I like it [Archive] - SaabCentral Forums

: I like it


squishmann
4th July 2005, 11:31 AM
yesterday afternoon i browsed on my dealers lot and stumbled across 2 9-7Xs. both were sold.

it looks totally different from the car shows earlier in the year. tailighs are ehhh. but the rest of the car flows with it's GM sheetmetal. looked smaller than it was and sat very low. the silver truck looked amazing. the lighter colors are definately better for that vehicle. front end shows more definition.

the only thing i'm dissapointed with is the busy rear. the wiper arm needs a new design.

the roof rack is the best thing on the car. beautiful.

it's got a good lease deal right now so it should do extremely well considering the price it goes for. saab should be able to double the amount of trucks buick sells. that's a lot of cash for saab.

if i were in the market for an SUV, as a saab guy i couldn't pass up the 9-7's good looks.

congrats to all the owners out there



http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//pictures/VEHICLE/2005/Saab/100281368/029731-E.jpg

very athletic looking. black is not the color for this car. if they can do this with a rebadge imagine 2-3 years from now when they do it from the ground up!

omegajb
4th July 2005, 06:58 PM
I like it too, I also like the Trailblazer. They just seem too similar. I guess my beef with the 9-7 is GM has always reacted to the market instead of leading the pack.
When the Volvo XC90 came out they didn't take an Explorer or Escape and throw on some Volvo parts and sell it as Volvo.
I have been for years that Saab needs a SUV but I was very disappointed in the 9-7.
Ford owns Volvo
Chrysler has a share of Mercedes
GM owns Saab

Look at the Chrysler cars, you see them using a lot of the Mercedes parts not the other way around.



I think in a cross platform all brands can win but Saabís commercials use the catch phrase ď Independently InspiredĒ



If I had a science project in the third grade and I took my brotherís project and changed a few things and threw my name on it I should fail, in my opinion Saab and GM did on this car.



Donít get me wrong, I love Saab, I just donít agree with some of their recent decisions.

apzer09
4th July 2005, 07:18 PM
Donít get me wrong, I love Saab, I just donít agree with some of their recent decisions.
I agree with Saab's decisions on the recent 9-2x and 9-7x, but Saab would never have wanted to start new market endeavors this way. They've wanted an SUV of their own for years, probably before Volvo got theirs, but GM never gave them what they wanted and deserved. Now the 9-7x was created out of necessity and yes, it's not quite how I would have imagined a Saab, but it's surprisingly good for what it is.

I was overhearing a conversation with two other people about their Volvos. One of them had also owned Saabs in the past and said he would never buy another Saab because Saab doesn't have its own engineers and it's just a GM, whereas Ford has welcomed Volvo's engineers to make Fords better.To not spark a fight, I kept quiet, but it's not like Saabs today are just GMs with a facelift. Saab still has their engineers and own team to make a Saab a Saab like they did with the 9-7x.

Damn, there I go again defending Saab.:roll:

BlkKat
4th July 2005, 08:02 PM
Saab still has their engineers and own team to make a Saab a Saab like they did with the 9-7x. Damn, there I go again defending Saab.:roll:

You are correct - feel free to defend Saab. Why shouldn't you? I work for GM in Detroit and I was recently contacted for some information by a real-life Saab engineer working at Trollhattan who was working on designing interior improvements for a future generation of Opel/Saab/NA cars.

So, in short, it's not true that the Saab engineers contribute nothing to mainline GM. I've even seen it in action. I don't know how big Volvo is, but it apparently has more sales, and therefore more actual "Swedish" staff to spread "Swedishness" around inside Volvo and Ford.

Though I am not a decision-maker, and people will probably think I've drunk the corporate Kool-Aid, I think worrying about platform engineering is fairly elitist when the baseline platform is a respectable one. I judge cars and trucks by their looks, product attributes, and purchase price - I don't care if there's a similar one made by another division purely as a car purchaser (of course I know there are marketing and brand loyalty consequences--that's why there are so many upset Saab car owners bashing the 9-7x). Personally, I think the whole family of TrailBlazer/Envoy/Rainier trucks are pretty nice looking, and the 9-7x is the nicest of them all. I don't generally like SUVs, but this one looks pretty sleek and has a beautiful front end. And personally, I think the whole Volvo line-up is pretty ugly. The XC90 is the best, but I think the BMW SUVs do the same thing better.

CleveSaab
5th July 2005, 10:13 AM
Chrysler has a share of Mercedes

Look at the Chrysler cars, you see them using a lot of the Mercedes parts not the other way around.


FOR THE RECORD: Chrysler was flat-out purchased by Mercedes Benz NOT the other way around.

Architosh
8th July 2005, 08:17 PM
You are correct - feel free to defend Saab. Why shouldn't you? I work for GM in Detroit and I was recently contacted for some information by a real-life Saab engineer working at Trollhattan who was working on designing interior improvements for a future generation of Opel/Saab/NA cars.

So, in short, it's not true that the Saab engineers contribute nothing to mainline GM. I've even seen it in action. I don't know how big Volvo is, but it apparently has more sales, and therefore more actual "Swedish" staff to spread "Swedishness" around inside Volvo and Ford.


So nice to have real GM people on this site. Your comments are well taken. I do wish more GM management would look at the Saab engineering and branding potential like Ford did with Volvo. I have some friends who are strickly American car buyers but loved the fact that the Ford 500 was based on the Volvo platform. That sold the car for them. And they saw or believed they saw the Volvo quality in it (real or imagined). GM has an elite technology brand in Saab with great designs, they need to leverage the brand and its Swedish technology. If they don't they are blowing it big time.

apzer09
8th July 2005, 08:52 PM
So nice to have real GM people on this site. Your comments are well taken. I do wish more GM management would look at the Saab engineering and branding potential like Ford did with Volvo. I have some friends who are strickly American car buyers but loved the fact that the Ford 500 was based on the Volvo platform. That sold the car for them. And they saw or believed they saw the Volvo quality in it (real or imagined). GM has an elite technology brand in Saab with great designs, they need to leverage the brand and its Swedish technology. If they don't they are blowing it big time.
Couldn't have said it better myself. :D

omegajb
9th July 2005, 08:58 AM
FOR THE RECORD: Chrysler was flat-out purchased by Mercedes Benz NOT the other way around.
My mistake, it's hard to remember who owns who these days.

Simmy150
29th December 2005, 05:45 PM
FOR THE RECORD: Chrysler was flat-out purchased by Mercedes Benz NOT the other way around.

And Chrysler is experiencing bigger gains in quality as Merc's has dropped off. I have owned 2 Jeeps and 2 M-Bs. Jeep quality is far superior.

Genespleen
15th February 2006, 11:10 PM
Aesthetics are of course subjective, but the 9-7, to me, simply looks like a jacked up station wagen. Most all SUVs are slight variations on a very predictable theme. Especially rebadged ones.

Don't get me wrong. It's big, but pleasant, and inoffensive.

mike saunders
15th February 2006, 11:11 PM
Whatever helps the brand, helps us all.

Genespleen
16th February 2006, 09:54 PM
I never did hold much with the "my country right or wrong" idea--and "what helps the brand, helps us all" sounds much the same. I think the harm done on terms of the overall SUV phenomenon well trumps notions of brand loyalty. It does to me anyway. I disagree with GM-Saab's decision to pursue this particular market.

jgmiller
17th February 2006, 01:03 AM
Actually most SUV's are really just a modern version of the station wagon. My parent's generation had the station wagon, and as children will do we rebelled and fell in love with the mini-van concept (YUCK) for a while. When that became too "soccer mom" and no guy would drive one the SUV came along. This started us on the road back to the wagon, now of course we have these bizarre creatures like the Murano that look like a wagon that took a puff of helium.

Of wagons, mini-vans, SUV's and whatever you call a Murano I'll take the looks of an SUV. Of course I'd rather take the looks of an SC430 but it's hard to fit things in those.

mike saunders
17th February 2006, 01:24 AM
Actually most SUV's are really just a modern version of the station wagon.

Actually, that's not at all true. Station wagons were/are built on car frames and retained most of the handling and gas mileage of cars. Most SUVs are built on truck frames, but the bigger body makes the center of gravity higher. They handle as bad or worse than pickups and have worse mileage.

...as children will do we rebelled and fell in love with the mini-van concept (YUCK) for a while. When that became too "soccer mom" and no guy would drive one the SUV came along.

True. Very true. The tilt away from minivans was due to a couple of reasons, the main ones being cost -- profit margins on SUVs are higher than on any other vehicle type -- and public acceptance of the myth of SUV safety. GM's own market research that found that SUVs tended to be bought by people who are "insecure, vain, self-centered, and self-absorbed, who are frequently nervous about their marriages, and who lack confidence in their driving skills." Remember....this is GM's own market research, not Greenpeace. The major carmakers pushed the public away from minivans as the people movers of choice because they're able to make more money from them. People are generally sheep in the face of a well-executed marketing campaign, and this one was waged for years and on multiple fronts.

Of wagons, mini-vans, SUV's and whatever you call a Murano I'll take the looks of an SUV. Of course I'd rather take the looks of an SC430 but it's hard to fit things in those.

Looks are very important to most car buyers, often more important than practicality. Most SUV owners don't need that big of a vehicle, but they like the way it looks, and more importantly, they like they way they look driving one.

The 9-7 is a nice looking SUV. If it draws more people to the brand, then that helps us all.

mike saunders
17th February 2006, 01:36 AM
I disagree with GM-Saab's decision to pursue this particular market.

Gene, many people feel the same way. In the face of mounting gas prices and tougher CAFE regulations, it didn't seem to make much fiscal sense to release an SUV at this stage.

but....they did...and the badge says Saab, and Saab dealers are selling it, so it should be supported. Good news is that you can expect to see an E85 multifuel version soon...

CleveSaab
17th February 2006, 12:32 PM
Actually, that's not at all true. Station wagons were/are built on car frames and retained most of the handling and gas mileage of cars. Most SUVs are built on truck frames, but the bigger body makes the center of gravity higher. They handle as bad or worse than pickups and have worse mileage.



I am quite sure he was refering to the way they are utilized, my friend. Not they way they are built. And in that respect he is 100% correct.

mike saunders
17th February 2006, 02:12 PM
Cleve, I'll buy that....

They were initially designed for very different things, but are now used in similar ways.

jgmiller
17th February 2006, 07:57 PM
Thanks, actually I was referring to the look and use not the mechanical aspect. Lets face it other than the recent hybrid craze there hasn't been any major advances in cars in years that make people go out and buy. So the only way to get people to buy (other than for replacement) they need to come up with a marketing strategy. They research and figure out as you said that people think an SUV is safer so they push that and make people buy. Then they say "Oh look we've created an SUV that isn't based on a truck, it's cool", and people buy. Now we've really moved into the "features" war, every ridiculous, useless feature you can think of is being thrown into cars these days.

Case in point, my 9-7X came with headlamp washers. Ok mechanically cool? Sure, something to make my friends laugh when they see it in operation? You bet. Do I need it or want it? Not at all but it came with the car and I liked the other features. You know what though, there are a lot of people who will think their life will end if they don't have that feature. Why? Because it's something their neighbor doesn't have.

True innovation drives very little these days. Most of the true innovators can be found working on the Internet. This is one reason car manufacturers are in trouble, they don't innovate. Toyota doesn't really innovate much more than Detroit but they do make a high quality product and use that as an advantage. I'm not an automotive engineer but I would be willing to bet that GM, Ford or Chrysler could make a car that looks amazing, gets amazing gas mileage and doesn't cost $50K if they just had the guts to try. If they did they wouldn't have to worry about red ink for a while. Unfortunately they're all beurocracies these days and thinking like that is too far out of the box for them.

They've learned that Americans have short memories and can be pretty dense. SUV sales were down after gas went up, but I'd be willing to bet in less than a year after everyone has gotten used to the new prices then SUV sales will move back up again.

dlflyboy
18th February 2006, 02:23 AM
Chrysler has a share of Mercedes


I thought Mercedes OWNED Chrysler. ;)

mike saunders
18th February 2006, 09:30 AM
Case in point, my 9-7X came with headlamp washers. Ok mechanically cool? Sure, something to make my friends laugh when they see it in operation? You bet. Do I need it or want it? Not at all but it came with the car and I liked the other features. You know what though, there are a lot of people who will think their life will end if they don't have that feature.

The headlamp washers are one of the few Saablike safety features of the car. Saab and other European carmakers have used them for years because when you drive on slushy roads, the dirty spray from other cars coats the headlamps and cuts light transmission by as much as half.

Safety -- and ergonomics -- also drives why your key is in that weird place.

Non-truck based SUVs have been around for longer than the Murano or any of the cute utes. They share similar uni-body construction, which means the body and the frame are built together as an integral piece. Jeep Grand Cherokees have been built this way for decades. Only problem is that making one requires extensive retooling and an entire assembly line dedicated to that one vehicle. The plus side is that these vehicles handle better and have lower rollover rates than body-on-frame SUVs. GM and Ford knew this, but, again, the profit margins were higher on body-on-frame vehicles and the public was buying them in droves.

Again, if enough people buy the 9-7x, that will increase Saab's bottom line and help the company. What's good for the company is good for us all....

Simmy150
18th February 2006, 07:11 PM
Increase SAAB's bottom line? SAAB hasn't made money EVER.

Like the 9-7X or not, they had to build an SUV. It has attracted people to the brand and stopped current customers from running away in droves.

As for alternative fuels, E85 is going to be way more expensive than gasoline. Hybrid technology is unproven as well. The Lexus hybrid SUV is $10,000 more than its gasoline counterpart for a 3 MPG difference in highway fuel economy. No owner is going to recoup that through fuel savings.

Appreciate all of the input. This has been a lively forum.

apzer09
18th February 2006, 10:06 PM
Increase SAAB's bottom line? SAAB hasn't made money EVER.

Like the 9-7X or not, they had to build an SUV. It has attracted people to the brand and stopped current customers from running away in droves.
Well Saab has made money at least once under GM's wing, which isn't the first time it made money. They have come close in recent years, but that's part of the 9-7's mission.

As for alternative fuels, E85 is going to be way more expensive than gasoline. Hybrid technology is unproven as well. The Lexus hybrid SUV is $10,000 more than its gasoline counterpart for a 3 MPG difference in highway fuel economy. No owner is going to recoup that through fuel savings.

Appreciate all of the input. This has been a lively forum.
E85 costs about 5-10% more per gallon than gasoline, and considering cars that run on E85 consume more of it than gasoline, it doesn't look like ethanol will be mainstream anytime soon.

And here's how I feel about hybrids. The Lexus hybrid is ridiculous because they tried to make it a performance car rather than focus on fuel economy. That's the main reason it's more powerful but way more expensive. That's also why the Prius makes sense. It's comparable to a family car and is priced accordingly. Too bad it's a Toyota. :lol:

moose72
19th February 2006, 12:04 PM
The E85 station near my parents' house is selling E85 at 1.79 per gallon and regular unleaded at 2.08. Not sure where you got your info, but I have never seen E85 priced above regular unleaded, not even close.

CleveSaab
20th February 2006, 06:51 PM
It is almost 25 cents a gallon cheaper here then gasoline, too.
However it is true that you will use more (less MPG on E85) so that pretty much negates the savings.
I would argue it is still worth it. If everyone had E85 cars in the United States,
Alaska could supply the entire countries automotive fuel supply by itself.
We would only need 15% of the gasoline we currently use.

danncas
21st February 2006, 09:29 PM
FOR THE RECORD: Chrysler was flat-out purchased by Mercedes Benz NOT the other way around.
I,m glad you pointed that out. I was just gettng around to doing them same.:lol: