GM sets end of road for Swedish brand Saab

[Timothy (in VA)]

I don't have any remorse for Mercury. I mean, the Ford Escape and the Mercury Mariner are exactly the same except for a couple trim pieces and maybe nicer interior materials. How much different do you really think they are?

Just different enough. Personally, I'd much rather have a Mariner than an Escape, simply because it is nicer inside and, in my opinion, better looking outside - and, like I said before, it's rarer. My perception is that people who buy Mercurys are a bit more in the know; they won't settle for something that everyone else has.

You need to realize Ford has Lincoln as well. So you're going to have the plain, the slightly less plain, and the luxurious? There isn't enough room for an in between like Mercury. In my opinion, Ford would do just fine without Mercury. Look at the new Taurus. It's luxurious enough as it is. As much as I hate for the marque to go away, as with Saab and Pontiac, the way I see it, Ford could entirely go under. Mind you, they're in better shape than GM, but it's not like they're way better.

A few years ago, I would have said that Lincoln should stick to larger cars, but that's not really an option any more. I'd like to see either Lincoln or Mercury offer products that are truly different from the other Ford divisions, but with today's financial considerations that may not be feasible. I'm not an auto exec, so I can't say with certainty what they can and cannot do.

Also, I don't know that Lincoln will ever have enough volume to warrant having their own standalone dealerships, so if they shut down Mercury, where would that leave Lincoln-Mercury dealerships? I guess they would have to merge with Ford dealerships, like Chrysler is doing with its brands.

I guess I'm just a sentimentalist. What I'd really like to see is Ford bring over European Fords as Mercurys, since they are typically more high-class than American Fords, but if they do go through with their plans to unify their global product lines I guess there won't be much point.

Do they actually make money though? I looked at their lineup and I don't see much point of it really.

I don't know. :\

[Ferrer]

I guess I'm just a sentimentalist. What I'd really like to see is Ford bring over European Fords as Mercurys, since they are typically more high-class than American Fords, but if they do go through with their plans to unify their global product lines I guess there won't be much point.

That could make a lot of sense.

[nota]

Is Spyker a 'clean money' entity of which the US Govt would wish to be publically associated?

[LeonOfTheDead]

That could make a lot of sense.

See Buick & Opel.

[Ferrer]

See Buick & Opel.

Indeed. It'd also give Mercury different cars that Ford US without having to spend nothing in engineering new cars. However for some reason they brought the Fiesta as a Ford, so I guess this plan is already a no go.

[Badsight]

As far as I know, Saab was never a massive money maker, but a small car factory which made well enginereed cars .

debateable

you ever had to work on them ?

[Ferrer]

debateable

you ever had to work on them ?

I'm not a mechanic.

[culver]

I can only speak for the second gen 900 and a bit on the 9000. Those were mixed bags. They had some really well thought out bits but they were also by necessity parts bin cars. This could be very frustrating at times. Most manufactures stick to a few fastener sizes. Mazda uses 10,12,14, and 17mm almost exclusively. SAABs got just about everything thanks to sourcing parts from all over the place. At the time they weren't fully wed to GM so while the car gets a lot from GM, they also used other suppliers. Under the hood things were packaged almost where ever there was space. That makes a few jobs very difficult simply due to access issues.

Other parts of the car have very clever ideas such as the system used to fold the rear seats. In the end you get the feeling the guys could have come up with a good car had they had the volume to really get all the sub-parts custom setup for their needs. Instead you have a mixed bag of good ideas and what necessity thrust on them.

I would think the cars designed under full GM ownership would likely be better, not worse than the older cars.

[Ferrer]

I was referring to pre-GM Saabs. The original 900 had double wishbones all round and the engine and gearbox were cleverly positioned so that it wasn't very nose heavy. I don't know however if they were service-friendly at all.

[LeonOfTheDead]

There were some interesting prototypes and ideas about engines at beginning of the GM era too, but all we got were the first low pressure turbo engines.

[twinspark]

I was referring to pre-GM Saabs. The original 900 had double wishbones all round and the engine and gearbox were cleverly positioned so that it wasn't very nose heavy. I don't know however if they were service-friendly at all.

IIRC the OG 900's had a beam axle rear suspension. Either way, there's lots and lots of those still on the streets here, partially because they were built here too. But they're not among the first ones to stop moving either.

[Revo]

I was referring to pre-GM Saabs. The original 900 had double wishbones all round and the engine and gearbox were cleverly positioned so that it wasn't very nose heavy. I don't know however if they were service-friendly at all.

Correction: rear suspension isn't independent double wishbone, it's dead axle.

As a 900 Mk1 owner, I can say that one too has its fair share of embarrassing engineering failures.

The battery is located right next to the exhaust pipe from turbo. Yes, it is a perfect place for a battery meltdown. Saab's "solution" - use non standard sized battery (read: all battery producers have stopped making it long ago due to lack of demand) and cover it with heat shield made of asbestos. Which detoriates after every couple of years.

It is not like there isn't room in the engine bay. For gods sake, there is always an option to place battery in the trunk if every other idea fails.

Then there are notoriously weak geaboxes. Purely engineering failure again.

[Ferrer]

My mistake. Still and despite some questionable engineering decisions, as Revo explains, there still wer some interesting left-field touches. Or at least I thought there were.

And I always liked the styling and the practicality...

If the A5 Sportback can succeed, why can't Saab? Can someone explain it to me?

[LeonOfTheDead]

My mistake. Still and despite some questionable engineering decisions, as Revo explains, there still wer some interesting left-field touches. Or at least I thought there were.

And I always liked the styling and the practicality...

If the A5 Sportback can succeed, why can't Saab? Can someone explain it to me?

OOOO

'nough, unfortunately.

[Revo]

My mistake. Still and despite some questionable engineering decisions, as Revo explains, there still wer some interesting left-field touches. Or at least I thought there were.

And I always liked the styling and the practicality...

Again you are making way too extreme conclusions

My post was supposed to demonstrate that the world isn't as black and white as many here would like to belive.

In spite of all its faults, Saab 900 Mk1 Turbo is still a worthy icon. I quite simply love it.