The New Saab 9X Air Concept
Here’s a cool video from the folks over at GM Europe showcasing the Saab 9-X Air concept. Sure, it’s only a concept at this point, but the design explores what the open-air Saab of the future might look like, featuring a canopy top (patent pending), four-seat accommodation and the close-coupled proportions of a sports car. – Will Stewart, blog editor
- Posted in Concept Cars
GMisCARKING
Saab should be sold off, period! It’s time to trim the fat at GM.
Stan
Why oh why do we only get cool concepts from Saab. They have been kept in the deep freeze for far too long. GM expects us taxpayers to bail them out and for too long they have not even created products that people drool over. Where is the boutique brand laser targeting that successful companies prove is profitable. Their product lines are simple and iconic. The Saab brand could be cool, modern, sporty and green with their minimalist european styling. Come on GM, finally give the Swedes a seat of honor at your table.
Gerard
Does Saab really have a future with GM? Or even in the US? Under its present course, I have a hard time seeing the Swedish marque managing here in the States into the 2010s. Saab designers can come up with wonderful concepts (the Aero-X was a gem), but I’m not seeing enough being injected into the Saab line. I commend GM on the 9-3’s recent XWD and Turbo-X specials, but more will need to be done to bring life into this fading brand. I hope the next-gen 9-3 or -5 will incorporate more of the exciting conceptual features and standout from the pack. That’s been a Saab fault in the past twenty years.
SlowFlight
Heh. Looks cool, but unfortunately GM is wholly incapable of crossing the chasm from concept to production without loosing anything “cool”, inspiring, or remotely attractive. I *want* to buy a GM car (my grandfather worked for GMAC his whole career), but every time I look at a production vehicle, I’m always let down. Look at the volt - great concept, but it looks like a fogies car. By the time it gets to market, other hybrids from foreign auto makers will be off their first generation designs and on to something that is inspiring.
Joe
SlowFlight…
Have you seen the new Prius? It’s pathetic, like a polished turd…not at all “inspiring”.
And try to understand the constraints that were put on the design for the Volt. Aerodynamics directly corresponds to range, both electrical, and fuel-powered. So would you rather have an angular, very difficult design and poor range? Or a GOOD-looking aerodynamic body design and an excellent range? You can’t get something for nothing. By complaining about the car looking “like a hybrid” people are effectively saying they’d like to sacrifice what really matters: the car’s usefulness.
Give the design some time, and like all cars — go see it in person when the time comes. I’ll bet money it grows on you…besides; how can anybody not like that Interior!?!?! Fabulous!
Wingo Wango
What is the point of yet another flashy “concept” car that will never see production?
Does the Saab 9X Air have any relevance at all to the dire situation GM now finds itself in?
In case anyone at GM/Saab hasn’t noticed, the entire idea of “personal transportation” is about to undergo a radical change, what some might even call a quantum change. And that quantum change doesn’t include “retracting side mirrors.” Whoever authorized this concept is in a deep state of denial to the current situation in Detroit.
Don’t let the American taxpayer think you are going to be spending the big investment we are about to make in saving GM on flashy, no consequence ideas such as this. You are going to have to be much more prudent and take better care of our investment than that.
Nate
I don’t understand why GM doesn’t bring their European branded cars over here. I’d actually buy an Opel, unfortunately they aren’t offered and anything thats american that is on the same platform as the Opel I think is poorly done. Wait to go GM.
SlowFlight.
The Prius might look like a polished turd, but thats what it takes to get decent mileage with a hybrid.
Can you really put good looking and aerodynamic body in the same sentence these days? As an aero guy myself I look at the math of the aero and airplanes haven’t changed much in 50 years. Granted there are some really good looking aircraft styles out there, but I don’t think you can make a high efficiency car design thats aerodynamic and still has a unique and trendy look… Trends do die out and get reborn; a quick look at auto history shows that.
Joe,
You are totally right. Everyone is after styling and power. While I believe GM is really good at taking great concepts and making them mediocre at best, I also know that styling and efficiency rarely go together. I personally think GM should take their whole line and drop hybrids in them. Then after that phase out Chevy and Pontiac. Replace them with Saturn and Buick and Cadillac and bring Opel to the US. Push the success they have with those brands rather then try to build it with Chevy and Pontiac. At very least I’d buy a Opel Insignia if it were offered in the US. It SEEMS to have everything GM seems to have been trying to do in the US. To bad they can’t just start manufacturing them over here. I don’t think Bob or any of the GM team gets it or cares which is too bad.
As far as the Saab goes.. bring it to the US people will buy it if the quality and price is on par for once (compared to the Saturn Astra). Maybe GM will figure it out soon. All they need to do is bring their euro cars over and make the interiors from quality materials that don’t sound or feel cheap or hollow.
Nate
Abe
It would be great to see GM design its mainstream cars like they way they design their concept cars. These are the kinds of designs GM needs to attract the attention of the buying public and the media. GM has made significant strides in design, engineering and quality with such products as the Volt, CTS, Malibu, Camaro and the Lambda family, they have yet to implement these improvements consistently across the rest of the North American lineup. However, such blatant re-badges as the G3, G5 and Terrent, and the neglect of the G6, STS, XLR, the entire Saab brand have severely undermined GM’s recent successes and its ability to compete effectively in a ruthlessly competitive market. The recent string of layoffs and factory closings is evidence of GM’s mismanagement of its workforce and facilities. The potential merger between GM and Chrysler in time where GM needs all the capital it can get just to stay afloat will only add to the growing pains that GM and the overall economy are facing. It’s really no wonder why such companies as Toyota, Honda and BMW are extremely successful, even in the toughest of markets. They have consistently made improvements to their products and managerial abilities with each new vehicle and have quickly adapted to changing consumer preferences and economic conditions. They learn from their failures and mistakes and never repeat them. When they pull the plug on a product, they usually develop a suitable replacement. This strategy has proven costly but has reaped profits in the long run. They have constantly managed to improve their reputations and have done an amazing job at convincing the public that their products are superior to the rest of the competition. I have been a GM fan all my life, but the recent events, decisions and broken promises have left me extremely disappointed with GM and it’s management team. If matters get worse, I will have to purchase my next vehicle from a company that is more stable, delivers on its promises, one that is consistent in the improvement of its products and management, and values the people that build, design and engineer their products.
Joe
Nate,
Nice points, and thanks for agreeing.
Just one thing I wanted to respond with:
You can’t phase out Chevy — it would spell instant death. They reign in more than 50% of all of GM’s NA sales (if I recall the figures correctly). When Oldsmobile was shot dead, only a fraction of its customers went to other GM brands…imagine that happening with Chevrolet!
They seem to be trying to mirror some brands from overseas. Saturn = Opel, Pontiac = Holden…it’s not a direct comparison, but guess where the Astra came from? It was originally the OPEL Astra. And the G8 is called the Commodore in Australia…so perhaps the upper echelon at GM does get what you’re saying…just maybe not quite to your extent.
One final point about concept-to-production that I’ve learned….a lot of the things they put in concept cars are intentially non-produceable at the time of conception. These features ONLY purpose is to get people to look at the cars. To strike brand and vehicle interest in spectators. Tell me you didn’t look at the user Interface/information center above and not say “Wow…that’s pretty cool.” Concept cars are “anything-goes” vehicles, most with no intention to even be produced. They are to the auto industry what design sketches are to artists…what-ifs, and ideas to brainstorm.
The rare concepts you see translate directly to production are those that have actually been in development before the showing, like the Traverse, or the Cruze…so when you see a concept vehicle from ANY manufacturer, hope for the best, but don’t expect what you see to appear on showroom floors. They are simply…ideas.
Stan
I will add that I do not believe that GM has a unalienable right to exist in this country and see no need for a bailout. We do need jobs and thankfully Toyota, Hyundai, VW and BMW are here providing jobs at their clean, mean, and green plants distributed throughout the country. GM finally needs to struggle on it’s own. It could succeed by simplifying it’s brands and product line and build mostly the same lineup the world over. I mean the Cruze is already on sale in Asia and the China Buick looks better than anything we have.
I do wish an american GM could lead once again but they are too busy protecting their old ways. Wake up - the current generations do not feel good about GM products. Maybe we won’t see a change until leadership passes to the next generation.
GMisCARKING
Pathetic, absolutely pathetic! I just read the news this morning that the Bush administration wouldn’t be helping GM with a merger. It’s not a huge surprise. Bush was never a supporter of the domestic auto industry. And Henry Paulson is more interested in helping his friends on Wall St. He has always been an ardent Bush supporter. Take a look at this article(http://www.autosavant.com/2008/10/29/gm-delays-nearly-all-new-product-development-for-2009-and-2010/) and the link mentioned in the article(’Is anyone dumber than a GM executive?’) , GM has got its priorites all wrong. It should have pushed out the Cruze sooner to replace the Cobalt with 80’s interior. In a down economy, consumers need to buy cars that give them great fuel and money savings, not the Camaro which is a muscle car, and not the Volt which is 2 years away, has high price tag, small volume and wont make a profit initially. Right now GM has no credible competitor in the compact and subcompact segments that can beat the competition. And with GM crumbling towards bankruptcy, where are the usual suspects that praised GM incessantly on this blog before?
This blog now seems like an empty House, and it makes me want to cry.
Nate
Joe,
GM has to Phase Chevy or Saturn out. The reason GM lost customers when it phased Oldsmobile out was that it phased out a very decent looking car that appealed to a very specific group of people. They never replaced that with anything else. Ironically in my opinion Olds was the MOST on par with the likes of Lexus, Honda and Toyota back then. To me the Oldsmobile’s always looked different then the rest of GM and appeared to be a more refined, sophisticated brand then anything else that GM has. Buick is all they have right now that appeals to the smooth lines crowd. So yes dropping Olds did hurt them but only because they didn’t reshuffle the rest of the brands to make up for it. Chevy is the same way. GM is foolish for pumping so much money into the Chevy brands when Buick, Caddy, GMC and Saturn are already so well established. In my mind if I think Luxuary GM I think Buick or Caddy, if I think Trucks, GMC, if I think low cost I think Saturn, If I thin performance I think either Corvette (which should be its own brand by the way) or Pontiac. I just don’t see a place for Chevy except in competing with Ford and Chrysler. And if GM buys Chrysler out there is no need for Chevy at all. Amongst the circle of people I deal with all of them snub their nose at anything GM and specifically Chevy. These are Toyota and Honda people, Acura and Lexus, and Nissan and Infiniti people. These are the people GM is losing market share to. The best thing GM can do is re-evaluate its brands and consider bringing in a European Brand like Opel to draw the Lexus, Infiniti, Acura crowd away.
The problem as I see it is that people dont’ like the American GM names. Thats why people buy an Acura over a Honda. etc… GM needs to catch on to this and bring Opel itself over. The Opel brand is something new and novel and if GM keeps up the Opel styling of the Insignia (both interior and exterior) and I think GM could steal some market share away from Honda and Toyota. The big problem is they need the technology and reliability to match and sell. I’m not just talking the mechanical reliability. I’m talking the interior part reliability as well.
I don’t think rebadging works, GM, Ford and Chrysler have soured the concept to much. Americans see a rebadged GM and think oh great what POS are they pawning off on us now. I think GM is better off bringing the whole brand name in and removing the less successful ones in the US. At present there is no high end version of the Malibu or G6 (which is probably the same car as the Opel Insignia)…. But just looking at the interior of the Insignia I can see that its not the typical GM design. Its on par with the new Buick Enclave and the new CTS. Something GM really really needs in that size and style of car.
The problem with GM is that they use that concept idea to prove their capabilities. And once a customer gets hooked and says wow GM CAN make a really nice car… then GM never delivers the goods. What GM needs to do is watch how Apple (computer), Inc. does things. A quick look at Apple’s new computers and you see they are quite amazing looking and cutting edge concept wise. The difference is that Apple never reveals what they are working on then all of a sudden its there on the sales floor. GM does the opposite of this… they pump the hype up and then fail to deliver and after a while people ignore it and they have to be more and more outrageous with their hype and further the problem in the process.
GM’s problem is that their designers are out of touch with the markets. They try to use concept cars to not just show new ideas but to gauge market trends. And again they dont’ follow through or GET what works.
As an example my brother owns a 2004 Acura TL. Its got a very very nice interior (in my opinion). The 2008 CTS Caddy has an interior so similar that I can’t help but wonder why GM didn’t have that in 2004. They spent so much time trying to gauge the market that they missed it because they weren’t ahead of it.
I think GM should have a new way of doing things where they only bring things to shows that they are ready to put into production.
GMisCARKING,
I don’ think our government should be bailing GM out. In our capitalistic society its survival of the fittest and its quite obvious GM isn’t doing to well. Its time for some change, leave GM struggle a bit and figure out how to fix their problems rather then simply throwing money to them so they can continue to make the same mistakes. Secondly if it weren’t for mismanagement of the company they wouldn’t be where they are. A bailout is the wrong move for the country. GM needs to scale back, regroup, cut some fat and redirect its efforts toward the future. Thats THE only way they will make it. They need to cut the redundant and unneeded products, foster the ones that work and remove the ones that don’t. GM didn’t get where it is today by doing things right. And they aren’t going to continue the same way.
As Einstein once said (and I loosely quote it) “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
The Cruze is a nice step for Chevy Interiors its resembles the Infiniti and Lexus interiors. Now all they have to do is fix the exterior to make it a bit younger and sportier like a VW or BMW or something like that. GM is starting to get the picture. To bad they can’t put the Volt styling on it. Or maybe put that interior in the Volt. If GM gets its quality up and styling up to date with younger more demanding buyers they will have something.
GM has no creditable competitor? Are you serious? What about Honda Civic, Toyota Yaris, Mazda 3, VW, etc.. GM has plenty of competition. Not all consumers are numbers people or performance people thats a big screw up on GM’s part. GM’s foolishness is in not offering a diesel or a small turbo gas engine. They need a Cruze sized car that gets better then 38 or 40 MPG and still has 150 HP. Its not easy to do but GM should be calling on its European counterparts to provide what the US typically lacks. But how well is GM europe really doing anyway? Maybe its time to contract Honda or Toyota for some things until GM figures it out.
me personally I’m a huge fan of Buick and Caddy regardless of fuel mileage. But if GM offered a diesel CTS or a smaller CTS looking car… I’d probably go buy one tomorrow if it had an interior like that Cruze and a mid end price tag.
Stan,
In addition to not being bailed out, we DO need jobs, but we also need workers for those jobs. AND we need modern plants to build the cars. But the sad truth is that the American car market is saturated with vehicles. Trying to outsell Toyota or Ford or Honda is foolish in today’s economy. Who cares who is the biggest or #1. GM should be worried about customer retention and building a quality product at the right price. Everything else will follow.
I agree I see a lot of overhead with GM, I’ve lost count of how many brands they now have. Every country has its own brands. I don’t see much of that from other companies. If GM Axed Pontiac and Chevy they’d be well on their way. I think GM could easily move its Chevy lines to other brands. The Malibu to Buick with some minor interior (read Opel Insignia) redesign, the Cruze to Saturn, The Aveo to Saturn, The HHR to Buick, The Vette spun off to its own brand, and the GMC line dropped. I guess retaining Chevy Trucks would be good but they could easily be moved to GMC. The only odd ball I’m not sure what to do with is the Impala. The Camaro could be moved to Caddy as a new name. That pretty much clears Chevy from the line. Pontiac would be next reshuffle the G3, G5, and G6, and even G8 to other brands. Perhaps though getting rid of Pontiac would be easier. But I could see the G6 and G8 As Young people’s Buicks and the Camaro as a Cadillac.
An easier solution though is to just bring Opel over and get rid of Pontiac and Chevy. Move the Cruze, G6 (Malibu), G8 to the opel brand (irony). And move the rest as stated above.
Just my thoughts….. I wonder when GM will have an opening for a new leader ……..
What GM needs is the right leaders, which they don’t have now.
Gerard
Stan, I’d like to counter your remarks. John McElroy did a fine job explaining why an import takeover wouldn’t be so good in his weekly op-ed for Autoblog. I would recommend reading it at:
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/30/autoline-on-autoblog-with-john-mcelroy/
To GMisCARKING, I believe the combined $25 billion federal bailout is still a possibility. I doubt Congress or the outgoing President are going to allow Detroit to crumble. The UAW and cities dependent on American car companies would revolt. The EPA mandate would be blamed, and congressmen and women behind it. Politicians are aware of that.
I wouldn’t say the President is hostile to Motor City. I don’t know what’s in his mind. My belief is that he blames Motown for its problems. It invested its heart in big trucks, and it turned out to be a blunder. Yes, they were popular, but it caused US carmakers to neglect their passenger cars and minivans–leaving them to Japanese domination.
I don’t support state finance for the merger of GM and Chrysler. Mergers have a terrible history. Forget Nash, Hudson, Packard, or the Daimler. A GM/Chrysler merger would be too close to British Leyland. I could see a partnership is sharing components and advanced research, but not a total merger.
Joe
Not an empty house. I wonder if it’s not because do many people have had to cut off their internet to save money?……..
The media exaggerates things terribly, for one. GM was not prepared for a full-on meltdown, none of the automakers were, not even the holy Toyota, but GM was in an especially tight spot. But they’re not crumbling towards bankruptcy — in deep trouble, yes…but I highly doubt bankruptcy will occur. (my $.02) You can argue that point, but for now, I’ll believe the folks in charge of the ship rather than “experts” who sit on the sidelines and watch.
Secondly, nobody’s buying anything in this ecnonomy. Did you see the recent sales reports? GM sold more cars last month than Toyota, but they BOTH posted 30+% losses in sales. It’s not a matter of having good cars on the road right now, (because GM DOES have interesting and exciting cars as well as fuel-efficient family cars) it’s a simple matter of people not buying cars, and there’s NOTHING GM can do about it.
Thirdly (this is going to be a long post), GM does have a competitive compact car: the Cobalt. It can be had for lots cheaper than the competition, and if offers equal or better fuel economy with an autotmatic transmission. With a manual tranny, it obliterates and edge in mpg the competition might have.
Now, Stan — I find your opinion moderately disturbing. Because, you are esencially arguing for the destruction of the home team. The home team that supports 1 out of 10 jobs in this country inderictly or directly. The company that invests MOST heavily in Silicon valley, and technological advancements. The home team that is our last and final chance to stay competitive with the rest of the world. Yeah — we, the USA, have to compete to survive in this new world. Get used to it. By giving GM the finger and turning your back, you’re spelling your own doom — and I don’t say that as a scare tactic, it’s absolutely true.
First, I reccomend very strongly that you do some more research into how much Toyota, etc contributes to this country…because it’s virtually NOTHING compared to what the Detroit 3 invest. The jobs that they tout as making here are worthless compared to the money they siphon out of the country in profits.
Also check out the assembly plants and materials used in production, like 50% landfill free status in a year or two coupled with solar energy, and things like water-based paints. I think you’ll find that General Motors is more “green” than Toyota. That’s not blind faith…it’s reality. Take a peek at charity and sponsorship programs in the US between these two companies. Which one gives more?
Then, I suggest you look into the tax policy our government has in place. A tax policy…that somehow…manages to make it EASIER for foriegn companies to set up shop here, and HARDER for domestics to do the same. How in the world does that make any sense? How does punishing our own, our home team, make absolutely any sense? In addition, I hope you find in your research that foriegn countries ASSIST their companies to compete in the global world. Did you know that less than 5% of Japan’s vehicle fleet is foreign? They keep out foriegn entities. How is that fair, when the US has this door-wide-open policy in addition to tax breaks for foriegn companies that’s choking the life out of domestic manufacturing. It’s sickening.
Now, I hope you realize that Toyota, etc doesn’t make jobs here because they’re happy, honest, holy companies that care about us. They want ONE thing: our money. So does GM…but there’s one thing that separates them. In order to survive, GM must invest in our country, whereas Toyota couldn’t give a crap, because they’re based in Japan. Who would YOU like to see on top? The guy who has an invested interest in your county’s well-being? Or the guy who can pick up and move to another place as quick as a flash?
Then, there’s the whole aspect of foriegn companies (especially Toyota) touting their vehicles as “American”. They are no more American than the illegal immigrant that just hopped the Mexican border. But there’s apparently credit in being ‘American”. That title must mean something to people, or Toyota wouldn’t use it in marketing. My question is; why do people in this country believe that an American-assembled Toyota, one whos profits go totally and completely back to Japan, is better than an American-assembled Chevy, or Ford, or Dodge, whos profits get recirculated within our country, and help to bolster our own economy?? There’s an intentional dislike for domestic automakers that is entirely imagined, and unbelieveably baseless. So…why do YOU hate GM? What makes the home team so bad that you’d risk losing your country’s backbone, Stan?
Now….If I have one beef with GM, it’s this: I shouldn’t be saying all of this. THEY should. They have every right to government -backed LOANS, they have every right to our sales (because we NEED cars, so why not buy from a company that does something for us), and they have every right to boast being American, and proud of it. That should be first and foremost in any ad you put out. “You’re American and proud of it.”
Thanks for reading, for those of you who made it this far. I’m not exagerating — even though many people still think I am, and this blog entry is NOT the place for this, but Stan’s comment really scratched me the wrong way, and I had to defend the home-team.
Nate
Joe,
Gm wasn’t prepared for a meltdown because it had its head buried in the SUV sand.
GM’s big problem is bean counters and short sighted planning. The days of 5 year stock returns are mostly gone. GM needs to be focusing on its 10 and 30 year plans… If they had been they would have looked far enough ahead to say “What happens if our SUV sales drop off” and would have had a plan in place… which apparently they don’t.
No one is buying because people don’t need the products….
Obviously you are quite out of touch with reality. People buy Toyotas and other foreign cars because they make a good attractive product that people like. Most people don’t give two thoughts to how their purchasing decision effects the American economy.
Secondly Much of GM’s product is manufactured outside the US anyway. That is a BIG reason people like Toyota…. because the JOBS stay in country. The average worker is worried about getting up in the morning and going to work to pay the bills. They can’t do that if the product they used to make has been shipped to Mexico or Canada or Asia or India. I’m not sure why you missed that part but the writing is on the wall.
The simple truth is that the American companies can’t build a competitive product. The Cobalt certainly isn’t worth comparing to some of the other cars out there.. at least when you talk to people buying the Cobalt’s competition. People who think its comparable are missing a few big things… mainly build quality and styling. ‘I’ have yet to hear anyone of the younger generation embrace Cobalt as serious competition for other cars out there. It might be a low priced car with good fuel economy, but in today’s market sophisticated consumers want more. And GM hasn’t delivered more for the same money yet… certainly not like other brands have.
There may be an intentional dislike for American autos that is baseless… and here again GM is missing the mark. If that is true then it’s their job to figure out how to solve the problem. They need to rebrand or reorganize or do something that makes consumers look at them again something more then marketing the heck out of Chevy. I personally think GM could easily switch all their brands over to the european branding and do quite well. They also need to get rid of the GM Chiclet (the square GM logo on all their cars). Contrary to GM’s belief most people I talk to refuse to buy a car BECAUSE it is GM. Simply because of no other reason. GM needs to dissociate itself with its own name to get rid of the stigma and reinvent itself as a company (something a bailout wouldn’t accomplish). GM needs to cut its old unsuccessful products and focus on the future and predicting customer needs and wants.
Most Americans I know don’t care what brand they drive they just buy what they like or feels good. GM needs to be in tune with this and offer cars that do just that. The days of people buying for the sake of buying American are over and that’s a good thing. GM had a bunch of Americans fooled into buying their inferior cars 10-20 years ago. And today America has finally woken up… now its GM’s turn. If they wake up and pay attention to their consumers, people will start buying. Secondly GM needs to stop counting cars. Being the highest volume sales doesn’t do anything for the company. No one cares about the bragging rights of being the #1 in the world if you go out of business. GM needs to focus on its products and customers before there is no GM left. As much as stock holders want profit and a way for GM to do that is make as many cars as cheaply as possible… there is a point where this just doesn’t work. There needs to be a certain inherent build quality in their cars, something that people will take pride in when they own one. I personally can’t say that about GM right now. I fa person buying a car were a corporate setting the saying “No one ever got fired for buying a Honda or Toyota” would fit quite well. People just feel that Honda and Toyota are good cars for whatever reason.
If GM is invested in this country they are foolishly invested. But thats not really the case. GM is invested everywhere. And because of that, their product line costs to much to maintain and they have spread themselves to thin (in my opinion). If this wasn’t the case they wouldn’t be where they are.
I am absolutely amazed at the comments that they have every right to gov’t backed loans…. thats the biggest bunch of… I have ever heard. Thats like saying people are entitled to free money… If GM was doing their job as an automaker properly they wouldn’t be where they are. They need to be responsible for their mistakes and misfortune and the people working there need to be responsible as well.
The US doesn’t NEED cars… cars are a luxury. In todays auto market India has managed to make a car that costs less then $5,000 to make. I doubt GM could do the same. People need GM cars like their drivers need holes in their heads. People need transportation but there are plenty of used and inexpensive cars on the market… so much so that one reason GM is having trouble is because the market is flooded with cars. I’d be willing to bet that in America there are almost enough vehicles to allow almost every person to have one. GMs sales number targets should be targeted at replacing old cars and selling a few new ones. Anything else is foolish.
GM should not have to do anything for “us” its not GM’s job to do for us. Its the US’s job to do what needs to be done. GM is just lucky to have been allowed by the US to have the kind of empire it had.
As a last note how many people are really proud of America… to the point they’d sell their foreign cars to support American brands and workers… I doubt the pride of a lot of Americans stops when they have to be inconvenienced. And THAT is sad for me to have to say.
Joe
I’m not the one out of touch…unfortunately.
Nate
Joe,
Who is (out of touch)?
gtjeff
Time to focus your resources on your core brands, GM has never turned a profit on Saab, it should be sold asap. The 33,000 cars Saab sold in the US last year are a drop in the bucket compared to what you could sell in the Buick/PontIac channel with the right product mix using heritage inspired names.
vagabond
please don’t sell saab.
Thomas
All I can think of when I see this is “look at all the things that are going to go wrong with it” My simple power mirrors have failed three times, I can’t imagine all the issues that THAT setup could create.
B.C.
Well to start with General Motors is behind in times. It’s how it’s foreign counterparts have overtaking them . I have been a GM fan for a long while , It’s simple first dropping Chevrolet is not a option it’s the heart of GM and to say Saturn as a brand is better along then Chevy is moronic , Chevrolet has been around since 1910’s and has just had some of the most successful and iconic line up’s in automotive history. Saturn started in the 80’s and has had a couple of series of vehicles and then becomes a copy cat for Opel. Saturn should be absorbed by Buick ( which is the founder of GM) So it should become more of a stable in GM America , merge Chevy Trucks / Hummer into GMC. or sell Hummer period. Put more money into Chevy and get the whole line up modernized with a subcompact, Cruze, Malibu , (Zeta )Impala , and Camaro and of course Vette . But with how large the Malibu has become there is no reason to keep the Impala right there plus the fact it’s on a out of date platform. The Next Gen version should be a sedan Camaro , it would be cheaper and move the Impala up to that full size place that the Bow-tie has been missing . Pontiac make it a more unique performance Holden /Chevy combo not just rebranding it but do something with it make it stick out. I already said Buick and Cadillac put more money into it and share some of the ideas from saab but overall make it a Division all it’s one and do what must be done to get it on par with Lexus, Acura , Infiniti, and other Euro high class divisions …. Put GM on par with the best in the automotive corps in the world . But just start with Toyota and Honda first .
nancy cavellier
Buffet & Gates should bail out auto industry.
Trevor Bainbridge
“Buffet & Gates should bail out auto industry.”
Why should they do that? Buffet is an investor and Gates is a computer guy. Buffet invests in companies that he thinks will make money, and Gates would be out of his field of expertise. Neither is known for throwing money into a sink hole, with the possible exception of Bill Gate’s recent ill-considered investment in ethanol.
gpg
Saab Aero-x, 9-x BioHybrid, 9-3 xwd, 9-4x and new 9-5. Great Concepts and current cars that are very efficient. To bad GM has squandered the opportunity they have had since 1999 to incorporate some of Saab’s Turbo expertise first developed in 1978.
Lets see, let GM fail and bring in additional Asian auto companies to Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, the Carolinas because these areas need the jobs. The great Senators from these states can surely show their intelligence thru the national media every time they speak.; that GM is not worth saving because their foreign companies do a better job and we have given they every possible taxing break to give our citizens job.
The great Depression of 1929 will not hold a candle to the 2008-09 Depression that the Financial and Government Bureaucracy have created; so lets eliminate 10% of our work force because we don’t need them.
gpg
Saab Aero-x, 9-x BioHybrid, 9-3 xwd, 9-4x and new 9-5. Great Concepts and current cars that are very efficient. To bad GM has squandered the opportunity they have had since 1999 to incorporate some of Saab’s Turbo expertise first developed in 1978.
Lets see, let GM fail and bring in additional Asian auto companies to Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, the Carolinas because these areas need the jobs. The great Senators from these states can surely show their intelligence thru the national media every time they speak.; that GM is not worth saving because their foreign companies do a better job and we have given them every possible taxing break to give our citizens job. Who cares where the profits go.
The great Depression of 1929 will not hold a candle to the 2008-09 Depression that the Financial and Government Bureaucracy have created; so lets eliminate 10% of our work force because we don’t need them.
Adam
Ok, guys
Opel Insignia is SO similiar to the Saab 93. The ride on the same platform. Same transmissions. Same Engines. Same body styles (Saab has a convertible as well).
Now that we’re past that: It’s not GM’s fault they’re doing badly. THE ECONOMY COLLAPSED. Remember that? Well, before that, GM’s stock was almost at $50… and climbing. They had great new products (Cadillac CTS, Chevrolet Malibu, Lambdas).
They still have great products on their way (Cruze, Volt, Equinox-30 MPG!)
If I ran GM I would of course keep Chevrolet. There’s no way they could get rid of it - it’s their biggest brand and sells 2 of the top 10 selling cars in the US. I would cancel Saturn (too much like Chevrolet) and put their money into Chevrolet. Cancel Pontiac, Buick, and GMC as well.
This leaves:
Cadillac
Chevrolet
Hummer
Saab
Cadillac -
Alpha platform (compact RWD sedan/wagon/coupe/convertible)
CTS (needs a 400 hp small block V8 to really compete)
STS - compete with 7 series (GM needs to come up with a new V8 for Cadillac… the small blocks are fine)
Smaller Alpha/Kappa sports car with the DI 3.6 V6 - Merc. SLK/BMW Z4
XLR
SRX
Escalade (Lambda)
Chevrolet
Cruze
Volt
Malibu
Large sedan (RWD - basically Pontiac G8)
Equinox
Traverse
Tahoe (Cancel suburban)
Colorado & Silverado
Camaro
Alpha/Kappa 2 seater roadster (Saturn Sky replacement with 2.4L 182, 2L turbo, 2.8L turboV6? 3.6L DI?)
Corvette
Hummer (copy jeep)
H2 - shrink down a little to become a little bigger than H3.. 3 row suv
H3 & H3T
H4 (Compact Jeep fighter)
Saab - Alfa Romeo for the US, Volvo fighter, cars Cadillac doesn’t have
Sonnet - Audi TT
Compact coupe to fight C30 & Mini Cooper (2.4 L DI 182 hp or 2L turbo 4 260 hp + FWD/AWD?)
Audi A3 competitor (2 or 4 door) (2.L turbo 4 + AWD?)
Saab 900 (reinvented!) - think Alfa Romeo Brera.. 2.0l turbo 4 or 2.8 l turbo V6 + AWD)
So what do you think of my GM lineup?
And remember, it’s not all GM’s fault - EVEN TOYOTA Is going to loose money in 2008