Introduction
General Motors’ decision to discontinue Saab has been a topic of discussion and speculation for over a decade. Recently, Bob Lutz, the former Vice Chairman of GM, shed new light on the factors leading to this decision. His insights provide a deeper understanding of the internal dynamics at GM and the automotive industry’s challenges that contributed to Saab’s demise.
GM’s Acquisition of Saab: The Beginning of the End?
In 2000, GM took full control of Saab, marking a significant turning point for the Swedish automaker. While this acquisition was initially seen as a potential boon for Saab, it soon became apparent that the integration into GM’s vast portfolio was fraught with challenges. Lutz describes the period as one where Saab’s unique identity began to be overshadowed by the broader strategic directions of GM.
Integration and Identity Loss
Under GM’s stewardship, Saab underwent significant changes, many of which diluted the brand’s unique appeal. According to Lutz, efforts to mainstream Saab’s quirky designs to appeal to a broader market consistently failed, leading to stagnating sales and an eroded brand identity. “Every time it was made more mainstream, we didn’t sell any,” Lutz remarked, highlighting the brand’s struggle to resonate with a wider audience while maintaining its distinctive characteristics.
Strategic Misalignments and Market Challenges
The automotive industry in the early 2000s was marked by intense competition and shifting consumer preferences. Saab, known for its innovative and somewhat unconventional vehicles, found it increasingly difficult to compete in a market that favored more mainstream models. Lutz’s commentary suggests that Saab’s positioning within GM’s portfolio was always somewhat precarious, caught between maintaining its niche appeal and adapting to market trends.
The Decision to Discontinue
Lutz reveals that he had advocated for discontinuing Saab for years before the decision was finally made. The brand, he felt, was “off the mainstream” and its appeal was limited to a small, specific market segment. Despite the affection of the automotive press for Saab’s “goofy” designs, the commercial reality was stark—there simply weren’t enough buyers globally to sustain the brand under GM’s business model.
BOB LUTZ: And when it was goofy, which the automotive press loved, there were only 100,000 people in the whole freakin’ world that wanted one.
The Impact of the 2008 Financial Crisis
The global financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent recession had a profound impact on the automotive industry. GM, in particular, faced severe financial difficulties that led to a government bailout. As part of its restructuring, GM had to make tough decisions about which brands to keep and which to cut. Saab, unfortunately, did not make the cut.
Government Influence and Tough Choices
The bailout conditions imposed by the U.S. government forced GM to focus on profitability and long-term viability. Brands like Buick and GMC were also on the chopping block, but Saab was among the first to be let go. Lutz’s account underscores the harsh realities of these decisions, dictated by financial necessities rather than purely strategic considerations.
Saab’s Bankruptcy and Legacy
In 2011, just a few years after GM’s decision to discontinue Saab, the company declared bankruptcy. The end of Saab was a significant event in the automotive world, marking the demise of a brand cherished for its innovation and distinctiveness. Lutz’s reflections not only illuminate the reasons behind GM’s decision but also paint a picture of an industry at a crossroads, where innovation often clashed with commercial viability.
Reflections on Innovation and Market Dynamics
Lutz’s career, which spanned across all three of the United States’ Big Three automobile manufacturers, was characterized by a commitment to innovation. However, his experiences with Saab highlighted the complexities of balancing innovative design with market demands. His parting thoughts on Saab offer a poignant reminder of the delicate interplay between maintaining a brand’s unique identity and ensuring its financial sustainability.
Abetter understanding of Saab’s history
Bob Lutz’s candid insights into the reasons behind Saab’s exit from GM‘s portfolio provide a compelling narrative of business strategy, market dynamics, and the harsh realities of the automotive industry. As the industry continues to evolve, the story of Saab serves as a cautionary tale about the risks and rewards of maintaining a brand’s unique character in an increasingly competitive market.
Lutz’s reflections not only contribute to a better understanding of Saab’s history but also offer valuable lessons for automotive brands navigating the turbulent waters of the global market today.
Continue the Investigation: What Happened to Saab’s Innovations and Unbuilt Dreams
The strong reactions and passionate discussions sparked by readers of this article highlighted that the story of Saab under General Motors is far from simple. Many enthusiasts, former Saab insiders, and industry observers expressed frustration, shared memories, and even alleged previously unseen details about how Saab’s engineering, product plans, and strategic promise were handled during the GM years.
If you want to dive deeper into this complex chapter – including how Saab’s technologies were integrated across GM, how investment priorities shifted away from Saab, and how several promising Saab projects were cancelled or sidelined – we’ve published a follow-up analysis that explores these issues with fresh research and contextual commentary from the Saab community.
Read the follow-up article: GM’s Mismanagement, Stolen Saab Tech, and Cancelled Dreams
This extended analysis builds on the discussion initiated here and examines the broader strategic patterns that many Saab fans believe contributed to the brand’s demise. Some perspectives are grounded in documented design and engineering history, while others reflect the passionate viewpoints shared by readers – all clearly labelled and contextualized to help you understand what could have been for Saab.
El verdadero motivo es que Lutz jamás sintió la más minima empatía, aceptación y tampoco se sintió mínimamente atraído por la marca Saab, su tecnología y forma de entender la fabricación de sus automóviles. Se refiere a ellos como “coches tontos” y todos los demás argumentos que cita carecen de solidez
Saab was very Unique for a reason and none of that should have had to change at the time. I really believe if Saab could have afforded their independence they would still be here. However I see that GM is still making cars that are copies from Saab’s Unique build and Saabs technology, amongst others 🤷♀️
What GM models do you see as copies of Saab today? Curious as to what is the “closest thing” to a Saab in the modern era that way I have a 2nd choice in the event I don’t have another option for a Saab around me.
Five-door hatchbacks with turbocharged four-bangers — total Saab clones. Buick and Chev make some.
The ecotec engines from GM which I believe are still in production are also widespread in GM’s lineup. Some of the most advanced technology of the day – Saab doing in the 90s and 80s with turbocharging and more that are now the industry standard. Front wheel drive and all. Saab really set a standard for innovation. EVERYONE pivoted over eventually. The issue is the brand was not mainstream. Too quirky too unusual and too educated. I remember GM’s wide push in the 2000s “Saab – born from jets” as soo tacky and off. Made me dislike this brand I love soo much, as I had my 1991 9000, more, not celebrate it. It just didn’t connect. Jerry Seinfeld “drove a Saab” so I also think marketing really got it wrong too. There was an era where smart people drove smart unique cars and this was celebrated. Tesla is probably the closest example today. Saab could have been Tesla (from a car perspective) if done right today.
Hilarious his comments “ because they are not car guys they do not understand the business”, so if you so good why you was in bankruptcy? Why you did not do this job before getting to these point.
Saab had the engineering to apply to other brand and not the other way around, needed to be more what it was not less but with better marketing. He like most GM people never understood what they bought and it shows by his comment.
Amen, brother!
Agree!
Perfectly Put!
Yes I agree. GM started to get into SAAB in 1994. GM gleaned there EV from SAAB and shelved many R&D power plants just to keep them from production. GM management never understood the SAAB owner appeal. I was at a vintage SAAB owner event that GM management attended and there was a 900 in the parking lot with the license plate that said NOTAGM. They were pissed about that and made it known.
Bob Lutz was the main decision maker to drown Saab.
Bob Lutz: the guy who thought he’d know what European consumers would want.
They want Cadillac instead of Saabs 🤣 And then they made BLS in Trollhättan.
Was really popular here in Finland: five cars sold when it came out 😁
I was part of the team which arranged Saabclub Of Finland’s summer event in 2010. I visited couple of dealers in case they’d like to support our club. One of them asked me whether I’d like to take Cadillac BLS commecials and stands with me since the sales had been really poor. Rather not 🤣
It was a boutique brand and perhaps it’s getting more difficult in this world to sustain a brand that has a small following, comparatively. Look how Rolls Royce, Bentley, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, Jaguar have all been absorbed by conglomerates. Perhaps a different company other than GM could have been a better custodian for SAAB and they still might be around!
Cadillac BLS… was either Bob Lutz Special as explained by GM people or BulLlShit as internally named at Saab !
A very sad end to a much loved brand and when you consider all that’s been said perhaps it was better to let SAAB go. Now I say that with a very heavy heart and my reasoning is we would have ended up with a more ” watered down “version of SAAB car’s that would not appeal to those who loved the brand.
But it also begs the question why did GM acquire SAAB in the first place if they were looking for more mass sales and more of the same, surely it would have been easier to increase production of the mainstream car’s they were already selling. Some people might say that the company couldn’t make enough profit because of production costs but remember that SAAB were all about safety and this is what was causing the company problems because of the cost to build a very safe car. And of course SAAB didn’t want the GM parts bin as a supply they wanted to use different parts etc , how often do you hear for example people saying the car’s had great seats anyway it’s gone now. BTW does anyone know if the SAAB brand and badge rights were bought by any company/organisation?
If Saab was such a a doomed proposition, why did GM try so hard to make sure it was completely dead? While they were negotiating the disposition of the brand, suppliers were ordered to destroy the tooling for NG 9-5 models, and Victor Mueller’s financial partner in the proposal to take over Saab was arbitrarily ruled “unacceptable” to GM.
His financial partners had ties with the Russian maffia, and that was a problem. That is another reason why the sale was not allowed to happen.
The SAAB brand is still owned by the aviation company, and they probably won’t allow any future cars to have that brand.
Yes, Volvo should have bought them.
Yes indeed well said
Volvo was already part of Ford at he time of SAAB bankruptcy…
The Wallenberg family retains the Saab name, commercial rights and possibly any IP rights. They have said they would not allow use of the brand name.
APC technology is why GM acquired SAAB.
“BTW does anyone know if the SAAB brand and badge rights were bought by any company/organisation?”
SAAB brand and badge rights are owned by SAAB. They have decided not to allow it to be used for cars.
Yes, Saab AB (aircraft) always has owned the rights to the Saab name, the car division was always seen as an off-shoot of first the aircraft division and then the Scania Truck division of Saab-Scania. In 1989 Saab AB granted rights to Saab Automobile AB to use the Saab name, and again in 1995 when Saab and Scania demerged, in 2000 when GM acquired the remaining 50% from Investor AB (who was majority owner of Saab AB) and finally in 2010 with the Spyker acquisition. Saab AB said no in 2014 to NEVS, after the last batch of 9-3N Aeros were made. For the Griffin logo, that requires agreement from Saab AB, Scania and Skane IIRC.
GM bought Saab for their turbocharger technology. Same as Ford buying Volvo. The rest of Saab was worthless to GM.
GM brought for their technology and kicked them to the curb
Saab were terrible financiers, look at how much they spent re engineering everything that GM sent them.
I love & miss Saab but they were their own worst enemy
To Paul Smythe >
Do your homework better next time.
To Jonas Nordstrom >
I’ve done mine, that’s why I can accept that Saab aren’t here today.
They sucked at running a business & kept over spending when they had nothing.
If you can’t accept it that your issue
To Paul Smythe >
The MOST missing brand today, in case you have missed that?!
The cars/inventions was on top in every aspect
but the board was crap, is another thing.
You`re not even close to the vicinity of what Saab stod for
living on the other side of the Atlantic.
So whom of the engineers have you consulted for
making your statement?
I would bet the threat Saab was to Cadillac was also a factor. Need to get rid of competition for the upcoming ATS release back in the day.
Saab was one of many brands stuffed up by GM. They bought Holden in Australia and closed it down. They bought Opel and then sold it. They tried to ram the Chev badge down South Africans throats and that failed. They closed ops in SA. They basically abandoned all Humner, Caddy and Saab customers in SA.
Saab would have died in the 90s if it wasn’t for GM
Holden, Opal & Vauxhall were all purchased in the 1920’s. All three car companies shared “some” design elements with US models. SAAB was the last company purchased in 1989/2000. SAAB did get some parts help from GM in the early part of the 11990s. Then there was the 9-5 and 9-3 at the turn of the century, which were heavily re-engineered GM platforms. GM did try to take SAAB more mainstream without losing much of the boutiqueness. I have owned four 9000 and two 9-5 built in the GM era. I lust after a 9-3ng convertible and 9-3SC. There were changes made in design by GM but most knowledgeable SAAB owners do like the GM era cars.
To say Saab died with the two digit models ignores reality. Saab had always made a functional & useful car, even the Sonett.
TO Samuel Sabo >
Not Really there’s more Rich People in the world than poor people in the world I own a 2011 Saab 93 convertible turbo 4 I brought it brand new and I still have it and it only has 49100 miles on it and if SAAB stays in business I would brought another one too.
TO Samuel Merritt >
it’s not about the number of rich people, Saab was bleeding money and most rich People went for other Euro brands, I love Saab but what I said is the truth
Lutz was no genius. Just another corporate failure at GM.
Lutz was so great. Really, there’s nothing wrong with GM.
Love how he left out how GM raided SAAB’s security and safety technology.
When GM goes bankrupt I will open a magnum of the best Champagne!!!
However, he did not answer some (to me) essential questions. Why did GM shut down Saab right before production of the new 95 model began. Why did they put so much energy into preventing a takeover of the company? And (correct me if I’m wrong) why did the banks suddenly demand early repayment of loans from Spyker, which took over Saab? Indeed, there was a suspicion that this decision of the banks was influenced by GM. What pushed Spyker into bankruptcy. Which the Americans even wanted to buy after bankruptcy. But unsuccessfully.
I am a Saab tragic, but the first to admit
1. They made cars that no one wanted to buy (the world simply didn’t give a shit that Saabs were over engineered.) I love the fact they are over engineered!!
2. Unlike Volvo, who made the XC90 (which along with ford, saved them) Saab had no interest in building a SUV – that’s why it got shoehorned with the 9-7x, etc
3. No one in the world respected the underlying platforms that GM Saabs were based on (including Saab themselves). GM Europe cars were shit, never class leading, nicest thing u can say about them was that they were cheap and cheerful. But Saabs were always the butt of the joke “it’s an overpriced vectra”
4. Too late on automotive trends and overpriced. I love the black bumper rubber strips and black door handles, but every other car at that price point, everything was color coded. In Australia (were I live) a 9-5 aero wagon was 90k and you couldn’t even get it with sat nav???
5. You can’t be a small volume car manufacturer in a first world country unless you’re selling cars over 250k – the numbers simply don’t stack up. 8 million people in Sweden back in the day, high wages, small volumes and could never crack the premium luxury market like Audi, Volvo or BMW could.
6. Finally, GM was the wrong suitor. It’s apparent now, but Saab really had no options. GM’s culture and Saabs culture were like chalk and cheese.
TO Reif Hand
Interesting but in #2 you state that Saab was not interested in the SUV-segment. The truth is that around 2005 Saab had designed a 9-3 SUV close to production suitable also for Europe. But Bob Lutz told us that we had designed a car in a non existing segment so he killed it! 🥲
After that BMW X1/3, Audi Q3, Volvo XC60 etc sold millions of smaller SUVs.
Saab could have led that new SUV-segment so big mistake by Lutz.
TO Göran Kähler
let me re-phase then, Saab wasn’t interested until it was too late. The x5 was released in 2001, the xc90 2003.
By 2005, the 9-5 was already 8 years old. The 9-3 was 2 years old, convertible released and wagon imminent releasing.
Sadly it was too little, too late.
TO Reif Hand
I don’t think Saab weren’t interrested. They weren’t given resources. Their cars didn’t sell as poorly as people make it out. They just didn’t have a sufficient model range, so the combined sales were low. GM should’ve aggressively expanded the range in the 90’s. Given them money to launch compacts, sports cars, MPVs and more. To, like Toyota did with Lexus, allow the brand to lose money to grow.
A huge issue is that Saab were FWD-only until 2008. Premium cars aren’t FWD. And Saab had 4WD test mules as early as 1985.
The problem was GM did not understand SAAB as a brand. You can not rebadge Vectra and try to sell it on BMW or Audi price. I dont understand why they bought saab in the first place. I loved saab features like Night panel, key position, safety. They should work on that not on turning Saab to conventional vehicle. If that i would want i would buy Opel in the first place. Saab was never meant to be mainstream.
The GFC was the end of GM. The federal funding to refloat General Motors Corporation required rationalisation, so Pontiac, Hummer, Saturn and Saab were all let go! Later on they sold Opel to PSA, closed all RHD markets, including Holden, Daewoo!
GM tried to make a niche brand for car lovers a generic one size fits all GM subbrand. SAAB would have survived under the umbrella of BMW. BMW did a remarkable job with MINI. SAAB 9-3 on the BWM 3 platform. Not cannibalizing on MINI or BMW buyers at all.
To Reif Hand
well, there are plenty of people with more inside info and that was there to the end. Surprised none has written a book yet…😅
Having dealerships for Saturn Saab Isuzu says it all imho
Sad, Very Sad have four left, have owned around seventy SAAB’s in forty years, Happy days..
In the 90’s, I was working as a car jockey in the poshiest hotel in Antwerp. I was driving every brand, had already a classic 900 racer myself.
Doing the job, I realized that the newer GM models were driving more safe, better balanced, more comfortable. GM was indeed making progress from the knowledge they got from SAAB. They got to sell more cars, meaning they already benefited !
If GM would have kept SAAB and let the stubborn Sweeds continue their vision, GM would have benefitted more. We can read often that GM didn’t like the stubborn behavior in Trolhattan, and that’s why they wanted to kick them out. And honestly, I believe that’s true.
Lutz was clueless, just as the rest of GM when it came to SAAB. They just wanted some technology, a higher value European brand to add to their portfolio…Sadly or luckily everything else already spoken for. When I worked in Marketing, International Auto Shows, SAAB wasnt fooling anyone with their 1994 900 replacement that GM threw them an outdated Opel to make into something worthy of replacing the iconic 900. Of the 100,000 people who came through the shows that season at least 70 plus percent didn’t like it, said it was small, looked cheap inside.
in my opinion they ventured too far away from the original iconic car…. they made a Saturn clone
It’s like marrying the most beautiful woman, and then force her to by her clothes on T J Maxx, quit makeup and wear a wig.
Don’t forget, GM didn’t manage to make cars at all with a profit, went bankrupt and was saved by the government.
“Every time it was made more mainstream, we didn’t sell any,” – you never understod people had never wanted to buy Opel-Saab from an Opel dealer. And Opel dealer never really wanted to sell Saabs bur GM had forced them to 🤷♂️
And Bob Lutz wanted the 9-5 to be rear wheel driven……..smart move by a man that once put a big engine in a smaller car for dragracing(?).
One of the things I always like to stress is how GM stuck Saab with development costs and nothing to show for it. The 9-5 was due to replaced around 2006 with a platform designed in conjuntion with Fiat that, you may recall, GM owned at the time. Called the Premium platform, the only car that ever used it was the Alfa Romeo 159. It was introduced after GM paid two billion dollars to walk away from Fiat in 2005. Just think how revolutionary Simon Padian’s styling of the NG 9-5 would have looked in 2005 rather than in 2010. And having been designed for the Premium platform rather than the Epsilon II platform, it probably would’ve looked better than the car we know. I dare say the demand for it in 2005 would’ve far exceeded production capabilities. Unlike in 2010 when the NG 9-5 was introduced, there was a strong demand for sedans (and the wagons too) in 2005. By 2010, SUVs were and still are all the rage.
Say what you will about the Saabaru (9-2X), it wasn’t a bad little car. And its replacement was set to go at the time GM divested itself of Fuji Heavy industries. You don’t have to look very closely at the 2008-era Impreza Outback to realize Subaru used what would’ve been the tailgate and tail lamps of the next gen 9-2X.
Saab was also responsible for much of the development of the 9-4X and Cadillac SRX, so much so that the Cadillac is the clone/badge-engineered version of the 9-4X. GM wasted no time in bringing the Cadillac to market. The 9-4X had to wait a year or more later to be introduced. By that time Saab was months away from bankruptcy. Cadillac was selling 100k SRXs each year. Even sales of 30k 9-4Xs would have done much to save Saab.
Ultimately I think GM took a lot more from Saab than it ever invested. That’s in sharp contrast to Ford which, not only let Volvo be Volvo, but helped make it a far stronger car brand.
To Doug Crane >
these are my exact thoughts as well. I would just add that Opel and Saab’s relationship was also not great GM did nothing to improve that situation. Concentrating R&D in Russelsheim instead of the premium brand Saab was a fatal mistake to the order of GM Europe and success of all three brands (including Vauxhall).
TO Doug Crane >
Very good points! I might add that the Premium platform was also used on Alfa Brera and Spider. Those were made in marginal numbers (10k+20k total) though! I bought my Alfa Brera without knowing the Saab connection. Some blame the car to be heavy to handle (not light in the proper Alfa way). It felt immediately homely for me. Only later I found out I am driving a platform developed in large part in Trollhättan…
I was told by a Saab salesman that when GM bought Saab, they wanted to use cheaper parts. The people who built the cars in Sweden said ‘no way’ and continued to build them as always. GM realized they were just not getting enough profit.
Well to be fair, SAAB started to dig their own grave when they never did a “sportswagon” of the 9000. In SAAB history there has been soo many strange product/marketing decisions, like when they failed to pick up the Opel/Getrag 6 speed gearbox that they could have used in the 2,3T models. In retrospect, money better spent than the costly recall on the pre 2001 five speeds that followed. The early 2,8t V6 was a gas guzzler of epic proportions. However in the last version 2010 9-5 Aero it was a great engine, but again SAAB failed to launch their new car as a Stationwagon, even though the epic sucess (By SAAB standards 😁) from the previous 9-5 should have been a nobrainer to repeat.
If they had, a 2011 4WD 9-5 Aero Sportswagon is what I would be driving today, instead of The Brown Mercedes Diesel that I actually drive…😁
Saab
By Bob Lutz…..I had been trying to convince my boss at GM for years we should get rid of Saab, and it was always wait until next year, wait until the next year, wait until next year—and next year never came. It was a goofy brand that was off the mainstream, and every time it was made more mainstream, we didn’t sell any. And when it was goofy, which the automotive press loved, there were only 100,000 people in the whole freakin’ world that wanted one.
Cadillac Bob Lutz Special (BLS) is all you need to know to understand the mindset that contributed to SAAB loosing all of it’s identity. Unfortunately prior to the GM partnerships and eventual GM takeowver… SAAB had identity…what it didn’t have was the money to move beyond the SAAB 900 platform which was heavily borrowed from the previous SAAB 99 platform. SAAB 9000 was a collaboration with FIAT and it’s badge engineered subsidies. 9000 was already comprimising SAAB uniqueness… ignition on the column, transverse mounted engine, and eventually adopting a GM derived V6.
GM’s eventual full takeover resulted in the episolon platform which was the basis for all future 900, 9-3 and 9-5 Saabs… And of course, lest we forget the ill conceived 9-4… the SAAB ‘Trailblazer’…
Id give anything to have the perfect 1987 Saab 900 Turbo 5spd that I once owned. The X stole the car…got wasted and lost it in 3rd, turbo kicked at 3200…back road turn …took out a tree…snapped the tree inhalf…landed on the roof…ended up bending the frame. My beautiful car gone…Avery bad day. That car was perfect! Road on rails!
When the car is built for a specific market… you can’t globalise it…
However, building a few hero cars would have helped. Ditching FWD to the economy in favour for AWD with up to 100% of the power going to the rear was the key, should have been done in the og9³ and 9⁵ and the 9000, the platform was designed for it. Then throw a turbo straight 6 in it by modulating the b2x4/2×5 lines for the aero and hirsch lines. Done.
Saab coveted Saab engineering. After Saab acquisition, every GM was equipped with Saab abs brakes. Safety/crash tek, turbocharging all brought from Saab. Don’t kid yourself, high Swedish wage rates killed Saab in the end in a world filled with creatures of habit.
Saab was NEVER going to sell 2mil units per year. They knew that. They also knew that Saab owners liked the quirkiness and did not want any part of mainstream. I owned 2 9.3 body styles. The 97 I just could not drive (after owning several 900s and a 9000). Called her Christine. Told myself it was me so I bought a 2001. Fully GM at that point. Shitty car. Lots of engine and clutch issues. Traded for a Mazda and beef happy since
You cannot have both: an original or “quirky” design and mainstream. Lutz could have learned from the demise of Citroën when Peugeot took over. Saab or Citroën buyers didn’t perceive the design as quirky, rather, they were appalled by dull car designs such as BMW, Opel, Porsche or VW. When you go mainstream, you lose these loyal buyers.
99, 9000cte, 900’s, 900c, 9-5 back when SAAB was super affordable I’d buy them and drive for a couple years, sell and buy another. The 9000 was rear ended at a dead stop by a ford escort wagon going very fast. Could barely notice the SAAB was damaged, the Ford front ended completely destroyed. The 9-5 was the fastest and super fun. The last 900 was a white base model I paid 1200 for and ended up giving it to a friend in need. All great cars. All FUN to drive. Least fave was the convertible.
srsly
this isn’t a freaking mystery
GM bought saab for its turbo technology to bring GM into the 21st century.
the problem was that GM wasn’t ready for 4/6 turbos and some in charge wanted a resurgence of V8 power and instead of Saab tech, tried to use holden to make it happen
if failed miserably
Keep in mind I grew up in and just sold a 73 V4 Saab… Many overlooked not just the power but the reliability of the 900 turbo which ultimately turned out to be a long term ultra reliable vehicle.
The last gen 9-5 and regal had massive potential (sh!t the trickle down to the cobalt ss made is a better deal than the wrx) but americans just weren’t ready
Saab was killed what 15 years ago,, its just now with honda accords/civic, hyundai elantra, ford maverick, golf r, audi s3, etc etc are 2.0 turbos are becoming the standard in 2025.. when remind did saab release the 2.0 Turbo.. umm the saab turbo lasted from 78-94 – 16 years and the last was 900 was 30 years ago.
So yeah, GM screwed up with Saab .. Screw Pontiac, Buick, Oldsmobile, even subaru (saab 92x was a subaru), it’s no secret that GM should have kept it.
But it’s ancient history now, it’s not coming back
The GM misuse of the Saab brand started when they gave Saab the OLD mediocre Vectra platform and said: Build a premium car of this! Despite the crap they have to work with they designed a pretty decent product. But you know: You can polish an elephant shit to shine but it is still elephant shit!
Nothing GM has done over the past 20 years made no sense and survival and success depends on quality and uniqueness of the brands, none of the GM libe up has any of that coupled on poor quality GM should not even be around these days, still have a distant hope the SAAB brand will be revived one day
GM, a mediocre manufacturer of throw away cars, was so far beneath the engineering of Saab, that GM „borrowed“ the best from Saab innovation and then scrapped the company. I bought my Saab from a GM Cadillac- Saab dealership. That speaks loudly about the clientele that purchased Saab. Country Club Elite bought Cadillacs and intellectuals (I know a dirty word in today‘s Trumpian world) bought Saabs. Our Saab, our only car, is 18 years old. It looks like it came off the showroom floor. All original equipment—rear brakes replaced at 130,000 miles. GM hasn’t ever produced a vehicle that is 18 years old and still in excellent condition. I have owned GM vehicles—they are garbage—cannot hold a candle to Swedish Saab engineering and design. I admire Obama’s immensely, but in the financial crisis of 2008, I would have let GM die—no taxpayer bailout.
“CEO candidly admits they would rather not produce cars than doing something marginally interesting with the money they have. Also thanks the US government for a bailout the size of a large country’s national budget when their customers didn’t buy a third Aveo to keep in their driveway. Also blames mysterious market forces for not appreciating the cars they did produce since the company went public”.
Because GM can’t do good cars and SAAB been like a diamond 💎! ♥️♥️♥️👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻 they couldn’t handle SAAB’s performance and perfection! And look at my beautiful baby! 2011 9-5 V6 turbo
Lutz was clueless, just as the rest of GM when it came to SAAB. They just wanted some technology, a higher value European brand to add to their portfolio…Sadly or luckily everything else already spoken for. When I worked in Marketing, International Auto Shows, SAAB wasnt fooling anyone with their 900 replacement that GM threw them an outdated Opel to make into something worthy of replacing the iconic 900. Of the 100,000 people who came through the shows that season at least 70 plus percent didn’t like it, said it was small, looked cheap inside.
In 2009-2011 GM saw that SAAB may actually be able to finally stand alone, blocked any and all investors putting substantial financial support, cried about Chinese investments or ownership, but it was perfectly fine for Buick, etc to go to China. This is what finally killed SAAB.
GM= Goofy Morons never really invested in Saab, it was more about stripping the brands technology and innovation. Saab is not mainstream, it’s premium and GM wanted Saab to become average like their cars…BLAND.
The takeaway from this article is that GM had no clue what it was doing when it bought Saab. They should never have bought the company, but once they did they should have found a viable buyer (not Spyker) after they decided they didn’t want the brand. It wasn’t like Saab was a competitive threat to GM. Lutz is a putz. World class incompetence and stupidity. The idiot shut down a venerable and iconic brand with a smaller but ferociously loyal customer base. The automotive world is poorer for Saab not being with us anymore. I’ve owned Saabs continuously since 1987. It’ll be a cold day in Hell when I own a GM vehicle. Lutz and GM can both go F themselves.
Safety, Safety, Safety, Safety, Safety, Safety, Safety, Safety, Safety, Safety, Safety, Safety, Safety,
and speed, and comfort, nothing else required.
This article says it all, no accountability taken whatsoever by GM and Bob Lutz. Why did they even buy Saab in the first place if they had no strategy for them?
I worked in “marketing strategy” for GM Europe (in Zurich) from 1990 – shortly after SAAB had come under GM’s control … as had Lotus. The overall impression I got was that the interest in these companies had been acquired by a previous management team (under Bob Eaton) but they had moved on and nobody was quite sure what the vision was anymore .. GM seeming to have a very poor “institutional memory”.
To Chris Cowin
I worked for Saab USA, when GM bought in. Saab had courted Ford, and forged a deal with Fiat, when GM came in at the last minute, after losing a bid for Volvo to Ford on the day the Fiat deal was to be signed! It was quickly apparent that …. like the dog chasing cars, that doesn’t know what to do when it catches one….. GM had little clue what to do with it’s new division!
Thank goodness GM didn’t take over Volvo. Not that Ford did much beyond taking tech, but they kept it alive to live to this day. Geely’s infusion built the brand to what it is today – it’s still an iffy story but they’re here.
To Rick Comes
or just how much money it had lost for Investor AB, or how much GM would loose propping it up. It died a financial death
To Mark Zemke
Running a car company is an expensive proposition. History probably shows 10 failed brands, for every success. The fact that Swedish labor isn’t cheap, and that Saab engineers always aimed high in the context of a relatively small company, likely weren’t conducive to consistent profit. Shame, really, as the very things that make Saabs a car we love, are probably why it didn’t survive!
To Chris Cowin
tenho um saab deauvile cabrio 1999 comprei em Zurique.
It’s as simple as this: GM used Saab to manufacture versions of Opel models to show off. But what Saab produced had nothing to do with what Opel produced. The Germans had spent years with a boring range of models with a very poor front-wheel-drive chassis. They were never going to be able to make a good Saab starting with an Opel… and they never realized it. Saab employees always complained that most GM executives didn’t even know where Trollhattan was, and it was easy to see that this was true. They were never understood, nor were they given the resources they needed. Saab didn’t gain new customers because what they did was lose their long-time customers…
GM also killed Australia’s Holden car industry, apparently because the cars were selling more than the US imported models.
To Ian Cooper
or the market was too small to waste the kind of money they were expending and the low volume of cars they were selling
To Tex Montgomery II
perhaps your right but I have read otherwise. That it was as I’ve mentioned, I can’t remember all the details but the figures presented looked convincing.
This is nothing new. I have always believed that GM did not understand Saab cars and their customers. Rather than tailor the cars to suit the brands loyal customer based. GM typically decided that the customers would continue to buy whatever cars they made, they certainly got that wrong. GM was the wrong partner and subsequent owner of Saab. The big problem was the lack of profits, it is claimed Saab cars only made a profit two years throughout it’s lifetime. I do wonder how GM believed they could make it profitable. I see someone mentioned the Nav unit debacle, I believe it’s a true story. I am reliably informed GM didn’t want Saab to have the NG 9-5, GM intended to sell that in China as a Buick, it was expected the owners would have a driver, part of the reason why it had such large rear legroom.
To Rob Charles
The NG 9-5’s platform WAS sold as the Buick LaCrosse in China and the USA. After years of hand-me-downs, Saab was granted the new “Epsilon II” platform, with Saab and Buick intended to be the first 2 divisions to debut it, in 2007. Unfortunately, GM’s position in 2007 only allowed the Buick to hit the market, with the 9-5 put on hold!
My understanding is that Roger Smith was one of the key players in the Saturn debacle. He was head of GM Europe at the time they purchased 50% of Saab. He wanted to appease dealers who were waiting and waiting for Saturn so he gave them Saab.
Crazy. That pallet of new cars who came out and was coming out. 9-4,9-5, 9-5 SC and soon new 9-3 and some electric stuff. SAAB never had this much new models coming up!! Verry pitty…..
Typical American business see something special ,buy it let the bean counters take over.they don’t understand why it’s special so they try to rationalise the product with others, Fail.Ford did it with Jaguar.
To Charles Beecham
no Jaguar was a different issue.
It’s also because the e39 5-series was just so good too at the time.
If GM had played to Saab’s strengths, instead of trying to homogenize it, they could have had a great “halo” brand, that occupied a more prestigious position, and pulled better profits. Unfortunately, a lack of vision, and a steady parade of inconsistant middle managment, took it down a path of increasing mediocrity. When they finally saw the light, and gave Saab actual new product in the mid-2000s, it would have likely been successful, had “old GM” not been on it’s way down the toilet!
The reason they dropped Saab was 2008 financial crises… many forget that GM also went bust! But they had a goverment to save them unlike …
To Marcus Bergfeldt
GM didnt go bust. They FILED BANKRUPTCY but were never bankrupt. GM made more money financing cars than building them. They did NOT go bust. Bankruptcy allowed them to skate from certain legal obligations.
To Tex
Saved by u.s. taxpayers money and obama.
Not true, the Saabs were competition for the burgeoning suv market and they got better gas mileage than the suvs, and held almost the same and in some cases more cargo
“Every time it was made more mainstream, we didn’t sell any”. – There is the problem right there. Saab didn’t need to become more mainstream. Before GM, Saabs were uniquely Saabs and loyal buyers kept buying them. They didn’t care if they weren’t a BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Lexus, etc. But they didn’t care take notice when GM tried to make them more “mainstream” and basing them off of economy Opels and Chevrolets yet trying to pass them off as competitors to those luxury brands. I’m always disappointed in this statement by Bob Lutz, because he usually had such great insight into achieving success. Then again, we must not forget he was responsible for Merkur 😂
Ich habe 2 Saab und die liebe ich. Würde niemals tauschen gegen einen von GM
I am under the impression that the 9-5 Navi system was what pushed gm over the edge, saab engineers wanted a non gm-ified system and the budget guys lost it… fk gm, they ruined the best car ever made, imagine what a new saab would be like! Smoke the entire schiessvagon crew!
This is a pretend analysis. There are no “hidden reasons” for Saab’s demise. It was a small, marginal brand from the get-go. Its best product, the C900, sold only 900,000 cars from 1978 through 1994, fewer than the number of F150 pickups Ford sells in a year. GM’s purchase of Saab extended the brand’s life for another decade, because without GM’s support, Saab wouldn’t have had the money to develop new cars. Perhaps Saab would have been better off and found larger markets if it had been snapped up by another company, but that’s just as unlikely as its survival was under GM’s control. As much as we all love Saabs, it really was an orphan. Its cars were too unusual, and too expensive, to become mainstream, as Lutz said. So the company failed, end of story.
To Alex Hanson
yes but Scania should have absorbed and continued saabs, Scania make the most advanced trucks in the world, along w subs, jets and missile systems so saabs would’ve been truly amazing
To Jac Miller
Scania is a truck and bus manufacturer, that was sold to the Volkswagen Group in 2008. The subs, jets, and missle systems are developed and made by Saab Technologies, a seperate defense company!
To Rick Comes
sounds like saab is the killer then lol
To Alex Hanson
Look at what state Audi was in and then VW turned it around.
To Marc Swart
BMW was a “niche” brand, and Audi was halfway down the tubes, when Saab was at it’s greatest strength, in the late ’80s. Much of that was due to Bob Sinclair’s efforts in the US market, which was Saab’s largest, and that faded fast, from 1990-onward!
To Rick Comes
Yep. Saab owed much gratitude to Bob Sinclair. If it wasn’t for him the 900 convertible never would have happened.
To Marc Swart
When Bob came to Saab from Volvo, he looked at the newly introduced 99 and 900 turbos, and saw opportunity in a market segment that wasn’t chock full, at the time. Looking at Saab’s past, he famously said ” I don’t want to sell Swedish Volkswagens, I want to sell Swedish Porsches”. It was this that guided Saabs US product mix to a more upmarket position!
Saab could never build a car that didn’t cost more to make than they could sell them for.
Lutz story to disguise the incompetence of GM and Lutz.
GM was never capable to let an acquired brand keep it’s own identity because it was all about Generating Money and minimise costs by sharing as much components as possible and the always overstepped it, the bean counting morons.
What were you thinking when you pushed Saab to use Opel parts?
GM failed grotesquely where VW were brilliant in making Audi a premium brand while they still shared components with Skoda.
If GM would have tried/been capable to do that, things could have been different.
The reason GM went bankrupt is that the management had no f.ing clue what they were doing.
“Letting Saab go” is the opposite of what happened. By not letting the potential buyers to use any GM tech or parts meant, that they sell the name, but you had to build a company and product portfolio from scratch. So they didn’t let go, they killed it and made sure it stays dead.
And yes, they wanted to sell rebranded opels with a premium where Saab was only present in the location of the ignition and the night panel.
Bob Lutz seems like a typical obnoxious prick who thought he new anything about what he was doing but he obviously didn’t.
Shedding light… my ass. He is black light in a dark room,
I think the leadership of GM did lots of mistakes world wide financially and Corporate hurting the Brand and customer satisfaction….🤔🤔🤔🇦🇺🇦🇺
As car manufacture you need to build cars Customers want and willing to buy family generation of ideas they get passed on all those beautiful cars they stop making of the 60’s 70’s and 80’s USA, Europe and Australia
The GM Holdens Monaro Commodors the Fords they all got done and dusted with the help of the leftist governments close all the car manufacturing’s for the-overseas imports market …
Shame 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
They also clised Aystealias Holden brand. Yet took the design team to tge USA, and our cars became the syccessful new range. Meanwhile our cultural identity in manufacturing utterly gutted. GM seems completely unaware to the ongoing resentments to these stupid acquisition and bankrupcy policy.
“GM business model” at one time they were the world’s largest corporation, a very very long time ago!
The problem leadership are not car guys, they are accountants.
Looking to cut costs while building mainstream garbage. But they run continuous commercials on TV to the tune of millions with annoying music of the past and our youth. Save the advertising learn from Tesla they don’t advertise yet till ugly useless politics entered their corporate matra they were doing well. Use that saved advertising money to create innovative Reliable cars/trucks that are within affordability and you will be number one again! But you will look to cut costs and continue to see what parts are still lying around and slap another car together and advertise the hell out of it. (Please Hire some real car enthusiasts!)
What don’t the Americans destroy? Not only have they caused and maintained wars in many countries around the world for decades, they have also occupied Europe, especially Germany. No, the executives are also destroying the European (automotive) industry, first killing off SAAB through GM, and now, after Ford USA discontinued its most famous model, the Fiesta, things are not looking good for Ford of Europe either
I’m Glad that junk company GM dropped SAAB Before they destroyed SAAB. SAAB was one of kind vehicle to be built by Very Smart Engineers they are like Porsche Only the European Engineers can build these vehicles and make them Right . GM has no Brains to make a vehicle like this But I Wish That SAAB Would’ve Stayed IN Business That Would’ve Been Great For US SAAB Lover’s And would’ve put him out of Business.