Saab News: Small steps in Sweden ...

Negotiations continue in Sweden, which the Saab official confirms. How serious the Chinese mean, you can see from the small developments. In the newly founded Saab Automobile Development AB, Youngman's representatives have joined the board.

Youngman's CEO Pang Qingnian and a representative are now represented there as well as Victor Muller and Martin Larsson of Saab Automobile AB. As announced, the new company will develop three new Saab. The funds come from Youngman, the know-how of Saab.

Nothing new came from our friends in Detroit, let's wait and see what the big brother from USA has to say. The whole development is still hopeful for Saab, with blemishes, because the Chinese are steadily increasing their commitment.

For SWAN but it goes down and down. The stock price has landed today at 22 Cent.

Text: tom@saabblog.net

13 thoughts too "Saab News: Small steps in Sweden ..."

  • Hi all!

    Now it looks as if Youngman Lotus + SAAB Automobile without the brakeman GM (who may have shot himself by his behavior in his own knee) will act.

    The question is how quickly the new development division "SAAB Automobile Development AB" (see SAAB News from Tom + latest news from SaabsUnited) could fill in the gaps that would arise from a license withdrawal.

    The current 9-3 model could be extended to the replacement by the new 9-3 in all variants (is largely without GM licenses) - the models 9-4X + 9-5 in the previously planned way, however, not. Up to the complete new developments would therefore temporarily another larger model above the 9-3 (possibly on the basis thereof) to be created. If body and technology are typical SAAB, this model could even continue to run parallel to the complete new developments for a certain period of time even later.

    It would be a pity, of course, for the current models 9-5 + 9-4X - should it come to that, you can thank the brakeman GM quite sincerely!

    Greetings from Hamburg
    Joachim

  • Hello everybody !

    Somehow it astonishes me that here in the forum hardly critical voices appear. After all, the enemy's GM must be allowed to protect the billions that have gone into development.

    If everything was and is so bad for GM, then why the possible "departure" of GM models such as the 9-5 and 9-4 is then so tangled. It's just GM stuff and no one wanted it here anymore - now the models 100% Made by GM are all great.

    I love my Saab's over everything, but I say honestly; if Saab is just used to suck technology, then I'm more European. I hope you do not offend me * smile *
    😉

    • Do you really think that technologies are being vacuumed? Sorry, what Tom writes does not sound that way. So maybe there is no discussion

      The products, like 9-4x and 95-, for which GM has its fingers crossed, have been largely developed by SAAB and are as good as I was able to experience. That's why we cry.

      Frank, keep cool.

    • Although I'm not an administrator, but critical voices are in my view allowed and welcome (so I appreciate the blog anyway)

      Your arugments have something true. Especially the contradiction regarding the models 9-5 and 9-4 I have been cross-eyed somehow. On the one hand horny SAABs, on the other hand GM.

      Probably the (maybe not always objective) roast on GM is because they have treated our favorite brand so neglected in the last 20 years and then wanted to "finish" as a coronation at the end. TRANSACT! - Alone this word leaves you as SAAB fan yes the knife in his pants on. And that's probably what the SAAB fan-soul deeply hurt ...

      • For me, the question is, who developed the 9-5 and the 9-4x? Are they GM or are they SAAB developments? If it is SAAB developments, then GM uses itself here as a parent company. On the one hand, this is almost common in corporate structures, on the other hand it is just howling. Why? Because at this moment a company adorns itself with the springs of a development department, which would like to have - but does not have.
        If it is a GM development, then the procedure from my point of view is fine. And then I take my hat off that GM actually manages to build two great cars. Only the question then is, why did you want to get rid of SAAB ????

        Best regards JoPe

  • Hello Frank,

    The big difference between Youngman Lotus in China and GM in the US for me is the following: GM has never recognized the potential of SAAB and then wanted because of the GM bankruptcy (due to particularly bad Mangements) in addition to other company sisters SAAB get rid of - Youngman Lotus has recognized the potential very well and will promote SAAB accordingly. The technical knowledge made in Sweden (not made in USA - as GM always pretends) goes to China is fine. That works great at Volvo! Jaguar with the Indian owner Tata would be my next example.

    If it should be for you a purely European car, so would be enough on offer.

    Neither Jaguar nor SAAB or Volvo Europeans have accessed - we should be happy about the Chinese or Indians, because at least have understood that this is about real gems of the car industry!

    Joachim

  • Hello Joachim,

    I would like to contradict you, but it is also nice and controversial to discuss controversially.

    GM is brilliant today - not because of the changes in the program but simply because the structure was no longer viable. Keyword unions and pension insurance or burdens. The purely operational business was not the problem insofar as not really the bad management. These are really only advanced reasons. You can not suddenly make a profit in 12 months with old models and production equipment. They shook off only the old, old structures - of course the old management would have had to act earlier.

    Volvo suffered a loss of 105 millions last year - not a shining example as well as the products that have evolved from the formerly well-positioned V 70 to round, soft-washed everyday mobiles. And access to the Chinese market is still more than mau.

    Sure what makes Tata with Jaguar and Range Rover is really first cream and incredibly good. And an absolute masterpiece of workmanship that does not have to be the sheer size. So at least here's an example of SAAB

    But again: I do not consider the sell-out of technology as great. Here I would like to point out again, which alone achieved only the licenses and tools for the old 9-3 and 9-5. If I remember right well over 200 million ...

    By the way, the technical platforms for 9-5 and the 9-4 have nothing to do with Made in Sweden. Rather the design. And do not be angry, but sometimes I just feel that our discussion here is too one-sided.

    That's why I have a critical tone even if I love Saab

    • Hello Frank,

      I read a few days ago from the Financial Times GM reports that GM has fallen far short of expectations (little growth and no rosy outlook for GM).

      This is probably also the fear of competition justified and one shuns so-called competitors who want to (as well as) set up as global as GM itself. But that also fits the GM product range - unfortunately, there are hardly any highlights here after the SAAB sale. Which again somehow suggests a weak management.

      Joachim

      • Hello Joachim,

        well after 2 billion USD in the same quarter last year, the profit of GM in the last quarter 2011 at 1,7 billion USD (message today online the FTD).

        Greetings Frank

        • Frank,

          the numbers are correct - but the numbers are related to the whole year (not for one quarter).

          The 1,7 Billions are an intermediate for 2011 so really little growth (now everything is pushed back on Opel, because there were supposedly high losses).

          That's not really rosy - the mass producer VW is much better off.

          Joachim

          • Joachim, that's exactly the way I see it this way: GM is always bad and bad for Saab but the products developed under GM are great ... but no matter to make it look right for everyone:
            Group-wide, EBIT fell to 2,2 (2,3) billion US dollars. Net income declined to 1,7 (prior year: 2 billion or 1,03 US dollar per share), clearly outperforming market expectations of 0,96 US $, and revenue rose 7 percent to 36,7 billion, thanks to solid North American business. Dollar.

  • Dear SAAB friends,

    I would like to fully support the opinion of Frank Urban.
    Chinese are by no means as reliable partners as many of you believe.
    Since the Indians have a much better culture.
    What Asians have been able to do in the construction machinery sector and later in the trucks before 35:
    Scrap everything and then offer it for a fraction of the western price on the world market.
    Nothing else should happen to SAAB.
    The top know-how cheap under the nail and then hopp.
    If they are honest, you would have been able to access and buy months before 6.
    But SAAB was not "dead" enough!
    Who seriously believes that VOLVO-Göteborg will run cars in 10 years ago?
    Where already the second plant in China is planned.
    In order not to give the wrong impression:
    For me 3 SAAB are "in the stable" - but the thought of Asian owners causes me grief.
    And nobody turns me around.
    But that's why you do not have to go straight to the heads.
    Just listen and think about it.
    Best regards,
    Peter Witzel.

    • Hello Peter,

      Under GM America ran in the end actually nothing more - and they are still in the process of not sticking out the licenses !!

      In order to be able to offer VOLVO or SAAB at all on the world market, no US corporations will really be able to help - here, only financial strength from the Far East will help.

      At first, Europeans or Indians can only be considered as wishful thinking in relation to SAAB - in order to be able to see the grasp on new cars in the future, we should not paint too negative with respect to Youngman Lotus. Just watch, but also see that alternatives are currently not at hand.

      Regards
      Julie

Comments are closed.