Bye Bye Saab

[Red diesel]

Looks like Saab is finally going to be put out of its misery once and for all, yesterdays refusal by the Swedish courts

to offer them protection means that the game is now up.

Its unfortunate for the car industry to lose yet another independent company - but alas GMs inability to make full use of whatever potential Saab had over the last 20 years (prior to last years sale to Spyder) meant that things were always going to be tough for them.

Its a tough day for the workers who will now find themselves without jobs and like all such situations will have a massive impact on the region in Sweden where Saab were based.

No doubt in the next few years we will see some chinese outfit selling 9 3s and 9 5s under their own brand - you can in fact already buy such cars in China by all accounts.

I know people will say that the modern Saab werent as good as the old ones (well done GM - top work - not) but its not

good for the industry to lose yet another car maker.

Such happenings mean that we are moving ever closer to a world of boring 1.6/1.7 turbodiesel KIAs and Hyundai - like the new

I40. Good motor say Autocar but handling isn't great - *but thats okay - because thats what buyers want* (* * = comments between the stars my own sarcism - sorry). Nothing wrong with KIA and Hyundais - but its like someone has decided lads - we can't have an interesting car anymore.

But life goes on

Red diesel

[jw67]

It's a shame that such a great and individual company like Saab ended up making rebodied Vectras :ffs:

[Red diesel]

It's a shame that such a great and individual company like Saab ended up making rebodied Vectras :ffs:

Unfortunately that is the problem with companies merging or taking over other companies, in the car industry at least.

For the likes of GM - trying to build cars like the classic Saab 900 (the original 1979 to 1993 model) is deemed to cost too much, such cars

were overengineered (hence why they had a reputation for doing 250 000 miles if maintained well without breaking sweat when most cars struggled to

half that mileage). It was cheaper for them to use their own inferior technology than to use the Saab approach - more profit you see.

Unfortunately many car makers are taking a short term approach to profit - not always taking into account potential opportunity costs that arise from making cars that

are very nice for anyone (whether car enthusiast or ordinary couldn't give a toss about cars types) to drive and also very reliable over a 200 000 to 250 000 miles plus life time. The opportunity costs that i would see are - (at the moment) no car manufacturer seems to be able to make a car that will do over 200 k miles without big bills or make cars that are particularly enjoyable to drive. Making a car like this (especially a normal sensible family type car) would deliver good results in the long term for the manufacturer that makes it.

Red diesel

[Parts-King]

Saab might have built cars that lasted, but not enough people bought them and they couldnt make a profit, you cannot run a company on those principles and just like any other company who dont make a profit they are doomed! You cannot run a company on your past achievments, they needed new models, built within budget and for people to buy

Kingo

[Red diesel]

Saab might have built cars that lasted, but not enough people bought them and they couldnt make a profit, you cannot run a company on those principles and just like any other company who dont make a profit they are doomed! You cannot run a company on your past achievments, they needed new models, built within budget and for people to buy

Kingo

110 percent correct - the point i was generally trying to get across is that its more profitable for manufacturers to build cars like Hyundais and Kias that are just okay to drive and which will probably do you 100 000 miles in diesel form without big bills (might as well be optimistic . Rather than build a car thats truly excellent for any type of driver to drive on a daily basis while also being practical (plenty of space and room for 5 people and luggage) and able to do 200 000 miles plus without big issues. Such a car would cost a lot more to develop (more testing for durability plus more work on the chassis to get a 100 percent ride/handling balance rather than settling for 85 percent.

The trouble with modern cars i think is that manufacturers find themselves settling for 85 percent and the whole lot of them end up fighting for the one pie. Its hard for a manufacturer to go for the really good all round car option because it costs money to develope and customers are reluctant to buy because they don't see the benefit.

Red diesel

[Parts-King]

True, there is always a trade off in terms of price / spec, gone are the days when big manufacturers like Ford held all the cards. Todays market is so diverse that manufacturers try and tick all the boxes for all the people, sadly, customers expectations are so high now that you will never please all the people all the time. I have older customers who dont want any gadgets, electric windows, folding mirrors etc, but this forum is littered with comments saying my car cost xxx for that you would think it would have this or that feature, you cant win!

Kingo