|
Agreed. This has Rover written all over it. Saab will be no more in 2 to 5 years.
|
|
|
There's one glimmer of hope. Saab were not doing well because the cars were carp in comparison to the competition. Spyker, for all their complete unsuitability, are inheriting new 93 and 95 models that are ready for production, and I'm sure I've heard good things about them as well.
Successful models now might just mean enough money to develop the next lot. Hopefully.
I agree the Rover comparisons are worryingly similar though.
|
|
Rover had been run into the ground from the sixties, this isn't the case with SAAB, which still has a reasonable name.
|
4 big differences between Saab and Rover:
1) Saab are about to under go launches of at least 2, if not more, wholly brand new models on up-to-date platforms with the latest engines. Rover were trying to sell vastly outdated cars in a very competitive market.
2) Saab have 400m Euro in backing from their own government. The British government didn't give two hoots about Rover until it was too late.
3) GM retain $326m of shares in Saab, meaning that Spyker won't be allowed to asset strip or otherwise abuse the company. Nobody was in a position to keep an eye on Rover, not even BMW who loaned them £500m, only to see the cash sit unused whilst the interest was creamed off by the directors...
4) So many people keep saying they would like a Saab one day, so it's just a case of building the right car. Your average buyer had more than enough of Rover by the late-80s and that was the beginning of the end even then.
However, there are two big problems facing Saab right now:
1) Even with the new models there's no certainty of getting back into profit. The problems must be quite fundamental.
2) They've had the stink of death about them for a good year now, that's bound to put people off from buying one with their own hard-earned. A few weeks ago the BBC announced their demise in headline news, but has failed to mention the takeover by Spyker, except in the side stories on their business pages. I wouldn't be surprised to find that most people at large believe Saab to be already dead and buried.
I'd say it's 50/50 whether Saab are around in 5 years, fingers crossed they are.
|
I think this will see Saab going down the MG Rover route. Spyker will find that being an premium mass producer is very different from building a handful of supercars each year.
Spyker might be able to soldier on with existing Saab models, with a facelift or two, but will they be able to develop the replacements needed in a few years' time?
|
|
Alternatively, might they be planning on giving the experienced managers within Saab free reign to actually develop the company?
|
|
Isn't that what they've tried and failed to do up to now?
|
|
As said above GM are keeping a steak - doubt whether they're doing it for fun, no doubt platforms and engine sharing will continue.
|
I think GM are retaining the stake in order to protect their Intellectual Property Rights, without which Saab could not continue at all.
But yes, I would expect platform and engine sharing to continue indefinitely, which very much avoids the mire Rover got into.
|
|
GM have come back from the brink - you're talking serious financial and business capability, Spyker are clearly not mugs, neither are the Swedish, Dutch and US Governments especially after what happened last year. I don't think that they bare comparison with the Phoenix Five......
|
but will they be able to develop the replacements needed in a few years' time?
Yes. The new 9-5 is showroom ready and has been EuroNCAP tested already. The estate version is not far behind.
They also have a new 9-3 based on the new Astra, and there's talk of other models in the pipeline, including a mid-size 4x4 to take on the Volvo XC60.
There's also been rumour of a 9-1 to break the small car market.
With having had GMs massive resources and platforms to draw on, Saab have the latest technologies - for now. However, once these platforms age in 5-7 years time, they better hope GM still co-operate or they will need to find a major player to share platforms with sharpish.
|
>Rover had been run into the ground from the sixties, this isn't the case with SAAB, which still has a reasonable name. <
Can I just say to all you of younger generations, on behalf of those of us who owned real Rovers, that Rover was not simply 'run into the ground' from the sixties, it was swallowed up by what became monolithic British Leyland and, like other once-respected marques, allowed to die the death of 1000 cuts. It just happened, sadly, that the once-respected name was resurrected, in a travesty of justice and in a bid to achieve some sort of credibility, by the blockheads who finally sealed British Leyland's fate decades later.
Rover and SAAB alike were known for high-quality engineering and innovative thinking - not for making mass-production tat. I fear SAAB has long been in the position in which Rover once found itself, and the writing is still on the wall.
I dare say Spyker will wheel out my lifelong hero Erik Carlsson at some stage. It's him I feel sorry for - lost his wife and his motoring identity in short order.
|
|
Surely part of the problem up to now has been the fact that they do use the GM platforms. Even the patriotic and laid back Swedes have worked out they were being asked to pay a premium for dressed up vauxhalls. And along with that came the reliability that was nothing special. It takes a bit more than an ignition switch on the tunnel to persuade people to buy a Saab over a Vectra.
|
It shouldn't be that much of a problem, just look at Audi!
It only becomes an issue when the equivalent Vectra is better built and better value for money, which has been the case at times.
|
They may be able to struggle along for a while like lame-duck Rover did but it cannot last. The competition is too stiff these days. I give it three years.
To succeed you need excellence across the board, USP (which may or may not tie in with excellence?), volume and LOTS of money.
GM couldn't make a success of it. I believe SAAB last made a profit in 2001. That's bad when the period up to 2007 saw large economic growth in the Western economies, the like of which probably never to be seen again.
GM may well still have a steak* [sic] but if they become too successful to the detriment of GM sales then you can imagine a situation where they pull the plug.
People on this forum bang on about the 'pre-GM' honeymoon days. People underestimate what GM brought to the party. Before GM there were no six cylinder engines for example. Many of the SAAB safety features that characterised the company's products are now mainstream. They may have been ahead in their day but the World moves on. If pre-GM was so good, then why didn't that business model succeed?
I don't relate to the pre-GM era being that good - a SAAB 99 was one of the worst cars we ever owned. A Peugeot 504 did everything we wanted far better.
Let SAAB die peacefully and gracefully, akin to Rover. Keep Volvo though.
There will be no tears in our house.
* Chips with mine though :-)
|
|
|
