Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 22:21:40 -0500 From: "Tex" <texnospamm101.org> Subject: Re: Just Do It GM-Change SAAB into "GMW"...dichotomoy
"Retroed Bob" <uctraingNOSPAMOnospamanet.com> wrote in message news:dacb41l8ae6374sim0qqhk7ulnd2dqcnm2nospamcom... > Tex: I think there is a big difference between a Saab engineered NG900 > using some GM parts and a Subaru with a Saab tweaked interior... or a > GM truck with a Saab badge. OK. How about this as a hypothetical...I like Chevys. I happen to drive a Chevy Corvette. I love my Corvette. However there a couple Chevy models that really stink, like the Cavalier. What a piece of junk. Oh, and by the way, those Chevys sold in the UK, those rebadged Daewoos, I think those really stink. My point is that you don't have to like all of Saabs models to be comfortable with Saabs, in general. Futher, there are few people who would actually define the true Saab lineup as anything beyond the current 9-3 and 9-5 models. The 9-2x and 9-7x are pretty well accepted to be models of their respective manufacturers anyway. Anyone who buys one, knows that, going into it. > While all brands seem to be going cross platform, the Saab part is > being removed entirely from Saabs. Last I checked the Saab 9-3 and 9-5's were both nearly entirely conceived and built by Saab engineers/designers (aside from the design of the Epsilon platform and Ecotec engine...Saab engineers were a part of both of those projects as well). As anyone here in this group, with any base knowledge of Saab's history, will attest, Saab has historically depended on others for various expertise in the design/manufacturing process. > They are doing that with other > acquisitions too. GM is just building a new generation > of what they did with buick/olds/chevy/pontiac. To remain competitive Saab needed to expand its product lineup. Over the past 10 years Saab has seen its clientele drift to other manufacturers for vehicle types that it simply did not have in its portfolio. GM recognized this and quickly moved to do something about it. Quick moves are a valid level of response to market demand, but they aren't always ideal. Given a typical lead time to market for a new vehicle is from 3-7 years (f/conception to execution), a manufacturer can't always respond to market demans the way it wants. That's the situation GM was in....so as a quick fix they did a rebadge with the Impreza and soon the, Trailblazer. This was hardly an ideal but until new products can be fully developed, this fit the bill. If nothing more, it let consumers know Saab wasn't just sitting by idle. I think a lot this will change now that the manufacturing process has been finalized for the next few years. Work will begin in earnest to internally develop new vehicles. The first task they'll have is to do a full redesign of the 9-5 (now a bit overdue). > One car, multiple > trims. They've just realized how stupid that was with the original > GM brands and are shutting down redundant products - but too stupid > to realize that they are doing it again with all the brands they > just bought. Corporate morons, once and forever. I don't think the general idea of a certain level of component sharing is actually that bad of an idea. Nor does it need to lead to brand homogenization. Many GM vehicles already share epsilon platform (9-3 included), yet, aside f/their similar size, they don't look alike at all. The epsilon platform and the ecotec engines are really good examples of what can be done when employing a shared components methodology. Keep in mind, sharing components and rebadging are two very things. - tex
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
