"At one point, a GM accountant went over to Sweden to see why Saab was costing them so much money. And he got into the new 9-3, turned on the satnav, and thought "Wait a minute. That's not one of our systems." And he was right; it wasn't. Saab had developed -- at vast expense -- their own system because they thought GM's wasn't good enough."
Being required to optimize for another real-world constraint (i.e., cost in this case) is more work, but ultimately just another task for an engineer. Being required to not engineer greatest-practical-stuff, but just slap the name on some junk is not the same thing, but marketing people can't see that, even though customers can.
I'm concerned about the Chinese ownership, but that seems murky now, since NEVS bought a stake or strategic partnership, then got bought 51% by Chinese real estate conglomerate Evergrande, which is deeply in debt, and NEVS is now in "permanent hibernation mode", essentially liquidating. I wonder if there's opportunity to get it back in control of democratic nations. Anyone have deeper information?
Not sure why Sweden decided to make them go independent, but if GM hadn’t bought them, they would have died sooner
Driving a modern GM vehicle and being aware of these things is infuriating. They are really quite awful- aesthetically, sonically, performance wise, etc.
How the fuck did anyone think that putting parabolic mirrors facing the driver was a good idea? Shit like this should be illegal and worthy of a recall.
[1] https://prod.pictures.autoscout24.net/listing-images/3fbd33c...
I’m taller than average. With the steering wheel at maximum height, the instrument cluster is blocked by the wheel.
An interesting part of this is that if the bottom 75% of the windscreen was painted out, it wouldn’t change the visibility I have.
Cars seem to be designed for a very short average human.
What?! The 9-2x Aero was dope!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM2900_platform
GM already had 50% controlling share of Saab way back in 1989 and by 2010 they were wholely owned by GM.
I had a 1998 Saab 93 (2L petrol LPT) and was initially disappointed to find out it used the same platform as the Vauxhall/Opel Vectra. That said it still had those distinct Saab design touches and was pretty damned good in the snow and ice.
Even the 900NG which the 9-3 derives from was a GM2900 platform car.
I want to root for GM, I really do, but I swear they’ve never seemed to learn a lesson at any point in the last 100 years. I never owned a post-GM Saab, but I can’t imagine the Swedes were wrong in their assessment.
On its first tank of gas, our old GMC failed to start after being parked for 10 hours because the computer left the ABS system on overnight. It also had crazy software failure modes where the dashboard would go nuts and the onstar system would start making strange sounds.
Arguably, the software was one of the better subsystems of that truck. Never buying GM again. Our old GMC was the best truck we've ever owned. (Much better than our new Ram 1500, which can hold less weight than our old Volvo 240 station wagon).
Hopefully the F-150 electrics aren't hilariously bad.
Hey the Ram 1500 is twice as heavy as the Volvo 240. Poor thing is too busy carrying itself to deal with your cargo.
Fun fact: 1 in 22 RAM 2500 drivers has had a DUI. Source: https://insurify.com/insights/car-models-with-the-most-duis/
This is going to go badly for them. A lot of people (all iOS users) will not even look at a GM. The used market for them will suffer as well. But, hey, if you need a really cheap used car in 5 or so years, and you don't care about Carplay, GM has you covered!
Assuming you’ll even be able to do that…
Could be a nice money-making opportunity.
Technically, you could, but you'd have to put back the old system on lease end.
Companies can’t identify high performing small teams, because the managers that run ocean liners and tankers can’t understand how to run a small ship — and the incentives are generally reversed or at least radically different.
You can be assured it was a bean counter not an engineer or product person for sure — said with love.
When GM developed the Epsilon platform for small/midsized cars, they knew Saab was onboard to use it for the 2nd-gen 9-3. Saab also always had a 900/9-3 convertible, so it was assumed that other GM divisions could borrow from Saab's work for their own sporty/convertible Epsilon-platform models.
Nope.
When the GM North America guys saw the BOM for the 9-3, there were enough changes from the shared Epsilon components list that there was no economy to be gained by sharing the parts with the Pontiac G6 convertible. Saab made lots of expensive changes to the structure, supposedly. But...people seem real happy with their 9-3 convertibles; happier than the few I've met who've experienced the G6.
I think Bob Lutz, in one of his books, talks about how Saab insisted on doing lots of things themselves or going with a different vendor than GM NA or GM EU. Like the previously-mentioned satnav, HVAC components, power window regulators.. things where some other part of GM would have a cheaper part that was better tested and likely more reliable, and that the customer would never see. Of course, GM should have let Saab continue doing its own interior trim, including its fantastic seats. And they did make Saab their center of engine control electronics and turbo powertrain development, for a time.
The second-gen 9-3 was GM Epsilon-something-based and had GM drivetrain.
Many car enthusiasts I knew at the time took the show for gospel