Ford Jellymoulds Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 (edited) Autoblog Reports.... According to an article in Sweden's di, GM lost $5,100+ on every Saab it has sold over the last eight years. The how is murky, but the why is that they spent a lot of money to purchase Saab and then didn't sell very many of them. Moreover, it's costing GM a pretty penny to unload Saab. Just about $900,000,000 to put a number on it. All in, General Motors lost nearly $6 billion dollars with Saab in the eight years they spent together. LINK Edited November 20, 2009 by Ford Jellymoulds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 (edited) And they have horrid resale value, would have to be financially foolish to buy one without huge discounts! I have a feeling the sale of brand will end up as Saturn, buyers will say 'forget it, it's a moneypit!' Then all SAAB dealers will have to close. Left over cars will be sittting for years, same as Saturns now. Edited November 20, 2009 by 630land Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted November 20, 2009 Author Share Posted November 20, 2009 And they have horrid resale value, would have to be financially foolish to buy one without huge discounts! I have a feeling the sale of brand will end up as Saturn, buyers will say 'forget it, it's a moneypit!' Then all SAAB dealers will have to close. Left over cars will be sittting for years, same as Saturns now. What idiot at GM brought Saab hope he never got paid any big bonuses for buying junk like Saab? You would have thought after just a couple of losing years $5,000+ on every Saab they sold they would ditched them, but 8 years why were GM management so slow to act and cut their losses. Big Al would not have waited 8 years to get rid of a money pit that lost $5,000+ on every car every year. Your right, who in their right mind will want to buy a company thats going to lose them $5,000+ on every car they sell, there can't be a CEO around who will daft enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Well good thing they didn't sell too many of them then! And Saab is now owned by Koenigsegg, so let's see what they're able to do with Saab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 oops, didnt read the title first. reading all of the comments, I thought we were talking about Jaguar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 (edited) Only GM could lose money on a wonderful car like Saab. Edited November 21, 2009 by retro-man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 GM lost $5,100+ on every Saab it has sold over the last eight years. Lutz thought they could make up for it in volume.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 Well, Ford has technically lost money on every Volvo it has ever sold since taking over the brand. Especially if you consider that they bought it for $6 Billion+ and are about to sell it for around $2 Billion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice-capades Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 I've never understood what the Saab appeal was to those that drive them. And then they came out with the "Born from jets" advertising campaign! Saab jets? News to me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 I've never understood what the Saab appeal was to those that drive them. And then they came out with the "Born from jets" advertising campaign! Saab jets? News to me! yup. SAAB is also the name of an aviation company. Not the only ones that had an aviation branch in their past. Ford, Mitsubishi, BMW all have it in their pasts as well. Not unlike Daimler making trains or Hyundai making ocean going cargo ships or Toyota making forklifts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 Only GM could lose money on a wonderful car like Saab. Well, in all fairness by the time GM got Saab, they were in the same boat as Jaguar. They needed substantial investment to become competitive, and then they needed significant ongoing investment to make up for the lack of volume. It's the old 'too poor to paint, too proud to whitewash' thing: Saab didn't want to share with GM, and wasn't generating enough revenue on its own to fund further development. Same as Jaguar. Creates a cycle where you get a few years of marginal profitability, and then substantial losses when you have to invest in new product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 (edited) I've never understood what the Saab appeal was to those that drive them. And then they came out with the "Born from jets" advertising campaign! Saab jets? News to me! SAAB = Svenska Aeroplan Aktiebolag (Swedish Aeroplane Limited) SAAB Draken (Dragon) Supersonic (Mach 2) Interceptor 1957 - 1971 SAAB Viggen (Thunderbolt) Multi-role Supersonic (Mach 2) Fighter 1967 - 1990 SAAB Gripen (Griffin) Supersonic (Mach 2) Fighter 1987 - present And of course the commuter airplanes that are in fairly wide use Oh, BTW, Subaru (which I always took as the Japanese spiritual equivalent of SAAB: front wheel drive, quirky design and mechanicals, aircraft roots) also makes airplanes. Fuji Heavy Industries started out as "The Aircraft Research Laboratory" in 1917, and was reorganized as the Nakajima Aircraft Company in 1932. In 1946, the company started manufacturing the Rabbit Motor Scooter (which has a cult following in Japan the way Vespa does in the US), and in 1955 the first car, the Subaru 1500. Edited November 22, 2009 by retro-man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipnzap Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 Well, Ford has technically lost money on every Volvo it has ever sold since taking over the brand. Especially if you consider that they bought it for $6 Billion+ and are about to sell it for around $2 Billion. Actually, Volvo was profitable until recently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 GM managed to lose something like $90 billion in the past decade......big ouch!!! But it wasn't all their fault, just ask Fritz...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Actually, Volvo was profitable until recently. Even after you add in the $4 Billion they will lose after you take into account the purchase/sale price, and add in all the losses every year Ford has controlled them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted November 23, 2009 Author Share Posted November 23, 2009 (edited) yup. SAAB is also the name of an aviation company. Not the only ones that had an aviation branch in their past. Ford, Mitsubishi, BMW all have it in their pasts as well. Not unlike Daimler making trains or Hyundai making ocean going cargo ships or Toyota making forklifts. Fiat as well. If you travelled on a Boeing or Airboose there is a good chance it has Fiat accessory gearbox fitted at the heart of its engine. Gotta say l have never really understood why cars don't have a mini accessory gearbox and do away with timing, power steering, fuel pump, alternator belts etc just and link them all up in a mini gearbox using a master spline to locate each component on the gear drivetrain and design out the need for timing and belt adjustment/breakages etc. Edited November 24, 2009 by Ford Jellymoulds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Even after you add in the $4 Billion they will lose after you take into account the purchase/sale price, and add in all the losses every year Ford has controlled them? They haven't lost money every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ford4v429 Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 yup. SAAB is also the name of an aviation company. Not the only ones that had an aviation branch in their past. Ford, Mitsubishi, BMW all have it in their pasts as well. Not unlike Daimler making trains or Hyundai making ocean going cargo ships or Toyota making forklifts. speaking of forklifts...just HAVE to say, at work weve had about every type/size of lift trucks, but anyone ever considering a forklift, try Mitsubishi before making a decision. Weve had three Mitsus for about 12 years, ONLY thing done was regular service , a wheel cylinder on one, and a starter on one- Toyotas/clarks/yales, IMO none could hold a candle to our beat up old Mitsubishi. Sorry if bashing a couple American forklift manufacturers, but they got a long way to go- even the newest Yales with their servovalve fingertip controls suck IMO compared to the old Mitsubishi. Weve got bad floors- never damaged a steer axle on the Mitsus, cant say that for the others...of all the trucks in all our plants, gotta say the Mitsubishi is the best lift truck weve ever had- everybody still fights over the beatup old things, even with brand new ones in the plant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 I knew SAAB would be a disaster for GM back when they first bought 50% of it in the early 90's. Ford probably lost a similar amount on Volvo, though they did get some very worthwhile technology from Volvo in the process. I won't even bring up Hummer, Jaguar or Range Rover. Speaking of other auto manufacturer's endevours, if you want to bring up railroading, you have to acknowledge GM's part in making the diesel-electric locomotive a success. GM's Electro-Motive division built 1000's of locomotives, more often than not the best in the industry too (don't argue with me, I have done some railroading in my past!). Good enough to bury the steam locomotive, and it took G.E. a couple of decades to get their act together and catch up (a fine locomotive today). Also, GM created North American Aviation and owned it until the early 50's (don't argue with me on that one either, my old man worked there). Yup, the P-51 Mustang was a GM product. Also, Allison was a major aircraft engine manufacturer for many years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guesswhoscomingtodinner Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Autoblog Reports.... According to an article in Sweden's di, GM lost $5,100+ on every Saab it has sold over the last eight years. The how is murky, but the why is that they spent a lot of money to purchase Saab and then didn't sell very many of them. Moreover, it's costing GM a pretty penny to unload Saab. Just about $900,000,000 to put a number on it. All in, General Motors lost nearly $6 billion dollars with Saab in the eight years they spent together. LINK GM losing $5000 per SAAB. Is that loss less than the loss they have on Chevrolets, Buicks, Caddies? Perhaps GM should stick with SAAB if they determine that is their brand losing the least amount per vehicle. Give us tax payers a break already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 (edited) The 'born from jets' did not apply to the TrailBlazer badge job, 9-7x. One commerical showed a Saab jet morphing into a "SaaBlazer"; no way were these clones Saab designs! Only good thinkg is maybe Saab owners will see resale go up after the brand folds? Edited November 24, 2009 by 630land Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 GM losing $5000 per SAAB. Is that loss less than the loss they have on Chevrolets, Buicks, Caddies? Perhaps GM should stick with SAAB if they determine that is their brand losing the least amount per vehicle. Give us tax payers a break already. ouch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.