Is this the car that was supposed to save Saab?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All over the Interwebs today, a grainy shot of what appears to be the much-anticipated 2013 (or 2014) replacement of the almost-dead Saab 9-3 is making the rounds.

The Swedish newspaper that posted the pic says the image is from a presentation the automaker made to Sweden’s National Debt Office from earlier this year, one of several cap-in-hand sessions the caretakers of Saab have had to make since General Motors said good riddance in 2010.

Of course, the proposed new 9-3 replacement, if that's what the image above really is, has a few hoops to jump as/if it makes its way from a PowerPoint slide to a Saab showroom near you.

First off, the next 9-3 is/was supposed to be based on an all-new Saab-developed platform, not the GM-Opel bits and bytes the current cars use. Yet seeing how it takes, oh, about a billion dollars or so to create a new platform these days, the likelihood of this new Saab appearing are zilch, zero or none. Take your pick.

Just this week, Saab scored some Chinese sugar daddy money. And the latest caretakers of the irrelevant brand also seem optimistic about Saab’s future, targeting for an annual sales volume of 205,000 units, up from the almost 32,000 Saab in 2010, the last year as a GM brand.

But the automaker is still under court protection from creditors and bankruptcy (the second time in about two years, BTW), as it still owes “hundreds of millions of crowns” to workers and suppliers.

(Back-down-to-Earth-note: Through to the end of September this year, Saab have sold a grand total of 4,647 vehicles in the U.S. market; 138 in Canada.)

For the few remaining Saabistas out there that think the automaker has a snowball’s chance in hell in surviving, no doubt, this new 9-3 image will keep the fires burning.

But know that the Chinese offer is only good until November 15, giving them time to check out the Swedish firm before they commit, and assuming Saab stays in reorganization under a court-appointed process.

A lot of “ifs”, no?

But Saab fans should be use to this...

Sources: Svenska Dagbladet, Automotive News

Comments

[RP]

There he goes, kicking the guy when he's down again. Jeezus John, what is your hang-up with Saab?

I don't disagree with you that they probably have a snowballs chance in hell of surviving, but everybody loves to cheer for the underdog don't they?

Except maybe you.

[RP]

First off, Saab has said all along they were going to heavily revise the current 9-3 platform, not build an all-new one because they knew they didn't have the money for that. They've also been trying to share platforms with other manufacturers. This is the exact opposite of what you are saying in your piece John.

Sales? Last time I checked, the factory has been closed since about March, so guess what? Sales are bad because the factory isn't making any cars! What a revelation !
So pointing out sales are bad for a company that isn't making any cars is well, you know.

I like the shape of the new 9-3, it looks really sharp. Of course they have to give it a hatchback too.

[john leblanc]

Your'e right: sales are down, because they aren't making any cars. Why are they not making any cars? Because sales are down. The auto industry is a "business", not a "hobby", something that seems lost on most Saabistas...

[RP]

"The auto industry is a "business", not a "hobby", something that seems lost on most Saabistas..."

That's a totally unfair statement. You are just stirring the pot John ;) Whatever happened to journalistic impartiality ?

Why aren't they making any cars? Lets see:

Bad European economy - check

Insufficient finances right from the start - check

GM forced to sell at the worst possible time - check
(That means no buyers with sufficient financing, we all know that if the economy wasn't so bad and GM in bankruptcy there is no way Spyker would have acquired Saab.)

GM lack of vision and investment during it's stewardship - check
(The brand largely became irrelevant under the GM umbrella, its not easy to turn that around.)

Volvo is selling 400,000 cars a year. Why not Saab?

[Mark]

Uhh, RP, what is your point here? You're stating how tough things have been on Saab, are we to infer you're suggesting that things will improve? They could, I guess, but "things were bad" doesn't logically lead to "things will be good"...

After protesting when John suggested they are unlikely to succeed, you've told us they aren't producing cars and exist in a terrible business climate. Sounds like you two are on the same page and you just don't know it. Other than, I guess, you having an illogically sunny business outlook despite all that. =]

[RP]

Mark - the truth is John and I are on the same page but you seemed to have missed my main point - Saab is an underdog.

So John slamming an underdog like that is akin to not giving the puck to the smallest kid on the ice at the local rink.

You just shouldn't do it.

Lots of people (except John) would like to see Saab thrive. By writing pieces like this, it doesn't help.

That is my point, but then I suppose that's why he writes them to irritate people. He seems to like it ;)

[Projector Headlights]

The aim was to keep the company alive until Chinese government approval for a € 245 million deal agreed in June 2011 with Pang Da Automobile Trade co. and Zhejiang Youngman Lotus Automobile could be obtained.