how i would fix Saab

[cavalier36]

here is how id fix Saab..

9-1.. this would be a hardtop coupe model derived from the kappa platform.. it would be a two seater.. this would be simular to the solstice but they would only share doors and the windshield with that car.. it would be built alongside the solstice and sky in wilmington del.

9-2.. current subaru based model would die after the 2007 model year..

9-2.. this would be sold as a four door sedan and a 5 door wagon, in essence it would be a reskinned Chevrolet Cobalt, it would only share the underbody, windshield and roof with the cobalt sedan.. there would be no stripper model.. it would be built alongside the cobalt and G5 in Lordstown Ohio.. a few thousand a year would be exported to europe..

9-3.. the current model is fine.. it will be replaced by a new epsilion platform model in 2008/09, would continue to be assembled in sweden.

9-4.. would be a small Suv built on the theta platform.. would be a reskinned next generation Saturn Vue..

9-5.. this would move to the RWD sigma platform.. it would be a next generation reskinned Cadillac CTS.. although no exterior body panels except the roof would be shared with the CTS.. would be built in Lansing Mich..

9-6.. would be a reskinned Saturn Outlook. be assembled in delta township mich.

9-7.. would die after the 07 model year..

[FAPTurbo]

A 9-2 on the Cobalt Delta platform? I dunno, but I don't see it happening.

I know Volvo is coming out with that little C30, but that's based on the Focus/Mazda3 frame, which is very sporty and class leading.

I wouldn't go so far as to calling the Cavalier, I mean, Cobalt frame, class leading, and I doubt that many people would put money down on a Cobalt with a centre mounted ignition, and stacked air vents.

That money would be better spend on upgrading the Cobalt.

[Imaj]

I believe that the 9-5 should continue to be FWD but with an AWD version and built on LWB Epsilon II and somewhere in Europe, Sweden hopefully.

BTW, the next 9-2 should be built alongside the Opel Astra in Europe.

Other than that I like your thoughts..

Edited June 11, 2006 by Imaj

[91z4me]

here is how id fix Saab..

9-1..  this would be a hardtop coupe model derived from the kappa platform.. it would be a two seater.. this would be simular to the solstice but they would only share doors and the windshield with that car.. it would be built alongside the solstice and sky in wilmington del.

9-2.. current subaru based model would die after the 2007 model year..

I thought it was already dead?

9-2.. this would be sold as a four door sedan and a 5 door wagon, in essence it would be a reskinned Chevrolet Cobalt, it would only share the underbody, windshield and roof with the cobalt sedan..  there would be no stripper model.. it would be built alongside the cobalt and G5 in Lordstown Ohio.. a few thousand a year would be exported to europe..

Sorry Delta with its twist beam rear suspension would get a really bad reputation for handling, deserved or not, in Europe. The next 9-3 is likely to ride on the global compact car platform that GME is developing for the next Astra/Saturn Astra, which will be shared with the US Cobalt.

9-3.. the current model is fine.. it will be replaced by a new epsilion platform model in 2008/09, would continue to be assembled in sweden.

I thought the current 9-3 was built somewhere in Germany with the 9-5 being the only SAAB built at their Trollholland(sp) plant.

9-4.. would be a small Suv built on the theta platform.. would be a reskinned next generation Saturn Vue..

Actually it will be a re-skinned Caddy BRX and will be on Theta premium/Theta Epsilon. It will be built in the states.

9-5.. this would move to the RWD sigma platform.. it would be a next generation reskinned Cadillac CTS.. although no exterior body panels except the roof would be shared with the CTS.. would be built in Lansing Mich..

Sorry but SAAB is FWD it is a defining brand characteristic. Unmatched FWD handling and performance is essential to SAAB, why the 9-7x get blasted a lot. The next 9-5 will be EPII based and should have AeroX styling thoughout.

9-6.. would be a reskinned Saturn Outlook. be assembled in delta township mich.

Might be good for the states but would be to wide for Europe.

9-7.. would die after the 07 model year..

I think the reaper is already working on this.

[balthazar]

The immense problem with a 7-model lineup --besides the fact it follows the very formula GM is near unilaterally criticized for: too much platform overlap-- is that saab never has nor never will have the appeal to support that much development dollar.

Make saab a 3-model line and make them the best possible, heighten the percieved attributes that make them 'saabs' and accept the fact that it will only ever be, at best, a limited volume niche brand.

Me; I vote for firesale- the money lost would be far better spent elsewhere. And no- I don't care how much or how little that amount is.

[stickmax]

I don't think a larger SAAB line would automatically be a failure. Look at what Ford has done with Volvo. cavalier36's idea are very similar to my own exept for using Kappa and RWD Sigma based vehicles.

Certainly:

9-1 sedan, convertible, 3-door hatch, 5-door hatch and wagon on next generation Delta

9-3 sedan, hatchback sedan, convertible, and wagon on short-wheelbase Epsilion

9-4 SUV on long-wheelbase Theta

9-5 sedan and wagon on long-wheelbase Epsilion

9-6 SUV on Lambda

Possibly:

9-2 SUV on compact or short-wheelbase Theta

9-7 sedan on Chi or AWD only Zeta or Sigma

Sonnett roadster, coupe, and shooting brake on Gamma or Delta

[Northstar]

The immense problem with a 7-model lineup --besides the fact it follows the very formula GM is near unilaterally criticized for: too much platform overlap-- is that saab never has nor never will have the appeal to support that much development dollar.

Me; I vote for firesale- the money lost would be far better spent elsewhere. And no- I don't care how much or how little that amount is.

That money would be better spend on upgrading the Cobalt.

I couldn't agree more, and this is why I see no need for Saab in the GM line. If it is kept to only the 9-3 and 9-5 I won't whine too much, but Saab SHOULD NOT be expanded until it can prove there are the seeminly endless amount of people that want a Saab as GM seems to think there are

Rather than giving Saab a Kappa, give Chevy the Nomad. There's an extra 75k sales rather than 15-20k.

Rather than spending money on a 30-40k/year 9-2, give the Cobalt better materials and make be at the top of its class. There are a lot more sales that the Cobalt can conquest if it's class-leading than a 9-2 could ever hope to garner.

Rather than giving Saab the 9-4, give it to Buick. It would be the perfect replacement for the Rendezvous, which was really just a 5-seater in most cases anyways.

And finally, rather than giving Saab a 9-6, spend the money on making the Chevy Lambda better.

I will expand on this later.

[Imaj]

The immense problem with a 7-model lineup --besides the fact it follows the very formula GM is near unilaterally criticized for: too much platform overlap

Yup, you are right.. SAAB, Pontiac, Buick & GMC should be focused brands with no less than 3 vehicles and no more than 4. Five would be stretching the brand too far.

SAAB should be grouped with Cadillac to cover the entry level so Cadillac don't have to go below the CTS.

[enzl]

Yup, you are right.. SAAB, Pontiac, Buick & GMC should be focused brands with no less than 3 vehicles and no more than 4. Five would be stretching the brand too far.

SAAB should be grouped with Cadillac to cover the entry level so Cadillac don't have to go below the CTS.

Saab & Caddy are already paired in Europe, in many places...Saab is still considered premium in many circles (worldwide) and, apparently, has good 'psychographics' and, not unlike Saturn, was assured a place in the GM firmament when the Olds death was such a bloody one.

I'm not sure who would buy Saab, if the co. was offered, but I suppose the Chinese might be tempted at some point....

I was in a 75k 01 9-3 for a few weeks and I enjoyed it despite my misgivings about the scary build quality and the torque steer from hell....

Three models with premium derivatives should be the max model line-up....I guess we'll see how the General handles things...

[balthazar]

I don't oppose a 'pairing' of saab & Cadillac in overseas dealerships, but please God: no actual product 'pairings'.

[ToniCipriani]

Saab Kappa RWD = Big No.

[cavalier36]

Saab does need some sort of "halo" vehicle.. maybe a sports car or some sort.. it would be ok for it to be a Kappa if it was a hardtop coupe.. and only shared the doors and the windshield with the Solstice.. given the right styling this car would probably sell in decent numbers..

the current 9-2 wasnt that much of a sales success, but there will probably be some sort of replacement.. now im not sure if a rebodied Cobalt would be the answer.. by the time this car was brought to market probably 08 or 09.the cobalt would be nearing the end of its life cycle.. the Cobalt will probably be redesigned for the 2011 model year.. the Cobalt will probably see some "mid cycle changes" for 08 and/or 09.. of which is hopefully an upgraded interior..

Saab will probably however recieve a version of the Lambda crossover.. but it needs to be really diffrent in styling compared to the saturn and GMC versions..

like no shared body panels except for the roof and the doors..

we probably wont see a new 9-3 until 2009.. it will be based on the epsilion platform again..

a new 9-5 could be based on the sigma or zeta platforms, but if they wanted to stick with FWD it would almost have to be based on some sort long wheel base epsilion..

[balthazar]

Saab will probably however recieve a version of the Lambda crossover..  but it needs to be really diffrent in styling compared to the saturn and GMC versions.. like no shared body panels except for the roof and the doors.. 

I disagree: if, for budgetary reasons, one of the 3 Lambdas has to be more 'badge-engineered' than the other 2- that version should undoubtedly go to saab. Less volume, less retail outlets. Saturn & GMC have far greater exposure & relevence to the consumer.

In matters of multiple product/same platform, budgetary restrictions should never be placed on the core divisions over the secondary divisions. Prime Directive #1.

[pow]

Saab will probably however recieve a version of the Lambda crossover..  but it needs to be really diffrent in styling compared to the saturn and GMC versions.. like no shared body panels except for the roof and the doors.. 

I disagree: if, for budgetary reasons, one of the 3 Lambdas has to be more 'badge-engineered' than the other 2- that version should undoubtedly go to saab. Less volume, less retail outlets. Saturn & GMC have far greater exposure & relevence to the consumer.

In matters of multiple product/same platform, budgetary restrictions should never be placed on the core divisions over the secondary divisions. Prime Directive #1.

Since when was Saturn a core division?

[Northstar]

Since when was Saturn a core division?

Since about 6 months ago. Saturn is becoming a full-line like Cadillac and Chevy, only it's between the two. In today's market, you can't have full lineups in steps, but the market allows you two have a bottom end full-line, mid range full-line, and luxury full-line, and that's what Chevy, Saturn, and Cadillac are all doing. Buick, Pontiac, Saab, and Hummer all fill in niches from now on.

When Saturn has the Astra, Aura, Outlook, VUE, Sub-Theta, and SKY, they'll pretty much be a full-line lineup. If they get the Corsa and the Zafira they'll have 8 models; Honda right now has 8 models.

[Sixty8panther]

Before Saturn was branded the new Buick-Opel, before the HUMMER

deal was made, before they sold Subaru & wasted billions on FIAT....

GM should have dropped SAAB like a bag of rocks. Sell it to BMW, or

DCX or Ford, screw SAAB they're not doing anything positive for GM.

[91z4me]

... screw SAAB they're not doing anything positive for GM.

They likely provided key technology and turbo experience for the 2.0 T DI Ecotec, helped engineer Epsilon to the highest safety standards. They also helped with the development of the 2.8 T V6 that powers the 9-3, Caddy BLS, and other Euro caddies. SAAB is something to keep around (even if only in Europe where it sells quite well.)

[balthazar]

GM had boatloads of turbo experience before saab entered the picture. Correction: before saab entered the U.S. market.

[91z4me]

GM had boatloads of turbo experience before saab entered the picture. Correction: before saab entered the U.S. market.

How many turbo models did GM NA have since 1992, prior to SAAB becoming theirs? Remember that engineers are not around forever.

[balthazar]

None of the engineers that developed the 1914 Cadillac V-8 are still alive either. What would that have to do with the Northstar? Once a tangible item is designed, built, tested & produced, why would the original engineer be necessary? Subsequent engineers can easily look at previous technical data and actual examples and start from there, if neccessary.

Point being: saab brought GM little to nothing on turbocharging.

BTW- GM bought half of saab in '89 and the other half in '00.

[91z4me]

None of the engineers that developed the 1914 Cadillac V-8 are still alive either. What would that have to do with the Northstar? Once a tangible item is designed, built, tested & produced, why would the original engineer be necessary? Subsequent engineers can easily look at previous technical data and actual examples and start from there, if neccessary.

Point being: saab brought GM little to nothing on turbocharging.

BTW- GM bought half of saab in '89 and the other half in '00.

SAAB builds some of the best Turbo engines in the world and you are saying they brought NO tech to GM? So you are saying that the 2.3T 4 cylinder that dates back to the 80s and still in production and making 260 hp is not high tech? The 2.0T DI Ecotec is just now making 260 hp and has a lot of new stuff compared to the old design SAAB 2.3. But your right SAAB is NOTHING they have NO tech of their own. Their talent for interior and exterior design, turbo expertise, and safety engineers weren't distributed through GMEurope's studios at all. They are and were nothing because only GMNA matters and designs everything. Perhaps thegriffon should come in here and educate you a little about what value SAAB has.

[balthazar]

I'm saying there is no evidence that saab's turbo experience contributed anything to any non-saab GM turbo engineering AFAIK, and that GM already had realms of turbocharging experience to draw on, Period.

I did not address the level of quality in saab turbo engines or engineering department anywhere, whatsoever, Period.

Unfortunately & erroneously, the general perception is that GM finds all it's 'good tech' from 'outsiders'. saab may well be competent, but no one bothers to give the core GM any credit for anything anymore- the automatic assumption always is: 'GM has a great turbo engine now- must be thanks to saab.'. Forget saab- go look into GM's past and learn about GM's value here.

Add supercharging to your assignment while you're at it. I'm sure GM learned all about that abroad and didn't once consult their own 60 years of experience there, either.

[pow]

...the automatic assumption always is: 'GM has a great turbo engine now- must be thanks to saab.'. Forget Saab- go look into GM's past and learn about GM's value here.

But it's true. The 2.0 DI turbo 91z4me refers to is a Saab engine.

[91z4me]

I'm saying there is no evidence that saab's turbo experience contributed anything to any non-saab GM turbo engineering AFAIK, and that GM already had realms of turbocharging experience to draw on, Period.

So your telling me that engineering tests and results from 30+ years ago are just as important and as acurate as those from 5 years ago with all the advancements in technology?

Unfortunately & erroneously, the general perception is that GM finds all it's 'good tech' from 'outsiders'.

Nope GMNA powertrain engineers are the masters of OHV engines. Their OHC larger V6s are quite good BUT the 4 cylinders are better left to those with more experience and modern data, engineering practices for those particular designs, GME and Daewoo.

saab may well be competent, but no one bothers to give the core GM any credit for anything anymore- the automatic assumption always is: 'GM has a great turbo engine now- must be thanks to saab.'. Forget saab- go look into GM's past and learn about GM's value here.

Sorry but engineering data and results from decades ago in turbo technology do NOT equal modern engineering experience and data!

Add supercharging to your assignment while you're at it.

No I don't need to include it because while there are some similarities they are different technologies. Superchargers are linear in their power delivery due to design. Turbos are not linear in design they are more of an exponetial or logrithmic air flow curve. And since you didn't know that I am sure that you didn't know that GM's superchargers are designed, engineered, and built in conjunction with outside vendors (with more experience) in supercharges!

I'm sure GM learned all about that abroad and didn't once consult their own 60 years of experience there, either.

Actually I sort of explained part of GM's supercharger experience above but lets remember that the bulk of GMs roots supercharger experience is rooted in the old Detroit Diesels, which GM owned at the time. Really besides the L67, gen I, II, and III and the new supercharged N* GM hasn't made many modern supercharged engines. Also when you look at the modern turbo history, with the exception of SAABs, there were outside vendors involved in almost all of it. The GNX had modifications done but (PAS I think), the TTA used PAS, the Grand Prix Turbo from 1989-1991 were McClaren built and installed, the Turbo Sunbirds were GM Brazil engines not GMNA.

The Duramax is a Izusu/GM joint venture so you really can't say that is all GM, it would be like saying the Cummins diesel in the Ram is a Dodge when it really isn't.

So where is all of GM's turbo experience after 1985?

[Aerodynamic]

hahahaha this thread makes me laugh.

The 9-2x is not in production after the 06 model year. They f@#ked up joining with subaru to build the 9-2x (and thats all GM's fault) It came out being a sweet car though. Personally i thought it was way better then Subaru's version of it. It was classyer looking and the different weight distribution saab added to it made the whole car handle and stick to the road way better then the subaru's did. They should have never ever made a non aero 9-2x though because no one wants a non-turbo saab, especially when its just a re-badge of another car.

Saab is a FWD car and speaking for most, if not all saab tuners we wish that they would have made our cars in AWD, but then they would be a completely different car and my car would NOT be the car that i own and love to tune. The weight with AWD on a 9000 like mine (the model the 9-5 evolved from for those who dont know) would have ruined the car. Theres nothing wrong with a 5dr car weighing over 3,000lbs that can out accelerate a ferrari testerosa and a porche carrera 4 from 60-100mph stock. FWD or not, saabs are an impressive car. Saabs dont need to be AWD, there are other brands, like subaru to cover that.

The problem with all of you, and all of GM is that you want to have 20 brands all with a line of products that are close if not exactly the same vehicle. Saab does not need a full line of AWD cars like subaru. They do not need a full line of SUV's like cadillac.

What saab needs to be is left alone. They are quirky turbocharged cars that can be used as a large family car or a fast sports car. They dont need more products, they need better advertising. Why dont they advertise on the turbo? Why dont they advertise on safety when volvo markets there safety, and saab is proven safer. Why dont they advertise on interior space? Instead were advertising on our "born from jets" BS? who cares what we built before cars, sure it influenced design a lot and its an awesome story but thats no way to sell cars.

but thats my two cents. Own a saab and love it and you will understand.

-Kaylan Marie

:AH-HA_wink:

[CaddyXLR-V]

Nope GMNA powertrain engineers are the masters of OHV engines.  Their OHC larger V6s are quite good BUT the 4 cylinders are better left to those with more experience and modern data, engineering practices for those particular designs, GME and Daewoo.

GME is GM, one in the same. Perhaps you were talking about different regions of GM? It's still not like GM is relying on outside help to develop 4cyl engines.

It would only make sense that GME would have more experience with smaller engines, since there are higher taxes for higher displacement. GMNA would have more experience with trucks, and small block v8s.

Edited June 19, 2006 by CaddyXLR-V

[91z4me]

GME is GM, one in the same. Perhaps you were talking about different regions of GM? It's still not like GM is relying on outside help to develop 4cyl engines.

It would only make sense that GME would have more experience with smaller engines, since there are higher taxes for higher displacement. GMNA would have more experience with trucks, and small block v8s.

Right but I am talking about the 'homeroom' design and engineering theory. Like how Holden, also a part of GM, is the RWD homeroom.

[balthazar]

91z4me= >>So your telling me that engineering tests and results from 30+ years ago are just as important and as acurate as those from 5 years ago with all the advancements in technology?<<

The basic principals & components of turbocharging have not changed dramatically in many decades. Primary advances have been in secondary systems (electronics) and minor incremental improvements such as seals, bearings & materials.

>>Sorry but engineering data and results from decades ago in turbo technology do NOT equal modern engineering experience and data!<<

Don't get all hung up on 'newer is better'. Turbochargers are NOT modern in the least. But the point was that the elementary research was done & implemented beginning long before saab wheezed onto the scene.

BTW- the 9-3 aero is only just approaching the power levels of the GNX almost 20 years later, and with VVT and other gimmicks.

>>...lets remember that the bulk of GMs roots supercharger experience is rooted in the old Detroit Diesels, which GM owned at the time.<<

GM's supercharging experience dates much farther back than then.

>>The GNX had modifications done but (PAS I think), the TTA used PAS, the Grand Prix Turbo from 1989-1991 were McClaren built and installed, the Turbo Sunbirds were GM Brazil engines not GMNA.<<

Translation: 'GM couldn't do it if they wanted to'.

Get ready....

GN/GNX engines were developed in-house by Buick Special Products Engineering. ASC/McLaren handled body modifications & pre-delivery testing/inspection (including chassis dyno-testing), but they never installed or opened a motor.

TTA used left-over GNX-spec motors with slightly better heads, slightly slower turbo & no speed governors. They were faster than the Corvette in '89.

If I had facts on hand regarding the SC GP, I would address that charge, but when I do not, I don't. But I am wondering if ASC/McLaren did much of anything engineering-wise on the SC GP when they did much of nothing on the GNX/TTA.

Edited June 20, 2006 by balthazar

[RBB]

Really besides the L67, gen I, II, and III and the new supercharged N* GM hasn't made many modern supercharged engines. 

Hi.

-RBB

[91z4me]

Hi.

-RBB

I missed 1 freakin' engine so sue me.

balthazar we aren't going to agree so lets just drop it OK?

[balthazar]

Lemme hear a kudo to Buick Engineering and it's a deal.

[91z4me]

Lemme hear a kudo to Buick Engineering and it's a deal.

I am guessing you mean Kudos so usre kudos to Buick for the hot air induction non fuel injected Buick T-Types before they were painted black and called GNs.

j/k In reality great cars for the times.

[balthazar]

That's not kudos....

Buick GNX, 547 built, 345HP 231 V-6. Showroom stock: 1/4-mile in 13.1. Bad to the bone.

Don't make me come over there, 91z...

[91z4me]

That's not kudos....

Buick GNX, 547 built, 345HP 231 V-6. Showroom stock: 1/4-mile in 13.1. Bad to the bone.

Don't make me come over there, 91z...

Just come to the Arch and you will find me. :AH-HA_wink:

[sciguy_0504]

I was thinking about this last night before I went to sleep.

9-3 sedan, wagon and convertible with the sedan and wagon offering optional AWD. Turbo I4 and V6.

9-4 small crossover (which I believe is planned). Turbo I4 and V6. AWD standard.

9-5 sedan and wagon with both offering optional AWD. Turbo V6.

9-6 coupe/convertible/roadster. Turbo V6.

9-7 large crossover. Turbo V6, optional V8. AWD standard.

All FWD models will come with a limited-slip differential to help combat torque steer. Absolutely no turbo lag. Try to make the vehicles appear RWD like Audi is doing with the next-gen A4. Get rid of the waffle HVAC vents and start injecting some style into each model. Add some technology and luxury features such as keyless start, heated/cooled seats, automatic rear sunshade, adaptive headlights, etc. Perhaps even push the limit with LED headlights, etc.

I had so many ideas for design, too, all born out of Saab's jet history. Nothing crazy but unique, eye-catching Saab-only design elements. I wish I had an artistic bone in my body so I could draw them out. These ideas only come into my head.

[zhawk]

That's not kudos....

Buick GNX, 547 built, 345HP 231 V-6. Showroom stock: 1/4-mile in 13.1. Bad to the bone.

Don't make me come over there, 91z...

155822[/snapback]

Lord, I love those. Our current club president had one. It was stolen and he searched the whole US to find another one. I want to be adopted.

[zeek]

http://www.gminsidenews.com/naias/revitalization/saabria/

i found this on another saab site and i would love for the next wave of saabs to look like this!

i would go with a 5 car line up:

9-1 or 9-2: based on the opel astra, 3 and 5 door models with 2 turbo I4's. fwd or awd.

9-3: sedan, sport combi and vert. I4 and V6 turbos with a viggen as the top of the line V6 turbo with 300+ hp and awd. fwd and awd.

9-4: 9-3 or theta based 4 door small crossover. give it an I4 and V6 turbo models and a diesel for europe (and i would like to see one in the us too). fwd and awd.

9-5: sedan and sport combi. 2 different turbo V6 options with a diesel and twin turbo V6 for the viggen. fwd and awd.

9-6: larger 9-5 based crossover. 2 different turbo V6 options and a diesel for europe (and agin i would like to see one for the us market as well). fwd and awd.

that's how i would go. no need for a roadster and keep the 9-5 the flagship car of saab!

[stefanmueller]

My son just showed me this site cheers and gears a few days ago. I come from a backgound where there was only GM vehicles in the house hold and still do, although a few years ago I needed a toy for a second vehicle and then had a 75 BMW 2002. I have always admired SAAB, and had always like the original 900 Turbo with the Inca wheels.

Currently we own a 2003 9-3 and will probably upgrade to the 9-3 Sports Combi. When GM first started acquiring SAAB I was pretty happy and I really hope they never decide to unload the brand. At the time of the SAAB purchase Ford was pursuing Volvo, Aston Martin and Jaguar and these three companies like SAAB could never remain independent on their own, especially with the develoment cost of power trains. Depending on the monthly sales figures SAAB has had some gains, but Jaguar and Volvo sales have been in the &#036;h&#33;ter. Perhaps this is because Ford has expanded the Jaguar and Volvo lineup.

I really hope that GM would leave SAAB with only three models Keep the 9-3 and the 9-5 and then build a two door coupe in the mould of the 9-3X. I really love the Aero X concept, but I always thought that the 9-3X concept woud help in bringing in younger buyers as well as the loyal SAAB customers. With the 9-3 and 9-5 you wuld still offter the Sports Combi thus no need for useless Crossovers and Sport Utes and equally dumb Sport Cutes. It's really too bad North America cannot wake up to sporty Euro Wagons.

Some of the readers have been arguing that SAAB cannot offer GM any technology other than saftey. Besides SAAB with decades of Turbo Charging technology, was it not SAAB who first offered ditributorless ignition and using direct coil packs and then picked up by GM and now everybody else? Also, I remember a few years ago where SAAB took out a patent where they had an engine where they alter the compression ratio in an engine through a means where as the cylinder head was hinged on one side and they could then tilt the head while the engine was running to achieve the variable compression ratio. I know this sounds bizzare, but SAAB did the experimenting.

SAAB is a remarkable company and a very great driving and owning experience.

[AxelTheRed]

Here's another way to fix Saab:

It gets sold.

[stefanmueller]

Here's another way to fix Saab:

It gets sold.

Man your still bitter because Studebaker is not around any more.

[AxelTheRed]

Man your still bitter because Studebaker is not around any more.

Dude, I'm 20. I don't even remember AMC.

I just think that out of all GM's brands, Saab is the biggest drain.