TTAC on Saab and GM
TTAC on Saab and GM
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=2455
A Car Czar Too Far: Why Bad Things Happen to Good Saabs
By Gunnar Heinrich
October 13th, 2006 209 Views
Leave it to the Germans. When it comes to resurrecting, producing and managing foreign niche marques, the Aktiengesellschaft do the job right. While German ownership is not without its faults (think BMW’s troubled relations with MG Rover), their batting average is league leading. Meanwhile, at the bottom of the pile… Not to put too fine a point on it, GM does European automobiles as convincingly as Chinese Premier Jiang Zemin sang O Sole Mio in karaoke; the results are muddled, embarrassing and on view for an international audience.
Yes, Ford’s been farting around with foreigners as well. But you can almost forgive The Blue Oval’s lazy and misguided stewardship of the venerable Jaguar brand when balanced against the fine products coming from their Volvo, Aston and Land Rover subsidiaries. In contrast, GM’s husbandry of Saab is cynical, invasive and, ultimately, unpardonable.
Whenever I hear Vice Chairman of Global Development Maximum Bob Lutz talk about Saab, my skin crawls. In fact, his comments about the brand’s products often reveal willful contempt. In GM’s FastLane blog, Maximum Bob “playfully” commented on the Swedish design elements incorporated into the Saab 9-7X, an Indiana-built SUV based on GM’s 2005 GMT360 chassis (better known as ye olde Chevrolet Trailblazer). “The center console is not only 100% Saab in design and execution, but also features the famed ignition in the area where the Golden Retriever can turn it off.”
Obvious SUV - dog jokes aside, Maxi Bob’s flippant description of a characteristic Saab safety feature leads me to believe that if GM owned MINI, Bob’d be pushing a Chevrolet Aveo with faux aluminum rocker switches, lauding how it succeeds in maintaining MINI’s mojo (if MB knew what a mojo was). Why, he would proclaim, we even painted a Union Jack on the roof! That kind of heritage costs money you know. It sure does Mr. Lutz. As does your $1.8m annual salary.
If GM had the same respect for Saab as the Germans have for their foreign brands, the picture would be a lot rosier. The General would understand that a Saab shouldn’t be badge engineered anything. While the [Bimmer funded] Rolls Royce Phantom was hardly a runaway sales success, at least it preserves the marque’s elite heritage, and affords Rolls a chance to try again. The 9-7X is a bad joke that makes Saab into a bad joke. GM would also know not to pitch the resulting products to Audi or Volvo buyers; just as BMW realized that the new MINI and Rolls-Royce should be marketed to their own, singular clientele (they don’t call ‘em niche markets for nothin’).
Clearly, GM’s flair for cutting edge design and brand management is long gone. It’s as though The General has turned from an affable old geezer into a cantankerous son of a bitch who’s obsessed with the bottom line, but refuses to cough-up the dough for new product. “Goddammit, use watchya got!” Wait! It gets worse. Now the same badge engineering that sunk Oldsmobile and continues to threaten Pontiac and wounds Saab’s credibility and could bland Saturn to death is being exported to Johnny Foreigner.
GM Europe (and now South Africa) have recently introduced a Cadillac built on the same Epsilon chassis as the Saab 9-3 and Opel Vectra. Remove the “L” from the Cadillac BLS and the acronym is more indicative of what GM has accomplished with this "new" car. What happened to the magnificent Eldorado convertible in La Dolce Vita that paraded down the cobbled streets of Rome oozing the chromium of rich, victorious, post war Americana? Gone. While the STS is busy not selling abroad as well, European buyers now think of a Cadillac as mid-sized motor that can be ordered with an “economical” four cylinder diesel.
Even more bizarrely, GM’s thinking about importing the unholy Caddy– a foreign-built badge-engineered Cadillac– into the US. If you need proof that GM knows everything about bean counting and nothing about selling automobiles, well, there it is. Again. The fact that GM green-lighted the exact same mistake that nearly killed Caddy in the US some thirty years ago eliminates any hope that Bob Lutz’ enthusiasm for global platform sharing, for Opel-izing Saturn and Holdenating Pontiac, will create a coherent model line-up. GM is far more likely to import more penny-pinching half-breeds, mutants and unlovable bastards.
Obviously, shared engineering is not in and of itself a liability. Seat, Audi, Lamborghini and Bugatti all benefit from corporate parent VW's technological resources. No, the real enemy is willful ignorance. Niche brands require careful nurturing. More than anything, niche consumers demand products that display brand-faithful individuality. Anything less is a new 9-3. So now The General is faced with two solutions to its money-draining mismanagement of Saab: either embrace the German model of ownership or set it free before it faces an ignominious death. Needless to say, they’ll do neither.
By Gunnar Heinrich
October 13th, 2006 209 Views
Leave it to the Germans. When it comes to resurrecting, producing and managing foreign niche marques, the Aktiengesellschaft do the job right. While German ownership is not without its faults (think BMW’s troubled relations with MG Rover), their batting average is league leading. Meanwhile, at the bottom of the pile… Not to put too fine a point on it, GM does European automobiles as convincingly as Chinese Premier Jiang Zemin sang O Sole Mio in karaoke; the results are muddled, embarrassing and on view for an international audience.
Yes, Ford’s been farting around with foreigners as well. But you can almost forgive The Blue Oval’s lazy and misguided stewardship of the venerable Jaguar brand when balanced against the fine products coming from their Volvo, Aston and Land Rover subsidiaries. In contrast, GM’s husbandry of Saab is cynical, invasive and, ultimately, unpardonable.
Whenever I hear Vice Chairman of Global Development Maximum Bob Lutz talk about Saab, my skin crawls. In fact, his comments about the brand’s products often reveal willful contempt. In GM’s FastLane blog, Maximum Bob “playfully” commented on the Swedish design elements incorporated into the Saab 9-7X, an Indiana-built SUV based on GM’s 2005 GMT360 chassis (better known as ye olde Chevrolet Trailblazer). “The center console is not only 100% Saab in design and execution, but also features the famed ignition in the area where the Golden Retriever can turn it off.”
Obvious SUV - dog jokes aside, Maxi Bob’s flippant description of a characteristic Saab safety feature leads me to believe that if GM owned MINI, Bob’d be pushing a Chevrolet Aveo with faux aluminum rocker switches, lauding how it succeeds in maintaining MINI’s mojo (if MB knew what a mojo was). Why, he would proclaim, we even painted a Union Jack on the roof! That kind of heritage costs money you know. It sure does Mr. Lutz. As does your $1.8m annual salary.
If GM had the same respect for Saab as the Germans have for their foreign brands, the picture would be a lot rosier. The General would understand that a Saab shouldn’t be badge engineered anything. While the [Bimmer funded] Rolls Royce Phantom was hardly a runaway sales success, at least it preserves the marque’s elite heritage, and affords Rolls a chance to try again. The 9-7X is a bad joke that makes Saab into a bad joke. GM would also know not to pitch the resulting products to Audi or Volvo buyers; just as BMW realized that the new MINI and Rolls-Royce should be marketed to their own, singular clientele (they don’t call ‘em niche markets for nothin’).
Clearly, GM’s flair for cutting edge design and brand management is long gone. It’s as though The General has turned from an affable old geezer into a cantankerous son of a bitch who’s obsessed with the bottom line, but refuses to cough-up the dough for new product. “Goddammit, use watchya got!” Wait! It gets worse. Now the same badge engineering that sunk Oldsmobile and continues to threaten Pontiac and wounds Saab’s credibility and could bland Saturn to death is being exported to Johnny Foreigner.
GM Europe (and now South Africa) have recently introduced a Cadillac built on the same Epsilon chassis as the Saab 9-3 and Opel Vectra. Remove the “L” from the Cadillac BLS and the acronym is more indicative of what GM has accomplished with this "new" car. What happened to the magnificent Eldorado convertible in La Dolce Vita that paraded down the cobbled streets of Rome oozing the chromium of rich, victorious, post war Americana? Gone. While the STS is busy not selling abroad as well, European buyers now think of a Cadillac as mid-sized motor that can be ordered with an “economical” four cylinder diesel.
Even more bizarrely, GM’s thinking about importing the unholy Caddy– a foreign-built badge-engineered Cadillac– into the US. If you need proof that GM knows everything about bean counting and nothing about selling automobiles, well, there it is. Again. The fact that GM green-lighted the exact same mistake that nearly killed Caddy in the US some thirty years ago eliminates any hope that Bob Lutz’ enthusiasm for global platform sharing, for Opel-izing Saturn and Holdenating Pontiac, will create a coherent model line-up. GM is far more likely to import more penny-pinching half-breeds, mutants and unlovable bastards.
Obviously, shared engineering is not in and of itself a liability. Seat, Audi, Lamborghini and Bugatti all benefit from corporate parent VW's technological resources. No, the real enemy is willful ignorance. Niche brands require careful nurturing. More than anything, niche consumers demand products that display brand-faithful individuality. Anything less is a new 9-3. So now The General is faced with two solutions to its money-draining mismanagement of Saab: either embrace the German model of ownership or set it free before it faces an ignominious death. Needless to say, they’ll do neither.
Re: TTAC on Saab and GM
Can't find much fault with what he says. I never understood why GM got involved with Saab in the first place, and even more assinine was why they paid another $1 billion a few years ago to own the remaining 50%. Did GM really need yet another brand it could water down, starve of product, and lose money? Just plain stupid.
And the BLS comments are spot-on too. Especially on your premium brands, if you're not going to do it right don't bother doing it at all.
And the BLS comments are spot-on too. Especially on your premium brands, if you're not going to do it right don't bother doing it at all.
Re: TTAC on Saab and GM
Have to agree strongly -- Saab has just been one huge missed opportunity for GM -- and this is not a market where you can get away with formulaic "brand management".
Also, now I'm reading that GM might be shutting down the Trailblazer assembly line. Why release a Saab frame-based SUV on a dead-end platform when they have a crossover platform launching next year? Especially when they KNOW they are going to take knocks for rebadging a Chevy (see Lutz getting defensive on his blog). The entire thing makes no sense to me.
Also, now I'm reading that GM might be shutting down the Trailblazer assembly line. Why release a Saab frame-based SUV on a dead-end platform when they have a crossover platform launching next year? Especially when they KNOW they are going to take knocks for rebadging a Chevy (see Lutz getting defensive on his blog). The entire thing makes no sense to me.
Re: TTAC on Saab and GM
Originally Posted by flowmotion
\ Why release a Saab frame-based SUV on a dead-end platform when they have a crossover platform launching next year? Especially when they KNOW they are going to take knocks for rebadging a Chevy (see Lutz getting defensive on his blog). The entire thing makes no sense to me.
Re: TTAC on Saab and GM
Originally Posted by R377
Can't find much fault with what he says. I never understood why GM got involved with Saab in the first place, and even more assinine was why they paid another $1 billion a few years ago to own the remaining 50%. Did GM really need yet another brand it could water down, starve of product, and lose money? Just plain stupid.
And the BLS comments are spot-on too. Especially on your premium brands, if you're not going to do it right don't bother doing it at all.
And the BLS comments are spot-on too. Especially on your premium brands, if you're not going to do it right don't bother doing it at all.
My tranny comes from Saab. And sob will be responsable for the turbo showing up in the soltice GXP. As well as the 2.0 turbos hopefully showing up in some of GM's other cars.(HHR, Cobalt SS)
Re: TTAC on Saab and GM
Never understood why GM got involved with Saab outside of Ford buying Volvo. GM already has GM Europe via Opel & Vauxhall. I always saw buying Saab as buying a competitor and competing against yourself. At least Ford incorperated Volvo, Land Rover, and Aston Martin into a perfectly logical hiearchy. Saab seems like a dumping ground for other GM brands from other continents.
I can easily see Saturn turning into Opel USA. Saturn is viewed as a foreign brand & GM wants to maintain that with the genuine article.
I can see Pontiac featuring Holden models. Holden is GM's closest division to BMW, and GM wants Pontiac to be the "US BMW".
I can forgive the BLS as a mistake. GM doesn't have a Jaguar or Aston Martin, so they are desparate to make Cadillac a known world luxury brand. So they take a Saab, rebody it (some parts are actually interchangable) and sell it as an introduction to Cadillac to the less well off. Cimmaron 2.
In all fairness, Bob Lutz is using the FWD BLS as a placeholder till he gets his small RWD sedan, GM is screamish about closing down any division, especially one that would get a whole country (Sweeden) up in arms even more than just a few dealers, and it was Saab dealers who pushed for the version of the Trailblazer SUV.
And, if GM did the Mini, even if it was based on the Aveo, safe to say it would still be a Mini. GM would have bought the name, so they'd have a incentive to do it right, and the Mini would be much along what it originally was, a small, very cheap traffic carver more than just a styling accessory.
I can easily see Saturn turning into Opel USA. Saturn is viewed as a foreign brand & GM wants to maintain that with the genuine article.
I can see Pontiac featuring Holden models. Holden is GM's closest division to BMW, and GM wants Pontiac to be the "US BMW".
I can forgive the BLS as a mistake. GM doesn't have a Jaguar or Aston Martin, so they are desparate to make Cadillac a known world luxury brand. So they take a Saab, rebody it (some parts are actually interchangable) and sell it as an introduction to Cadillac to the less well off. Cimmaron 2.
In all fairness, Bob Lutz is using the FWD BLS as a placeholder till he gets his small RWD sedan, GM is screamish about closing down any division, especially one that would get a whole country (Sweeden) up in arms even more than just a few dealers, and it was Saab dealers who pushed for the version of the Trailblazer SUV.
And, if GM did the Mini, even if it was based on the Aveo, safe to say it would still be a Mini. GM would have bought the name, so they'd have a incentive to do it right, and the Mini would be much along what it originally was, a small, very cheap traffic carver more than just a styling accessory.
Re: TTAC on Saab and GM
While I agree on some of his wording, I also think he's just loving his soap-box a little too much.
In terms of Saab, this guy is correct. Giving saab a trailblazer was stupid - but as was said, dealers were shouting for something. But who is saab for? Who buys a saab? Saab is a niche brand for sure, but it has no identity aside from having a turbocharger and the front end headlights and grille (pontiac's grille and headlights also cross most of the brand... its not always a good idea). What to do with saab? Something for older folks? Cadillac or Buick have it covered. Style and Luxury? Cadillac and Buick. Youthful Performance and some rather good (upcoming) quality? Saturn and Opel got your back. Driving Excitement? Pontiac and Holden. That doesnt leave much! With Saab owners moving away from the brand, you need more buyers - and you have to get them attracted with something. So what should GM turn Saab into?
Biopower? Should all Saab's be E85 capable and have that badge on it? Might give a unique-ness to the brand. The cluster used in the Aero X? Slap something like that into every Saab? It would turn a lot of people off, but at the same time, I can imagine video gamers thinking its the coolest thing ever. Where does Saab belong?
In terms of Saab, this guy is correct. Giving saab a trailblazer was stupid - but as was said, dealers were shouting for something. But who is saab for? Who buys a saab? Saab is a niche brand for sure, but it has no identity aside from having a turbocharger and the front end headlights and grille (pontiac's grille and headlights also cross most of the brand... its not always a good idea). What to do with saab? Something for older folks? Cadillac or Buick have it covered. Style and Luxury? Cadillac and Buick. Youthful Performance and some rather good (upcoming) quality? Saturn and Opel got your back. Driving Excitement? Pontiac and Holden. That doesnt leave much! With Saab owners moving away from the brand, you need more buyers - and you have to get them attracted with something. So what should GM turn Saab into?
Biopower? Should all Saab's be E85 capable and have that badge on it? Might give a unique-ness to the brand. The cluster used in the Aero X? Slap something like that into every Saab? It would turn a lot of people off, but at the same time, I can imagine video gamers thinking its the coolest thing ever. Where does Saab belong?
Re: TTAC on Saab and GM
Regarding the 9-7 / Trailblazer: it doesn't matter who wanted it, it was wrong. Remember that dealers don't always (in fact, I'd say rarely) have the long term health and vision of the brand in their actions. An easy example of that is the Saturn dealers throwing out over decade of goodwill just to gouge on the Sky. Or Pontiac and the GTO. GM should have stepped up and said "no, we don't have a SUV that fits with Saab so we're not going to do it".
Having said that, the dealers were probably wanting something more like the XC90, not a 5-year-old truck.
Having said that, the dealers were probably wanting something more like the XC90, not a 5-year-old truck.
Re: TTAC on Saab and GM
But who is saab for? Who buys a saab? Saab is a niche brand for sure, but it has no identity aside from having a turbocharger and the front end headlights and grille (pontiac's grille and headlights also cross most of the brand... its not always a good idea). What to do with saab? Something for older folks? Cadillac or Buick have it covered. Style and Luxury? Cadillac and Buick. Youthful Performance and some rather good (upcoming) quality? Saturn and Opel got your back. Driving Excitement? Pontiac and Holden. That doesnt leave much!
Your questions about how Saab fits into GM's baroque brand-managment scheme are probably exactly what's going through the thick heads in Detroit. Which is pretty much why they've been unable to build any excitement around the brand. They don't get the market, so they are unable to think of Saab in any terms other than Euro-Pontiac. Why not just let Saab be Saab and not worry about how it relates to Buick?
Anyways, I know my neighborhood is not a statstic, but about 25% of the cars on the road around here are European, and there's precious few Saabs. And about zero 9-7s. GM should have told the dealers that they didn't want the Chevy and to wait for 2007. Now they're stuck with the 9-7 until 2010 or whenever the "real" Saab SUV comes out.
Re: TTAC on Saab and GM
Can't find much fault with what he says. I never understood why GM got involved with Saab in the first place, and even more assinine was why they paid another $1 billion a few years ago to own the remaining 50%. Did GM really need yet another brand it could water down, starve of product, and lose money? Just plain stupid.
they got into a bidding war with Ford over Jaguar. they lost.
their strategy called for a prestige euro brand they could charge big premiums on.
in a fit of pique, they turned to the only other brand up for grabs at the time (saab) and tried to make a square peg fit into a round hole. didn't work then, doesn't work now. if current strategies persist, it never will.
saab has never - ever - turned a profit under GM stewardship. in fact, it's never had a year where it's lost less than a billion dollars!
and, can you imagine what GM would have done if it had actually won the bidding for Jaguar?
Re: TTAC on Saab and GM
Your questions about how Saab fits into GM's baroque brand-managment scheme are probably exactly what's going through the thick heads in Detroit. Which is pretty much why they've been unable to build any excitement around the brand. They don't get the market, so they are unable to think of Saab in any terms other than Euro-Pontiac. Why not just let Saab be Saab and not worry about how it relates to Buick?
One thing GM DID get out of it though, was a whole bunch of engineers who really understood turbocharging. Compare the Solstice GXP's motor to the Cobalt SS SC'd, for a reference point.
Anyway, I agree with everyone - the 9-7 was dumb. It would have been better suited as GMC's version of the TB.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
NewsBot
2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia
0
May 24, 2015 10:50 AM
Gold_Rush
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
6
Feb 19, 2005 12:40 AM
Big Als Z
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
7
Aug 7, 2004 09:15 PM
Big Als Z
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
3
Jul 15, 2004 06:22 PM
johnsocal
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
8
Jan 16, 2004 09:48 PM



