Spyker sues GM

[I Rosputnik]

To the tune of $3 Billion

The statement

It's a terrible shame that SAAB did not get out of limbo. I'm sure if things worked out with Spyker it would of been so much more.

[garcon]

If only a fair hearing were possible I'd love to see Spyker win that.

Unfortunately the suit has been filed in the US, so no chance.

[mountainstar]

I don't think it will go anywhere and it shouldn't from what I can determine.

The issue GM had was their intellectual property being at risk and while GM was content to licence it to Spyker, they were not content to do so with Youngman. Their choice, their property. The problem was GM content was in most of the current Saabs, however Spyker/SAAB was free to partner up and build and produce their own chassis and parts content that was not GM on their own.

Probably what will happen, as it does 99% of the time in the USA, is that there will be a settlement of some sort. If not and GM fights it, I think they have a good chance of winning.

Ultimately Saab was a dead dog anyways. The company had lost money for over 20 years. After Saabs debacle with FIAT, GM bought 50% and then 10 years later bought the company entirely, constantly trying to turn it around and it never happened.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

...
The problem was GM content was in most of the current Saabs, ...

Too true. Sorry, being facetious there.

I suppose it will come down to how much was agreed before the split. GM probably agreed to certain assurances because it didn't want to (be seen to) just screw over its SAAB workers. ???

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Too true. Sorry, being facetious there.

I suppose it will come down to how much was agreed before the split. GM probably agreed to certain assurances because it didn't want to (be seen to) just screw over its SAAB workers. ???

The company was unprofitable for nearly quarter of a century and many people and investors tried to make it work and did not.

If GM wanted to screw over the workers they would have dumped the company on the side of the road years ago or rather not bought into it in the first place(which would have been the better solution back 20 years ago). I think they gave it every chance at life and it just couldn't work. They were even willing to licence their IP to Spyker until they could get going and Saab enjoyed a few more years of life.

Like Clarkson said, GM became a pensions and healthcare company with cars being an afterthought and it showed. Saab was just one outreach of that. Those at Saab seemed more interested in getting massages and enjoying the sauna rather than building cars people wanted to buy.

I think the factory could be turned into something like Valmet Automotive, where manufacturers that want to do short runs of niche vehicles have a place to make them. Otherwise Saab as a name brand is dead. Here in the USA the dealer network has collapsed, with some choosing to offer parts and service until demand is gone.

[garcon]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

The company was unprofitable for nearly quarter of a century...

Are we talking about Saab or GM here? True of both I guess...

Those at Saab seemed more interested in getting massages and enjoying the sauna rather than building cars people wanted to buy.

Yeah, that's right, Saab failed because its terrible amoral European workforce are stupid and lazy.

Once again, your ignorance and arrogance combine to truly special effect.

[b1ackcr0w]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

Those at Saab seemed more interested in getting massages and enjoying the sauna rather than building cars people wanted to buy.

I can go along with much of your argument, but that statement is just plain out wrong.

I have a Saab on the driveway, and it is standout the best car I have ever owned (and I've owned Fords, GM, Mazda, Mitsubishi, VW to name but a few), in several key respects.

The standard of build quality, attention to detail and pure engineering is utterly remarkable. These were not cars built by the feckless. What killed the company was their refusal to make cars that were dangerous to their customers. And you can see that in details like the Battery box design or the ignition key placement. These people weren't sitting in saunas counting their Kronas, they were obsessively at their workstations, building their cars up to a standard not down to a price.

The fact is that its just plain incorrect to say that nobody wanted to buy Saab. Plenty of people did, even despite the increased cost.

[adam46]

When I read this I thought it was going to be 'you can not call a car a Corvette C8' or something.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by garcon

Are we talking about Saab or GM here? True of both I guess...

Yeah, that's right, Saab failed because its terrible amoral European workforce are stupid and lazy.

Once again, your ignorance and arrogance combine to truly special effect.

GM made a lot of money at times, but even back in the last decade when they were profitable there were many warning signs about GM's pension and healthcare issues(8 figure sum a year on Viagra alone), bloated management, logistics and manufacturing issues, etc, all was ignored and when the downturn hit, they collapsed.

I saw a funny video one time on the workers there at Saab. Ultimately work is for work and if you don't have your eyes on the details, the company fails. Kinda reminded me of many of the internet boom companies that had their places filled with pool tables and video arcades and then went bust because they didn't bring product to market the market wanted.

Quality? Saab kinda died out here in the USA, not just due to their product, but people got wore out on getting them fixed and then when they would get them fixed it would always be some obscure $500 or $1000 part. Some people had good luck, but since the late 80's I just kept hearing non stop complaints and no surprise their market share tanked.

Saab failed because they spent heaps of money reverse engineering GM IP, their cars cost more than they could sell them for and they didn't create products that enough people wanted at a price that was profitable for Saab. Some people may have wanted them, but not enough.

Yeah, that's right, Saab failed because its terrible amoral European workforce are stupid and lazy.

Those are your words not mine. However, results are results and well, they failed. So why did they fail? They didn't turn a profit for around 2 decades. Why? GM has fault for their mismanagement and other issues, however without that investment, Saab would have been dead as a doornail 20 years ago.

Ignorant and arrogant? Leave out the personal slights just because I don't agree with you. I might actually know something.

I like some of the Saabs and wouldn't mind owning an older one as a local hack.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by b1ackcr0w

I can go along with much of your argument, but that statement is just plain out wrong.

I have a Saab on the driveway, and it is standout the best car I have ever owned (and I've owned Fords, GM, Mazda, Mitsubishi, VW to name but a few), in several key respects.

The standard of build quality, attention to detail and pure engineering is utterly remarkable. These were not cars built by the feckless. What killed the company was their refusal to make cars that were dangerous to their customers. And you can see that in details like the Battery box design or the ignition key placement. These people weren't sitting in saunas counting their Kronas, they were obsessively at their workstations, building their cars up to a standard not down to a price.

The fact is that its just plain incorrect to say that nobody wanted to buy Saab. Plenty of people did, even despite the increased cost.

If plenty of people did, why didn't they? They had many years to do so, even after GM departed in 2008. Results matter. They didn't get it done and saying it so, doesn't make it so.

Some people did want their cars, but not enough and not at a high enough sum the company could turn a profit. If you can't at least break even then you don't survive.

I might design the most incredible kitchen faucet or kayak paddle, but if it costs me $100 per item to bring that product to market, but the market is only willing to pay $75, I'm not going to be in business for long.

I've got no doubt that Saab had some nice features in their cars or they were built to be safer than other similar products. However Saab in the past 2 decades, whether a failure of marketing or other issues, didn't get that across.

A far cry from these days:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM3woO0AbCw

[garcon]

So you base your overall view that Saab workers were "more interested in getting massages and enjoying the sauna rather than building cars" on seeing "a funny video". And then go on to demean working environments that include "pool tables and video arcades" for being the reason for those companies failing, because they don't fit your mantra that "work is for work".

I take it you haven't seen the working environments at Google, Apple and Microsoft? All doomed to fail it seems.


Saab were a very specialised company. The problem they always had with the car business was that their cars were over engineered. As production costs, and therefore retail prices, of other cars dropped they had to drop their own prices to keep their small but loyal customer base. That reached a point of no return when they had to sell their cars for less than it cost to design and build them.

GM could have been a saviour, but instead chose to try and remove every USP that Saab had in a quest for profitability. That resulted in inferior, unreliable cars that stretched the patience of even their most loyal fans. In the end, GM Saabs were priced to compete with BMW but (intentionally or not) built to be worse than Vauxhall.

The last proper Saab was the 9000, and even that started off as a cost saving joint venture ... until Saab realised how dreadful the joint venture car was and completely re-engineered it ... only to then sell it at a loss. (If you don't believe me, try a contemporary Fiat Croma...).

[garcon]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

Ignorant and arrogant? Leave out the personal slights just because I don't agree with you.

No, not just because you don't agree with me. Because you create your "facts" to support your own poisonous little agenda.

I might actually know something.

There's a first time for most things, but not everything.

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

Saab failed because they spent heaps of money reverse engineering GM IP, their cars cost more than they could sell them for and they didn't create products that enough people wanted at a price that was profitable for Saab. Some people may have wanted them, but not enough.

There was no "reverse engineering" - SAAB, as a GM company, used GM platforms, simple as that.

[Adam43]

Which was also when SAAB stopped being interesting or good.

Still at least all those people who liked massages are out of jobs.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by Dave Brand

There was no "reverse engineering" - SAAB, as a GM company, used GM platforms, simple as that.

Um, yes there was engineering done by Saab. It is correct that Saab used other vehicle platforms, but engineered them to their own purposes. You can do your own research and talk to Saab experts, but around 50-80% of the parts will not fit from other GM vehicles.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by garcon

No, not just because you don't agree with me. Because you create your "facts" to support your own poisonous little agenda.

There's a first time for most things, but not everything.

Sounds like you need a Saab massage!

I think you need a sense of proportion and perspective. We are talking on a niche website comprised of the demographic of Autosport readers about a defunct car company on a thread even fewer will be interested in. I don't think we are changing the world here.

Why you always choose to take things personal and veer into personal attacks, rather than merely debating the issues, is your own problem and something you need to deal with. There is no need for all the hostility, especially when discussing a dead as a doornail car company.

The irrefutable fact is that Saab was unprofitable for 2 decades and after many tries, finally went bust and out of business. I'm sure someone can write a book about the thousand different decisions, people, situations and other issues that led to Saab's demise, but at the end of the day it didn't work and now it's gone and most likely not coming back anytime soon.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by garcon

So you base your overall view that Saab workers were "more interested in getting massages and enjoying the sauna rather than building cars" on seeing "a funny video". And then go on to demean working environments that include "pool tables and video arcades" for being the reason for those companies failing, because they don't fit your mantra that "work is for work".

I take it you haven't seen the working environments at Google, Apple and Microsoft? All doomed to fail it seems.


Saab were a very specialised company. The problem they always had with the car business was that their cars were over engineered. As production costs, and therefore retail prices, of other cars dropped they had to drop their own prices to keep their small but loyal customer base. That reached a point of no return when they had to sell their cars for less than it cost to design and build them.

GM could have been a saviour, but instead chose to try and remove every USP that Saab had in a quest for profitability. That resulted in inferior, unreliable cars that stretched the patience of even their most loyal fans. In the end, GM Saabs were priced to compete with BMW but (intentionally or not) built to be worse than Vauxhall.

The last proper Saab was the 9000, and even that started off as a cost saving joint venture ... until Saab realised how dreadful the joint venture car was and completely re-engineered it ... only to then sell it at a loss. (If you don't believe me, try a contemporary Fiat Croma...).

At one of the places I work, we have a lot of fun toys and have some laughs, but work is work and if we don't turn out good product because we are too busy goofing off, clients go elsewhere. I have no doubt there were plenty of company men at Saab that put their best effort in, but also there were signs some of the workforce were more concerned with the benefits, rather than turning out product that kicked butt.

Google, Apple, Microsoft? Where will they be in 5-10 years? We will find out. Just as we did with companies 5-15 years ago like Palm, Myspace, Nokia, Yahoo, all once the ones that were the cool place to work and now dead, barely alive or a legacy company trying to desperately hold on. You can throw in Microsoft as well and there are a lot of signs out there to investors that Google is becoming a dysfunctional, bureaucratic company where one hand doesn't talk to another. Apple, who knows how they will do with Steve Jobs gone.

Certainly over engineering for certain price points could have been one of the many problems. Ideally if you are going to "over engineer" something then you need to convince the public that is the case and that it is worth paying for.

I don't disagree about GM. I think it's a terrible company that lived off it's nameplates for decades as it gradually lost market share. I would not have wanted to partner with them or have them invest in my company. The only thing you can say about GM was they kept the brand alive for 2 decades when otherwise Saab would have been toast.

Sad they are gone, but the product wasn't there anymore. I look forward to owning one someday.

[garcon]

It's funny how I only ever seem to be so "hostile" with you, doncha think?

My problem is a lack of tolerance for lies and fantasy.

[I Rosputnik]

GM has had a look at things...

[garcon]

Well they weren't likely to say, "Actually they might have a case," were they?

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by garcon

It's funny how I only ever seem to be so "hostile" with you, doncha think?

My problem is a lack of tolerance for lies and fantasy.

Ah, so it's OK to break the rules and attack the poster not the post if by your all knowing God like opinion it is "lies and fantasy", "ignorant or arrogant" or just plain "poisonous".

As I said before get some perspective and proportion before you go on your tirades. If you'd like to contribute some constructive opinion about Saab, please do so.

I've posted some outstanding analysis of Saab's situation.

If you've got a problem with my opinions, just put me on ignore.

I guess we'll have to take up a website collection to send you to Sweden so you can relax some.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by I Rosputnik

GM has had a look at things...

Sounds like GM is going to fight it or it will end up being a settlement to make it go away. I think it's baseless. GM has a right to their IP, that was agreed to when Spyker bought it and Spyker wanted to break the agreement. Spyker was never adequately funded to swallow a company the size of Saab anyways.

Also it's got little to do with China, rather GM not wanting it's IP to end up in Youngman's hands. Probably most people are not aware "Saab" will live for years to come as the old 9-3 and 9-5 production lines ended up in China and the cars will get a refresh before going on the market:

http://www.carnewschina.com/tag/saab/

[mountainstar]

An excellent article from Saab Specialist about GM part content:

http://the-saab-specialist-register....did-kill-saab/

[garcon]

Oh man, trust me, I am completely relaxed. Practically comatose.

[GORDON STREETER]

Interesting reading through this thread as I have a few Saab's on my books including a couple of the last ones before they finally went under.
I agree that certain parts are probably over engineered but if you actually work on them day to day certain models have serious crankshaft/bearing failures necessitating engine replacement.
The problem will be replacement Saab parts but aftermarket service items will be OK of course.
As for "selling cheaper than they are built for" it took years and years before BL found out that the Mini was sold for £10 cheaper than it was made !