Well how about this was in 1937 and probably less than 5% of Sweden had a driver's lisence.

I don't need to defend anything the fact that you are supporting it means it will gain support.

 

WTF dude?

Did I say it was not an acronym? I just said it sounded stupid. Seriously, wtf ?

oooooohhhh 250 hp, well I suggest I should just shut the hell up then.

I've seen them driven them and worked on them, still not impressed.

Oh, wait I'm sorry, they make their A-pillars able to withstand a moose impact because over 5000 people hit them a year in their country, thereby making them extremely safe compared to US cars. impressive, not.

Oh and they all use FWD except the ones based off GMs or Subarus. Impressive? no.

Do I not have aright to think SAAB sounds stupid when you say it ?

Do I not have a right to be unimpressed by a car with what you think is a nice interior ?

If you love it fine, go lube up the tail pipe and have at.

So the company was founded by Aircraft engineers... so what. Sorry, but considering that was 50 years ago, I don't think any of them are left, and I am sure automotive technology of today has exceeded aircraft technology of the eary 40s.

 

 

ok, so a different part of the company makes aircraft.

So did GM, and Ford, and rolls royce, and BMW........

Seriously, impress me with the product, not the heritage.

 

Its hard to think anyone from the american auto industry during the 90's has much to offer... I hope this York fellow can be part of the solution.

 

I doubt the general public even knows GM owns SAAB, heh.

 

Saab may be an acronym for how the company started, but it is a horrible slogan for the company. I really, really doubt anybody over a handful of people know the origins of Saab, and the phrase "Born from Jets" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. My thoughts are that it is one of the stupidest assed automotive slogans in quite some time.

BTW, a Nissan Altima has a naturally aspirated DOHC v6 that makes 250hp, and nowhere does Nissan claim to source that engine from aircraft engineers.

 

maybe you should learn more about them before you put them down, as I had to do.

 

He's one of 12, and unlike ther rest of GM's Board Of Directors (save Wagoner himself) this guy seems to be the only one who actually has has industry experience. At the very least, he's had more experience in the auto industry than anyone else.

On the plus side, York has work with almost as many different car companies as Lutz ( no one has worked in as many car companies as Lutz), and has a wide range of experience from the different brands. He was also was at Chrysler as chief financial officer and a board member during their big meltdown in the early 90s. Another plus is his instence that executive pay is cut till GM actually turns around, and profitability goals.



He's also called for more focus on it's core brands. Everyone has picked up this means Cadillac and Chevy, but this also means Pontiac and Buick as well. His concern is that GM is being distracted by using resources it really doesn't have on fringe brands like SAAB, Hummer, and Saturn.

We all have to admit that Saturn seems to be turning into what Pontiac and Oldsmobile used to be. Also got to admit that SAAB wasn't GM's best investment, isn't doing well, and overlaps with what GM is trying to turn Saturn into.

As for Hummer, consider this: say creating an H2 or H3 takes as much investment as creating a new car derivitive off an existing chassis. The H2 or H3 is going to sell in miniscule numbers compared to even a Buick based Espilon, but each H2 or H3 will carry a greater profit margin. This brings up these issues:

1) is the total profit margin of all the H2 or H3 sales going to be greater than that of the total profit margin of combines sales of a car line where that same investment could have gone?

2) there are going to be far fewer people working to generate that profit, meaning layoffs.

3) there is less (or even the same amount of) money being generated by selling fewer vehicles, meaning a far lower market share.

4) and finally, instead of having a vehicle (car) that can weather variations in fuel prices or economic conditions, you have a vehicle that can only be sold when fuel prices are low, and economic conditions are good.



I perfectly see where Jerome York is coming from. GM over the past 15 years or so has been expanding its divisions, and he thinks it should get back to it's 4 (or 5 counting GMC) core brands.

Does GM really need to spend development and marketing money on SAAB and Saturn instead of investing it in Pontiac and Buick? Does GM really need to market and run 4 different truck divisions (Chevy, GMC, Hummer, and Cadillac)?

Investors seem to like the idea of him onboard at GM. He has a ton of auto industry experience, and was a key member in helping Chrysler turn around (and still bring out the Viper in the midst of a meltdown).

He might be just what the General needs to make GM's plans jell.

 

Saab is much more of an asset than anyone gives it credit for. I hate their ugly cars, but they had the ability to sell 30k cars every year for years nd still keep in the black, all on their own.

This is a company that has the ability to design and engineer things for much less than the billions GM spends to redesign it's new ultra ashtray door (maybe a bit exagerated, but you get the drift).

Here is a company that can design a platform and suspension systems for much less than any other part of GM, but now they are using platforms from GM.

Instead of dumping money into them to create little GM's out of Saab and Hummer, maybe they should give Saab a budget, and have it work on it's own, the way they used to, so GM can see how things are done successfully on a smaller scale.

As for Hummer....... it should not have a ton of money invested in it, they should be able to be self sustaining, a small plant using GM parts. They did grow sales by 90% last year, but that will not stay at 90% every year, they are stupid if they think it will. Create something that takes advantage of the economic climate, and keep it closer to level, not dumping 5b into it when the product sells hot, just be able to up production by say 25-50% or more. because when the demand slows down, you have something that you dumped all this cash into, that no one wants. I think they should wait til they figure out how a small car company works before messing with the formula there. The H3 is already a step too far IMHO, it is not a true hummer. The H3T concept I liked. But instead they made the SUV, so a third suv in a line of all suvs, nice. I don't like PUs but have a need for one every once in a while and liked the H3T, but the H3 is stupid.

Honestly, GM should use some money to build a team of hard core off road engineers, to work at Hummer. Then move some good designers there, and then let them make improvements and work on a new line for the next generation. But make them keep the underpinnings of the GM trucks for the H2 and H3, and keep the H1 underpinnings, for the next H1. This way it will go down in price for the military, and maybe they could put armor on it at the factory.

Then they'll have a brand that is for Off-Roading and of course the bling bling crowd. But they can make improvements that will trickle into other brands, such as the Chevy and GM trucks.

Saab should be let loose and watched. Taking them over and dumping cash into them to make them more like GM, stupid. Investing a little cash and finding out how they manage to make profits selling medial priced cars in low units... well you can decide that one.

 

"York is a consultant to Tracinda Corp., the beneficial owner of approximately 9.9 percent of the common stock of GM. Tracinda Corp. is owned by Kirk Kerkorian."

I'm guessing Kerkorian has confidence in Mr. York. He's qualified.

 

Saturn the brand should not have happened. It would have been nice if they could have experimented with one fo the existing brands and then maybe applied the dealership experience to the rest.

 

Wasn't York and Lutz at Chrysler at the same time? If so, they might have similar thinking about get more things done with 2 people doing the persuading.

 

As I said, I completely understand where York is trying to go, and why. But giving SAAB a budget and making GM's chassis lineup available, and giving them the autonomy like Holden used to have might also do it.



Unlike SAAB, I don't feel Hummer could stand on it's own without GM's heavy investments. As soon as fuel prices go up, Hummer would suffer. Unlike GMC, Hummer has no commercial use to keep it going. The H3T would have been a step in the right direction, but 3 very big SUVs and nothing else aren't the best formula for longterm success IMO.

 

From what I read of him on GM's official announcement, York seems like a "stand up guy" to borrow a phrase. I don't see where all the doom and gloom is coming from. The ONLY reason to fret is if Kerkorian is really pulling the strings behind the scenes, but again, from the description of York, he doesn't seem like a goon in the least.

Also don't get this SAAB hate going on. SAAB is (or was) a proud Swedish manufacturer before GM. They DID considerably advance the use of turbos in automotive applications (this is where the aviation knowledge kicks in) before they were anywhere NEAR mainstream (especially with the Japanese now it seems). The 2.8L turbo is only as good as GM will let SAAB make it. If SAAB was calling its own shots, they'd come out with something ingenious and purposeful as in years past. Exhibit A: asymmetric turbo.

You're not into SAAB... fine, but don't trash it before you know what you're talking about or you sound even worse than a ricer while putting your foot in your mouth.