SaabCentral Forums banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Although the name will live on (which is good) I do not see much in the way of good news at all.

No 9-5
They have the rights to the newnew 9-3 but will they make a gas powered car?
Focus on Chinese market.
Does not include the parts supply chain.
Only 200 employees...

Not likely the deal will work out well for dealers and car buyers world wide.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Although the name will live on (which is good) I do not see much in the way of good news at all.

No 9-5
They have the rights to the newnew 9-3 but will they make a gas powered car?
Focus on Chinese market.
Does not include the parts supply chain.
Only 200 employees...

Not likely the deal will work out well for dealers and car buyers world wide.
Mostly this is due to GM wanting to kill Saab, they went bankrupt and refused to sell Saab. They still hold onto it but want it dead.
At least Saab will stay alive as well as the 9-3,
The focus on Chinese market is only logical.
Swedish Govt has parts rights but they will likely sell sometime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
943 Posts
so the new 9-5 is complete abandonware...GM won't honor warranties and the new company wont either. I can hear the plunging depreciation from here!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
id rather have no saabs then electric saabs
I would rather that GM never bought Saab. I dont understand peoples reluctance toward electric vehicles.
The only thing I can think is its based on what is being sold today by low cost car makers. (Prius etc)
0 to 60 in 3.7 seconds to me is fast, which is what electric cars can do.
They are very sporty! 300 and more HP is good for me.
As for depreciation, as soon as you drive off the lot you lose around 30%, which is why I can afford used Saabs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
id rather have no saabs then electric saabs
Same here, dont see how this is a good thing as its in reality just buying a name to sell under..
Best thing I can see is it is at least keeping some people in work, though the association with China who are known well for blatantly copying the west (from cars to electronics to commercial motors, brands, products and beyond) I am not sure that the mention of initially sending to china is at all a good thing.

That and electric cars are not in any way the future, takes a day to recharge and do 300 mile tops? Vaxhaul too have a new "electric" car on the market does it not boasting a great range of: 220 mile ;oops:

Useless boxes that want scrapping the moment they leave the factory gates.
The sooner they realise the likes of Hydrogen powered cars are the future and focus on it the better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
300 miles is fine and yes hydrogen is the way but most likely thru a fuel cell powering an electric motor or motors.
Then no wait for recharging.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
300 miles is fine and yes hydrogen is the way but most likely thru a fuel cell powering an electric motor or motors.
Then no wait for recharging.
300 miles is nothing :cry: it would mean for me on a trip to see family and friends what I could do in a day if I got my head down would take over a week! and god knows how many hotels/camp sites on the way.

Thats the monumental problem with them,, that and its questionable how long the battery's will last (which depends all on charging/usage habits), and I do remember seeing the quote on a motoring program of something like 6-7k
sterling.

I just see them as trying to appease the tree hugging green partys.

Hydrogen is definitely the future yes, plenty of it around and just scrape it off of long strings of atoms ;ol; well once the technology catches up.

But, in the mean time, the generator/motors idea can easily be set up with a diesel, and surely they can get decent MPG out of it as there are far fewer moving parts, just loosing the gearbox, drive axles is a huge loss of weight and resistance alone.

Think I better toddle off now or the petrol heads will get me for mentioning the *D* word :cheesy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
I would rather that GM never bought Saab. I dont understand peoples reluctance toward electric vehicles.
The only thing I can think is its based on what is being sold today by low cost car makers. (Prius etc)
0 to 60 in 3.7 seconds to me is fast, which is what electric cars can do.
They are very sporty! 300 and more HP is good for me.
As for depreciation, as soon as you drive off the lot you lose around 30%, which is why I can afford used Saabs.
GM is really a nasty company! They want NO competition what so ever! They don't want to sell Saab because if somebody buys it and it makes money it makes them look like they don't know how to run a business! They have been closing manufacturing facility's all over. There was interest in one they abandoned by a rival manufacturer and GM refused to sell to them. This even after the local community gave them all kinds of incentives to stay. Put almost 2500 people out and wouldn't allow the sale to the competitor because they didn't want to possibly loose sales. A load of crap really. Especially if you used to work there!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
GM is really a nasty company! They want NO competition what so ever! They don't want to sell Saab because if somebody buys it and it makes money it makes them look like they don't know how to run a business! They have been closing manufacturing facility's all over. There was interest in one they abandoned by a rival manufacturer and GM refused to sell to them. This even after the local community gave them all kinds of incentives to stay. Put almost 2500 people out and wouldn't allow the sale to the competitor because they didn't want to possibly loose sales. A load of crap really. Especially if you used to work there!
I fully agree and as an American it really bothers me that they (GM) took our money to get out of bankruptcy and are using and used it to kill Saab.
They are trying their best. So anywhere other than GM is good to me.
(Who killed the electric car?) Movie about GM. or Roger and Me on what GM did to Flint Michigan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,377 Posts
Wow, just read the article and realized they not only brought the rights to the 9-3 platform but also the new phoenix platform. Sigh, thats the one platform I really want to see make it but not in electric form :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
519 Posts
Lets be realistic. GM does not want to"kill" Saab. It is simple business. GM purchased Saab along with all of its technology and Intellectual Property. GM then added its own Technology and IP to the company for better or worse. They didn't do it to kill the brand or company, at they time it made business sense to have access to the markets and technology.

The company was last on the block for what? $80MM? If you were running the business why would you sell all your technology and Intellectual Property to the Chinese basically giving away your competitive advantage. Given that a lot of the technology, parts and IP are shared across the GM platform they are giving away the company. The chinese are the only ones who have made any realsitic offers. $80MM is peanuts, what an AWESOME buy for the Chinese at 10x that price.

The Chinese have to invest billions to catch up to where GM is. A head start is a great advantage particulalry if you can build on that and stay ahead of the competition.

It just makes absolutely no business sense to sell your technology and IP which is the core of your business to someone else for essentially nothing.

GM may not be the greatest advocate of Saab nor have they made the best choices, but this isn't some kind of sinister conspiracy to "kill Saab". This is plain and simple business based on the value of the asset vs. the reward or risk of selling it. Keeping the asset and writing it off is a better business and financial decision than taking the cash for the sale. its that simple.

Think about it....would you give your business away?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 · (Edited)
Lets be realistic. GM does not want to"kill" Saab. It is simple business. GM purchased Saab along with all of its technology and Intellectual Property. GM then added its own Technology and IP to the company for better or worse. They didn't do it to kill the brand or company, at they time it made business sense to have access to the markets and technology.

The company was last on the block for what? $80MM? If you were running the business why would you sell all your technology and Intellectual Property to the Chinese basically giving away your competitive advantage. Given that a lot of the technology, parts and IP are shared across the GM platform they are giving away the company. The chinese are the only ones who have made any realsitic offers. $80MM is peanuts, what an AWESOME buy for the Chinese at 10x that price.

The Chinese have to invest billions to catch up to where GM is. A head start is a great advantage particulalry if you can build on that and stay ahead of the competition.

It just makes absolutely no business sense to sell your technology and IP which is the core of your business to someone else for essentially nothing.

GM may not be the greatest advocate of Saab nor have they made the best choices, but this isn't some kind of sinister conspiracy to "kill Saab". This is plain and simple business based on the value of the asset vs. the reward or risk of selling it. Keeping the asset and writing it off is a better business and financial decision than taking the cash for the sale. its that simple.

Think about it....would you give your business away?
Well when you go bankrupt you really are not to have a choice about giving your company away. Your Bankrupt!
GM refused to sell to Russian business person, and refused to sell to previous Chinese offer that was more than fair for a bankrupt company.
Usually companies that go bankrupt sell assets at pennies to the dollar not dimes to the dollar.
If GM isnt trying to kill Saab, why wont they sell it? why wont the supply the factory with parts needed to build the cars?
Was killing the electric car in the 90s good business? the EV?
With the production of new electric cars today they were 15 years ahead and would have been even more ahead if they did not kill it.
Not so sure if China Needs to catch up with GM.
GM and China go hand in hand
GM sold 2,351,610 units in 2010 in China . GM has a research center in Shanghai to develop 'gasoline-hybrid cars, electric vehicles and alternative fuels, engines and new technologies.
So why are they still holding onto it? it does not make business sense unless you dont want anyone else to profit from something you wrecked.
As 328 says they are a nasty company, I have not scene a movie that shows them in a good light.
That being said, Saab does have a market and GM is moving toward electric and alternative fuels in China.
Because of GM we Americans and the Swedish support this company and have kept it alive. Its time GM give something back or give up Saab.
Americans still own 33% of the company, Canadians still own about 12% Ontarian's own about 3.8% India Owns about 1%.
Sell Saab and its IP and get me my money back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,969 Posts
Well when you go bankrupt you really are not to have a choice about giving your company away. Your Bankrupt!
GM refused to sell to Russian business person, and refused to sell to previous Chinese offer that was more than fair for a bankrupt company.
Usually companies that go bankrupt sell assets at pennies to the dollar not dimes to the dollar.
If GM isnt trying to kill Saab, why wont they sell it? why wont the supply the factory with parts needed to build the cars?
Was killing the electric car in the 90s good business? the EV?
With the production of new electric cars today they were 15 years ahead and would have been even more ahead if they did not kill it.
Not so sure if China Needs to catch up with GM.
GM and China go hand in hand
GM sold 2,351,610 units in 2010 in China . GM has a research center in Shanghai to develop 'gasoline-hybrid cars, electric vehicles and alternative fuels, engines and new technologies.
So why are they still holding onto it? it does not make business sense unless you dont want anyone else to profit from something you wrecked.
As 328 says they are a nasty company, I have not scene a movie that shows them in a good light.
That being said, Saab does have a market and GM is moving toward electric and alternative fuels in China.
Because of GM we Americans and the Swedish support this company and have kept it alive. Its time GM give something back or give up Saab.
Americans still own 33% of the company, Canadians still own about 12% Ontarian's own about 3.8% India Owns about 1%.
Sell Saab and its IP and get me my money back.
Let's get this straight first. I am sad to see Saab go, I drive them, have owned a lot of them and really like them. So don't put me down as a Saab basher, ok.


Now, some things to think about:

1: Saab was in deep trouble before GM bought them, and in fact would not have survived this long had it not happened. (first the investment, then the outright purchase). There was a paper that I saw published (that is linkedin here somewhere) that describes the situation where Saab was selling fewer and fewer cars that then have to carry more and more of the overhead for designing and building cars. At some point you hit the death spiral, which is where Saab was when GM came along. GM made the first investment in Saab in 1990, at that point Saab Scania hadn't turned a profit in over three years. (it never turned a profit at GM)

2: GM is not refusing to sell Saab, they don't own it. GM shed Saab at the beginning of 2010 to Spyker.

3: What probably went along with the sale to Spyker was a license to the IP that GM owned, developed or acquired when it purchased saab. When you work together for 10+ years, there really is no "separating" the IP, so a license is the next best thing. (well, maybe some ofo it was transferred, but I'll bet the important stuff was licensed)

GM may very well have had a clause in that contract that said that it could not be assigned without the permission of GM, which is maybe why no one can really buy Saab these days without GM's permission. (i.e. the company is useless and can't really practice even what it is making today without the license)



4: GM has a huge research center in China and sells a lot of Buick's there. (a LOT of Buicks!) But even though they do, the IP that is developed by their employees in China still belongs to GM. For a chinese brand to practice that IP, they would have to get permission from GM. Not likely to happen. I'm almost certain that GM doesn't want the Saab/GM IP licensed to Spyker to get into the hands of their big competitors.

So to blame GM for Saab's failure is a stretch. The company was a dead man walking when GM started investing in them, hell they probably were on the death spiral when they merged with Scania back in the early 70's.

And to blame GM for not "selling Saab" is factually incorrect

and finally to blame GM for not alloowing its co-mingled IP to get in the hands of a strong competitor? Is there anyone in the world who really would allow that? Do you think they would have allowed Ford to get those licenses? or BMW?
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top