Talk:Saab Automobile/Archive 1

New Pop Culture Article
Proposal to turn the Saabs in popular culture section into a new article of its own:

Support - This section is nicely comprehensive, but is getting rather long for the main article. I would say keep some highlights on the main page, and give it its own page for the rest. -Grahamdubya 15:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

First production turbo car?
The article states: "Saab was also the first manufacturer to put turbochargers in production cars". And the article about the Saab 99 states that the Saab 99 Turbo was introduced in 1978.

The BMW 2002 Turbo was introduced in 1974, how does this add up?

Was there another Saab turbo before that or does the BMW not count?

--Danne 13:40, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right. I think Mercedes-Benz made turbocharged otto-motored cars even earlier. Saab was the first to make turbo affordable by adding turbo to a non-sportscar (Saab also did a whole lot refining/development to it). --Storpilot 01:27, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Chevrolet Corvair and Oldsmobile F-85 were optionally equipped with turbochargers in the 1962 model year. Shouldn't the claim about Saab's primacy be removed? Citroënist 02:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There have been turbos in cars before, but Saab was the first to put a turbo in a large series production car and made other manufacturers follow suit. 193.202.109.254 12:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The page is full of garbled javascript stuff. Can someone more competent than me fix/remove those?
 * 68.22.197.225 was trying to advertise their automobile mechanic school with links to the website, but they screwed up pretty bad and just ended up with a bunch of messed up script. I rolled back to the previous version.  Is there some sort of punishment for that kind of vandalism/advertisment stuff?

As of my knowledge, Saab makes the claim of the first turbo charged car because they were the first to truly put it into production. From what I've heard the other cars that had it were very limited in supply / not many were made. Saab put them on the production line and started cranking them out. They've since developed an amazing amount of turbo charging technology. --Fr4gm0nk3y 19:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

New edit
I have just removed a phrase that I do not understand and can only assume it found its way into the wrong slot. The fact that it has sat there since January 2005 is strange. It is the phrase: ", after the short-lived 1962 General Motors A-bodies" - can anybody throw any welcome light on this? - Ballista 20:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

9-2X
Isn't the 9-2X manufactured in Indiana, not Japan? I thought it was designed in Japan, and then built at Subaru's American plant. Let me know, guys. Mjl0509 15:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you're absolutely right! Designed together with Subaru's engineeres, it is produced in USA, at GM plant. I'm not sure about Indiana though... As I recall the do it somewhere on the North. Manny358 09:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources for the trivia about the horse-dung....
The trivia about the horse-dung was published on the last page of Saab´s magazine "Spirit", Issue 3, 2006. Whether or not people like this trivia, it is still a fact.

Hey I am not sure that the slogan is appropriate. I might be wrong but i dont think saab marketing would really refer to its customers as "assholes". Also i think the statement "Saab directly competes with products from Volvo, Audi, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz." is an opinion and not really valid. The segments saab competes in are really dependent on the market you are referring too. They have a different customer base in different countries.

Cheers 203.166.245.183 06:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Karl203.166.245.183 06:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement about the brands Saab directly competes against is true and valid, and has been confirmed by Saab Automobile AB itself (as on exactly these four brands). I have added a ref ink to support this. Kroum 20:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me add a note here, as an anonymous user -- I work in a Saab dealership in the U.S., and can confirm the fact that Saab is a direct competitor for Volvo, Audi, BMW and Mercedes. Not only are these brands highlighted in the official "competitive comparison" guides from Saab, but also the customers with whom I speak are generally also considering these other brands. They aren't looking for Cadillacs, and they aren't looking for Lincolns -- most Saab customers have a disdain for domestic products -- but I also find it interesting that few Saab customers seem interested in the high-end Japanese makes like Lexus, Infiniti and Acura.

Safety
I've seen some sources that claim Saabs are "consistently" rated as safer than their competitors. Can anyone confirm/deny this?

http://www.lundsaab.com/safety.htm http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/05/saab_volvo.html http://www.safecarguide.com/mak/saab/idx.htm

etc.

Miggyb (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * just see the results here...http://www.euroncap.com  --&mdash;  Typ932 T  08:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction at tail-end of Company History
The third-to-last paragraph states that GM "would move" the 9-3 away from the Trollhattan (sorry about the umlaut absence) factory and that it now pops out Caddys. The very next paragraph says that Trollhattan builds 9-3s.Can someone with more free time on their hands than me please clarify this? Thanks! --Pitchblue (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It is built in Tollhaten, Sweden and will continue to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.46.175 (talk) 03:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

History of models
Should the second generation of the 9-3 have its own production history, the article for the model has them together under a production run that started in 1998, not 2003 Alastairward (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. There is also a single page for other such cars, like the Audi A4 and Mercedes-Benz C-Class. Further, the model history distinguishes the Saab 900 produced produced between 1979 and 1994 with the model that was produced from 1994 to 1998. It should be no different for the 9-3. Dr Fell (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * They can be on same page until the article grows too big, no point to have short pages.. I would be more worried the main Saab Automobile page the Miscellanea should be removed it has been tagged in (July 2007). --&mdash;  Typ932 T  17:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * He's referring to to the model history on the page for Saab, not the individual model pages. But no compelling reason has been presented as to why the original dating, with its superior clarity for distinguishing between distinct model generations, shouldn't be reverted.


 * Most of the Miscellanea should go. The article could probably use a section/paragraph on Saab's commitment to safety, and some of the miscellanea could be integrated into that. Dr Fell (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Miscellanea is not outlawed by Wiki - merely the guidelines suggest against it. Also, Wiki does not require tagging - and as it takes away from the aesthetics and unnecessarily clutters the page, trivia/miscellanea sections don't require such tags. Rarelibra (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What seems to be absent is any mention of the nature and history of the engines used in early Saab cars. It is significant that the early cars with all those rally achievements, driven by Eric Carlsson had two-stroke engines. These three cylinder two strokes (originally two cylinder) were derived from the German DKW engines of the 1930's. This engine was also used in the much-maligned East German Wartburg cars up until the 1980's. Cabinscooter (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Saab page bulletet Miscellanea/trivia?

 * I put rfc to this to get more opinions, I think this page doesnt look like it should be, It is full of bulletet lists without proper text area. The list/lists shoould be integrated to main text, and tagged as trivia until the list is integrated to main text --&mdash; Typ932 T  14:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No need for tag - just a concentrated effort to improve the text and reduce the list(s). Rarelibra (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Without tag the article is never fixed... even tagged since 2007 nothing has happened..article is quite poor, the tag is there for reason --&mdash;  Typ932 T  18:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah - it obviously worked SO well. LOL. All it does is CLUTTER UP THE ARTICLE. Maybe you like reading that stuff. Like starting up an article and then you can tag it with ref, improve, expert, heck - anything you want. Whatever. Rarelibra (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You dont see to understand whats the reason to use tags...if everything looks ok, nobody will fix it..the purpose is to make the article unpleasant to read.........so that somebody will fix it.. LOL? NOT  --&mdash;  Typ932 T  20:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a great approach... really... make the article unpleasant to read.... Obviously it worked, right? Plenty of edits during the year, and yet - didn't work. Tags are GARBAGE - they are POLLUTION to the article. Better to improve it yourself - why defend a tag with so much energy when you can spend the same doing the research for improvement? Bit of a contradiction there, isn't it? Wiki isn't about making articles unpleasant to read. Therefore, I remove it - no rules state it MUST be there. Rarelibra (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The tag is totally appropriate. For one it puts the article into the trivia category so people doing trivia clean up can find it.  It also encourages people to fix it.  Just because it hasn't worked yet, does not mean it should be removed.  The article is in bad shape the tag doesn't make it look too much worse. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the article is in bad shape. It need improvement, but tags do nothing for improving other than polluting the space and adding to the 'bad shape'. Rarelibra (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles biggest problem is the miscellanea section which needs to be converted to prose. The tag asks people to help and can bring people in to help through the category.  I understand that you are opposed to tags in general, but this is really a clear cut case for a trivia tag. Tags aid in article improvement and this is as obvious a place for a tag as any. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You and the others miss the point. You want to throw up a tag and HOPE that 'someone else' rides in on a white horse to the rescue. The point is, get motivated and DO IT - or leave it, but don't just throw up a messy tag and hope for the best. That is the wrong approach. That way, we wouldn't have tags in the first place - I DON'T place tags because I find the missing reference, etc. Give me a few days, and I will fix this one too... because I take action, I don't place tags. Rarelibra (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Better to improve it yourself - why defend a tag with so much energy when you can spend the same doing the research for improvement?" you used the first energy by removing the tag, you could have improved the article at same time, dont blame us what you made urself, and yes the article is in bad shape, it has only one short history section plus nonsense lists.... --&mdash;  Typ932 T  12:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rarelibra:"nothing happened with tag - better to leave clutter off the page" if you dont gonna make the article better as you said "Give me a few days, and I will fix this one too..."   leave the tag alone --&mdash;  Typ932 T  19:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have restructured the trivia section, breaking it into more specific sections or relocating the material to existing sections. No significant content has been removed.  Colonel Warden (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

news article about GM closing Swedish assembly plants
I posted this news on the Saab auto page. It was deleted. Were should this event be posted?

Deleted content:

General Motors announced that auto production in Sweden will end in February 2009 because of what appears to be export duties that GM owes to the Swedish Government. (See http://www.leftlanenews.com/beginning-of-the-end-saab-halts-all-production.html[1]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roverfan77 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * it was only one day off, and was not announced by GM read more carefully those news --Typ932 T&middot;C 07:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

is this a news article?
At least that is my impression. The latest news and gossip is written rather than facts about the company. Is wikipedia the place for "news"?

Liquidation
It sounds like Saab is pretty much toast. Karrmann (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Undue material in competition section
The competition material consists mostly of non-notable placings in large rallies and wins of small rallies. Is this really material worthy of encyclopedic interest? Worthy (hypothetical) material in my eyes would be "Won Le Mans in 1950--1955, 1962", "Took the F1 title in 1952", but not "Came in twelth in Le Mans". 88.77.152.147 (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Saab is owned by New GM, not the Motors Liquidation Company.
Somebody look into this please. I'm confident Saab is owned by the "new" GM, not the Motors Liquidation Company set up to sell unprofitable assets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.241.233 (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that you are correct - the liquidation company sold all the operating assets to a new company which has now been renamed General Motors again. I have updated the article accordingly.Colonel Warden (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Saab Spyker Automobiles article needs expansion
All help welcome. Thank you. ¨¨ victor  falk  19:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In the Netherlands significant skepticism was voiced over the small Spyker company losing money taking over the much bigger Saab company that is also losing money. I will see if I can get sources. Andries (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Victor Muller said in an interview that was published this week in NRC Handelsblad that the take over of Saab by Spyker was 100% financed by Antonov. I cannot get more details so quickly. Andries (talk)

Competition history section
I've removed the competition history section. The content was lifted from the Saab Museum site (linke here: []). The inclusion of this content in an original form would be nice, though. I'm going to paste what I removed below. Any Saab rallying aficionado is encouraged to write a nice paragraph (no lists, please!) or two about Saab rallying. --More Coreyander (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

''Competition history Some of the early cars such as the two-strokers, V4s and Saab 99 were quite successful in rally sport, notably the 96 in the 1960s RAC Rally and Monte Carlo Rally, driven by Erik Carlsson.
 * 1950 Saab enters two Saab 92s (chassis numbers 7 and 8) in the Monte Carlo Rally. One car is crewed by Rolf Mellde and K G Svedberg, and Greta Molander and Margaretha von Essen compete in the other. Greta Molander comes in 55th overall, 5th in her class and 2nd in the Ladies Class. Rolf Mellde wins the Rikspokalen Rally in November, and Saab becomes the best marque team with Mellde, Svedberg and Greta Molander, who also wins the Ladies Class
 * 1952 Greta Molander and Helga Lundberg win the Ladies Cup in the Monte Carlo Rally.
 * 1953 Rolf Mellde wins the Swedish Rally Championship.
 * 1955 Mellde rolls his Saab 92, but still manages to win the Rikspokalen Rally.
 * 1956 Bob Wehman and Louis Braun win the Great American Mountain Rally. Rolf Mellde comes sixth and another Saab 93 finishes in seventh place.
 * 1959 Two Saab 93s are entered in the Le Mans 24 Hours. The car driven by Sture Nottorp and Gunnar Bengtsson come in 12th overall and second in its class. The same year Erik Carlsson wins the Midnight Sun Rally.
 * 1960 Erik Carlsson wins the RAC Rally and Saab start competing in Formula Junior with the Saab Formula Junior.
 * 1961 Erik Carlsson enters the Monte Carlo Rally in a Saab 95 and finishes fourth, and wins the RAC Rally for the second successive year.
 * 1962 Erik Carlsson and Gunnar Häggbom win the Monte Carlo Rally, and completes a hat-trick of RAC Rally wins.
 * 1963 Erik Carlsson again wins the Monte Carlo Rally, this time with Gunnar Palm as co-driver. They also finish second in the Spa-Sofia-Liège Marathon de la Route.
 * 1968 Finn Simo Lampinen wins the RAC Rally in a Saab 96V4.
 * 1971 Stig Blomqvist wins the Swedish and RAC Rallies in a Saab 96V4. Erik Carlsson retires from rallying and become Saab ambassador.
 * 1976 Stig Blomqvist wins the Belgian Boucles de Spa Rally in a Saab 99 EMS.
 * 1977 Stig Blomqvist wins the Swedish Rally in a Saab 99 EMS.
 * 1979 Stig Blomqvist wins the Swedish Rally in a Saab 99 Turbo. This was the first time a turbocharged car won a World Championship Rally event.
 * 1980 Saab withdraws from all competition activities citing reasons of cost, and because it cannot compete with 'prototype' vehicles using its production-based cars. Being a small manufacturer, SAAB could not afford to build special a "Homologation Special" like the Ford RS200 and Lancia Stratos. These Group B competition cars had evolved so they had very little in common with production cars and thus were of no value to production car development. A number of personnel from the competition department branch out and start Trollspeed aimed at producing competition upgrades for Saabs.
 * 2000 Saab returns to competition by sponsoring Swede Team Motor who compete with a Saab 9-3 Aero SportSedan, a Saab 9-3 Coupe and a 1964 two-stroke Saab 96. The return to competition was to attract students to the auto-mechanic educations. The students get to work on the race cars before, during and after races to expand the students' knowledge and quality awareness.''

WRC
In the sale to Spyker section it said that Saab announced a return to WRC. This is not true. There was speculation but Saab didn't actually say it. Also they would most likly use a new small car code named "92". 9-1X was the car that was going to be produced under GM based on the earlier concept. Spyker has commited to a 92 by 2014 that would be the same shape as the orininal 92. This aso means Saab can't start ralling till 2014 at the very earliest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.46.175 (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead
the lead sounds a bit like an advertisement. especially the bit where it lists the things saabs are known for. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree; have added the "advert" template. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the primary offending sentence, and the tag. The rest seems OK to me. - BilCat (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Receivership
Some IP editors seem to be very eager to bury the company (without sources)! The general view, without actually discussing it till now on the talk page, seems to be that this is a bit premature. Companies do trade out of bankruptcy/receivership or are bought out by someone. The company is not 'defunct' until it is actually sold/ broken up etc. And we need a reliable source to say that this has actually happened.

There also seems to be a lot of un-sourced speculation about why GM wouldn't allow the sale to Youngman go ahead.- 220  of  Borg 18:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)