mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

Why The General Motors And Saab Acquisition Was Doomed From The Start

Many auto brands have been relieved of duty over the decades of business, but Saab is a special kind of story. Not only because the quirky brand made some of the greatest niche luxury cars of all time, but because of how many times the brand has changed hands.

When General Motors purchased a fifty percent stake in the company in 1989, it would soon become apparent the two were never bound to work. Sometimes opposites attract, but not in the case of Saab and GM, according to a CheatSheet story.

The partnering seemed perfect, Saab would gain access to an immense dealer network in the U.S., and GM would gain a foothold in the European luxury market which was already booming by the time of the acquisition. And in the seemingly imagined endless paperwork of the deal was the opportunity for GM to buy the remaining fifty percent in ten years, which it would carry out in 2000.

Where it seemed to have gone awry, though, is the culture both companies carried with them.

Saab was known for outside of, around, hell even forgetting the box. Its approach to engineering cars was unlike anything seen before, and it made a name for itself doing so. It became the first manufacturer to include a turbocharger to enhance performance of a mainstream vehicle, as seen on the 1977 99 Turbo. It crafted striking, yet, aerodynamic designs. Saab was the oddball of the industry, but in the greatest way possible. For every bad idea Saab had throughout its manufacturing career, it had one good idea. Often, quite brilliant.

On the other hand, General Motors was a totally different animal, and it quickly became apparent Saab would do anything possible to disregard direct orders from Detroit. Typical of Old GM, the company pressured Saab to become another brand of badge-engineered appliance work, much like what plagued Oldsmobile, Pontiac and Buick for a greater part of the 1990s and 2000s. GM envisioned Saab to become a rebadged Opel, something it would fight to the bitter end.

With the introduction of the 1993 Saab 900, which was supposed to merely be an Opel Vectra/Vauxhall Cavalier, the Swedes scoffed at the idea of badge engineering and in the end, only one-third of parts were shared with the GM platform mates.

In the second go around for the introduction of the Saab 9-3, GM tried yet again. Saab also disregarded, yet again, even changing the car’s wheelbase. As a past episode of Top Gear tells, a GM accountant paid a visit to Sweden to understand why the brand was costing so much money. Upon having a seat in the 9-3, he realized the navigation system wasn’t even part of the General Motors parts bin.

After GM pulled the plug during its bankruptcy filing, the brand made a brief stint with Swedish supercar maker, Spyker. But they went bankrupt too. Ultimately, the brand landed in the hands of a company called NEVS, which had plans to sell electric 9-3 sedans in Europe and China. Now that company too, is bankrupt.

It seems the oddball Swede has ultimately been laid to rest. Do yourself a favor, snap a photo of a 9-5 next time you see one, because people like us will be the ambassadors of an orphan brand bound to be forgotten. Ultimately, even though GM tried so hard to force its ways upon the brand, nothing could keep Saab from stepping inside of the box.

Former GM Authority staff writer.

Subscribe to GM Authority

For around-the-clock GM news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest GM news. It's totally free.

Comments

  1. Saab had greater potential than Pontiac at the bitter end and globally could have been paired in the parts bin with Caddy.

    Reply
  2. Having potential and realising your potential are completely different things and rarely do the 2 ever meet.

    Reply
  3. At the end of the day it really came down to lack of marketing savvy, compounded by the ensuing insufficient R&D investment and therefore no new models. Saab never managed to build more than 100,000 cars/year, compared with direct competitor Volvo’s 400,000.

    GM’s silly badge-engineering approach (9-7x etc.) assumed that buyers were ignorant and if anything alienated the traditional Saab customer base instead of building on it.

    There are very few cars that will do what my Saab 9-5 Aero wagon does. It’s fast, luxurious, quirky, comfortable, safe in all weather, reliable and my boxer looks nearly lost in the back. Did I mention quirky?

    The only equivalent car I can think of would be a large-engined Mercedes E class 4Matic. But then I picked up my new condition low-mileage ’05 9-5 for hardly more than pocket money…

    My previous cars included various Mercedes, Range Rovers, Volvos and Audis (A8 and R8) and I don’t miss them. It’s a good thing that well-maintained Saabs last forever because I intend to keep mine forever!

    Reply
  4. SAAB is SAAB nothing else but this is good. It is a pity that such a fate SAAB. However, I believe that the new GM may be able to do wonders SAAB.
    New level VOLVO

    Reply
  5. SAAB never went far enough. A XWD-toting Aero X based on Kappa would have been an amazing car that could have sold for more than a Boxster S… and turned a nice profit for the Wilmington plant.

    And GM should have re-uptaked the SAAB designs more quickly. The 9-4 and 9-5 Hatch should have shipped as Buick’s as soon as Spyker hit Chapter 11.

    Reply
  6. Spyker is not and never was a Swedish company, but a Dutch one. The company’s seat is in Zeewolde, Netherlands.

    Reply
  7. I’m Sorry but SAAB was not the first to use a Turbo Charger. that distinction goes to General Motors. It used a Turbocharger on the Chevrolet Corvair and on the Oldsmobile F-85 in 1962. I liked Saab and and came close to buying a 9-3 in the early 2000’s but bought a Saturn instead. It was much less expensive with same equipment.

    Reply
  8. owned nothing but SAAB’s until 2012….I always looked at SAAB like she was the girl next door everyone should want, but always ended choosing bad boyfriends, and due to her reputation, now, no one cares or they are just too fed up to deal with her anymore….. To this day, having owned nothing but SAAB’s, I am still convinced it was bad owners and bad business with GM that caused their demise. Recently I had to drive from Pittsburgh 5-6 times to see the folks, and my SAAB (’97 900 S, 280K miles) in the summer and she’d been going through a spell. Oil seal went bad and radiator in succession. This is summer time now and my parents live 120 miles away…for either malady, my car did not overheat and was still drivable . My dad and I looked at that engine both times and wondered how the hell I made it to Pittsburgh without any oil one time, and no coolant another, that this car just didn’t stop dead….but then too, my starter is 17 years old, alternator was 17, how many times mechanics and friends are like “dude, how is this or that possible?” I just can’t let the thing go yet…whatever SAAB had control of or didn’t, they made stellar cars, and I literally experienced the full range of emotions when Spyker thing fell through….”you maniacs!!” still sad, still pissed, and still wish it wasn’t so

    Reply
  9. Slow down there Speedracer. The saga of Saab may not be over yet. Latest news is that Mahindra will buy NEVS. The only issue appears to be the rights of the SAAB name. The name is owned by SAAB AB a 3B USD defense industry company with some 15,000 employees.

    Reply
  10. I’m 58 years old and have been a SAAB fan since my 20s. I still own a 1997 SAAB 900 convertible. My dad was a GM executive. I had an interesting perspective on the SAAB / GM marriage. Bottom line… The author is right. It never had a chance.

    Saab has always been the “anti” car. In the 1960s (in the US) it was the anti-VW Beetle. As it moved upscale in the 1970s and 1980s, it became the anti-BMW / Audi / Mercedes. It’s styling and engineering were unique. It was a niche car, for people who wanted something out of the norm.

    Problem was, there just weren’t enough of those people in the US (Saab’s biggest market.) Others tried over the years (i.e Citroen, Rover, Peugeot, Rover again with Sterling, Alfa Romeo, et al.) and failed. SAAB, like the others, was losing money by the time GM bought into it.

    GM / SAAB had the unenviable task of trying to build a car that appealed to the SAAB fans and the general euro-car buying public. What came out was a car that was kinda Saab / kinda mainstream and it appealed to neither. The NG900 was by no means a bad car (mine has been virtually trouble free and a blast to drive, especially with the top down), but was not good enough to convince BMW / Audi / Mercedes owners to buy one, and too mainstream for the SAAB crowd.

    I remember my dad saying that there once was talk inside GM about moving SAAB a bit downscale into VW territory. That would have made a certain amount of sense, but GM was bound and determined to have a car(s) to compete with the Euro luxury brands (god knows they didn’t manage to do it with any of the Caddys) and the idea was quickly scoffed.

    GM never did much to increase the number of Saab dealers, which also hurt. There was an idea to sell SAAB through Saturn dealers, which would have been a huge increase. But, there were problems with then current SAAB franchises and many Saturn dealers not wanting the line, and that all but fell by the wayside.

    As the author mentions there was the Saab mentality of “We build Saabs” and GM’s “We build cars.” GM could never understand that Saab was more than just a car, and SAAB could never understand that it needed to make money in order to survive. By the time GM had full control over the company and could force their will, it was too late. (Ironically, the last 9-3s and 9-5s – created when SAAB was completely owned by GM – were really good cars. But, by then GM was on the ropes and it was too late for Saab.)

    As much as I would love to see it, I don’t believe Saab will be back. Last I heard, Maharinda had balked at a deal because SAAB AB, which owns the name, either want too much money for it, or won’t give it up at all (depending on which source you read).

    BTW – My first car in high school was a Corvair Corsa, which had a turbo. GM started using them in 1962 with the Corvair Spyder.

    Reply
  11. My father was a Saab mechanic back in the 70’s, and other than having difficulty getting parts, even working for the local dealership, praised the reliability and engineering behind them (and he was a dyed in the wool Ford guy)
    I have never owned a Saab, as the cost far outweighed my income, but followed them with an envious eye.
    I now have the means but not the supply, but am considering a used 9-3 convertible as a summer cruiser. The amazing part of Saab’s engineering is a 2003 car doesn’t look dated…..wish I could still buy new ones…..

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel