Volvo/Geely interest for real?
April 22, 2011 in Uncategorized
A trusted source to SaabsUnited from within the government has confirmed some information that make us strongly believe that the government has had communication with Volvo & Geely about SAAB.
Anders said on April 22, 2011
God damn, everything happens behind closed curtains. Must admit it’s quite exiting, whether this is true or not.
Anders said on April 22, 2011
Exiting enough to make Vanity Fair name SAAB Sonett one of twenty cars shaped like a penis.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/04/the-jaguar-e-type-and-20-other-cars-that-look-like-penises.html
Niklas G said on April 22, 2011
LOL! =)
Yeah, about time that someone made a serious such list. =)
Jeff said on April 23, 2011
Brett Berk is the most talented auto writer of our time.
Steve C. said on April 22, 2011
Anders, thanks for the opening with your “whether this is true or not” comment.
First, In the prior post first revealing this idea, Peter Gilbert posted a link to a Reuters story saying Volvo denies talking to or planning to talk to Saab about any deal.
Second, the info Tim R reported is that the Swedish government communicated with Volvo. As commenter below noted, that doesn’t mean much if the actual companies aren’t talking.
And regarding the connection to the Chinese and quotes from Victor that discussions are happening, another commenter provided a link below that says more. The key paragraph is provided here…
Doesn’t sound like Victor is looking for someone to buy Saab!
Red J said on April 22, 2011
It may be that the Swedish government has talked with Volvo about their interest in SAAB, but are they entitled to speak with a third party about Saab?
For me, it would mean the dead of Saab, sorry but Geely make crap cars, and the only thing they seem to want to do with Volvo is this S90.
I’m tired of the Swedish government, and hope Saab can get rid of any bindings to it ASAP.
GerritN said on April 22, 2011
Imho, that’s why they’re trying to get rid of the EIB loan too. It’s just not worth dealing with the bean counters all the time.
BoeBoe said on April 22, 2011
The Swedish government can talk to whoever they want
But that doesn’t mean that everythin they want will happen. But it is a fact that the Swedisch government “wants” Saab to survive (in one way or another). When Saab goes bust they have a lot of unemployment and they could loose a lot of money because they backup the EIB loan.
So if they would be able to “force” Volvo to team up with Saab in one way or another that might work out nice for the government (and Volvo).
PS That S90 will never be build. The CEO of Volvo already said that it isn’t in their longterm plans.
GerritN said on April 22, 2011
Bad, bad, if true. Saab only makes sense when it’s independent.
GerritN said on April 22, 2011
Live Free or Die!
Red J said on April 22, 2011
My words !!!
Lars S said on April 22, 2011
+1
coggs said on April 22, 2011
+2
Anders said on April 22, 2011
+3
beren said on April 22, 2011
+4
Thilo said on April 22, 2011
I don´t think there is some interest at Geely/Volvo.
But aside from this I think comments like “Live Free or Die!” are extremely disrespectful towards all workers in Trollhättan
GerritN said on April 22, 2011
I didn’t mean any disrespect to the workers in Trollhättan, but I think it is also in their interest if Saab stays an independent, vibrant car maker. I know that we all like to have bread on the table, but we also like to take pride in what we produce. Being taken over by a huge car maker from a country with a very non-democratic government is not exactly something that would make me proud.
Mark O said on April 23, 2011
I love that sentiment: http://adweek.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/nh_license_plate2_1.jpg
TurboLover said on April 23, 2011
Well, the important thing is not who owns Saab, it is that they can make Saab-Saabs, right? When Jaguar was sold by Ford to Tata, the brand has become relevant again. I thimk the survival of the Saab and its’ spirit is what comes first, ownership is not an issue in it self as long as the owners understand the brand.
meccano said on April 22, 2011
Sorry, but it is really the thing that makes sense.
Volvo’s parents are one of the few in the car business that has the money to invest in SAAB.
Volvo and SAAB have different identities. Historically speaking anyway.
SAABs are, or rather used to be and/or should be, smaller two doors that are safe unique sporty cars.
Volvos are, or rather used to be and/or should be, larger four door safe family cars.
I get that the current guards at the Trollhattan gates don’t want a Volvo invasion and I get SAAB fans want it to be free. Let’s be honest. In today’s global economy, freedom is going to come to SAAB in the form of financial security. That security will allow the future development of fun, unique and exciting cars that can truly be SAABS. What has freedom thus for bore? An Opal, a mexican made Cadillac cross-over and the promise of a future SAAB produced on top of the outgoing Mini platform.
Really, is that the freedom for SAAB you are all wishing for?
Lars S said on April 22, 2011
What you refer to as a Cadillac cross-over is a real Saab, developed in Sweden and produced in Mexico. The “Opel” is a real Saab, 70% of the parts used for the 9-5 are unique for this very model. Reading your post, I can’t help but wonder if you really like Saab. It doesn’t look like you do.
And yes, that is some of the freedom I am wishing for, but I’d describe it in other words, or even better, let VM describe it.
mike saunders said on April 23, 2011
Lars, the 9-4 is a rebadged SRX with some suspension and design changes. The 9-5 is a slightly longer Buick LaCrosse with a Saab-specific interior and suspension.
Than’t not a bad thing at all. The LaCrosse is a fantastic car, a well-appointed sedan with the nimble handling of a smaller car. The SRX also drives exceptionally well.
Of all the cost-saving rebadges they could have picked, they got the cream of the GM crop.
Carmania said on April 23, 2011
Sorry Mike, you have completely misunderstood the term rebadged. Vauxhalls are rebadged Opels and the 9-2 was a rebadged Subaru. The 9-4 and 9-5 are not more rebadged than Audi is a rebadged Skoda or VW or Lexus is a rebadged Toyota. Can you please tell us what you mean by rebadged?
nzsaab said on April 23, 2011
Yes you are correct about the Vauxhall – Opel thing. I have a Holden Astra and yea its a rebadge job. They changed the front grill and the badges. That really is it. Great car though.
As for the Saab 9-2x, that really is a brilliant car and is not a rebadge. Thats a car based off of the Subaru Impreza platform and produced by Surbaru for logical cost saving reasons.
Whilst it shares engine, thats nothing new, every car maker spreads it engines across its makes. The 9-2x has no commonality from the front windscreen forwards or from the backdoor rearwards.
Alot of work was put into the Saab 9-2x under the skin including the suspension, which impressed Subaru who asked Saab to stay on and assist with their new Impreza after GM sold its stake and the 9-2x ceased production.
The Saab 9-2x featured active head restraints, a popular Saab safety feature and although it didnt feature a centre ingnition, nor did the 9000 so that sorts that argument.
The intererior, apart from the seats is all subaru, however all optional Subaru features were ticked and the dashboard featured the more Saab driver friendly green backlight.
Im very passionate about the Saab 9-2x and Saab 9-7x and am always keen to let people know they ARE NOT rebadge jobs, but simply sharing platforms and improving from there. Just like Toyota and Lexus and VW and Audi.
Carmania said on April 23, 2011
Read and learn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badge_engineering
Khrisdk said on April 23, 2011
Wouldn’t it just be because most people assume that platform sharing is rebadging?
Common misintrepretation, as it makes the Bentley Continental GT, Flying Spur and Audi A8 rebadged VWs, and the Audi R8 a rebadged Lamborghini Gallardo.
mike saunders said on April 23, 2011
Sorry folks,
You’re splitting hairs and buying into the marketing hype. If you’re looking at two cars on the same platforms and powerplants that share most of the same suspension components and mechanical systems (ventilation, engine management, info network, alarms, etc.), and if they share interior components aside from touch surfaces, then it’s a rebadge with a different skin. Period.
Forming sheet metal is cheap, as is spec’ing slightly different plastic housings for lights and bumpers. The car’s dynamics are easy to change with higher or lower springs of varying rates, and different damping. Add some camber and toe adjustments and presto….you’ve got a new suspension. Calling the 92x a different car is utterly laughable. It was even made in the same factory as the Impreza and used the same parts., outside of all the sheet metal and plastic bits.
The vaunted steering and suspension was just cobbled together from the WRX parts bin with different spring rates.
The point about Toyota/Lexus is a great one, because the first generation Lexus ES was actually a rebadge…and Toyota got hammered for it. Toyota got wise fast and made a point of not sharing any interior touch surfaces between the brands.
mike saunders said on April 23, 2011
Sorry, Khrisdk, that last comments wasn’t meant for you.
Your examples are ones of platform sharing that goes beyond the cosmetics and handling tweaks that separate rebadges…
nzsaab said on April 24, 2011
To MIke Saunders.
I can understand your points, however in the defense of the Saab 9-2x, its essential to remember 5 important factors that made the Saab 9-2x what it was.
Life Span
This model was intended to be a short term solution to fill the compact premium market for Saab.
Price Catergory
The Saab 9-2x was intended for the bottom of the Saab range and therefore would not be cost effective in the forcasted sales numbers to be dramaticly different from its platform sibling.
Economic Manufacturing
It would be absolutly stupid of GM or Saab to have created a manufacturing site elsewhere than Japan for the entry level Saab model. The most cost effective way of production was to build in house with the maker who had been making this platform into the Impreza for years.
Lets not forget here that Saab had used millions of GM’s money developing the 9-3 range just a few years previous. SportSedan and Convertible then SportCombi and the 9-5 was refreshed. GM wanted to see Saab actually make some money rather than spend it, thats why this short term model was decided on.
Limited Sales Markets
The Saab 9-2x was never entended to enter all Saab markets and was represented in the North Americas only. This further strengthens the idea that a huge difference was not essential for platform sharing.
Customer Demographic
Do you believe that the average Subaru owner also looks at Saab, some say yes and some say no. In the United States and Canada, where the 9-2x sold, the market is so huge that in the big picture the Saab fell into the background as a compact premium sportshatch thats quite rare and well regarded. Thats exactly what was intended. There was never going to be a showroom clash of the two cars.
Lets not forget that Saab’s 9000 had much commonality with Fiats Croma and Lancia Thema. Especially in the overall looks department and likely under the skin. Same floor pan etc.
The NG 9-5 is another more appropriate example. Its been touted around this site that just 70% is unique to Saab. Dont get me wrong, I think that excellent and its fitting to what Ive talked about above.
The 9-2x was an entry level model meaning it wasnt economic to change alot but what they did do, in my absolute opinion means its a member of the platform which is shared by Subaru rather than a copy of the Subaru that sits on that platofrm.
The NG Saab 9-5 is an upthere premium sedan. Much larger sales volume, much more important car for the brand. So of course it had to be alot different to the Insignia. I couldnt halp but notice the similarities especially on the interior which is also where the 9-2x shares parts. There are simply more differences as the sale price gets higher.
So at the end of the day my message is. Dont bag Saab’s entry level premium sports compact of 2005-2006. Its actually a great little car that was tailored off a very popular platform using the cost effective manufacturing techniques to ensure Saab actually had a board product range atleast in some markets.
meccano said on April 25, 2011
Perhaps more important that the technical determination of designating the 9-2x and 9-7x as rebadged cars from Subaru and GMC respectively was the public perception that this was the case. Neither car sold well and were damaging to the SAAB brand.
It is of interest to note that the previous ownership of SAAB under GM means that today many of the SAAB dealerships in North America are also still Buick and/or Cadillac dealers as well. Having a 2011 9-5 selling for $50k on the same car lot sitting next to a 2011 Buick LaCrosse for $30k creates a challenge for the general public. Sorry, it just does. That isn’t even adding into the equation that now we have the SAAB factory shut down which adds further difficultly to SAAB’s brand image. I can’t imagine anything worse happening to SAAB than lacking the foresight to see the coming money problems and go quickly to work on them BEFORE the assembly line has stopped. Additionally, I am further surprised at the support that GM badge engineering is getting here especially considering the embarrassment caused to the brand from the previous reaction to the 9-2x and 9-7x models. I thought that the idea of independence from GM was to bring the SAAB back to SAAB’s lineup. It is for this reason that frankly I am concerned about the coming 9-4x. The 9-4x is going to sit on the car dealership next to the Cadillac SRX. Just as the 9-5 is already a tough sell sitting next to the LaCrosse, I fear too that the 9-4x is going to have a tough time sitting next to the SRX. It won’t have that problem in Europe, but by not having a Diesel engine option, is a 20mpg crossover really going to have big appeal in those markets?
Sorry if that makes it seems like I don’t like SAABs, but I would argue the exact opposite is true. Since SAAB today is merely but an extension what ownership under GM would have brought without them selling it, I really saw the hook up with Volvo as a way to have the R&D money to create SAABs that were SAABs. If Spyker doesn’t have the money to keep current production line rolling, please explain to me where the money is coming to move forward with non GM based models? Volvo’s parents have that money. Volvo and SAAB are different? Exactly! So it would make sense to allow SAABs to be SAABs under Volvo. Volvo is a brand different enough from SAAB that the two can continue forward making different cars while reducing shared overhead and providing needed R&D funding for exciting future SAAB models.
I’m not trying to put SAAB down, but merely explaining why I thought interest from Volvo was a positive development.
nzsaab said on April 26, 2011
I strongly dissagree with your statement that the Saab 9-7x SUV was damaging to the Saab brand.
Let me remind you just how successful it was!
- It was Saab’s second most important model in North America selling in the tens of thousands in just two main markets.
- It was Saab’s most expensive model
-It was Saab’s first ever SUV
- It gave dealers something else other than the 9-3 to look at and the same old stale 9-5′s.
- It ran from 2005 – 2009
I know personally 3 different people who bought a 9-7x. A Canadian a 4.2i, and both Americans bought the Aero model. They all love them and all 3 have never owned a Saab before. Now the Canadian has a 9-3 SportCombi in the garage next to the 9-7 and one of the Americans has bought a 9-3 Aero SportSedan V6 to go with theirs.
Lets also not forget the many brand elements that the 9-7x gets from Saab. This car was worked over by Saab in Sweden and many changes were made to their new SUV which was to be based off the GM360 platform to fill GM’s void in production numbers after the Oldsmobile Bravada production wound up.
The 9-7x interior featured Saab 9-5 traits of the time like green backlighting. Woodgrain everywhere, dash cupholder, central ignition of which GM explained at the launch if you breakdown the cost involved to do that it would cost $50USD per unit! Commitment i reckon.
I could go on forwever about how important the two moels were to Saab. The Saab 9-7x and 9-2x = A success story in their own rights/.
All I can say is I wish they sold them here in NZ because they would both be in my garage.
MarkoA said on April 22, 2011
Before we go all nuts here once again, let´s just calm down and wait for some time. We still have VM on the lead, right? Everything will go well. Trust me.
Lars S said on April 22, 2011
Yes, the Muller-man saves the day. Again.
Jos said on April 22, 2011
The Muller man will do whatever it takes to save the brand, the company, the jobs of 4000+ workers and who knows what more. Whatever it takes. If that means making drastic steps, so be it.
GML said on April 22, 2011
What I don’t understand is why would the government go to Geely/Volvo? Volvo is now owned by Chinese Geely. Yes, they happen to produce “Swedish” cars.
Personally, I think BMW has to buy Saab. It would do wonders for Saab’s reputation, BMW is flushed with cash, and Saabs can slot in nicely between MINI and BMW.
To everyone saying “live free or die,” I hope you’re prepared to let Saab die. Being part of a larger company does not mean you cannot have an identity. Saab’s best selling period was when it was not independent (Saab-Scania).
OddJob said on April 22, 2011
Despite the fact that this rumour is coming from two sources now I find it very hard to believe that the Swedish government should do anything for Saab since they’ve rather done everything they can to work aginst them for the last two years. And as Red J also questioned are they entiteled to do that? At least not if it’s not on behalf of the owner of the company i e Spyker.
If Saab and Volvo had merged a year or two ago I think it would have made some sense, but now the companies have entered two different paths with new platforms and new strategies. If they should merge now I have a strong feeling that it won’t be Volvo that gives up their future plans in favour of Saab.
I have very low confidence in Geely as Chinese partner, besides making crappy cars I strongly belive they have some kind of hidden agenda that makes me really worried for Volvo. But the Swedish media, car industry analysts and government have swallowed the bait, so who am i to judge.Did you by the way know that Geely didn’t make make many more cars than Saab in 2008/09? Only good thing with them is a big bag of Chinese governmental and regional development money and maybe an entrance ticket to the chinese market.
ante said on April 22, 2011
Entitled to, maybe not!? But EIB is taking som serious time and IF they are not allowing the deal Saab would never restart production again and would go bust in days or maybe weeks. Then the swedish gov stands with collateral, a factory, spare parts and whatever it is. Maybe we should be really worried and fear that this is the initial damage control of swegov. !
Lars S said on April 22, 2011
Settle the f**k down! Let’s not make this worse than it is. No point in starting rumours making everyone even more worried than they already are. Keep calm and carry on!
74StingSaab said on April 22, 2011
A little coarse of a comment but I must say, I agree. Let’s just keep calm and let it play out…. VM and the gang will get this all in order and Saab will be OK..
Lars S said on April 22, 2011
Yes, I see what you mean. Not my usual style of commenting. Sorry if I offended anyone.
OddJob said on April 23, 2011
Sorry if I made somebody upset, it’s justa personalreflection. A piece of my heart also beats for Volvo (sorry for that). Of course it’s a natural opportunity to work with them. Totally agree with you that we should let the goood spirit be going on. It’s maybe I’m just a bit worn out by the lack of realy good news about Saab at the moment. Should you feel the way I do, just look at the press conference video from New York with VM and JC- it’s a h*** of a statement.
74StingSaab said on April 23, 2011
@ Lars S, no offense here, It needed to be said no matter.
Paul said on April 22, 2011
In terms of volvo taking over Saab, I wouldn’t worry about it, that’s not what the discussions were about.
Of course they talked to Volvo, partly because where else are they going to get some advice about the car industry?, is this proposal feasible?, is the car market going to be as large as Saab claims? Are their costs accurate?
Volvo is the only local place that’s independent of Saab that the government can ask those questions, so I’m not surprised they have been talking to them.
“Keep calm and carry on”
Volvo isn’t going to buy them.
Alexandros said on April 22, 2011
Please, give me 3 reasons, why should Geely buy Saab after they bought Volvo.
Niklas G said on April 22, 2011
1. IQon
2. NG 9-5
3. PhoeniX and what parts of it that will live on in the NG 9-3
Just wild guessing again, in a near future we will know for sure what kind of collaboration with a Chinese partner VM and Saab are aiming for. Considering that China often is described as a huge market with big demand of cars like the NG 9-5, it’s not very surprising that Saab wants to find a good partner there. I just hope that they manage to keep teh independence and stay away to the kind of problems that almost killed the brand during the GM years.
Alexandros said on April 22, 2011
Sorry, 3 not convincing reasons for me. Are these “assets” a few hundred million $ worth? I don’t think so.
If I was Geely, I would concentrate on Volvo.
saab_93_turbo said on April 22, 2011
Victor Muller hinting on longer-term financing solutions from China http://is.gd/mi3ebK “We will see a partnership with a Chinese player”
Joe___ said on April 22, 2011
In the most recent SvD article
http://www.svd.se/naringsliv/vi-maste-fa-det-har-lost-omedelbart_6111063.svd
VM points out that there will be a Chinese partnership in the future and that there have been talks for several months. Whether they are talking to BAIC, SAIC, Geely or some other company I don’t know. Two facts that may point toward Geely could be (speculations/guesses)
1) VM says the right partner should be an entrepreneurial one understanding SAAB’s needs as a small player (Geely was described as such a company during the Volvo deal, given it’s relatively small size, youth and stake holding CEO)
2) VM says the right partner knows their way around Chinese government bureaucracy (Geely is partly state run and just did all the paperwork w.r.t. Volvo going Chinese). Just speculating.
JasonPowell said on April 23, 2011
Joe, isn’t BAIC partly state run as well? Thought I read that somewhere too. Personally, I can’t see someone wanting to partner with both, competition is a good thing and you don’t always want a stake in both.
Niklas G said on April 22, 2011
I doubt that Volvo have any interest in “merging” with Saab, but sure, no reason why not Geely should have some interest in soem kind of co-operation and/or building and seelling Saab cars in China to customers wanting something more premium than a Volvo.
But anyway, that’s just wild guessing. We’ll have some official press release about whatever the final solution is in a few days, that’s a lot more interesting than wild guessing.
mikaik said on April 22, 2011
I’m sure glad I bought the 9-5 NG. And I hope it won’t be the last “free” Saab.
If I’d want a Geely car, I’d buy a Volvo… In my mind, it doesn’t make any sense for Geely to buy Saab too. It overlaps with the cars they have now.
Niklas G said on April 22, 2011
I think that Saab’s chances for survival actually are remarkably good, mainly because the technology and new cars already developed or almost developed cars should be a true gold mine for anyone with enough money to keep production running the first critical year(s) until Saab is profitable, and with such strong cards at hand, why would VM suddenly give up now after all the work he put into saving the company from the much bigger crisis in the end of 2009? Getting enough cash to survive the first bumpy years is vital, and it is a bumpy ride indeed, but the people at Saab are the best survivers and solution-finders in the business so they should have a good chance finding a way out from this too if only the government and EIB gives them OK to proceed now.
100%Saab said on April 23, 2011
“Volvo/Geely interest for real?”
I hope not. just a thought.
aaron c said on April 23, 2011
Any chance it’s an investment in platform development or some technical collaboration, not an outright purchase? Volvo’s execs said in Shanghai earlier this week there’d be some new Volvo platform by 2014. What if Saab is selling Volvo on a version of the Phoenix platform? Or maybe they’re going to get the eXWD system after Saab’s exclusive rights on the system run out. I really doubt Geely/Volvo wants to own Saab. The Swedes have been down that road too many times before.
psmisc said on April 23, 2011
I won’t speculate about future performance, but Geely so far has made some good track record in its handling of Volvo. They pumped truck load of money into R&D, pushed the electric/hybrid drivetrains ahead of schedule, let Volvo make its own product decisions, and repositioned itself in a segment with VW rather than Mercedes, a move they should’ve made years ago.
Also, I would refrain from lumping all Chinese companies together as some monolithic entity and judge them on an individual basis.
quickening said on April 23, 2011
Not good. If Saab falls under Geely ownership. I’m out. I might already be out due to the late availability of the 9-5 SC. I might find myself driving a CTS SportsWagon, especially if I can find a V at a decent price.
BTG88 said on April 23, 2011
You are really talking about chalk and cheese with the 9-5 SC and a Caddy V-wagon – a 556 HP gas guzzler with a very angular design, versus an understated design with small displacement turbo.
quickening said on April 23, 2011
Yep. I can appreciate the design of two opposing cars. I need a wagon for sapce and hauling my two dogs. A V-Wagon, would be awesome, but realistically I could find myself in an upper trim standard wagon. I’d like to compare the two back to back, as I don’t want a car without a turbo. I’d appreciate the high fuel efficiency of the 9-5SC and more space, but if Saab can’t even get the car to US when I’ll be buying it doesn’t leave me much of an option.
I’ve currently got a 2011 CTS sedan as a loaner while my 04 9-3 Aero is in the shop to replace the water pump, at $1300…
Troels, Denmark said on April 23, 2011
wait for the right car..
sonett71 said on April 23, 2011
I wish a great future for both Volvo and Saab. I like Volvo but Saab is my favorite car since I was 10 years old. The two swedish car makers is different cars, and I hope they will stay in different companies.
Peter Gilbert said on April 23, 2011
Where would BAIC fit in the mix. It would be like the new 9-3 & 9-5 competing with the old!
Ben said on April 23, 2011
Can’t see Geely buying Volvo, and its probably better if they don’t. It would be good for them to come in as a minor share holder to bring in more cash. Even if they were to buy Saab there are positives, Saab would have money and certainty and maybe Geely would have learnt a thing or two from GM.
Chris Hansel said on April 23, 2011
If this is true, about Volvo, then it can only mean that the government is concerned about the money they have already agreed to back, and the new loan coming up. They also do not want to lose a car manufacturer, and the jobs that go with it. It is true that Saab has run at a loss for some time, but what would have been the effect of having no Saab over the last ten years? The old Keynesian thought that failed businesses should go away and be replaced by new and more efficient business doesn’t work very well in a world that can’t wait to get to China and it’s cheap labor. If Saab goes, it’s gone, and the government knows that. They, and the people, would rather have a company and a plant open then not have one at all. For reasons that will come clear in the future they now believe the Russian plan will only last a short while, and they are looking for a longer term fix. I agree with them, and not the Saab jihadists, who would have nothing unless it is done their way.
Sven van Dijkman said on April 23, 2011
Couple of motives / reasons why this kind of could be true.
The Chinese are very interested in all kinds of “future” green technology and Saab is on the forefront in the automotive world. It would make a perfect catch,
The Chinese market provides more room for expansion for Saab compared to for example the US market.
VM seeks money and they have it.
It most likely is not a right out take over, it could just mean some good solid investment together with the VA group and if Geely is one of the speaking partners they sure know the advantages of a Swedish car group previously owned by an American car giant.
The local suppliers and supply structure (in Sweden) could all benefit and Saab and Volvo together could share their excellent development centers as well. As a brand it would all be the same as now.
Not unthinkable.
For those of you who were here last time: When you think it’s over, the roller coaster ride continues!
Enjoy!
Nissi said on April 23, 2011
Latest denials from Volvo and Swedish government here. Case seems to be clösed,Geely has no money available except for building its new Volvo factories in China
BoeBoe said on April 23, 2011
Geely is investing $11 billion(!) in Volvo the coming 5 years. That is something Saab can only dream of…
Jos said on April 23, 2011
The article makes some sensible remarks, if I understand the google tranlate correctly:
Indeed, for a national car industry to be viable there should be more than one manufacturors. I guess if SAAB would dissappear, Volvo/Geely would be forced to move all manufacturing to China within the next decade, or even sooner. So SAAB’s survival is of vital interest to Volvo and to Sweden’s as an industrial power as a whole…
aki said on April 23, 2011
The fact is China and the far East are the places to sell and grow. I think it`s always been in the equation considering that the NA and european markets have flattend out or are growing too slowly. Saab has to have it´s selling numbers and fast enough to reach it´s break even point and beyond. It just makes sense.
BoeBoe said on April 23, 2011
Maybe the Swedish government is only trying to find out if Volvo has any interest in buying the collateral they have in Saab at the moment.
IF Saab goes belly up the government needs to sell the collateral and maybe they are already looking for a potential buyer?
TurboLover said on April 23, 2011
EIB is cleard, no only GM left to accept:
http://www.svd.se/naringsliv/eib-har-fattat-beslut-om-saab_6112503.svd
saabyurk said on April 23, 2011
That’s in agreement with this article also. What I don’t understand is who actually holds the Saab collateral. If it’s the Swedish government, why can’t they bypass GM and the EIB? Couldn’t Saab just sign an agreement with the govt that they won’t utilize more than 280 million euros of the EIB loan so the govt can release the collateral? Why bother with GM and the EIB?
mike saunders said on April 23, 2011
Because Spyker bought Saab in a highly leveraged deal that was mostly stock….75 million in cash, 325 million in preferred shares. Depending on how the deal is written, GM might be the biggest creditor and might have veto power over some key decisions.
ivo 71 said on April 23, 2011
The Swedish state holds the collateral as surety for their guarantee of the 400 mio euro loan by EIB.
But GM alsol has a vested interest in Saab to the tune of several hundreds of millions dollars. Even if they cannot vote it as a shareholder because the shares involved are prefs and represent the part of the takeover price that VM & Co. couldn’t or didn’t borrow elsewhere, GM still hold the majority of the share capital in the shape, if you will, of a deferred debt. So it’s not all that surprising that the position of the biggest shareholder in and major, if not the biggest parts and components supplier (such as all engines) of Saab needs to be considered.
I must say I was more surprised by GM’s total radio silence during all the ruckus in the course of the past month.
Ivo
Hogge said on April 23, 2011
If Saab and Volvo would’ve followed through with their plans to join forces in the 80′s, then all this stuff would’ve never happened.
My biggest question is why VM didn’t want Saab to take over production of the Pontiac Solstice/Opel GT. The production tools already exist and have an owner that obviously don’t want them anymore. Then Saab could have changed the front and interior a tiny bit and suddenly have a new Sonett ready for a global launch by now.
tauentzien said on April 24, 2011
Because the Solstice/Opel GT isn’t a competitive car. Opel wasn’t able to sell the GT in significant numbers, because there are much better roadsters on the market. Saab needs market leading cars, not old rebadged GM-products.
Bravada from GMI said on April 24, 2011
Competitive or not, it was an awfully productionized car. It cost much more to build than GM could earn selling, and continuous development of the platform was prohibitively expensive. It was a one-off Bob Lutz Special to boost the brand identites of Saturn and Pontiac (as if you could do this with ONE car).
And yes, it wasn’t a terribly good car. With heaploads of truck parts and GM’s heavyweight engineering, it was an anti-MX-5, weighing 1.4 tons (almost 50% more than the Mazda).
Hogge said on April 24, 2011
Saab need to rebuild their sporty image. There are two ways they can do this. Join the WRC or build a new Sonett.
From what I heard, the Solstice was actually one of few GM cars that were profitable.
Bernard said on April 24, 2011
If it was profitable, they would still be producing it.
I remember going to the Saturn Sky launch at my local Saab/Saturn dealer, and the thing looked like a disaster about to happen.
The top mechanism was made of various bicycle derailleur-style cables (kind of like a 1970s Alfa window regulator) and cheap bits of stamped steel. It was obvious that once the thing failed, it could never be fixed.
The fuel tank filled the trunk (boot), meaning that you literally could not carry anything bigger than a small handbag.
The front end was made like a Meccano set, with crude brackets holding other crude brackets that in turn held other brackets. It really looked like somebody built it in their shed.
In other words, it was like one of those optical illusions that looks like one thing (a car) from a distance, and then looks like something else up close.
tauentzien said on April 24, 2011
If you read this article (it’s in swedish!), you would be against a Volvo-involvement in Saab. Volvo is in need of 1.000 engineers. Thats why Saab could be interesting for them. They don’t need a car production facility. Volvo would close Saab and would keep the engineers. With a Volvo take-over, Saab would be history.
http://www.automotorsport.se/news/22651/volvo-vi-ska-inte-ta-%C3%B6ver-saab/
Hogge said on April 24, 2011
I don’t think so. If that were the case, Volvo would be paying about six milion swedish krona for each of Saabs engineers.