Sweden to GM: Save Saab on your own
GM's hope that Saab might continue on as a standalone automaker in 2010 with a little financial assistance from the government of Sweden has hit a major snag. Sweden's Enterprise and Energy Minister Maud Olofsson has said that she's "deeply disappointed in General Motors," and calls its actions "irresponsible."From what we can gather, there is absolutely zero chance that the current administration in Sweden will give any money to General Motors on behalf of Saab, though the possibility does remain that a loan of up to five billion kronor (450 million euros, $566 million) could come from the European Investment Bank with Sweden acting as guarantor.
The fact that Sweden is reluctant to put its backing behind Saab shouldn't come as a surprise. Since GM purchased the once quirky automaker, it's found itself in a constant struggle to actually turn a profit on the investment. The Swedish government doesn't seem to think it could do any better.
[Source: Detroit Free Press]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Sea Urchin 9:32AM (2/19/2009)
GM did kill Saab. Saab can not compete with Huindai and Honda, let alone a real luxury car.
Reply
caddy-v 10:17AM (2/19/2009)
You wouldn't know a real luxury car if one bit you in the arse.
Mr.Oak 12:31PM (2/19/2009)
GM didn't kill SAAB. Saab and Volvo had their day in the spotlight in the Mid to late 80s. Then came Acura, Lexus and Infiniti. (Specifically the 2nd gen Legend, killed them) Saab and Volvo were never the same after that.
Saab never kept pace with the industry. The interior of a SAAB today is not much different from the then state-of-the-Art interiors of the late 80s.
noz 1:46PM (2/19/2009)
So why all this animosity againts Saab but not GM? If Saab had its hayday, so as hell sure did GM...even further back.
GM should have been buried 40+ years ago when Americans really didn't know any better.
Apparently though, reading some people's posts here, they still don't know any better.
Big Rocket 10:26PM (2/19/2009)
So why all this animosity towards Americans but not others? If America had its heyday, then sure as hell did many other countries... even further back.
Europe would have been buried 40+ years ago except for American intervention during WWII and the Cold War.
Apparently though, reading some people's posts here, they still don't know any better.
noz 12:58AM (2/20/2009)
Learn your history you stupid parrot. The US got involved in WWII because of resources. For oil and rubber.
And I know it's hard for you to understand, GM is a failure...it needs to go...like you.
Big Rocket 1:20AM (2/20/2009)
@noz: Ever heard of Pearl Harbor? And even *if* the US really joined WWII to obtain oil and rubber: Without this imaginary American greed, you would be speaking a different language right now, if you are even alive today because your parents and grandparents were lucky enough to survive the persecution of your country's invaders.
And I know it's hard for you to understand, but hating on your country's liberators is stupid... it needs to go... like you.
dukeisduke 9:33AM (2/19/2009)
Goodbye, Saab.
Reply
mitchw 9:41AM (2/19/2009)
Too many brands, too few deck chairs.
Reply
jc 12:00PM (2/19/2009)
You mean too many brands, too few lifeboats?
hokieman09 9:52AM (2/19/2009)
That's it. Its time for Saab to go
Reply
Corey W. 9:53AM (2/19/2009)
Saab was struggling before GM bought it...... The company known for its "funky" styling and "quirky" mechanics was not going anywhere with out help. GM just never knew how to use them.....
Reply
David 11:44AM (2/19/2009)
Exactly. Saab has always been a small, quirky car company. GM tried to make it a bigger, somewhat quirky car company and the failed due to failing to try hard enough. I suppose GM got whatever they needed technology-wise from the brand a long time ago. Come on GM - sell this albatross and get on with becoming a healthy company.
Mr.Oak 12:33PM (2/19/2009)
Corey Agreed, Acura, Lexus and Infiniti is what did Saab in.
MajorGeek 9:53AM (2/19/2009)
Im not familiar with Saab, but looked up their history, seems like a company that likes doing airplanes and military applications more then it ever did cars. I don't know about you all, but whenever I see a Saab, I wonder what made them decide to look at the car. Very boring looking cars.
According to Wikipedia, Saab began dying its slow death in 1987, GM investing 600 million was not able to save it. They were able to turn a profit in 95 and made the mistake of buying the whole thing. RIP. And its not GM's fault.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab
Reply
Sea Urchin 10:09AM (2/19/2009)
I am sure it's not, just like death of Olds Mobile, Saturn and soon to be dead Chevy is not GMs fault.
Alex 11:22AM (2/19/2009)
Its definitely GM's fault, since taking over Saab they have given it one completely new model, the 9-3. Since then they watered down the brand (like they do all their brands) with badge engineered copies (9-2x & 9-7x). The supposed flagship 9-5 has been around since 1997 without a replacement which is ridiculous. And as much hating as there is on this site for Saab they still infiltrate the snobby euro/euro luxury market that no other GM brand can or will in the forseable future. Also they have slow sales here but they still sold 70,000 units in europe last year while Cadillac/Hummer/Corvette only sold between 2,000 and 4,000. THe interest and loyalty is there, they just need the products which GM has starved them of. The more news that comes out about GM with all this bailout talk the more it becomes apparent just how badly GM has been run by their management, the shareholder should be demanding that they clean house, that is if there are any.
Corey W. 12:51PM (2/19/2009)
@Alex
70,000 is terrible for Saab, that's the issue, the loyal base just wasn't keeping it going. And they were having that problem before GM started goofing with their lineup. No one is defending bad GM management, but without help, Saab would have died long time ago.
MJL 1:57PM (2/19/2009)
It's entirely GM's fault. It's the same reason that GM killed Saturn: massive investment at first leads to moderate success, but then the investment isn't followed up as the bean-counters demand results BEFORE they'll give more money (the most bass-ackwards way to do things I can think of) and then starvation and death.
Saab did plenty to compete with Acura and Infiniti — companies which were both in imminent danger of being killed with miserable sales numbers as recently as 1998 — and even if this does explain why the company didn't do well (and I don't think it does), how does it explain the company's decline in Europe, where both of those marques fear to tread?
The real answer, of course, is that GM refused to give Saab the money and the technology it needed in order to survive and innovate. Of course, they were happy to plunder its turbocharging, its Haldex system and its safety advances. But money for development to make the company the technological leader it deserved to be? Heavens no.
The forthcoming (well, maybe not) 9-3X is a textbook study in GM's mismanagement; Saab's designers have had it finished for years, but GM refused time and again to green-light it. Saab dealers clamored for an SUV to compete, and finally, just as the market was starting to tank, GM gave them a gussied up TrailBlazer with the ignition key in the middle.
Make no mistake: this is GM's doing.
JZeke 10:16AM (2/19/2009)
Id be sad to see them go, but its been a long time since Saab built well, a real Saab.
I drove a 1988 900 Turbo Sedan for a few days over the summer, back to back with a friends 9-3 Linear. As strange as some design details were, that 900 was an amazingly fun car! It cornered in a way that made you forget it FWD. The turbo provided real thrust - keeping it easily in the sweet spot of Northern Virginian traffic. Above all it felt tank-solid. Not bad for 20 year old car!
I don't get what went so wrong, they should've just working on their core strengths of making entertaining small cars. The 9-3 is nice, but its so average it disappears into the crowd.
RIP Saab.
Reply