Saab deal off...

[3.0L V6]

From Jalopnik: http://jalopnik.com/5411845/breaking-saab-koenigsegg-deal-off

"GM's plan to sell Saab to Koenigsegg is suddenly off, with many sources indicating Koenigsegg walked away from the deal and GM planning to meet next week to discuss what to do with European brand they didn't want."

-----

GM is really having a tough time unloading these unwanted brands, first Penske cancels the Saturn deal, GM cans the Opel-Magna deal and now this. It would have just been simpler to shut the brands down in the first place, you'd think.

Ford had much less trouble selling Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston-Martin. Maybe because Ford meddled in each respective company less?

[cozmik]

Koenigsegg just walked away for some reason, there aren't reasons given for why, they just did. It's odd.

[93JC]

Ford had much less trouble selling Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston-Martin. Maybe because Ford meddled in each respective company less?

Ford meddled even more in Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston Martin than GM did Saab. And Jag, Land Rover and Aston Martin are better for it. That's why it was easier for Ford to sell those assets off: they were in better shape because Ford made them in better shape by completely revamping their engineering.

GM half-assed their integration of Saab. If anything they left Saab with too much engineering independence. It was a monstrous mistake to allow Saab to design the 9-3 without integrating the engineering and parts with other Epsilon cars. They don't even share pick points!

[280Z Turbo]

Ford meddled even more in Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston Martin than GM did Saab. And Jag, Land Rover and Aston Martin are better for it. That's why it was easier for Ford to sell those assets off: they were in better shape because Ford made them in better shape by completely revamping their engineering.

GM half-assed their integration of Saab. If anything they left Saab with too much engineering independence. It was a monstrous mistake to allow Saab to design the 9-3 without integrating the engineering and parts with other Epsilon cars. They don't even share pick points!

Saab used platform engineering. Remember the 9-7x?

[nickdrinkwater]

GM getting a taste of its own medicine?

[93JC]

Saab used platform engineering. Remember the 9-7x?

And the 9-2x, yes. A blatant rebadging attempt to get some sales in North America, yes, but the core to Saab's business was always 9-3 and 9-5, which they did not successfully integrate with the rest of GM to keep costs down. They shared some underlying engineering, but none of the parts. That was stupid.

[the Teuton]

Volvo has new investors who are bidding against Geely now. I wonder if the 'loser' will buy Saab in retaliation. Probably not.

I think Saab is dead.

[2o6]

And the 9-2x, yes. A blatant rebadging attempt to get some sales in North America, yes, but the core to Saab's business was always 9-3 and 9-5, which they did not successfully integrate with the rest of GM to keep costs down. They shared some underlying engineering, but none of the parts. That was stupid.

Funny. Before, they shared none of the parts. Now, it seems like they're sharing ALL of the parts.

Volvo has new investors who are bidding against Geely now. I wonder if the 'loser' will buy Saab in retaliation. Probably not.

I think Saab is dead.

I don't think someone would buy a $2billion dollar company to run it into the ground.

[the Teuton]

Unless you're Cerberus, no one buys a company to run it into the ground. It just sort of happens.

[TBR]

Volvo has new investors who are bidding against Geely now. I wonder if the 'loser' will buy Saab in retaliation. Probably not.

I think Saab is dead.

Probably. The new 9-5 will probably live on somewhere (China), but the brand itself just isn't worth much.

[the Teuton]

Saab's problem is that it tried to become a bigger brand, and that was always in the cards, but they didn't up the brand's value. Instead, GM cheaped out and went with badge engineering on its higher volume models for a quick buck and all but abandoned its core products.

Saab should have kept to being a lower volume, higher priced sportier alternative to Volvos. The 9-2X (even though it might be my next car) and the 9-7X were just wrong on so many levels.

I think Koenigsegg would have brought the brand back where it needed to be, but that brand is a mess, and its product lineup is almost as badly misaligned as Chrysler's.

[TBR]

Saab's problem is that it tried to become a bigger brand, and that was always in the cards, but they didn't up the brand's value. Instead, GM cheaped out and went with badge engineering on its higher volume models for a quick buck and all but abandoned its core products.

Saab should have kept to being a lower volume, higher priced sportier alternative to Volvos. The 9-2X (even though it might be my next car) and the 9-7X were just wrong on so many levels.

I think Koenigsegg would have brought the brand back where it needed to be, but that brand is a mess, and its product lineup is almost as badly misaligned as Chrysler's.

Saab's problems started WAY before the 9-2/7x came out.

[the Teuton]

Saab's problems started WAY before the 9-2/7x came out.

...like 1989 maybe?

[2o6]

Like, after the 9-3 NG.



They were good cars, but there was nothing to follow them up.

[TBR]

...like 1989 maybe?

Nah, more like 2000-2002.

Plus they are extremely poorly marketed (while not marketed at all really).

[280Z Turbo]

...like 1989 maybe?

I had an '87 that was crap. Must have been before then.

[nickdrinkwater]

And the 9-2x, yes. A blatant rebadging attempt to get some sales in North America, yes, but the core to Saab's business was always 9-3 and 9-5, which they did not successfully integrate with the rest of GM to keep costs down. They shared some underlying engineering, but none of the parts. That was stupid.

It depends how they would have done it.  One argument is the Saab would've lost their identity of slightly quirky, quasi-luxury cars had they shared too many things with other GM brands.  For example the 9-3 has been criticised for being too similar to the Vectra.  Also, the X-Type for which Jaguar utilised Mondeo underpinnings was not really a success.

The other half of the argument is that VW managed it with Audi so it can work, with the right balance.  But then again, VW have a good reputation in the first place whereas the marques from which Saab could have potentially borrowed do not.

[nickdrinkwater]

Interesting article about Saab's finances for anyone interested.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/swedish-government-saabs-books-were-cooked/

[93JC]

It depends how they would have done it.  One argument is the Saab would've lost their identity of slightly quirky, quasi-luxury cars had they shared too many things with other GM brands.  For example the 9-3 has been criticised for being too similar to the Vectra.  Also, the X-Type for which Jaguar utilised Mondeo underpinnings was not really a success.

Well, in the case of the 9-3 vs. the Vectra I'd argue it was stupid that the Vectra didn't share more with the Chevy Malibu, Pontiac G6, etc. to begin with. Things like powertrain: why did the Saab have its own 2.0 L turbo, while GM NA made their own and put it into the Solstice and Sky? Why did the Malibu and G6 not use the 2.8 L V6 from the 9-3 and Vectra? Why didn't they redesign the 9-5 five years ago? Why did the Saab and Opel/Vauxhall use Aisin transmissions when GM Powertrain made their own automatics?

The 9-3 was differentiated from the rest of the Epsilon cars to the point that if you wanted to build a Malibu in Trollhattan you'd have to completely re-equip the plant. That's stupid. That never should have happened. GM management never should have let that happen. A small company like Saab could never make that profitable.

The 9-5 has been a useless non-entity on the North American market for a long, long time. They let it languish. I like the new one that may or may not actually see production, but that car should have come out in 2005 not 2010.


Letting cars share parts is not a problem. Differentiating cars where it's noticeable is what really matters. Obviously Saab shouldn't use interior parts from a Pontiac G6 (to a point), but it shouldn't be so different that the underlying attachment points are totally different. Lexus has no problem selling ESes, which are blatantly an upbadged Camry, but they only offer it with the most powerful front-drive engine they make and the interior is more luxurious. It separates the two cars, and justifies the purchase price of the ES (to a point).

The problem with the X-type was never that it was based on the Mondeo. The Mondeo was a good car! The problem was that the X-type wasn't better than the Mondeo to the degree that it warranted being purchased for the extra money over and above a Mondeo. It wasn't that much more luxurious, wasn't that much more powerful, etc. And when you compared the X-type to its contemporaries from other manufacturers it simply fell short. It wasn't even a matter of being better than the Mondeo: it was demonstrably worse than the competition. Especially for the price.

Fundamentally, the fact that it was a re-engineered Mondeo was not a problem. And nor was the fact the Saab 9-3 shared some engineering with the Vectra, Malibu and G6.

[sportyaccordy]

Ah yes, Ford did own Aston Martin. I'm still blown away by the success of the Duratec V12 :P

[280Z Turbo]

I think Raza should buy Saab.

[Raza]

I think Raza should buy Saab.

So do I!

[TBR]

Too bad it isn't a public company...your firm manages billions, doesn't it?

[Colonel Cadillac]

Yeah, I saw it was one of the players in the private/public thing with the toxic assets awhile back.

[CALL_911]

Yeah, I think this might be the end of the road for Saab.

[Raza]

Too bad it isn't a public company...your firm manages billions, doesn't it?

Trillions, actually. 

[mzziaz]

Saab sold 500 cars in October. They are dead.

According to Norwegian news, Koeningsegg walked away because the process took too much time. They always said a restructuring had to come quickly to save the brand.

[Rich]

Trillions, actually. 

Peter Gibbons: [Explaining the plan] Alright so when the sub routine compounds the interest is uses all these extra decimal places that just get rounded off. So we simplified the whole thing, we rounded them all down, drop the remainder into an account we opened.
Joanna: [Confused] So you're stealing?
Peter Gibbons: Ah no, you don't understand. It's very complicated. It's uh it's aggregate, so I'm talking about fractions of a penny here. And over time they add up to a lot.
Joanna: Oh okay. So you're gonna be making a lot of money, right?
Peter Gibbons: Yeah.
Joanna: Right. It's not yours?
Peter Gibbons: Well it becomes ours.
Joanna: How is that not stealing?
Peter Gibbons: [pauses] I don't think I'm explaining this very well.
Joanna: Okay.
Peter Gibbons: Um... the 7-11. You take a penny from the tray, right?
Joanna: From the cripple children?
Peter Gibbons: No that's the jar. I'm talking about the tray. You know the pennies that are for everybody?
Joanna: Oh for everybody. Okay.
Peter Gibbons: Well those are whole pennies, right? I'm just talking about fractions of a penny here. But we do it from a much bigger tray and we do it a couple a million times.

[93JC]

Yeah, well, at least he didn't sleep with Lumbergh.

[giant_mtb]

Koenigsegg just walked away for some reason, there aren't reasons given for why, they just did. It's odd.

I read in an article that it was because Koenigsegg didn't seem to think they could really transform Saab into the brand they thought they could.  Something about wanting to move Saab upscale, I believe.