More on the Turkish Delight!

 

Skärmavbild 2015-10-22 kl. 07.53.09

Photo credit AA

It used to be that SU was exclusively informed by the management by both SAAB Automobile, SWAN, and to some extent NEVS. Now we read about the possible future in Road & Track magazine and the turkish newspaper Hürriyet Daily News.

– Mr. Fikri Isik Turkish Minister of Science industry and Technology says that new car shall consist of at least 85% parts produced in Turkey. Their goal is to have extended range environmental friendly vehicles.

“All of its intellectual property rights will be Turkey’s. That’s what we mean by national,” “We bought the Saab 9-3’s intellectual property rights, but not its name,”  Işık stated

– The car will have the Cadillac BLS front design and come in sedan/saloon only and without the SAAB name.The deal was settled way back in May and NEVS has shown 3 prototype cars

According to Hürriet News there has been some hiccups on the deliveries of the prototypes. NEVS failed to deliver the Phoenix Prototypes on time and the electric car did not function properly. On may 29th TUBITAK demanded improvements on the prototypes. The only functioning prototype was the gasoline powered car. The turkish paper also mention a SUV prototype that was not delivered at all.

From the picture it looks like the prototypes has a radiator that indicates that the car might have a  petrol or diesel engine. Is that what the turks means with extended range? Another interesting question is the safety of the car. We all know that the 9-3 does not fulfill the latest safety standards for car manufactured in europe. The hood/bonnet sits to close to the engine parts and is a hazard for pedestrians. Do they have other safety regulations in Turkey? We know that NEVS built at least one prototype with a higher hood with exploding / lifting mechanism.

Great to see that at least some engineers in Trollhättan has the chance to collaborate with the turkish counterpart and we will see what name the car will be given by the turks.

Earlier this week the Brazilian President Dilma Rouseff visited Sweden as part of her nations purchase of SAAB Gripen Fighters. A big debate has been sparked on whether this sale is so good for Sweden since it consists of a lot of “giving away” of knowledge and IP (intellectual property). I hope that this is not the case with the NEVS business with the turks. But in most agreements between equal technological developed nations both parties will benefit each other with knowledge not necessarily just in monetary terms. Dealing with a counterpart with a lower technological advancement, there is always a risk that one gives away technology that was taken many years of hard labour and investment away almost for free,

Skärmavbild 2015-10-22 kl. 08.32.49

Photo Credit AA “Personally I have a hard time understanding why the even bother to put camo on a car that is not new in any way looks pretty “stupid” better having the car plain and neutral nobody would recognize it. Where do You best hide a tree? In the forest of course!

Troels, Denmark
Member
11 months 2 days ago

I have always thought that the Cadillac-front on a Saab is a brutal design-crime. This clumsy front has nothing to do with the elegant through-going lines of a Saab.
Regarding the technology, Saab never got enough out of their innovations which are now existing in most cars. Nevs should learn from that and protect good ideas better in the future. Hopefully they will get some kind of Royalty for parts of the 9-3-tech that will later be manufactured in Turkey.

Angelo V.
Member
11 months 2 days ago

It’s horrible. It reminds me of the Cadillac Catera—-when they took a decent looking Opel and grafted a Cadillac front end on that—-laughable. This is, if anything, perhaps worse. “Design Crime” is a fantastic way of putting it. That said—-at least there’s some activity.

hughw
Member
11 months 2 days ago

” NEVS failed to deliver the Phoenix Prototypes on time and the electric car did not function properly.”

Why does this not surprise us? Have they ever delivered anything on time and functioning properly? And what’s that about Phoenix? The article talks about 9-3 IP. Phoenix isn’t part of that, is it?

maanders
Member
11 months 2 days ago

Yes, I thought the Phoenix platform was what came “next” and not the existing 9-3 platform. So, yes, we knew that NEVS was working on a full electric prototype based on the last available 9-3 (that was demoed in Sweden a while back), but the Phoenix platform was the future. Has that now been sold also?

Avelik
Member
11 months 2 days ago

The Hurriet article states “prototypes called Phoenix”. The article is supposedly based on some Turkish documents they found access to. I wouldn’t hurry with jumping to conclusions, but I guess if the turks had acquired access to the Phoenix they would state or at least hint in some way that they have such access. Instead, they say their plans are to build cars around the 9-3 technology.

Jacko
Member
11 months 1 day ago

It says Phoenix…

saabplanet.com/the-first-three-saab-prototypes-for-turkish-national-car-cost-the-40-million-euros/

Avelik
Member
11 months 1 day ago
It says prototypes called Phoenix. If you look at the documents, they list sedan EV, sedan EREV, wagon ICE and cross over wagon EREV (not SUV, as stated in the Hurriet article). From this it is easy to conclude we are talking about different body styles of the current 9-3 – sedan, wagon and turbo x wagon. Besides, from the description of the problems with the EV sedan, we see that this is the EV prototype NEVS presented last year. It lacks management systems, comprehensive instrumentation systems and so on, exactly the way it was seen by everyone who test… Read more »
Jacko
Member
11 months 1 day ago

Well, I still don’t get why they call it Phoenix if it’s old 9-3 platform?
What about actual Phoenix platform they own? They’re gonna rename it or still call it Phoenix? Strange and confusing.
Too bad NEVS is not willing to talk with anybody about it, I’ve sent them an e-mail sometime ago asking when can we expect some new cars under Saab brand to be available but been told to keep eye on their website, that’s it.

Angelo V.
Member
11 months 1 day ago
Jacko: They’re not willing to speak broadly about anything. From day one, these people have been silent when they should have been drumming up interest and enthusiasm about their plans with the brand. It’s been a hoax—-a ridiculous hoax, bordering on a scam. They don’t talk because they have nothing to say. They don’t have anything to say because they don’t have a clue what they are doing in the context of building Saabs. Their plan has changed because it was a pitiful plan to begin with and perhaps not even a real one, but a fake, “stated” plan to… Read more »
Avelik
Member
11 months 1 day ago

I remember reading on some of the other Saab blogs (think it was Saabtala) that the Phoenix platform could get a new name. From the articles posted in the comments and the documents about the prototypes I get the feeling NEVS is referring to the 9-3 platform as Phoenix 1 and maybe the Phoenix platform will be called Phoenix 2. But all of this is just my guesswork.

saabtec
Member
11 months 2 days ago

For clarification, does this mean that NEVS has no platforms of their own now? It sounds like they sold the 9-3 all together, and the Phoenix platform. Does it really portray that the now have no vehicle of their own whatsoever?

Avelik
Member
11 months 2 days ago

Highly unlikely. It wouldn’t make sense for them to sell the Phoenix because they have own plans for it and their partnership with Dongfeng is largely based on the Phoenix. License? Might be. Sell? Wouldn’t say.

jond
Member
11 months 2 days ago
This is immensely depressing and actually rather embarrassing. It reads as though NEVS have so far been unable satisfactorily to develop the Phoenix platform and their initial efforts at an EV have met with disaster. So they now sell off all they have left, the 9-3 IP. They have also carelessly lost the rights to the name along the way. The only thing left of Saab Motors seems to be the name above the factory. No wonder that they don’t want to talk about all of this on a website. Perhaps it is about time that some other industrial group… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
11 months 2 days ago

Well said, Jond. Bravo to you. That factory will end up being a warehouse if nothing is done soon to attract a company that knows how to design and build cars—-to take this off of NEVS hands. My hope is that NEVS won’t pay taxes and they’ll lose the factory.

Jacko
Member
11 months 2 days ago

I don’t get it. If that Turkish national car is based on old 9-3 platform why these documents below say Phoenix?

http://www.saabplanet.com/the-first-three-saab-prototypes-for-turkish-national-car-cost-the-40-million-euros/

Paul Willis
Member
11 months 2 days ago

Now I am really confused. Didn’t BAIC purchase at least licensing rights to the 9-3 awhile back, and actually starting producing models on that platform? How can this Turkish firm then say that it has purchased the intellectual rights to the 9-3? Maybe they can then continue the licensing arrangement to BAIC (which they may have been contractually tied to in the purchase) while they develop their own models on the platform.

Avelik
Member
11 months 2 days ago

BAIC bought the rights to the first generation 9-5 and the pre-facelifted 9-3. NEVS owns/owned the 9-3 in the way it was in the moment of the bankruptcy (so everything done with the model in the meantime) . So Tubitak bought that. An interesting question is if they bought, meaning wholly own the platform, or only licensed it, which would mean NEVS still could use it for something.

Paul Willis
Member
11 months 2 days ago
Well, here is an article that answers my questions: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkeys-national-car-deal-enables-chinese-company-to-pay-all-debts-open-new-plant-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=90206&NewsCatID=345 NEVS got 40 million Euros out of the deal (and will likely make more helping with development), but says it retained the rights to the 9-3 and Phoenix platform for Sweden and China, and the Turkish firm only got the rights (or license) to produce in Turkey. NEVS’ Mikael Ostlund is quoted as saying that NEVS still plans to produce its own cars on the Phoenix platform, but does state that it is [still] not clear if they will be able to use the Saab brand, noting that SAAB AB… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
11 months 1 day ago

I don’t want NEVS making a Saab. I want a good Saab or no Saab. They’re incapable of a good one and the reason the timeline is never discussed by Ostlund or anyone else is because it’s a pipe dream—–there aren’t plans, only dreams. We’ve had enough of that.

Avelik
Member
11 months 1 day ago

Reading this articles and documents I get the feeling NEVS started to refer to the 9-3 platform as Phoenix 1. Maybe it is to differentiate it from everything else done on the Epsilon 1. This way what we know as Phoenix platform maybe will be Phoenix 2 or something completely different.

Angelo V.
Member
11 months 7 hours ago

But does that platform have anything to do with the Phoenix platform? If not, couldn’t they have differentiated it by saying the NEVS 9-3 or something along those lines? Why create more confusion by using the already established name for a platform for cars of the future by tying it back to the 9-3? If I understand it correctly then, “Phoenix One would have absolutely nothing to do with Phoenix 2, except the name Phoenix? I swear, these people.

SpinM
Member
11 months 2 days ago
I won’t pretend, I know much about licencing rights to 9-3 IP and Phoenix, because I don’t. In fact I really don’t want to bother with that much more. Even so, as a Saab fan and a proud owner of a 9-3, I find this developments with NEVS rather disturbing. This guys never cared much for a fan base, never shared any meaningful information and proved time and again they are not up to the challenge. Now they act in a way as liquidators – they are selling whatever they can to whomever they can. I understand it makes sense… Read more »
lucaSAAB
Member
11 months 2 days ago

Well said!
Let the name SAAB away from this shame…

Jesse Crandle
Member
11 months 2 days ago
The body of a Saab with the grill of a Cadillac and the tail lights of a E46 BMW. How tacky. You know, I thought the Chinese were buying into NEVS for some kind of design background or engineering skills, but now they’ve sold off all their IP? This can really only go one of two ways, start from scratch, or use some kind of Chinese platform. Either way that pushes real cars off the table for the next 8 years… I wish I was as rich as the people who own and invest in NEVS. It must be really… Read more »
Avelik
Member
11 months 2 days ago

We don’t have anything that says NEVS sold all of their IP. Just a sentence claiming they have not delivered a prototype called Phoenix in no way means they have sold all of their tech. Let us not make ‘news’ out of nothing.

Jesse Crandle
Member
11 months 2 days ago

I suppose your right, but I can definitely say they sold all of their IP that can be used to make a real viable vehicle. That is true.

Avelik
Member
11 months 1 day ago

The 9-3 is the only thing they could produce (relatively) immediately. But its history showed it is not very viable in the marketplace.

Angelo V.
Member
11 months 1 day ago
Avelik: Your opinion, please: Tim had stated many times how my idea to come back quickly with the 9-3 line, decontented, with lower sticker price—-wasn’t feasible at all because the 9-3 was “too expensive to build”—-expensive to the point of being so far out of line with more modern designs, it could never be cost-competitive or have a price reduction. His point wasn’t about Swedish labor costs, but about the design of the car itself, internal systems, etc. My question is this: If that’s true—-that the car would be cost-prohibitive to build again and drop the price a few thousand… Read more »
Avelik
Member
11 months 1 day ago
The problem with the cost of the 9-3 model is connected to two things – the production cost and the level of investment in re-engineering. The production cost depends on the volume, the level of engineering, who your suppliers are and so on, but mainly on the volume. The intended production volume for the 9-3 was low, which means the price to make it was high and the price of the car was also high. Besides, Nevs did not intend to make serious changes to the model because for them it was a stopgap measure until the new generation of… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
11 months 1 day ago
That sounds reasonable. I don’t want to put words in Tim’s mouth or speak for him—-but I recall his comments being more about how the 9-3 was designed—that compared to newer cars, it was expensive to assemble. I didn’t think those comments were based on volume, but more specifically about the 9-3 itself being a costly platform that was antiquated—-and more expensive to produce because newer cars have the means to be put together faster and cheaper. Again, I don’t know the particulars, but I don’t think he was focused on labor cost or production numbers—-but the platform itself. As… Read more »
Avelik
Member
11 months 1 day ago
Well, the two things are connected. As far as I remember, the model is complicated to make because it has a lot of parts and probably this affects the building process, making it more complicated. Bigger volume is not going to make it easier to build, but can make every part cheaper, making the whole cheaper. Of course there are limitations volume can’t overcome. As for NEVS, remember that the goal of the 9-3 was not to make it work. It was not there to reestablish the brand, to regain market share, to make profits. That would be a mission… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
11 months 19 hours ago

The most fleeting stop-gap measure ever taken by anyone!

Steve
Member
11 months 1 day ago

There’s been a lot said about this so called Phoenix platform but nothing has ever come from it. For all we know it could have amounted to not much at all, just a few drawings, mock ups and ideas.

Joe
Guest
11 months 7 hours ago

I’ve always said the “Phoenix Platform” should really be called the “Phantom Platform”. It’s only semi-tangible existence is in the minds of the delusional…consider it vaporware to build the IP value of a drowning company.

Mick E. Bice
Member
11 months 7 hours ago

One could also call it the Unicorn platform.

Avelik
Member
11 months 4 hours ago
So all the engineers who worked on it before the bankruptcy are delusional? They were obviously living under the impression they are developing a new 9-3 on it, but that was some common dream they were having, clearly. And the people from Leannova who openly declared they were working on the platform for Nevs (there were articles in Ttela), they are also delusional? Well, of course, they are pretty much the same engineers. And Frank Smit, who presented some of the features of the platform (another Ttela article), is also delusional? Of course, because he is working for Nevs and… Read more »
Jacko
Member
11 months 4 hours ago

Obviously they were going to develop new 9-3 on Phoenix platform but if they haven’t finished that job and Nevs owns partly done platform how can we expect Nevs is gonna succed? So far they miserably failed to deliver 4 cars for Turks – only 1 was in fully working condition. After 3 years of work. This is a joke and I hope they will never be allowed to use Saab name again.

Avelik
Member
11 months 1 hour ago

We currently are discussing the actuality of the existence of the Phoenix platform and not what will happen with it in the future. NEVS will be able to develop cars if they employ enough engineers and have financial stability. So far none of these has been present for long enough. They might never be present, or might be. This is something future will tell. Not you and me here.

Angelo V.
Member
11 months 2 hours ago
Avelik: People do work on vaporware. These solar companies in the U.S. burned through millions of dollars (seed money on the backs of taxpayers). They did hire people and people were working on development, design, prototypes, etc. But it never went anywhere and disappeared. Vaporware. Unless a car is actually built in mass production on Phoenix, it truly doesn’t exist in any real sense. It might exist on paper or even prototypes—–but until it’s actually being used for the purpose it was being developed for, there’s nothing there. And right now, with this gang running things, each day that goes… Read more »
Avelik
Member
11 months 1 hour ago
What you are saying makes no sense. It’s like saying a seed does not exist in a real sense until a tree grows from it. That’s nonsense. You can say the existence of a platform has no relation to your life until a car made on it reaches the market. But this has nothing to do with the real existence of a platform. The existence of the platform has REAL effect on many activities of the company, from business to product development, and the fact that you don’t care about these steps of the development, doesn’t make it not important.… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
10 months 30 days ago
Well it’s all speculation on my part and it’s somewhat enjoyable to share opinions among people who had an interest in the marque when the company was capable of achievement. It’s still current enough to wait for news that confirms what we believe. Just because you feel very confident of the outcome of an election, it doesn’t mean you stop talking about it and not vote. There’s still a process to watch and bantering about it is good fun. As for the platform—-I was speaking in theory. You’ve no doubt heard, if a tree falls in the woods and nobody… Read more »
Avelik
Member
10 months 30 days ago
It has not been a meaningless exercise and waste of money. Imagine there is a 10 storey building being built and some people are waiting for it to be ready so that they can buy apartments in it. For them the only thing that matters is that the building is finally built. If only a 5 storey structure is built for them it is the same as no building at all. But does this mean a 5 storey structure is the same as an empty plot of land? No. Because a 5 storey structure is much closer to a finished… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
10 months 30 days ago
Well I hope you are right that in the end, Phoenix will be more than just words and sketches. Let’s agree though: When Phoenix was first announced, it was a platform that was going to spawn a new group of Saab models. The idea was new Saabs for the markets that were selling Saabs at that point in time. So if Phoenix is someday completed but the mission has changed so much—-the MAJORITY of the markets that the products were originally intended for don’t even have Saab dealerships anymore—-and countries that didn’t even have Saabs back then will be the… Read more »
Avelik
Member
10 months 30 days ago
Every analogy is somewhat flawed, even the reflection in the mirror is not a perfect analogy, so to say. We are, as often happens, discussing different things. Originally, we were discussing if Phoenix is a real asset, because people were saying it has no meaningful existence. The Phoenix is a real asset and that was the point of my analogy – that you may not see the value, but it is there. But of course Phoenix is not an apartment building and you can’t see the progress. The company can’t present monthly progress reports, because the details of the platform… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
10 months 30 days ago

Yes, that makes sense. The work that has done on Phoenix thus far is an asset. So you are correct—-it’s an asset that’s worth something. I think the “vaporware” is addressing what will be done with that asset, which most of us feel will be zero—-and those of us who do expect something to come from Phoenix must live with the realization that it’s highly unlikely that we will share in the opportunity of buying one of these vehicles—-as we’ve been cast aside in our markets. Therein lies the frustration.

Paul Willis
Member
11 months 1 day ago
The news articles about the Turkish deal seem to be intertwining the 9-3 platform with references to Phoenix, or Phoenix 1, which is odd. Maybe they got a package deal, a license to build on the 9-3 architecture and also the rights to further develop a future model on the Phoenix platform. It’s hard to tell. But I think it is clear that NEVS has not divested itself of the actual rights to the 9-3 platform or Phoenix, and NEVS has stated that it retains the right to produce vehicles under those platforms in China and Sweden. What they have… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
11 months 19 hours ago
At this point, it really doesn’t matter if there’s no knight in shining armor to save Saab. I’ve seen enough of NEVS to know that and end to Saab cars is better than continuing the saga with them. That’s clear to me. They failed. You say you don’t know, realistically, who else could step in. Here’s the thing: NEVS isn’t real. This is a farce. If any of us ever believed in them to rally Saab back from the end of the Muller era, that’s all been put to rest. They aren’t capable of doing it and they won’t ever… Read more »
Mick E. Bice
Member
11 months 7 hours ago

+1

SteveW
Member
11 months 3 hours ago
Dear CVK Please negotiate with Saab AB to have exclusive use of the Saab brand for car production. If you started producing low volumes of something like the Aero- X with one of two of your innovative technologies incorporated it would sell out even off plan for sure. This would be a total win-win-win. For you better economies of scale for new tech, a training ground for new engineers, further exposure of the Koenigsegg brand with very low risk. For Saab AB a prestigous association that would enhance the Saab brand rather than destroy it. You never know they might… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
11 months 3 hours ago

No. If an affordable and appealing Saab can’t be built, then let’s not bother. And honestly, the last thing anyone needs is a second hand overpriced car that will absolutely kill the family budget with niggling problems and outrageously expensive parts and service. Saab was born as an affordable car and it died as an overpriced and overcomplicated car.

Avelik
Member
11 months 51 minutes ago
It’s unreasonable to suppose SAAB AB is going to license the brand to an entity which does not own the Trollhättan facilities – that’s where the roots of SAAB car manufacturing are. SAAB AB is said to attach great importance to the swedishness of the Saab cars and only place that can realistically guarantee this is the facility in THT. Realistically, no entity, Swedish or foreign, will create new center for Saab operations, so the party who owns the facility is the only one that could claim rights to use the brand. Currently that’s Nevs, you can’t go around them.… Read more »
Joe
Guest
10 months 30 days ago

I think it’s delusional for someone to believe SAAB AB will license the brand name. At this point (sadly) the brand value is so damaged, and the potential benefit so miniscule, to an on-going operation such as SAAB AB. I’m sorry guys, I just don’t see the risk/benefit ratio working.

Angelo V.
Member
10 months 30 days ago
Yes, the last 3 years have been pitiful. At least prior to that, it was a company making nice cars that got into financial trouble because the owner was a guppy in an ocean. They were too small and underfunded to compete and he was prevented from securing financing from Russia—-so it failed. After that, the brand was sold to a group that is embarrassing and in this case, no news has been horrible news. So Joe, it’s not only delusional for someone to believe that SAAB AB will license the brand name—-it’s also delusional, at this point, to believe… Read more »
SteveW
Member
10 months 30 days ago
This is why the Saab name in automotive terms needs a halo product for any reboot to be successful. The last 10 years or so need to be buried by making them irrelevant because the new product is so good that it transends this debacle. Lets be clear even established players like Ford are facing a perilous future with the coming competetion from Apple, Google, et al. A new ‘low rent’ car developed by a small start up and marketed two or three years from now will be so far behind the curve it will even make a 9-3 in… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
10 months 30 days ago
Steve: It’s an interesting debate for sure. Here is the problem: There simply aren’t enough people who want a Saab halo product AND could afford it. You’re talking about such a small fraction of the car buying public, it wouldn’t even be a blip—-it would be nothing. The volume would be so low, the automotive press wouldn’t even cover it. It would be a curiosity—-mentioned in passing in a paragraph and then forgotten. There’s just no demand for an $80,000 Saab. There are too many other choices. I maintain that an $80,000 Saab wouldn’t get enough attention from rich people… Read more »
SteveW
Member
10 months 30 days ago
Good points Angelo. Especially the last bit about non leading edge tech being readily available. Mulling all of this over reinforces my view that the Saab automotive brand would need to be developed into something desirable first. As you say Apple manufacture in China but the IP, USPs, design and quality standards are the core of the brand’s desirability and market strength. Other lessons to learn from Apple are the public visibilty of Intelligent and communicative leadership in their commercial and engineering divisions. An example of where the halo effect has worked in spades is BMW. The M3 allows them… Read more »
SteveW
Member
10 months 30 days ago

BTW To be honest I’m probably envisioning a $200k-$300k Saab in the very first instance rather than $80k. Something incredible and something that would actually make money on small small volumes. Something thats gorgeous but affordable to a certain type of buyer who would love to have even a small piece of Koenigsegg in the DNA of their car.but can’t afford $1m. Make it stunning, make it talked about, make everyone want a Saab in a way that would make a Beemer seem the most boring choice on earth when a Saab comes around thats in their price range.

Angelo V.
Member
10 months 29 days ago
“Other lessons to learn from Apple are the public visibilty of Intelligent and communicative leadership in their commercial and engineering divisions.” And basically, that’s the best argument I’ve ever heard for taking “Saab” away from NEVS right away. Get the name away from them. They didn’t know what to do with it and they’ve failed at building Saabs. End it for NEVS. As for your idea of a $300,000 Saab—-if it starts as that, it will probably stay there. I don’t think they’d ever come back with pedestrian sedans or hatchbacks after marketing a car that costs over a quarter… Read more »
SteveW
Member
10 months 29 days ago
You are so right Angelo, to succeed now a company now needs to build a community around their product, a community that just can’t wait for the next juicy live webinar and the chance to buy the next cool product. Thats one reason all automotive manufacturers need to up thier game if they are going to have a hope in hell of competing against Tech companies. Have you seen the stuff Swade is doing over at Ksegg, great articles and insight into the company. Stuff about tech, products and people. However even that’s short of Apple’s methods at teh moment… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
10 months 28 days ago

Sure—-and don’t forget that people who buy the expensive one would also love buying the affordable one for their kid going to college too.

SteveW
Member
10 months 29 days ago
You are so right Angelo, to succeed now a company now needs to build a community around their product, a community that just can’t wait for the next juicy live webinar and the chance to buy the next cool product. That’s one reason all automotive manufacturers need to up thier game if they are going to have a hope in hell of competing against Tech companies. Have you seen the stuff Swade is doing over at Ksegg, great articles and insight into the company. Stuff about tech, products and people. However even that’s short of Apple’s methods at the moment… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
10 months 24 days ago
Yep, I agree with you. The starter Saab I envision would not compete with KIA in any way at all. This car wouldn’t be about offering the most content at a value price. It would be about offering the most SAAB at a value price. What do I mean? I mean it would be a rounded hatchback—-with some DNA in the design from the 1960s era Saabs—rounded, aerodynamic, bigger on the inside than on the outside. That’s design and engineering—-it isn’t content. It would be class leading in terms of safety, with a nice balance of active safety and passive… Read more »
Joe
Guest
10 months 29 days ago

SAAB tried the upmarket, and upper mainstream strategy…obviously a no-go.

Angelo V.
Member
10 months 29 days ago

In fact, it was a colossal failure the last decade or so, pitiful. I know some people loved those cars and badly wanted to see Saab go head to head with the big boys in the marketplace. They couldn’t do it. They can’t do it. They lost an opportunity to move down to VW/Mazda territory, a fraction higher actually, and try to carve out that niche. The idea of playing in the league with Audi and BMW, Mercedes and Lexus—-is laughable for Saab.

Jacko
Member
10 months 29 days ago

I don’t know how to open new article on Saabsunited so I’m adding it here:

saabplanet.com/saab-ab-and-gm-we-have-no-connection-with-the-agreement-between-turkey-and-nevs/

Jacko
Member
10 months 29 days ago

Obviously you need to add www. to open that link.

Jacko
Member
10 months 28 days ago

Nevs making a restart:

saabplanet.com/nevs-now-make-a-restart/

Angelo V.
Member
10 months 28 days ago
A quote from the article you linked to: “Nevs we now make a restart and will enter a really exciting phase where we put up the plans for how we, with our products and our solutions, will implement our vision to create mobility for a more sustainable future” I was laughing so hard, coffee was coming out of my nose and dripping all over my desk and keyboard. These are just a lot of words that sound good together—-and the tired cliché of “a more sustainable future” had to be thrown in too. Lots of laughs. Creating mobility leads to… Read more »
NickT
Member
10 months 26 days ago

Hey Angelo, did you notice in the video when Mattias was asked about the 9-3 ip rights, he mentioned the name of the Turkish government but when he was asked about the company, he just mentioned new owners without giving their names. I don’t think he is proud of the new owners ( I am not proud either)……..

Angelo V.
Member
10 months 25 days ago

No Nicholas, I didn’t pick up on that and you’re absolutely right. Pride is in short supply with this crowd.

NickT
Member
10 months 25 days ago

Yup, pride is defiantly lacking in this crowd. My father told my this saying “You become who you associate your self with”. Its definitely true. Saab associated with GM, they made Saab’s with interiors with a lot of plastic and with a lot of GM parts. Now they associated with NEVS and they became
NEVS. I’m not expecting a bright future(or any) for Saab. And to tell you the truth,I would never buy a Saab made in China. I just don’t trust NEVS and China combined. They need to be made in Sweden. Not China.

Angelo V.
Member
10 months 25 days ago
I think there would always need to be at least one flagship model made in Sweden if a real company owned Saab. Other models might be made in lower cost factories in developing economies—-but a company with good intentions would keep the identity with Sweden and continue to build some of the line there. But NEVS? God only knows what their plans are, if they have plans. I’ve become convinced NEVS isn’t about having a plan, but just muddling along and improvising, letting the tail wag the dog. It’s been quite a spectacle to watch them get stuck in quicksand.
NickT
Member
10 months 25 days ago

Agreed. What’s the worst that can happen with NEVS. Maybe they sell all thier IP (get some quick cash) move everything to china, start making cars with the IP they sold and uses different name? Who knows what’s next with NEVS. I wonder why the court chose NEVS as the buyer of Saab and not Mahindra, Young man, BMW….. Why? Did KJJ/ NEVSpay their way through to become the preferred buyer? Who knows why NEVS bought Saab and what they are planning to do next.

Avelik
Member
10 months 25 days ago

The receivers did not “choose” NEVS among Mahindra, BMW, Youngman etc, they sold the assets to the party who placed a bid and had the money to cover this bid. The only two parties who placed bids were Nevs and Youngman but Youngman couldn’t prove they had the money. All the theories that the bidding process was manipulated so that all the other parties could be left behind and NEVS could become the only bidder were proven to be wrong with articles on this very blog. (Apart from being obviously absurd, because Nevs weren’t the only bidder.)

Angelo V.
Member
10 months 25 days ago
You’ll agree though, that the fact that there’s no hard evidence doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen—-it only means we can’t prove it. I’ve seen this sort of thing happen over and over. All things aren’t what they appear. Accepting things at face value is foolish sometimes—-and my belief is that THIS is one of these times. This company NEVS is a joke—-we all know that. We know that at the very least, Mahindra and Youngman were interested. We also know that the terms and conditions did change at some point in the process—-and miraculously, NEVS was in position to… Read more »
Avelik
Member
10 months 25 days ago
If you want to speculate base yourself on facts. Your current speculation has nothing to do with the facts. Conditions changed and no one but Nevs could react? Not true. This has been proven to be not true over and over again. All the interested parties were invited back to the negotiations and they went back to negotiate. These things are documented. Find and read that article of Tim’s again if you don’t remember. Youngman actually made a bid. I call this reaction. You say only Nevs could react under the new conditions, but Youngman made a bid, a fact… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
10 months 25 days ago
False. There’s no doubt in my mind that NEVS could have been spoon fed information all along by someone on the inside, telling them what to prepare for and what might be changing, so that when “invitation to bid, new terms and conditions” was put out on the street, with a tight deadline to respond, they already had their response prepared and the others were left scrambling and walking away. Youngman? They weren’t chosen. Maybe they threw something together quickly and got it in by the deadline but it could be justified that it wasn’t as complete as what NEVS… Read more »
Avelik
Member
10 months 25 days ago
I see that every time you have nothing to say on a certain topic you steer to the ‘Nevs is incompetent’ theme, you feel confident there and think that by running into that no one will refute you on the first topic. Let’s stay on the original topic. Again, go and read that article. All the parties were there negotiating, presenting plans, high ranked representatives participated in meetings. They did not throw something together quickly. Nothing suggests that. The change in the conditions wasn’t a problem, it was made exactly to make it attractive to the bidders because no one… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
10 months 24 days ago

What I’m illustrating is that it’s so obvious they were a poor choice, it leaves the door open to speculate that there was a lot more to the selection process than meets the eye.

Avelik
Member
10 months 24 days ago
You don’t illustrate anything because there is no correlation between them supposedly being a poor choice and problems with the bidding process. The bidding was not a competition to determine who is the most capable company. Its sole purpose was to find a party that was willing to and could buy the assets. The fact that things didn’t go according to plans is completely different thing. By the way, Youngman has had some serious difficulties recently, difficulties that would have impact on Saab if Youngman had become the owner. Does this mean that Youngman was a poor choice too? The… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
10 months 26 days ago

Turkish delight or Turkish blight (on the venerable 9-3)? Who butchered the front end?

Paul Willis
Member
10 months 25 days ago
While we may never know the exact maneuverings that involved the bidding parties, the whole process is pretty troubling. GM won’t approve the original sale that involves any Chinese partners because they don’t want them to get their hands on the tech–look how ironic that is now! Then NEVS comes along with Chinese backers and wins the bid, only to have a major source of funding pull out and sink it into bankruptcy. One of the remaining investors then ponies-up the money to pay creditors to facilitate reemergence from bankruptcy and then secure even more investment by Chinese firms. What… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
10 months 25 days ago

Paul: I see it differently. If NEVS retains the Saab brand, I don’t think there’s any hope at all for Saab cars. The best thing that can happen at this point is for Saab AB to pull the plug on this and maybe years from now, get back in the car business or license the name to someone who’s capable of doing something reasonable with the name—-and that’s not NEVS by any stretch of the imagination. Saab wasn’t reborn when NEVS took over—-that’s when Saab was finally killed off.

wpDiscuz