Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What GM did to SAAB is a sin. An examplar of how GM management took a once great company known for producing quirky, original, innovative, reliable and safe cars that could outrun Porsches and Ferraris in the twisties (once they were already moving) and turned it into Just Another Car Company.

I've been in love with SAABs since I was a kid. I always wanted once instead of the hand me downs I drove all through school. Then, by the time I was in a place where I could buy a new one for myself, GM had already the company, ripped out the soul and had essentially left a shell. At that point, Saab was selling gussied up Saturns. Really, what's it say about Saab when the best performing they sold in the past decade was a rebadged Subaru WRX? When you think about it, that's the closest they actually got to selling a hatchback, too. What does that mean, when Saab didn't have a single example of their iconic hatchback in the lineup?

For years, I had held out hope that Saab would manage to resurrect themselves but I gave up a few years ago. My mom and pop wanted a station wagon/estate as their retirement car and I test drove everything in the Saab lineup. It was sad to see how desperate the sales guys were go move anything off the lot. There wasn't a single thing any Saab did that Subaru didn't do better for 5-10k cheaper. Even the interiors, for which Subaru is notorious for cutting corners on, were about the same. Yet they wanted a BMW price. No. I whittled the prices down on them but at the end of a long shopping process the 9-3 and 9-5 lost on every aspect against every other vehicle I was cross shopping it against. The only things that gave Saab any value to were the front fascia and really nice seats.

These days, Subaru does Saab much better than Saab.

I'm glad they've decided to take SAAB out back to shoot it. It's been sad watching it die.

Word. Until 2006 he had a 1993 black 900 turbo 5-speed convertible, loved that car, but the transmission fell out when he was dropping me off at school -- he had to have me jump at 20mph! :eek:

His car is actually pretty good. I miss the old boxy styling, but it's one of the last ones to have not been muddled with too much by GM.
 
You call them garbage because they get bad gas mileage.

What if you NEED one? And if you can pay for the gas, who cares?
I call it garbage, because it got bad gas mileage and because it was useless. The only purpose it served was to show how small of a penis the driver had.
It wasn't good for off road. Jeep makes a superior off road vehicle that is about half the cost.
It's not a good military vehicle. The IEDs in Iraq have hobbled many a hummer. To top that off, it gave the military headaches in terms of maintenance, etc.

Just because you can afford the gas doesn't mean this car should be on the road. Personally, I think it's this kind of attitude that got us in the mess of people who overextended themselves on housing loans.
 
I call it garbage, because it got bad gas mileage and because it was useless. The only purpose it served was to show how small of a penis the driver had.
It wasn't good for off road. Jeep makes a superior off road vehicle that is about half the cost.
It's not a good military vehicle. The IEDs in Iraq have hobbled many a hummer. To top that off, it gave the military headaches in terms of maintenance, etc.

Just because you can afford the gas doesn't mean this car should be on the road. Personally, I think it's this kind of attitude that got us in the mess of people who overextended themselves on housing loans.

Whoa, slow down. I agree with you in the sense that I believe that there are little to no civilian applications for which the humvee (or its little brothers) are better suited than a lot of vehicles. However, implying that it's "not a good military vehicle" is taking it too far.

The humvee was never meant to be a frontline, toe-to-toe combat vehicle. Its use as such in the past decade should be considered a massive failure in planning and foresight. As it was designed, the only combat arms guys who were supposed to use the humvee in combat were TOW armed cav scouts and ADA. The reason that it was pressed into combat was because there really was nothing else. Well, the South Africans have had interesting protected vehicles for a long time, but that's another matter.

If you design a 4WD vehicle from the ground up to perform the combat functions an uparmored M1114 performs, you invariably end up with a vehicle that resembles the Cadillac Gage Commando. Or if you take a page from the South African playbook, a modern MRAP. Neither of these are terribly good general purpose utility vehicles.

Second, this conception of off-road prowess... When the Army wants a real off-road vehicle, they get a vehicle with tracks, not wheels. Leaving the tracks vs wheels debate aside, the average civilian's concept of off-road capability is very different from the military's. The modern Jeep (CJ/Wrangler) is essentially a recreational vehicle. People buy it to get to or from recreation. Or it's a recreation in and of itself or it's meant to give that impression. People generally don't buy Jeeps as utility vehicles because what makes them great trail runners is also what makes them nearly useless in the modern military sense - they're tiny. And this isn't even touching the broader matter of different applications of 4x4.

As for maintenance. Well, maintenance is maintenance. It's nowhere close to being good, but it's not THAT bad, either. You should see how often a Land Rover Defender is out of service if you think a humvee has maintenance problems.

As a civilian, a Toyota LC78 is a much better choice for just about anything, but then again, you won't be turret mounting an anti tank weapon on it, either.
 
Wow, that's unexpected. Though it's probably the least known brand that they sell, so I guess I can see why they did it.

Thats pretty much exactly what i thought of. Its not like they've made anything truly spectacular in the last 10 years anyways
 
Well good riddance. That brand in my opinion has been dead for ages, I feel like they've been stuck in the early 90's for ages. They're ugly and I think the only reason people buy them is because they are cheap and appear to be a step above a chevy/ford but not an old fart car like a Buick or Mercury.

Next step I think is to nix Buick. No one wants a Buick except for the Chinese (apparently they sell very well in china). They have a connotation with old people cars and lets face it, the brand of a car has a lot to do with someone buys it. Why buy a Lexus when you can get a comparably equipped Hyundai for a lot less, I think its fairly obvious

SAAB- I really hope someone steps in and saves them. I like the brand but they've suffered some issues. First, they never change the styling of their cars, or improve the engines. You can't get away with upgrading headlights, taillights, and wheels, maintain high prices and expect to stay in competition with premium brands. In addition to poor reliability, I think the 9-2x and 9-7x, the 9=7x especially, were complete product failures and delegitimized the brand. Hopefully someone will buy them up.'

Hummer- they were cool when they had just the H1. When the H2 came out in 2003 and gas was much cheaper, they had their 15 minutes of fame. Eventually most people have come to dislike them or just find them completely impractical. Plus for the price of them you could get something much better. The H3 was a good attempt but should have come out much earlier. It's too late for them I think unless someone buys them out. Its a different market now.
 
SAAB- I really hope someone steps in and saves them. I like the brand but they've suffered some issues. First, they never change the styling of their cars, or improve the engines. You can't get away with upgrading headlights, taillights, and wheels, maintain high prices and expect to stay in competition with premium brands.

Porsche doesn't, and they're doing OK. They even admit to being a bit stuck, because they need to innovate, but they also need to continue building "Porsches", and it must be easily recognisable as a Porsche.

Mercedes, VW Golf.


The only problem with Saab is that they don't really have a brain of their own anymore. They need to get people who are passionate about making Saabs, and creating Saabs that improved on previous Saabs. You can have a signature look and style for decades. It appears to work. However, if your parent company is GM, this just won't work out.
 
I call it garbage, because it got bad gas mileage and because it was useless. The only purpose it served was to show how small of a penis the driver had.
It wasn't good for off road. Jeep makes a superior off road vehicle that is about half the cost.
It's not a good military vehicle. The IEDs in Iraq have hobbled many a hummer. To top that off, it gave the military headaches in terms of maintenance, etc.

Just because you can afford the gas doesn't mean this car should be on the road. Personally, I think it's this kind of attitude that got us in the mess of people who overextended themselves on housing loans.

I don't mean afford in the sense of loans, I mean REALLY afford it, and if you for some reason need one. I agree that no one should have one in the city unless....

well, actually, if they want to pimp the sh*t out of a Hummer, why not?
 
I had an '86 Fiero GT with the 6 Cyl Engine and the better suspension, that they put in the car in its final two years.

That thing was a rocket. Completely plastic body panels too.
 
Shuttering Saab is a great move.... Ugliest cars sold in North America and/or possibly the world.

Buick has a pretty big following in LA. Not sure if that extends to other big cities but if the division is making money then there's no reason to nix it in favor of one that isn't. Clearly this is a bean counter and marketing decision. Emotions unlikely had anything to do with it.
 
Shuttering Saab is a great move.... Ugliest cars sold in North America and/or possibly the world.

Buick has a pretty big following in LA. Not sure if that extends to other big cities but if the division is making money then there's no reason to nix it in favor of one that isn't. Clearly this is a bean counter and marketing decision. Emotions unlikely had anything to do with it.

If you think SAAB made the ugliest cars in the world, you haven't been out much.

Buick. The last new car you buy before you die.
 
Who cares? I feel bad for their workers but their CEO's were too short sighted. When was the last cool Pontiac made? Pre-80's?

I haven't ever considered buying a Pontiac or many other ****** American cars. I grew up in a "Buy American" family, but beside Jeeps, we all own Japanese and German cars now. They are much more dependable! My father's Mercedes, the cheapest made at the time, still looks as good and drives as good (even after a 2000 mile road trip) as the 1st month that he bought it 16 years ago. My 13 year old Jeep has been a POS since 5 years after I bought it, and the interior started falling apart and oddly it was covered on my brothers same make, model, and year, but they wanted $1000 to fix mine.

On a side note, I am so sick of these GM commercials that I see on HULU. It is not my responsibility to buy a GM car just because they couldn't foresee gas prices rising and SUVs and big trucks not selling as predicted.

I predicted that since Gulf War I when I was young.

These CEOs should be black-balled for life.
 
While we all have a fondest for those cars of our youth, Pontiac has been dead for a long time. A design revolution seems to have embraced every industry the past 30 years, every industry presents an alternative to "go green." Except Detroit. It's easy to build cars that sell but it takes an imagination that industry lacks.
 
yeah funny how in europe saab has current the reputation of "buying an opel for the price of a BMW"

and it's design: bland and boring... just like toyota and honda with the only exception of the civic hatchbackand of course in terms of sales Saab is already beyond dead with less than 100k sales per year

Since when was the design of the Civic SiR, S2000, NSX, Integra/RSX, Accord Euro R, Prelude, Element, Ridgeline, MR2, Supra boring?

GM is dying because they didn't do their research. They knew this day would come if they didn't put in the time to develop competitive cars for the current market. People aren't buying behemoth trucks and cars with truck engines anymore. Their economy cars are shorted on quality and they outsource majority of their parts from other manufacturers. The general problem with their product lines is they are too quick to take a design and rebadge it with several names to sell more of them. Take for example the Chevrolet Cobalt and the Pontiac G4. SAME CAR DIFFERENT BRAND NAME. You can only get by with this if you sell the two cars in different countries. The Saturn Vue has a motor with no labels because GM made a side deal with Honda to purchase left over Accord engines. Ford also follows the same agenda of business with their Ford/Mercury lineup. Buy a Ford Explorer, or buy a Mercury Mountaineer for 5k more...

American automakers have a bad habit of reusing designs and parts. Their interior parts and climate controls haven't changed since the 90's. They don't do a good job of innovating and adapting to what people need like the foreign automakers have. Their other big downfall is buying up all their competitors. Ford bought Jaguar, Land Rover, Volvo etc. and GM bought Hummer, Saturn, Saab.

The bottom line is if they don't start changing the way their companies work then people aren't going to buy their cars. Everyone bought their fair share of American cars in the past and were dissatisfied enough to buy a foreign car. Unless they do something drastic to persuade consumers to buy by making a car that looks good and last more than 100k miles they will never be successful.
 
Since when was the design of the Civic SiR, S2000, NSX, Integra/RSX, Accord Euro R, Prelude, Element, Ridgeline, MR2, Supra boring?

Yeah, and most of those vehicles are dead or dead cars walking(S2000).

And I can't believe you think the Element and the Ridgeline are attractive.......

GM is dying because they didn't do their research. They knew this day would come if they didn't put in the time to develop competitive cars for the current market. People aren't buying behemoth trucks and cars with truck engines anymore. Their economy cars are shorted on quality and they outsource majority of their parts from other manufacturers. The general problem with their product lines is they are too quick to take a design and rebadge it with several names to sell more of them. Take for example the Chevrolet Cobalt and the Pontiac G4. SAME CAR DIFFERENT BRAND NAME. You can only get by with this if you sell the two cars in different countries. The Saturn Vue has a motor with no labels because GM made a side deal with Honda to purchase left over Accord engines. Ford also follows the same agenda of business with their Ford/Mercury lineup. Buy a Ford Explorer, or buy a Mercury Mountaineer for 5k more...

The deal with Honda was that they would get the honda engine for the Vue, and GM will supply diesels for Honda in Europe. But, the deal is now over and the current Vue uses GM's 3.6 V6.
 
Since when was the design of the Civic SiR, S2000, NSX, Integra/RSX, Accord Euro R, Prelude, Element, Ridgeline, MR2, Supra boring?

I once spent a weekend delivering pizzas in an NSX. I felt like The Deliverator. I got some great funny looks but the best reaction was the guard at Texas Instruments. He thought it was a practical joke and flat out refused to believe me.
 
The Element is probably the most versatile utility vehicle any automaker has made thus far. Have you ever drove/ridden in one or seen the functionality? The Ridgeline is the same. The S2000 isn't "dead", they are revamping the model with another car in the near future. Since you tried so hard to shut down the other models what about the TL, TSX, MDX, RDX Turbo, Accord, Insight, Fit, New Corolla, and Civic Hybrid/Si. Are those too bland for you as well?
 
Yeah, and most of those vehicles are dead or dead cars walking(S2000).

And I can't believe you think the Element and the Ridgeline are attractive.......
QUOTE]

The Element is probably the most versatile utility vehicle any automaker has made thus far. Have you ever drove/ridden in one or seen the functionality? The Ridgeline is the same. The S2000 isn't "dead", they are revamping the model with another car in the near future. Since you tried so hard to shut down the other models what about the TL, TSX, MDX, RDX Turbo, Accord, Fit, New Corolla, and Civic Hybrid/Si. Are those too bland for you as well?

From what I hear, the S2000 replacement is DOA.

The Element and Ridgeline might be versatile, but that wasn't the issue at hand, they are simply not attractive vehicles design wise.

The Accord is only attractive in the coupe model for me( don't like the rear, but can live with it), Civic is not bad, but again only the coupe attracts me, and Fit is neat. Corolla? Are you serious? Corolla is the role model of blandness. Hell, there are ZERO Toyota/Lexus's that attract my attention right now and only the Tc I find good looking. The rest of the Scions are YUCK!. The latest Acura's are ugly as hell. I liked the older models better.
 
Since when was the design of the Civic SiR, S2000, NSX, Integra/RSX, Accord Euro R, Prelude, Element, Ridgeline, MR2, Supra boring?

civic sir ? not available in europe (and not really something which stands ou of the crowd
s2000: some models look good .. others not so much
NSX: give you that
Integra: could you tell the brand without badge ? i don't
Accord Euro R: the Accord, the car for those who can't stand the excitement and risky VW design
Prelude: 1-2 model lines great during the 90 but since then: unrecognizable, exchangable design
Element/Ridgeline: Boxes on wheels
MR2: looks worse than that Opel Speedster
Supra: which again would you say looked good of those ?

sure some nice performing cars under there but in terms of design many simply were/are forgettable.. also indicated by the amount of series which weren't continued

the problem is that there are too few cars from them with any sort of immediate memory effect ...
 
From what I hear, the S2000 replacement is DOA.

The Element and Ridgeline might be versatile, but that wasn't the issue at hand, they are simply not attractive vehicles design wise.

The Accord is only attractive in the coupe model for me( don't like the rear, but can live with it), Civic is not bad, but again only the coupe attracts me, and Fit is neat. Corolla? Are you serious? Corolla is the role model of blandness. Hell, there are ZERO Toyota/Lexus's that attract my attention right now and only the Tc I find good looking. The rest of the Scions are YUCK!. The latest Acura's are ugly as hell. I liked the older models better.


You are basing your entire logic on your own opinions on looks and not that of consumers. Sales are down for all automakers right now but the ones taking the least of the hit are Honda/Toyota. Volkswagen just surpassed Toyota for selling the most Vehicles.

The Lexus IS250 is about the only Toyota product I like. They haven't made a nice sports car since the supra met its demise. Scions are garbage. The new Hondas and Acuras are far better quality than the previous 2001 and up models however I still think the pre 2001 cars were far better. The bottom line here is that these companies are innovating while the American automakers are falling behind. Chrysler has no intent of repaying the money they received during the bailout, GM will probably be 10 years before they make enough profit to start making any payout. The only reason I supported reviving GM was because they knocked off their crackpot CEO and put in a new guy.
 
civic sir ? not available in europe (and not really something which stands ou of the crowd
s2000: some models look good .. others not so much
NSX: give you that
Integra: could you tell the brand without badge ? i don't
Accord Euro R: the Accord, the car for those who can't stand the excitement and risky VW design
Prelude: 1-2 model lines great during the 90 but since then: unrecognizable, exchangable design
Element/Ridgeline: Boxes on wheels
MR2: looks worse than that Opel Speedster
Supra: which again would you say looked good of those ?

sure some nice performing cars under there but in terms of design many simply were/are forgettable.. also indicated by the amount of series which weren't continued

the problem is that there are too few cars from them with any sort of immediate memory effect ...


Civic SiR :was available in Europe. Reference the Civic VTi and Civic Type R which both featured DOHC 1.6 Liter motors with 160/200 hp @8200 RPM's and a stiffer suspension.
S2000: They only had three different models which all looked similar so what on earth are you talking about. The S2k, CR, and Japanese version were all the same looking car. The only things over the years that changed were the bumpers and motor in 2004. That car holds the highest hp per liter efficiency number to this day with 120 hp per liter. It consistently wins awards and tears up autox events worldwide.
NSX: At least we agree on something
Integra: It was the fastest FWD car in the world until the Mazdaspeed Protege. It consistently won best car 6 years in a row in Car and Driver. I fail to see your logic here. I've owned one for 8 years and its been the best car I've owned thus far.
Accord: Its the Acura TSX in the US and the Honda Accord in Japan. It has a K-series motor so whats not to like. Excitement of a VW design?
Supra: The 2JZ was arguably one of the best motor designs to this day. It can withstand 1000+hp beatings repeatedly and the car itself is a classic. Given the MKIII were rather ugly the MKIV was by far one of the best cars of our day.
 
You are basing your entire logic on your own opinions on looks and not that of consumers. Sales are down for all automakers right now but the ones taking the least of the hit are Honda/Toyota. Volkswagen just surpassed Toyota for selling the most Vehicles.

The least hit? Toyota just burned through $9.7 billion in Q1 and sales down 42% in April. Honda posted a 25% sales down the least of the others, but still down pretty big. GM had a 33% sales drop in April, Ford 31%, and Chrysler 48%. So Toyota is only upstaged by Chrysler.

Aren't you basing your logic on your opinion? I hardly hear about people talking about the designs of Toyota's and Honda's. Just fuel economy and reliability/quality. That is where the consumers taste is, not in the design.
 
Civic SiR :
S2000:
NSX:
Integra:
Accord:
Supra:

One of these things is not like the other... One of these things is doing his own thing. ;)

97 was the design high water mark for the Prelude. Then things went all boxy. Even then, the 97 Preludes look like a Civic from behind,
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.