Swedish Pickle: Study says GM lost $5,000+ on each Saab sold over the last 8 years
2008 Saab 9-3 Turbo X – Click above for high-res image gallery
When the automotive history of the last ten or so years is written, one of the most curious chapters will be why big, flush with cash American car companies purchased relatively diminutive, relatively oddball Swedish brands. Ford and Volvo, while still not a match made in heaven, at least gave it a go, sharing platforms and technology. The merger has yielded some good results, too. Anyone that's driven cars like the Flex or new Taurus can attest to how well Ford skin draped over a Volvo-based chassis works – especially when motivated by a twin-turbocharged, direct-injected motor.
General Motors acquisition of Saab on the other hand, was basically a complete and total disaster. Saab suffered mightily at the hands of the General, being forced to accept Opel underpinnings with hard points that prevented hatchbacks and therefore alienated the brand's five-door loving base. The 9-5 (formerly the 9000) languished and essentially died on the vine. The Saabaru (9-2X) proved the no one wanted to pay a $5000 premium for a WRX with nice seats, and the 9-7X was for all intents and purposes a Chevy Trailblazer with the ignition key stuck between the seats. Worse, with Saturn morphing into the American branch of Opel, Saab was the afterthought after the afterthought.
According to an article in Sweden's di, GM lost $5,100 on every Saab it has sold over the last eight years. The how is murky, but the why is that they spent a lot of money to purchase Saab and then didn't sell very many of them. Moreover, it's costing GM a pretty penny to unload Saab. Just about $900,000,000 to put a number on it. All in, General Motors lost nearly $6 billion dollars with Saab in the eight years they spent together. A total waste on both sides of the Atlantic. Here's hoping for better things from the (still pending) Koenigsegg marriage.
Gallery: 2008 Saab Turbo X
[Source: di.se via TTAC]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
ChopperDave 10:34AM (11/20/2009)
Yeah, so did their owners. Except it only took about 6 months.
Reply
fixitfixitstop 11:36AM (11/20/2009)
I laughed, even though it's really not that funny.
John H. 3:36PM (11/20/2009)
Yeah.
I miss the old, old Saab - the 9000 Turbo was well ahead of its time.
I hope the new, new Saab can fix things, and I'd love to see a retro-styled 900 hatch with a turbo.
bornfromjets03 5:32PM (11/20/2009)
Have you ever owned a Saab??
Dave 8:17PM (11/20/2009)
"Have you ever owned a Saab??"
What does that have to do with it?
$5,100 in depreciation during the first 6 months is not unusual for a "luxury" car, especially a European one.
Chad 12:33AM (11/23/2009)
I believe it. I have a current model 9-3 and it cost $26,500 USD. Can't think of another car for that money with cornering xenon headlights, 2L Turbo w/ 210 HP, Leather Seats/Steering Wheel, 17" wheels, seat heaters, dual zone climate control, 37 MPG highway (practical, not EPA). Car is a blast to drive. GM should have used this engine in all of its other midsized cars.
ChopperDave 9:26AM (11/23/2009)
Born From Jets: I've owned three. An '03 Arc, '04 Arc, and '05 Linear (I know, shame on me). I've also driven 15+ other 9-3s, as loaners when mine were in the shop (i.e., often). The '03 and '04 were owned longest: three years for the '03, and two for the '04. None were worth much more than the tires when I traded them in.
I take it you've owned at least one; you must know, then, about the cheap-a$$ plastics, the creaky suspension in the fall, winter, and early spring, the badges that fade away or wear off, the weird electical glitches ... sure, they're quick and great on gas, but so's my A4, and it feels like it's worth what I paid for it, unlike the Saab. If you're a fanboi, fine, back it up.
Swede 10:35AM (11/20/2009)
"Opel underpinnings with hard points that prevented hatchbacks"
Absolutely not. Opel did the hatchbacks. SAAB wasnt allowed to.
Reply
Swede 10:38AM (11/20/2009)
And with all the money shifting within GM (Saab had to pay rent for their own factory to, built by Saab on land owned by Saab, to GM Canada) it's impossible to say exactly what was going on without having access to GM's account books.
Taglane 10:38AM (11/20/2009)
DAMN!
Reply
Chris 10:45AM (11/20/2009)
Hardly Surprising.
I picked up a new loaded 2008 9-3 Sport Combi Aero for $26,000. The sticker was $42,000!
Right now KBB shows my car to be worth more used than I paid for it new! OK, kbb is not that accurate but it makes me happy.
Reply
AZZO45b 11:02AM (11/20/2009)
Yep. As for the Subie-Saab 92X it was actually CHEAPER than the WRX with better styling & nicer interior bits. My friend had one... after her $5000.00 rebate & GM discount it rolled out of the dealer for $22,500! The Subaru dealer had WRX's listed @ 25K
why not the LS2LS7? 11:08AM (11/20/2009)
At one time, with all the right rebates and the Friends and Family for everyone, you could get a 9-2X for $16,500. I almost bought one just because it was so cheap.
So yeah, I believe GM lost $5K per Saab.
AZZO45b 12:58PM (11/20/2009)
My friend has the 92X Aero & it was listed about 5-6K more. That $16,500 92X had smaller wheels & tire package along with a less powerful engine. Add almost $2000 to BOTH cars for tax, title, etc. Her 23K had started at mid 21's
Shamdiddly 2:09PM (11/20/2009)
My wife (also a GM employee) picked up an 06 9-2x Linear with every option for $18500 OTD. It is definitely the red-headed stepchild of GM; a Subaru produced by fuji heavy industries (which GM owned part of), sold as a Saab (which GM owned).
Substandard driveability (trying to drive at part throttle with the a/c compressor cycling is quite the experience) and horrible brakes (needed replacement at 20k) but, oh how it goes in the snow!
audiRS4ever 5:23PM (11/20/2009)
I have a 9-2x aero, and I love it. i respectfully disagree with your handling/brakes comment.
edydantes 10:56AM (11/20/2009)
I bought a used 9-3 4 years ago and will probably trade it in (for the value of a loaf of bread) for another.
I get decent fuel economy; a comfy and well appointed interior and a turbo to help me squirt through traffic.
I, for one, will miss the SAAB of massive depreciation. I love me a bargain and a 3-5 year old SAAB is probably the most car you can get for the money.
Reliability has been average (no worse than the Accord and Outback I had previous) so I suppose it's a bit of a gamble - but that's what we, cheapskates, do.
Reply
Throwback 11:03AM (11/20/2009)
Good point about the depreciation. My 2005 9-3 Linear suffered a similiar melt down in value. I am eyeing the prices for the 2008 9-3 combi with the turbo 4. Probably pick one up next year, I am one of the few who prefer the GM SAAB 9-3s. Mine was dead reliable (except for an awful radio), but maintenance is pricey.
Alex Hobbs 12:47AM (11/21/2009)
Totally agree, picked up a fully loaded '03 9-5 aero 4 years ago with a certified warranty for the price of a Camry. For all the knocking Saab gets it is way more fun to drive than the Camry, has fantastic seats, gets more compliments than probably all Camry's combined (about 4 and counting), an amazing harmonn kardon stereo and a fun "whoop-whoop" sound when I lock the doors. The car has been reliable, a couple little things but nothing too bad, overal I've been very happy and got a much cooler car than a Camry for the same price. Best of all besides the car snobs on here normal people and urban yuppies still consider it a fun little luxury car.
Throwback 10:50AM (11/20/2009)
"All in, General Motors lost nearly $6 billion dollars with Saab in the eight years they spent together."
Good luck Koenigsegg. When you can't make SAAB profitable, you can always blame the previous owners. It seems to work for some.
Reply