My view.

The few days since NEVS finally closed the deal have caused quite a bit of turmoil within the community. Discussions were very emotional and as I feel it there is a lot of scepticism towards Saab 2.0, its owner and the plans for the future. But do we really have the knowledge to judge them? I don’t think so, not yet.

A regular demand towards NEVS is that they shall be more open on their plans, if not to make their business plan public. But can one really expect that? No. It would be foolish to give the public and by that the competition too much insight. Additionally you have the yellow(car)press, especially in Sweden, that would only wait for them to be a day late with something and jump at that, stating that they failed. Having been in a few businesses myself I know that a businessplan is a vivid thing – despite there are goals set the route to reach them may change. Be it due to changes in technology, legislation or partnerships.

When Spyker took over Saab Victor tried to walk a path of giving the fans more insight and in a way let them feel even more connected to Saab. While this at first did work out well it very much turned against them when things got tough. Hight expectations turned into deep disappointment. Too many promises were made and too many dates were set, most of them were never met. This caused even more turbulences and made SWAN and Saab even more vulnerable. It was surely just one mistake among many but in times it surely made things worse.

The stance that NEVS are taking right now is that they rather let their actions speak than make huge promises up front.
To me this is a good strategy as critics would tear down any of NEVS’ announcements anyway, but it also means we have to wait for things to develop. Getting a product ready for sale will take some considerable time. I am sure we will get to know more about the tech and the plans in the meantime so we can start discussing on facts rather than on guesses.

As you could already see back in April I am not a blind supporter of electricity as the one and only solution for future mobility but when it comes to NEVS I’d rather see people take an open minded attitude than the current “thy end is near”-view.

From the contacts I personally had with people from NEVS I can say that they are definetely aware of the heritage they took over by acquiring Saab. It’s been a tale of innovation, of taking a different road and sometimes a tale of looking beyond today’s boundaries. And this last point is an important one – we may not forget that NEVS are creating a product for a market that shall be there in two or three years. You can hardly judge this by today’s standards. And one thing is for sure: wherever electricity is available, big machines are driven by it. Just a thought.

I surely can’t turn you into stong believers in electric cars and that is not my mission here. I’d just like to see the discussion about NEVS take place in a more open minded, a more saaby way. The mere fact that NEVS have come that far tells us that there is more in this than hot air. They paid in cash (and this is not Chinese Government money as it had most likely been with Youndman) and they secured the right s to the Saab name, to mark only two recent positive aspects. So, for now, let’s follow the dvelopements to get our own picture of what NEVS will deliver. I am open to see what they are after.

And for those who wonder if I keep hearing those things about India – yes I do. And I still have faith that the big picture will fit us well.

62 thoughts on “My view.”

  1. I also agree with you Till on keeping the NEVS business plans top secret. And for the reasons you already listed in the article.I never liked the “big mouth” approach of VM and Spyker. VM all the time acted like a salesman wanting to sale his SAAB vision and not businessman driving a famous car company forward.
    It is 100% true: NEVS payed in cash. NEVS got to use SAAB’s name, which I think is extremely positive and crucial for this affair and should mark that there is people outside NEVS that believe in NEVS plan.
    Cause it seems that there is no place left in the executive car market beside the “German wholly trinity” (Merc, BMW, Audi) it is probably worth trying new paths and technologies. Just look at Volvo, they are struggling to place themselves on the market and the big investments in the new models seems to not pay off. Their model program is better then ever, but they are even pushed down from the first place on the best seller lists here in Sweden.
    And I would also want M&M to be a part of the bright future of SAAB 2.0 more then anything. I’m not saying that I will jump on the e-car train as soon as the new products are available, but I am open to change. And finally now we don’t have any choice then to accept the fact that SAAB goes electric and to support that. Or to live in turbo memories.

  2. Yes give NEVS a chance to prove them selves, at least they have paid for the privilege, but I still believe that other than the Chinese market which few of us understand, for Europe and most of the SAAB buying world they are barking up the wrong tree with purely electric cars . Only time will tell – but unless they produce something truly exceptional they just won’t sell in sufficient numbers to make it a viable project.
    Let us all keep our fingers crossed for those in Sweden who have served us all so well and given us the cars we love for so long, that NEVS don’t re-employ and then let them down due to a flawed business plan and inappropriate product.

  3. As long as they come back to the United States with a practical car that doesn’t cost some ridiculous price, then more power to them!

    If they can meet those three simple points, then I wish them all the luck in the world getting things going in the secret Saab 2.0 bunker hidden under Trollhättan.

  4. Good writing Till.
    I am most happy that after a long time of no activity Saab is not trying to catch up with the automotive market we are in today but have a complete new strategy.
    There are too many classical car manufactururs already and so this new direction can put Saab again on the map as an inovative good quality car maker; as we all are faliliair with.
    As long as they keep Saab Parts AB alive so that we can drive our actual Saab cars till the farest possible end and give us new developped Saac cars that respond to the needs of the market rather than me too products of which we do have already too many.

  5. “I surely can’t turn you into stong believers in electric cars and that is not my mission here. I’d just like to see the discussion about NEVS take place in a more open minded, a more saaby way.”

    That’s hard to do given the lack of information about NEVS’ business plan. If you support their stealth mode, pay the price: People will speculate and the speculation will eventually polarize around hopes and fears. In other words, there is nothing to talk about. If you hear something about India: Do share friend, what is supposedly happening? I don’t hear anything.

  6. Yes, I’ll parrot what others have already said and I have said before—-it would be nice to know if living in the U.S., I’ll have a chance to test drive a NEVS and consider buying one. Tim, if they can’t even share that vision/possibility, what exactly am I supporting? I know you’re supporting employment in Trollhattan and that is admirable—-and I support that too—-so if the factory was converted to a Puma sneaker factory, I’d support it as well. Making cars destined only for China vs. making Puma sneakers that I might be able to buy in the U.S.? I’d opt for the sneakers. They don’t need to disclose details about their technologies or a specific business plan—-but if they would only say “We have plans to re-enter most or all of the markets where Saabs were sold and new ones as well—-with products in the same price range.” I think most of us here would get behind them. If they added “Our focus will be what we consider the technology of the future—-a move toward electric vehicles—-but we are still considering offering traditional propulsion methods as a bridge to that future.” I think they would win just about all of us over. They don’t have to be as showy as Muller was (or Delorean). They don’t have to be ultra specific with ANYTHING. Yes, even non-commital and vague statements that give the community hope—-it it’s their true intentions—-would go a long way toward obtaining almost 100% support. Hearing nothing is disturbing. Hearing “electric, for China” and no price attached is even worse. My own position was that I would hope for a last minute change of plan—-deal falling through—-door opening for another bidder to step in with a plan I feel is better. That didn’t happen—-so now that the NEVS ship is sailing, I’m sailing with it. I am being more open minded toward NEVS now and I hope that are good steward of the Saab name.

    • Yes, Angelo V., you nailed it down. I am 100 % with you and, with all respect, NEVS shoudl consider your words very seriously and change their information policy accordingly.

      • Dear Bernard,
        no, unfortunately, they exactly failed to do so. Was it not Tim who wrote that he would not put his money on NEVS? Saab enthusiasts around the world have to put their hope on something that sounds reasonable and trustful. Its too long from now that we are waiting whether or not we ever will be able to purchase a car from Trollhätten, and, yes, I bought a new one and would do it again if the car convinces me no matter the engine as long as its economically designed.

        Honestly, forget about all the past what we had in Saab 1.0 as NEVS does not have a past, just relay on that what you find in the internet on NEVS and all the companies behind. Now consider that NEVS claimed to be “better” than Renault, Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes, BMW, Audi and all the who-is-who of the car market as they will make it to develop a electrical car within less than 2 years….Would you really be convinced?
        I am simply not.

        I do not what to start the discussion again, but I think the way it runs now is a way that many of the people turn around and make their way to other car manufacturers…and if nothing more reasonable comes from Saab 2.0/NEVS soon, I too.

        • Well I wouldn’t buy shares in the company, I would certainly consider one of their cars if it fills my needs… and if it does is just something we’ll have to wait for…

          I’d rather be impressed by not knowing what is to come than to be disappointed that certain specifications were promised and not delivered…

      • Sorry! I guess I assumed he would be reading it too—-I was going back to Tim’s comments about the importance of restoring employment as many people agree with that viewpoint—-and I lumped the two of you together.

    • You want them to announce that their new electric cars will ship everywhere, cost no more than conventional cars, and by the way just for goodwill they’ll make some petroleum burners too, at Korean car prices.

      Saab’s last leader was brilliant at telling you what you wanted to hear, but not so good at delivering it.

      Apple might be a better PR example. They don’t announce anything until its shipment and availability is certain. It seems to work.

      • But comparing Apple’s PR strategy is like comparing apples to electric toasters…

        Saab has been and is in trouble. They MUST address the issues all of us are concerned about. Frankly, if Saab ditches the US market, why would I continue to be a Saab fan? Yeah, I still love their old (and current) cars, and I’m glad T’hattan’s employment situation is improved, but I WANT a NEW SAAB that’s NOT 100% EV!!!!! How much more can I (we scream this!!!). Please NEVS, give us some information!!!

      • Keith: I don’t want them to announce that unless that is their plan. If that is NOT their plan, I’d like to know that too. A lot of people who like Saabs are interested in timetables for leases, how long they can keep their current cars running, etc.—-thinking toward a future with a new Saab. If that is absolutely not in the cards, it would be nice to know that. As for the petroleum cars at Korean car prices—-that isn’t for goodwill to me—-that’s so they don’t fall flat on their face and make total fools of themselves—-and start sucking at the teet of the Swedish government because “We just have to see the environmental success of EVs through to the end—-and it would just be so awful if we have to lay off these new employees we just brought back here in Trollhattan.” Get it? Made in India hatchbacks at Korean car prices wouldn’t be goodwill, it would be the way they pay the bills while they pursue the nonsense nobody wants or nobody can afford. Geesh, it’s so silly to have to explain it, isn’t it? And Keith, when NEVS stock prices reach a fraction of Apple’s, you could start comparing the two. Until then, it isn’t even like comparing apples to electric toasters—-both of those can be found in the kitchen. It’s more like comparing oranges to ice skates.

        • Hasn’t NEVS announced they will make EV cars? And rough timelines? At this stage in their young life it is quite likely they don’t have firmer details to share.

          They are not keeping you hanging re a future gas or diesel auto. They have said they will make EVs.

          Distribution will have to be started again from scratch. How can they announce details on that now?

          • Who’s asking for details on distribution? I’m asking for intentions of where they plan to sell their cars. If I’m going to open a new pizza restaruant that delivers food—-I better damn well have an idea of how large the delivery area will be. I should know what I WANT to do and figure out the details later. And I should also figure out if I want to offer wings and subs too, in addition to the pizza. As for the EVs vs. Petrol—-you’re right, NEVS has said they will build EVs. We’ve read here that there might be other parties involved for the possibility of lending a hand with diversifying their product line to include the propulsion method the overwhelming, gigantic majority of car buyers want. If we read it here—-I’m assuming there’s some smoke. I’d like to see the fire. Maybe NEVS isn’t blowing the smoke—-but if the rumors floating around aren’t true, they should dump a bucket of water on the rumors pronto. They need to speak. Speak NEVS, Speak.

            • Announcing what you are not going to do. Hmmmmm.

              OK, you’d like NEVS to make frequent announcements shooting down false forum rumors. You may find support for this – it would create jobs. The more rumors ginned up, the more Senior Level Rumor Extinguishers that would have to be hired.

      • Oh, and Saab’s last leader didn’t tell me ANYTHING I wanted to hear. I wanted to hear something about making it a priority to develop a smaller, entry level hatchback to “put a Saab in a bunch of new garages.” I didn’t want to hear about cars selling north of $50,000 without a sunroof. I was reading here recently about 4 different windshields and three coming available and one not—-heads up displays on some, rain sensing wipers on others—-expensive gadgets, gratuitous at best. Here’s an idea for the windshield: Tinted safety glass. Inexpensive. Available.

        • The problem is that if you look at Saab’s history, they have always strived to go “one level up” with the next car. Which they have done to a certain point but not all the way…

          The 9-5 Sedan was not the work of SWAN or Spyker. VM was handed two finished products called the new 9-5 and the 9-4x but sadly they were created for an environment where you can have four different windshields since it calls for a huge supply-chain and endless resources. SAAB / Spyker could not provide that type of environment…

          NEVS have given you, your answer. They have announced that they will announce nothing until its ready. Nothing we say or do can change that, we will just have to use that thing we Saab fans use so well, its called patience…

  7. Angelo makes many fair points. One of the challenges is they are so far away from actually having anything to sell that announcements now of where they will be sold could become problematic. If they are too detailed it could set them up for disappointment, too vague and then credibility. It wont be easy to relaunch Saab globally within 18-24 months and I was under the impression that the first deliveries will be China’s. The American market, Saabs best at one time, is quickly fading into oblivion. I have a 2010 9-5 Aero and having increasingly hard time finding up to date service departments to keep her current and I live in the Boston area, Saab’s most fertile market for many years. I wish NEVS nothing but success especially for the loyal employees of Trollhattan. As far as the US goes it is just wait and see, hoping for the best.


    • indeed it is one big ask for nevs+saab to build a new car co from next to nothing in 18 months but who will sell the product for you. Here in Australia SAAB was [to me] a disaster kept afloat by new arrivals [mainly from the british isles] and stoic australian customers. In 3 years Great Wall Motors have gone from nothing to 25,000 sales, Skoda from nothing to 10,000 sales in 18 months, the newly launced Opel Australia are aiming for 15000 sales per annum within 3 years. ultimately anything will be better than what saab/management/gm were dishing out since 2006. I am loathe to give up my 2005 9-5 aero due to it’s outstanding build quality [the leather. the seats, the reliability, the 6.7L cruising at 105kph..].

    • I think you can have a Saab without a turbo—-but variety is the spice of life as they say—-and most manufacturers who are serious can walk and chew gum at the same time—-offer the tried and true—-the proven technology most drivers are still most comfortable with—-while working on the car of the future. The Saab we grew up with is gone now. I know that will never come back. But the new Saab—-represents a chance for Saab to be BETTER than ever. My idea of better would be a broader product line, more price points, a full line carmaker. It’s why I was heartbroken when Mahindra didn’t win the bid. I feel that Mahindra would have relatively quickly got some cars to market—-they could have sold smaller, less expensive cars wearing the Saab emblem—back to the roots of what Saab started out as. They could have made these vehicles in a lower cost enviroment with cheaper labor while maintaining Trollhattan as the heart of the operation—-with the premium cars. They also could have introduced Mahindra branded light diesel trucks and SUVs in showrooms and a luxury Saab SUV at some point.

      • There was a lot of thought about creating a smaller Saab for a very long time, actually the idea came and went many times. I’ve spoken to a lot of people at Saab about this but one problem always haunted them, profitability. A small car requires massive volumes in order to become profitable and as I understood it, Saab never had the amount of dealers nor the capabilities to sell / produce the volumes needed according to the business calculations.

        If you make expensive cars, you don’t have to sell as many to make money… the problem in the end I think was that the cars became too expensive and the main customer base were able or willing to spend the kind of money Saab was hoping for…

        Audi and other premium brands who build smaller cars have always brought out their cars after the big ones turned a major profit and the brands felt that they could afford the project and they had the distribution to support it. But also a small cheep Audi is actually more an expensive VW which is the very reason why Audi could build the small car from the start.

        If Saab during the GM age would have turned up a smaller car, I can guarantee you that if we were to ever be able to afford it, we’d might as well buy and Opel because thats what it would have been…

        Low car price = low parts purchase prices = massive parts volume = profit for the company. Making 100k cars per year of a single model would have never worked with a small car. We’re talking in the volumes of 300k or more that would have been needed!

        I’ve always pushed for a cheeper car, but I would rather have a cheeper version of the 9-3, starting at about 18-20k Euro having next to nothing in it but still being the safe and practical option many people need…

        • I could go along with a cheaper version of the 9-3 with less in it—-but Tim, Mini turned a profit immediately (at least in the U.S.) and it’s an entire line of small cars. Yes, the cars command a premium price—-but they can be had for low 20’s, which is what I’ve suggested for a small Saab. Suzuki’s entire line in the U.S. is small cars. Are they profitable? I know they have a pathetically small dealer network, but they have been here since the 1980s, still selling cars. Toyota, Honda, Nissan/Datsun, Subaru, Mitsubishi, Mazda—-all of them started with small cars and stayed with small cars, before graduating to barely mid-sized cars—-then small trucks, then bona-fide mid-sized cars that dominated the competition, then small sport-utes, then larger sport-utes, then separate luxury car lines for three of them—-all starting with sub-compact cars sold at a low price. It can be done. And I’m not asking Saab to do a Chevette and sell it at the price of a Yugo—-they can build a small hatchback and charge a premium for it. But it would put a lot of new people into the fold—-who could then move up to the more expensive Saabs in time. This formula has worked, over and over and over. Latest example is the South Koreans, growing in leaps and bounds—-having started with econoboxes.

      • I agree with that. My vision for a new Saab would have been for the entry level car to come equipped with a normally aspirated four banger and perhaps be available with a non turbo diesel engine.

        • Tiny correction. The diesel engine doesn’t really work properly without a turbo. That was one of the reasons why it made so much sense for Saab. I believe all diesel Saabs ever built were charged because of the benefits. An non turbo diesel is really pedestrian in performance.

          • There is still a market for a simpler diesel with no turbo—-a small station wagon for example—a family hauler that will last for 300,000 miles. I know the turbo gives it the kick—-but it does come with problems too and on a lower priced car, cheaper and simpler might serve them better.

            • Better leave the small naturally aspirated diesels (15 sec from 0-60 mph) business and the $15k before incentives price range to the Asian manufacturers.
              The turbo related problems have been minimal at least in our TiD’s. Both have over 250.000 miles on the clock and going strong.

    • With the same logic we would have to conclude that Mahindra & Mahindra, Youngman and any othet potential new owner would surely have failed on making oldfashioned petrol/diesel Saabs, because GM lost money on making them. So my main conclusion would be that a new owner should not make Saabs the same way that GM makes and market cars, no matter what power source is used, But sure, making pure electric Saabs is a big challenge, and I can understand that it would make most of us more calm if NEVS went for a more mainstream petrol/diesel/hybrid technology, but it’s their show now, and they are putting a lot of money at risk, so they must be convinced that they can make this work, and at least they have my full support. There is much of the good old famous “Saab spirit” only in being convincet that “sure, this is one huge challenge, but we can pull this off like we did with the turbo and with other previous challenges and new inventions”.

    • They could have run the same article ten years ago, about the Toyota Prius.

      GM reportedly lost $8,000 on every car with airbags in the 1970s. That doesn’t mean that the technology wasn’t worth pursuing.

      • Bernard: Didn’t GM only offer Airbags on the mid-70s Oldsmobile Toronado and a few others, sort of as an experiment (as always, GM experimenting on their customers)? I don’t think they went into it expecting to make money on airbags. They don’t make money on seatbelts either, or reinforced doors or safety glass. But now that airbags are mandated, they pass the cost along to us. And no, Toyota was never losing that much money on the Prius per unit sold. This is GM we’re talking about—if there’s a record to be set losing money due to stupidity, they are on task.

      • So, it tells us that NEVS needs a lot of finance behind it and a willingness to sustain heavy losses until it can get Saab back into profit. I hope that they do have deep financial pockets and that we do not eventually see a repeat of the Spyker purchase.

      • “GM reportedly lost $8,000 on every car with airbags in the 1970s. That doesn’t mean that the technology wasn’t worth pursuing.”

        Are you sure? In the UK you could buy a top of the range Saab 96 for £1000 in the early 70’s (or $2000 at those old exchange rates). And US car prices always looked decidedly cheaper than the UK/ Europe.

        • Yes Bullnose, Saab’s were known to some Americans as “The $2000.00 car” and when Volkswagen later promoted their Beetle for “$1995.00” a good many people said getting the Saab instead will be the best $5.00 you ever spent! Of course, by that time, the Saab’s had gone up in price. But your point is a great one. Those Saab 96 models are what established them as being unique—-and a good value. They stayed unique, but sadly, they lost the “good value” that would have had them selling enough cars to stay in business.

        • A top GM executive at the time reportedly joked that they should sell the airbags and give the cars away for free.

          My point, of course, was that the first instance of any new industrial technology is always sold at a loss. As an analogy, the first few bars of soap to come out of a new Unilever production line are sold at a tremendous loss (assuming they don’t go to some sort of soap museum). That’s a fallacy, of course; if you follow that reasoning, then the next Volts sold would have a huge profit margin (you’ve now written-off the tooling and R&D cost).

          All of this is explained in the first few weeks of any introductory accounting or economics class, there’s no point discussing it further.

          What does bear discussion is the fact that the Volt has had tremendous benefits outside of its sales figures. Arguably, it popularized the concept of a “new GM,” which brought a lot of people into dealerships and paved the way for GM’s current profitability. They certainly had to spread the perception that they weren’t selling the same old stuff.

          Trickle-down benefits also need to be considered. The whole industry is operating on the premise that electrified cars will become crucial in the medium term, and you can’t get there without taking a first step.

          • No Bernard, what paved the way for GM’s current profitability was billions and billions of our tax dollars squirted at them—-or I should say, gushing at them—-along with very favorable tax policies for GM put in place by the current administration in Washington, including waiving of corporate taxes. Yes, billions of free dollars and tax breaks do help profitability. As for the Volt—-it did not bring a lot of new people into GM dealerships. But I will admit that they might use that platform and the technology involved with it for more cars in the future. I know they are going to show a new Cadillac at the Detroit auto show—-and I think it’s based on the Volt. There will be other products in the future based on it too. But any way you cut it, losing tens of thousands of dollars on each Volt sold cannot possibly be defined as successful.

    • Baver: Having the biggest advertising budget in the world won’t help you if the advertisements/commercials/promotion carries a silly message that doesn’t attract your target market. For sure, I get your point—-but Audi’s ad campaigns the past couple years have been really good. “Born From Jets” didn’t move the ball toward the goal line at all. Historically, Saab hasn’t had effective advertising since very early in their existence. I honestly believe what they were doing in the late 50s and early 60s was effective—-really told their story in a minute—-captured what the cars were about and what the company was about. “Born from Jets?” No such luck. They didn’t show you enough of the cars—-they didn’t show you the beautifully done interiors—-or inspire buyers with a message of safety and longevity. In short, they accomplished nothing, except maybe patting themselves on the back as an “inside” victory. That doesn’t sell cars though.

  8. In response to Keith, above——–All joking aside—-typically, in situations where multi-million dollar (billions in fact) businesses are being launched, there is the need for “buzz” to create excitement. I get it—-stay calm and carry on and all of that jazz—–but seriously, do you not think there would be some value in a spokesperson for NEVS who could say a few words to help build some momentum for the brand? The absence of that depresses me—-I feel as though the reason they aren’t saying anything is because they know most of the world wouldn’t like what they’re hearing. Public Affairs is a tricky thing—-large organizations deal with this every single day. Everything from shopping malls to hospitals to car companies have people employed to talk to the press, talk to others—-to fight rumors or to use the pulpit to promote their activities. Seriously, you guys actually think saying nothing is a good thing? Someone mentioned Apple not having press conferences until they’re ready to launch products—-the fact is, they leak bits and pieces of information all the way through, to see how the leaks impact public opinion. Other organizations do this to. They look for the reaction, positive or negative and sometimes modify their plans. Silence is anything but golden sometimes. THIS silence—-we know a good many people who would actually consider a Saab are being turned off by it—-while others who love Saab are trying to rationalize it somehow or say it is a strength—-which is laughable on the face of it.

  9. Dear Saab-friends,
    I think its time that I say “Goodbye” to our beloved company Saab and to realize that this great company does not exist anymore. And will never exist again. All this conversations are discussions between the believers and the realistic guys who both are united in their frustrations that Saab did not got the chance to survive under the hood of another car manufacturer (Mahindra) like Volvo.

    After years of irrational hopes we got misguided by the people involved in the Saab-sale. By their job, they only had to care on the net money raise but not the future of “our” car manufacturer-so no arguing against them as to help Saab someone visionary would had to join the stage…..but, unfortunately did not show up. At the moment NEVS took over, all my hopes immediately faded as their claims are absolutely unrealistic and I simply get tired to hear so-called NEVS representatives saying that the will win the world in 18 months by coming up with a 9-3/phoenix-what-so-ever electrical car. I am not an engineer, but I know that the future of automotive certainly does not lay in a conventional chassis in which the petrol engine was exchanged by a battery fired e-engine! And, with all respect, nothing on NEVS and the companies behind appears to allow hope that something meaningful for me as todays Saab driver comes out. I am tried that NEVS claims that they will utilize Japanese cutting-edge technology to come up with something great. If such technology would exists, is there anybody out there who believes one need Saab for that? I am tired to all this empty promises that lack ground and do not hold against serious questions. But I am not tired to hope that NEVS becomes successful and gives the brave people in Trollhätten new hope and, yes, if convincing I shall buy their product, except an old-fashioned designed e-car.

    But I turn around, enjoying my Saab 9-5/Abbott as long as it will last. I will take care on this beauty and to keep it in good shape for many future journeys. I will keep using it on an almost daily basis but when it comes to buy a new one, I don’t consider to wait for anything that NEVS might produce in a very uncertain future and turn to…

    • I share your frustration. And I have to wonder if the bankruptcy receivers really did take “the best deal” to capture as much money as possible—-or if there was something else at work, such as pressure to “give the green company a chance because it’s the right thing to do for the Earth.” Where the money is originating is also a curiousity—-but I guess it’s there to make the payments now, so that is a good thing. I don’t believe for a moment either—-that this start-up, well funded or not—-will use Japanese technology or any other technology to outflank huge corporations who are already in the car business—-and already working on electric vehicles for the future. I don’t see that happening in 18 months or 18 years. NEVS isn’t going to find some breakthrough that is a game changer—-a technology that Toyota, GM, BMW, Mercedes and others are overlooking. The best we can hope for is a nicely styled car that behaves like a Saab and looks like one—-with the hinderences of electric propulsion hidden to the best of the Engineers ability and the benefits of electric standing out—-for a price most of us could afford. In other words, instead of building an exceptional gas/diesel line of cars, we can hope for an accecptable line of electric cars (and trucks?) that capture a bit of Saab personality. Yes, it’s a huge letdown to many of us. It will go from a huge letdown to complete outrage if the cars are sold in China only—-Saab killed off in the rest of the world.

        • Yes Quixcube—-If I were the President/Dictator of Chad, I would never have tried for the moon. I would have left the task to a bigger, richer nation and I would have used my resources for things the people of Chad wanted and needed. Instead of “going to the moon” I might have provided more pedestrian things for the fine folks in Chad—-that they needed more. Like a nice small hatchback, with a turbo-diesel engine—-available in some mod 60’s/70’s colors like cornflower blue, olive green and orange-orange. I’d offer it at a competitive price too. I’d let the “bigger/richer” fools dabble in battery operated transportation.

        • NASA hasn’t perfected a good battery yet for deep space that wasn’t atomic. And those batteries don’t need much juice.

          I guess I could hope that Saab will find a way to do batteries better than NASA, but I think I will put my “hope” reserves elsewhere.

          Next new car won’t be a Saab. I might as well face the music.

          I am beginning to wonder if this website will just die a slow agonizing death like the car it champions. As each day goes by, there is less and less of a reason for me to click on “SaabsUnited.”

          • David: I disagree with your last sentiment. I think there are still plenty of good reasons to visit the site. If NEVS’ purchase of Saab’s assets has done anything, it’s created enough buzz for most Saab enthusiasts to want to follow the drama. This is the best place I have found to follow the storyline. I don’t think this site is dying a slow death at all. If Saab was indeed dead forever—-I think you’d sort of be right. The site would devolve to oldtimers waxing nostalgic about the Saabs they once owned and loved—–and like WWII veterans, they would eventually start to die off until the fraternity was too small to “gather.” Unlike WWII veterans though—-there wouldn’t be younger people admiring them so much that THEY would pick up the torch and carry it, like we do for WWII veterans. It’s just a car company—-so eventually it would all die out, as you describe. However, with NEVS’ buying Saab, it breathes new life into discussions, engagement—-debate—-a future. And I suspect if NEVS falls flat, maybe, just maybe—-someone else might try to restore the brand. Time will tell.

            • My basic point was that I don’t see a battery operated car in my future. Maybe for my kids but not for me. We simply won’t have the grid in my driving lifetime. I am 62 and will be lucky if I can drive another 12 years or so. I can’t see an electric car being viable in the middle US in that time frame. At least not one that can travel long distances over middle America.

Comments are closed.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.