GM is Talking!
February 16, 2012 in News
We’ve received confirmation from two very trusted sources, deeply involved that GM is in fact in talks with some parties who are interested in buying Saab.
I think someone at GM just forgot to tell James Cain…
Eric said on February 16, 2012
This is good news.
Hopefully some kind of agreement can be made(hopefully w/Brightwell??) & Saabs can be rolling off the line in a few to 6mo.
TimR said on February 16, 2012
Dont kid yourself, no Saabs will be rolling off any line in 6 months… it’ll take a lot longer!
Red J said on February 16, 2012
But maybe not that long, so my wife will not have to think about a V40
m!ko said on February 16, 2012
It may take long enough to make all enterprise uneconomical for potential buyer. GrossMutter thinks very slow and waits – maybe someone will give up. The topic was taken many times – GM is a company that must give profits, so it won’t support any competitors. I think they’d rather obstruct, than help potential new owner.
…but… there’s still hope for us to see brand new Saabs rolling off the production line, which i wish to all around the world
cheers
Turbo_Charged said on February 16, 2012
It may or may not help, but there is a lot of pressure applied on the GM website:
http://apps.facebook.com/gmautoshow/?ref=ts
SAABites are constantly leaving messages stating fact – rather than unjustified hyperbole – to make the blinkered American GM fans aware of the issue.
Turbo_Charged said on February 16, 2012
We are on the last stretch, letters to:
Daniel Akerson
General Motors Corporate Headquarters
300 Renaissance Center
Detroit,
MI 48265
USA
and copy to your local GM MD / CEO would assist.
Piet-Hein Schlimme said on February 16, 2012
seeing is believing…
kochje said on February 16, 2012
agree.
akis96 said on February 16, 2012
Seems like the Saab-Fans flodding GM’s FB-Page with pictures and questions worked somehow
TimR said on February 16, 2012
Nope it didn’t… that had nothing to do with it…
bpsorrel said on February 16, 2012
I would have thought if anything that would’ve had a negative effect. Not a good idea to p**s off the company you hope will do something you want them to do…
TimR said on February 16, 2012
Exactly, every action anyone takes against GM in the name of Saab will only make things worse!
bpsorrel said on February 16, 2012
I do hope the slightly more “hot headed” amongst us heed these words, at least ’till the deal is done!
RS said on February 16, 2012
Do not completely agree with you there Tim. The trick is to put the right amount of pressure.
No pressure and nothing would ever move or get done. Otherwise it’s just to easy for the other party to ignore you.
BTW applies to every aspect in life
guy davidson said on February 17, 2012
In America we have become afraid to be ” not politically correct”.. personally I consider that a weakening of a fundamental american strength… however in this case – yes – some pressure is a good thing…lest GM think they are ” politically correct” Sad state I know.
Angelo V. said on February 16, 2012
Please. General Motors won’t decide to NOT grant licenses because they’re mad at Saab fans posting on Facebook. I don’t think they will make a decision out of spite. I don’t think the FB postings will push them one way or the other—-but if anything, being blasted on Facebook and elsewhere might serve the purpose of softening their position because they see a public relations disaster coming. Folks, keep posting. Let them know how you feel.
davidgmills said on February 16, 2012
GM is apparently the wrong party. Not to surprising. It is what I have been saying all along — Wall Street controls GM — not even the US government who owns 30 % of GM stock. The news on national television this morning was that GM just made 7 billion last quarter and Wall Street has its panties in a wad because Wall street expected GM to make more.
GM made 7 billion (after suffering a 1.3 billion loss on Opel last quarter) and that gods of Wall Street are upset and want retribution. 7 billion is not enough. GM has to cut out pensions now or Wall Street will not be assuaged.
When are we going to stop blaming the companies, both workers and management, who have to bow down to Wall Street or get a screw job if they don’t? When? GM’s stock is going down because the gods of Wall Street are not happy.
I hate Wall Street. It is killing the USA and taking down the rest of the world with it.
Angelo V. said on February 16, 2012
David: If you are a believer in GM, you can go online and purchase as many shares of GM as you can afford to buy. Wall Street likes making money. Wall Street rewards profits—but they also forecast the future, based on fundamentals, history, competition, etc. If GM stock goes down, it’s because collectively, investors see through the facade of “record profits” and recognize what many of us do—-GM has been propped up to succeed in the short term. Maybe Wall Street wants some assurance that this isn’t a ridiculous euphoria, but a real change of how GM approaches their business, in the U.S. and around the world. Maybe they aren’t convinced. Wall Street isn’t doing anything that we don’t enable them to do. Instead of hating them, try to capitalize by investing in low cost, well managed mutual funds or ETFs—-or buy stock in a company you believe in. For my part, that company wouldn’t be GM. I’ve already lost a bundle on them—-as a shareholder, I was screwed when they went bankrupt. The bailout seemed to reward everyone except us shareholders. Fooled me once, shame on them…fooled me twice? No. I’m doing pretty well with my Ford stock.
Angelo V. said on February 16, 2012
Also, I don’t know for sure if this is true or not—-but I heard on the radio today that as part of the bailout of Government Moochers (GM), they will not have to pay federal corporate taxes for 10 years (I assume starting in 2009). So they make “record profits” and don’t have to pay taxes? Wow, what a deal, huh?
ivo 71 said on February 16, 2012
@ David: do check your figures before posting.
Actually, GM reported a net profit of 7.6 billion USD (8.3 billion EBIT-adjusted, pre-tax and pre-interest) over the whole of 2011.
Contrary to what you write, GM Europe (Opel and Vauxhall) didn’t lose 1.3 billion but ‘only’ 0,7 billion (EBIT-adjusted) over 2011. That was actually not so bad, given the 0.2 billion of restructuring costs in 2011 and compared to the 2.0 billion loss over 2010. But still bad enough.
Ivo
Angelo V. said on February 17, 2012
GM still owes U.S. taxpayers 20 billion dollars. That was reported on ABC radio tonight.
davidgmills said on February 19, 2012
You don’t get why I hate Wall Street. Wall Street always has been about profit now, not long term. Wall Street drives short term thinking. And that is why so many companies are where they are today — short term thinking to satisfy the gods of Wall Street. GM is just one of thousands. Wall Street does lots of things we don’t want them to. I don’t know why you would think otherwise. They are corrupt as all get out. They are criminal. So why would you ever think they do what we want them to? The do what they can get away with and when you have that kind of money to buy the government, you can get away with a lot. I invest but I don’t trust the bastards any farther than I can throw them. I invest because it is the only game in town.
Turbo_Charged said on February 16, 2012
You clearly know this for certain. I assume then you have a direct line into GM. Please advise on what then would be the appropriate course of action – other than give up and leave it to fate.
Turbo_Charged said on February 16, 2012
TimR
You clearly know this for certain. I assume then you have a direct line into GM. Please advise on what then would be the appropriate course of action – other than give up and leave it to fate.
Turbo_Charged said on February 16, 2012
Above comment addressed to TimR
Turbo_Charged said on February 17, 2012
…but at present, I completely disagree with the concept of not pressuring GM. The need to understand the public mood.
metalhead said on February 16, 2012
Great, hoping it’s both M/M and Brightwell.
DanSaab said on February 16, 2012
James Cain seems not to be updated at all like you said in the end of the article…
And thank you for clarification about yesterday’s news about Mahindra and their intrest
Red J said on February 16, 2012
Mr. Cain has to talk the official talk. And the experience from 2009 shows that GM will deny everything till its a signed binding contract.
Carlo A said on February 16, 2012
James is in fact know all over Detroit as “Mr No” ….. once he has been able to deny that he breathes…
Anyhow it sounds promising …. maybe they just trying to get a “stake” also in the new SAAB
terry9000k said on February 16, 2012
GM supplies tech & IP, but PLEASE NO STAKE.
Any ‘new Saab’ should be GM free within a short time frame, say 5 years MAX.
Rune said on February 16, 2012
If they are able to get everything sorted and start production of the 9-5 SportCombi… Then I demand to know who to thank so I can name my first born after them.
Just a thought.
Fingers crossed and all that.
Cokeisit said on February 16, 2012
Maybe you have to name him James… James Cains may be so tired of Swedish reporters calling him all the time and asking questions about Saab that he has demanded that the people in charge at GM to find a solution
David-SAAB said on February 16, 2012
Griffin is a great name!
edeck said on February 16, 2012
I named my Chocolate Lab Griffin
spgeorge said on February 16, 2012
My wife agreed to Griffin as a middle name if we have a son.
terry9000k said on February 16, 2012
Let’s hope it not a Girl, or a puppy called James or just Cain would be OK>
ivo 71 said on February 16, 2012
Just don’t call him Abel.
Ivo
Rune said on February 16, 2012
I will try my best to avoid that particular temptation.
Bravada from GMI said on February 16, 2012
I do hope it’s not Brightwell, but rather Mahindra, and the “talks” don’t consist of “no”, and do concern continued production of Saab automobiles as they are (YS3F, YS3G, 3G0F)
Red J said on February 16, 2012
I think it would also be OK if they can only build the YS3F, and YS3G and start pimping the XIV 2
Alan Tsao said on February 16, 2012
I think that the talking must include Brightwell when it has been talking all the time.
Pedro said on February 16, 2012
Same here, Bravada. It all depends on how GM assesses a threat to its strategic interests which was the issue with the Chinese companies.
Cokeisit said on February 16, 2012
This is really good news!
Can it be so that my black beauty will be built after all?
xelav said on February 16, 2012
Mr Cain is de-icing his, well , you know. Good news, perhaps à deal about engine delivery with BMW and GM ? One hand washes the other. Or was it the silver propeller?
Alan Tsao said on February 16, 2012
Good news
Palandi said on February 16, 2012
at least some piece of good news… hooray!
(but let’s wait until it ends and a formal agreement is announced)
dave said on February 16, 2012
Well that’s good…I’m trying to avoid much enthusiasm though …We’ve been disappointed many times before.
M.A. said on February 16, 2012
Good news indeed but must be taken cautiously.
This morning I saw a brand new 9-5 and I said to myself that this car most survive. Let’s wait for the outcome of these talks.
Daniel B said on February 16, 2012
+1
I cannot agree more!
I´had an Aero TTiD for a couple of days this week, and it´s the best car I´ve ever driven. Compared to the A6, V70, V60, 5-series we have at the company the 9-5 was a DREAM to drive!
I need a 9-5 SC next year BAD, when it´s time to change my company car!!
Angelo V. said on February 16, 2012
+ another one
Jake said on February 16, 2012
Oh thank god… My only reaction right now. My wish is for more than 497 9-4Xs and more than ~10,000 9-5s to be made… I want to see some more on the road! They’re all too rare at the moment.
DanSaab said on February 16, 2012
+1
Mike Baughan said on February 17, 2012
+100
guy davidson said on February 17, 2012
Bought a 94x three months ago and have YET to see another one on the road…
Jake said on February 18, 2012
I’ve only seen one on the road, but I’ve seen a surprisingly large amount of 2011 9-3s and 9-3Xs (recognized by the rear badges) even though the number of 9-5 sightings is relatively low…
m!ko said on February 16, 2012
Tim, respect for confirming in two sources, thats a good quality of given information
David-SAAB said on February 16, 2012
Cain says exactly what he is told to say. For whatever reason GM were simply not prepared to confirm discussions with prospective suitors. This could mean the acquisition process has also moved a few steps closer.
Tilley said on February 16, 2012
Or, have true discussions only just started? Whatever, if two reliable sources say they’re on that”s a great thing.
MariusGTV said on February 16, 2012
We know GM are talking but it’s what they are saying that is important.
Griffin Up! Cuore Sportivo!
SaabKen said on February 16, 2012
My thoughts exactly !!
Vagabond said on February 16, 2012
Salaam Saab. Breaking! Breaking! First Post.com is reporting that Pawan Goenka head of M&M’s auto division is saying some positive things about a Saab acquisition.
Ralph said on February 16, 2012
http://www.firstpost.com/videos/is-bankrupt-saab-as-good-a-buy-as-ssangyong-for-mahindra-215453.html
GerritN said on February 16, 2012
All the right noises; Incorporate Saab R&D, take over distribution network. What I didn’t hear was whether production stays in Trollhattan.
Bréanainn said on February 16, 2012
Good news ! Lets hope !! & SAAB gets a company to make SAAB…. SAAB again.
Olav said on February 16, 2012
If this is true it is off course great news! That said I think I will hold back the firework a little bit until those discussions are verified and agreement signed. There has been so many ups and downs lately that I’m almost out of fireworks
Keeping calm and carrying on (at least trying…..)
DanSaab said on February 16, 2012
Saab 900 classic and Saab PhoeniX = 100% GM free!!!
Kimberly said on February 16, 2012
Saab 900 Classic and even Saab 900NG/original 9-3 would equate to a car that can’t be sold in any nation that utilizes standardized crash testing. The cars are unsafe by modern standards.
daniel_t said on February 17, 2012
I am unsure as to what you are predicating this on. Side impact airbags are addenda to the structural cage. Somehow, the 99/900 which had the reputation as the strongest cars Saab ever built doesn’t quite add up to failing modern standards. Most of the time the standards change to protect pedestrians etc. I guess all I am trying to say is that nothing gets my goat more than blanket statements without supporting facts. I am not contesting the new 900 because it was obvious from both crash test video and examination of the car in the junk yard that it wasn’t built to the same structural qualifications. In addition personal testimony of one of the top rally drivers in America explained that classic 900′s didn’t require additional reinforcing and if they did, the failure mode would not spread. The same driver said that the new cars were practically impossible to reinforce because the failure would digress further down the path. In other words the finite element analysis was so carefully calculated out, that the ng900 was virtually impossible to reinforce. I like the odds in a 900 over most new cars for sure. But I guess nanny cars are in vogue
Turbo9000 said on February 17, 2012
How about the 9000 ?
daniel_t said on February 17, 2012
My viewpoint on the 9000 is that Saab’s engineers probably wouldn’t have made some of the design decisions on that car if it were a solo only car. In other words joint projects always force design compromises. In looking at the car from a strict sheet metal view point, the shapes and curves were less complex. Which would you want to rally on gravel roads in? Saab was always playing iterative leap frog, i.e. behind in engines, bring in the ford v4, refining of the recardo engine compromise with Triumph etc, but ahead in chassis. With the 9000, less emphasis on strict strength or rallying, more towards style of the time, and more emphasis on engine development, i.e. Trionic etc. I also believe that the 9000 was a move towards more “modern” i.e cheaper to actually assemble, cars where the assembly procedures drove more design considerations. I think that this assessment is borne out in the total sales of each model that Saab produced. There are many lessons to be learned from how Saab was managed from the early 70′s through up to the g.m acquisition. If you want to become the largest volume producer of cars in the world, accountants rule the equation. i.e rubber timing chains. One then employs many people schooled in the art of seducing people into thinking that the cars put the cat out at night. If you want to become the best car at x__ in the world, one has to invest heavily in that. Up until 2000, and the release of the SVCC prototype, the Trionic systems, seemed as though they were passionate about the marketing and explaining of advanced combustion and propulsion concepts. This was exciting. After the cost cutting purges and the back and forth between Trollhattan and Russelheim, this became less of a focus, less publicized. In house engine design took a back seat. After Michael Mauer left, the writing was on the wall.
ivo 71 said on February 19, 2012
You do know that the 9000 was so expensive -and therefore not a runaway sales succes- because it was also very expensive to build? And, for that reason, probably the main reason Saab was sold to GM? Also, that the 9000 has a metal timing chain (and a ditto balance chain as well)?
Ivo
Angelo V. said on February 16, 2012
I know everyone is upset over all that has gone on with Saab. But look on the bright side: If none of this ever happened, we wouldn’t have gotten to know the now famous James Cain and Guy Lofalk.
Toby K said on February 16, 2012
He doesn’t breathe.
Jim Cain died years ago, he’s an automaton now being worked from the inside by a line Robot, kind of the automotive version of Darth Vader, that said, problem is when he says “no” he really means it, and he’s in charge so I’m still fairly certain given all the history that basically it means “no”-unless there is some mini GM mutiny afoot for the greater good?
Angelo V. said on February 16, 2012
Toby: You should be writing a screen play on this. I like where you’re going with the theme. I just wonder how you’re going to write the ending.
Boby said on February 16, 2012
Meanwhile GM declares profit of $7.6 billion for 2011. So probably they are doing something right in their business. Too bad they are too greedy to let Saab loose…
Hans H said on February 16, 2012
That is probably the exact sum that Opel is showing as a loss.
GM is doing it again.
This time with Opel which is apparently showing a huge negative result (and is perhaps in danger of getting sold to some very small supercar manufacturer).
I don’t think GM is doing something right, they are just doing something.
CoolCombi said on February 16, 2012
GM is into the U.S. taxpayers for a hefty sum still. They haven’t paid back all their loans from being bailed out.
Angelo V. said on February 16, 2012
They were very good at begging like the homeless for a bailout, which they were promptly gifted. They’ve been granted an “edge” and they’re coasting on that. There are problems with them worldwide, so I think the “record profits” facade will be exposed in due time. I heard that their rank and file are getting $7000.00 profit sharing bonus checks due to the big profits. I find that disgusting. There are millions upon millions of Americans who are struggling financially, out of work, having their homes foreclosed on—-and here, a huge corporation who still owes our government billions of dollars are paying employees $7000.00 that they’re aren’t obligated to. I wish the “loan” agreement would have prohibited executive and rank-and-file bonuses to ANYONE until every penny of that loan was paid back to the government. What an unjust mess.
mnztr said on February 17, 2012
It is very easy to make 7.6B in the auto business when your R&D and factories are only on the books for about 10% of the cost as a result of writedowns. How GM is doing will only be clear when they have to completely retool their factories and go through a new product cycle…. maybe 4-8 years form now. Plus 50B in free govt money is also nice. I think personally the govt should have demanded preferred shares that pay it 10% of GM profit until the loan was paid of at which point they convert to common shares…also the bondholders got royally screwed and I expect more lawsuits on that front. They should be compensated as deal that was rammed down the throats of bond holders does permenant damage to the capital structure of the world that you are seeing now.
Eric said on February 16, 2012
This is great news, thank you for sharing Tim. When I drove the 2009 loaner Honda Accord from my dealer last week I missed my Saab so much, so sad to think that Honda can churn out boring cars and be so popular when Saab built fun, save, beautiful cars and struggled to sell 300 cars a month in 2011 in the USA.
RS said on February 16, 2012
It’s interesting what actually promoting your product will do to your sales… It either got be either on merit or image.
What a shame so many journalists turned on Saab just because they’ve used GM platforms. No one seems to care that most others use Ford which I believe is inferior in many ways.
Or what is so hot about a VAG car if a Saab tuned Epsilon drives better? It must be the emblem.
Quijote said on February 16, 2012
I’ll believe it when I see it.
Aero1 said on February 16, 2012
GM is probably rethinking their actions previously may lead to several Class Acttion lawsuits: Dealers, Warranty, the fact they will be held accountable for making parts for the very cars they say they are not responsible for.
Their best interest will be to work out a deal that will, not only make a profit(s), but will potentially save them from losing profit(s)!
pekko a said on February 16, 2012
I cant understand why this information is leaked and posted to site. Latest information from receivers are taht deal is ready by end of this month. Everybody eagarly waita for good news but why to risk negotiations by not waiting good news for 2 weeks. Hopefully gm wont get pissed of by leaks as they pissed of by guy lofalks manouvers. Or maybe su crew has got confirmation that this information can be leaked, who knows.
RS said on February 17, 2012
“Slight” difference. Negotiations and making threats are not the same.
How can you say SU was somehow responsible for upsetting GM when the guy himself was sitting across the table delivering the message.
DUTCH900C said on February 16, 2012
At last is GM talking! It would be time for that!
Perhaps they have seen “the light” because other contries and companies don’t like GM more as they did before?
GerritN said on February 16, 2012
Hahaha, Lol. you kidding right? You don’t really believe that GM cares about not being liked by a couple of countries with less people than GM is producing cars per year. The only thing which really would hurt GM is when China is tightening the rules on foreign car makers making a profit over their Chinese counterparts backs.
DUTCH900C said on February 16, 2012
A few weks ago i heard China more or les would block GM, so perhaps that have changed the thougts by GM and that was what i ment earlier today.
Angelo V. said on February 16, 2012
Agreed. At this point in time, GM needs China as much or more than China needs GM. I’d be very surprised if China (top down government control) wouldn’t try to help Youngman. Yes, I know that other Chinese companies could lose if Youngman wins—-but keep it in context—-China’s government views it as more is better—–as long as a Chinese company is being helped, it’s good for China. The fact that GM could block progress for Youngman is something the Chinese leadership should be very concerned about. Dutch—-you might be right that some high ranking officials in China turned the screws to GM a little bit.
BMW Rider said on February 16, 2012
I know GM isn’t popular around here but any restart of Saab short of MB or VW etc buying them would have a much better chance of success with GM in the short term than without them. The current line up wasn’t bad, some evolutionary tweaks year-to-year on the already nice 9-4 and 9-5 and an interim update of the 9-3′s interior, especially the infotainment, could have carried them into 12 and 13 (now 14 I guess) till a new 9-3 came along. By then you have an major update of the 9-4 and 5, maybe away from GM or if it is a good marriage maybe with.
Allan B said on February 17, 2012
I like the cut of your jib, sailor. Sensible observations. Sticking with GM for as long as necessary could be the way forward if indeed they are in talks.
Belfast_Saab said on February 18, 2012
Some sense in the GM argument, we may have to be pragmatic and rely on some cooperation from GM to see Saab have a real chance of evolving into a GM free company.
Paddan said on February 16, 2012
I guess I never understood why there couldn’t be an agreement developed to restrict the production of vehicles using GM’s IP in China or other countries of concern to GM. Why GM would just turn off the spigot is beyond me if it was able to recoup money from licensing agreements (and which would help pay back the US and Canadian governments for the bailout loans). Certainly, Saab doesn’t produce many vehicles compared to GM and there is little to no overlap in the customers of the respective manufacturers. How many people who are interested in a Buick or Cadillac would want a Saab or visa versa? The brands are apples and oranges. There is nothing but upside to GM if a financially able company buys Saab and licenses GM’s IP even for a finite time until PhoeniX is ready. So, I hope that GM is indeed talking to some entity about this possibility and is not overly restrictive.
Bravada from GMI said on February 16, 2012
The only logical answer (and logic is rarely involved when GM is concerned, but anyway) is that they wanted VM out of the picture, even at the price of bankrupting Saab (they had probably not received any Saab-related revenues for months before this decision).
Paddan said on February 17, 2012
I understand that GM owed Saab USA $25m. I wonder who owed what first. GM or SWAN.
Paddan said on February 17, 2012
Ps that was for warranty claims.
xelav said on February 16, 2012
I hope it’s not: talk to the hand. And tomorrow the govermental people come to thn and proudly anounce the new owner of Saab : Kate!
MrTinkertrain said on February 16, 2012
things are getting clearer:
http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/261363/
Angelo V. said on February 16, 2012
Ominous.
OliverH said on February 17, 2012
Than you have to position the brand ($$) and you’ve to separate customers by separating locations of normal Opel and premium customers.
Opel wasn’t able to get face to face with VW and now they would like to get compared to MB/ BMW?
I see the money draining and the tears in the end while failing – good luck.
mnztr said on February 16, 2012
no one forgot to tell Mr. Cain, they were no able to tell him because these conversations are typically held under NDA’s. Of course GM will talk. It is possible Mahindra or Brightwell can offer GM paths into new markets and opportunities for co-operation. Additionally there may be ways to license product without risk of IP theft which would add more $$ to the bottom line.
CSD_ChineseSaabDriver said on February 16, 2012
Of course James Cain knows what is going on about the talks, there is simply no talks meaning a damn in the end at all.
100%Saab said on February 17, 2012
CNN web-post 2/16/2012:
Even some critics of the bailout agree. Bill Wilson, the head of Americans for Limited Government, calls Romney’s argument of private funding a “fantasy.”
Where Wilson agrees with Romney is his belief that the United Auto Workers union and its members were protected far more than they would have been in a normal bankruptcy process. He argues that was wrong, and says neither union nor management employees should be getting profit-sharing bonuses until the government gets all its money back.
“This company(GM) only exists because of the United States taxpayers,” he said. “The taxpayers should be repaid first.”
I don’t hear anybody suggesting the US taxpayer should be helping Saab. It’s an attitude I don’t expect to change.
Where was the Swedish Government when Saab needed it?
Angelo V. said on February 17, 2012
Taxes were used to repay campaign support. It’s disgusting. It’s nothing new—happens on both sides—-but it’s still disgusting.
mnztr said on February 17, 2012
The Swedish govt was too busy helping SAAB AG sell weapons to foreign countries to help with the car business.
dcpattie said on February 17, 2012
Saab’s “right-sizing” philosophy regarding engine size could do well in this market. The new 2.0T found in the 2012 328i gets 24 city, 36 HWY…that’s BETTER mileage than the 2011 335D (diesel). Also, it runs mid-5′s from 0-60. A dyno test by edmunds revealed that the motor likely makes around around 270 HP. Of course, BMW has a new 8-speed tranny.
IIRC, didn’t saab have a deal with ZF to make 7-speed dual clutch transmissions in Sweden (about 1-year ago)? In a perfect world, all Saab’s with the 2.0 motor would crank out 260 hp/ 295 Ft-lbs to a new 7-speed tranny. I think Saab could get similar fuel economy numbers (compared to BMW).
Red J said on February 17, 2012
Hi,
yes it had a contract with ZF, but NO it was not about transmissions.
http://www.saabsunited.com/2011/03/press-release-saab-automobile-signs-innovative-supply-agreement-with-zf-chassis-systems.html
xelav said on February 18, 2012
Where the fuck is everbody? Missing you guys! Really no news?
CSD_ChineseSaabDriver said on February 18, 2012
Is there actually any new bid except that of YM?