Bob Lutz defends 9-7x

[wolverinewizard]

Interesting read. Maybe more people here should give it a shot before judging

http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/

this is very reassuring, even though this speech has been given a few times now. the 9-7x is a much more convincing transformation than the 9-2x was from the WRX, and I hope people can get past the "media" hoopla of it being just a leather-clad Trailblazer, which it definetely isn't. and it may very well be worth the price Saab is asking for it.

[valbowski1980]

Kinda funny that he is defending it before it is even released to the general public. Bring on the rebates, it's the General Motors way.

[benji9k]

Originally Posted by Bob Lutz

The center console is not only 1OO% Saab in design and execution, but also features the famed ignition in the area where the Golden Retriever can turn it off.

Nice. Very nice.

[Raven18940]

At their trying to make it a saab rather than just replacing the chevy badges with saab ones. *cough* 9-2X *cough*

well, not to bash the 9-7x or anything, but the 9-7x needed more than a simple rebadge to make it passable as a Saab. The Trailblazer et. al. are so far from the Saab philosophy, it wasn't even concievable. The 9-2x is much closer (turbocharged, car for one thing) so it was a little better. Even then, I wish equal effort had been placed on the saabaru.

[wolverinewizard]

I'm starting to get tired of all the GM bashing around this forum the "saab philosophy" was leading it down a sink hole, and if GM hadn't stepped in SAAB would just be a footnote for the automotive history books. At least now they have a fighting chance, and these models, even if mildly successful, will at least help stop the bleeding. GM is the one, after all, that brought along the wonderful SS, which is what brought many of us to this site. No offense to the old schoolers here, but speaking as a Gen-Y guy, the old Saabs were Fugly, and you couldn't pay me to get in an old 900.

My point is, don't go jumping all over what GM's trying to do, without actually giving them a chance to do it. After all, they did save Saab's sorry a**, so we at least owe them some time to prove that they can turn it around.

Okay, done ranting now.

[Lodro]

Originally Posted by wolverinewizard

..the old Saabs were Fugly, and you couldn't pay me to get in an old 900.

Well, if you think that then you don't understand the Saab design ethos at all. Hey, maybe you can go work at GM!

[Flash9-7x]

Wolverinewizard,

Thanks for the link. As a GM employee and a UM graduate (1977), I concur that there is a strong anti GM sentiment amongst some posters on this site. I truly hope that this vehicle is a financial success for both Saab and GM. As many know, GM has some challenges to face, and I hope this vehicle helps.

I have been a fan of Bob Lutz for awhile. Ever since I sent him a email regarding a concern and a proposal, and he actually replied. Trust me, I am not of high rank in this company, and it really meant something for an email that I sent on a lark, to be actually read and responded to. I like his attitude and I like his philosophy.

I respect others opposing views here and their passion for their positions. Just sometimes, they espouse tired old "anti-establishment" views that I promulgated 30-35 years ago. I trust that their views will become modified as they age. Mine certainly have.

[wolverinewizard]

Originally Posted by Lodro

Well, if you think that then you don't understand the Saab design ethos at all.

And how many cars were sold under the Saab design ethos?

[Fast_Ed]

Wolverine, I find it interesting that you're willing to give GM a chance but not the CLASSIC 900 that your 9-3SS was homogenized and pasteurized from. I thought the old SAABs were ugly, but I gave them a chance to grow on me. Sorry, I was about to defend GM, but calling c900's ugly is just plain mean, man. I am also not trying to portray my Viggen as a pure SAAB. It's not, and I can admit that without bashing any other car.

PS have any of you owned a SAAB with its light/foglight controls on either stalk? Mine have always had a 3-position rotary switch on the left (left drive) with a push button for fog lights. True for Viggen and c900. Though I have driven some American cars with such controls.

PPS who advertises something by telling the consumer that their dog can accidentally turn the car off and on? Why not talk about the safety aspect of this positioning (i.e. you dont cut yourself on the key in an accident.)

[wolverinewizard]

My point is simply that many here cling to their classics; which is fine, they're simply not my thing, but immediately attack any changes that are necessary to survive. Everyone's so eager to talk of GM flushing Saab down the toilet but are conveniently ignoring the fact that they were doing it to themselves.

I personally feel that if GM is willing to keep Saab afloat (which it sounds like they are) then in the future we'll have some great and exciting cars, so when I'm through with my SS I won't look to MB, Audi, BMW, or Cadillac.

Has any Saab really been a true Saab? The 95 and 96 models were powered by a Ford V4 for half of their lives, the first 99 had a reworked Triumph engine, and the 9000 was an alliance between three other carmakers. Saab has really been more about their design influence, rather than things like where the light switches are and how many cylinders it has. Whenever they got the opportunity to design a car from the ground-up, they did. They didn't have that opportunity with the 9-7x, but a lot of Saab's engineers used their knowledge of Saab to influence the design, and it turned out pretty well.

Most importantly, it's much harder to tell a 9-7x from an Envoy than it is to tell an Envoy from a Trailblazer, Rainier, Bravada, or Ascender.

[SaabKen]

Originally Posted by apzer09

Most importantly, it's much harder to tell a 9-7x from an Envoy than it is to tell an Envoy from a Trailblazer, Rainier, Bravada, or Ascender.

Did you mean it's EASIER to tell a 9-7X from an Envoy then to tell between an Envoy from TB/Rainier/Bravada/Ascender ? That's what we want isn't it, a significant exterior differentiation between 9-7X and all of its cousins ?

Originally Posted by SaabKen

Did you mean it's EASIER to tell a 9-7X from an Envoy then to tell between an Envoy from TB/Rainier/Bravada/Ascender ? That's what we want isn't it, a significant exterior differentiation between 9-7X and all of its cousins ?

oh yeah, my bad. that's right, I'm for the 9-7x and the future of Saab.

[Raven18940]

I have no problem with GM making saabs. They did a great job with the 9-3 and I love my 9-5 to death. After the saabaru, however, they have to regain creditablity with me and I'm not partial to SUVs. Plus I really don't like the look of the 9-7x, but again that's just me. However, it is like a saab in, of all places, the engine. A turbo charger is forced induction, essentially a bigger engine only when you need it and the new V8 has the same kind of technology. That's the closest I'm going to come to liking this thing I think.

[jchastn]

GM has committed alot of cash to saving Saab from what was an inevitable demise. To have an profitable company, Saab can't ignore the entry level (9-2x) or the SUV. If the way to introducing these positions is mostly GM at first, we can only hope that as these models mature, the Saab influence becomes stronger. I drove a 9-2x before I fell in love with my 9-5. I could see the Subaru WRX (which in its own right is a fun car) in it, but it is not a WRX. It is way more stylish,comfortable,and fun. GM makes a great SUV. There are very few SUV platforms that they could have used that would make a better, stronger SUV. The cost of designing a vehicle from scratch is astronomical, and Saab sales are not currently justifying that expenditure.


Its important to remember the origins of Saab. The pre-GM Saabs were exciting vehicles, full of innovation and fun and originality. Not so reliable. The GM Saabs may have less innovation, but they are still fun and stylish and original. The post-GM Saabs(if there are any) may well be made in China, Korea, or FRANCE. That would suck majorly, so I am rooting for GM to make a success of Saab. Like I keep saying, I LOVE this car.

[TC]

Posted by Raven

I have no problem with GM making saabs. They did a great job with the 9-3 and I love my 9-5 to death. After the saabaru, however, they have to regain creditablity with me and I'm not partial to SUVs. Plus I really don't like the look of the 9-7x, but again that's just me. However, it is like a saab in, of all places, the engine. A turbo charger is forced induction, essentially a bigger engine only when you need it and the new V8 has the same kind of technology. That's the closest I'm going to come to liking this thing I think.

Raven-In order for Saab to continue making cars that you love like your 9-5, vehicles like the 9-2X and 9-7X have to be successful. If these vehicles do not make Saab profitable GM will sell the brand to Japan or France. If this happens I can guarantee Saabs will not be made in Sweden. It is too expensive to manufacture cars in Trollhatten. You should be thanking GM for continuing production in Sweden because no other mnfctr would do this. Bottom line is Saab needs to sell more vehicles. In order to do so it has to appeal to more people so it needs more products. I am not a fan of SUV's but I do understand the needs they satisfy and if by Saab having one means the continued production in Sweden of the 9-3 and 9-5 then I am all for it. Saab does not have the sales #'s to justify building new products from scratch. Unfortunately the 9-5 and 9-3 did not sell enough to bring in enough cash for the billions of dollars required for research and design and plant modifications in Trollhatten to bring a completely new vehicle to market.

[Raven18940]

You know, after arguing about SUVs in other threads I've become much more accepting of them. As long as safety concerns are addressed, and they are being taken care, I have no issues with SUVs anymore. With 9-7 it's just a styling issue for me (and the fact that I inherently don't like SUVs, I like being low to the ground), but there are plenty of vehicles I thought were ugly that sold well. Look at the Porsche Cayenne, that thing is fugly and it's selling nicely. And if BMW can sell any X3's then Saab should have no trouble selling the 9-7. So I've actually got high hopes for the 9-7 now, maybe it'll be just what saab needs to really be competitive.

As for the 9-2, I've become much more accepting of that as well after some one layed out all the changes saab made to the car. I would have liked a little more effort in the interior, but they actually tweaked the car quite a lot. And since saab hasn't actually made an original car in quite a while, but rather just tweaked other cars I say it's ok by me now. What I really think they need to do is offer it in sedan/coupe trim rather than just a wagon. I think that would sell a lot better.

[inertia93]

I actually think the 9-2x still makes more sense. A Subaru, even barely disguised, is closer to the saab market than a chevy, even with a center ignition switch. A saab SUV?? come on now...

Originally Posted by apzer09

this is very reassuring, even though this speech has been given a few times now. the 9-7x is a much more convincing transformation than the 9-2x was from the WRX, and I hope people can get past the "media" hoopla of it being just a leather-clad Trailblazer, which it definetely isn't. and it may very well be worth the price Saab is asking for it.