Saabs are born from...

[leadbutt]

jets. If you've been watching any of the stages of TdF, you know this already!!!

[va_cyclist]

Terrible slogan and campaign. Even worse was its predecessor: "Saab: We Used to Build Jets."

[FixdGearHead]

Keep a lookout for the disclaimer at the end of the ad - says something like "SAAB manufacturers and Jet manufacturers are no longer affiliated". That always cracks me up.

[merlinextraligh]

GM has to do something to try to preserve the SAAB DNA, (or at least make it seem like they are) now that SAAB's are becoming just another generic GM product.

[BluesDawg]

...started by 16 aircraft engineers...

So they must be overly expensive and incredibly difficult to maintain.

[rufvelo]

I too find the slogan funny, the pseudo-connection misleading.

Ford could also encourage the buying public to consider their product, since they once built a trimotor 'tin goose', their cars ought to be better :)

[rufvelo]

...started by 16 aircraft engineers...

So they must be overly expensive and incredibly difficult to maintain.

Not just expensive....
You know how difficult it is in the real world to get 16 very talented guys to collaborate on anything? :)

[Chris631]

You'll get a solid deal on them if you are interested. Sales were down over 50% for June vs. June '05!

[Second Mouse]

They used to be interesting. The old 96s looked like slugs.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/1961saab96.jpg

Now we get something that, except for the grill, looks like an old Accord.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/Saab9-5.JPG

Thanks for nothin, GM.

http://www.advrider.com/forums/images/smilies/sleep.gif

[bannanabike]

Oh guys whats the code word for today?

[shipinabottle]

Terrible slogan and campaign. Even worse was its predecessor: "Saab: We Used to Build Jets."

We used to build jets? Wow, that does suck. If jets are so great, why did they quit?

[leadbutt]

But how many times do they have reiterate their babble during a single day's coverage of the Tour?

Even my wife became annoyed by Sunday and she had spent the majority of the two days running around the house...

[khuon]

We used to build jets? Wow, that does suck. If jets are so great, why did they quit?
They didn't quit. They just sold off their auto-making division.

And if you're ready to drop about $35 million, you can go home with one of these beauties. I think they might also offer dealer-financing too.

SAAB JAS 39 Gripen

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/jas6.jpg

[Smoothie104]

Be glad someone decided to buy air time, otherwise we wouldnt be getting the coverage.

[C_Heath]

Oh guys whats the code word for today?


"cadence"

what a minute, that might have been yesterday :rolleyes: I have 3 kids, I am forced to catch the 12:30 am show.

I think cadence was yesterday

[C_Heath]

about as corny as the cervelo ads

[lokerola]

Yes, and what does GM do when they buy Saab? They kill off the 5 door model Saab was known and loved for. And then they release the Malibu Maax - a 5 door model no one cares about (a slab-sided, butt ugly Chevy). No wonder GM is in the tanker.

Although thank goodness they bought advertising or else I wouldn't get to watch the TdF.

[free_pizza]

about as corny as the cervelo ads
+100000, i hate those ads!

[wintermute]

"Daimler-Chrysler - We used to build Panzerkampfwagen V "Panthers"". I don't think that slogan would go over that well.

[dagna]

...started by 16 aircraft engineers...

So they must be overly expensive and incredibly difficult to maintain.
:roflmao: If one has the slightest idea of the money-pit that is jet maintenance, Saab's 'Born from Jets' motto is a definite red flag.:eek: Whatever were they thinking?

OTOH, must be the same thinking that made me order Voler's new limited edition 'Wingman' jersey:
http://www.velowear.com/jom.asp?promo=JUN3EM.
It's an extravagance, but less of one than a new Saab.:p

[Diesel]

"Daimler-Chrysler - We used to build Panzerkampfwagen V "Panthers"". I don't think that slogan would go over that well.

Or how about... Mitsubishi we used to build Zeros... :eek:

[khuon]

It should be no surprise to anyone that automobile companies are multifaceted. Car companies such as GM, Ford and Chrysler (now Daimler-Chrysler) have always built more than cars. And other companies that are typically known for other products also build automobiles. For instance, take Grumman. Here are but a few of their products:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SPAC_Satellite_NPOESS_lg.jpg
http://aeroflt.users.netlink.co.uk/types/usa/grumman/f-14/040814-F-6740T-173.jpg
http://www.broadcastassociates.com/trucks/truck69/69-01.jpg
http://www.packsackcanoetrips.com/images/Canoe-Sales-Large.jpg

[kuan]

Born from Jets means you're happy to get .002341 MPG. DIY? Forget it unless you can afford that $2,000 oil filter tool!

[Doctor Who]

...started by 16 aircraft engineers...

So they must be overly expensive and incredibly difficult to maintain.

I own a 1994 Saab 9000 CS-Turbo, and it ain't cheap to run the car, but it's been extremely reliable and fun to drive. My girlfriend has a 9-3 Viggen and it's the same way - but her car is more of a screamer.

Saabs are one of the best values in the used sport-luxury car market. They depreciate like hell, so it's easy to buy a pristine 2-3 year old example for the great price.

[rufvelo]

Europeans would never build a 'brand new' oversized truck, and shamelessly promote a gas guzzling SUV, especially when gas is topping $70 a barrel. The real Saab Co would never do that. It took some Detroit genuis to release such a monster about 10yrs too late, much like the other guzzlers released after 2004, and other very late to market disasters(can't afford $100 fillups, then a smaller Hummer, sure). Saab left alone, would have probably released a competitive hybrid by now for both Europe and N.America.

[khuon]

Europeans would never build a 'brand new' oversized truck, and shamelessly promote a gas guzzling SUV, especially when gas is topping $70 a barrel.

Riiiiiight...

Mercedes G500: 5.0L V8, 13/15 MPG
http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//pictures/VEHICLE/2002/Mercedes-Benz/100071764/007248-E.jpg

Land Rover Range Rover: 4.7L V8, 14/17 MPG
http://www.off-road.com/landrover/news/2005_02/FRD2005012556614_PV.jpg

Porsche Cayenne S: 4.5L V8, 14/18 MPG
http://www.edmunds.com/media/seo/500/2005.porsche.cayenne.jpg

And let's not forget that Volvo (which also owns Mack Truck) is one of Europe's largest big truck manufacturer. The Europeans are no less guilty of creating gas guzzlers than the boys from Detroit.

The real Saab Co would never do that.
You might be right. The SAAB 9-7X SUV is actually built on the same platform as the Chevy Trailblazer and also shares the same engines. It's claimed fuel economy for the 4.2L version is 15/21.


Saab left alone, would have probably released a competitive hybrid by now for both Europe and N.America.
The big three had been working on alternative fuel technologies for quite some time. There is also some doubt about the actual benefits of current hybrid designs. In actuality the cleanest hybrid design is being researched and developed by Hummer who has been refining an all-electric drive with hybrid power-source HMMWV for the US Army. They've been trying out several prototypes. Rolling demonstration vehicles have been around since 1998. Unlike current hybrids, the electric Hummer utilises a pure electric drivetrain with independent motors driving each wheel. By decoupling the drivetrain from the powertrain, the powerplant can be of almost any type including hydrogen fuel-cell, pure batteries, gas-turbine, diesel, petrol, etc... The powerplant is simply a generator and is not mechanically coupled to the drive wheels. Note that this is the same concept as that used on a diesel-electric locomotive. Guess which country developed that technology.

[ElJamoquio]

Europeans would never build a 'brand new' oversized truck, and shamelessly promote a gas guzzling SUV, especially when gas is topping $70 a barrel.

You must be joking, right? Daimler isn't European? How about Porsche? VW? Land Rover?

[ElJamoquio]

Damn, beat to it. And pictures!

[rufvelo]

Riiiiiight...

Mercedes G500: 5.0L V8, 13/15 MPG
Land Rover Range Rover: 4.7L V8, 14/17 MPG
Porsche Cayenne S: 4.5L V8, 14/18 MPG...

.

OK, OK! Let me explain :)

The Land Rover & G-Wagon are old classics, designed long ago for specific applications. Hence no quarrel with Jeep over here, or the real Hummer. I question with disappointment the trend in the US though(you know exactly what I'm talking about) to oversize everything to some SUV standard, regardless of the need - how many potted plants do you have to fit in that thing, and how often?

Some misc ramblings...

That Porsche truck - I was apalled, what a brand sellout, probably due to American dealer pressure! Always a Porsche+Audi fan, I will probably not buy either again. (I was sure my A6 with cool quattro would get me driving with reckless abandon thru any amount of snow/ice......if only it would start the next day brand new home from the dealership). Sure Lamborghini also made an armoured combat truck for some Middle East nations about two decades ago. But it did have me questioning Porsche's commitment to ultimate sports cars. Others may like it, or not mind it, that's OK, I definitely don't like it.

Some collaborations have helped - haven't owned one, but I am told that at least with some quality control input from Ford, you can actually go from A to B in a Jaguar - instead of leaving it, blinkers flashing somewhere on the freeway, with the hood up.

I used to think at $3 gas would be the turning point for most Americans, but given our thirst for gas and reluctance to modify consumption, it is more likely to be $6, as it is for everyone globally.

I think it is shameful for the largest automaker in the world, GM to need to align with Renault or Nissan to help it build cars. No excuses here, GM should have been able to deliver to the consumer, attractive, relevant, socially responsible and strategically positioned products to ensure not just it's survival, but global market dominance. Harping about union problems and pension funds won't do, especially when these automakers and their major suppliers are really Mexican companies with US HQs and a few facilities.

[khuon]

OK, OK! Let me explain :)

The Land Rover & G-Wagon are old classics, designed long ago for specific applications. Hence no quarrel with Jeep over here, or the real Hummer. I question with disappointment the trend in the US though(you know exactly what I'm talking about) to oversize everything to some SUV standard, regardless of the need - how many potted plants do you have to fit in that thing, and how often?
The selling point that Land Rover and Jeep put forth with the introduction of the Jeep Wagoneer in the 1950s and the Land Rover Range Rover in the mid 1970s were that they were meant to be vehicles for the farmer who could use it on the ranch during the day and still use it in the evening to take the wife into town to see the play. Or for the weekend outdoorsman who did the opposite... use it during the week for daily driving and then take it to the woods and mountains during the weekends. Somewhere around the mid to late 1980s, it turned into a status symbol. The Chevy Suburban had its origins in the 1930s. It was actually a vehicle designed for rural operation to take people from the train station to remote farms and country houses... essentially an offroad taxi/limo. It had to be big in order to carry lots of luggage as well as whole families at a time and it had to be capable of handling unimproved roads. Essentially these vehicles were viewed as offroad station wagons. I believe it was Ford who started referring to their Broncos as "Sport Utility Vehicles".

Early SUVs were purpose-built offroad machines and shared little to no lineage with truck or car platforms of the day. The Jeeps, Land Rovers and Hummers are the few that still carry on this tradition. Of course for Hummer, that only pertains to the H1 which they are phasing out of production. The other Hummers (H2, H3 and variants) are all based off GM truck platforms.

Other manufacturers saw the market opportunity and decided they could simply stick body panels onto their trucks and remarket them as SUVs much like they were also doing with vans. This led to some serious inherent safety issues as the body panels were really not designed to handle crash and impacts since they were more or less just a covering as opposed to being load bearing.

Later on as popularity rose and people really wanted something that acted more like a car because let's face it... they were primarily driven as a car, automakers began using car platform designs as the basis for their SUVs. While this did improve their onroad feel, it also compromised their offroad capabilities. Of course this was of little concern to the buying public as they generally never took these vehicles offroad anyways... nor were they skilled at doing so in the first place. It was all about the image. Their are very few SUVs these days that have true offroad capability (enhanced suspension, large approach/departure and breakover angles, high ground clearance, true 4WD with locking center/front/rear differentials, low-end high torque producing engine with 2:1 or better gearing in the transfer case, etc...) but that hasn't slowed sales because that's no longer what SUV buyers want. They want a big, overpriced, "macho-looking" car.


Some misc ramblings...

That Porsche truck - I was apalled, what a brand sellout, probably due to American dealer pressure!
I think calling it a truck is stretching it a bit. I generally define trucks as vehicles with a ladder-type frame and a body-on-frame design. The Porsche Cayenne is simply a car with an identity crisis... much like many of its buyers. It's really the same vehicle as the VW Touregg and could probably best be described as a station wagon with a high roofline. And i agree, that its creation was largely motivted by the US buying public. I think Porsche even said as much.


Sure Lamborghini also made an armoured combat truck for some Middle East nations about two decades ago.
The LM002 was at least a capable vehicle. I believe the Saudi gov't had a hand in its specification and they bought a bunch (with A/C and leather) for their troops.


But it did have me questioning Porsche's commitment to ultimate sports cars. Others may like it, or not mind it, that's OK, I definitely don't like it.
It gets a chuckle out of me. I rate it right up there on the pointless and silly scale with Selle Italia's $1500 Prezioza saddle which has 18K gold lamination and iguana leather although in a "pinch", the Selle Italia saddle would function as a saddle. I'm pretty sure that Porsche couldn't make it ten feet past the trailhead at Rubicon.


I think it is shameful for the largest automaker in the world, GM to need to align with Renault or Nissan to help it build cars. No excuses here, GM should have been able to deliver to the consumer, attractive, relevant, socially responsible and strategically positioned products to ensure not just it's survival, but global market dominance. Harping about union problems and pension funds won't do, especially when these automakers and their major suppliers are really Mexican companies with US HQs and a few facilities.
As with any large company, GM has untapped talents within. They may be those working on research for future products or are working in a sector which has little to no exposure to the automotive division. Regardless, it's a management decision as to whether or not to employ those talents towards creating a better automobile. GM instead has decided to take an "easier" route and follow instead of directly innovate. This lack of vision will ultimately be their downfall. I see that the general trend in the auto industry these days is to create gimics (in-car DVD players, powered flip-up seats), instead of evolving the refining the fundamentals of the automobile. It's a throwback to the 1950s. Bring on the tailfins! As a matter of fact, many of the car companies are even resorting to bringing back the looks of past eras. This is all fine and good as some of those looks are nice but what needs to happen is a radical shift in the way the industry thinks about automotive design. And while they toy with new ideas, GM, Ford and many other big automakers simply refuse to take a chance and commit.

[rufvelo]

...As with any large company, GM has untapped talents within. They may be those working on research for future products or are working in a sector which has little to no exposure to the automotive division. Regardless, it's a management decision as to whether or not to employ those talents towards creating a better automobile. GM instead has decided to take an "easier" route and follow instead of directly innovate. This lack of vision will ultimately be their downfall. I see that the general trend in the auto industry these days is to create gimics (in-car DVD players, powered flip-up seats), instead of evolving the refining the fundamentals of the automobile. It's a throwback to the 1950s. Bring on the tailfins! As a matter of fact, many of the car companies are even resorting to bringing back the looks of past eras. This is all fine and good as some of those looks are nice but what needs to happen is a radical shift in the way the industry thinks about automotive design. And while they toy with new ideas, GM, Ford and many other big automakers simply refuse to take a chance and commit.


I'm enjoying this thread departure(my apologies to the OP), far more than the Saab/jets premise.

Carlos Ghosn is probably more smart businessman than automotive genius, but he can get things done. What he basically did for Nissan is demand products from design & engineering that people would actually desire...and buy. GM doesn't really need him. They do need to listen to the ideas and general brilliance, that one has to believe exists within the organization at every level, then execute on those ideas. Then again there may be no one at GM who can go beyond talking the talk at the highest levels of corporate. Maybe they do need an outsider who can....get things done.

Much like Microsoft, the biggest, most successful software company in the world with tons of cash on hand, still without a genuine enterprise business systems offering. Still stuck with OS, Office products and game hardware invented elsewhere. There may have been several in the ranks there too, who if allowed to execute on their ideas, would have snatched up PeopleSoft/JD Edwards etc when the time was right....Well it is too late now :)

....it must annoy greatly, some Ford engineers, when the big boss appears in TV commercials and touts the safety of their Volvo department :)