Avoidable Contact #29: Lexus killed Saab, but GM let Saab die.
This past Friday, I was seated in a long-lead briefing for another auto manufacturer when the whispered word was passed down the line of seated journalists: “There’s an emergency conference call regarding Saab in ten minutes.” Not too long after that: “Saab is dead. There’s no deal.” All around me, I saw men with their heads cradled in their hands, though I could not tell whether it was from sympathy, misery, or simple world-weariness. From the seat next to me, a sorrowful, poignant comment: “I don’t want to live in a world where the ES350 is a best-seller and Saab is dead.”
What a perceptive statement! For there were more than fifteen long years where people willingly deluded themselves into believing that this world was one where the Camry-by-Lexus could rule the sales roost and, yet, Saab could live. With evidence to the contrary literally surrounding them, Saab’s incompetent, careless stewards at General Motors continued to push the lie: Saab is premium, Saab is luxury, Saab can compete with the Japanese and Germans on equal ground. By the time Saab’s lifeless body finally thumped against the ground, the story had assumed the mantle of tragedy. And like most tragedies, it began with a misunderstanding.
As noted earlier in this series, the primary reason for the prestige accorded European cars in this country in the post-Vietnam era was simply their outrageous cost and relative rarity. This bizarre situation — that of cars selling well simply because they were priced above their true value — led European manufacturers to focus obsessively on the United States on general and the coastal markets in particular. It also created the myth that virtually all European cars priced above a VW Rabbit were inherently “upscale”. (Eventually, that myth would drag even the humble Rabbit up the marketing ladder, but that is a bunny tale for another time.)
Perhaps the upscale-ness (upscality?) of the Mercedes-Benz S-Class was not open to question, but what about cars which served more or less as the Fords or Chevrolets of their home countries, such as Renault, Peugeot, or… Saab? The Saab 99, which carried the Swedish company’s fortunes at home and abroad during the Seventies, was hardly a luxury car by any objective measure. A low-power, front-wheel-drive hatchback with better-than-average seats and an impressive cargo capacity, it should have occupied approximately the same space in the market as the Honda Accord or yet-to-arrive Chevrolet Citation. True, Saab ownership may have been considered a mild luxury back home, but the ownership of any car has traditionally been a privilege in cramped, tax-trampled Europe.
In the prosperous United States, the 99’s all-weather capability combined with its obvious non-American-ness to make it a favorite among university professors, architects, and all those people who are universally represented in mid-Seventies advertising by a pipe-fondling fellow wearing a turtleneck and tweed jacket. The arrival of the “Turbo” model added some measure of performance cachet to the mix, and suddenly Saab was a rather hip car to own. With the introduction of long-nosed, better-equipped 99 variant, known as the “900″, Saab’s position as a niche product for comparative-literature professors and the occasional Cannonball Run wannabe was more or less assured.
Sure, as a company Saab had a product-development timetable that might best be described as “leisurely”, but what did that matter when the best carmaker in the world, Mercedes-Benz, only replaced their mainline sedans every nine or ten years? And if comparable Japanese or American cars offered far more in the way of comfort, features, and performance for less money… what Saab customer would ever want to be seen behind the wheel of a Caprice or a Cressida? The truth of the matter was that people bought Saabs — and Volvos, and Audis, and other European cars — less for what they were that for what they were not. As the American dollar fell through the floor in the Eighties, Saab pricing soared and the market responded by demanding better-equipped, even more expensive Saabs. This luxury-car game was an unbeatable scam. It let a small Swedish company sell rather prosaic cars to important people for outrageous prices, and it showed absolutely no signs of ever coming to an end.
Of course, the end came rather suddenly with the arrival of the second-generation Lexus ES. Based on the 1992 Toyota Camry, arguably the best family sedan in history, the ES300 was flawlessly assembled, impressively equipped, priced in absolutely predatory fashion, and backed by a monstrous armada of pretentious yet effective marketing aimed directly at the heart of America’s nouveau riche. The tweed-jacket crowd didn’t cotton to the snub-nosed Lexus immediately — darling, it looks cheap and common — but as tales of the super-Toyota’s relentless reliability circulated through the dusty, crowded Saab service-department waiting rooms, surely more than one assistant dean seriously considered the idea of switching loyalties.
Most importantly, the 1992 ES was modern, based as it was on a new-for-1992 car. The 1992 Saab 900 was based on the 1968 Saab 99, and it didn’t take too perceptive of an eye to see it. Of course, by then, Saab had already fallen into the orbit of cash-rich General Motors, and GM had new product coming. Kind of. The 1993 Saab 900 was based on a 1988 Opel, said Opel not being a very good car. In Sweden, where nobody expected Saabs to be world-beating luxury superstars, it wasn’t such a big deal. In America, the press and the public measured it against competition ranging from the aforementioned ES300 to the spectacular new E36 BMW and found it to be well below par.
The new-generation Saab lineup of 900 and 9-5 (also, sadly, based on an old Opel) didn’t make the cut from the beginning. A more active corporate custodian would have noticed this and taken swift action. GM, however, apparently felt itself to be in the position of a new boyfriend demanding to be serviced in identical fashion to the old. The 99/900 had lasted twenty-four years and sold well from start to end, therefore the new-gen cars would also have an extended model run regardless of the consequences. The 900 was facelifted into the 9-3 and rotted in the dealerships for a decade before being replaced by another Opel-platform mediocrity. Just for the sake of perspective, it should be noted that the 900/9-3 was sold against three generations of Lexus ES, any and all of which were more reliable, comfortable, and practical than the aging Swede. Even staid old Mercedes-Benz managed to field two new C-Class models during the 900/9-3’s extended run. The addition of a rebadged Oldsmobile Bravada as a third model line did nothing to help matters.
Give Saab’s tweed-clad customer base some credit: many of them remained loyal through years of underwhelming product and unmet promises. By last year, however, Saab buyers were nearly as extinct as the passenger pigeon. Just 21,368 Saabs found American homes in 2008. Lexus sales for 2008 were 23,362. By “2008″, I mean December of 2008. And that’s how the story ends: with a whimper. It’s worth noting that the success of Lexus and Infiniti did not really come at the expense of BMW and Mercedes-Benz, both of which have set US sales records in recent years. It came at the expense of American luxury makers and it came at the expense of the second-tier players like Saab.
It would be deeply satisfying at this point to rant about how American consumer-sheep are morons who would buy a rebadged Camry over a sleek, Euro-speedy Saab, but let’s keep it real. American consumer-sheep aren’t so stupid that they don’t prefer a rebadged modern Camry over a rebadged old Opel. The current 9-3 is a relative to the Chevrolet Malibu and — whisper it — probably isn’t as good of a car, overall, as the Malibu. The current 9-5 is a relative to the dismal old Saturn L-Series. In order to continue as a rational human being on this planet, I simply must believe that at some point, the veneer of psuedo-prestige wears thin enough to expose the rotting structure beneath, and Saab reached that point a long time ago.
The Saab story includes airplanes, rally drivers, turbochargers, iconoclastic personalities, and more than half a century of fabulous designs. The Lexus story is this: it’s a Toyota for people too snobbish or fearful to be seen in a Toyota. Saabs have been wonderful, frisky, characterful companions for a very long time. People cry when their Saabs are towed away for the last time. Nobody’s ever cried over a Lexus, except possibly when they received a repair bill for their out-of-warranty second-gen LS400. Saab was real. Lexus is fake. Simple as that.
Or is it that simple? Saab has been a fraud and a fake for nearly twenty years, selling second-rate cars on dimly remembered glories. Meanwhile, Lexus has been continually building the cars their customers want, always fresh, nearly always reliable, always sold and serviced with a smile. Saab’s better future was perpetually around the corner; meanwhile, the next Lexus was completed on time and plopped, Harvest-Gold-colored, on a calmly rotating showroom turntable. Ask any Saab enthusiast about the brand and they will tell you about the 900 SPG, but ask a Lexus owner about his car and he will tell you he likes it. What is real, and what is no longer relevant?
I have a bit of a fantasy, as a former Saab owner and unrepentant fan of the old cars. I dream that Saab comes roaring back under some daring little ownership umbrella, freed to somehow create world-class product on a shoestring and humiliate the Japanese juggernauts on the open road. I close my eyes and hope for a stunning new car that has the spirit of that old 99 Turbo and brings the old virtues to a generation not even alive when the only two turbo cars on the market were the Saab and the Porsche 930. I think of the Saab workers, earning a decent wage and building cars they love, a bulwark against the vomitous tide of look-alike crap from the Pacific Rim, the Asian Tigers, and eventually the open maw of China. I can think about this, and I can smile.
And then I open my eyes to see a Hyundai Genesis gliding by, more Lexus than Lexus, more fake than the original fakers, yet honest and real in the same way the Lexus ES is honest and real. That’s the future. Luxury was always an illusion. Now it is deliberately so. To imagine that future, if I may paraphrase Orwell, imagine a Chinese-made faux-Ferragamo boot stomping on a human face. Plastic chrome, meaningless names, flowery symbols. This is the future, and in that future, Saab is, inexorably and completely, dead.
Ron Carter Saab Gallery by Adam Barrera @ highmileage.org
100% on the mark (marque?).
Excellent piece, Jack.
Back in April 2007 I suggested that Saab's only hope was a radical return to their old way of doing things:
http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=92
I'm still waiting for someone to prove that an intensely-focused, idiosyncratic car maker can be financially viable. Saab makes it clear that a semi-idiosyncratic, semi-mainstream approach that requires volume sales won't fly.
Subaru and Porsche spring to mind.
That's about as intensely focused as it gets, short of some really bespoke outfits like Spyker or Konnigsegg.
Brutally well written, Jack.
Merry Chrismas Jules!
Wow, what a well-written piece! I found myself actually becoming emotional and tearing up a bit! Amazing.
I love Saabs and have had one (twelve in total) since 1983, including 900s, 9000s and even a 96. All 900s were the classic, "real" Saabs. I have a yellow 91 convertible now but frankly I could not afford a new Saab, especially a convertible which is the only one I would want. I almost puked when I heard GM was buying Saab back when, and wondered what in the world they were thinking since with most of their product. You are right–my 91 is really a refreshened old 99, so its really way older than the 19 years its model year would suggest, and that is old enough already (250 K miles!). I hope Spyker can do something last minute, but frankly how can a tiny (and I mean itty-bitty) company like them (or like Koenigsegg for that matter) handle a company like Saab and keep any kind of volume going? I will wait till the deadline passes before mourning, but something tells me I probably will never own another Saab again.
At the risk of redundancy; very well-written and memorable piece.
Excellent piece, but I have to ask: have you driven a current 9-3?
Is it as a good of a car as a Malibu? At MSRP, not a snowball's chance in hell. But here's the rub. Priced at what a real value, one forced by the spectre of imminent demise, there are glimmers of Saab-ism that were unapparent at the sticker price.
Its more than the hoary console ignition, or nightpanel button. No, there is something in the chassis tuning that gives a 9-3 a spirit that almost ALMOST evokes a classic 900 Turbo. The smell of the car, is of course engineered to smell like we think we remember new Saabs smelling in the 80s, as is the tactile representation.
Yet for its multi-national assembly (a 9-3 can't claim to be 50% from anywhere!), old parts bin GM engines, multiplexing and chassis stampings there is something that a Malibu can only covet, and thats the Saab spirit. Perhaps its a result of a handful of men named Bjorn Sven and the like taking a swig of aquavit before they signed off on badge-engineering in Trollhattan, but theres something there.
A Malibu is probably a better car in the same efficient, cold way the Lexus and Hyundai are. But I think thats only when we're paying the price on the tin.
I for one would love to see a new proper Saab: priced and sized like a GTI, quirky, weird, fast, solid and lovable.
I think you nailed it. Saab will be missed, but we all saw it coming.
One brand, in my opinion, that is directly comparable to Saab, is Subaru. In many ways, the two brands are very similar. Both make quirky, niche cars that appeal to a relatively small portion of the car-buying public. But, both seem to enjoy a level of brand-loyalty that can only come from intense passion and enthusiasm for the brand and its associated image, heritage, etc – almost like blind faith. Yes, Subaru might benefit from being a part of FHI, the occasional big manufacturer buying into it, and the definite advantages of being based in Japan. But, it isn't unfathomable for Saab to be capable of doing something similar. And, in the case of Saab, in recent years anyway, its buyers have probably been more interested in being different, rather than in being surrounded by luxury. So, appeal to those buyers who want to drive quirky cars that are just different – not necessarily luxurious. A RWD/4WD platform would enable Saab to build a 9-3, 9-5, 9-4x, and perhaps, even a Sonnett. It never hurts to borrow things from others, as long as none of them are making a finished product like your's. I still can't understand why every car has to be another appliance on wheels. Has the human race moved on from using cars for entertainment and pure driving pleasure?
I see similar parallels between Saab and Subaru – and not just because of the few years' run of Saabarus. I had actually held some hope earlier this year when Saab went up for sale that perhaps Subaru would buy it to gain more of a luxury marque.
Let's not fool ourselves here. Toyota built a bullet proof luxury car from the very start. What's more is that they've done a great job of slowly developing the look of Lexus so that the cars look totally different from the Toyota models. But putting that aside, the cars are absolutely indescribable. My Brother has a 98' ES300 . The car has been used and abused. We just recently replaced the timing belt for the first time… at 270,000 miles. The car runs, drives, and rides like new. So regardless of whatever chassis it might use, the cars are what people want.
The fact is that just about any Lexus will last longer and give more reliable service than any BMW, Mercedes, or any other upscale European car even if the aforementioned Bimmer is 30k-40k more in price. Toyota came to this country with cars and trucks that were initially considered more as jokes and now they are the world's largest automaker. They earned their reputation. My hat is off to them.
The story of Saab is similar in many ways to Buick in China where it enjoys immense popularity. It is one of the best selling import brand cars in the country. Yet in the US they've only now released a model that might hold a candle to Lexus, the new Lacrosse. But in China, Buick is regarded in the same way as Saabs were here- except perhaps even more so.
I will personally not miss Saab. They were never attractive cars to start with. The cars were just plain ugly. Why people bought them I'll never know. Probably just because they were earthy and European – which the Author alludes to.
Someone with insight in japanese automotive-industry said Toyota is now to big for its own good.This makes me think of the one automotive company that recently was what Toyota is now.
This comercial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAaizQr7_uE i think is the first strong sign that toyota is now to big and the management has no clue what is going on out there.
I think the fundamental flaw in GM's business plan for Saab, as Jack pointed out, is that Saab is really not a luxury car brand. GM paid a premium for the company in 1990, and again in 2000, so the only possible way to make that money back was to position Saab as a premium luxury car and charge big MSRP for it.
Jack raised a rhetorical point about the current 9-3, "a relative to the Chevrolet Malibu and — whisper it — probably isn’t as good of a car, overall, as the Malibu". Certainly not when accounted for the difference in MSRP. But in case no one has been paying attention, the 9-3 is routinely heavily discounted and sold in the mid $20k range. Not much more than a well equipped Malibu will go for. And I think that kind of prove the point… Saab 9-3 is a pretty nice car… compared to the Malibu and Camry of the world. But as a pretender for Lexus and BMW money… well, that's the tragic ending.
There is more foolishness and ignorance here than at a meeting of the Republican Congressional caucus.
The writer leaves out the Saab 9000, probably Saab's greatest achievement, because it doesn't fit into his fantasy view of Saab. That omission alone disqualifies this Saab dilettante's ridiculous characterization of what Saab was and is from serious consideration. And I know, it's based on a chassis filched from others. So what? It's the implementation that counts and Saab created a fantastically roomy, remarkably nimble, efficient automobile from that pan.
And why mention Saab's engine management brilliance and what it drew from 4 cylinders and its emission control genius, etc. when your thesis is to crap on the brand? You can't mention any of that in a "fairly unbalanced" ala FOX News piece like this.
Calling the 9-3 a Malibu is laughable, unless you mean by that, that they both have four doors and wheels.
A scenario that paints a ridiculously positive image of Saab and a stupidly simple minded one of Toyota/Lexus is really not worth considering, other than for entertainment purposes.
I know of no serious person, let along serious auto journalist who considered Saab a "luxury" vehicle as drawn by this writer or who considered Lexus as the negative caricature he draws.
I find carving up Saab and/or Lexus or any car brand for one's irresponsible personal entertainment purposes, which is what this flatulent piece is, truly reprehensible and irresponsible.
The Saab 9-3 is and was an excellent car, and far superior in every way to a Malibu, which of course came after the 9-3, which makes the comparison even more ridiculous.
To compare a 9-3 to a soulless Toyota/Lexus, which cannot be had with a six speed manual is pointless. Nice car, but nothing special.
I've been driving Saabs since the early '70s when it was not a luxury car. It was a utilitarian car and a damn good one.
Saab moved to the luxury market or sort of, with the 900 Turbo and that too was a great car, regardless of how it started out, which was as a 99, Saab's worst car ever.
However, the writer leaves out Saab's greatest unique car: the spacious, hatchback 9000 because that blows his whole ridiculous thesis.
In any case Saab has always been an enthusiast's car that's been one part practical, one part sporty, one part well-handling and a tiny part "luxury." No one but the imbeciles at GM considered Saab a "luxury" car. "High performance" doesn't have to mean "luxury" and Saabs were high performance in one regard or another, but never luxurious per se, though the 9-5 when first introduced came closest.
I've owned every model from a Sonnett (lines stolen by Datsun for the 240-Z, to a few 96s and 95s ( I kept a new 1972 96 until 2000), to the older hatchback 900 (skipped the 99 because it was piece of crap), to the newer 900 to the 9000, to the 95 and finally, 3 9-3s.
Yes, GM screwed Saab by not understanding what the company was, by it's idiotic "Born From Jets" campaign, by its failure to fund the new 9-5 properly by it's idiotic Saabaru model and finally by rebadging a GMC SUV a Saab. In that GM ruined Saab, Jack and I are in agreement.
However, the 9-3 Turbo X with Haldex cross wheel drive and six speed manual that I now drive is to a Malibu what "Jack" is to a serious auto critic. What the hell am I supposed to get next if Saab goes under? A Lexus. Feh! An Audi…um maybe. A BMW? Not unless I grease back my hair and start wearing a pinkie ring.
No, Jack. Saab wasn't a luxury car but it excited and fulfilled the needs of a certain group of people who wanted practicality and performance, a bit of status but not "luxury" or snobbery and GM didn't know how to properly serve that demographic….
In many ways Saab was like a very talented musician whose stuff didn't fit into any of the convenient record store genre sorting bins and so was consigned to a dark corner of "miscellaneous."
With no one competent to support it, Saab has become an irrelevant act. The 9-3 should have been a much more successful car in terms of sales and that might have saved the company, but GM didn't know what to do with it. Hell, GM didn't know what to do with the brands it manufactured for decades so why is that surprising?
Hi Michael,
It really sounds like you are angrier with the American right wing than you are with me, but I will try to respond to a few of your comments.
The 9000 — wonderful car, and it was even class-competitive for the first half or so of its thirteen-year life. But in the end it was left to run too long and then it was replaced by something that didn't really cut the mustard.
Is Saab a luxury car? Saab seems to think so, as indicated by the header here:
http://www.saabusa.com/saabjsp/95s/index.jsp
How many 9-3s are actually sold with six-speed manuals any more? When I bought my 9-3 LPT in 2000, I had to search long and hard for a manual shift in dealer inventory.
I think you would find that your Turbo X would struggle to make any significant pace on a modern V6 Malibu. In the quarter-mile, the 'Bu smokes it; around a road course, the Saab might not have enough driveline trickery to close the gap. A Subaru WRX would eviscerate your faux-bad-boy ride. Was that the case when the 99 Turbo debuted? Were Subarus eating Saab's lunch back then? How about Malibus?
Why, exactly, should the current 9-3 have been "much more successful"? It was a quality nightmare on introduction, lagged the competition in every measurable metric, and didn't even have a hatchback. I think every sale Saab got out of that car was a gift from a sentimentalist.
I respect your passion for the brand, but it's worth taking an objective look.
Have your driven a TX? doesnt sound like it, as for a subaru "eviscerating" his "Faux-bad-boy- ride" well my 07 9-3 leaves my friends 08 wrx in the distance up to and over any speed limit we have in this country & can almost hold its own through the twisties and for a FWD does ok.
Maybe you are all talk and no skills behind the wheel?, don't worry though its a very common thing in motoring journalism these days so its ok you have the masses fooled.
Most cars these days are coming auto as the lazy preference for the masses or at least "semi-auto" which still means auto, so that argument is a poor one – go find a manual 6 speed BMW or Audi, you wont easy. Hell even Subaru were only doing auto GT legacy's with no manual option.
The biggest factor is GM "General motors" General .. nothing specific, bland and without direction, like most of their brands.
You keep saying all these things "Saab" did wrong, well they weren't Saab with all the restrictions and lack of support provided to them were they? shift the blame directly to GM – That is where the problem lies, sure Saab wouldn't have survived without them but look at how they had to survive with them? there were few options.
The point of Saab to me is a better option than most similar cars out there these days as i don't want a cookie cutter car like ever other bastard driving around in a GTI golf (or similar), which isn't very big, is over priced in our market in Australia, & isn't fast by any measurement. the same can be said about so many other brands that make uninspiring bland cars for the masses. Look at the BMW 1 series, a waste of space if i ever saw one, small, over priced & a cheap entry point for those wanting to pretend they are someone better than they are when they look down their nose at you in traffic, you'd think they were driving a REAL BMW
Hi Phil,
I think you might want to have your friend's WRX checked for a missing spark plug. In a standard quarter-mile test the WRX is almost two seconds quicker than a 9-3 2.0T and a full second quicker than a Turbo X.
As far as me being all talk behind the wheel, that may be true, but I've also won a few races. Not street races, but real races, with numbers on the door and everything.
I'm not really angry.
I was just being as "over the top" as you are in your writing.
The 9-3 Turbo X is far more comfortable than the Malibu, has much better seats and is far more nimble. There's no comparison. And I really don't care how many people drive stupid automatic transmission cars. I will never drive one so if a car isn't available with a 6 speed manual, I will never drive it.
.As for the Subaru, not my thing at all. For one thing, any car that spelled backwards says " U r a Bus" is not to be trusted. Subaru's styling? Nah. Seats? Nah.
Seriously, suggesting that somehow the Malibu or the Subaru are substitutes for a 9-3 Turbo X tells me you just don't "get" the car….that's fine but don't expect me to agree with you.
If Saab goes under, I will miss it and
I guess the beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but no saab has ever been ugly. Personal lovable
fast cars they on the other hand surely are. Saabs enginen mangement system from 1992 still is better than Bosch equivalent 2009. That says it all in my opinion. In a country were leaf springs and push rods are considered high tech I guess it is pointless to debate why Saab was a good car..
Can you get an ES300 in the US with a manual? No. The whole comparison is flawed from the get-go.
The bottom line is that buyers in Saab's real market are looking for some combination of: import brand status, sporting fun, practicality, and value for money.
Audi and BMW and Infinity and Acura sacrifice on the value for hot-ticket status. Mercedes and Lexus sacrifice the enthusiast to lure the soccer mom, and Subaru and Volvo emphasize practicality at the expense of status. Cadillac (until recently) and Lincoln are poor in all of the categories. Only Saab has the Goldilocks approach.
Just cheap enough, just luxurious enough, just practical enough, just fun enough to drive. Great at nothing, good at everything. It's a shame, really, that a brand that had a modicum of calculated restraint would fail now when it's needed the most — after decades of pathetic 'i'm-a-condo-flipper' upmarket shenanigans are finally on the way out and modesty is back in. Self-closing trunk? C'mon.
Audi, BMW, Acura, and Lexus will pay for their collective one-upmanship. They've built too much car for their own good. No one wants to fork over 45 grand to have an entry-level me-too car. The 90's and 2000's were the perfect two decades for moronic entry-level luxury car excess. A new normal suits Saab. It should survive.
You are 100% correct. For Jack to compare a Saab, even a GM Saab to a Lexus or to a Malibu indicates he simply doesn't get the brand at all….
Saab's issue has always been reliability. Once a brand is perceived as unreliable it is very difficult to remove that image. The funky Saabs of old had unusual engineering that led to reliability issues and a shortage of knowledgeable mechanics that drove up the price of repair. Unfortunately the 2003 9-3 suffered the same fate – fiber optic electrical connections, heat from the turbo, and oil sludge caused no end of owner headache. In the Internet age it is very easy to find the rants of the burned owners. The angry owner is far more likely to post.
The truth is that the current 9-3 is a very reliable car. The GM parts bin has meant a more standard approach to many things and much more testing in product development. Now days much is done by robots no matter what the car – this was Toyota's breakthrough. Robots do not waver and always do things right. Then there is a three year warrantee.
But most of all the very age of the underlying platform is actually a benefit here: everything has been vetted in the field and fixed at the factory in the yearly redesigns. The big issues are always with new models – the latest usually is a little bit experimental until actually released. Consider the Toyota FJ Cruiser and the problems they've had with compression of the frame and cracking.
But it doesn't matter that the 9-3 is reliable. People do not perceive it as reliable because of the Saabs that came before. Add in the unease over GM's backing and its no wonder so little were sold this past year.
Interesting article, although somewhat too negative, I agree about the rebadging, but Saabs where/are so very much improved over Opels that there really is no comparison possible; go ahead and drive them both; totally different in capabilities, ergonomics, quality and especially safety.
Saab has always been good in making something exceptional from limited fundamentals..
And I have more respect for a company like that and the people that stick with them than the snobistic Audi elite or the soulless Lexus crowd.
Welly well written, insightful and entertaining.
How ever the Saab saga ends or continues i can not belive there is no place
for cars like Saab's or others like the Alfa's in the future?. Is the future only about Asian plain soulless copys of the real thing? There are bilions of people in the world and many who where poor is getting rich or middle class. Im sure there is/will be a "handfull" of chinese that will not buy the "chinese BMW" just for what it is! Saab could if it possible survives (and the goods at Valhalla listens) get by with selling 100-120.000 cars a year. Thats not much considered how many intelectual/individualistic/middle class or better off Asians there probably is and will be in the future? Also Asians has a huge weakness for what is "nordic", Sweden has during the last years almost been flooded with mostly chinese midleclass tourists. Touristbusiness is a huge thing in sweden now, the "biggest" business more or less and this has happened in only a few years. I guess im repeating myself somewhat here since im having beers. But what i mean is IF (and yes thats a very big if) saab survives and the buyers has money to develop things the right way for a couple of years i se no reason they would not succeed selling enough of the 70+ year ingenious history -ice-bear-ingmar-bergman cars to get by.
People always focus way too much on reliabilty. Does it really make any difference if your car breaks down every 4 instead of every 5 years when that car has much better seats, better ergonomics, better safety etc..
Reliability is just one aspect of a car. Character, durability and safety are other, more important aspects.
We have an 1981 (!) Saab 900 turbo, never let me down… I'm very sure those boring Asian cars will come nowhere near this age… they'll be gone and turned to dust long before they turn 30 !
Focus too much on reliability? How is that possible? Reliability is what determines your "true cost of ownership". It's what effects the car's value the second you drive it off the lot. Before Saturn went under, it took me months and many price drops to get anyone to buy my 2004 Saturn Vue. Why? Because it is looked at as "unreliable". And it was. Many thousands were spent on repairs, which is why I wanted to get rid of it. On the other hand, I have a 2002 Civic with 100,000+ miles and outside of routine oil changes, tires, brakes, when you add all the money I'll spent on it you get $0.00. Not a penny. That's reliability. I know it's not 30 years old yet like your Saab, but I guarantee I could sell my Civic in a second and get a great price for it because of it's reliability. To me, reliability comes first, then character, safety, fun etc…
So basically, you base your decision to buy a car on how you'll sell it. Never understood the logic in buying a car for someone else.
I wonder how it is that you choose your meals at a restaurant?
Haha, your restaurant comment is great. The average American trades in their car every 42 months. So yes, to most what a car is going to be worth is very important. Like I said, I have a 7 year old Civic without a single dollar paid towards repairs. So reliability to me is not wasting time and money at the repair shop. If I had more money, I would agree with you that character and fun should decide my vehicle purchases though. I'd love a Range Rover, but since I knew I'd be taking that baby to repair shop a lot, I got my wife a CRV instead. Saab's reputation as having quality issues is why I didn't look at them.
Another lousy auto journalist who has no clue what Saab is about and got his head stuck up in Lexus's exhuast pipe.
first off i say fire jack, and hire michael bremer…his post was WAAAAAYYYYY more insightful. i have owned 8 saabs, including my turbo-x now, and i asssure you for the prices i've paid for my saabs over the years NO other car could give what my saabs have given.
For what you paid for your Turbo X, I can find a brand-new car that will dust you around a racetrack. But no other car can be a Saab, the same way no other car can be an Audi or a Daihatsu, so I see where you're coming from. Thanks for reading!
I'ma disagree with Jack a bit on this one.
The US market is big enough, even in this era of contraction, that niche players can manage to prosper if they play their cards right. There will always be significant numbers of iconoclasts who won’t buy a Toyota or Lexus; the continued success and growth of Subaru, Audi, and Volkswagen is adequate demonstration of the point. I’m not convinced that the Lexus ES350 was ever a threat to Saab.
When Saab first arrived on the US market, front-wheel-drive hatchback cars with excellent all-weather/all-road capability, efficient turbocharged engines, and sporting credentials were as rare as hen’s teeth. Saab gained a loyal following because it was truly, completely distinctive in 1970s America and it appealed to the needs and wants of people who weren’t served by many, or any, other brands. By the end of its run in the US, Saab offered three vehicles towards the end of its life – a half-assed Trailblazer-based luxury SUV that actually sold as well as the 9-3, an embarrassingly elderly and not very impressive Opel-based 9-5, and a four-door 9-3 whose Malibu roots sabotaged its A4 ambitions. There was nothing in a Saab showroom that wasn’t offered as part of a much more compelling package by some other carmaker.
Saab was the greatest threat to Saab. Its managers lacked the political acumen to milk the GM for the resources and technology to compete effectively with the competitors that were truly eating its lunch. And they lacked the vision to decide what the brand would bring to the table to maintain its continued relevance in a world where sporty, foreign, FWD cars were no longer unique or even remarkable.
So it wasn't Lexus that drank Saab's milkshake, it was a bunch of other companies and models taking a sip or two. The Legacy and Outback sponged off the snow belt Golden Retriever set, the GTI, WRX, and Mazdaspeed3 peeled off the Viggen buyers, Audi outdid them on luxury and cachet, BMW outdid them on dynamics, the Toyota Prius attracted the tweedy environmentalists, Acura outdid them on reliability and ownership experience, Volvo ponied up with more models, including a half-decent SUV….it was the death of a thousand cuts, as every demographic and group that might have bought and loved a Saab got lured away by another brand that did what Saab did, but better and with more conviction.
My dad is a perfect example – owned four Saabs, loved 'em all. By 2000, nothing Saab was bringing to the table was as cool as the Audi TT, and so he switched to Audi and never looked back. He's in an A4 wagon now – turbo engine, AWD five-door, sound familiar – and loves it.
To the extent that they really attempted to compete with any of their competitors, Saab tried, halfheartedly and a little sadly, to ape Audi, especially towards the end. The rest, they never even tried to resist. Ironically, the stillborn tie-in with Subaru that the Saab fans bitched about so much could have been the best thing to ever happen to them, but it was never to be – the 9-2x was the best Saab the Japanese could build. They could have taken advantage of any of several opportunities to become leaders in fuel economy and low carbon emissions, alternative drivetrains and hybrids, and lifestyle vehicles, but didn’t, choosing instead to gaze longingly up at the luxury tiers.
Now, I’m not even sure what a new owner could do with Saab – Christian von Koenigsegg, the last serious prospective buyer of Saab, made some vague comments about taking it even further up-market, which I found rather unconvincing. It’d be interesting to see Saab dust off its 1970’s plans for a practical steam-powered car, or perhaps bring an efficient hydraulic drivetrain or electric car to market. A remodeled Chevrolet Volt couldn’t have hurt, either, and a 9-4x crossover with the stillborn Saturn Vue plug-in hybrid drivetrain could have joined it. But at some point, enough is enough. Why draw it out? It'd be more of the same sad bull****, as Saab chased after its more accomplished competitors with one leg tied behind its back.
I've driven the Malibu, and my '08 93 Combi is not even a close resemblance. Can you get a Malibu wagon? Turbo? 6 speed manual? Doesn't feel like you're driving a boat? Has a SOUL? Nope. And comparing it to the Camry isn't even close. Of all the cars I've ever driven, the Camry was the most boring by far. Sure it felt like I was sitting in a La-Z-Boy, but that just makes for a boring drive where it's hard to stay awake.
I admit that I can see the cheap, cost-cutting stupidity of GM management and engineering oozing into the 93, but without GM they would have been dead 10 years sooner. I admit that they charge a little more than the cars are probably worth. But, I've also driven Audi/BMW/Volvo, and while nice cars, they certainly were not worth the premium price over the Saab, so I got the Saab.
GM is building nice cars these days. But I will never buy one. I just wouldn't. As a taxpayer, I should get one for free. And every time I look at the dead, useless OnStar buttons in the Saab's dash, I cry a little.
I can't agree with the vehement Saab purists who accuse Jack of being pro-Lexus, because I know that doesn't accurately describe his analysis. Some of the views expressed above are a little venomous and unfair. And that's totally OK. Saab enthusiasts were given a shit deal. They have a right to be angry and grieve.
I spent meaningful time in the 9-3 and Turbo X with Opel's Stefan Weinmann and the ever-gentlemanly late "J-Dub" Vester. The cars were safe, engaging, special, and near the end, a great value. Saabists made covering these cars a joy. Each time I produced a Saab news piece, I could depend on honest feedback from the 'guardians of the brand', some of the most dedicated I've seen. I admire them.
I'm overemotional — the kind of guy that visited a local Saab dealer to pay his last respects. Don't blame Jack. Though it's tough to hear, his analysis is exact. It's up to you to stay close-knit and continue to defend Saab's history. It's up to me to figure out why commoditization is ruthlessly threatening auto culture altogether — and to stop this.
I still remember my first Saab; a 3-door 99 Turbo.. coming from a smooth shifting, boringly reliable but plastiky Mitsubishi this was Pure Adventure… Back then the 145 hp and, more importantly the 235 Nm was still above 85% of all cars on the Dutch roads. The car had not just power, it had 'thrust'; that wonderful feel of increasing acceleration, like an airliner taking off, softly whisteling its jet-like tune..
After that first 1979 99 Turbo many Saab 900s (all turbos ofcourse..) followed.
Eventually I found myself in a Saab 9000 with the 2.3 Full Pressure Turbo, the most exciting car I've ever driving… the turbine like acceleration felt truly immense.. I've driven much faster cars then the old 9000 but never was the way the engine delivered its power so exhilarating; compared to this even the most modern, efficient Japanese V6 is absolutely boring. Combine this with the very aircraft-inspired cockpit of the 9000 (with the dual info displays, room for the extra engine gauges and even the shape of the black push-buttons) and this car made you feel you were flying a LearJet instead of just driving a great car…
Jack is a good storyteller, and he isn't letting the facts get into the way of good story:
1. Yes, SAAB started out like a Chevy. They became popular in the 1970s in the US because of the lack of decent small cars and decent front wheel drive cars in snow country.
2. Yes, they moved upscale in the 1980s. Leather, turbos, wood grained dash. And of course the convertible, which he doesn't mention at all. Or the 9000, which was a real attempt at a luxury car. And the 9-5 is a fairly decent luxury car when it came out.
3. GM isn't a good brand manger. Who knew? I don't think SAAB appealed to tweed owners, but it was clearly a quirky car company that had a lot of appeal. ANd they may be old platforms, but they remained fun to drive. Not superstar fun, but fun. I aways compare SAAB to swedish women, who are temperamental, difficult, cold and yet cute (not hot).
4. GM did improve the reliability, provided a better dealer network in the US, and provided cheap financing. I got my 97 for $150 a month. Most SAAB owners of the past 15 years came into the brand because it was cheaper to do so.
5. I don't Lexus killed SAAB although there is no question it squeezed the idea of luxury in the US. THe US isn't SAAB's only market. If anything, I always though Acura killed SAAB by the death of a thousand gadgets.
Here's what Saab/GM should've done:
1) Market towards hipster
2) Make a hipster car (eco-friendly, ultra-Apple-ish in design, god awful brakes, neon colors, plaid interior, and head room for a 5'9 emo hipster and fedora, and his emo hipster girlfriend and her 10ft tall spiky hair do
3) Make it such that only hipsters would buy it: sell at thrift stores in gentrified areas of previously dilapidated metropolitan areas.
….
4) Profit!
Jack is right, mostly. In general, he's nuts on. The details maybe not so much. The sum of a very similar series of parts is very different in the case of the Malibu v 9-3. I (still) have hopes for some sort of resurrection that brings us something good and different, something that Saab once was.
SAAB vs Lexus … what is Lexus ????? I drive Lexus and SAAB and in SAAB I feel like in the excelent car, in Lexus I feel like in any car. Interior – Lexus has better quality materials but there isn't any climat. It's absolutelly borrng. SAAB has specific climate which can't be compare any other climate. Realibility – I drove 9-5 150,000 km and do nothing except regular steps as mentioned in the car book. Lexus … my wife has to form time to time do something, and I laways smile and say … it's time to buy real car not Japaneese stuf
Pricing … it depends on how much you have. I have enough to pay 50,000-70,000 EUR for SAAB 9-5 Aero with Hirsch or more and I don't care about it. I prefer to pay more for SAAB then for same thing (even a more modern) from other company. My only dream is that SAAB be sold by GM and start to be once again Swedish car. Americans don't understand how to manage SAAB.
Everything SAAB need is: 1/Swedish product should be realy Swedish, 2/More new models SAAB 9-9 should be made (as comparing to A8, BMW7, Mercedes S) 3/ XWD as standard, 4/More new technology as some don by Volvo or Mercedes and BMW (e.g. nightvision) 5/ Total production should reach 150,000-200,000 per year (no more no less) 6/Much better marketing …. and everything be ok
While the MSRP did get ridiculous towards the end ($55K for an Aero vert?), the heavily discounted nature of the brand made them a relative value for buyers looking for a certain type of car. I paid low $30K’s for a 2006 25th Anniv vert that has been fun to drive, looks good and serves reasonably well as a family car. Different story at sticker but very little competion at the actual selling price.
Thank you Jack, it's very refreshing to see you say in your first paragraphs something I first saw in a Japanese car magazine* in 1997, and have understood to be true since. Saabs are not luxury cars. Saab was always more akin to Subaru, except Subaru actually had Nissan's backing and a weaker yen to work with for a very long time. To dictate that Saabs should be luxury cars just because Sweden is an expensive country is just a terrible way of running it into the ground (and perhaps straight out of an MBA textbook too!). But having said that, a nation that adores rebadged Camrys and Idolizes raw speed at the expense of every other charm… does it deserve to experience the old-world charms of some of these cars?
*Mag-X of all places, which the non-Japanese would only know for its scoop shots, but they carry an incredibly honest "review" section. Just saying.
Well I am one very sad SAAB owner. I have only ever bought SAAB and still have my original 96 bought back in 1986. I have had ownership of most of the models SAAB has had to offer over these years always trying to buy the best performance models I could afford (99 turbo, 900 T16S, 900 Carlsson, 900 Talledaga, 9-3 Viggen, 9-5 Aero, 9-3 TurboX).
I agree with Michael Fremer’s comments about his TurboX, this has no resemblence at all to any opel/vauxhall in any shape or form.
The turboX I feel is a real return to form for SAAB and I was hoping was the beginning of some exciting new cars, not as exciting as a Viggen but great fun and involving to drive.
As someone else has already said…. What will I buy now
I found Saab still to be a unique option in the marketplace. Taken for what it is the Saab 9-3 is a car worth considering. I was looking for a fun to drive sedan with room for 4, small fuel efficient turbocharged motor, and manual transmission. I was interested in the turbo but it wasn’t the be all decision maker. I say the Saab should be taken for what it is because when I started looking, the Saab priced in at well below the “Euro/Jap” sport sedans from BMW and Lexus. It was pricing out against the Accord, Camry, Malibu, Altima and Jetta Turbo all with less equipment. Compared against the 4 cylinder models the Saab had more options, more horse power, similar fuel consumption, a similar price, and did not drive like a made for the American masses sedan. Pretty much no contest after that. The Saab then became the rational choice.
The thing is, all the above didn’t matter. I wanted a Saab. Call it any sort of re-badge you want it still has that feel. There is something about driving that car that is like no other. Yes, I sometimes just drive it for the sake of driving it. It would be a true tragedy to lose the company that can manufacture such a product.
Saab's never been relevant in my lifetime.
I love cars, and have since I was little. I even love quirky cars. In 20-something years, I've tried to find a reason to car about Saab, but I just can't. Especially because at the price, there's always something better.
Given my devotion to weird cars, I really wanted to like the current 9-3 wagon (love the tail lights). The 280hp V6 + 6mt + AWD seemed like it would be good slightly bigger replacement for my WRXagon, but at $46k msrp, I think they'd have better luck selling whatever they're smoking. That is a $30-35k car, a Subaru/Mazda/Acura competitor.
I think people are missing the point with Jack bringing up Lexus. He's using the ES350 as an example of what the luxury market became (in reality, not in enthusiasts' minds). The point is, the people who are paying $40-50k for cars are no longer placated by a badge and a price tag and handling that's better than Grandma's Grand Marquis.
Bingo.
Hear, hear, that must be a car review than from a citizen of a country where gas guzzlers are still common and the country side is ripped apart with wide straight motorways. As a quirky European, used to narrow twisty roads in hilly surrounds, I praise the good Lord on my bare knees that I own a little turbo diesel powered Saab 9.3. With the snow showers and frozen roads in this time of year I've been evading the motorways that were littered with crashed cars and toppled over lorries and chose to have my part of fun on the ice and snow covered country lanes. Yes, real FUN on my daily 80 mile commute to work. Over the Christmas period I left the British Isles to visit my relatives abroad, crossed 3 european countries covered with snow with a moderate 70 mph enjoying a friendly 58 mpg(UK) = 48 mpg(US) in countries where we pay an eye watering £1.10/liter = $6.70 /US gallon.
Horses for courses. In our old fashioned continent we do like the special features of specific brands, and on our roads one notices the difference of firmer suspension, better bearings and excellent road feel of cars built for snow and ice. I've driven many cars,on many roads, including the US, and I've been working on cars as well, trying to keep them last long, 15 years+. The building quality of Saab is still very good and it would be a shame to let the engineering excellence of this brand (and the PEOPLE behind it) disappear to make way for the grey mud of disposable mass produced fashion statements.
I really hope that my fellow Dutchmen will manage to persuade GM to let Saab survive. It will never be a competitor for GM in the sense that it will never be a bulk product taking away market share, but we need the small brands to develop innovations and show engineering excellence to keep the big brands on the tip of their toes!
It looks good,I have learn a recruit!Recently,I found an excellent online store, the XX are completely various, good quality and cheap price,it’s worth buying!correctalittle.com
When I bought my new SAAB 96 in 1970, it cost $200 more than a Beetle. It was crushproof, flexible in handling cargo, front-drive to handle the snow, and with the mighty V-4, enormously quicker than its 3-cylinder cornpopper predecessors. The 1977 99 3-door seemed huge in comparison, but it had the needed kid-room and after carrying many tons of firewood it still looks good and moves right out. These were not luxury cars. (I am a card-carrying [retired] academic, but my father wasn't, and he bought the 1959 9-3 because it was mechanically intriguing and seemed like a rational car. It still does.)
Even before GM, the SAAB people moved toward the fancy end. Economically-defensible SAAB ownership requires a Swedish-oriented mechanic and careful used-car purchasing. My 1987 900 3-door carries lots of stuff, and with the 5-speed, AC, and cruise, it's more practical than its decade-older comrade. I got the 1999 9-5 sedan because it was cheap and the body fine; despite the auto it's a comfortable long-distance ride; the 2000 wagon, also cheap, carries really big loads with nicer handling than I'd expect from such a mammoth. Too bad that the 9-5 wasn't widely available with stick, and with fewer bells and whistles.
It's weird to be hoping that the new regime, skilled at ridiculous small-batch supercars, can move back to the original SAAB virtues of agility, ruggedness, and passive safety. The competition is tougher than it was when wallowing deathtraps ruled the roads. Let's hope that the new SAAB can hold on till the really new products arrive.
M. Berger, Youngstown, OH
[...] for now, the Saab remains the same – i.e. mostly dead. One last thing, here’s an interesting reflection on the demise of Saab by AB pal Jack [...]
[...] Another one bites the dust. I’ll miss your commercials. Not sure if I’ll miss much else… [...]
[...] relic the aforementioned – i.e. mostly dead. One terminal thing, here’s an engrossing reflection on the demise of Saab by AB befriend Jack [...]