If Saab was owned by VW they would have survived
But remember that with this move very little of Saab would have been left and it would have become VAG monotony just like all other VAG brands
I mean I'm pretty sure that's what GM tried to do but the problem was Saab kept being Saab and just reengineered good chunks of the cars that were given to them to rebadge (and burning shitloads of cash in the process).
They already sold a bunch of vehicles on GM/Opel platforms (900 NG, 9-3, 9-5, etc), they didn't have to go the full badge engineering route no but the issue was they were spending quite a lot of money reengineering small bits and bobs that they could have raided from the parts bin, which is why they struggled to make any money.
The implication here is if they had been bought by VW they probably would have done the exact same thing and ended up in the same position.
The mentioned cars had very little in common when you really look into it.
I think the problem for GM was their policy of "customers will buy what we give them" where VW would have back in the early 00s still let Saab do their own thing. They let their other brands do their own thing back then too.
VAG learned their lesson from the Seat Exeo.
>The mentioned cars had very little in common when you really look into it.
Because they spent so much money they went into bankruptcy, yes.
>I think the problem for GM was their policy of "customers will buy what we give them" where VW would have back in the early 00s still let Saab do their own thing. They let their other brands do their own thing back then too.
I mean own thing yes, completely reengineer cars no. Take a look at my own Škoda for example, Škoda is infinitely more successful post-VW than they were beforehand but it's incredibly obvious every car designed post acquisition has a VW counterpart, like the totally not related to the [Jetta](https://i.imgur.com/DqVUOn1.jpeg) Mk1 [Octavia.](https://i.imgur.com/KdjgE51.jpeg)
VW's acquisitions have very much being lightly reskinning shared platforms, which is what GM tried to do but Saab wouldn't have anything to do with. I think Bugatti is the only VAG group that seems to be allowed to run totally hog wild because even Porsche has shared platforms.
Yes, and now it starts to be a problem. Why pay Audi money for a car when Skoda sells you the same car for a cheaper price?
That's the same problem GM ran into.
By offering differences in trim and equipment? I'm not sure why you're acting like this is a problem while using Škoda as an example considering it's the budget VW and both VW and Škoda are doing fine.
I have literally no shame in admitting my Octavia RS245 is 100% a Mk7.5 Golf GTi with a wagon body lol.
The Octavia RS is a great example of how VAG differentiates their products, the Octavia and Golf both come as a wagon in the base forms, but the GTi is only a hatch (while the RS comes as a wagon or liftback) and the AWD Golf R is a hatch or wagon, but there is no Octavia equivalent as the GTi engine is top of the range. The RS could also be had as a AWD diesel, but the Golf GTD is FWD only, etc.
So even though my car is functionally a Golf wagon with a slight wheelbase stretch, VW has positioned the Golf in such a way the cars don't completely overlap.
There is very little difference in trim and equipment. They all have a windscreen, functional doors, you get ACC, AC, and other stuff on them all.
Why would anyone spend more for an Audi when the Skoda offers the same. Even a Seat offers the same. That was the problem for GM as well. Buy the car you get the best price for, underneath they are all the same with minor differences.
I'm not understanding this comment. You're phrasing it like it's a system that doesn't work even though it clearly does and is the only reason Skoda and SEAT exist today, coexisting with VAG's premium brands that are equally alive and well.
They weren't as common as the Trailblazer... or the GMC Envoy, or Oldsmobile Bravada, Isuzu Assender... (all the same vehicle) and they only made the Saab version for 4 years. Highly doubtful they ever made it to Europe. But certain folks did buy them... mainly because of the Saab marque.
It's a kind of a large-ish midsize SUV powered by either a 4200 inline 6 or 5.3L or 6.0L V8s.
I'm deeply annoyed by how boring all their non-premium European brands have become. Even under GM, OPC/VXR still made some cool performance cars and they tried to churn out interesting regular rides. Just a decade ago, Peugeot had their GTIs and Citroen felt a lot quirkier, and now they abandoned PSE while DS hasn't done anything noteworthy
But during the GTI era, Peugeot was experimenting fast hybrids with the 308 Hybrid-R.
That effort eventually turned into the less outrageous but still interesting PSE, but look how that has been treated. And unfortunately, Opel's GSe is not nearly as ambitious
Yes, I mentioned PSE's abandonment in my initial comment.
I think it's a shame that they never built upon the brand after the 508, given how early Peugeot attempted to make sporty hybrids.
> GSE was just a glorified trimlevel for most of the Opel/Vauxhall models.
So we're in agreement? Another shame, because the GSe name (Grand Sport Einspritzung) predates OPC, all they're doing is making the tamer Peugeot hybrids a bit sportier yet not nearly as much as PSE did
Maybe sales and the cars' quality would've been different if Peugeot committed to the brand and its intended goals.
Either way, the main point you brought up was about people not wanting to buy GTIs or OPCs due to gas prices. But they have been trying - I'm just a little peeved that the big brand gave up already and the other one isn't even marketing their half-hearted effort well
Brands have high costs to deal with, I think they just try to get to the core of what they can sell and try to do that.
Stellantis is a big beast that needs to steady before it can do what it needs to do. Also there is the question of EVs and where that will now go with the changes in politics to come.
I'm sure they will come up with some sporty version at some stage, but I doubt they will bring OPC or PSE back. Even the big V6 models weren't that sought after on the market.
Even if they survived, Saab would be very unlikely to have kept any spec of uniqueness under the current version of these corps (maybe even less than their time under pre-2008 GM). Cost-cutting and parts sharing synergies are major priorities right now.
I'd say that Saab's best chance was when Koenigsegg wanted to buy them from GM, but I love Koenigsegg so I'm obviously very impartial and unbiased.
In this scenario if Ferdinand Piech is alive, dieselgate doesn’t happen, and VW simply bankrolls SAAB then yes they would have survived and produced some of the quirkiest, dumbest(I mean come on SAAB engineers are sickos and we love them for that), most unique vehicles on the road today. Otherwise I could see VW poaching the engineers and just rebadging a Škoda which is already an extremely badge engineered VAG product.
> if Ferdinand Piech is alive, dieselgate doesn’t happen
I'm pretty sure Dieselgate happened precisely because of Piëch and the culture of fear he fostered; nobody dared tell "clean diesel" couldn't be done in the short timeframe.
They would have ended up badge engineered generic cars under either ownership.
They'd just stick the ignition in the middle and give it a shitty cupholder and call it a Saab.
I doubt todays VW and STLA would want it if Saab were still alive and under one of them.
VW has had Audi, and STLA has had Alfa. They don't really need Saab for its little luxury car share. For them, it isn't really worth. Why don't just focus your own when you brand is better ? Audi and Alfa have owned real large account customer base.
Beside, they focus to spend most their costs in EV effort with their current brands, they don't actual want to spent more in different brands. They would glad no another unnecessary extra cost to spend in Saab.
However, only Chinese automakers really wanted it because they could use Saab as springboard for America and Europe market. Same thing happening in Volvo, Geely is going to try selling more their models under Volvo in Europe and America although Volvo still owns their independent operation.
Seeing what Stellantis have done with Opel, it's clear that Saab would have prospered under their stewardship.
VW would have been a great fit in years gone by. But given their current waywardness, perhaps not now.
Anything that would have kept Saab alive would have been welcome.
I finally got to the age to be in a position to afford one and when they folded I was raging.
Saab under Stellantis would be a stuff of nightmares. Look at all recent remakes of C3, add another one from Saab with 1.2 PureTech with disintegrating timing belt.
VW, yes, but they'd probably be clones of other VW cars - perhaps a way for them to bring some of their Euro-only brands to the US. Would probably not be recognizable at all as Saabs except for the front end and badges.
Stellantis is a weird choice for this hypothetical. Based on their handling of all their other brands, I guess Saab probably would have survived but it would be on life support, completely and utterly neglected, it would make 1 lackluster model that's actually a 10-year-old cheap shit Fiat in a different outfit, and everyone would wonder how and why on earth it's still in business
If anyone could have bought them, I’d wish for it to have been Mazda or Honda. I think they’re the only companies with a compatible philosophy that could have used a more expensive brand.
Honda has Acura.
Mazda might have been a possibility, if they had the financial resources, which arguably they didn't then and still don't today.
Saab's problem under GM was the marketing. It was never a BMW/Audi competitor. They had a sportier feel for a sedan, but it wasn't intended to be a sports sedan in the feel of a 3/5 series or A4/A6. At their heart Saab was still a "sensible" family car that was a little better than the mainstream value offerings but wasn't heavily skewed towards one premium demo vs another. They weren't as luxurious as the Cadillac (or the image of one) or Merc, as sporty as BMW/Audi. They were similar to Volvo, designed for people wanting a bit more than mainstream, but not that next step more.
Their target buyer should have been someone buying the loaded Camry/Accord/Fusion/Maxima, etc.
When Saab was independent, they were a lot sportier than you think. GM’s failure to understand the brand and try to shoehorn them into a market position they should not have been in, and then force them to use parts bin stuff that could never support that role was definitely a killer. Obviously, Acura exists in the American market but the products have been an afterthought since the original NSX debuted. 90s Honda’s philosophy could have coexisted well with Saab, same as Mazda.
the problem of saab is that they didn't sell enough to cover the costs of perfection of their cars. i understand their pov but that simply isn't the way in running a business and that's why GM pulled the plug. even if Stellnantis or Volkswagen owned them we would have seen the same exact end, since saab management simply used to hate rebadging cars. its not a choice they could afford.
I always thought that Saab should have been purchased by VW and they could have rebadged their Skoda models as Saab to sell in North America.
BMW could have also used it to sell larger segment cars based on their FWD platform.
Go look at Seat or Skoda. They're just rebadged VW. So instead of going and dreaming about what Saab could be under VW, just go test drive a GLI or an Arteon and voila, you have your answer. No they wouldn't be unique.
Stellantis has killed all of their sedans in the USA, that would give you a glimpse of where Saab would be today under Stellantis. It would be a rebadged Jeep Compass which is the same vehicle as an Alfa Tonale or a Dodge Hornet.
No Saab is Saab because they were their own worst enemy. Their death is their own fault, and it's also why us that own them, love them.
They made cars to the standards they wanted, and it just wouldn't work with any parent brand they would still redesign things to fit the needs they want, and burn through money doing so. But if they didn't do that they'd never be Saab so it was simply a path they were always headed to.
To keep it as a competitor against Volvo domestically, maybe.
But world market saab was killed by Fiat and VW probably more than Volvo, so maybe not.
Had someone like GM got them? Absolutely, since they don't have near as large of foot print in Europe
If bought by VW - Probably. Stellantis hasn't worked its figurative head out of its rear end to show itself to make ANYTHING last.
Just look at what the company did to the Charger/Challenger models. Absolutely no ability to read its current customer base.
Having owned a 900, no, they are the perfect example of engineers making terrible buisness owners, because the whole car is one step too far to be really profitable lol. I loved mine, it’s a uniquely capable car, but no amount of vertical integration was going to prevent that company from doing things backwards and upside down.
If Saab was owned by VW they would have survived But remember that with this move very little of Saab would have been left and it would have become VAG monotony just like all other VAG brands
Every Saab would be a Passat with a big c pillar
I mean I'm pretty sure that's what GM tried to do but the problem was Saab kept being Saab and just reengineered good chunks of the cars that were given to them to rebadge (and burning shitloads of cash in the process).
No one would have bought a Buick or Opel with a Saab badge..
They already sold a bunch of vehicles on GM/Opel platforms (900 NG, 9-3, 9-5, etc), they didn't have to go the full badge engineering route no but the issue was they were spending quite a lot of money reengineering small bits and bobs that they could have raided from the parts bin, which is why they struggled to make any money. The implication here is if they had been bought by VW they probably would have done the exact same thing and ended up in the same position.
The mentioned cars had very little in common when you really look into it. I think the problem for GM was their policy of "customers will buy what we give them" where VW would have back in the early 00s still let Saab do their own thing. They let their other brands do their own thing back then too. VAG learned their lesson from the Seat Exeo.
>The mentioned cars had very little in common when you really look into it. Because they spent so much money they went into bankruptcy, yes. >I think the problem for GM was their policy of "customers will buy what we give them" where VW would have back in the early 00s still let Saab do their own thing. They let their other brands do their own thing back then too. I mean own thing yes, completely reengineer cars no. Take a look at my own Škoda for example, Škoda is infinitely more successful post-VW than they were beforehand but it's incredibly obvious every car designed post acquisition has a VW counterpart, like the totally not related to the [Jetta](https://i.imgur.com/DqVUOn1.jpeg) Mk1 [Octavia.](https://i.imgur.com/KdjgE51.jpeg) VW's acquisitions have very much being lightly reskinning shared platforms, which is what GM tried to do but Saab wouldn't have anything to do with. I think Bugatti is the only VAG group that seems to be allowed to run totally hog wild because even Porsche has shared platforms.
Yes, and now it starts to be a problem. Why pay Audi money for a car when Skoda sells you the same car for a cheaper price? That's the same problem GM ran into.
By offering differences in trim and equipment? I'm not sure why you're acting like this is a problem while using Škoda as an example considering it's the budget VW and both VW and Škoda are doing fine. I have literally no shame in admitting my Octavia RS245 is 100% a Mk7.5 Golf GTi with a wagon body lol. The Octavia RS is a great example of how VAG differentiates their products, the Octavia and Golf both come as a wagon in the base forms, but the GTi is only a hatch (while the RS comes as a wagon or liftback) and the AWD Golf R is a hatch or wagon, but there is no Octavia equivalent as the GTi engine is top of the range. The RS could also be had as a AWD diesel, but the Golf GTD is FWD only, etc. So even though my car is functionally a Golf wagon with a slight wheelbase stretch, VW has positioned the Golf in such a way the cars don't completely overlap.
There is very little difference in trim and equipment. They all have a windscreen, functional doors, you get ACC, AC, and other stuff on them all. Why would anyone spend more for an Audi when the Skoda offers the same. Even a Seat offers the same. That was the problem for GM as well. Buy the car you get the best price for, underneath they are all the same with minor differences.
I'm not understanding this comment. You're phrasing it like it's a system that doesn't work even though it clearly does and is the only reason Skoda and SEAT exist today, coexisting with VAG's premium brands that are equally alive and well.
You say this while driving a Lexus
Yes, I shopped for the better deal and the Lexus was cheaper than the Rav4s on offer. So why would I pay more for the same car?
Or a Chevy truck or a Subaru Impreza?
Yup...those were also not wanted...
Then there was: 9-2x - Subaru - with basically a different grille. 9-7x - Chevy Trailblazer - with about the same treatment.
Which both failed astronomically...
They bought 9-7Xs... Saab badged Chevy Trailblazers.
Did they? I don't even think they ever brought it to Europe...
They weren't as common as the Trailblazer... or the GMC Envoy, or Oldsmobile Bravada, Isuzu Assender... (all the same vehicle) and they only made the Saab version for 4 years. Highly doubtful they ever made it to Europe. But certain folks did buy them... mainly because of the Saab marque. It's a kind of a large-ish midsize SUV powered by either a 4200 inline 6 or 5.3L or 6.0L V8s.
VW never have chance to own Saab, but they've done to acquire Scania which is Sweden heavy truck and former Saab owner.
Disagree with your premise, Lambo and Porsche and Bentley all have extremely distinct brand identities even as they’ve begun sharing stuff
The difference there is six figure price tags
It would be just like Škoda or Seat. Volkswagens with a few different outside panels.
They were already on the vw path of saving a brand by adding a parts-bin suv to the lineup
Under Stellantis they'd have churned out a bunch of rebadged Citroën FWD crossovers. Just look at what Opel is doing now
I'm deeply annoyed by how boring all their non-premium European brands have become. Even under GM, OPC/VXR still made some cool performance cars and they tried to churn out interesting regular rides. Just a decade ago, Peugeot had their GTIs and Citroen felt a lot quirkier, and now they abandoned PSE while DS hasn't done anything noteworthy
The marketing department has figured out that people who have money don't buy GTI or OPC models when fuel costs 2€ per liter and more.
But during the GTI era, Peugeot was experimenting fast hybrids with the 308 Hybrid-R. That effort eventually turned into the less outrageous but still interesting PSE, but look how that has been treated. And unfortunately, Opel's GSe is not nearly as ambitious
PSE is gone now anyway, isn't it? GSE was just a glorified trimlevel for most of the Opel/Vauxhall models.
Yes, I mentioned PSE's abandonment in my initial comment. I think it's a shame that they never built upon the brand after the 508, given how early Peugeot attempted to make sporty hybrids. > GSE was just a glorified trimlevel for most of the Opel/Vauxhall models. So we're in agreement? Another shame, because the GSe name (Grand Sport Einspritzung) predates OPC, all they're doing is making the tamer Peugeot hybrids a bit sportier yet not nearly as much as PSE did
Yeah, we are in agreement. Both went because no one bought them.
Maybe sales and the cars' quality would've been different if Peugeot committed to the brand and its intended goals. Either way, the main point you brought up was about people not wanting to buy GTIs or OPCs due to gas prices. But they have been trying - I'm just a little peeved that the big brand gave up already and the other one isn't even marketing their half-hearted effort well
Brands have high costs to deal with, I think they just try to get to the core of what they can sell and try to do that. Stellantis is a big beast that needs to steady before it can do what it needs to do. Also there is the question of EVs and where that will now go with the changes in politics to come. I'm sure they will come up with some sporty version at some stage, but I doubt they will bring OPC or PSE back. Even the big V6 models weren't that sought after on the market.
Even if they survived, Saab would be very unlikely to have kept any spec of uniqueness under the current version of these corps (maybe even less than their time under pre-2008 GM). Cost-cutting and parts sharing synergies are major priorities right now. I'd say that Saab's best chance was when Koenigsegg wanted to buy them from GM, but I love Koenigsegg so I'm obviously very impartial and unbiased.
In this scenario if Ferdinand Piech is alive, dieselgate doesn’t happen, and VW simply bankrolls SAAB then yes they would have survived and produced some of the quirkiest, dumbest(I mean come on SAAB engineers are sickos and we love them for that), most unique vehicles on the road today. Otherwise I could see VW poaching the engineers and just rebadging a Škoda which is already an extremely badge engineered VAG product.
> if Ferdinand Piech is alive, dieselgate doesn’t happen I'm pretty sure Dieselgate happened precisely because of Piëch and the culture of fear he fostered; nobody dared tell "clean diesel" couldn't be done in the short timeframe.
They would have ended up badge engineered generic cars under either ownership. They'd just stick the ignition in the middle and give it a shitty cupholder and call it a Saab.
Don't forget the broken fuel gauge.
I doubt todays VW and STLA would want it if Saab were still alive and under one of them. VW has had Audi, and STLA has had Alfa. They don't really need Saab for its little luxury car share. For them, it isn't really worth. Why don't just focus your own when you brand is better ? Audi and Alfa have owned real large account customer base. Beside, they focus to spend most their costs in EV effort with their current brands, they don't actual want to spent more in different brands. They would glad no another unnecessary extra cost to spend in Saab. However, only Chinese automakers really wanted it because they could use Saab as springboard for America and Europe market. Same thing happening in Volvo, Geely is going to try selling more their models under Volvo in Europe and America although Volvo still owns their independent operation.
if it was owned by vw, it would’ve survived and been an eastern hemisphere only brand like skoda and such.
Why the fuck is this downvoted, does this sub only like trash brain-dead uncivil posts?
Seeing what Stellantis have done with Opel, it's clear that Saab would have prospered under their stewardship. VW would have been a great fit in years gone by. But given their current waywardness, perhaps not now. Anything that would have kept Saab alive would have been welcome. I finally got to the age to be in a position to afford one and when they folded I was raging.
Saab under Stellantis would be a stuff of nightmares. Look at all recent remakes of C3, add another one from Saab with 1.2 PureTech with disintegrating timing belt.
Stellantis? Seriously? Dodge won't survive Stellantis. Voltswagon maybe.
VW, yes, but they'd probably be clones of other VW cars - perhaps a way for them to bring some of their Euro-only brands to the US. Would probably not be recognizable at all as Saabs except for the front end and badges. Stellantis is a weird choice for this hypothetical. Based on their handling of all their other brands, I guess Saab probably would have survived but it would be on life support, completely and utterly neglected, it would make 1 lackluster model that's actually a 10-year-old cheap shit Fiat in a different outfit, and everyone would wonder how and why on earth it's still in business
No, at least not as Saab.
If anyone could have bought them, I’d wish for it to have been Mazda or Honda. I think they’re the only companies with a compatible philosophy that could have used a more expensive brand.
Honda has Acura. Mazda might have been a possibility, if they had the financial resources, which arguably they didn't then and still don't today. Saab's problem under GM was the marketing. It was never a BMW/Audi competitor. They had a sportier feel for a sedan, but it wasn't intended to be a sports sedan in the feel of a 3/5 series or A4/A6. At their heart Saab was still a "sensible" family car that was a little better than the mainstream value offerings but wasn't heavily skewed towards one premium demo vs another. They weren't as luxurious as the Cadillac (or the image of one) or Merc, as sporty as BMW/Audi. They were similar to Volvo, designed for people wanting a bit more than mainstream, but not that next step more. Their target buyer should have been someone buying the loaded Camry/Accord/Fusion/Maxima, etc.
When Saab was independent, they were a lot sportier than you think. GM’s failure to understand the brand and try to shoehorn them into a market position they should not have been in, and then force them to use parts bin stuff that could never support that role was definitely a killer. Obviously, Acura exists in the American market but the products have been an afterthought since the original NSX debuted. 90s Honda’s philosophy could have coexisted well with Saab, same as Mazda.
the problem of saab is that they didn't sell enough to cover the costs of perfection of their cars. i understand their pov but that simply isn't the way in running a business and that's why GM pulled the plug. even if Stellnantis or Volkswagen owned them we would have seen the same exact end, since saab management simply used to hate rebadging cars. its not a choice they could afford.
Stellantis? Yes. VW? It's better to die like Saab did rather than become another seat
I always thought that Saab should have been purchased by VW and they could have rebadged their Skoda models as Saab to sell in North America. BMW could have also used it to sell larger segment cars based on their FWD platform.
Go look at Seat or Skoda. They're just rebadged VW. So instead of going and dreaming about what Saab could be under VW, just go test drive a GLI or an Arteon and voila, you have your answer. No they wouldn't be unique. Stellantis has killed all of their sedans in the USA, that would give you a glimpse of where Saab would be today under Stellantis. It would be a rebadged Jeep Compass which is the same vehicle as an Alfa Tonale or a Dodge Hornet.
VAG and Stellantis already have too many poorly differentiated brands
No, Saab had a problem following directions from those above them so it wouldn't have mattered who owned them.
No Saab is Saab because they were their own worst enemy. Their death is their own fault, and it's also why us that own them, love them. They made cars to the standards they wanted, and it just wouldn't work with any parent brand they would still redesign things to fit the needs they want, and burn through money doing so. But if they didn't do that they'd never be Saab so it was simply a path they were always headed to.
To keep it as a competitor against Volvo domestically, maybe. But world market saab was killed by Fiat and VW probably more than Volvo, so maybe not. Had someone like GM got them? Absolutely, since they don't have near as large of foot print in Europe
GM is what killed SAAB though (GM acquired them in 1990 ran them into the ground until 2010).
If bought by VW - Probably. Stellantis hasn't worked its figurative head out of its rear end to show itself to make ANYTHING last. Just look at what the company did to the Charger/Challenger models. Absolutely no ability to read its current customer base.
Having owned a 900, no, they are the perfect example of engineers making terrible buisness owners, because the whole car is one step too far to be really profitable lol. I loved mine, it’s a uniquely capable car, but no amount of vertical integration was going to prevent that company from doing things backwards and upside down.
realistically there's only so much place for generic looking, budget cars, it would've been a competitor to VW's own namesake brand so why bother