Hacker News Reader

Comment by drcongo | Hacker News Reader

I've owned a few pre-GM Saabs and absolutely loved them. I'll never forgive GM for killing them.

My understanding is that while yes they were great pieces of engineering, they weren't profitable. They would have died on their own without change. GM tried to change that by having them re-badge existing platforms, but Saab made changes anyway which increased cost and made them incomptible. It was a classic engineering vs management situation.

There are quite a few of those once great brands that ran into trouble: Saab, Volvo, Jaguar...

The latter two are doing a reasonably good job today under new ownership. A pitty Saab didn't survive so, those were pretty cars.

I think what did them in was that the auto market is operating on thin margins, and with ever increasing R&D costs for new platforms, it was inevitable that the small vendors would be knocked out.

Yeah, it kind of was that as well. That Saab ended up with GM didn't help neither. For some reason GM is pretty good in ruining their international brands. Ford almost did as well, but kept Jaguar alive long enough for them being saved by Tata Motors.

GM probably centralizes decision making in the US and no matter how much you try, not everything can be piloted from the US. Several big US tech companies do the same and we'll keep seeing them failing in the international arena for the same reason.

For some strange reason, not everyone in the world is an American or thinks like one :-)

They really underplayed their lack of compromise on things like safety and whatnot tbh. People should have seen them as quality above and beyond and be willing to pay a lil premium for that but i'd guess the average person saw em as fairly mediocre.

I'm not scandinavian but kinda wish Sweden had been protectionist towards saab (& finland to do the same with nokia). That kind of protectionism shouldn't be as looked down on as it is especially when it's prevented so selectively and the lack of it has lead to a less broad, less competitive market in many areas.

There's still Koenigsegg, volvo/polestar & related, scania, etc but other than koenigsegg those are all foreign owned now.

be willing to pay a lil premium for that but i'd guess the average person saw em as fairly mediocre.

No, the average person barely cares for quality, vs cost. The average person will buy the cheapest thing possible, even if it means it lasts a year instead of 10, at a 20% discount.

You can see it in all the "made in china" stuff, mostly sold as in-house brands for retailers. Whether Europe, Canada, the US, people but these retailer brands, this junk, and seem, bizarrely, happy.

But then the average person thinks they can profit at the casino, and cannot think beyond today.

> No, the average person barely cares for quality, vs cost. The average person will buy the cheapest thing possible, even if it means it lasts a year instead of 10, at a 20% discount.

Not on the car market, or there wouldn't be such a proliferation of SUVs and pickups which are a useless waste for 90%+ of their users, and there would be few luxury/mid-tier brands - everyone would be driving around in the smallest Dacias and Skodas.

Cars are a status symbol, and many people would prefer to pay more for the same car with a different badge indicating a higher status - case in point, the VW Group has a big range of brands, with cars being pretty much identical outside of small changes in visual design (interior and exterior), and VW (mid-tier) and Audi(higher-tier) outsell the "cheap" Skoda and SEAT - https://www.statista.com/statistics/275868/sales-figures-for....

I'll do you one better: Porsche Cayenne not only shares a platform and some systems with the VW Touareg, the rear doors are interchangeable.

The Koenigsegg Agera is still an absolute classic for me.

I think you're right. Saab died for most Saab lovers the day they released the first GM re-badge, which was not only ugly, but also pretty crappy.

GM saved them in 1990 and gave us one of the best modern vehicles, the Saab 9000. They're a fantastic leap ahead of the 900 which dates design wise to the 70s. A 1992 900 and 1992 9000 are miles apart engineering wise. The 9000 handles, drives and has better power than a 900. It was a sweet spot in great ergonomics, design, engineering, without too much complexity

the Tipo Quattro platform deal with Fiat, Lancia, and Alfa Romeo had no GM involvement and it was finalized over five years before GM ever bought controlling interest in SAAB-Scania.

True but saab would have been bankrupted by the time we got the 9000 Aero undoubtedly

Saab 9000 was nice, but also damn expensive. My family had a Saab 93 when I was little. It was a very nice car, but very noisy. The Danish name for it was “fart organ”, literally.

More likely, the car had exhaust system leaks.

(Ah you are referring to the two-stroke Saab 93 from 1950s!)

Sorry it was a Saab 90 from memory. It was Bordeaux red and had these funny looking rear lights in the rear screen. 1980 vintage.

The first year for the 9000 was 1984. It was face-lifted in maybe 1991?

First year of the 9-5, which could be seen as a successor, was 1997. It was not a "rebadged" GM but there might be GM-sourced components.

The 9-5 shared more with GM in both directions. The 9000 F25/F35 transaxle was used in opel and some American cars

Reply on news.ycombinator.com