I just drove the "Saab" 9-7X. So the obvious question is: Why would Saab slap their badge on a Chevy Trailblazer and try to pass it off as one of their own? The supposed answer is: Without taking such action there would be no Saab.
The argument has some merit -- just look at Jaguar. They've never come out with any sort of SUV (heck, they didn't even want to bring their X-Type wagon to the U.S. -- not that it saved them when they finally did) and I think the leaping cat's current financial predicament is clearly related to the lack of "SUVinating" Jaguar. But there is a theoretical upside, that being a lack of any Jaguar-badged SUVs. Confused yet?
Basically, I'm saying that not having an SUV is killing Jaguar. I'm also saying I have a lot of respect for Jaguar by not giving in to the SUV craze. So basically, in my eyes, Jaguar is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Right now they "don't" partake of SUV sales, and they are in a financial tailspin. But Saab is partaking of the SUV craze by rebadging a Trailblazer -- and they're ALSO in a financial tailspin. So they've sold their soul/brand without saving their financial ass -- thus putting them in an even worse state than Jaguar.
There's a third element to consider here as well -- how have BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, Volvo and now Audi (with the Q7) managed to jump on the SUV bandwagon without selling their soul (i.e. damaging their brand)? They did it by still retaining at least some of their original character in their SUVs. The X5 may just be an expensive and space inefficient 5 Series Wagon, but at least it still has excellent steering feel and confident handling -- like any BMW. The ML may have had terrible build quality and cheap materials for the first few years it was in production, but at least it still had a very tank-like, confident nature -- like any Mercedes-Benz. The Volvo XC90 may have been big and slow (pre V8), but at least it was packed full of impressive safety technology. And the Porsche Cayenne maybe have been big and, well, ugly, but at least it was very capable in terms of performance (both on and off road). All of these companies have somehow navigated the waters from "car company" to "car and SUV company" without destroying their brand.
Jaguar has never tried, so their brand remains intact even as their sales and finances collapse. Saab did try, but it was a piss-poor effort. First they rebadged a Subaru and now they've rebadged a Chevy (and no, putting the key between the seats doesn't count as "making this platform their own").
So, to go back to my original statement:
Question: Why would Saab slap their badge on a Chevy Trailblazer and try to pass it off as one of their own?
Answer: Without taking such action there would be no Saab.
Follow Up Question: Really? What if I told you Saab was already gone?
By tryan
on March 3, 2006
04:07 AM
Saab has pretty much always been a sinking ship.
Like any sinking ship, it's really just a matter of time before the whole thing goes under. That is, unless you stem the hemorrhage. The 9-7X was viewed as this proverbial plug by parent company GM. It's important to remember that Saab is a GM company and their fate, as well as their product line-up, is ultimately decided on by the General.
I am a big opponent of badge engineering, I feel that the it detracts from the respect a certain company gets from consumers. Even so, if it's done well enough, it can be a financial success. Unfortunately for Saab and GM, they didn't take the redesign far enough. The 9-2X is clearly a WRX with some Swedish skin - at least it's obvious to anybody who takes even a remote interest in automobiles, and the 9-7X - while more thoroughly redesigned - still retains the driving characteristics of the Trailblazer. That's not to say the Trailblazer is a bad vehicle - not by a longshot. In it's price category, the Trailblazer is actually an excellent value. Trying to sell a gussied-up version selling for nearly $40,000 with no improvement in performance or quality is not the way to financial success.
In the end, Saab is and always will be a niche brand. Plain and simple. In my opinion, GM didn't market the brand right, nor did they take a serious approach to the new 9-3 during it's redesign. They didn't give it the attention to detail and quality it deserved. Maybe GM should have followed Ford's lead with Volvo...
Jaguar, on the other hand, is moving farther upscale pretty shortly from what I understand, which could explain the lack of a SUV. I don't know why Ford would think Jaguar is ready for this move - I certainly don't, not with the sub-par quality that is exuded in the vehicles for their price. Not to mention the obvious fact that they aren't exactly a financially stable brand either.
By apicason
on March 3, 2006
09:43 AM
I'm not an editor of a big time car website,but last time I checked,Jag did bring over the X Type wagon.
By ateixeira
on March 3, 2006
11:16 AM
They're very rare, though, so perhaps Karl has just never seen one.
Saab can share a platform and come out with a unique product. The 9-3 is not at all like the Malibu Maxx. But they have to make an effort to make the product unique, GM cannot starve them of the cash to do it. They'd be better off selling off Saab if that's the case.
By mikesright
on March 3, 2006
01:10 PM
Karl, tell us about the SUV then. You never said anything about how it drives, but you bemoan the fact that Saab has an SUV! Just let us know more about how you felt about the vehicle, what was wrong with it, what is not making it Saab-like, etc before bashing it, please.
Do remember, as you said, that those first SUV's by just about any luxury brand, were terrible anyway! Besides, right now Saab has to worry about taking care of its dealers right now before the real Saab SUV comes out, the 9-6X off of the Lambda.
I do feel that GM has a real opportunity with making Saab a world-class brand though, but continually ruins its chances by doing things like leaving the 9-5 out to die, but there has been bright spots, such as the 9-3, and 9-3 sportcombi. If GM can build off of those successes, and maybe does do something radical-like the Aero X, we may see this brand have it's day again. Otherwise, York is right, sell it or kill it. It needs to make more volume and simply cannot be tolerated losing any more money. Period.
By editor_karl
on March 3, 2006
04:08 PM
First, it's true that Jag did bring the wagon, but I know initially they weren't going to, and of course when they did it didn't help. But I should have specified they didn't WANT to bring it, but ultimately did. And it is also true that I've never seen/driven one (and never missed it...).
As for reviewing the 9-7X? Please see our latest Trailblazer/Envoy review. There's nothing terribly wrong with it -- except this one had a "Saab" badge on it, which just looked silly on a big, body-on-frame SUV.
By navigator89
on March 4, 2006
01:19 PM
Karl,
Slightly unrelated, but while we're on the issue of reviews, when will you guys have a Cadillac DTS First Drive/Full Test up? The car has been on sale a while now, I'd really like to get to know more about it.
By thebigal
on March 4, 2006
09:51 PM
are you saying that is all the Saab 97x is?? Is it just as poor of a rebadged job as say the Isuzu I350 and I280?? Those are direct carbon copies of the Colorado save for the grill - at least the previous Isuzu attempt had different headlights and fenders as well... So back to my point, is the Saab any different? Or have they done somethings to the suspension and interior to make them more "Saab" and not Chevy? If they did anything close to what they did to the Trailblazer SS than I would think that it would be close to being on par with an X5?
By ethanwest
on March 5, 2006
02:21 PM
Here's basically what Saab did to the 9-7x, bigal. They gave a few pieces of different bodywork, including new head and tail lights. They redesigned the dash. Installed the Buick "Quiet Tuning" from the Rainier (possibly along with Rainier uspension, if its any different from the Envoy), put the ignition switch between the seats and slapped a Saab badge on to in.
On a different topic. Why can't Renualt buy Saab instead Jaguar? They, of all companies, would revive Saab to their original character
By kurtamaxxxguy
on March 6, 2006
02:47 PM
I keep wondering what Saab would do if they had a version of the euro-derived Mailbu Maxx, especially since the Maxx is supposed to die after 2007 due to chassis redesign? Put in nicer trim, the 3.9L engine (or, gasp, a short block V8), a refined AWD derived rom the Equinox/Vue, and Saab would have a unique sport hatch.
By ian8066
on March 6, 2006
03:10 PM
I read with hilarity the comments from the "editor" and from the succession of comments. Everyone of you should be on the board of GM!! Sadly, articles with titles like "Death of SAAB" truly win the prize for ignorance. Saab was able to do more to the chassis than just "slap" a different grill on the vehicle. There was a complete revamping of the suspension. The 9-7X recieved the larger brakes reserved only for the long wheelbase Envoys. Plus enjoys probably the nicest interior treatment of any of the GMT-360's, and nicer than more "premium" Suv's out there. Also the leather trim and seating appointments truly distance themselves and are of equal quality and comfort as some of the 9-7's competition as well.
Would it have been nice to get our own bespoked SUV? Of course. But in the real world..not the "internet world", by the time we would have gotten it to market it would have been years. Plus making a business case for a manufacturer like Saab which sells 120000 cars a year worldwide just is not happening...end of discussion. As it stands now the 9-7X has been found business for Saab dealers. And the people who buy or lease them love this new edition to the Saab lineup. Keep in mind another few facts before you write Saab's tombstone. January and February 2006 have both been near record months for volume thanks in part to the 9-7X. That accomplished with very little incentive help. Another fact, since you brought up Jaguar, Saab surpassed Jaguar last year for sales volume. So much for your " at least they didnt give to the suv craze." Maybe they should have. Alot good having "their brand intact" but losing sales and finance profits. General Motors has made a major committment to the Saab brand for the next 5 years worth of new product and expanding the portfolio even more. I would be more concerned with Jaguars future and not Saab's. But I guess in the internet world of closet car executives, I must not know what I speak.
By storkdude
on March 6, 2006
03:26 PM
SAABs used to be beautiful and quirky. Designed by aircraft engineeers, as GM likes to point out. Two-stroke engines, turbos--ingenious thinking. The 900 was such a wonderful car when it grew out of the 99. 15" wheels, huge hatch, fish-bowl windshied.
By storkdude
on March 6, 2006
03:33 PM
The SAAB 900 was an inspired piece when it was released. Huge hatch, 15" wheels, FWD, fish-bowl windshield. Designed by aircraft engineers (As GM likes to tell us now) and inspired by aircraft design.
GM showed us they can pretty much ruin anything they set their minds to. Gone is the hatch. Now we're seeing Subaru's and Chevy's with SAAB stickers. Yes, GM may sell more cars by labeling everything in sight as SAAB, but they're destroying the marque. If you don't understand, don't worry--SAAB doesn't have anything special for you.
Remember how Saturn was "a unique car company" totally committed to doing eveything different? What kind of minivan are they selling?
By editor_karl
on March 6, 2006
06:41 PM
So, you're saying I just need to buy a short wheelbase GMC Envoy, order the brake components from the long-wheelbase version from my local GMC dealer and install them, and then find an aftermarket company to install better quality seat covers. Oh, and slap on a Saab badge of course. Then I could make my own "Saab."
Like I said, the brand is already dead. I don't care how many vehicles are sold wearing the badge, I just know that 20 years ago I couldn't "make" a Saab using a GM parts catalogue. As someone noted, if GM wants to keep producing the same car with three, four, or five different badges (be they Buicks, Saturns or Saabs), that's fine. Just don't expect the automotive press -- or the consumer if I have my way -- to be fooled.
By ian8066
on March 7, 2006
09:28 AM
Yeah back 20 years ago Saab's "brand" was losing close to $14000 on every car sold here in the United States and lord knows how much in Europe. The "automotive press" from day one has never given GM a break when it came to Saab. What would you like GM to do? Go back to selling less cars? Lose more money per car? Say what you will about GM but at least they have continued to support the brand to the tune of hundreds of millions dollars. Sadly the pace at SAAB pre-GM was very casual and laid back. They were out of touch with the progress of the car industry during the 80's and early 90's and now they are paying for it. But do not lay all that on GM's doorstep. GM could have easily abandoned the brand but they chose to continue on and Saab now has the best and largest product portfolio in their history. Did they partner up with their startegic partners? That is how business is done today. Did they share platforms? Show me a car company who hasnt. Oh thats right I'm sorry Ferrari hasnt. So I guess we cant fool the "automotive press" but obviously the consumer is being fooled by well engineered, sleek styled, versatile, safe, and competitvely priced cars after all. The brand is dead...I don't think so.
By 1487
on March 7, 2006
04:28 PM
KArl:
What makes you think you are breaking any news to anyone here? I think everyone with any sense knew the 9-7 is a improved trailblazer. You seem to be on a personal mission to make sure no one buys a Saab (or any GM product) by acting like the 9-7 is a waste of metal. Every review I have read of the 9-7 stated that the ride, steering and handling are much improved over the Trailblzer. The fact that you said the 9-7x can be summed up by reading reviews of the Trailblazer/Envoy proves that you really arent being fair or objective. Edmunds has always had it in for the GM SUVs for some reason so you are basically saying the 9-7 cant be competent because it is based on an SUV platform that Edmunds loves to hate.
Also, how is Saab dead if they just added the 9-3 sportcombi to their lineup as well as the new turbo V6. In addition, they just refreshed the 9-5 and have a crossover on the way. Saab will never sell a lot of cars, but that doesnt mean it's dead. If Mini can survive with one model than I'm sure Saab can survive with four or five. Are you basically saying Saab is dead just because you said so?
By genius163
on March 7, 2006
05:34 PM
I wonder if any of those so vehemently defending Saab have ever purchased one new.
By ian8066
on March 8, 2006
08:12 AM
The real question should be the opposite. Have any of those who are so vehemently ripping Saab ever purchased one new? And by the way, yes I have.
By rsholland
on March 8, 2006
02:53 PM
Well, I have too: an '86 Saab 9000 turbo; bought it brand new.
One of the worst cars I've ever owned. I had nothing but problems, and unloaded it the moment the warranty was up. Haven't owned a Saab since—and have no desire to...
Not so much because of my bad experience, but more to the fact that Saab doesn't build anything I want to own.
To offer a counterpoint: My brother-in-law has owned several 900s and one 9000. He swears by them; or did, untill I turned him on to Subarus. Now he has 2 Outbacks.
By ian8066
on March 8, 2006
03:35 PM
Well there is a rational reason not to buy another Saab. Car makers never ever improve on the quality of their cars..we all know that. From Saab to a Subaru? Well I guess that is why restaurants have menus. But I guess some people like that ultra thin sheet metal and frameless doors which give that unreassuring "thud" when you close the doors. But I guess based on your rational it will be 2026 when you realize the error of your ways.
By rsholland
on March 8, 2006
05:28 PM
Ian, Subarus are some of the safest vehicles on the road. I've been an owner since 1996. We're on our 4th Subie. No regrets, whatsoever. My brother-in-law also has no regrets with his 2 Outbacks.
By editor_karl
on March 8, 2006
10:38 PM
Besides, not EVERY car maker "never ever improves on the quality of their cars...", just a select few...
By tgillmer
on March 12, 2006
08:21 AM
I'm surprised that people are so concerned for the heritage and image of Saab. Hmmm. Maybe its a little ego bruising - like wearing knock off designer clothes maybe. Or maybe Karl and company don't have to make their own car payments. I'm thrilled that Saab used the GMT360 platform for the 9-7X. An american in european disguise it may be, but my 9-7X has gorgeous Euro Saab styling, high quality interior, a good engine, and a Saab revised ride quality -- all for about $5k less than a similarly equipped Volvo or VW -- savings all thanks to Saab using an existing GM platform. Apparently I'm in the minority, but the 9-7X is Saab enough for me and I don't have to pick up a 2nd job to pay the monthly bill.
On another note. Isn't the rebadge job on the 9-7X at least as good as the one Lexus makes to their Toyota TWINS? or what Infiniti does to their Nissan TWINS? The review on the QX56 should read: "go read about the Armada." How come nobody is complaining that their Cayenne is "just" a Touareg? People should worry more about driving a nice looking, comfortable riding vehicle at a great VALUE and not get hung up on the brandname.
By saablcp
on October 24, 2006
11:43 AM
Uh........Karl are you EVER going to state definitively that you have,in fact ,EVER actually driven the 9-7X that you so casually dismiss ????
By uzumaki
on January 5, 2007
08:15 PM
While I agree that the 9-7 and 9-2 were obvious rebadge jobs, I think it's wrong and a cheap shot to write Saab off as dead. In fact, despite some dilution by GM, the 9-3 & 9-5 are still unique cars with a character quite distinct from Japanese & German competitors. And in fact, quite different from the other cars GM offers.
Sales are up and it looks like GM is finally starting to put some real effort behind Saab. Perhaps, GM finally realized that Saab is a unique brand in their roster, and has a distinct customer base. With the 9-7 & 9-2 being phased out after short lives, maybe GM finally realized that rebadge jobs aren't the best way to promote the Saab brand.
Over the last 5 years, I've owned a Audi's, VW's, Mazda's and Acura's. None were bad, but none were perfect either. 3 of the 4 left me stranded at least once in 2 years of ownership.
Our family currently has 2 '06 Saabs: a 9-3SS and a 9-5. We love them both. They drive well, have run flawlessly and were a bargain compared to most of their competitors. We enjoy them as much, if not more, than any of our previous cars. And in our area, a sea of Mercedes, Audi's, BMW's and Acura's, it's nice to drive a car a little bit different. I hope that GM will continue to supporty Saab so that there is another choice.