What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
Saab - the future - Trilogy

Taken from Autocar's website

by Hilton Holloway 14 June 2012

When Saab managed to avoid being scrapped by General Motors in 2010, the company’s deep thinkers sat down and decided how the company should approach independence. Saab’s engineering background (many of the projects being delivered for the wider GM family) was in platform engineering, electrical architecture, suspension and all-wheel drive, control software, and turbocharging.

Saab has never designed its own base engine. Over the years it has borrowed designs from DKW, Ford, Triumph and GM, usually improving them beyond recognition. When the company was plotting the new Phoenix platform it intended to engineer much of the car itself, or in partnership for the Android-based instrumentation and electric-drive rear axle. When it came to the engines, however, Saab simply signed a deal to buy the UK-built 1.6-litre turbo Mini engine from BMW.

So there’s a certain symmetry in that the latest rescue plan of a company, which has never designed its own clean-sheet engine, will now never use an internal combustion engine again. The newly-formed National Electric Vehicle Sweden company says that it will put the experimental Saab 9-3 ePower electric vehicle into production and then re-start the development work on the Phoenix platform, re-engineered to use ‘EV technology from Japan’ (which is rumoured to be sourced from one of Panasonic’s companies).

Ironically, this left-field shift might suit Saab’s engineering heritage. It was ‘thinking different’ decades before Apple was created. If you look at the company’s achievements over six decades it really comes across as an automotive think tank that happened to make cars.

Saab had already engineered a battery-powered version of the 9-3, so getting the company up and running will not be too onerous, so long as the suppliers can be convinced to get onboard (payment in advance being the most likely successful method). The deal also makes sense in that the manufacturers of electric propulsion technology cannot get into the automotive market and using the shell of Saab to achieve this is a neat solution.

Ultimately, a bespoke Saab-designed EV is an extremely intriguing proposition. But there is one cloud on the horizon for the Swedes. NEVS’ plan is to ride the Government-driven demand for electric cars in China and the US. China, particularly is likely to force the take-up of EVs because of the twin problems of having to import ever-increasing volumes of oil and the smogs which are blighting Chinese mega cities.

But, while using the Trollhattan factory to get the 9-3 ePower onto the market makes obvious sense, will the Phoenix-based EV also be built in Sweden when its main market is so far away and the EV technology underpinning it comes from Japan? If NEVS is successful, surely the chances are that, in five years time, Trollhattan will be primarily an engineering centre, rather than the home to the manufacture of large numbers of battery-powered cars.

Saab - the future - 659FBE

I think SAAB will have to lie down and die quietly.

I have had 4 non-GM SAABs and loved them all, but two things have conspired to make SAAB a has-been. Firstly, they never achieved critical mass and were therefore increasingly vulnerable. Secondly the GM takeover was a kiss of death in terms of engineering independence and customer appeal.

I would never, in a million years buy a GM car with a SAAB badge on it and I'm sure that many of their previously loyal customers felt the same way. If a GM product were ever to be right for my job, I'll take the "value" version, thanks very much.

The point made about engines is an interesting one, but more critically, SAAB's power train design with the gearbox under the engine did not allow for the fitment of a variety of engines - even if they had them to fit. See how many differing engines you can get in a Passat for instance. My last pre-GM SAAB would probably have been my last even without the intervention of GM due to the lack of a viable diesel option. You just can't ignore a doubling of fuel cost and I certainly haven't.

I think the electric propulsion is fanciful. Real progress will be made by specialised energy storage technology - which they haven't got. Meanwhile, Toyota clearly have a huge lead over everyone else and are exploiting it - even BMW is licking their boots.

RIP SAAB.

659.

Edited by 659FBE on 21/06/2012 at 13:04

Saab - the future - unthrottled

A regurgitated PR puff piece promising a revolution 'just around the corner'.

Saab - the future - RT
but more critically, SAAB's power train design with the gearbox under the engine did not allow for the fitment of a variety of engines - even if they had them to fit. See how many differing engines you can get in a Passat for instance.

The transmission wasn't under the engine - that was the BMC Mini/1100 design - the transmission was on the end of the engine like virtually all modern transverse engined designs.

I think you misjudge the availability of tranverse-mounted engines that would fit the GM platforms - the complete range of inline 4's and Vee 6's was available - are you suggesting that one of GM's Vee 8's from USA should have been used ?

SAAB could even have used a longitudinal layout, as per the Passat, by using a Subaru platform and transmission - oh yes, they did but it flopped somewhat!

Saab - the future - veryoldbear
I love SAABs. I've got two sitting out on the drive.

Even ignoring the dead hand of GM, they made some rum old mistakes. One of the most fundamental is that the 9-3 and 9-5 series were too similar to each other. They had some Bad Ideas with V6's. The petrol V6 in the GM900 wasn't a bad engine, but it's thirsty compared with the smaller engine, and the cable operated clutch builds yer leg muscles. The Isuzu V6 diesel in the 9-5's was a beautiful engine when running. But when it stopped it was usually terminal due to dropped liners.

But all this talk of an electric revival ... frankly I don't believe it.
Saab - the future - 659FBE

My comments were referring to SAAB's designs before the GM take over. The suggestion was that they were too restrictive in terms of their ability to accomodate a variety of engines.

The pre-GM 99/900 had the gearbox under the engine with a triple strand Renold chain drive (later models) linking the two. Earlier models had a geared drive which would not take the torque of the turbocharged engines. It was only the arrival of the 9000 which resulted in the adoption of the "standard" transverse layout for the powertrain.

The 9000 was not a success for SAAB. FIAT have never been good partners and the vehicle was not right in terms of size and weight for its market segment. There was also no diesel option - which killed it stone dead when the price of fuel increased sharply. A joint lemon.

659.

Saab - the future - RT

My comments were referring to SAAB's designs before the GM take over. The suggestion was that they were too restrictive in terms of their ability to accomodate a variety of engines.

The pre-GM 99/900 had the gearbox under the engine with a triple strand Renold chain drive (later models) linking the two. Earlier models had a geared drive which would not take the torque of the turbocharged engines. It was only the arrival of the 9000 which resulted in the adoption of the "standard" transverse layout for the powertrain.

The 9000 was not a success for SAAB. FIAT have never been good partners and the vehicle was not right in terms of size and weight for its market segment. There was also no diesel option - which killed it stone dead when the price of fuel increased sharply. A joint lemon.

659.

Unique transmission layouts do seem to lead manufacturers down blind alleys - Subaru have that issue presently, unable to share components with other manufacturers

I agree that the last real SAAB was the original 900 - it was all downhill from then on.

Saab - the future - Big John

Still loved my 91 9000cs though - especially those seats!

My 2.0 also averaged mid 30's mpg - mostly motorway.

Saab - the future - Mike H
The 9000 was not a success for SAAB.

It was a pretty good car for most owners, and drove well with a good range of engines - all petrol I agree, but it was in those halcyon days before diesels became the magic form of propulsion. And, of course, before people realised that diesels loaded to the gunwhales with EU-legislated emission controls, DMFs etc were not the answer to life, the universe and everything. The 2.3LPT was a particularly nice drive with a smooth responsive engine.

Edited by Mike H on 21/06/2012 at 23:10

Saab - the future - unthrottled

all petrol I agree, but it was in those halcyon days before diesels became the magic form of propulsion.

Well, it is really. Every serious engine that works for a living in a ship, truck, or locomotive is a diesel.

It's all very well cooing over 8000 RPM redlines and silky smooth accoustics but in the age of BIK taxes and £1.30+ litre fuel, mid twenties fuel economy grows old very quickly for most people.

The new small petrol engines are not dissimilar to diesels in terms ofdesign and drive characteristics and still don't equal diesel efficiency. That said, they do make good low annual mileage alternatives for private buyers. If my annual mileage increases, my next car will be diesel. A 3.0 litre 6 pot will match a 4 pot petrol in economy and be far nicer to drive-even if the fun stops at 4000 RPM.

Full marks to whoever dreamt up this piece. The notion that because Saab never developed their own engine means they will pioneers in the field of engineless cars. Wonderful!

Saab - the future - Mike H

Well, it is really. Every serious engine that works for a living in a ship, truck, or locomotive is a diesel.

Sorry to disappoint you but we're talking cars here. I was simply making the point that diesel is not the be all and end all as those with older modern diesels are discovering.

Edited by Mike H on 22/06/2012 at 23:57

Saab - the future - unthrottled

Even with cars diesel is an attractive option for a lot of drivers. I really like the driving characteristics of diesel which I find more useful than the high revving petrols. Yes, the clattery idle isn't attractive, but I can live with that.

The 'complexity' argument doesn't stack up. Petrol engines need quite a lot of kit to compete with diesels on fuel economy.

There seems to be an underlying assumption that, within five years, petrol will be on a par with diesel in terms of efficiency whilst maintaining the reliability of the old engines-and that isn't going to happen.

Petrol does shine on low mileage use though. Horses for courses.

Saab - the future - Collos25

If fuel was sold by mass and not by volume then diesel would not be so attractive, because of the taxation system here in Germany a new petrol under 1500cc does not start to outcost a diesel until around the 30000km a year mark.Once the fascination with Co2 is over and they start concentrating on the real culprit gases then petrol will come into a more level playing field at the moment there are artificial barriers in place which favour diesel fuel.But we we can only look forward to dearer carbon fuels which ever we use.

Saab - the future - unthrottled

I would completely agree with that. Still don't understand the justification for the tax break on LPG. Last time I looked there was no particulate matter emission limit specified for spark ignition engines-unless they use direct injection, so the clean burning argument doesn't stack up.

Saab - the future - RT

The main reason for LPG tax breaks may be to encourage use of it, rather than burning it off from the oil production platforms - it produces CO2 wherever it's burnt so might as well use it instead of petrol rather than in addition.

Saab - the future - Trilogy

An update on the Saab/GM story. http://www.swadeology.com/2012/08/spykersaabs-3b-lawsuit-against-gm-in-a-nutshell-according-to-me/#more-2713

Saab - the future - unthrottled

The lawsuit is frivolous. You can understand why GM would not want a their patents to be effectively acquired by Chinese conglomerates just to preserve a brand name!

Spyker (like John Towers and his cronies) didn't have a clue how to compete in the volume car market. Like the phoenix consortium, they were very good at spending other people's money while contributing very little of their own. They stung the Swedish government for $400 million in a vanity exercise.

Let it go!

Saab - the future - Trilogy

Taken from http://www.saabsunited.com/category/news/

From the Just Auto article, Lars Holmqvist the former head of CLEPA says: “Youngman is also thinking about suing GM,” Holmqvist told just-auto from Sweden. “I know that. They have not made up their minds and, of course, they would be encouraged by Victor Muller’s lawsuit.

“I have information. I know from people…they are looking into the possibility. It is obvious because they spent SEK550m…securing the rights to the new platform.”

Victor Muller claims that GM deliberately drove Saab into bankruptcy by interfering in Youngman’s attempt to buy Saab and from what we can see right now, there are some areas that seem to be obvious where GM over stepped their rights. With Youngman now looking into to their own possible lawsuit, it would seem that GM has some serious issues surrounding them.

Will GM take these suits seriously? I think they have little choice but to take them serious and if they are smart, in my mind they will want to settle quickly. GM is not in a good position to deal with any negative publicity and this has the potential to be crippling to the auto giant.

Lars had this to say about weather GM takes it serious or not: “I hope Detroit takes it seriously because the one thing about Victor Muller is he is a smart lawyer,” added Holmqvist. “This is going to cost a lot of money. He has got more energy than the whole management group of GM put together.”

Weather you have faith or trust in Victor and his abilities, that line says a lot about the determination and character of Victor Muller when the former head of the suppliers body describes you this way. The article also goes on to say that if Spyker is to be awarded any of this suit that part of it would go back to Saab and then on to the creditors. So that being said, this case means a lot to a lot of different parties and could in the end be the start of some serious headaches for GM. GM of coa*** is defending themselves saying that these suits are baseless and without merit, to which I would have to believe is just lawyer talk and fluff. I am sure this has them worried and they will have to take this seriously and they will probably try to settle because as the late Curvin O’Rielly once said, “It’s hard to build a reputation in the car business. And so easy to kill it.” This suit and others that may follow could potentially cast a darker shadow on GM then what there is now and it is very difficult to recover from such damage to their reputation.

I think too and these are my personal thoughts, when different companies start to come forward and get somewhere with their litigations, it will undoubtably bring more. As Lars Holmqvist further makes mention in the article of further potential balls rolling GM’s way: “There are very strange things that happen,” said Holmqvist. “I see some papers and emails that are very interesting regarding the action of GM. It is not going away. “I suspect we have another scandal coming up. If this ball starts rolling, there will be more balls rolling.” This is not looking good for GM, not good at all.

Youngman was not available for comment and would suspect they will not comment until they do or do not take action.

Edited by Trilogy on 08/08/2012 at 22:35

Saab - the future - unthrottled

In the USA lawsuits and counter lawsuits are ten a penny. The notion that another lawsuit will somehow cripple GM and destroy their reputation is ludicrous. People buy GM cars with their heads, not the hearts. As long as the cars are correctly priced they will sell.

These lawyers are just opportunists looking to pick some easy scraps from the carcass of Saab.

Saab - the future - SteveLee

The biggest mistake GM made was not making the decision to either force SAAB to reskin GM cars and stop tinkering with mechanicals or give them a suitable budget to be a fairly independent concern. SAAB ended up stretching reskin budgets to include re-engineering (very average) GM components to their more exacting standards. This delayed the launch of SAAB models (angered GM no-end!) and introduced reliability issues, simultaneously destroying the volume-advantage of using GM platforms by introducing low-volume SAAB-only parts.

SAAB like VOLVO were never premium models – they were content over presentation motorcars bought by people who valued dependability over desirability. They enjoyed premium prices in the 'States simply because they were European. GM and Ford thought that they could compete with Audi and BMW with SAAB and VOLVO badges on their generic platforms. So we ended up with cars based on mass-market models at premium prices which the target audience (outside the US) were not prepared to pay. A real shame. SAAB only had cars in one (shrinking) segment so I think they would have gone under anyway without GM.

VOLVO should go back to their roots – make the cars simpler, cheaper but more robust than the market average - priced at mass-market levels and they might get their traditional loyal customers back.

Edited by SteveLee on 10/08/2012 at 19:36