SaabCentral Forums banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
542 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Wow So basically GM sold the rights of the old 9-3 and 9-5 to China anyway?

Patent Applied: Beijing Auto C60G, based on old Saab 9-3


Beijing Auto has applied for patent on the production version of the Beijing Auto C60G, based on the old Saab 9-3. The C60G debuted as the C60F concept on the Beijing Auto Show in April. The same show also saw the debut of the production version of the Beijing Auto C70G which is based on the old Saab 9-5 and will hit the Chinese auto market later this year.

The Beijing Auto C60F concept.

Basic shape is similar to the concept. Production-ready bumpers added, grill changed a bit. Not a bad design for sexing up such an old car. Beijing Auto bought the rights to the Saab 9-3 and Saab 9-5 from GM in 2009, they also bought the rights to the Saab 2.0 turbo and 2.3 turbo. The C60G will be powered by the 2.0 turbo. Debut of the C60G is expected for the first half of 2013.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
Yep, did know that actually. Well the 9-3 and engine tech bit anyway.

Now, I'm going to wager that in complete contrast to the well known safety conscious Saab, these new Chinese made things will fold up like a cornflake packet in a crash.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,140 Posts
GM sold the tooling and some powertrain tech for the 9-3SS and the OG9-5 to BAIC before the sale to Spyker.

This was 12-year-old stuff that GM was planning to ditch in two model years.

The whole IP issue between Spyker and GM focused on the new 9-5, the 9-4x, and the development of the new 9-3 -- all of which use GM-derived platforms, drivetrains and components.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
542 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 · (Edited)
Well said Mike but didn't Youngman only want to built the new 9-3ss off of the phoenix platform? I agree the old 9-5 was dated but the 9-3ss was still in production. So I don't get how they sold it. Was Saab aware or was this done underhandedly? GM sold 3 platforms, 9-3ss 9-5, rights to 2.0T and 2.3T as well as 2 transmissions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,140 Posts
Yes I'm seeing this news is a bit dated but the intellectual property is why GM killed Saab reconstruction plans. I don't think ppl were really out to get GM as far as their property is concerned and I think the 9-5 and 9-4x were parts bin cars slapped with a Saab badge. The new 9-3 was to be based off an entirely different platform.

Yes, they were badge engineered models, but they still would have accounted for the bulk of the sales of Saab for at least two years until the new 9-3 was rolled out. That revamped 9-3 was actually a GM product, not the Phoenix architecture one that was developed after the sale.

I'm confused how GM sold old platforms but left Saab to suffer and die? GM sold 3 platforms, 9-3ss and 9-5, 2.3T and 2.0T as well as transmissions from what I've read. Was Saab aware of this?
Of course they were aware of it. None of that tech was going to be used in a Saab past 2013, and all of it belonged to GM...which is why it was able to sell it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
542 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Yes, they were badge engineered models, but they still would have accounted for the bulk of the sales of Saab for at least two years until the new 9-3 was rolled out. That revamped 9-3 was actually a GM product, not the Phoenix architecture one that was developed after the sale.



Of course they were aware of it. None of that tech was going to be used in a Saab past 2013, and all of it belonged to GM...which is why it was able to sell it.
I see what your saying. I just feel GM could and should have let them proceed with reconstructing the brand without the 9-4x and new 9-5. I was under the impression that the new 9-3ss was still on the drawing table. I didn't know GM had a platform already established. Thanks for clearing that up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,140 Posts
I see what your saying. I just feel GM could and should have let them proceed with reconstructing the brand without the 9-4x and new 9-5. I was under the impression that the new 9-3ss was still on the drawing table. I didn't know GM had a platform already established. Thanks for clearing that up.
No prob...

There were actually a few test mules of the new 9-3 architecture kicking around after the Spyker sale, but again, it was primarily based on an existing GM platform and used a GM drivetrain.

My impression was that all of the bidders -- especially Youngman -- wanted the 9-4x and 9-5 as part of the deal. In the last days of the negotiations, Spyker came up with a plan to be able to build the new 9-3 without a GM platform, but the costs would have been extremely prohibitive.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top