Alrik Söderlind’s ongoing Alriks Bilar Fenix series has spent several episodes reconstructing Saab’s cancelled Project 540 through the people who actually developed its chassis, suspension and powertrain.
The latest installment adds the design side of that story.
In an extended English-language interview, Jason Castriota, who led Saab design during the Spyker period, works through his time in Trollhättan with Anders Johansson and Gabriel Palmenäs of Griffin Cars. He explains how he was recruited, why the 2011 PhoeniX concept looked so different from the Saabs that preceded it, and how its design and engineering were intended to support a broader production range.
That range included the next-generation Saab 9-3 five-door, its convertible and raised X derivatives, a compact 9-2, and a more specialized coupe conceived as a modern Sonett.
Castriota also discusses Saab’s unusually compressed development schedule, the business case behind the new 9-3, the uncertain fate of the original PhoeniX show car and whether one of his unbuilt designs could still be turned into a physical car.
At approximately the 57-minute mark, several period renderings appear on screen. Castriota identifies the bronze car with the softer face as the proposed 9-2 and the lower red coupe with pronounced rear buttresses as the production-oriented Sonett.
The images had circulated for years under inconsistent model names. His explanation finally places them within the same development family while confirming that the 9-2 and Sonett were related, but separate proposals.
Watch the Complete Alriks Bilar Interview
This interview deserves to be watched from beginning to end:
The value is not limited to a few newly explained renderings. Across more than 80 minutes, Castriota connects the PhoeniX concept to the production 9-3, describes the pressures inside Saab during 2010 and 2011, and explains why certain design decisions that appeared excessive at Geneva were made deliberately.
The screen-shared sketches, interior studies and clay-model photographs also make the relationship between Project 540, the Fenix architecture, the PhoeniX show car, the next 9-3, the 9-2 and the Sonett much easier to follow.
Alrik allows the conversation to develop without cutting it into short soundbites. For enthusiasts who have followed the surviving Project 540 components through Griffin Cars, the interview supplies the missing design context around the engineering already examined in previous episodes.
The complete series can be followed through the Alriks Bilar YouTube channel.
Castriota’s Saab Connection Predated the Design Job
Castriota’s appointment is often summarized as Victor Muller bringing an Italian-trained designer into Saab to create a more dramatic visual direction after the separation from General Motors.
His own account begins much earlier. Castriota says his first car, bought when he was 16, was a Saab 900. His parents had also owned Saabs, so he was familiar with the cars before he became involved with the company professionally.
He had spent roughly a decade working in Italy, including periods at Pininfarina and Bertone. His portfolio included the Maserati Birdcage 75th, the Ferrari 599 GTB and the Bertone Mantide, among other projects.
Castriota initially met Muller through the international motor-show and collector-car circuit. They crossed paths again at the 2009 Los Angeles Auto Show, before the Saab transaction had been completed, and then spoke at the 2010 Geneva Motor Show shortly after Spyker acquired Saab from GM.
Muller wanted him in Trollhättan almost immediately. Castriota was less certain. Designing a one-off Italian concept or limited-production sports car was one type of assignment. Creating an entire design strategy around a replacement for Saab’s aging 9-3 was another.
His meetings with Muller and then-CEO Jan Åke Jonsson changed the calculation. Castriota describes the two men as complementary personalities: Muller supplied urgency, enthusiasm and a detailed interest in automotive design, while Jonsson brought a more measured Swedish management style. The combination convinced Castriota that Saab’s position was difficult, but not necessarily hopeless.
The First 9-3 Proposal Was Already Engineering-Led
Castriota’s team was initially given only a short period to show Saab what it could deliver.
Rather than returning with loose theme sketches, the group prepared a largely digital proposal for the 9-3 replacement that already considered package architecture, drivetrain position, aerodynamics, thermodynamics and production feasibility.
Several members of the team had worked with Castriota in Italy and were accustomed to developing the visible body and the engineering package together. The intention was to avoid producing an attractive exterior that would later have to be compromised once engineers attempted to fit cooling systems, suspension points and production hardware beneath it.
According to Castriota, Muller and Jonsson had expected an early design study. What they saw was much closer to the beginning of an industrial program. That approach helps explain why the next 9-3 reached such an advanced stage despite the short period between the Spyker takeover and Saab’s bankruptcy.
The production car and the PhoeniX concept were not developed as unrelated projects. The show car was intended to introduce the outer limits of the design language while the 9-3 translated the same proportions, graphics and aerodynamic thinking into a production package.
Project 540, Fenix and PhoeniX Are Connected – but Not Identical
The terminology surrounding Saab’s final development program has often been used inconsistently. Project 540 was the internal program associated with Saab’s new modular vehicle architecture. Within Swedish-language material and the current Griffin Cars project, the platform is commonly referred to as Fenix.
The Saab PhoeniX, with a capitalized X, was the two-door concept presented at the 2011 Geneva Motor Show. The show car and the platform belonged to the same development story, but they were not the same physical object.
The Fenix architecture was intended to support the production range. The PhoeniX was a shortened, visually exaggerated demonstration of the engineering and design direction behind it.
That distinction is particularly important now that Griffin Cars is working with surviving Project 540 hardware. Its development vehicles use familiar Saab 9-3 bodies fitted with components from the cancelled program. They are not replicas of the PhoeniX concept or Castriota’s unbuilt production body.
The PhoeniX Was Built Around Real Project 540 Hardware
Castriota rejects the idea that the PhoeniX was merely a motor-show shell created to generate publicity.
Underneath its carbon-fiber body was a shortened form of the architecture being developed for the new 9-3. The concept used the BMW-MINI turbocharged engine and an electrically driven, torque-vectoring rear axle developed with American Axle & Manufacturing.
Those components have since been examined separately through the Fenix series. The chassis episodes with Gunnar Olsson and Per Jansson provided a closer look at the front and rear suspension developed for Project 540, while Peter Dahl reconstructed Saab’s BMW N18 engine program. The electrified rear axle also belonged to a longer Saab development line involving electric all-wheel drive and torque vectoring, building on lessons from the company’s mechanical XWD systems.
Castriota says the PhoeniX retained production-relevant wheel and tire dimensions, rather than relying on the oversized wheels commonly fitted to concept cars. Its front overhang, dash-to-axle relationship and powertrain installation were also connected to the production architecture. Even the clamshell hood was not simply a decorative show-car feature. A related solution was being considered for the next 9-3.
Castriota recalls a drag coefficient of approximately 0.25 for the PhoeniX, compared with a typical figure of around 0.32 for many cars of the period. He says the developing production 9-3 was also below 0.26.
These are figures quoted by Castriota during the interview rather than the result of an independently presented test, but they illustrate how strongly the program was being shaped around aerodynamic performance.
Built Between Trollhättan and Italy in Six Months
Work on the PhoeniX began around October 2010, with the finished car appearing at Geneva in March 2011. Castriota describes the project as a roughly six-month development and construction effort.
The chassis was assembled in Trollhättan. The body and final show-car construction were completed in Italy, where specialist companies still handled much of the European concept-car work at the time. According to Castriota, final assembly continued until the car was placed on the truck for Geneva. He remembers workers still fastening and securing parts during the journey to Switzerland.
The short schedule left little room for repeated revisions. Castriota argues that this helped preserve the strength of the original idea, although he acknowledges that a compressed process also leaves details a designer might reconsider in hindsight.
That tension is visible in the finished car. Its main volume – the narrow canopy placed over a body tapering toward the rear – was carefully resolved. Some of the smaller graphics and the large flying rear elements were intentionally more confrontational.
The PhoeniX Was Designed to Change the Question
The PhoeniX divided Saab enthusiasts from the day it was unveiled.
Its teardrop canopy, heavy rear shoulders, turbine-inspired wheels and floating buttresses did not continue the restrained minimalism of the Aero X, 9-X Air or earlier Michael Mauer-era concept cars. Castriota says the difference was intentional.
After Spyker’s acquisition of Saab, interviews with Muller, Castriota and development chief Mats Fägerhag repeatedly returned to the same subject: would Saab survive?
Product plans, engineering partnerships and new investment were discussed, but the financial question dominated the coverage. Castriota concluded that a cautious concept would not alter that narrative. The PhoeniX therefore became more radical as the design developed. Instead of asking whether Saab would still exist, journalists began asking whether the PhoeniX represented the company’s future. Some admired it, some rejected it, but the discussion moved from Saab’s immediate collapse to what the company might build next.
The widely circulated exchange between Chris Bangle and Jason Castriota at the Geneva show became part of that reaction. Bangle questioned the car’s connection to Saab, forcing Castriota to explain the aviation references, aerodynamic form and intended return to the brand’s earliest proportions.
The comments beneath the new Alriks Bilar interview show that the disagreement has not disappeared. Some viewers still regard the design as unnecessarily extreme. Others see the sketches, engineering and production studies and are left wondering how different Saab’s position might have been if the program had continued.
Castriota Identifies the 9-2 and Sonett
One of the interview’s most useful passages begins when Castriota searches for material relating to the smaller Fenix-based models.
At around 57 minutes, the discussion reaches a group of period renderings of Castriota’s unbuilt Saab concepts. Castriota identifies the red coupe with the flying rear buttresses as the production-oriented continuation of the PhoeniX. This was the car that could have revived the Sonett name.
The show car’s large floating wings would have been replaced by more practical aerodynamic structures. The teardrop canopy would visually pass beneath the buttresses, while the rear body would remain tighter and more specialized than on the proposed small hatchback.
The bronze car with the softer front treatment was the 9-2.
Its larger-looking lamps and more approachable expression were intended to recall the early Saab 92 without copying its body literally. It would have offered a more useful rear seat and greater luggage capacity than the Sonett. The two cars shared the same broad front architecture and shortened platform proportions, but they served different roles.
The 9-2 was the compact four-seater. The Sonett was the more focused 2+2 coupe. That separation resolves some of the confusion created when the surviving images were variously labeled 9-1, 9-2, Sonett or production PhoeniX. Saab’s naming had not reached the consistency of a completed model program, but Castriota’s explanation shows that the drawings did not all represent one car.
The 9-2 Was Planned Before the Sonett
The Sonett naturally attracted the most attention because it was the closest visual relative of the Geneva concept, but it was not intended to become Saab’s first new product. The production sequence depended on the next-generation 9-3.
After the 9-3 had entered production and begun generating volume, Saab intended to move toward a smaller model. Castriota describes the 9-2 as approximately 4.3 meters long, with four seats and the possibility of several hundred horsepower in a higher-performance version. The platform could also have incorporated the electrically assisted rear axle and torque vectoring.
Its dimensions would have placed it near cars such as the MINI, Volvo C30, Volkswagen Scirocco and Audi TT, though Saab’s plan appears to have included both a practical compact model and the lower-volume Sonett. Castriota also mentions design discussions that considered stretching the modular architecture toward a much larger vehicle in hypothetical 9-7 territory.
He is less enthusiastic about that part of the range. In his view, Saab had a more credible opportunity with the 9-3 and 9-2 than by directly confronting the largest and most heavily financed sedans from Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Audi and Lexus.
The lost Sonett has since been remembered as Saab’s possible alternative to the Audi TT, but Castriota’s account shows that the coupe was part of a larger sequence rather than a stand-alone rescue model.
The Next 9-3 Was Close to Design Sign-Off
The production 9-3 had advanced far beyond the smaller 9-2 and Sonett proposals. During the interview, Castriota shows detailed digital surfaces, interior studies and photographs of full-size clay models for the five-door hatchback and convertible.
He describes the exterior as reaching near-Class-A surface quality. In production-car development, Class-A surfacing refers to the final visible surfaces prepared to the quality required for engineering sign-off and tooling. The design had therefore moved well beyond an initial concept or styling theme.
Castriota also says that several physical prototypes existed, although he does not know what happened to them after the bankruptcy. The five-door restored the hatchback format closely associated with the classic Saab 900. It did not copy the older car’s panels or glass directly, but it used a similarly rearward visual movement, a long roof and a body that narrowed before widening over the rear wheels.
The front overhang was reduced compared with the existing 9-3. Castriota, Muller and Fägerhag considered those proportions essential if the new car was to compete visually with premium rear-wheel-drive architectures. A raised X derivative was also developed with additional ground clearance, protective cladding and lower skid-plate treatments. The design anticipated the growth of vehicles positioned between conventional hatchbacks, wagons and compact crossovers.
The Convertible Was Designed Around Greater Component Sharing
The convertible used the same wheelbase as the five-door and was developed with a strict emphasis on component sharing.
Castriota explains that Saab intended the two body styles to use the same corresponding bumper assemblies, lamp units and other exterior components wherever the roof systems allowed.
The outgoing 9-3 Convertible required a greater number of unique parts, increasing tooling and development cost. The new program attempted to reduce that complexity without turning the convertible into an obvious secondary derivative.
One difficult area was the rear deck. The folded roof required a relatively high body structure, but the designers wanted the convertible’s beltline and rear graphics to remain closely related to the hatchback. The clay-model photographs shown during the interview demonstrate how far that work had progressed. These were not rough scale models used to choose between themes; they were full-size studies approaching final exterior definition.
The PhoeniX interior was developed by Saab’s internal design team and received particular praise from Castriota. Its most recognizable feature was the translucent upper section of the steering wheel, which left a leather-covered yoke shape visible beneath it. The solution created the visual impression of an aircraft control without removing the full steering-wheel rim.
The dashboard remained oriented around the driver but avoided an entirely black or gray presentation. Bright orange and contrasting materials were used against cooler surfaces, drawing on contemporary Scandinavian furniture and product design.
Castriota explains that he wanted to move away from the ice-blue, white and silver palette used by several earlier Saab concepts. The production 9-3 interior would have retained the layered cockpit structure in a more conventional form. It also incorporated Saab’s planned IQon Android-based infotainment architecture, which was intended to give developers far greater access to vehicle data and applications than typical proprietary systems of the period.
The interview’s later discussion about touchscreens is relevant here. Castriota now argues that manufacturers removed too many physical controls while trying to follow the large-screen approach popularized by Tesla. The unfinished 9-3 interior belonged to a different point in that transition: digital integration was important, but major functions still had clearly defined physical interfaces.
The Target Was 28 Months to Production
Castriota says the original program target called for the new 9-3 to reach production 28 months after the start of development. He describes that timetable as extremely aggressive for a new architecture and vehicle program in 2010. The design department worked according to that schedule and reached the milestones required from its side. Castriota accepts that engineering completion, crash testing, certification, tooling and supplier validation might have extended the real program closer to 36 months.
Even three years would have represented a rapid development cycle for a relatively small European manufacturer working on a largely new vehicle.
The urgency also created friction.
Castriota says he and his external team sometimes operated like a “bull in a china shop” when their pace and working methods met Saab’s established development culture. They had been asked to move quickly, but the internal team was also dealing with suppliers, budgets and procedures that could not simply be compressed by design ambition.
Within months, the company’s financial position was already affecting the atmosphere around the program. Supplier concerns grew and expected funding failed to arrive on schedule. The design team continued working, knowing that a delay to the new 9-3 would leave Saab dependent on the existing model for longer than the business could support.
The Business Plan Rested on the New 9-3
Castriota recalls that Saab’s overall plan targeted approximately 120,000 vehicles per year. Within that total, the new 9-3 was expected to contribute roughly 70,000 to 80,000 units, with the 9-5 and 9-4X adding another 30,000 to 40,000.
He is recalling figures discussed around 15 years earlier, and the interview does not present the original internal business plan. The specific 9-3 number should therefore be treated as Castriota’s recollection. The wider 120,000-unit target was also discussed publicly during the Spyker period and is consistent with Saab’s stated ambition to bring Trollhättan closer to the volume required for profitability.
This explains why the 9-3 had to come first. The Sonett could attract attention and the 9-2 could bring younger buyers into the brand, but neither could replace the volume role of Saab’s core model.
Without the new 9-3, the rest of the product plan had no stable industrial base.
What Happened to the Original PhoeniX?
When asked where the physical PhoeniX concept is today, Castriota says that, to the best of his knowledge, it no longer exists.
He recalls that the car remained in Trollhättan after Saab’s bankruptcy and was displayed at the Saab museum for a period before being moved into storage. Castriota believes it was later destroyed in a crusher during a dispute involving ownership and intellectual property. He does not claim to know who ordered the destruction, when it occurred or which legal issue determined the outcome. He states openly that he does not know the full politics behind it.
The claim should therefore remain attributed to him rather than presented as a fully documented history of the car. Earlier reports about the disappearance and reported destruction of the PhoeniX concept reached a similar conclusion, but the complete chain of custody has never been made public.
Castriota says he would have attempted to acquire the car himself had anyone contacted him before its reported destruction.
Castriota Says the Design Could Be Revisited
The interview then moves from history to a hypothetical future. Asked whether someone could commission a new vehicle based on the PhoeniX or Sonett design, Castriota says that he controls the design intellectual property and would be willing to participate if approached.
That is his own description of the rights position. The interview does not include the relevant contracts or registrations, so it should not be treated as an independently verified legal determination.
Design rights would also be only one part of such a project.
The Saab name, Griffin emblem, model names, former engineering data and production homologation are separate issues controlled by different parties. A designer’s willingness to revisit the body does not automatically provide permission to manufacture and sell a road-legal Saab.
Nevertheless, Castriota’s answer is significant because he does not regard the project as permanently closed.
He still recognizes the design, retains the material and says he would help if a serious proposal emerged.
Griffin Cars Has Revived the Engineering Side
The current Griffin Cars program gives that statement additional context, although the two projects should not be merged.
Former Saab engineers Anders Johansson and Gabriel Palmenäs acquired surviving sets of Project 540 components and began adapting them to existing Saab 9-3 bodies.
Their cars use familiar production shells combined with development hardware from the cancelled Fenix program. The work includes suspension, engine and drivetrain components that were originally intended for Castriota’s next-generation body.
The opening part of the project introduced the surviving hardware and Griffin Cars development plan. Later episodes moved into the suspension system and Peter Dahl’s account of the BMW engines stored in Trollhättan.
Griffin Cars is not currently building the unproduced 9-3, 9-2 or Sonett exterior. Its importance lies in demonstrating that the cancelled platform was not merely a collection of presentation drawings. Enough hardware survived for former Saab engineers to place parts of it back on the road. The Alriks Bilar series now connects that engineering work with the design program that was meant to surround it.
Saab Became a Broader Industrial Lesson for Castriota
Castriota remained involved with Saab until the company’s bankruptcy filing. He later moved beyond design into brand strategy, manufacturing and business planning. He joined Ford, where he spent approximately five and a half years and eventually worked in electric-vehicle strategy, including the Mustang Mach-E period. His move to Ford’s advanced design operation marked a shift from the independent consultancy work that had brought him to Saab.
In the interview, he connects that later career direction directly to what happened in Trollhättan.
The Saab experience taught him that an advanced platform and persuasive design were not enough. Manufacturing cost, supplier stability, access to capital and the distribution of information within a company could determine the result before the product itself was finished. He now says his team is working on methods intended to reduce automotive manufacturing costs, although he does not disclose the current project in detail.
Alriks Bilar Has Put the Separate Pieces Into One Account
The importance of this interview is not a single dramatic claim about a crushed concept or a Sonett that might still be built. Its value comes from the way it defines the different parts of Saab’s final program.
Project 540 and the Fenix architecture formed the engineering foundation.
The PhoeniX concept was the shortened design and technology demonstrator.
The next-generation 9-3 was the five-door and convertible program approaching design approval.
The 9-2 was the smaller, more practical four-seater planned to follow it.
The Sonett was the lower and more specialized coupe that translated the show car most directly toward production. The original concept may have been destroyed, while the known production prototypes remain unaccounted for. The tooling was never completed and the model range never reached Saab showrooms.
But the people, drawings and engineering components did not disappear together. Alrik Söderlind’s series is bringing those surviving parts into one documented conversation: the engineers who built the platform, the hardware now held by Griffin Cars and the designer responsible for the bodies that were meant to use it.
A viewer has already asked whether the series could continue with Victor Muller. Alriks Bilar replied that it would try to arrange such an interview. That would be the logical next step. Castriota repeatedly refers broader questions about company strategy, financing and the final industrial plan back to Muller and Mats Fägerhag.
Until then, the complete Castriota interview provides the clearest single explanation yet of how Saab intended to move from the PhoeniX show car to an entirely new model range—and why the surviving components now being driven by Griffin Cars belonged to a program much larger than one experimental 9-3.
I remember meeting Jason at Saab in Trolhattan when we were working on the new Master Plan for the factory