Saab

[Guest weaving]

the employees at Saab automobil have every reason to be happy tonight, after news that GM accepts the bid from Spyker:)

janne sweden

Edited January 26, 2010 by weaving (see edit history)

[Reatta Man]

Ah yes.....Swedish Automobile Always Broken owners should be glad to move away from the 4,000 GM dealer network for parts and service......

[Steve Moskowitz]

Joe, not sure I understand your post but the fact that this deal got brokered means a bunch to a lot of people who depended upon it for their livelihood. This was a deal resurrected and is good for all concerned since the alternative was just closing the brand down. I have been there, done that and it isn't fun!

I have friends who now are turning their attention to Hummer as that deal needs to get done. We are in a global economy and nobody wins when a business fails. Happy for Saab fans as they are a small but loyal group. Glad the workers will be getting paychecks!

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

Right on, Steve. We will hope and pray that it works.

Ben

[Larry Schramm]

Hummer should not be sold/ given away as it is a global brand with large brand equity. The problem with GM is that the management cannot do any portfolio management of multiple brands. It is a shame the position that the FOP club has done to GM.

[Reatta Man]

Steve,

You are right; I was being a little sarcastic. I like Saabs for their quirky engineering, but if I were a HUGE Saab fan, I wouldn't want GM to sell them. My point is that if a small niche brand like Saab can't make it while attached to the (then) largest auto company in the world, how can they hope to make it as someone else's brand?

Of course, GM is dumping brands that sold a lot more units per year than Saab, so GM's reasoning (I don't think you could stretch and call it logic) is really what should be the butt of a joke here.

I guess Saab owners should just be thankful that the brand isn't dying on the vine like Saturn....and Pontiac....and Olds.......

No disrespect to Saab owners and fans.

Joe

Edited January 27, 2010 by Reatta Man (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

Hummer should not be sold/ given away as it is a global brand with large brand equity. The problem with GM is that the management cannot do any portfolio management of multiple brands. It is a shame the position that the FOP club has done to GM.

Hummer has a large something alright, but "brand equity" ain't it. Brand equity means that the brand name is an overall positive factor in marketing a product. For instance a new toothpaste flavor can expect to sell so much the better because it has the "Crest" brand name attached instead of an unknown brand (or none at all). For Hummer that might have been the case 10 years ago when the world was very, very different. Today if you buy a Hummer of any kind, 2/3rds of the people in your neighborhood will think you owe them an apology. :mad:

You can make whatever value judgments you want regarding that last sentence, but you cannot deny it's essential truth. Ditto for any of the reasons, scientific or otherwise, behind that attitude. It is an honest description of the position the Hummer brand has found itself in.

Trying to turn that ship around, unless the world and scientific realities change radically in a very short time, makes resurrecting Saab look easy!:eek:

===================

However buying Saab may make sense from the standpoint of having that brand actually regain some of it's equity. Like it or not, having the Saab identity diluted by selling Subaru/Opel/Chevy clones has hurt it immensely, and GM did little else in running the brand. Getting Saab away from GM may return some of the Saabness that it has been sorely lacking for 10+ years. Whether a small, boutique European company, that itself has never recorded a profit, is the right company to try can be well argued. At least someone is trying!

I wish them luck.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Dave@Moon
Added "Crest" & "Saabness" sentences (see edit history)

[sambarn]

All of you car greats fail to mention the revival of Spyker Automobiles in the standard auto market. I'm sure many of you remember that Spyker ran in the first Peking to Paris run with the Itala and the Fiat. Pics of that car can be seen on the Aliceramsey website as the current owners brought the '07 to New York to join the Ramsey crew for the New York to San Fran journey (only a flat tire slowed them at all) A really great car and the company has had a pretty good run at modern racecourses as well. Jobs for workers - freedom from the problematic management of GM- an Orphan marque revived for the modern market Win Win Win.

[Guest weaving]

all appear to be positive about the Saab Automobile has had new owners, but it becomes a tough time for Spyker/Saab, the company must begin to make a profit, many more cars to be sold, it can be tough on an already tough market

will Spyker/Saab deal with this ......

Janne Sweden:)

[Steve Moskowitz]

Sam, Ron is smiling!

Dave, I could have predicted your response as you may be able to predict mine! As usual, your 2/3rds comment and others turned the thread into something political and this is NOT! Oh, and 2/3rds of my neighborhood have Hummers, Suburban's and Escalades and it is no elitist neighborhood!

The concern I have is for friends who are about to lose their jobs if GM/Hummer cannot make the deal final. I don't like seeing people lose the opportunity to feed their families.

[Dave@Moon]

Dave, I could have predicted your response as you may be able to predict mine! As usual, your 2/3rds comment and others turned the thread into something political and this is NOT! Oh, and 2/3rds of my neighborhood have Hummers, Suburban's and Escalades and it is no elitist neighborhood!.

Then nobody, and I mean nobody, is buying new Hummers because they don't like the colors?:confused:

You've got to admit, Steve, there comes a time in marketing when whether something is political or not it doesn't matter. Studebaker didn't change the name of the Dictator because they ran out of chrome badges.

And for the last time (yeah, sure), science and knowledge aren't political.

[Steve Moskowitz]

As usual, I chuckle at your obvious obfuscation of the subject. Whether the Hummer brand has any worth or not as a brand is immaterial since neither you or I know the plans that the Chinese have for the network. Equating sales now with brand worth when they have already announced they are closing stores is not a great analogy.

Again, all I care about is seeing friends keep a job and GM get something out of the deal to help them recover. Pure and simple business deal that history will prove good or bad.

[R W Burgess]

Today if you buy a Hummer of any kind, 2/3rds of the people in your neighborhood will think you owe them an apology. :mad:

Not in my neighborhood! I'd say 1/2 of my neighborhood has trucks, BIG trucks, little trucks, and of course Hummers! If Hummers were a little cheaper there would be even more of them around Virginia.

You may see a lot of cars driven to work by the little woman, but I can guarantee you that there's a truck in the yard back home.

Wayne

Edited January 27, 2010 by R W Burgess
A little too strong! (see edit history)

[Larry Schramm]

I would like to say that Hummer is not a domestic/US brand. It is a global brand and the mistake that GM management has made is that only 20% of Hummer sales should come from North America and the other 80% from the rest of the world. GM management has been focused on the majority of Hummer sales in the North American market which is wrong.

There will always be persons in the world that will want to say with or without words that their vehicle is bigger than yours regardless of the price of fuel.

Also, how do you make a vehicle like Hummer and not put a diesel engine in it??? The missteps by GM are unbelieveable.

[Rusty_OToole]

I thought Hummers came with diesel engines? The first ones came with nothing else. Arnold Schwartzenegger paid a fortune to have his converted to a gas engine.

[Dave@Moon]

As usual, I chuckle at your obvious obfuscation of the subject.

Actually, Steve, you obfuscated the subject by interjecting politics. I should not have taken the bait, and should have stuck to the tone of what i said in my first post.

You can make whatever value judgments you want regarding that last sentence, but you cannot deny it's essential truth. Ditto for any of the reasons, scientific or otherwise, behind that attitude. It is an honest description of the position the Hummer brand has found itself in.

The why doesn't matter, it just is.

[Dave@Moon]

Actually, Steve, you obfuscated the subject by interjecting politics. I should not have taken the bait, and should have stuck to the tone of what i said in my first post.

The why doesn't matter, it just is.

Hummer sales declined 40% between 2004 and 2007, at least 18 months prior to any mention of the shedding of the brand and despite the shedding of the gargantuan H1 in favor of the H3 "economy" model during that period. (Remember the TV ads seriously bragging about 20 mpg highway mileage?)

Sales then dropped 64% in 2008 ($4 gas) and an additional 67% for 2009 ($2.50 gas), with the potential sale of the brand by GM not even announced until halfway through 2009. The sales rate since the announcement has declined 85% from 2008's abysmal figures. Current sales are well under 500 units total per month nationwide accross all models, with last month's sales totaling 325 units worldwide. H2 sales are in the single digits per month, and production of all models has been suspended indefinitely.

Saab's sales decline was never this dramatic. I doubt Hupmobile's was. By comparison Saab is a very healthy brand.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Dave@Moon
added gas prices (see edit history)

[R W Burgess]

........shedding of the gargantuan H1 in favor of the H3 "economy" model during that period. (Remember the TV ads seriously bragging about 20 mpg highway mileage?).........

Well they should brag. 20 mph is pretty good in my opinion. The best my V8 GMC does is 21mpg.

As I said before, people in my part of the country don't much care about fuel milage. It is what it is. The ones that do buy a diesel product, still a truck though.

Heck, within this own club, I haven't ever seen an antique car pulled by a car to a local meet or show.

Ummm, does Saab make trucks in their home country?

W.

Edited January 27, 2010 by R W Burgess
added bold, sorry Dave! (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

As I said before, people in the country don't much care about fuel milage.

Well, at least 325 of them don't.

[Dave@Moon]

Ummm, does Saab make trucks in their home country?

W.

Prior to 1995 they were combined with Scania. They split wiht them as part of the GM deal. They are currently an automotive firm only.

[Reatta Man]

The military version of Hummers only come with diesels. However, the military division that makes the versions sold to various militaries around the world split off from the Hummer brand a long, long time ago.

[Steve Moskowitz]

Dave, I disagree with your assessment but I will make this easy. You are right.

It is not easy for me to sit back when I have friends who have their whole lives invested in GM. When I know people have jobs waiting at Hummer and have kids to put through college it is personal.

Now on to antique car matters...

[Dave@Moon]

All of you car greats fail to mention the revival of Spyker Automobiles in the standard auto market. I'm sure many of you remember that Spyker ran in the first Peking to Paris run with the Itala and the Fiat. Pics of that car can be seen on the Aliceramsey website as the current owners brought the '07 to New York to join the Ramsey crew for the New York to San Fran journey (only a flat tire slowed them at all) A really great car and the company has had a pretty good run at modern racecourses as well. Jobs for workers - freedom from the problematic management of GM- an Orphan marque revived for the modern market Win Win Win.

There remain some serious doubts as to whether Spyker can pull off the revival of both brands successfully, but European investors seem to be rallying around the idea. Spyker's stock doubled in the last 2 weeks during serious discussion with GM, and rose another 45% after the deal was announced. Not bad for an 11 year old stock offering that has yet to post a dividend. I'd say that looks like a pretty strong bet on Saab by a fair number of people!

Spyker faces mountain to climb after Saab takeover - Yahoo! Finance

Edited January 28, 2010 by Dave@Moon
added dividend sentence (see edit history)

[Rawja]

As I said before, people in my part of the country don't much care about fuel milage. It is what it is.

I don't much care about gas prices myself, but when it goes back back up, I assure you we all will care.

It's funny how I've become accustomed to 3 bucks a gallon. Truth is it's worth it. Probably would be worth at $ 10 a gallon too, but at that price my scooter would probably see a whole lot more use.

On Saab: The new 9-5 looks to be a really sweet ride, and given that GM already paid for all the tooling and development costs I'd say Spyker has a reasonably good chance of making a go at it.

[Dave@Moon]

On Saab: The new 9-5 looks to be a really sweet ride, and given that GM already paid for all the tooling and development costs I'd say Spyker has a reasonably good chance of making a go at it.

From what Ive read the new 9-5 was very poorly recieved by the traditional Saab buyers in Europe. It is essentially an Opel clone, which is not as prestigious a brand, and is looked down on for that reason. It's a bit like their Cadillac Cimmaron.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Dave@Moon
typo (see edit history)

[Guest bkazmer]

GM's treatment of Saab, Hummer, Pontiac, Olds, Saturn has a common thread - commonize the product to be generic with a different grille, then act amazed when the brand equity is shot because the public is not as stupid as expected. Economies of scale disappear when people don't buy your vehicle.

Distinctly engineered Saabs are already dead - as pointed out they are now Subarus, Chevies, Opels. The AMG Hummer is already separated - the sale relates only to Chevy trucks (H2, H3) in Hummer drag. Ponmoick is an old story by now.

The comments on the impact on individuals is nonetheless true and painful.

[Dave@Moon]

Apparently it's all over.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/02/24/business/AP-GM-Hummer.html (Hummer Faces Shutdown After Chinese Sale Collapses, NY Times, 2/24/10)

For those who think the image problem of Hummer is exaggerated, I suggest you do a google search for well-known collumnist Andy Borowitz's commentary yesterday (2/24) on Hummer's demise. I'd post a link here but just the title would get this post bounced. Probably the whole thread.

As for jobs, the plant has 950 employees, but the vast majority of their production is GMC Canyon and Chevy Colorado trucks. There are about 2000 people in the corporation and the dealer network (combined) who'll need to find work, many of whom GM hopes to incorporate into their remaining 4 brands.

[West Peterson]

I've never heard of this "well known" columnist, so I did as you suggested and googled him. With an attitude like that, I really doubt that he's got much of a following.

[Steve Moskowitz]

Here are some facts. The Hummer brand is not dead as it is actively being discussed with other buyers. GM has known for awhile that the China deal would not fly. I hope that in the end they will find a qualified buyer

There are about 150 dealers in the US and 250 outside the US that are affected so there is a huge amount of investment at risk. Millions of dollars were spent on specially constructed dealerships to meet the Hummer brand requirements. Each of these dealers pay taxes and employed probably several thousand employees at one time that count on making a living for their families.

There are about 1,000 people working at the plant (plus 185 salaried) in Shreveport but about 80 people at the corporation dedicated to the brand. Of those, some will retire, some find work within GM and others forced to look elsewhere for a variety of reasons.

It is not as simple as many of them will find work within the corporation, the word hope strikes a nerve as too many people who relied on hope have been tragically affected.

<!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->

Edited February 25, 2010 by Steve Moskowitz (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

I've never heard of this "well known" columnist, so I did as you suggested and googled him. With an attitude like that, I really doubt that he's got much of a following.

Don't bet too much on it. As far as I can tell his wikipedia page is 100% accurate: Andy Borowitz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It speaks for itself. He's easily one of the top 3 or 4 read collumnists in the U.S., not to mention a semial comedy writer.:D

Years before he appeared on any broadcast media or major web media sites, Howard Scotland turned me on to him and his web site. We used to link his commentaries to the of Rants and Raves forum whenever they caught our collective fancy, which wound up being every week or two.:cool:

As far as trying to defend against his characterization of people who needlessly use these things for personal transportation, good luck! The fact that you even have to tells you all you need to know about what an insurmountable task GM has with this brand.

[Dave@Moon]

It is not as simple as many of them will find work within the corporation, the word hope strikes a nerve as too many people who relied on hope have been tragically affected.

<!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->

I know what you mean. I'm still "hoping" America desides it wants to get serious about environmental protection again, and the degrees I wasted the 1980s getting will become something other than the albatross I've been carrying ever since.

The people who'll lose their positions if Hummer doesn't survive will be fine (in relative terms). It's loss is not the loss of an industry, just an unlamented niche player in it. There will be places for them in an automotive industry that follows. As someone who not only lost his industry, but came from a city where most people my age lost theirs as well (Pittsburgh), it's hard to feel bad for the people who backed the wrong horse in Hummer. Not to mimimize their pain, but at least they can jump horses in this race. I, and most of the people I know or are related to, got run over.

There's a lot worse waiting for lots of us. It's just life in the free market.

[Steve Moskowitz]

"The people who'll lose their positions if Hummer doesn't survive will be fine (in relative terms)"..Dave by who's standards. Yours? I know some of these people and they will not be fine! They are fighting tooth and nail to come out on the other side of this thing to put their kids through college and pay their mortgages.

"hard to feel bad for the people who backed the wrong horse in Hummer."..good grief, do you honestly think that these workers "backed" one brand over another? They were assigned and/or promoted within GM and you usually do not say no to such moves. These were simply people who were and are trying to make a living! Dealers who backed the brand were doing what most entrepreneurs do! In the meantime, they invested heavily, employed thousands, paid taxes (in most cases heavily), supported local causes, and kept other ancillary businesses alive.

My dealership was next to Gary, IN so I too watched the pain of 35,000 jobs (I believe) go down to several thousand. I saw people get run over as well. They were customers and friends. It is not pretty no matter what field you work in whether it is the environment or car industry.

I am just an average Joe who has worked hard all my life and who had some success, lost a lot when Olds folded and who now feels America is becoming insensitive to those who have worked hard and through no fault of their own are losing homes, etc. I have spent several years watching lives destroyed, particularly those in the upper age group who cannot find employment and do not feel that these people are in the race, even with a nag.

[LINC400]

"hard to feel bad for the people who backed the wrong horse in Hummer."

Easy for someone to make comments like this when you are not involved and can just point fingers. I like to say that my job helps the U.S. economy because I export U.S. made goods to other countries. But if I had to take a job importing goods to the U.S. or lose my house and health insurance, I would start importing stuff. Then I suppose someone claiming to be noble could tell me I am a bad person for hurting the economy.

Really, what is so horrible about a Hummer? It gets bad gas mileage? Is that really the worst thing in the world? Worse than factories polluting the air and water? Worse than tainted pet foods from China killing pets? Worse than drug, alcohol, gambling addictions or wife beaters? Really if the worst thing someone does in their life is work for or buy a Hummer, I don't think they should be stoned to death.

Edited February 26, 2010 by West Peterson (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

"The people who'll lose their positions if Hummer doesn't survive will be fine (in relative terms)"..Dave by who's standards. Yours?

Yes.

Gary lost 30,000 steel jobs in 15 years. Pittsburgh lost 100,000 in 10. Pittsburgh lost more steel mills and jobs in 3 years than Gary has ever had. The mill nearest my last house went from 13,000 employees to zero in 14 months. Overnight permenant layoffs of 3 and 5 thousand were commonplace.

And I was their environmental inspector. I had to visit almost all of these sites regularly. I saw more of this kind of pain than most people can scarcely imagine!

And that's not even the worst of it. My family was supported by my dad's job at Westinghouse, a Pittsburgh company bigger than Ford is now that essentially no longer exists. "Westinghouse" is now a brand name leased by CBS to whoever will write a check, usually Chinese manufacturers. My father physically helped build the TV camera that shot Neil Armstrong's first steps on the moon. He wound up a data base manager for a consultant here in Ohio, one of the luckiest people from Westinghouse. What happened to America's electrical workers in the 1970s makes our steel and automotive industries look indestructible by comparison.

I was born in the 7th largest city in America. I left it 10 years ago, the 48th largest.

Compared to what happened to the steel and electrical workers in Pittsburgh, Hummer GM employees and dealership employees (who did choose to "back the wrong horse") are having a relative walk in the park. The skills and abilities they have were not made redundant overnight llike so many others were. They'll be building, selling, & repairing Fords/Kias/Subarus/etc. in relative short order. I know 50 and 60 year old men who bag groceries and deliver pizzas, and have done so for decades.

There's no doubt these people's mortages and college careers are going to suffer. This pain is real and tragic. However they're in a position to recover. Many are not. Most of the people I grew up with read about things like college and mortages in the morning paper, if they can get one.

:("Insensitive" I'm NOT!

It may not help hear that somone is worse off than you when you are suffering, but that doesn't make it any less true. It may sound callous to acknowledge that, but it isn't meant to be.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

[Steve Moskowitz]

"Yes"...speaks volumes.

Sad to say see what happened to Pittsburgh and other cities in this country. Truly sad. As I sated, I find no joy in seeing anyone struggle, no matter what field they are in. I said America was insensitve..not you. As for your other comments, don't think it so easy to say people will be fine unless you know all those people. Fewer dealerships, downsizing of corporations, etc. will not mean jobs are readily available. 50-60 year old guys bagging groceries (any job should be respected) is not what I would like to see for the people I know.

As I said, it is a bit personal with me as probably Pittsburgh/environment field is with you. I do have friends in the automobile industry, close friends and I hear on a weekly basis what they are encountering.

End of the subject for me.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Steve Moskowitz (see edit history)

[Guest Siegfried]

All of the preceding comments are very interesting. However, from a purely humanitarian perspective I am pleased that the people who work for SAAB will have jobs, and not be out on the street wondering what to do to support themselves and their families. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

Perhaps the biggest lesson to be learned from the recent economic mess is simply this, 'Bigger is NOT always better when it comes to business'. There is room in the worldwide economy for the little guys. <o:p></o:p>

I for one wish SAAB all the best in recreating their company. They were, in my opinion, ahead of many in the automobile industry with their engineering ideas, and automotive creations. <o:p></o:p>

[poci1957]

Hey Dave, let me take a different slant and give me a brief comment.

I just visited Pittsburg on the way to Hershey last fall and knew that it had done better than most in shrinking and revitalizing itself. It is one of the only regions in the country with housing prices going up (a little). So comparing the decline of Pittsburg 25 years ago with Ohio and the midwest now, what kind of rebirth possibilty do we have and what will get it started? What might happen to Detroit? How did Pittsburg do it?

[Dave@Moon]

How did Pittsburg do it?

They did 2 things. First was wait long enough for the generation that wanted yesterday to continue to die off or move on. Cold and ugly as that sounds, it was necessary. The revitalization of Pittsburgh really only began around 2000 or so, when the population in the region finally stopped shrinking. It is now one of youngest urban demographics around, a HUGE change from 1980.

The second thing they did was really a very wise decision, but was a constant struggle politically throughout the 1980s and 1990s. They preserved and improved every ammenity the city had to offer to the maximum extent possible and even added more. If you live in Pittsburgh now you essentially live in a small city (think Fresno/Oklahoma City/Jacksonville) with all or most of the quality of life features of a really big one (365 days of pro sports, top rank cultural facilities and organizations, world class museums, first-rate schools and universities, modern/brand new/expanding mass transit, etc.). Even the freeways, which were neglected to the extreme from 1950-1985, have been seriously upgraded (although improvement inside the city limits is still direly needed).

It was a constant fight to spend that money, especially as older and under-employed citizens struggled with fixed incomes in a proportion higher than almost anywhere in the U.S. But it paid off handsomely. It created an environment that attracted people, and Pittsburgh richly deserves it's top (or near top) rank in quality of life in virtually every survey. As a result housing prices are stable, and unemployment is the lowest of nearly every urban area in the U.S.

Never, ever underestimate the benefits of government spending!

[poci1957]

They did 2 things. First was wait long enough for the generation that wanted yesterday to continue to die off or move on. Cold and ugly as that sounds, it was necessary. The revitalization of Pittsburgh really only began around 2000 or so, when the population in the region finally stopped shrinking. It is now one of youngest urban demographics around, a HUGE change from 1980.

Thanks Dave, I know this is off topic. Let me take it to the next level:

So Pittsburg circa 1985 was classic rust belt with all the dying industry that implied, BUT was located in a beautiful area of the country with universities and museums. Compare that to the hardcore midwestern rust belt like Detroit or Flint. As people in mid 1980s Pittsburg began to realize the steel mill would not reopen, I think we now realize the auto plant will not reopen. So how did Pittsburg GET all those younger people? And would they consider more remote midwestern cities on the flat land for the next great gentrification? What do you think? Todd

[Dave@Moon]

People will move to the areas that suit their needs first, and their desires next. What first has to happen is new employers have to be attracted. The guy who owns (or is responsible for) a commercial enterprise is usually going to live there too, and at the very least he/she is going to want to have an attractive (in lifestyle terms) place to bring in the best possible employees.

Detroit, Flint, Gary, etc. can just as easily host great concerts and great sports venues as New York or San Francisco. Public parks (something else Pittsburgh has always had in abundance) are attractive to locals because of their ammenities (golf courses, ball yards, trails, etc.), not for the scenery. To be honest, as great as the picturesque views available in hilly Pittsburgh are, residents take them for granted. It'd be nice if every city was as picturesque as Aspen, but it isn't necessary by any means.

Remember, London and Paris are flat as pancakes and landlocked as well. :cool:

Edited February 27, 2010 by Dave@Moon
3 glaring typos (see edit history)