Trollhattansaab.net’s Swade has posted an open letter to Steve Shannon, Saab’s new boss. To his suggestions, excellent as always, I’d like to add my own.
My feeling is that Saab has lost its way and forgotten much of what made its cars attractive when they were last hot, back in the 1980s. It hasn’t helped that GM bought Saab thinking it was buying a Swedish BMW. Premium European manufacturers are not interchangeable.
I remember the Saab 900 Turbo of the mid-8os well. Numerous idiosyncratic approaches to vehicle design made that car intensely interesting. The windshield was upright and curved, perhaps because of Saab’s aeronautic heritage but also because this placed the A-pillars in much less obtrusive locations. The body welds were not finished, because unfinished welds are stronger. The seats were high off the floor and upright, because this was best for visibility and packaging efficiency. The engine was mounted longitudinally facing the rear of the car, and the hood opened forward, because this provided mechanics with excellent access. The hatch opened into a voluminous cargo area. The key between the seats, possibly the first thing the general public thinks of when they hear “Saab,” permitted the shifter to be locked in place.
No doubt I’ve forgotten many details. After all, it has been over twenty years since a Saab salesperson demonstrated these and other quirks that made a Saab a Saab. But what I certainly haven’t forgotten is how special that Saab 900 turbo seemed as a result. This was clearly a car that had been developed through open-minded problem solving by a creative group of engineers. They weren’t focusing on what everyone else was doing. They were doing their own thing, with an appropriate focus on functionality and performance.
These days, BMW is the company that comes closest to taking a similarly idiosyncratic approach to vehicle design. But since their focus has wandered beyond functionality and performance to style and technology for their own sakes, we’ve gotten the Bangle butt and iDrive along with more useful innovations like the throttle-free Valvetronic engine control system.
So, the solution isn’t to make Saabs more like BMWs, but to make Saab’s high-level product strategy more like BMW’s, and thus more like Saab’s strategy back when they either didn’t notice that other companies did things differently, or did notice but didn’t care.
I agree with your basic point that Saab has lost its distinctiveness and hence its way.
Why though do you say “I hate to say it, but BMW is the company that comes cloest to taking a similarly idiosyncratic approach to vehicle design these days.” Why do you hate to say it is BMW rather than say Toyota or some other company?
Good question. Now that you ask, I’m not really sure why I wrote that aside from the widespread lack of love for the Bangle butt and iDrive. I think I’ll delete the phrase.
As a long time Saab fan…
http://uh2l.blogs.com/things_ive_noticed/2007/04/ten_years_with_.html
… this post hits home. I totally hear what you’re saying, but in a way, Saab is doing what they have to do. They have to go mainstream for survival, although I agree that they didn’t have to lose as much identity as they have. I think they are taking some steps to address this although one can’t say their vehicles don’t look pretty good right now, with perhaps the exception of the current 9-5. The 9-2X and 9-7X were mistakes of typical greedy GM badge engineering run amok. True to Saab tradition, I would prefer a 9-3 hatchback instead of a sedan and wagon, (a.k.a. SportCombi), but the general public doesn’t like hatchbacks. And I like 3-spoke wheels, but “normal” people like 5-spoke wheels.
I blame this predicament on the automotive press to some degree. When Saabs are like Saabs should be, they are labeled as “quirky” or just for professors and not for everybody else. Then they go on about torque steer, whether the cars have torque steer or not. When Saab tries to please the masses with more mainstream products, the press criticizes Saab for abandanoning its identity. To retain true Saabness and sell to the masses is an impossibility. Niche players don’t survive today so Saab has to go mainstream. I just hope they inject a bit more Saab heritage design into the vehicles as I believe they will be doing shortly.
From a safety standpoint alone, I don’t understand why more people don’t buy Saabs, but then, I’m not “normal”. And it’s interesting that the rest of the industry is effectively saying that Saab was right all along by offering turbocharged engines.
Atul
http://www.realitydriven.com
I agree that Saab has lost its way in the U.S. Yet, the paradox is that Saab is going great guns in the rest of the world, setting new sales records every quarter. We did an article on this seeming dichotomy a few months go that some of you may find interesting – http://www.autosavant.net/2007/01/puzzle-that-is-saab.html
As a long-time admirer of Saab, I hope they can turn it around in the U.S., and soon. Maybe the change in leadership will be a positive one for Saab.
B Moore – Autosavant.net
A comment above was that Saab cannot survive as a niche player. Why not? I thought one advantage of being part of GM as opposed to being independent is that you would have some cost savings and therefore could survive on lower volumes. Although BMW and Porsche both show that being independent and successful are not mutually exclusive. BMW has succeed both financially and also in influencing the market place – the much criticised “Bangle Butt” styling has been copied into other makes. Also BMW still makes some well styled cars – 3 series coupe and convertible. Maybe the new edge styling was just a little ahead of its time (much like the Taurus back in the ’80’s).
This gives hope to Saab that being ahead of the curve can pay off.
I agree that Saab could be a niche player, only if they could charge a premium for their products. Right now, they don’t have the cache to do so. That’s why I think they have to go mainstream to survive. I don’t believe they would have continued to exist as an independent company. BMW was able to survive the 80s and flourish in the 90s as a niche player when international cost competitiveness was not as intense. Through the 90’s they expanded their portfolio and created some great products and marketing to build up the ability to charge a premium and they concurrently expanded their portfolio. It was impressive to see, (but I’m still not a BMW fan).
As a long time SAAB owner (have owned a 900t since 1987)i agree that SAAB has lost it’s way. With every new model they introduce the further they go from the orginal 900 model. I have tried to like them (the new ones) but their personalities are to differnt,they try to be a car for all people, missing what they are, missing what made them so desirable in the 1980’s. That would be a out of the box look at what a car can be with no copy of any other car.
Of course their version was not for every one, sure it had some quirks, (backwards engine, key in the floor, curved frt. windsheld, ….etc) but all of it was different from any other car and despite conventional wisdom it all worked fairly well. They were special for that, not like now, a Opel or a Trail Blazer with a key in the floor.
SAAB`s were never a mass appeal car and the more they try to be, the more GM misses the whole point of the name SAAB had meant.