Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The End of SAAB
- Thread starter joepunk
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Do please explain how Saturn sucked? The first Saturn's were successful until the other GM divisions got jealous then in the middle they did languish and the L-Series and Ion sucked and the S-series withered away. The Vue was successful though. But, their latest lineup were actually good cars( I may be biased I like my Aura).
At least Saturn kept its identity until the latest lineup. Saab lost its identity a long time ago with the Saabaru and the 9-7x.
OK, I'll explain.
Saturn was intended to to be an "import fighter" brand for GM. They built a plant far away from their existing infrastructure, the workers had their own (non-union) contracts, Saturn had their own designers, etc. They had some innovative ideas, such as the plastic body panels. They didn't really suck as much as they never did measure up to the competition. The earliest models suffered from weak, noisy engines, poor quality materials, poorly fitting body panels (due in part to the plastic body parts), and other problems. It was nothing really show stopping, but they never really lived up to the quality of Toyota or Honda. That's not to say Saturns were terrible or unreliable, but as I said, they just couldn't compete.
Eventually, GM made Saturn just another division. They moved existing GM personnel in to lead the company, they moved the workers to the same contract as existing employees, and more importantly, the moved away from unique Saturn engines, drivetrains, and designs, to using corporate parts. As I said about Saab, Mazda, etc, GM tried to take a company with a small, loyal following more mainstream, and it failed. I will admit that toward the end, they improved dramatically. GM started using European GM models (Opel) as the basis for Saturn models. The Aura and Astra were very good models, as was the Vue and Outlook. It was just too little, too late.
OK, I'll explain.
Saturn was intended to to be an "import fighter" brand for GM. They built a plant far away from their existing infrastructure, the workers had their own (non-union) contracts, Saturn had their own designers, etc. They had some innovative ideas, such as the plastic body panels. They didn't really suck as much as they never did measure up to the competition. The earliest models suffered from weak, noisy engines, poor quality materials, poorly fitting body panels (due in part to the plastic body parts), and other problems. It was nothing really show stopping, but they never really lived up to the quality of Toyota or Honda. That's not to say Saturns were terrible or unreliable, but as I said, they just couldn't compete.
Eventually, GM made Saturn just another division. They moved existing GM personnel in to lead the company, they moved the workers to the same contract as existing employees, and more importantly, the moved away from unique Saturn engines, drivetrains, and designs, to using corporate parts. As I said about Saab, Mazda, etc, GM tried to take a company with a small, loyal following more mainstream, and it failed. I will admit that toward the end, they improved dramatically. GM started using European GM models (Opel) as the basis for Saturn models. The Aura and Astra were very good models, as was the Vue and Outlook. It was just too little, too late.
Ah much better. Thought you were a typical person that was going to go, " Saturn's were plastic POS cars blah blah blah".
What you said was pretty much correct. The early Saturn's weren't the best compacts in the world, but hey they were selling and the following for Saturn's grew. That was when GM let it be independent and just provide the financing for their development. Springhill was still a UAW plant, but GM got special concessions for that single plant. Then GM's other divisions got jealous( mostly Chevy) and GM then starved Saturn of funding and they let the S-Series languish. The L-Series was mediocre and about 5 years late and the Ion was horrible. Though the 1st gen Vue was a decent vehicle once it ditched the horrible CVT transmission. It was pretty powerful at the time when it got the Honda 3.5 V6 in it as well. But, then GM did bring it into their umbrella and just ruined it further.
As you noted, the poor panel fit was due to the polymer paneling. Have to leave room for them to expand when in a summer/hot climate.
Ah much better. Thought you were a typical person that was going to go, " Saturn's were plastic POS cars blah blah blah".
What you said was pretty much correct. The early Saturn's weren't the best compacts in the world, but hey they were selling and the following for Saturn's grew. That was when GM let it be independent and just provide the financing for their development. Springhill was still a UAW plant, but GM got special concessions for that single plant. Then GM's other divisions got jealous( mostly Chevy) and GM then starved Saturn of funding and they let the S-Series languish. The L-Series was mediocre and about 5 years late and the Ion was horrible. Though the 1st gen Vue was a decent vehicle once it ditched the horrible CVT transmission. It was pretty powerful at the time when it got the Honda 3.5 V6 in it as well. But, then GM did bring it into their umbrella and just ruined it further.
As you noted, the poor panel fit was due to the polymer paneling. Have to leave room for them to expand when in a summer/hot climate.
Ah, for some reason I was thinking they were initially non-union. I do remember that they eventually got moved under the same contract as the rest of GM after griping by other divisions. I think you got it right. The S series was decent, but the first 1.9L engines were underpowered and loud. I also think the average buy saw the panel gaps and assumed poor quality. Most people didn't care about allowing room for the expansion, they just didn't like the look. They also let it go too long with no updates, and took too long to introduce the L series. You need to have a mid-size sedan if you want to compete in a mass market, and they simply waited too long. To make matters worse, it was too small and rather bland. The Ion...the less said, the better.
It was a perfect example of GM's design by committee. Another problem was how to market Saturn. It was supposed to be the "import fighter" for a while. Then they started introducing the Green Line hybrids and Red Line performance editions. Toward the end, it seemed Saturn was headed in the right direction, with the Astra being on the same platform as the new Malibu (actually a pretty good car), and the European Astra. The biggest problem was the price on the Astra. The Vue and Outlook were actually riding on GM's good crossover platforms (the same as the new Equinox and Traverse), and using the new line of V6 engines. Just as things were getting good, GM killed them. See also the Pontiac Fiero, Buick Grand National, and Chevy Corvair.
The same thing also happened to Oldsmobile, another one of my favorite brands. GM never really could figure out how to market it.
Ah, for some reason I was thinking they were initially non-union. I do remember that they eventually got moved under the same contract as the rest of GM after griping by other divisions. I think you got it right. The S series was decent, but the first 1.9L engines were underpowered and loud. I also think the average buy saw the panel gaps and assumed poor quality. Most people didn't care about allowing room for the expansion, they just didn't like the look. They also let it go too long with no updates, and took too long to introduce the L series. You need to have a mid-size sedan if you want to compete in a mass market, and they simply waited too long. To make matters worse, it was too small and rather bland. The Ion...the less said, the better.
Another problem was how to market Saturn. It was supposed to be the "import fighter" for a while. Then they started introducing the Green Line hybrids and Red Line performance editions. Toward the end, it seemed Saturn was headed in the right direction, with the Astra being on the same platform as the new Malibu (actually a pretty good car), and the European Astra. The biggest problem was the price on the Astra. The Vue and Outlook were actually riding on GM's good crossover platforms (the same as the new Equinox and Traverse), and using the new line of V6 engines. Just as things were getting good, GM killed them. See also the Pontiac Fiero, Buick Grand National, and Chevy Corvair.
The same thing also happened to Oldsmobile, another one of my favorite brands. GM never really could figure out how to market it.
As much as I like Saturn( I mean their service was the best. They washed my Aura every time I took it in for an oil change, and when the Aura won the COTY they sent around 5 replica's of the award and I got it
), it had to be done. GM needed to shed brands and Pontiac, Hummer, Saturn, and Saab were bad assets for GM. Some can say GMC and Buick are as well, but with GMC still being a money machine for GM and Buick success in China, we knew those brands were safe. Out of the old GM brands, Pontiac was the only savable unit. I wish GM trimmed down to 3 brands with Chevy, Cadillac, and Pontiac. With Pontiac pretty much equaling Holden and getting the Commodore, Statesmen, and a GTO.
Bloomberg since reports that there apparently other feelers being sent in the direction of GM, so all of you who don't believe in survival of the fittest may just get Saab back yet.
(God preserve us, however, if people go and resurrect even more useless GM units... I'm glad to see Saturn go to the grave, and Pontiac has no place in the modern world....)
As much as I like Saturn( I mean their service was the best. They washed my Aura every time I took it in for an oil change, and when the Aura won the COTY they sent around 5 replica's of the award and I got it
Out of the old GM brands, Pontiac was the only savable unit. I wish GM trimmed down to 3 brands with Chevy, Cadillac, and Pontiac. With Pontiac pretty much equaling Holden and getting the Commodore, Statesmen, and a GTO.
I agree that GM had to shed brands. And, given Saturn's low volume, it was the most likely target. Pontiac was the surprise for me. It had been around for a long time, and had some good history. In the end, though, it was another brand that lost its way. It was supposed to be the "excitement" division, but their products weren't very exciting. Much like Saturn, Pontiac seemed to be getting better with vehicles like the G8, which was a really good sedan. I was surprised that they kept GMC, since all their models are clones of Chevys, but I have read in a few sources that they have pretty good sales in the commercial truck division of GMC, so I guess that's why it stuck around.
Back to Saab: I hope they can work out this deal with Spyker. I'd like to see Saab stick around. I just wonder if such a small company can pull it off.
With the opportunities for tech tie-ins and so forth, I think more than ever, the idea that massive economy of scale is necessary to succeed in the auto industry is a mythology. BMW and Honda continue to do extremely well going solo.
But I think the problem is the mentality of these individuals who try to take over car companies -- Kerkorian and Cerebrus, all these little minor companies here and there buying up GM pieces. I don't think they have the consumer focused acumen to make the company work. I wrote marketing in that sentence, at first, but it's really not a marketing issue. GM's problem with all these units is that they do not understand their potential customers, and so they make cars few people want and incentivize them to sell in sufficient quantity to stay afloat. This is better than Chrysler's approach of making cars no one wants and then using incentives to convince people to sacrifice their standards for them. But it's no way to run a business.
I would seriously be concerned that Spyker or Stryker or whomever they are, can provide real leadership for Saab, and I can't see them getting out of this pit without it.
BMW and Honda aren't exactly small scale The Accord alone often sells 300-400k units a year. But I see your point. There is no need to be part of a huge conglomerate like GM or Ford. Then again, given all the industries Honda is involved with, they could be considered one.
Anyway, the marketing thing is one part of what I was talking about. It's one thing to sell a few $100k+ high end sports cars, but can they handle selling a higher volume (relatively) mainstream brand? I'm sure the plan would be similar to what they offered to Penske: GM builds units for a couple of years, then the new owner takes over. The question then becomes can such a small company invest into the R&D for new drivetrains, platforms, etc? Can they afford the market research and marketing efforts? It boils down to the problem Saab (the aircraft company) and GM had: Can they or will they devote the resources needed to make it a successful brand?
Speaking of Chrysler: Was anyone surprised they went bankrupt again? Their cars have been terrible the past few years. I mean, the 300 is good, and a couple of Jeep models are pretty decent, but their mainstream car lineup has been terrible. I really wonder if even Fiat will be able to save them.
Not very surprised either. Chrysler's pipeline sucks where at least GM has very good vehicles in its pipeline. The new vehicles that are acclaimed by the media( Equinox, LaCrosse, SRX) are all old GM vehicles. Chapter 11 was necessary for them to get their financial situation taken care of( debt, UAW contracts, etc) and get a management shake up. Only Bob Lutz remains from the old GM( now Motors Liquidation) management.
But, Chrysler I think was saved until the economy is healthy enough for them to go under. I do not see them surviving.
But, Chrysler I think was saved until the economy is healthy enough for them to go under. I do not see them surviving.
ROFL
Love my Subaru Baja here - and when it goes to Subaru heaven in 10 to 15 years I will get another Subaru.
A ray of hope; I'd love to see Saab able to continue, as they are a really stylsih, elegant and well-made car.
Cheers
I'll preface this by saying I have no intention of ever buying a Saab, but take interest in them as a car-nut and appreciator of car design.
Far too many old marques are being sold overseas and end up in Asia or simply die, so I hope that Saab survives, pried from GM's moribund fingers and owned by Swedes preferably. They certainly need to re-tool the whole company into something that they can make profitable. The 9-3 and 9-5 seemed to be selling in solid, if somewhat massive, numbers. But enough to keep the company going if they are careful.
I still wish that the FIRST GM brand to go was Buick. I wish it would just go away.
I'm pretty happy with my Forester, though I've always made it a point never to buy the same car twice. But Fuji Heavy Industries certainly builds a good car.
Far too many old marques are being sold overseas and end up in Asia or simply die, so I hope that Saab survives, pried from GM's moribund fingers and owned by Swedes preferably. They certainly need to re-tool the whole company into something that they can make profitable. The 9-3 and 9-5 seemed to be selling in solid, if somewhat massive, numbers. But enough to keep the company going if they are careful.
I still wish that the FIRST GM brand to go was Buick. I wish it would just go away.
Chip NoVaMac said:
I'm pretty happy with my Forester, though I've always made it a point never to buy the same car twice. But Fuji Heavy Industries certainly builds a good car.
The Japanese domestic car manufacturers have been a weird setup for a while now. At some point, the major companies have owned shares of each other, and many still produce things that might seem out of place. Toyota still makes automated looms, Yamaha (while not a car manufacturer explicitly) makes a wide variety of instruments, including some damned good trumpets, trombones, and euphoniums, etc. etc.
The number I've heard is that Saab sold 93,295 cars, total, across all models, internationally, last year. I'm not sure how that would be considered massive?
Meanwhile, it looks like Beijing Auto's deal to spend $200M and acquire platform and powertrain technologies (which I take it to mean would require new Saabs from Spyker to be engineered basically from the ground up, or off of non-Saab platforms?) has been worked out in more detail, and the talks with Spyker are ongoing, with no deadline set at this time.
Right you are - I'm not sure what the heck I was saying there...I meant to say "solid, if not massive numbers."
I still think those sales would be enough to keep a company afloat if it focused on surviving as a small company...but it's certainly not a lot of sales. The Ford Explorer alone sells more than double that number of vehicles per year...
On a slightly related note, Volvo has been sold to China.
It's becoming quite a trend.
That's what I heard before, but the reports I've seen from today heralding the finalization of the deal don't mention it... it makes sense that it's still the old stuff being sold, though.
I don't know. That's an interesting question... I mean, I don't think that companies need Ford/GM/VW/Toyota economy of scale to survive. But at 100,000 vehicles, I would think at minimum, they would have to:
- Use a single vehicle platform (like Mini... for that matter, it looks like Mini's 2008 annual global volume was around 230k units, for comparison) off of which a global car gets built
- Probably have to platform share with someone and possibly do manufacturing at a JV
- Probably start with a single model and slowly work their way up slowly
- Create something differentiated
Yeah, quite. I think Volvo for comparison is selling some 350-500k cars per annum. It's curious... it's increasingly sounding like Geely wanted the technology rather than having a vision for the brand. We'll see what they do. I like Volvo a lot more than Saab, so I'd like to see it survive, but I'm not sure. I think Volvo has too many models, too, especially without being part of Ford.
Saab could potentially retreat to a Europe only brand for a few years, that should lower their costs as they don't need to build & ship finished products & spares around the world, and overall although they will cut off some sales numbers it isn't all bad. If they lose say 30,000 sales a year spread over 15-20 (non Euro) countries how much money is spent trying to gain those sales and how little profit do they see? Go with 50,000 sales in Europe only and be more profitable, redo the product line and then expand again around 2015.
If I remember correctly I think Saab has had around 750 sales in Australia this year. It is nice to be there but they really don't achieve much by getting those sales.
If I remember correctly I think Saab has had around 750 sales in Australia this year. It is nice to be there but they really don't achieve much by getting those sales.
I dont think SAAB could exist as a Europe only brand - I read somewhere that their biggest markets are Sweden, UK and USA, and even then they are niche markets. If they abandoned the US their sales would be tiny.
I dont understand why GM didnt merge Saab with Opel early on. Saab could have been Opels premium marque whilst Saab could have expanded their line-up from a miserly 2 models (and maybe the replacement for the 13 yr old 9-5 wouldn't have been such a farcical endeavor). A wasted opportunity.
I concur about a single platform. Saab should go back to basics and focus their business model on the 9-3 and to a lesser extent the 9-5. That's why BMW is NOT being sold to the Chinese.
I agree about Volvo having too many models - I was looking at their SUV lineup and I find it baffling.
As for the Chinese, I think most of them are buying brands like Volvo and SAAB for two reasons:
1. To get their hands on the technology in order to incorporate it into Chinese domestic design/manufacturing capability.
2. To further expand Chinese business endeavors in Europe and North America.
I agree about Volvo having too many models - I was looking at their SUV lineup and I find it baffling.
As for the Chinese, I think most of them are buying brands like Volvo and SAAB for two reasons:
1. To get their hands on the technology in order to incorporate it into Chinese domestic design/manufacturing capability.
2. To further expand Chinese business endeavors in Europe and North America.
