I see today's beat-on-GM thread is aimed at Saab

I haven't read the whole thread, although it's heartening to have seen at least some posting herein who are not signing on to the doom-train prophecies of this thread. Let me just point out that all the Saab naysayers will need to explain away the sparkling success of at least one current Saab offering: the 9-3...

from http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=6471

 

Well, I think it's silly to put Saab in the same league as...say...BMW, (although not quite as silly as Pontiac).

The way I see it, Saab is GM's Audi or perhaps Alfa Romeo.

Speaking of Alfa...I had high hopes that GM would bring it over here again. Of course that plan is dead now. But there are rumors that Alfa is considering using Kappa for an upcoming product.

The thought of a 21st century Alfetta GTV6 or Giulia Super...being sold through GM dealers gives me goosebumps.

Of course Alfa would probably also get it's pre-requisite version of the Trailblazer. Maybe they'd call it the "Quadrofoglio Monstro". (Four leaf monster...for all you non-Alfisti).

 

Here's the whole story:
http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content...._code=04785295

 

the starting at... tag line price means very little unless you can A) actually get a car so equipped without going out of your way to do so, B) a car you'd actually WANT to buy. if a car "starts" at $25k but most of the examples out there are in the mid-30's range, who cares? the lesser 9-3 Linear, BTW starts at just about $27k if you belive the saab website. that's at LEAST $5K too much. the Arc and Aero? fuggetaboutit... the only way I can imagine someone paying more than 30k for a 9-3 and not feel bad about it is if A) it came with at least 250hp and B) it had AWD. ironically, the 9-2x is closer to this formula than the 9-3 and costs less money. but then again, it shows in the quality of the interior.

i agree, which is why i was confused when 96_Camaro brought up the fact that it was cheaper than the 3 series. to me that suggested that the SAAB is a better value and was somehow comparable to the 3.

to put the pricing issues in percpective BTW, bmwusa.com quotes the 3 series "starting at" price as "under 29k". so comparing those directly, the 3 series "starts at" 2k over the 9-3 SAAB. and both are "decently equipped" and offer similar levels of performance at that MSRP. except BMW has the proper driven wheels, countless accolades and sport/luxury image on it's side.

so tell me again how the 9-3 isn't overpriced... maybe if we all keep saying it we might start to belive it a little.

 

The 9-3 starts out about $2k less than the BMW 3's (BTW have some here forgotten you are still allowed to order cars from the factory exactly the way you want them?). Once you start loading on options, that gap appears to stay about the same from what I saw at edmunds.com . So why are so many buying the 9-3? Why not stampede over to the BMW with the other cattle? I'll tell you why. BMW's styling is frozen in a dogmatic, rigid theme. The 3's haven't looked distinctly new or different in, literally, many years! They just get a little more 'soap-bar-like' every couple years. Yawn. In contrast, the 9-3 is fresh, new and sporty looking. It has a natural appeal and it catches your eye. And this stuff about 'being driven by the right wheels' -- tell that to a buyer in a four-season climate like we have in Michigan

 

1. Make that Saturn-Saab, because I don't see the Isuzu brand being around forever.

2. Sometimes Canada is ahead of the U.S. when it comes to automotive marketing. Interestingly, Plymouth died in Canada before the United States and Mercury is already dead in Canada.

 

It would also be unfair to put some of Ford's affilitiates (Volvo and Lincoln, for instance) in the same league as BMW.

Bringing in FWD, Fiat-based Alfa Romeo would be the kiss of death. An Epsilon-platform clone with the HFV6 isn't the answer either.

A Kappa-based car with a 400hp 4.2 liter Ferrai/Maserati V8 would be a fascinating re-entry to the U.S. If they're planning anything with a GM corporate Ecotec or HFV6, they can keep it.

 

Afew years ago, when GM and Fiat were still in their honeymoon phase.....I read a couple of reports that indicated that Alfa was working on it's own version of the HFV6.

I can't quite remember the displacement....but I believe there were to be two versions. A 2.8L and a 3.2L. They would have used the standard HFV6 bottom end....but Alfa would have designed it's own twin spark heads and induction. I think the 3.2L version was supposed to be good for 280hp.

 

You have no idea how great an idea I think that is.

(Bet you never thought you'd hear me say that about something you'd write, did ya? )


Actually, Ford put's their Jaguar in that league. Volvo is sort of a Lexus league car I'd think. Not quite BMW, but definately a step above Lincoln.

 

uh..the Saabs I drove were a ton of above what I drove from volvo.

The 9-3 is a better product than the s40/s60...far better imho. The only thing I found that was better was the CTS, the 325 and the A4...all of which would have cost me atleast 5K more to get into in real world pricing.

The jag x-type, I found interesting and there where some heavy deals to be had on that car....but the saab was still cheaper and did not have the issues that plague the x-type. Plus, I am really not a jag person

 

1. The X-type was pretty much DOA, the S-type is dying and the new XJ was about 4-years late to market. Future product planning at Jaguar is a mess, and there's a reason for the tailspin.

2. Volvo is world's ahead of Saab, and always has been. Still, it's hard to imagine what a S80 actually competes with other than the outgoing Acura 3.5RL.

3. The Lincoln Navigator and current Aviator (big surprise) are in a downward sales spiral. The Mazda-6 based Lincoln Zephyr looks like a repeat of the Jaguar X-type debacle, and the upcoming (also Mazda 6 based)Aviator crossover looks like a repeat of last season's Dodge Avenger concept .