Jetting Around
The Saab 9-7X AeroBy Bob Lutz
GM Vice Chairman
Thursday night out at the Oakland County Airport I had the pleasure of helping Saab USA General Manager Steve Shannon introduce the Saab 9-7X Aero and 9-3 at the welcome reception of the Meadow Brook Concours d’Elegance.
As you know, Saab was “born from jets,” so I flew my Aero L-39 ZO “Albatros,” a demilitarized Czech-built fighter jet once used by the Libyan Air Force, from Willow Run Airport in Ypsilanti to Oakland County for the occasion. Then, to benefit Meadow Brook Hall, we auctioned off a ride in the jet. So I’ll be piloting Eastern Michigan University aviation student Phillip Von Donop for a ride in the Albatros, thanks to his dad’s winning bid.
As I told the folks there, although I grew up in Europe, in my younger days I was never what you would call a Saab enthusiast. And I have to say that one of the most pleasant surprises I’ve had since I returned to General Motors in 2001 is the affection and affinity I’ve developed for the Saab brand and its vehicles. I’ve become a big fan of the driving dynamics. And I’m out to create more fans. We in senior management are convinced that Saab is a jewel in the GM crown, and we’re determined to ensure its success. The product lineup has expanded, and sales are growing both here in North America and in Europe. What’s particularly encouraging is that this spurt of growth has been consistent – it hasn’t been a feast-or-famine, one-month-wonder kind of growth.
The new 9-7X Aero and the 9-3 are excellent examples of Saab leveraging GM’s vast global product development resources. For example, the 9-7X Aero gets its 390 horsepower and 395 foot-pounds of torque from its LS2 6.0L engine, which is based on the small-block V-8 architecture.
So while I’ve read a number of comments on this blog questioning the future of Saab, let me say that it belongs in the GM family and we plan on keeping it there.
P.S. On another topic close to the fore, American automakers and fuel economy, USA Today published a misguided opinion piece July 25, and on Wednesday printed my response to it.
40 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.)
Lutz said:
Dear Mr Lutz,
I do hope you didn’t try flying your L-39 in formation with a 9-3 as a flight of Gripens does in that silly commercial GM ran all during the Tour de France.
Please explain to SAAB brand manager Steve Shannon, that no jet fighter is going to be able to fly straight and level at 50 ft and 80 KIAS. (It’s even funnier that Steve has the Gripens in that commercial in full afterburner, but not accelerating. If that were actually true, it wouldn’t say much for those clever Swedish aeronautical engineers that designed and built the Gripen.)
Also ask Steve where in Sweden is that desert they used in the commercial. As far as I know, only the Swedish Flygvapnet flies the Gripen and they rarely fly outside of Swedish airspace. (Unless you count Norway and Denmark, but they don’t have any deserts either.)
Tell Steve that the next time he hires an ad agency to film a SAAB commercial, to hire one that understands aerodynamics and Scandinavian geography.
V/R
Gary Dikkers
Mr. Lutz: I read your statement “We in senior management are convinced that Saab is a jewel in the GM crown, and we’re determined to ensure its success.” I’m very disappointed that you’ve never said the same for Buick, upon which GM was organized just over 100 years ago.
- Christopher Popa
Bob-
Glad to hear of your interest in keeping Saab up. Right now it isn’t my cup of tea, as I’m not really interested in FWD luxury cars, but it certainly is an interesting segment for GM.
I think the 9-7X Aero is really cool. I drove the Trailblazer SS at Rev-It-Up, and I like the idea of an up-market version of that car. Frankly the SS blew away all my perceptions about SUVs. I never would have thought you could drive an SUV that size that quickly and easily. I don’t like driving SUVs in normal everyday driving, but blazing through the cones in the Trailblazer SS was just plain FUN! Now that is the kind of product GM needs more of, and the 9-7X Aero will do that quite nicely I’m sure. Too bad I don’t have the money to buy it, but I envy the people who do.
Your jet sounds cool, btw, and I wish I was the lucky guy to get a ride. It doesn’t do much to connect you to the average joe buying GM products, and seems a bit indulgent for someone working for a company with a rather shaky financial standing, but that’s a topic for another time. Congrats, and good luck with Saab. I found myself thinking selling it would be a good way to raise cash, but if you want to dedicate resources to it, then more power to you!
Oh yes, and I just read the USA Today article and Bob’s response. The article does make some good points, but Bob was completely correct in what he said, and that was an accurate, concise, and generally excellent rebuttal. Don’t worry Bob, you don’t just have words to back you up, you have facts and actions too. The Volt is not only on track to beat the Prius plug-in to the market, but the Prius plug-in can only get 10 miles on electricity only, while the Volt gets 40. The Volt looks a lot cooler too. Also, GM is far ahead when it comes to other alternative fuels. So Toyota, put that in your pipe and smoke it…er wait, the greens won’t like that too much. Great job Bob!
hi GM! it’s time to jet to a whole new level and set a new ball game! Camry has created sales record year after year, and Prius, despite being odd-looking, has been a huge success. you really need to base the Malibu and Aura on the upcoming Alpha architecture to forge whole new competitors to the Camry. i think this is the ONLY way to end Camry’s dominance. The next RWD-based Pontiac G6 wont be a competitor bc it lacks the refinements (eg two-tone interior) of Malibu. The Alpha architecture will give Malibu and Aura fantastic handling and driving dynamics. Even though Pontiac is a performance-centered brand, Chevy and Saturn are the only brands that have the fighting chance to stop Toyota.
When the press, such as USA today, writes a misguided article, such as the one that was written, it is dangerous.
I think the American press should start being much more responsible in their writing. They are polluting the minds of American people.
Then how about throwing them some bucks, Bob, so they can get out there and market the brand effectively.
Saab’s budget for marketing this year is the same as it was last year. They’re left carting a truck around the countryside for public events and craft shows with nary a TV spot reported to me at my Saab blog.
I’ve been critical of GM’s ownership if Saab in the past but visiting Sweden back in June, I saw first hand that there’s some real work going into it. So for that, Saab lovers should be thankful. The future in terms of the cars is looking brighter.
But that’s got to be backed with some marketing clout. The 9-7x is widely reputed to be the best of the GM360 SUVs but only 500 people per month know enough about it to buy one.
Support the brand and preserve the culture.
What you guys should do is pick up one of those recently retired Saab Viggen fighters and display those at auto shows.
How hard could that possibly be. And boy would that be a hot item at an auto show.
ghent, one of the beautiful things about how GM is doing things occured to me a few days ago. When GM introduced the G6 yes it came up a bit short, then we get the Saturn Aura on the same platform but Lord it was a major leap forward! Now we all await the 2008 Chevrolet Malibu where I fully expect further improvements and refinements. As for the next gen product in the epislon platform its in final developement over the Atlantic as the next generation Opel. I can’t say for sure but I am betting that the 2009 G6 will be based on that as the cycle continues. GM was the sleeping giant well its awake now! I think in the next rounds you will see the next Gen G6 followed by the next Gen Aura and again to the next Gen Malibu… The secret to this game is to never be sastified, rather to keep improving and refining. GM got damn close with the Aura and a few refinements would silence most of the critics, wanna bet the Malibu will address all of them? This is an exciting time for GM and I am enjoying the parade of vastly improved products… Now if they will just replace that darned Trailblazer with Chevrolet’s version of the Arcadia!
If you look at the graph of fuel economy standards, you’ll see that there’s a big jump in fuel economy from 1974 to 1983 and then a much more gradual rise from 1983 to the present. This isn’t because car manufacturers did the responsible thing and raised fuel economy. It was because the federal government forced car makers to do something by enacting CAFE standards.
Companies never want to change. Change costs money, and profit is the goal, so I can understand why GM and Ford and Chrysler and every other company avoids change, especially when the impetus for change is applied from outside the organization. So when the Federal government, acting behalf of the people (for a change) says they’re going to increase CAFE standards to 35 mpg, you oppose it with all your might. You say “Change is coming real soon now!” You say “There’s no need to regulate us!” You say “This is going to hurt the economy!” And when you don’t get your way, you look back and say what a great job you did raising fuel economy all on your own when the fact is you wouldn’t have done anything if you weren’t forced to by the government.
Corporations need profits. Change cuts profits. So corporations avoid change whenever possible. Anyone who’s taken economics 101 knows this.
If you’re really naive enough to believe that then GM wouldn’t be spending any money on advertising. If consumers were rational beasts who only bought what they chose to buy, advertising would not be profitable. Or, at the very least, GM’s advertising wouldn’t include emotional appeals about patriotism, toughness, and fun. The relationship between producers and consumers is not as simply as “we make what you want.”
For example: I want a car that gets over 40 miles per gallon, but most manufacturers don’t make one. If the market were truly seeking a balance of supply and demand, there would be a car like that from every car company. What I do see is car companies trying to convince me, with little success, that they’re fuel efficient when their cars barely get 30 miles per gallon, and then attempting to cloud the issue with feelings of fun or pride or toughness.
However, I will admit I’m an exception. Most people’s concerns about fuel economy are eclipsed by the number of cup holders. And that’s a perfect reason to insist on the status quo: If nobody cares, then why bother changing it?
Frankly, I don’t believe you, Bob. And most of the people I encounter don’t believe you either. And the key to changing this perception isn’t pie-in-the-sky fuel cell vehicles or flex-fuel vehicles that hide the fact that corn takes more energy to grow than you get out of it. Nor is it a greenwashing campaign or a non-functional concept car. The way to change this perception is to take real and measurable steps towards increased fuel economy across all segments.
I understand we are getting a AWD 9-3 shortly. I cant tell you enough how much we needed this and even happier to tell you how exciting this new 9-3 is for me to offer my customers. I would encourage the efforts of GM to get SAAB even more ECO friendly cars such as there flex fulls for us to sell in the states. Also a simple active lifestyle oriented combi modal with more ground clearance, AWD, and a price under 30k Please keep mindful that many of our customers would also easily give up some of there horsepower for better full mileage.
Bob,
I too share your affinity for Saab and along with Volvo these cars even midst the hundreds of cars on display at the auto shows, these vehicles never fail to stand out. They both seem to put magic and spark on the show floor and in a sea of sameness these vehicles refuse to blend in.
Bob,
I am proud that you defended the American automakers and it is so ironic that it would be you, one not born of the U.S. that seems to be the last voice in support of our once proud industry. But I am not surprised at this irony. While we look outside for our enemies we as a people are truly destroying ourselves and like a spoiled, old, and decaying apple we seem to be deteriorating within, becoming rotten to the core. Don’t worry, I am watching and we are going to buff, shine, and polish that apple so shinny they will not have the heart to touch it. Much less try and destroy its shine from within.
I know they are trying to help “yeah right”.
There is a fine line between constructive and destructive criticism and whoever thinks that paper and reporter are trying to help are the same people that think The Daily Gossip is trying to help get Britney’s life back on track.
Bob,
You know the same folks from that other paper that got brought out, you know the ones that were describing GM’s headquarters as looking like a “silo”. Remember how they treated you; well now that the table has turned and they are taken over by foreign owners I wonder how it feels for them? It’s not just Detroit that must worry about change and foreign takeovers lets see how they do now, perhaps their tone will change from smug to, “I feel your pain.”
This is not what I wanted to talk about it was this so let me start over.
Bob,
The relatives came to visit from England and it just our heart to show them a good time in America – NYC, Great Adventure, Washington DC, Atlantic City the works.
Upon seeing them visit again after 10 years I asked them “How is the Queen?”. My first question in return was from a wonderful little boy with a beautiful British accent that will just steel your heart. He asked me…before even saying hello.
“Can we see your Hummer?” with the most eloquent and beautiful British accent. That was all I needed, we were on our way to Manhattan to cruise in the Hummer.
Bob,
Here is what I learned. It’s an exaggeration but they were all inspired and loved the vehicle saying there are but 2 Hummers in all of Britain with gas prices taxed to about $8.00 a gallon. Some have that vision for America, but I have a different vision.
It was nice Bob to get another opinion as we know not many like Hummer in the US anymore and their vision for America is what my British family lives with everyday, overpriced gas with vehicles too small for comfort. And there they only dream of what an average American can afford.
Understand Bob I love my family and what I hope for them is for GM to survive, (they don’t know what GPS, XM, or OnStar is or what they do). My hope for them is my shared hope for all of us.
If there is a way for GM to preserve this dream for all of us and make vehicles with common sense room affordable to all of us all, then GM will reinvent the automobile industry once again with hydrogen, hybrid, diesel, ethanol and electric vehicles that can make our standard available to all.
Bob,
OK, now I’m confused. I thought you just said that the 2008 Malibu was the most-awesomest midsize car… now you want me to buy a Saab 9-3 instead? See? Too many brands, too much confusion. A blind man could see it. By the way, what’s GM’s loss per car on Saabs up to now? $4000?? I bet your glad that GM’s non-US sales are going well. Must be nice that third world countries still think you’re something special. I bet they all have Chevrolet brochures in their mud-huts.
China Daily…Tuesday 17-August, Page 17 of the business section.==============
======================
PLUG-IN TOYOTA FAILS TO ELECTRIFY…The article goes on to say that Toyota’s plug-in will have half the range of the Volt.
They then throw out quotes from an analyst at Irvin, California based Kelly Blue Book and author of ‘The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Hybrid & Alternative Fuel Vehicles’ Jack Nerad. “The latest arms race ia being driven by GM”. “They one-upped everyone with the Volt, and they are saying they aren’t going to be out-greened by anyone anymore.”
================================================
They also throw out facts and positives on Toyota.
Sheesh, the state controlled press of the China Daily reporting without bias and more facts than USA Today!
Sidenote: Bloomberg has run your interview the last four weekends in Hong Kong & China. This is the interview where you are showing your car collection why you discuss the auto industry & design.
Must be nice for the press to cut you some slack once in a while!
I find it interesting Bob that you feel compelled to disparage Toyota with these very public statements. It’s a sign of a very weak company that takes shots at their competition. That’s a Marketing 101 no-no, and you of all people should know to take the moral high ground and not give your competitor any free airtime.
The buying public knows that GM has been overtaken by Toyota in sales, and your comments only underline that fact and make you look like a loser. Actions speak much louder than words, and if you took control from the beancounters, you COULD take control from Toyota. GM has created poor relationships with their customers, suppliers and the media. The only way to crawl out of the mess that you have created is with world class cars and trucks. Don’t give the media a reason to nit pick – you know what they are looking for, fix it. Don’t give the customers a reason to buy the competition, you know what they are looking for, build it. Don’t give the beancounters the continuing power to take you down by cutting corners, and you know who is responsible for that misguided direction. The real question is what are YOU going to do about it? GM has a much bigger Swedish problem than Saab, but you guys refuse to recognize the problem that he and his team of beancounters has created. Cost reductions that do not impact sales should be encouraged. But GM has cut way too far and your continued decline in sales should be enough proof for you to realize that the current direction is not working.
GM shouldn’t be worried about Toyota. You have a much bigger internal problem to either worry about or fix. The choice is up to you Bob.
The 2008 Saturn Vue and the Opel Antara
Mr Lutz,
Have no idea when your going to comment on the new Vue based on the Opel Antara, so I’ll just throw this out:
There was a large spread recently in my newspaper with a very favorable review of the new Vue. Sounds likes a promising car for GM in the U.S. market.
But here’s a question for you (or anyone else who wants to answer).
Since GM can’t sell the new Vue here with the same common rail turbodiesel and five-speed manual transmission that I could buy on an Antara in Europe, could I go to Germany, buy an Antara, and ship it to the U.S. at my own expense, and operate it in the U.S. as a German car, instead of as a re-branded GM Saturn?
I’ve had past experience buying a car in Germany (a Mercedes diesel) and shipping it here, and had to make only some minor changes in the headlights to bring it up to U.S. safety specs, but I was able to run the diesel without mods — exactly as I had in Europe. It had become a German car operating in the U.S.
If I imported a diesel Antara to the U.S. would I have to modify it to comply with the same dreaded Tier 2 Bin 5 emissions standards that has you so apprehensive of bringing your Opel diesels to the U.S.?
If the answer is, “No,” would GM be prepared to help U.S. citizens with the redtape of importing Opels into the U.S. as real German Opel diesels, and not as rebranded gasoline-engine Saturns? If a private citizen paid the shipping fee and the bill of lading was in the private person’s name, could a GM dealer then provide some bureacratic and mechanical expertise in the needed mods to bring an authentic German Opel up to U.S. specs, without needing to mess with the European diesel engine?
V/R
Gary Dikkers
Dear Bob,
Sounds like a nice Saab, but getting a fuel efficient 4-5 seater is on my mind. I’m very excited about the Volt, makes sense for me given our family’s commuting profile. However, I’m concerned about the likely vehicle cost. Have you given thought to being able to make the battery system scalable? So I can get into a Volt at a lower up front cost and if I need to later add another few batteries as needed/ budget permits?? Your marketing people should have great fun selling this car to the American people, you are only limited by your collective imagination. Let me know if you need help or would like ideas on this. Best wishes. Al Lang
Bob -
Was wondering when Pontiac will put up pics of the real production G8? I think its fair to say many people are interested, but I wouldnt put a deposit down until I saw one.
Thanks!
Eric
100% spot-on with your statements on the Webber piece Bob. It is as simple as “we make what you want”. The fact of the situation that many people refuse to believe is that a 40mpg vehicle up until recently has been a niche of a niche vehicle. These are the very same people who bought vehicles that got whatever mileage they could afford to stomach until gas went over $2.50/gallon.
To suggest that a market is created by advertising a product is ridiculous. First you have a demand; then you have a product. The reason for advertising your product is to differentiate it from your competitor’s products; not to create a given demand. If the demand did not exist; the product would not exist. Hence the reason for the dearth of vehicles that get 40+MPG. Everyone knows that a car that gets over 40MPG is an uncomfortable underpowered box that may be less safe than a larger vehicle that is also more comfortable.
I have never owned a full size truck and never intend to… I have no need for such a thing.
For now; I am happy with 31MPG in my 2006 Chevrolet Malibu LTZ. Thanks!
Mr. L, you’re the man…now I know why Steve Kroft looked as giddy as a schoolboy as you were leading him around in the 60 mins. segment.
Regarding reflexive GM bashers like the ones above, I give GM credit for allowing poorly reasoned comments to be posted on this blog.
Twain (or someone else) said that you shouldn’t argue with a fool or you’ll be indistinguishable from him, but here goes:
First, I drive a 2005 9-3, and it has been a pleasure. This is a world class car for less than 28K.
Second, GM has several other world class products, e.g., solstice, 3 cadillac models, GMT-900, corvette, et al.
GM has particular structural issues that are being ironed out. Once this happens, GM’s scale advantages and new products will both flex their muscles.
In other words, In addition to my Saab, It’s also a good time to be long on GM shares.
Gark Dikkers, it appears as though you have gone off the deep end. To suggest that GM should help a private party to import a car from Europe to the US is ludicrous. First, the time, expense, and liability for GM would make such action impossible. Secondly, GM doesn’t care about individuals and helping you to import a car would not help their dealer base here in the US. Where would you get service parts? Who would do the repairs for you? Obviously you haven’t put much thought into your latest questions.
If you look at the graph of fuel economy standards, you’ll see that there’s a big jump in fuel economy from 1974 to 1983 and then a much more gradual rise from 1983 to the present. This isn’t because car manufacturers did the responsible thing and raised fuel economy. It was because the federal government forced car makers to do something by enacting CAFE standards.
Posted by: Paul on August 6, 2007 2:01 PM
Wrong Paul.
It was because the Catalytic converter (invented by GM)was introduced along with a switch from Carburetors to Electronic Fuel Injection which was made possible by major improvements in the electronic industry.
The fact it “leveled off” is not due to the lack of automaker interest, but the lack of a new technology.
The buying public knows that GM has been overtaken by Toyota in sales, ….
Posted by: K Stevens on August 7, 2007 11:11 AM
Only the buying public that has not read the latest numbers.
GM has retaken the sales lead from Toyota in the scond quarter.
You have also dismissed the fact that Japan is a “closed” market to outside manufacturers, and this is proven by the fact that ALL non-Japanese automakers have only 5% of the Japanese market.
While in the more open markets of the U.S., Latin America, Europe and even China these same automakers enjoy a more even percentage of the market.
For the first 5 months of European sales GM has a 10.2% share, Ford 8.4%, Toyota 6.5% and leading automaker VW has 19.4%. Even Chevrolet, with an old lineup leftover from GM-Daewoo has 1.2% of the market and is growing sales.
When Toyota outsells GM by at least 5 million units, it can claim the sales lead. The 5 million units will adjust for the nearly 3 million units is sells over GM in Japan and the other 2 million would be to adjust for an undervalued Yen.
I would like to see what GM could do against Toyota on a level playing field and not one that they have an over $3,500 disadvantage as they do in the U.S.
A SAAB lineup I would like to see:
Sonnet 3D with XWD from KAPPA
Sonnet H/T Convertible with XWD
9-1 Sedan and Sport Combi with XWD (KAPPA)
9-2 LWB 3 and 5 door similar to SAAB Turbo of the ’80s with XWD based on LWB DeltaII
Aero X with XWD on Alpha
SAAB 900 5D with XWD share with Torana on Alpha
The upcoming 9-3 line as is except with BioPower and Turbo-Diesel power options.
A larger 9-5 on LWB EpsilonII sized about the same as current Grand Prix.
9-2X on DeltaII with inside room like Kia Rondo
9-4X on Theta sized like RX350
9-6X on SWB Lambda with lower roofline like Pacifica.
9-7X on Alpha with XWD and 6.2L AFM V8.
9-8T based on Lambda as Ridgeline competitor.
This would be a interesting SAAB line and would have optional XWD, BioPower and Turbo-diesel powertrains on most if not all models.
Gary,
I would venture to say knowing the law on these emissions standards that any act of GM helping people bring vehicles here would be illegal. Making GM subject to a $100,000 fine per instance of violation. I.E. 20 vehicles = $2,000,000 in fines.
I’m sure you could do anything you wanted on your own.
These laws are no joke; this is why GM does not have these diesel vehicles on sale here already. I don’t think Bob is the guy to answer your questions though… You probably want to direct them to the EPA and your state emissions regulators as well.
I’d be interested in this as well. I just heard about the new Opel Corsa with the 1.3L CDTI engine and six speed automatic transmission and I’m really interested in it, but you don’t have any plans to bring that model to the US and the red tape involved in importing it is beyond my expertise.
Paul, 10:26 AM:
It’ll get here once the handwriting on the wall gets big enough, and GM sees how many diesels Honda and Volkswagen sell once they get them 50 state certified.
Of course, they’ll have a several year head start by then, but what else is new?
As to market share in Europe, the reason GM is doing better in Europe would seem to be that they offer advanced products like this,which is what the European market demands. Opel seems better at reading that !@#$%^&* handwriting.
Rick Lupori:
I had missed your name here recently, but you are really on a roll the last couple of days.
“Preach on brother!”
Wrong. I’ve never owned a vehicle that was rated at less than 30 mpg, and that’s only because vehicles with better gas mileage are generally more expensive and I didn’t have the financial means that I have now. I was raised to have a concern for how much energy I used and to seek ways to limit it, if only to save myself money.
A well designed vehicle can be comfortable and safe while getting over 40 mpg. My parent’s 2001 Prius, for example, is comfotable and safe. The VW Jetta TDI is a comfortable, safe vehicle that gets over 40 mpg. The Astra, which GM is bringing to the US as a Saturn, is comfortable and safe, and there are European models that get upwards of 50 mpg on diesel. And don’t say that I must be short and thin to find them comfortable. I’m 6′4″ tall and weigh 250 pounds. If I can find them comfortable almost anyone can find them comfortable.
As for power: I’m not going to the race track or towing large loads. Why should I buy something with 200 horsepower when I’ll never need it? I’d trade a few hundred dollars a year saved at the pump for a few seconds more from 0 – 60, and I know other people who are the same way.
I’d say the reason everyone “knows” that vehicles that get over 40 mpg are uncomfortable is because of the advertisements shown by car manufacturers. They emphasize space as luxury. Profit margins on small vehicles are lower than profit margins on large vehicles, especially body-on-frame SUVs. So car companies want people to think that small vehicles are uncomfortable and unsafe because they will make more money.
Prior to the 1990s most families had station wagons, sedans or, more recently, minivans even though SUVs were available and were made by most manufacturers. The only explanation I can see for people switching their buying habits was the advertising I saw during those years. It emphasized power and security over other kinds of vehicles. The market for luxury SUVs was created by advertising these vehicles as family and luxury vehicles.
One particularly memorable one was for the GMC Suburban. It was a person looking down on traffic from hundreds of feet in the air. This didn’t differentiate the Suburban from other large SUVs, which give the same feeling of invincibility and superiority. It differentiating the SUV body style from other body styles. This ad also gave no facts about the vehicle other than it was large, relying instead upon emotional appeals to the viewer’s ego and sense of self-worth.
Would GM or other manufacturers have implemented these expensive new technologies if they weren’t forced to by the government? I’m sure that if you cut out all the emissions regulation equipment and fuel injection electronics you’d save a few thousand dollars on the price of the vehicle. Interestingly, this is similar to the argument that GM is making about not being able to increase fuel economy to meet new CAFE standards; that it would increase the price of the vehicles..
Also, I wasn’t aware that catalytic converters did anything to improve fuel economy.
So what you’re saying is that there has been LESS innovation in the past 24 years than there was in the 9 before them?
Since 1983 there has been a huge amount of innovation. But it’s all been directed at getting more power and putting more gizmos into vehicles. Imagine if every ounce of effort directed at putting navigation systems, keyless entry, heated seats, and DVD systems into cars was put into fuel economy. We’re starting to see that as companies roll out hybrid and low-emission diesels.
This has been shown in Europe where high gas taxes create an effect similar to CAFE laws. Average fuel economy there in 2002 was over 40 mpg while it was under 25 mpg in the United States. And by 2012 it will be over 50 mpg. Do Europeans have access to some sort of alien technology that Americans don’t? How is it that they can have an average fuel economy so much higher when they have the same levels of “innovation” that Americans have? It’s because the governments have created an economic incentive to produce fuel efficient vehicles and for people to live in ways that limit their energy use. And before you go saying that we need to use that much energy to have the same standard of living, many reports put the standard of living of a lot of European countries above that of the US!
Until there’s an economic incentive to innovate towards fuel economy in meaningful ways, it’s not going to happen. And it’s not going to happen so long as there’s no pressure from outside automotive companies. Like I said: Change costs money, and corporations are designed to make as much money as possible. It’s no wonder they avoid change.
Phew. That was a long post.
“Prior to the 1990s most families had station wagons, sedans or, more recently, minivans even though SUVs were available and were made by most manufacturers. The only explanation I can see for people switching their buying habits was the advertising I saw during those years. It emphasized power and security over other kinds of vehicles. The market for luxury SUVs was created by advertising these vehicles as family and luxury vehicles.”
The category you knew as “station wagons” was eliminated from the market by CAFE regulation. People naturally gravitated to the next-closest substitute – the SUV. Of course SUV adverting emphasized luxury and safety. Would you prefer advertising that emphasized discomfort and risk?
When the typical American RWD car was removed from the market; people just moved on to the next closest vehicle they could find that fit their needs for passenger space, towing, and luxury. If economy had a higher priority for them they sure didn’t act like it; Americans have bought oversized vehicles by the millions.
Bob,
Is there any chance that GM will sell off SAAB before it’s too late? SAAB really doesn’t have a place at GM as the other divisions largely fill the role that SAAB has always had. As both a SAAB fan and a GM fan/owner I’d like for GM to seriously reconsider owning SAAB. If GM cannot allow SAAB to be SAAB then perhaps it is best sold to someone who will.
Also, I wasn’t aware that catalytic converters did anything to improve fuel economy.
Posted by: Paul on August 9, 2007 2:40 PM
Paul, Do us all a favor and take some automotive mechanics courses.
The catalytic converter was invented to meet emission standards and drastically improve the power/driveabilty of the powertrain.
Obviously you have never had the “pleasure” of driving a 1973 or 1974 vehicle – they were horrible, hard starting, low power, no “throttle response” and they got terrible MPG 8 City and 15 Highway were not uncommon and many did’nt get that. They have vacuum advance and RETARD for the timing, power sapping AIR pumps and cams timed for emssions rather than driveablity and power.
Ths Catalytic converter made even 1975 cars significantly better performing vehicles even though the first “cats” were restrictive and there were few cars with fuel injection.
Volvo introduced “Lambda Sond” (Oxygen Sensors) to its vehicles and others followed.
Catalytic converters allowed for a “closed loop” system to accurately coordinate “sequential” fuel delivery based on the air mass, timing, EGR, Cam lift/duration, oxygen content of exhaust, engine tempurature and load based on engine speed and driveline gearing.
That may oversimplify some parts of it but, if Catalytic converters did not exist, very few of these advances would have happened.
And it was buying puplic demand for better performing cars that made GM develop this.
The better performance allowed to use of smaller engines in cars with no loss of performance and the industry switched from RWD to FWD and cars shrunk dramatically. All of this took time since it took about 6 years to completely redesign and test an “all new” car in the ‘70′ and 80’s, only recently has this timeline shrunk to the 2 to 3 years it is now.
Fuel injection systems evolved from TBI (glorified carbs) that spryed fuel for all cylinders at once to the common sequential systems of today that inject fuel only when each cylinder needs it. GM is also at the forefrnt of Direct Injection that injects fuels directy into the cylinder instead of at the back of the intake valve. This technology is available on the Sky and Solstice where their 260 HP 2.0L Turbo engine gets as good or better MPG than the base 2.4L NA engine. The 2008 CTS and STS have this available on the 3.6L V6.
Most European advantages in powertrains are possible by:
1) Europeans will buy Manual transmissions that allow smaller engines to acceptably perform in larger cars.
2.) Less stringent Diesel emission laws enable Turbo-Diesels to be offered accross the market.
Mr. Lutz: The 9-7X Aero sounds like a great vehicle, with good handling to go with it’s great looks.
Will the 9-7X be available with a Two-Mode Hydrid or the new 4.5L Turbo Diesel?
At least add E85 and AFM to the 6.0L in the Aero.
I like the styling of the 9-7X and from what I have read it has a very competent chassis for a mid-size Body on Frame SUV.
Adding a E-85 capable (BioPower?) Two-Mode hybrid driveline would make the 9-7X very desirable and would only need a modest interior update to “freshen” the design enough to keep it and the Trailblazer/Envoy on the market for a few years. there is still a market for this type of vehicle and it would be a shame to see GM just drop it.
I happen to like Saab, even if its current cars fail to impress drivers in the same way Infinitis and BMWs do. The upcoming 9-3 looks very nice, but the 9-7 doesn’t get my juices flowing.
G. Smith said:
Mr Smith,
My question isn’t as far out as you think. When I shipped (at my expense) my German spec Mercedes diesel over here, it was a U.S. Mercedes dealer that helped me thread the bureaucratic maze of getting it up to U.S. specs.
Mercedes will provide support for one of their cars anywhere in the world. Are you telling me that GM isn’t actually the world-class car company I thought it was? A company that will support their products worldwide — whether made in Germany by their Opel subsidiary, or made in the U.S.?
I’m not asking if GM would help ship an Opel Antara diesel over here, I’m asking if they would support if a private party did as I did with my diesel Mercedes. Afterall, Opel is part of GM.
Best,
Gary Dikkers
Last time I looked Saab’s US sales were down 5 % the first half of this year compared to last year same time. The 2006 US Saab yearly sales were down more than 5 % versus 2005.
GM has only one crown jewel brand, Cadillac. You wont gain market share by pumping more money into Saab.
I am a long time hard-core car enthusiast, have owned 96 cars over the past 35 years. 5 of those have been Saabs, and I absolutely passionately loved every one of them (the last one was a 1999 Viggen). I recommended Saabs to many friends over the years. But I would never consider one of the current “Saab” models that are, truthfully, little more than badge-engineered bland anonymous-mobiles.
Over the years of GM-ification, Saab has, for me, completely lost the essence of what made them so appealing in the first place. GM uses the word “quirky” as if its bad, some sort of derogatory or perjorative that cannot even be spoken. To me (and many people over the years), the “quirkiness” of Saab meant character, personality, and being different from the packs of cookie-cutter appliances sold by so many companies, that, while reliable, are utterly bland and just don’t do it for those who want something more involving.
My last Saab, a 1999 Viggen, was a masterpiece. It was far from the fastest car in the world (so what?), but it had a unique combination of being fast enough to be an absolute blast to drive, plus luxurious and comfortable enough to emerge from a 10-hour drive feeling refreshed, plus practical enough to be a daily driver (RWD may have better performance, but in the rest of the country other than Florida or California, FWD is just so much more practical when the roads have snow or rain several months a year) – and it could literally haul furniture with that fantastic hatchback design! It felt special, and driving one of the old Saabs made you feel special – which you just don’t get from a re-badged Chevy Malibu (the current 9-3).
There has not been another car before or since that could do all of those things. The Viggen (and most of the old 9-3 or 900 turbos) was a blast to drive, it was a driver’s car, it “felt” right, the driver felt connected to the road, it felt secure in the snow and rain – and we would regularly take it on weekend trips, fold down the back seat, and bring home furniture. What other car can possibly do all of those things? I miss my Saabs dearly, and constantly scour the used car ads hoping to find a low mileage 9-3 hatchback with a turbo and manual transmission…
There are so many excellent cars out there. Most cars are now well built and reliable. There is no shortage of 4-door sedans in every possible flavor and demographic target: budget, premium, near-luxury, luxury, “sporting”, etc. Does the world really need yet another one? Much more, one that is just a badge-engineered Chevy Malibu?
Instead of GM trying to make Saab into something it isn’t, never was, and never will be, why not capitalize on unfilled niches in the market where Saab has previously been successful – and can be again? The niche, “quirky” market will never sell a million cars a year, but then, neither will the current strategy. Trying to make Saab into something it isn’t enabled GM to sell a whole 35,000 re-badged Chevy Malibus, Blazers, and Subarus a year. I would bet that there are a couple of hundred thousand buyers a year out there that would absolutely love the unique combination that the old Saab offered – fun to drive, comfortable, practical – and a hatchback!
GM should take a lesson from Ford and Volvo. Ford left Volvo alone, they let the brand keep and build on the essence of what made it unique – and what customers wanted. And which brand has been more successful?
dear gm,
i like the refreshments done to 9-3 but dislike the 9-7.
although the European markets don’t have many GM SUV the US market has too many.
if Saab is to BMW or infinite they missed their mark.
should have giving saab the enclave or similar.
why not make a 9-3 or 9-5 even astra based cuv. anything smaller than 9-7
Dear Mr. Lutz,
First, I would offer that, in my opinion, GM styling has improved dramatically across all brands since you came over from Chrysler.
Now about the Aura. I test drove one with the larger V6.
LIKES:
Very peppy; great acceleration!
Exterior styling, except the headlights
Handling, for the most part
I still would not buy this car, and here is why:
DISLIKES:
Horrible sunroof design (could not even believe the tacky black nylon net wind deflector in this car and the cheapy rubber gasketing that looked ready to tear right off)
Noticeable torque steer
Awful ‘turd brown’ leather (in a dark gray car?!)
Headlights that extend up into to the top surface of the hood (this is subjective but I think BMW’s older ‘eyelid-style’ hood lines are a more logical anti-glare design)
No plastic fenders? Why is this even called a Saturn?
In the past, my image of Saturn was:
1) Inexpensive but good value
2) Safe (built strong, like a Volvo)
3) Practical (plastic non-dentable fenders)
4) Innovative; not shy about being unconventional
5) More customer oriented; better listeners
6) Well-built, by employees that care
Now I don’t know what a Saturn is. You might as well dump the name.
-Tony
PS: I loved the Solstice until I saw the Saturn Sky. Wow. Most beautiful car Saturn has ever done. However, I hear it’s got almost no useable space in the trunk, because there’s a stupid bump right in the middle of it!
How many of you earlier 9-3 turbo owners have been left to explain a “failure to stop” to a photo enforcement reviewing officer who compares your acceleration to the car stopped next to you? Here again in Denver I am being buffalo bull whipped by a cop who assumes my Viggen did not stop since it is well ahead of the vehicle next to it after the light changed from red to green. One photo shows us side by side and the next shows me one car length ahead. It’s an easy trick for the Denver PD to pull, expecting one to pay and walk with no points. The city is broke and needs more extorted money to pay its debts.
“D’yall” have this problem with you and yours? Oh it’s the first one for me like this and still my Viggen and I must be wary of ignorance at every corner and straight away. It’s a beautiful car, one of four on the Front Range. I need torque specs and a statement from Mike Shaw’s to defend myself. It’s easier just to pay the fricken ticket and walk, but the next one will refer to this one and add to it.