, or Nissan-to-Infiniti transformations, particularly in utilities.”
Those brands have the specific purpose of offering upscale models for their respective manufacturers. Is that the goal of Saab now because I thought that was GMC’s purpose? Saab has always been a quirky Swedish car. The fact that GM is not even going to attempt to sell this gas guzzler in Sweden should be evidence enough that it does not meet the benchmark of a true Saab. Please tell me a Saaburban is not in the works.
Mr Lutz,
I think the comments here overwhelmingly refute the theory that you can “add Swedishness” to a generic platform. The reasons behind the 9-7x are understood, but if you really knew the Saab customer, you’d know that the 9-3x concept was always more their ballpark.
Saab = small/medium, deceptively powerful, very innovative, safe, functional. Which one of these equates to the Trailblazer?
Saab fans are very very loyal, as others have mentioned, and can see through this ruse quite easily. I hope the 9-7x does win some customers, however the brand damage (as mentioned above) may do more harm than the good done by a few new people coming over.
The 9-2x is a better attempt at crossing over, though it may have paid to do the interior work on that car that you did on the 9-7x. The BB’s are certainly happy with the 9-2x idea. Have you read them?
Just how Saab-like is it? I’ve had a 3 Saab 99’s, a 9000 and a 900. I’ve driven the 9-3 and the 9-5 as well as the V6 engined 900 of the late 90’s. I’ve been chairman of a local Saab Car Club and continue to be a participating member of same. I run my own Saab weblog. So yes, I’m one of those old-school diehard loyalists. Of all the Saabs I’ve driven and seen and loved – It ain’t nothing like any of them.
Now that that’s over with – can you comment on the speculation today about GM selling it’s stake in Saab?
Meanwhile…
…at Bob Lutz’s blog, there are the sounds of tumbleweeds passing by on the issue of the possible sale of Saab. But Bob is defending the Saab-ishness of the 9-7x.
Mr Lutz,
As many of the previous commnents reveal, many of the Saab aficionados and purists are pretty skeptical & uptight about the 9-7X. There is an up hill battle to win support for it. So I truly hope that you have allowed Saab as much leeway as possible to improve this car. The perception is all gonna rest on the drive.
If you can rest comfortably with the knowledge that this car will be a much better driver than the Trailblazer or Ranier predecessors then there is hope. It still has to be competitive with it’s Sweedish rival Volvo XC90 for driveability. I hope your team has at least tested for that mark. There has been no mention of where this vehicle was tested for it’s perfomance and handling capabilities. I am not as concerned with the designed Saabness of this particular car, but it had best perform for the sake of Saab.
My one concern is safety, I understand there has been some structure improvements, but what about the brakes. I think that is one area where you can show major improvements.
If there is anything your development team can do at this point to make sure you have a great sporty driver, I hope you will approve it.
Best of Luck,
Bart
Saab continues to follow Audi and others, but when does the brand,win some respect from the others ?
Best regurads
Mr. Lutz I have no problem with the engineering of the vehicle, except that it’s the complete fundamental opposite of what a Saab should be (overwrought, overweight, lack of turbo, etc.), but since I haven’t driven it I can’t speak of that. As you say there are many extensive suspension enhancements, and so I cannot speak of those. My direct problem is with something that is supposed to be your forte: DESIGN. The design of the 9-7x has all the wrong proportions for a Saab, if you wanted to make a porky, un-sporty car that is totally devoid of Saab spirit, at least it could have had the right body for a Saab. But it’s terribly Trailblazer-esque in profile, and even you can’t deny that. I have a friend who has no interest in cars other than surface excitement, which is the average American, not us critical enthusiasts. Pay attention here: it doesn’t take much to win over the public, all it takes is a winning design (Lucerne is not, C6 is!). He loves Saab; loves Saab purity of design; as well as Mercedes, Audi, some VWs, anyways HE knows good design. They’re pretty much perfect simplistic cars devoid of overwrought details. The 9-7x grabbed his attention at the LA Auto Show. He spent some time looking at it, and then decided it wasn’t the car with the right Saab design, it just didn’t have that purity of form. Immediately he recognized the common-man look of the “Saab”. Funny story: he loved the Buick Centieme, he thought it was all luxury. And he is right, there is not a flaw on it. It is a perfect design that oozes luxury and the exact thing Buick needs, along with the Velite. But both need to be as well designed and thought out as the concepts. Remember, design design design, it needs to stop you in your tracks, unfortunately if we’re going by that agenda, so far you have FAILED, Mr Lutz.
Clearly at least some effort went into branding this vehicle a Saab. But the problem seems to be consistent with one affecting other marks in the GM stable: clearly determining, defining, developing and in this case staying true to, the market niche for each brand.
As a result, the 9-7x is an excellent case of extending a brand beyond what it originally stood for in an attempt to gain market share, but in the process walking away from the core values that attracted its current customer base in the first place. And as they say, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.” And to quote another appropriate catch-phrase that is sure to come to consumers’ minds: “If it looks the same, it probably is the same.” Even if you over-emphasize pictures of the front end.
I believe other commentors who suggest that a cross-over, wagon-based vehicle, with more responsible fuel-efficiency and at least some level of innovation, would have better befit the Saab brand, as well as its legacy. Aside from the hatch-back, nothing about the 9-2x can truely be considered Saab-like, and look at the disappointment in sales that have resulted.
In my opinion, if you want to increase the profitability of the Saab brand, stop trying to bring more people to the brand and start bringing more brand to the people.
To Anonymous:
You are right – Ford didn’t take the Explorer and try to make it a more expensive Volvo SUV variant, BUT it DID try to do that with the Lincoln Aviator SUV. (Sadly, it’s sales are in the toilet and soon to be killed.) So, platform sharing does go on in this fashion. I believe the Aviator upgrades actually made it into the Mercury Mountaineer and Explorer. Maybe the Saab upgrades will make it into the other 360’s.
The market will ultimately decide if the 9-7 is a good move for Saab. When the brand you favor does not provide products that people want within the brand, they have to do something. (Notice Porsche now has an SUV! and it is very, very similar to the VW tourage!) Why aren’t more people complaining about this sharing of parts and looks?? Why on earth would Porsche the premier sports car builder build an SUV? Why aren’t more people screaming bloody murder about this? Maybe there are certain purists that are crying foul but, you have to look at the numbers the SUV is generating. Porsche dealers are incredibly happy to sell these overpriced VW’s (as Porsches!!). GM is really doing the same type of thing here. Though you may not like the 9-7 looking like a TrailBlazer & Envoy, Saab customers who are on the fence and want to stay with SAAB will probably go for it (or their wives will possibly want one). The same things were probably said when Lexus took the basic Camry underbody and came up with the RX300. It became their best selling model. Consumers are picky but can be persuaded. If the 9-2 didn’t chase all the loyalists away, the 9-7 probably won’t either.
Question for the complainers – If you owned a Saab dealership, would you welcome this SUV or poo poo it????? Think before you answer.
Mr. Lutz,
No matter how it is spun, no matter how good it looks (and it DOES look good), there is no escaping this fact:
The 9-7x Should have employed the Turbo Inline-5 coming to the Hummer H3.
A Pushrod V8 (Very Chevy), and a 4-speed transmission? Inexcuseable for the brand image of Saab.
Forget the platform. Until the identical powertrain offerings to a TrailBlazer are changed, this will not be a convincing Saab. Sorry on this one Bob, it’s just not right to foist a Chevy powertrain on Saab buyers for Saab prices.
The Inline-6 would be suitable for a Saab, but not the tranny or the V8.
I think you have to look at the Saab 9-7X as an interim vehicle. For starters, the Trailblazer platform is old in the tooth and will receive a serious makeover in the next 2-2 1/2 years. It would help if GM cut Isuzu’s lifeline to limit models off this platform (Trailblazer, Envoy, Rainier, Ascender, 9-7X; short & long versions).
It might hurt Saab’s image to have this type of vehicle to some purists but the bigger damage is fading into oblivion due to lack of product and not adapting to the market (just ask Saturn dealers). This was the right choice for GM and Saab in the short term although a Cadillac SRX spinoff would have been more palatable for the loyalists. I think in the long run GM will instill some additional unique DNA into the Saab brand and it will survive and thrive.
Perhaps Saab could use a roommate to co-locate with (think Saturn or Cadillac) to bring in more showroom traffic. This seems to work with Land Rover/Jaguar/Aston Martin. If you do this type of arrangement right and give each geographically separate showrooms with joint service/admin facilities in between it works pretty good. But I wouldn’t lump them together under the same hooch like GMC, Olds, Buick and Pontiac (sometimes even with another cheap import brand like Kia wedged in) are often co-located. That’s one of the reasons Olds went down; too much competition internally and externally.
Saab like Cadillac has a chance to regain its luster in a crowded luxury market but it will take a lot of doe and shared platforms that don’t steal identity or appear as rebranding to compete with the big boys. Remember, it took about $7 billion to resurect Cadillac.
Want this thing to be believable?
-turbo charge the I6. It’d rock. Real Saabs have TURBOS and the I6 is a FAB place to start.
-Leave out the parts bin steering wheel and TRY to design the dash and doors to be more like a SAAB and less obviously similar to the Bravada. There is NOTHING about the design of this interior that invokes the look of a EURO style product.
-make more real changes to the exterior styling other than just dropping the ride height. It stills says, “Bravada with a 9-3 beak”
The aura of this vehicle is still more of a traditional American SUV and has no EURO chich aura to it.
The 5.3 v8 has no place in this SAAB, BTW.
Thanks for the hard work, but I don’t think its enough. Hopefully you’ll move the number of units you need to. I just hope it doesn’t hurt the brand.
Were I to win the lottery, I would buy some old cars. Not the typical “collector” cars. No, I would buy a Chevy Impala, a Pontiac Catalina, a Oldsmobile 88 and a Buick LeSebre. All would be 4-door sedans with basic equipment and all would be 1965 models. I would park them side-by-side and study them. What I would try to determine is how, back then, GM could take basically the same cars and sell them as completely different makes. And no one questioned it. A Chevrolet was a Chevrolet and a Buick was a Buick. To take liberties with an old Packard slogan, “asked the man who owned one.” As a child, I can remember arguments over which make was better almost leading to blows!
The first time I ever remember the topic even coming up in magazines was when Cadillac introduced the Eldorado after Oldsmobile brought out the Toronado. Amazingly, it was the buff magazines who upheld the opinion that they were really fundamentally different.
Perhaps it was because there were far fewer choices back then. Maybe keeping the divisional identities strong helped. Could have been a combination of the two. It might be that comsumers are better informed today.
Sadly, with all the work and money expended on this new Saab, it still looks too much like a Chevy which strongly resembles the Buick that looks suspicously like the GMC…
I am confident that the 9-7x is not like the 9-2x, as Bob said. Saab made more effort and time to “tune” the car, but I think not enough. The problem is the market will accept that, as happened with the 9-2x.
The big problem of Saab, is that now the market understands and knows the “quirckness” of Saab. Now that there are more standarized products, the people like to stay different and to have something beyond the conventional. Ford finally understands that and we can see the result in Volvo. Few people car about the sharing between Volvo and Ford, because Volvo has enough to add big Swedishness on his products but sharing enough to reduce the cost, make economy of scale and share the know how with the other companies.
It is just incredible how GM didn’t show the know-how and technology that come from Saab (techII, turbo, safety, chassis, desgin…) the people only speak of Saab to say it is a mod of an Opel, and that hurts. Take a look at Audi, the people/newspapers and so never said that an Audi is a mod of an VW and the part sharing it is quite bigger than in GM.
Saab is a special brand, with special and very loyal customers, but also has a big possibilities to attract new customers if you can show the advantages of Saab, not only the quirkiness. Changing the ignition would not make it a real Saab, the real thing of a Saab is WHY!!! you put the ignition on there!! Why the shape and the design, why the turbo engine, WHY? The safety, the philosophy of the brand, the ecofriendly, the FUNCTIONALITY of his designs — “the form follows the function” — Saab has its exclusiveness for something.
The colaboration and sinergies are good not only for the reduction in costs and economies of scale, also because you can share know-how and make more efforts in something that you can really make you competitive, but that as said in the NY article it has a limit, the market put this limit and nowadays anybody has access to the information and know where do you arrive in the sharing and that affects the brand image.
The 9-7x it is a big step in that direction. If you compare it with the 9-2x, it is true you cannot make it in one step and Saab needs a lot of resourses. But with rumors like the last one and the reaction of GM that seems you have something hide and seek it didn’t help. I wouldn’t like to see Saab in the hand of Renault. I hate those cars, here in Spain they are the best-selling cars and the design, quality and so are really bad, but it is well know the interest of Renault in Volvo and…why not Saab??
About the 9-7x, in many terms I like it, but it is clear that is a TrailBlazer and not quite a Saab…putting the 9-5 cupholder it is not enough or the ignition in the console; Saab is more than that.
You have many opportunities to increase the portofolio, as the SUV based on the SRX, that officially where cancelled for the costs, but many people know that there is more than that. The 9-3x and the 9x, with an 80% of parts ready for production…and something that didn’t help to Saab it is the products that are based on old platform/architectures, as the 9-2x, 9-7x and during the ’90s the 9-3 and the 9-5.
greetings, and good luck
Personally I’m not a Saab kind of guy. I test drove a 9-3 a while back and the interior was just not my cup of tea. But I’m sure there are many loyal Saab owners out there. Perhaps this new “not so original” Saab will bring in some needed revenue to keep Saab being Saab.
I’ve got a better idea that would both cut costs, improve profits and increase brand awareness: Do away with ALL the various brands GM currently sells and create “GM stores” in their place. Consider for a moment that most GM dealers are selling multi-brands. Also consider that vehicles like the Trailblazer are just badge-engineered and sold as 6 different vehicles. There’s no more “Pontiac” or “Buick” really – just a corporate vehicle w/a different grill or tweaked suspension.
Where’s the loyalty to a unique brand when the vehicles that brand sells aren’t unique? 20-plus years of bad management has eliminated any real brand identity. So, instead of rebadging a Chevy as a Buick why not just create one brand – the ‘GM’ brand. Sell Trailblazers and the like but with one name and just make different option levels.
The GM Trailblazer SS covers the sporty buyer that once bought Pontiacs or Saabs. The GM Trailblazer Brougham covers the Buick/Olds crowd. Plain jane Trailblazers cover the entry level Chevy/Saturn buyers. Do this with all the models. Build a midsize car, but with an ‘SS,’ ‘Brougham,’ etc., option.
With this method, you create true economy of scale and rid the company of bogus speeches like the one you wrote that says “it’s not a badge engineered Chevy, it’s a true Pontiac/Saab/Olds/Buick/Saturn/GMC”.
Bob,
Was it impossible to wait for the 300 horsepower Turbocharged Inline-5?
The vehicle looks great, but I’d never pay that money for what you get under the hood.
Saab = Smallblock? I don’t think so…
I’d suffer through the Trailblazer’s ugly interior and just get a fully loaded one with the fire-sale rebates and price cuts, and have an aftermarket shop tune my shocks and suspension for 1000 bucks or so.
Mr. Lutz
If you want the press to overlook GM’s lookalikes…then bring something to the market that makes them forget. Please bring the Chevrolet SS concept to production or at least 90% of it. This car will make the 300C look bland and make GM the cool and hot company again. DO IT and reap the benefits.
The untrained would be hard pressed to link a Lexus platform share to the Toyota. Maybe guessing by size if they were told there was a relation between the two. But the vehicle above is easily a Trailblazer. Way more than a platform share, an obvious stop-gap rebadge, hopefully waiting for a real SAAB.
I could care less for SAAB, but get irked at the spin that’s put on rebadges between very different automakes.
Don’t stick brown contact lenses on my clone and tell me it’s a different person. Clone my spine and guts with a different mind and body and you could.
Similar to when Honda slapped an H on a rebaged Izuzu SUV in the mid-’90s. At least they admitted it was temporary fix until they developed their own.
On a positive note: it is the best looking of the Trailblazers so far…nice to see the engine cooling ducts around the Trailblazer’s headlights have been eliminated in this application.
Mr. Lutz:
It’s simple: it’s not made in Sweden, so it’s not a Saab.
I applaude the effort to expand Saab’s US models, but there is a lot of valid criticism to the implementation. The both look much too similar to models already available. When I was at the Chicago Auto Show, the Buick Rainier and the Saab 9-7x were physically located within eye-shot of each other. I overheard a comment about how similar they looked. And the untrained eye would have trouble distinguishing a 9-2x from a WRX without a look at the grill. Despite all great engineering that went into the new Saabs, the general public will probably see these as more of the 80’s Cavalier/Cimmaron mess.
If Saab needed a model smaller than the 9-3, wouldn’t a federalized version of the new Astra make more sense… it’s not AWD and not a true Saab, but at least it would be unique in the US market. The 9-7x is just competing against Buick Rainier… a better solution would have been target the likes of the RX330 or FX35/45 with a luxury version of the Equinox reskinned to resemble something in the vain of the SportCombi or 9-3x.
I’m afraid it reeks of badge engineering in the bad way:
You cite the RX330/Toyota Highlander, but these two vehicles look very different, while the SaableBlazer looks in profile too similar to the donor vehicle.
(The Saabaru WRX has the same problem, but at least the Saab corrects the biggest detracting feature of the WRX: The plain econobox interior, which prevented me from buying a WRX).
Also, looks asside, its just the wrong platform. Saabs are supposed to be agile and european: but this is a truck based (body on frame) SUV as opposed to the car-based (unitbody) SUVs. And body on frame really hurts agility.
The competition (X3/X5 BMW, M-class mercedes, Infinity FX35/45, Acura MDX, Lexus RX330, etc etc etc) is almost all unitbody, which handles better and drives better on the road, with the cost of making the off-road prowess more pose than go.
This smells more of badge engineering to keep an old SUV plant full, as platform engineered SAAB SUV would have started with the Cadillac SRX (sigma) platform, no questions asked.
And that sigma would cost to much doesn’t ring true, as the Saab 9-7x costs the same as the Cadillac SRX.
For the 9-7x SUV to be a Saab, it MUST be a vehicle that was primarily designed and made for sale in Sweden, but also imported to the U.S.
Calling a gas guzzling big (by Swedish standards) GM SUV a Saab can’t fool customers who want the real thing.
I still don’t see why the above listed features make this into a Saab. Are they improvements on the GMT360? Certainly. But aside from the center-mounted ignition switch, nothing screams “Saab!”; instead, I just see a bunch of stuff that I’d expect from just about any $40,000 vehicle, regardless of the badge.
I agree with what other posters have stated – a unique powertrain option such as a turbocharged I5 or I6 would go a long way towards convincing people that it’s something more than a re-skinned TrailBlazer. Beyond that, I’m not sure what could be done to distinguish this vehicle as a Saab. When I think of that brand, I think of FWD hatchbacks with small turbocharged engines and monsterous interior space, not V8-powered SUVs.
Nice work with the front-end styling, though – seriously. It does indeed fit the current styling theme of the brand, and it’s just plain sharp.
How dare anyone try to make SAAB into a “me too” company. Even the newest SAAB TV advertising declares the SAAB driver as independant, unique, not like everyone else.
SAAB buyers do not buy SUVs. If we did, we would go and buy an SUV that is truly “SAAB-like” – the VW Touareg: unique looks and features in an over-crowded market, cutting-edge technology, sports car-like handling and performance, a vehicle that was engineered for purpose – not designed to fit an image. SAAB is a feeling from the vehicle as a whole (design, driving-style, performance, safety, etc.), not an image, and previous SAABs were engineered first, and the design was simply a form that followed function.
If GM TRULY wants to make SAAB into a profitable company, it needs to create its own niches, not jump on the me-too bandwagon. Produce the 9-X instead of passing it off to Chevy as the Nomad. Allow SAAB to do what it does best and return SAAB to being an innovator, rather than a regurgitator.
The easiest argument against the 9-7 is the poor-selling 9-2. The 9-2 delivers so many bona fide Saab attributes: sporty hatch, turbocharged torque, all-weather appeal, yet it lacks what’s so critical in the Saab DNA — authenticity. Go ahead and rebadge a Chevy into a Pontiac, and that sort of thing. But Saab’s strengths rest in what it’s not…it’s not the GMT360 and Impreza that every Joe Blow drives. Apparently, GM sells short the prospective Saab buyer.
Some facts:
- Saab is losing a LOT of money.
- “Badge engineering” is the cheapest way to bring more models.
Please Bob, we know that you are dealing with a BIG problem.
We won’t tell anyone, just promise us that if Saab doesn’t die (or get sold) you will bring us a REAL Saab on the next years (maybe a 900 Turbo “extreme makeover”?).
The exterior door handles. That’s what gives this away as a Blazer clone. The door handles scream “I am a Blazer clone.” Should have took the time to put authentic Saab door handles on this, nevertheless the vehicle looks beautiful and Saabified enouph. But those wimpy door handles, who would have thought?
Saab 9-7x: What is Saab-like?
In a post
The title poses a question that the post doesn’t answer.
What does “Saab-like” mean?
I don’t know anymore but either, it seems, do GM. A Saab-like SUV is possible: the 93-X Concept would fit perfectly.
You have one significant problem with your approach. Neither SAAB or GM are market leaders. While GM maybe #1 in market share…we all know it is evaporating quickly.
Lexus estblished itself then made its SUV’s. True-they were based off Toyota’s. But both Toyota and Lexus have STELLAR reputations. I’m not sure its fair. Nevertheless it exists. GM and SAAB do not have STELLAR reputations. I don’t think its fair at all. But I do know that to regain lost trust and respect you have to work four times as hard.
The SAAB 9-7x is nice…but not amazing. If you guys could bite the bullet like you did at Chrysler and start over you’d have it back in four or five years.
SAAB 9-7x…nice….but not excellent.
Mr Lutz:
Have you not heard the adage “You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear”? The 9-7x costs 50% more than the base TrailBlazer – that’s 10,000 bucks. This means you’re dealing with a whole new market, where buyer’s expect more quality and luxury and there is no way this new “SAAB” can justify its price.
The only reason that the Toyota/Lexus etc. platform sharing works is because the Toyota Highlander
a) is car based, so the RX330 behaves like its buyers want it
b) it has the quality of an upmarket car anyway
c) may I mention that it’s far more reliable than the TrailBlazer so this would have a contributing effect on sales anyway.
Does the TrailBlazer have any of these qualities. Nope. So now, we have to put up with a car akin to being a baboon in lipstick pretending to be an air hostess.
2 1/2 years of development? What on earth were the designers doing? On the exterior, all they’ve done is got the aforementioned Chevy and slapped on a SAAB nose and inside the only SAAB-like touches seem to be the vents and central ignition. Also, in the inside, is there anywhere I can look without seeing something from the GM parts-bin? This car could be nicknamed the SAAB Madonna. Is it Swedish or American? That steering wheel looks like it belongs in a $20,000 pickup, not a $40,000 luxo-ute! And it’s black, everywhere! It’s so depressing. I can see our prisons buying these SUVs and using them for keeping prisoners in solitary confinement!
Where the heck is the traditional SAAB turbo? And why is there a ginormous V8 sitting in its engine bay? All of the values the brand carries have been thrown out the window. Fuel economy, safety, size, power, originality, the list goes on. SAAB makes cars!!! This is a truck based SUV with truck engines making truck noises. What small profits this car will make will not compensate for the destruction of the brand’s image.
Good luck finding some sales, you’ll need it!
Mr. Lutz:
I couldn’t agree more with Mark’s comments above: “What small profits this car will make will not compensate for the destruction of the brand’s image.”
Perhaps GM should seriously consider biting the bullet and canning this new “Saab”.
Dear Mr. Lutz,
I implore you to read and embrace the fantastic feedback on your blog. I think if you listen to it, you and your team can not only save SAAB but make it rival Volvo under Ford’s umbrella.
As a new SAAB customer (9-3) that is very happy with the car and in the near future in the market for an SUV of distinction, I was let down with SAABs first SUV.
Let me explain why:
1. Although the front looks great, I can see the “TrailBlazer” in the rest of it. For existing SAAB customers that was a big design ‘faux pas’.
2. Although you have the key in the correct place and true SAAB air vents, this commendable SAAB interior is missing true SAAB seats & head rests which offer me safety and innovation.
3. This vehicle lacks the safety features SAAB buyers expect: including advanced rollover protection, safety cage, roof strength, etc. etc. The Volvo XC90 is the benchmark SAAB should beat.
As for the engine…I think it is perfectly acceptable to have a BIG v8 GM engine at the top of the line. I bet Volvo’s v8 will do very well in the US. But, to make it appeal to loyalist and conservationist, think v6 turbo like the SportCombi.
BTW, the Combi is truly fantastic — my wife may have to get a new Combi in lieu of an SUV.
Warm regards,
Bob,
Where is the turbo? Where is the navigation? Where are the Saab rear lights? Why did you not use the 9-3X design for rear lights?? The interior though Saab, still look too much like Chevy…
Sorry, I will pass on this one and wait for a real Saab..
And we need an AWD 9-3 with Turbo, please, I would not buy a 9-3 when I can get a better deal at Audi A4 with Quatrro. Let the Swedes build their Saabs. Do with Saab what Ford did with Volvo. Give them money and let them be…
My honest opinion, the damage to the Saab name won’t be worth the few extra sales.
Wow, this platform-sharing topic has really struck a nerve with people. My advice to everyone; Think past the short-term. I am sure Mr. Lutz has a great long-term strategy in place for Saab. The hour is always darkest before the dawn.
By the way, I just got back from the Toronto Auto Show and I just witnessed the worst case of platform sharing and it wasn’t a GM. The new Infiniti QX56 truck is an abomination. It takes cheap hard plastic interiors to new levels.
I think the 9-7x is in keeping with the ruination of the Saab brand. The recent 9-3 on the Epsillon platform started it, the 9-2 Suburu Saab compounded it and this will be the nail in Saab’s coffin.
I do not know why they spent so much time on a tired old platform that is in need of replaceing soon, anyway.A lthough it has fair looks, it is the other things like handling and uniqueness that used to separate Saab from the rest of the pack. To rebadge it as a Saab is heresy to a Saab owner. I only think it will turn Saab loyalists to Audi, BMW, faster than they would have otherwise.
With this desparate attempt at profits I am thinking of pulling out my substantial GM investments, as this is not positive “gotta have” vehicles as promised.
I have to say I will wait till the Solstice/Saturn rebadge of it comes out as that is a glimmer of hope as they are great looking at a great price. We will need more of that!
TO MJ
Give me a break on the Lexus and Toyota brand engineering.
Your quote: “The untrained would be hard pressed to link a Lexus platform share to the Toyota.”
The Camry and the ES 330 are 99% cloning and it’s blatently obvious. Only the ES doesn’t have the cheap-looking front grill.
There is a double standard in the industry, particularly by media journalists. If a domestic manufacturer makes more than one model off a platform, then the higher end models get their teeth kicked in on auto reviews. However if an import brand does the same thing on a platform, it’s all good and either never mentioned or never mentioned with disparaging words.
You see the same thing with quality perceptions: Buick, Cadillac and Mercury have matched or beat Toyota on quality assessments the last three years and they hardly get an honorable mention.
The 9-2x was an Impreza with a Saab front fascia grafted on. The interior design wasn’t even significantly changed from the Subaru.
Now we have the 9-7x, which is a Trailblazer with a Saab front fascia grafted on. Despite GM’s insistence that it’s an “authentic” Saab, it still looks like a Trailblazer.
Cars’ identities are shaped not only by their front and rear fascias, but by their greenhouses.
GM did an admirable job differentiating the 9-3 and its siblings like the Malibu and the G6. Why is GM so hesitant to redesign its trucks entirely?
While I’m glad to read GM is finally tuning the GMT360 platform, I’m very disappointed they didn’t take the time to figure this out sooner.
I drive a 2003 GMC Envoy XL V8, and while I enjoy the vehicle’s design and utility, I can say with certainty, even after upgrading tires, wheels, and sway bars, this is not a vehicle I’d that handles well. And it’s really a shame for GM Exec’s to think that the guy who buys a GMC, Chevrolet, or Buick SUV is NOT looking for a good handling vehicle, like say someone who buys a SAAB.
While I am aware this is the marketing perception out there, that’s only because SUV’s from GMC, Chevy and Buick typically don’t handle very well, so people don’t expect them to.
Well, at least this is a step in the right direction, and hopefully GM will realize they also have the opportunity to change the public’s perception of their own brands, while trying to make their products into other brands that they think people expect more from.
Wow, Bob.
I’m going to post on this topic again tomorrow (11 p.m. Oz time right now). I think it’s time to rally the troops.
I’ve sunk the boots in once or twice myself, but the hounds are starting to feed on themselves here. It’s like Lord of the Flies.
Guys & Gals Bloggers,
We can complain about why GM did not use the Cadillac platform or the new Equinox or even the Subaru platform for the 9-7. We can whine and berate Mr. Lutz and his team over the non-Saabness of the 9-7x, but what is done is done. We can only hope that they will grant more budget $$$ (improve the brakes) for any last minute tweaking to help the car drive to the Saab sporty driving standards that we expect.
Now, we can only hope that they get the hint that we expect a hell of alot better in the next generation of Saab vehicles, 9-5, 9-3, 9-2 and especially 9-7. We expect turbo, we expect good fuel economy, we expect good safety enginnering, we expect good looking designs, we expect performance.
An open offer to Bob Lutz
Hi Bob, The comments on the 9-7x thread aren’t really looking too good at the moment, but I say enough is enough!
I dont know if you’ll read this Mr. Lutz but hopefully you will…
If you truly want to sell more Saabs, you have to get a entry level car which appeals to the 25- 30-year-old potential buyer. People my age (just turned 30) don’t buy a sedan, they buy a hatchback or a wagon. A Golf-sized Saab hatchback with the old tunable 2.0 Saab turbo engine, with handling like the current 9-3s and a price for the Aero version around 20.000 Euros and the proper marketing is something I’m sure would sell a lot of cars.
You need a positive spin to turn Saab into a money-making brand — badge engineering is not the way to go in this case. People that consider buying Saabs are too well-informed to be fooled that easily.
Cheers / Mat
I’ve seen the photos at the 9-7x mini-site, and here are my quibbles. (I own a 2004 9-3, by the way).
1. Why is there no SID on the 9-7x? (Or the 9-2, for that matter). It’s become in recent years as integral to what makes Saab Saab as the center ignition.
2. The lack of a manual transmission is very disappointing.
3. The cheap-looking climate control and radio scream “Trailblazer.” Could these not have been designed to look more like what other Saabs have?
4. More parts-bin problems: the Trailblazer steering wheel.
The rest of the interior is nicely executed, but these niggling complaints are pretty basic, and they are indicative to me that GM really rushed this and didn’t do everything that could/should have been done to prevent just the kind of criticism it’s getting now: that the 9-7x is too Trailblazer-y.
Just a bit more attention to detail would have been helpful.
I mean – blue AND green dash illumination?
Dear Mr. Lutz,
Sorry to have to break it to you, but there is nothing you can do to change the fact that the 9-2X is a Subaru Impreza and the 9-7X a Chevy Trailblazer.
They may both be excellent cars in many respects, but sticking a Saab badge and bumpers resembling their Swedish-bred siblings will not make them Saabs other than by name.
Those of us who are Saab afficionados are not fooled so easily and, quite frankly, I think it is putting the Saab brand quity at great risk.
Being a marketing guy in a manufacturing industry myself, I fully understand the inherent issues with producing low volume cars with high development costs. What I fail to understand, however, is why Saab’s expertise and unsurpassed competence in fields such as forced induction engines, real life safety and handling are not leveraged on more within GM. Sadly, it feels like the opposite is closer to the truth. … Why not let Opel engineers spend time making a Saab platform boring to drive instead for a change?
Best regards,
Karl
Mr. Lutz,
With all due respect, I’m afraid GM will always be accused of and know for “badge-engineering” until GM puts a priority on UNIQUE SHEET METAL. New and better interiors are great, but many people will never see the interiors of vehicles such as the 9-7x. This is because they won’t bother getting into a vehicle when, upon first glance, they judge it to be the result of badge-engineering.
First impressions are everything! A unique grill or front-end is insufficient for most people to consider a vehicle to be unique. Therefore, when you have a limited amount of vehicle development dollars, I recommend always pooring it into UNIQUE SHEET METAL before anything else. This advice especially applies to a product that has multiple siblings such as the Chevy Uplander/Relay/Terraza/Montana SV6 and the Chevy Trailblazer/Envoy/Ranier/9-7x.
Drew
Dear Mr. Lutz:
I am a car nut and financial services executive here in Pittsburgh. Over the last 40+ years, our extended family has owned 15 Saab automobiles ranging from 2-strokes in the Kennedy era to a 9-5 Aero wagon today. Our 9000 Turbos remain the most capable autos I have owned. Plus they saved both my son and daughter from serious injury in two separate crashes.
I have read with concern recent news articles about continual losses at Saab and the pressure to consolidate brands and production at GM Europe in the face of mounting competitive pressure from the Asians. I further read about the aim to preserve the “Swedishness” in new Saab models.
I don’t think Saabs were great cars because they were “Swedish” – unless by “Swedish” you mean superior engineering and design.
Our family bought these cars over the past four decades because they were tough, safe, efficient, stylish, and durable. They were not designed, per your recent speech at Pratt, by committee or focus group.
You will not hold Saab loyalists like me with magazines featuring pictures of the Arctic Circle and attractive blonde couples. If future Saabs abandon the product characteristics that built this marque, GM will succeed only in driving buyers to Volvo, BMW, Audi, Lexus, and Infiniti and turn the Saab investment into a bigger write-off. Saab succeeded in the ’60s, ’70s, ’80s and ’90s not because of “Swedishness” but because of innovation and design, value and performance. Knowing of your passion for automobiles, I hope I am preaching to the choir.
Regards,
Tom
My biggest fear now is that the critics and the enlightened luxury car/SUV owners will see right through GM’s new SAAB 9-7X and the result will be poor sales, which in turn will lead GM to think the problem with SAAB sales is the “SAAB brand.”
Nothing could be further than the truth. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the SAAB brand and what that heritage of innovation stands for. The problem is poor management of the brand.
Case in point. Think of Apple Computer on the brink of disaster prior to 1997, when founder Steve Jobs came back and rescued the company. Prior to ‘97, folks (press) were thinking that people were simply just not interested in MacIntosh anymore (that Apple had really nothing interesting to offer).
Dead wrong! Steve Jobs saved Apple by:
1. Launching major Think different campaign to remind the world what the brand stood for.
2. Start innovating big time again, even though many still were interested in Macs, it got the world’s attention.
3. Such intensive focus on the brand, its meaning and innovation led to something entirely new (the iPod) and now the company is riding sky high – and that includes the Mac too!
Bob, you need to steal a play from Steve Jobs’ playbook to re-launch SAAB to the world.
Dear Bob,
I see a couple of problems with the 9-7X aka ‘Trollblazer’ that go a little deeper than the cries of ‘badge engineering’ heard in various prss reports, and that are IMO symptoms of a very confused message GM is sending to prospective Saab customers:
a) Despite all the effort that undoubtedly went into ‘Saabizing’ a midsize Chevy truck platform, the fact remains that you simply chose the wrong base material to work from. There’s only one truck framed SUV from a European premium brand, and the general lack of refinement and quality of that done enough damage to Mercedes’ image as it is. How GM is hoping to compete against the likes of the Volvo XC90 and BMW X5 with an SUV based on the underpinnings a $15,000 pick up truck is beyond me.
GM *did* have a suitable SUV platform for a ‘premium’ competitor – the Cadillac SRX. It was dismissed on ‘cost’ grounds. Yer what? You only have *one* global premium brand in your portfolio, and you deny it the only halfway competitive platform in this segment because of *cost*?
And whilst in The Netherlands a forty man/woman Cadillac sales operation in a fancy new building is handling a volume of less than a thousand cars, Saab gets slated for ‘only’ building 130,000 or so cars a year, two thirds of which are sold on the European market? And we’re supposed to believe GM is *serious* about Saab? Surely I’m not the only one to think that the return of investment would be far higher when giving Saab a compatitive product for the EU market (which in turn means it would be easier to sell against BMW, Audi, Volvo in the US), where it *is* still an established player in the exec market (for how much longer?) instead of pumping money into the umpteenth European re-launch of Cadillac?
The Cadillac product is getting pretty good, I give you that. But few are going to buy into it – ask a BMW or Volvo customer here what Cadillac stands for and (s)he will reply along the lines of pink fifties barges, Elvis, Marylin Monroe, bad taste and no sporting heritage.
2) All the European competitors’ SUVs are global products. The Saabified GM truck most definitely is patently not. For a small brand that still sells two thirds of its volume outside the U.S., this is madness.
3) It’s questionable whether launching a Saab SUV at this point, where everything points in the direction of a backlash against this type of vehicle, isn’t simply a question of too little, too late. Whilst all the competitors have cashed into the SUV craze years ago, the better bet from a brand management point of view surely would have been to leave the marque ‘untarnished’ with the launch of one – especially as the SUV goes against everything in Saab’s brand ethos? The strength of Saab was that is could be turned into a very ‘focused’ brand, not unlike MINI. Saabs could be defined as sporty, classy smallish-to-midsize cars that blend performance with utility and a ‘less is more’sense of stylishness. I’m afraid with the less than thoughtful additions the range in order to artificially create market volume (it’s almost certain one 9-7X sold is one less Trailblazer/Rainier/etc. on the road) GM blew that chance. Saab has very little to gain from this pointless exercise, and everything still left of the brand to lose.
Regarding the 9-7X.
This is a very interesting thread. Many Saab loyalists are bewailing the identity loss of the un-Saab like variant of the GM 360 platform.
Seems to me what is lost here is the data that some 30% of Saab owners are opting for an SUV when they replace their current ride.
It seems somewhat churlish for the loyalists to scream foul when so many of their number are obviously opting out of the brand altogether because they want an SUV.
Talk about your European heritage all you want, with the dedication to efficiency and safety, but the truth is that a large number of the American Saab tribe are renouncing these virtues in lieu of somebody’s SUV.
Obviously this offering is a compromise of many values and prejudices. The truth is that this is an attempt to stanch the loss of the American Saab customer base before the marque is Oldsmobile-ized.
It is an American SUV that has been thoughtfully Saab-ized to the extent possible given the time urgency of providing product to a rapidly shrinking product loyalty base.
For my part, I have been in an Envoy XL for the last three years and have thoroughly enjoyed the vehicle.
We are currently planning on leasing either a new Envoy Denali, or the 9-7X.
Maybe that is what is needed to keep the brand from becoming extinct.
Bob,
FYI, I think the new Caddy BLS intended for Europe would be a home run in New York City. NYC has 3-series everywhere; it’s trendy, classy, powerful, and SMALL. It’s the perfect Hamptons/Marthas Vineyard weekend warrior. The BLS would be a very nice competitor to it. Talk to dealerships in the area: I bet if you brought 200 of them here to the city, it would be a winner (assuming, of course, it better engineered than the Caterra, or dare I say, the Cimarron)!
Eric
Saab used to make wonderful cars for driving through forests. I suggest that you get your archive people to show you the ‘99 Turbo that Stig Blomqvist took to such great heights. You’ll notice that it has absolutely nothing to do with this 9-7X.
Since taking on Saab, GM has watered down Saab into a bland meaningless brand whilst Ford showed how it is done with Volvo. I saw an ’80s 900 turbo on the autoroute last week and it still looked fresh and distinctive. Could you say that about any of the cars since?
I’ve always had a soft spot for Saabs and last time we changed I looked hard at the newest 9-3 aero but all the emotion has been drained out. It’s just a bland Euro exec car with the ignition key in the gearbox.
I’m glad this is not likely to be coming coming to Europe. Let us remember the great Saabs pre ‘93.
Del Rickel: The Saab purists switching to SUVs you decry will NOT switch to the SaableBlazer when going the Saab->SUV route. Why?
Because they are not buying heavily off-road biased, body-on-frame SUVs.
They are buying Unibody SUVs like the X5, XC90, FX35/45, or RX330s, as large luxury/cargo utility vehicles that don’t have the look of a minivan or station wagon, have a luxury-car interior, and have a road-oriented AWD for slippery conditions.
A unibody SUV behaves very differently from a body on frame design, and you can’t sell to that market with a body-on-frame SUV. Really, they should be considered two different classes of vehicles.
There has only been one body-on-frame SUV of note in the market (The M-class), which actually has both a dismal reputation and has shifted to Unibody construction for the 2006 model year.
True, the consumers don’t know what the distinction means on paper, but they DO notice the distinction when they drive it!
And as for getting product out ASAP, the 9-7x is a bad choice. The Cadillac SRX platform was/is/remains a vastly better choice: It’s just as easy to “Saabify” with a bodywork & interior transplant, while offering the unibody construction’s ride and handling benefits.
As for the ‘cost’ of the SRX platform, the SRX costs the same as the Saab 9-7x, so the platform can’t be that much more costly.
A rallying call….or, letter to Bob Lutz, pt 2
How Saablike is the 9-7x??
Bob,
The 2005 GTO is a blast to drive, thanks. I can’t wait to see what you can do with the appearance on the new Zeta platform you are working on and silence the remaining objections.
On this issue:
The Lexus RX330, BMW X3 and X5, Volvo XC90, and Porsche Cayenne/VW Touraeg have all done seemed to do well and have respect in the business. These all represent smaller, nimbler SUV platforms that more embody their car manufacturers’ roots. I think that is where the real disconnect comes into play with the 9-7x. Out of these competitors, the best mold for the Saab would be to build a smaller SUV like the XC90. It has won a lot of awards and easily fits Volvo’s character with its size and looks.
The best way I can express to a car guy the sentiment I am trying to express is to take a look at the SportCombi and then look at the 9-7x or 9-2x and think to yourself which one captures SAAB’s character more. Then take that thought and apply it to an XC90 like approach to a small SAAB SUV and you just might capture some of that success from that list at the top for SAAB.
The 9-7x should have been based on the Cadillac SRX platform.
That way, there would be NO TALK of the Saab being an overglorified Trailblazer. It would have been much more competitive with the other European SUVs out there.
Saab 9-7X
The New York Times said the new Saab 9-7X SUV didn’t have the fast car feel of other Saabs. Here’s a snippet from the GM response.
Bob,
Why not just borrow the Subaru Forrester and be done with it. Eventually, Saab and Subaru can sell all of the same products with different badges. Sadly, the Forrester would have been an excellent rebadge for Saab. Especially the one with the turbo XT.
Yikes…can’t wait to see these on the lots for $10,000 off. How’s the Assender doing Lutz…
Executive Summary:
Luxury (or near luxury) car buyers are snobs. They look for a good lineage regardless of how hard one tries or improve on an ordinary brand. For Saab, Cadillac would have been a better base.
Toyotas were perceived to be good cars to begin with. Lexus made them better. Trailblazer is not ranked quite high in consumer surveys. Solution: first make Trailblazer the best car in its class, and then use it to build a Saab.
Luxury cars should incorporate advanced engine and transmission options. A four-speed transmission is no longer adequate in this class. The engine also must be best in the class with respect to power, efficiency and smoothness.
P.S. would some executive in GM address the issue of why GM is still behind the Asians in building high performance, efficient and smooth engines (see Saturn VUE engine options). When Asian manufacturers started, they learned a lot from Americans. Why can American do the reverse engineering now and learn from Asians?
My first Saab was purchased in 1971. Since that time I have had one or more of the cars in my garage.
I now have 2 9-3s, and am fearful that the Swedish input will be diminished to a point where there will no longer be a Saab in a Saab.
This car will never have sales in 6 figures. It should be kept as a car which appeals to a market segment that demands a super high input of quality and technology rather than a me too product.
Mr. Lutz, please stay with us!
Mr. Lutz:
This is not a Toyota-to-Lexus exercise. This is a Chevy to Saab exercise. Come on…man. You are a car guy, right? It pains me that you made this decision. Let me make a prediction here. You will not retain any SAAB loyalist. Other car buyers will be so skeptical of this suit-up Chevy, they would not buy it as a SAAB.
It is like modifying a Honda Accord with a sportier suspension, Audi exterior and interior and sell it as an Audi. I don’t care if it drives like an Audi A4. People will see it like it is: a Honda Accord which handles like An Audi A4 (fwd). Consumers buy product for two major reasons: praticality and image. 9-7 may be ok with the first part, but it totally screws up the later.
Is 9-2 selling well these days? I rest my case.
Oh, I finally saw the interior picture of the 9-7. I couldn’t believe my eyes. You guys put a GM generic 4 spokes steering wheel in it! Why?????? You spent tens of millions to re-engineer it to handle like a SAAB and you can’t put a Saab steering wheel in it. Mr Lutz, I am pretty much speechless now. Seeing one more glaring miss like this, I will probably have a heart attack. If it is not selling well (it looks like the case now), you have to cut the production. Do you know how many people will have to be laid off?
Mr. Lutz,
I have noted that the new Saab will be build at Opel in Germany. But why should I by an Saab (I have owned 4 up to now) then? An Opel is much cheaper. In my opinion the brand Saab died when GM took over the Brand.
regards
H. Balle
Saab advertising is dead on, Saab is the “state of independence.” And as such Saab has a long history of quirky niche vehicles.
Unfortunately, the new model lineup does not reflect the uniqueness of Saab. You simply can’t build this brand by offering rebadged models from other divisions.
Citing Lexus and Infiniti as examples is just dumb. Those brands were founded as luxury divisions of existing companies.
Saab needs to be the brand that people go to for the Scandinavian-style hatchback that can swallow a whole sheet of plywood on the weekend, and take your business associates to lunch in during the week.
Saabs are the anti-SUV. Yet here is GM putting an SUV in the lineup. It’s like adding an re-badged 9-3 to the Hummer brand. If people want an SUV, they already have excellent GM brands to go to.
If you want to save this brand then ditch the SUV, bring back a proper 9-3 (i.e. – hatch not sedan), and redo the 9-5 to incorporate the hatch like the old 9000 did. Give Saab engineers a 4-cylinder motor platform that they own.
Saab wasn’t failing because they needed a broad product range. They were failing because their existing designs weren’t competitive.
Tell you what Bob. If you fire the executive you’ve got riding this brand into ground and hire me at 1/2 his salary, I’ll build you a brand worthy of Trollhattan!
“Saab needs to be the brand that people go to for the Scandinavian-style hatchback that can swallow a whole sheet of plywood on the weekend, and take your business associates to lunch in during the week.”
And blow the doors off BMWs at the local track comes the weekend
:www.ultimate saabday.com; http://www.saabtrackday.co.uk...
“Tell you what Bob. If you fire the executive you’ve got riding this brand into ground and hire me at 1/2 his salary, I’ll build you a brand worthy of Trollhattan!”
I’ll extend that offer: I’ll build you a brand that not only fills the Swedes with pride, but makes some money for GM too… ;o)
Saabs are supposed to be light, agile, and have small displacement turbocharged motors.
That 9-7 C-pillar is also an atrocity. That thing needs WAAY more sloping: as it is it totally looks like a rebadge rush job from the outside. I mean, c’mon, SUVs are 5+ doors by their nature, often with hatches. The Malibu Maxx has a Saabier C-pillar! Do some engineering and get the d–n silhouette correctly proportioned!!
How much does it weigh? More than 4000 lbs, and it’s not a Saab. Unless it comes with air-to-air missiles, an ejection seat, and Mach-2 capability. Why didn’t GM use the Sigma unibody as a base, ala the SRX? Isn’t Saab a luxury brand too (like the more effectively badgineered Volvo)????
I kinda like the newer 9-3s, and if you could reengineer the hood scoop on the 9-2 it could work pretty well.
But the 9-7 is a disaster. It’s no Aztek, but at least the Aztek was a risk. The 9-7 reflects the total opposite approach: no design at all. It’s no better for it. The V8 XC-90 will eat the 9-7’s lunch, unless there are some MASSIVE rebates.
I own a 98 Saab 900S. I’ve seen and sat in the new General Motors’ Saabs. The leather is cheap. The dashes are plastic. Just ain’t the same… Wouldn’t buy one. The Saab SUV reminds me of the Cadillac Cimmaron- a Chevy with a very high priced logo. You guys really need to leave Saab in Europe where it belongs. Making Saabs in the U.S. will dilute this wonderful brand.
Dear Mr. Lutz,
As a long term SAAB enthusiast and owner (my wife and I have owned Saabs exclusively since the ’80s), I’m sending this message with hope that something can be done to preserve the marque. GM doesn’t seem to understand who SAAB owners are, or why they are so enthusiastic about the brand, and I’m wondering what it will take to get the message through. Saabs have traditionally been, to use a recent term from the automotive press, “multi-dynamic” vehicles with great performance characteristics, utility, ruggedness, distinctiveness, and economy.
In the 1980s, the 900 SPG was, to me, the ultimate expression of this combination of virtues. It was an incredibly satisfying driver’s car, but could also scale an ice-covered hill in the winter, or transport large objects when necessary (like a full size clothes dryer…yes I’ve done it). SAAB design has always been far ahead of its time in many respects, in terms of engine and chassis design, “cockpit” ergonomics, safety, and utility. Virtually every other carmaker has borrowed elements from SAAB design, from the heated orthopedically correct seats to the rotary controls on the dash to the headlamp wipers, etc., etc., and most people don’t realize this!!
If SAAB has failed to turn a profit for so long, it is clearly a marketing failure and not a shortcoming of the product designs. Do you realize that most people are unaware that Saabs are among the safest, if not THE safest cars on the road? Whenever I’ve mentioned this to people over the years, the typical response has been that of surprise. “REALLY????” they say, “I knew Volvos were safe but……”. Clearly the message has not been getting out. I seem to recall that a SAAB 9-3 (piloted by Per Eklund) dominated Pikes Peak in the summer of 2000…did this escape the marketing department?
GM hasn’t touted any of the SAAB virtues in its advertising campaigns. Instead we’ve been subjected to one meaningless tagline after another (”The state of independence” suggests that the cars are individualistic, but EVERY carmaker says that. Give us some meat for God’s sake, there’s plenty there!). Over the past few years we’ve been treated to the great designs of Michael Mauer, but what happened to the 9-X and 9-3X? These concepts were exciting, unique and a logical progression of Saab’s traditional design cues.
Saab’s first SUV should have been the 9-3X. Instead we have a re-badged Subaru and a highly modified GM sport utility, hardly in line with Saab’s “statement of intent.” Keep this up, and the SAAB badge will quickly lose credibility. The decision to move the production of SAAB 9-3’s away from SAAB is beyond tragic, and a tremendous mistake. This may save some cash over the next few years, but will most certainly further the undermining of Saab’s reputation. That reputation has been built over the past 50+ years by a group of Swedish innovators and workers whose products are a direct reflection of their pride and enthusiasm. This is what makes Saabs special.
Incidentally, how many station wagons does GM intend to introduce to the SAAB lineup? I can understand the logic of trying to appeal to a wider audience, and in that light it made sense to have a four door sedan and station wagon variant in the 9-5 series to appeal to more conventional tastes, but there should have been variations of the hatch concept (or something like the 9-X!!) in the 9-3 line to appeal to SAAB loyalists and younger buyers.
Just at the time when other car manufacturers (and customers) are beginning to embrace these designs, GM decides to pull SAAB out of the very niche that it created. Is anybody paying attention over there? The current 9-3 sport sedan is a beautiful design, and could easily have been offered in three and five door body styles while retaining its updated, sedan-like profile. Instead we have a 9-5 wagon, a Subaru/9-2X wagon (you can use the term multi-dynamic all you want, it’s still a WAGON), and very soon we’ll have a 9-3 wagon. Do you see the pattern here? In an attempt to diversify the product line, GM has actually condensed it to two basic body styles.
And of course, all SAAB enthusiasts are very excited to hear about the upcoming 9-6X Subaru re-skin. You can tamper with it all you want, but it will never be a SAAB. If Subaru’s were so special, I would have been frequenting Subaru dealerships all these years instead of SAAB.
Mr. Lutz, on behalf of all SAAB owners and enthusiasts, current and future, PLEASE do something to stop the homogenization process. SAAB is more than a purveyor of transportation appliances. Preserve the SAAB tradition of excellence and pride, and more strong designs will follow.
Mark Setevdemio
Mr. Lutz:
This may be a bit of a stretch but with all of the discussion on 9-7X and 9-2X, I hope it is understandable to mention GM’s collaboration with Subaru. Since Subaru has done a lot of the homework on all-wheel-drive systems, is there any thought of creating an all-wheel-drive system good enough for a Corvette? I remember reading some very positive comments on all-wheel-drive system from you. I am sure you agree with me that you can only put so much torque on rear wheels before you start burning rubber.
Dear Mr. Lutz,
I applaud you for your corporate blogging. It shows you are willing to embrace change and think outside the box. But I think you can go one step further….
In regards to the passionate love of the SAAB brand and the loyal customers who have responded here, I would say to you, go one step further: hand pick 30 SAAB owners/responders whose comments you think have merit, and create a special SAAB Loyal User Focus Group. Invite them to a series of future of SAAB roundtable discussions with SAAB/GM leadership and talk about the brand, SAAB’s future ideas, why they are loyal, what would keep them that way, and how to grow.
To demonstrate a case study on this, one of the world’s largest architectural CAD companies, Nemetschek North America, got 100 of its most important longtime users together for a special event when they introduced a landmark upgrade to their software. I was at that event and it was a mindblowing thing for the company’s executive management because they got such phenomenal feedback and insight from it. At the end of the two day event, the president said, “we should have done this years ago.”
I think such a event would do SAAB/GM wonders.
Kind regards,
Anthony Frausto, Architect
Real estate is location, location, location and automobiles are styling, styling, styling. All European luxury makes are now in a full retro mode. Jaguar has gone back to its original 420, Series I, II, III design; the current BMW’s are almost as good looking as the 503 design of the 1950s, the Z8 roadster almost as good as the 1959 507 model; and the current Mercedes S-Class, almost as good as the model 300 types of the same late-’50s era.
All of these designs are, of course, the direct descendants of U.S. pre-war and Italian late 1950s/early 1960s designs. Note the latest Maserati and Ferrari coupes that look like the next model year of their 1950s brethren (Porsche, having never left its roots in the original 356, has never had to “rediscover” its classic design).
That leaves U.S. carmakers, which have been wandering in the design wilderness for 50+ years and, in the process, given away 40% of the domestic market to foreign makers. Quality may have started the exodus, but styling is the chief culprit today. If U.S. luxury makes ever hope to sell a vehicle again to anyone under the age of 65 or living on the East or West coasts, they will have to rediscover their design pasts also.
GM’s rediscovery should start at the top. If the Cadillac Division took its cues from the Series 90 and Series 60 cars of the 1930s and ’40s, there would be no 90 degree cutting edge angles and wedge shapes to the cars; form would seem to follow function again and only sensuous curves would prevail. The point of departure should be a cleaned-up Mercedes S-Class or a shorter, lighter Jaguar XJ8 design with a gently peaked, egg-shaped retro grill, recalling the 1939-40 “Golden Year” of not only music, film and art, but the automobile as well.
Does GM ever conduct focus groups to expose designs to car buffs, as well as intended demographic groups? I have never heard of any, but believe they must be part of the solution and the way back. All the older boomers have been waiting for the return to the promised land, buying only Mercedes and Lexus in the meantime, but would be glad to be part of a U.S. renaissance. Design can no longer be done in secret in the clean room. If the talent is not here locally, there is plenty available in good old Italia, and it should be used without hesitation.
Time is running out, however, both for the Boomers and GM. Other divisions could follow Oldsmobile very quickly if the company does not find its design footing soon. The LaCrosse and Lucerne are steps in the right direction, but a new light has to come to the company as a whole, particularly at the top with Cadillac.
Wishing only the best to Bob Lutz and the strategic planning group. Their work is cut out for them.
Dear Mr. Lutz,
I applaud you for your corporate blogging. It shows you are willing to embrace change and think outside the box. But I think you can go one step further….
In regards to the passionate love of the SAAB brand and the loyal customers who have responded here, I would say to you, go one step further: hand pick 30 SAAB owners/responders who’s comments you think have merit, and create a special SAAB Loyal User Focus Group. Invite them to a series of future of SAAB roundtable discussions with SAAB/GM leadership and talk about the brand, SAAB’s future ideas, why they are loyal, what would keep them that way, and how to grow.
To demonstrate a case study on this, one of the world’s largest architectural CAD companies, Nemetschek North America, got 100 of its most important longtime users together for a special event when they introduced a landmark upgrade to their software. I was at that event and it was a mindblowing thing for the company’s executive management because they got such phenomenal feedback and insight from it. At the end of the two day event, the president said, “we should have done this years ago”.
I think such a event would do SAAB/GM wonders.
Kind regards,
Anthony Frausto, Architect
Mr. Lutz,
People buy Saab because it is a Saab.
When you use Subie and Chevy and rebadge them into a Saab, it is not a Saab anymore.
Saab is always a special car, practical, a little eccentric, safe and a bargin (when comparing with BMW and MB). It had a few reliabilty problems a few years ago. Not a big deal. Reliability can always be improved.
If I can turn back time, I would stop the rebadging exercises (no subie and chevy). Improve the existing 900, 9000 lines and make them on par or even out perform BMW and Mercedes and still providing class leading mileages and values.
Focus your marketing efforts on performance, safety and practicality (especially the hatchback and station wagon, they can haul tons of stuffs and they are great alternatives to SUV).
The 9-2, 9-6, 9-7 exercises have got to be stopped. If GM’s financial commitment to these models has already been very substantial and can’t turn back now. At least use Saab’s interior. Please don’t put a badge on a Chevy’s steering wheel and call it a Saab. I hope this is not too much to ask.
I found this site accidently looking for comment on G35x. I think one of the comment was right on the button why all these improvement can’t be built into a Chevy but on so called “euro” car. GM think we’re too stupid to go for the fake? Real Saab fan wouldn’t touch it. So much for investment that could have made the Chevy much better.
Mr. Lutz,
I know a lot of engineering effort have been put into the SAAB 9-7X to make it different from the rest of the GM360, but if it is not re-badge engineering, I don’t know what is.
Except the front and the cockpit, the 9-7X looks like the Buick Rainiers and the rest of the GM360. I haven’t test drive it, so I can’t say whether it drive like a SAAB. (And I believe it will be better than the rest of the GM360. I know how SAAB should drive like, I owned a SAAB 9000CD before.) But the problem is, does the 9-7X have the exterior to draw people in for a test drive?
Equinox and VUE is an example of sharing platform done right.
When Toyota and Honda share platform, they make sure it will look different.
I also think that the 9-7X should share SRX’s platform in the first place.
I certainly hope the 9-7X will sell. But unfortunately it look like it will follow the path of the 9-2.
“You guys put a GM generic 4 spokes steering wheel in it! Why?????? You spent tens of millions to re-engineer it to handle like a SAAB and you can’t put a Saab steering wheel in it.”
I totally agree with Thomas. The SAAB 4 spokes steering wheel although not too bad looking, it should be more unique to SAAB.
I was think about this a few days ago. Another problem of GM is the generic steering wheel. They save money by just sticking a cheap plastic logo on.
Bob, think about it, when the first time people sit on a car, THE FIRST THING THEY SEE AND TOUGHT IS THE STEERING WHEEL. This first perception impression is VERY IMPORTANT. Some of the new GM cars/vans just starting to get it Cobalt, LaCrosse, the new sport van etc. but the new Corvette misses it, the G6 should have the new 3 spokes wheel that I’ve seen in some GM concept in autoshow (ex. the Saturn Aura).
Even the Toyota Echo, Corolla steering wheel has a metallic logon.
Put the money where people can see.
Personally, I don’t think Toyota quality is that much superior to GM. Otherwise the Toyota service department will be eating dust. I think they are smarter in the way that they put the money where people can see.
When people buy something that they think or look like a quality product, even if it break down, they will find ways to rationalize it. If they buy something that doesn’t look like a quality product, they will beaten it dealth if it broke.
First impression and perception quality is very important.
Please. This is a Trailblazer with a Saab nose grafted on. A similar operation was done to create the Saabaru Impreza.
At least the Impreza was a good place to start. I don’t know that a body-on-frame SUV is really what Saab needed. A unibody would have been more fitting. Oh well.
I don’t really care, since I’m not an SUV buyer. However, I was turned off by a misleading add I saw in a magazine.
“With its clean Scandinavian design, an available 300hp, V8 engine and taut, Saab-tuned suspension, this SUV refuses to blend in. Unique even in its approach to safety, the 9-7x featres its ignition key between the seats to help reduce the risk of knee injury in a colision. After all, when a car company started by 16 aircraft engineers decided to design an SUV, status quo thinking doesn’t stand a chance.”
They should’ve said “After all, when a car company started by 16 aircraft engineers decided to design an SUV, they decided it would be easier to just rebadge the Trailblazer, Envoy, Ascender and put the ignition on the center console.”
Oh well, it will probably fool a few people who don’t follow cars.
While it’s admirable that GM has spent a decent amount of capital on the GMT360 platform for a saab version, they spent it in entirely the wrong place. Before people even step inside this vehicle there going to see the same exact profile as a trailblazer, h**l at the auto show even my mom who knows zilch about cars wondered why there was a blazer in the saab section. I then infromed her that the 9-7x was a saab… Quite simply the platform is overused, and wasnt a class leader from day one. Also Saabs have NEVER had a body on frame vehicle, that in itself doesnt make for a saab.
Use all the logic you want, but it’s still a Trailblazer. Sorry GM. Ford just went through this mess with the Jag X-Type/Mondeo fiasco. Platform sharing is great for efficiency but a real bummer to upmarket customers. Do you even know what a Jag “X-Type” is? Do you guys learn from your competitors mistakes?
But kudos on the European suspension. It’s just what that platform needs! In fact, its what all GM cars need.
If GM was so bold as to put European-tuned suspensions in their average-joe (on-road) vehicles, you might create some actual passion for the products. Instead, you have yet another “gotta-have car at a gotta-pass price.”
Oh, and you are going to hate me for asking this:
Whats the difference between the Saab Trailblazer and the SS Trailblazer?
If GM keep on rolling out these self inflicted wounds, Saab may not be too far away to join the likes of Oldmobile.
I does not have to be that way!
Please use your common sense. It is quite sad, a lot of us are able to comments on GM products’ shortcomming right on. On the other hand, you guys do seem like to get it.
e.g. Aztek, Ugly generic 4 spoke steering wheel across several brandnames, the murder of all RMD platform, V8 FWD in the luxury car segment, the murder of musle cars, horrible marketing for G6, Rebadging excercise which resulted in 9-2, 9-7….etc.
I would like to buy a GM product in my lifetime. You guys are not helping.
where GM screwed up with Saab: in a nutshell–instead of making Saab more GM-like GM should have taken Saab engineering and innovation and made their mainstream cars more “saabified.”
Bob, what is going on with the SAAB division? Okay, okay, the 9-7x is totally not a trailblazer, sure. I think what you’re forgetting is that SAAB became a known marque in the USA by making some of the most idiosyncratic cars around. This is the thing that kept the buyers coming. (I know – my family owned SAABs concurrently for nearly 20 years.) How does a “euroed-up” SUV fit the bill, exactly? If you want more SAAB sales, you should for god’s sake give the swedes back control of engineering and production and launch an effective ad campaign – so that the same kind of safety-first, quirky, individualistic cars come off the assembly line. Backed up by effective advertising, for once.
Am I the only person in America who remembers that Kurt Vonnengut was a SAAB salesman for a time? Come on, to the potential buyers you’re aiming at, his name is gold. Put two and two together and make him an offer he can’t refuse. I can’t imagine that this would cost more than the reorganizations that are pending (or already decided on).
-Adam
You mentioned that other automakers build various flavors off the same platform. That is true, but within a limited scope of brand–eg, one can argue that Toyota builds “Buicks” –lots of them, small and large. What GM is doing is sharing hardware all the way from Saturns to Buicks and trying to fool people that they are different–the public is obviously not fooled. The “new” minivans are probably the most transparent attempt at this (actually a double whammy in that you call them new, and then pretend that the brands are different as well). I think most people sense a distinct dishonesty in GM’s approach–which is very different from Honda and Toyota’s approach!
If 9-7x is to be a premium SUV where is standard traction control, side airbags, stability control…?
I had commented previously about the possibility of leasing either the Saab or the Envoy Denali.
I am not sure th GM is in business anymore.
It is impossible to get pricing or availability data on the Saab, even though it is supposed to be in the market already.
And the marketing geniuses behind the Denali have decided to let you buy either a black or a white one.
Where GM lost the opportunity with saab?
The Saab brand offer GM the opportunity to innovate without been penalize. That is what BMW is planning for Mini. Where is the variable compression engine? Where is a revolutionary design as was the 90001 and the 99? When they will make the point that Saab’s are safer than Volvos as rated in Sweden?.
The problem GM with Saab is that non of the GM appointed individuals at Saab understood the brand
Note to Bob Lutz
Building SAAB into something big.
THE FATE OF SAAB
This blog thing is a fascinating thing, but it seems to invite comments, I thought that I would take the opportunity to share mine. I am concerned about the future of SAAB. It is not that the new cars are not or won’t be nice cars. The Subaru WRX and the GMC Envoy seem to both be very nice vehicles in their own right as I am told by my friends who own them. I am sure that the Subaru B9 will also be a fine car in its class. I haven’t driven any of these, I and my family prefer SAABs and BMWs. My concern is that the new cars are not really SAABs. If this trend of improving existing cars and badging them as SAABs continues, then SAABs will no longer be SAABs and SAAB will have no clear identity. If it is simply a nice car between Pontiac and Cadillac, then it becomes another Oldsmobile or maybe a Saturn.
Your people in Trollhattan are too modest and perhaps too shy to explain what makes a SAAB a SAAB and the people in Detroit probably can’t see it. There is a real tangible something that makes SAAB owners so loyal and that makes them so hesitant to trade their cars in for a new car even if the new car is another SAAB. While I was born and raised in Southern California and now live in Colorado,I have lived in Sweden for some time and I speak the Swedish language. Me and my family have been driving SAABs for decades,but not exclusively. I enjoyed my Cherokee, my Camaro SS, my Lebaron Turbo Convertible, and all my BMWs. As an American with some insight into Sweden, I think I can tell you what makes a SAAB a SAAB.
WHAT MAKES A SAAB A SAAB
What makes a SAAB a SAAB is that it embodies Swedish values. They don’t like to admit it, but Swedish culture is not the same as English culture or German culture or Italian culture. It is similar to Norwegian, Danish and Finnish culture. Swedish cars reflect their culture. When you go to Sweden, I am sure that you have seen that Volvos and SAABs dominate the roads. This is not because of favorable tax treatment or pricing, or nationalism or custom (though those are factors). The main reason is that Volvos and SAABs give Swedes exactly what they want. It is built into the car in a way that you cannot do when a Chevy becomes a Pontiac. It has to be part of the original engineering work. The qualities of the car are the qualities of Swedish culture. Here they are in order.
Safety/Security (Trygghet)
Just look at the safety records of SAABs and Volvos or the Swedish social welfare system. Look at the size of the radio buttons in a 9-5 as compared to a BMW or a Pontiac. This is safety. Swedes all over the country are proud to tell outsiders that Sweden has only one poisonous snake but its bite won’t kill you. They are proud that their country is so safe.
Practicality (Praktiskt/Fornunftig)
Volvo is the world leader in wagons, SAAB was the world leader in premium hatchbacks. Both offer factory trailer kits. In Sweden, to say something is practical is probably the highest compliment you can pay. (Try it on your next trip and see the faces light up.) Swedish products are simple and easy to use. Compare a Hasselblad camera to a Rollei camera and you can see the difference.
Quality/Reliability (Palitlighet)
Swedish things are made from high grade, quality materials using low risk, proven, technology. Swedes want things to work for a long time without fail. Maybe it’s the winters. You don’t find iDrive or the like on SAABs or Volvos, not yet. A SAAB innovation is simple, reliable SAHR anti-whiplash seats. Volvo introduced three-point seat belts. Americans buy lots of acrylic sweaters in the latest colors and styles and then throw them away. Swedes buy a few well-made wool sweaters in timeless styles and then wear them out.
Modesty
Try to tell the difference between the Volvo S80 and the S40 or the 2000 9-5 and 2000 9-3. It is as hard as telling the difference between a Swedish millionaire with an island summer home and a Swedish government worker. In contrast to Germany where performance and precision are the most important qualities, Swedes do not want to impress even themselves. Compare the 9-3 Viggen to the BMW M3. The Viggen was modified to look sporty but still safe and practical. The M3 is modified to look exclusive, expensive, and high tech. The new M6 carbon fiber roof is truly not Swedish.
After these fundamental qualities come a lesser group of qualities, like environmentalism, stability in the snow, gas mileage, ergonomic seating, etc., but even these tie back in to the BIG 4.
Since these qualities are Swedish qualities, what’s the difference between a Volvo and a SAAB? The Volvo is heavier, less agile, smoother, more expensive, it’s the sedan and the wagon. The SAAB is lighter, quicker, easier to buy, it’s the CombiCoupe and the SportCombi. Volvo’s sporty small car was the P1800. Saab’s was the Sonnet. The Volvo is the Mercedes, the Mercury, the Maserati, of Sweden, the SAAB is the BMW, the Pontiac, the Ferrari, of Sweden.
These qualities are evident in every SAAB 9-3 and 9-5. They are what make their owners want to stick with them. After you are used to a SAAB, you don’t want to give up the nice big, easy to use knobs and dials, the outside lights that come on when you back up, or turn, the amazing heater, the way that somehow the windows don’t fog up, the great visibility, the clear connection with the road, the ease of getting inside, the great view through the big windows. These are all qualities that you don’t notice much in a test drive or a magazine review, but after a year or two, you come to love. The SAAB is very easy to live with and its unassuming modesty is very comfortable.
The turbocharger exemplifies these qualities. BMW avoids turbochargers because it is like cheating. I love my 528 and my Z3, but I also love my 9-3. Working up from the bottom of my list of qualities. The turbocharger is modest as it sounds just like a little 4-cylinder car most of the time, it is reliable (since the mid-90’s), it is practical with great gas mileage and low weight, when I want it and great passing ability once I am up to speed, and the extra power enhances active safety. It is also a delight here in the Rocky Mountain State because I still have plenty of power climbing 12% grades over the Vail pass at 14,000 feet. SAAB could have turbocharged an already powerful engine. Jaguar and Mercedes use supercharging on motors that already have plenty of power. but that violates the basic Swedish values. The opposite of a SAAB is a Jaguar or a Maserati.
THE PATH FORWARD
Cars like the 9-2X, and 9-7X cannot carry these unique Swedish qualities as well as the current 9-3 and 9-5 do. If SAAB engineers had been given all the time spent on the GMT360 suspension to rework the 9-5 suspension, I wonder what they could have done. To allow SAAB to continue to be a distinctive brand, the SAAB engineers must be allowed to spend time on a few vehicles that they can ensure will carry the trademark SAAB (Swedish) qualities.
SAAB could use more distinctive models in the lower and uppper price categories. For an entry level car instead of the 9-2X. Why not a 9-3 compact, like the 9X or 9-3X concepts. The car could compete in the BMW 316 compact market. SAAB could develop this off the current or next generation 9-3 and it would be a big hit in Europe. Why not a 9-5 long wheelbase for executive premier or limousine use? Why not new Griffin editions with vastly improved interior materials, new door panels and distinctive exterior cues? (The Bang and Olufsen or Georg Jensen of SAABs.) Why not new SPG or Viggen models? This time with very serious suspensions and motors. SAAB managed to take Sixten Sason’s original 99 two-door sedan in the mid-60’s and sell that car for almost 30 years, becoming a real car company along the way with 2,3,4,5 door and convertible models and with 99, 900, and 90 body styles. Clearly they can do a lot with only a little. Focusing on a few cars allows them to make sure that SAAB values are carried through all the way. Allowing them to make radical variations, will allow the cars to appeal to a greater range of buyers.
As to marketing, Europe doesn’t seem to car about brand names as much. BMW sells cars from the 116i to the 760Li and does well. Even with the 5-series, there’s 520i and an M5 that look really similar but differ in price and performance tremendously. Mercedes has a broader range even then BMW and now VW has a Polo and a Phaeton in the same German market. SAAB may do well in Europe with two cars that look almost identical, but that doesn’t mean that the US customers have to be treated the same way. There can be a 9-3 Linear, Arc, and Aero, but more extreme variants can be sold as if they are different cars. Build the 9-3 compact but give it a unique grill, bumpers, taillights and names. US customers may be more excited about a 9-3 compact if it is called by a different name than the 9-3 (e.g. 9-2 CombiCoupe) and it looks like a different car. They may be more willing to pay for a 9-5 long wheelbase Griffin, if it is called the Griffin or the 9-7 Griffin or something and looks like a different car from the 9-5 Arc.
You can see this in the current 9-3 already. The SportSedan and Convertible are designed to look as much as possible like the same car but they have nothing in common behind the dashboard. This is the same European ethos that makes the M3 look almost exactly like the 325Ci even though only the doors and roof are shared. Why not redesign the front of the the 9-3 Convertible to be more sporty or more high grade and sell it as a different car from a 9-3? That might make the huge difference in price more palatable to Americans.
My last thought: the US car magazines, especially Motor Trend hate SAABs, but loved the last Camaro SS. This hurts SAAB sales because, “car guys” tend not to recommend SAABs to their friends. When a magazine writer drivew a car for one to three days, he doesn’t appreciate the Swedish qualities. So why be difficult, make a version of the car for the car magazines. What they hate is the interior plastics, the uneven power curve, and the lack of low-end torque. (They seem to love everything else and they seem to love every car with lots of low-end torque.) So make a special model for the car magazines with upgraded, less practical, interior materials and a retuned engine. They love the Pontiac GTO, so give them that engine, or maybe a non-turbo, big bore V-6, or maybe a higher revving turbo 4 with an Italian-style power curve and exhaust sound (long term reliability doesn’t matter to Motor Trend). Make sure the torque steer is gone, they hate that too. It doesn’t have to sell in high volumes since it is not the best car for the those of us who drive the same car everyday. The car magazines won’t test the high volume models anyway. It just has to be a big enough seller for the magazines to believe it is real.
please don’t try to fool Saab’ customer in this way. This is not a Chevrolet or Daewoo that customers doesn’t care much in any dignity or heritage tradition. Maybe if you doesn’t know this brand very well, you should leave it in peace.
3 things to be Saabness
1. Its Turbo engine with hugh torque in low rev.
2. Its extremly safety structure
3. Its own quirky design.
Saab first SUV ever…
This is very ridiculous and pity phrase that I ever heard from Saab’s advertising.
its still a chevy. and whats worse is your commercial declaring the other suvs dust in the wind. your dust in the wind too then
This vehicle is just a sign that GM is missing some golden opportunities with it’s three car companies that seem to revel in making odd, quirky, or different vehicles. Why not essentially split Saab, Subaru and Saturn off to collaberate together, and leave them completely seperate from GM’s core divisions? Why? Well for one thing, these three companies right now seem to have the most imagination within GM right now, and allowing them to share ideas and information without someone trying to force a Chevy truck on them might actually produce products and ideas that could be used for the rest of GM.
Back on topic: Saab, from what I understand is not happy with having to sell this truck. In fact, the person I spoke with was quite disgusted. With good reason. How in the world does one make a 5,000lb truck handle like a Saab? The answer: You don’t, because you can’t. This was apparently lost on whoever insisted that Saab sell this thing. GM is very close to getting it together right now, and finally being able to take on the world with competitive products. Because of that, mistakes like forcing a heavy truck based SUV on Saab are much more visible now than they were in the past.
I’ve owned two Saab 9000s – current one is a ‘95 9000 Aero. I’m hooked. I’ve also owned SUVs (Pathfinder, 4Runner, suburban) and currently own a ‘05 Honda Pilot. (It’s OK.) The new 9-7 sounds like it might potentially be a better true SUV than my unibody Pilot.
But no mention of Saab’s greatest attribute – the incredibly comfortable seating?
And then there’s all the other unique Saab attributes:
- Saab safety,
- near BMW-like capabilities in a snow-climate friendly FWD!
- forward and allround visibility (don’t have to scrunch down to look forward under the rearview mirror)
- rear fog lights
- backup lights in the front turn signals!!!,
-headlight washers (obvious option for SUVs but not available on either of my prior asian SUVS!!!
etc. ?
Saabs put the driver first! (Maybe put two wipers on the rear window – make it unique.)
And at $65/bbl for oil – where are your “Saab Eco-Power stickers”.
I’m reading all kinds of comments on other sites about the lack of distinctiveness and shared or swapped parts such as tail lights etc. in the 9-7.
I could care less, in fact, I would welcome shared parts – if those parts combined to make a better vehicle. And GM has a huge parts bin and contractor accessibility to easily create the world’s best “overall” SUV.
For example, tail lights SHOULD be shared among all appropriate models, if they are the best. (visible, shed snow, deflect dirt, etc.)
A bit of trivia: I’ve always looked at yellow turn indicators in tail-lights as a small indicator of the level of “professionalism” that went into the car. When I see the red lenses – I see “cost savings” not occupant safety as the maker’s utmost concern.
I agree with Chris above that it might be tough to make this truck handle like a Saab (something I left out of my praise above was the balance one feels in driving Saabs – especially on winding icy roads) but Saab also stands for utility and practicality and SUVs can be incredibly utilitarian at times. So, I can’t fault someone for thinking Saab should offer a ‘conventional’ SUV since what they’ve been been building for years (sport-utility cars) just hasn’t been discovered by the general populous.
PS Neither of my Saabs have have the ignition in the centre consol – so that alone doesn’t define Saab – and it doesn’t come close to explaining my respect for this maker. (I’ve owned a Pilot, 4-Runner, Pathfinder, and Suburban and though bigger than my Saabs none has gained my respect or admiration – only Saab has.) It is the overall package that creates the extreme loyalty among Saab owners.
Also, though a surprsing number of today’s most popular near equivalent cars such as Acura offer faux hatchback styling, Saab for years offered the real thing and the great practicality that goes with it. They are far from esoteric, unconventional vehicles – instead they are practical highly drivable cars.
Greetings!
Thru SAABs history parts/platform sharing has been very common.
The V4 engine was a Ford construction.
The 99 had a Triumph engine.
During the 80´s Lancia had huge success with their Delta in the World Rally Championship. SAAB wanted a piece of the action and called their version SAAB 600.
The 9000 was a FIAT Chroma, the current 9-3 is an Opel Vectra.
During the 90´s Subaru had huge success with their Impreza in the World Rally Championship. SAAB wanted a piece of the action and called their version SAAB 9-2x.
Cheers Martin in Sweden
I’m not a loyalist… exactly but grew up with the Saab brand in the family.
One day in the early 80’s my mother was driving a country road in VT when the car stopped dead and windows and windshield exploded. She got out of the car to see that a very unskilled amatuer lumberjack had dropped a 1′ diameter pine tree across the road… Right onto the roof of my mother’s Saab 99.
The roof was dented in 6 inches, but my Mother was unscathed. Saab saved her life.
No product has a stronger, more deep seated emotional resonance that a car brand. In a world of cookie cutter cars… the Saab brand stood for safety, innovation and quirkiness, intelligence, excitement and practicality.
GM’s product intention with Saab may have been noble (expand sales in the US), but the execution shows an certain tone-deafness to the nuances of that brand and positioning.
Lessons:
Be different, go “crossover” look at the quirkiness of the HHR… Quirky, American, uniquely Chevy. Brilliant.
Shared platform… good
Shared sheet metal with generic multi-brand GM SUV… very, very bad indeed.
The feel of the car inside is almost more important than sheetmetal for driving experience. Don’t lose the ergonomics, and don’t homogenize.
The 9-7 is not a SAAB i drove it and it does not handle well and it looks sad. Stop it just stop it, now the 9-4. god you guys build a good convertable then build the same thing with a hard top instead of making it a hatch which is now becoming popular then this crap. you build the areo x then say no sonnet. You want to get more people to get SAAB let them build the proper CARS
Yeah – they are trashing the brand. They made the latest 9-5 with a front-end that looks very much like that ugly failure of an Impala they produced a couple years ago (ugly headlights). Note how it’s only the 9-3 now that gets any artistic renderings in ads. No artist “quotes” the 9-5.
The ‘most comfortable seats’ franchise has been trashed too – not that consumer reports no longer rates them as “Excellent”.
I live in Sweden, and I actually own a Saab 9-7x (bought at the major Swedish Saab dealer who imported a hand-full). And from the reactions of people in the street it would sell quite well here.