Don't buy a Saab

Oldsmobile lost its special qualities many years ago. Our 1980 Delta 88 was totally generic GM parts bins except for the Rocket 350 engine. The paint job was awful (GM had just changed to water-based paint), the interior trim fell off in several places, and the front seat was so soft that I had to re-engineer it to provide for a decent non-tiring posture on long trips.

Since the car had the F41 handling package, and it was quiet (quiet package) we enjoyed the car. But to say it was unique and better than, say, a Buick of that year takes a wild imagination or a very good set of blinders!

True-Kevin

I agree with Dag except on one little detail.
P & G sold the Oxydol trademark quite a few years ago.
The product is still available in some markets, but it has not been made or marketed by P & G for quite some time.

(Hint: If you had said, “Cheer” instead of Oxydol, you would have been correct. I am not an expert on detergents, but I am a long-term P & G stockholder.)

Let’s not forget the fact that, subsequent to GM’s takeover of Saab, many of the mechanical parts of Saabs have actually been Opel parts . The sale of Opel means that this avenue for technology is not as “open” as it was before, thus making it more expensive to GM to try to keep making the slow-selling Saabs.

Just as the once-unique Saturn was killed by “sameness”, and just as Olds ceased to be any different from Pontiac and Buick, Saab has ceased to be unique. Time for the marque to go–all as a result of GM’s way of doing things.

Turbo, Connecting “the best car I ever owned” and a period of automotive manufacturing and enginnering that most would lable “the worst” is a stretch to say the least.

Every single model Oldmobile sold in its waning years was on a platform that was either shared with a model in another GM brand, or had originally been shared with another GM brand. (The only one that wasn’t currently shared was the Aurora, since it continued longer than its platform-mate the Buick Regal.)

Some of those cars were in fact good. Generally speaking, every W-platform car GM has made has had competitive reliability, good ergonomics, and credible handling.

Some of these cars were not good.
http://www.carsurvey.org/reviews/oldsmobile/alero/2003/
There’s your reliable post-99 Oldsmobile.

Oh, and it isn’t euthanasia unless death is in fact preferable to the alternative. That’s kind of implicit in the “eu” prefix.

Nothing that happened before the last few generations of Oldsmobiles had anything at all to do with its demise, or gave it any chance of survival. I mean look at your list. By the time it was killed, the buyers Oldsmobile was trying to court hadn’t even been born when the last of those occurred.

What you’re doing in talking up Oldsmobile, particularly post-70s Oldsmobile, is falling right into the trap in which GM was hoping to catch you. Loving the brand rather than the cars. Letting the brand cover up the deficiencies of the crappy cars sold under it, while you focus only on the good ones. Thinking of GM (and Ford and Chrysler) cars in terms of brands tells you nothing about which cars are likely to be reliable and which are going to be dogs, because all of the brands encompass both irredeemable crap and worthy competitors. The only way to meaningfully discuss American badge-engineered cars is to do so in terms of platforms. “F-body,” “B-body,” “W-body,” “A-Body,” “Fox Body,” “Panther Platform,” “MN12.” (Those being some of the good ones.) They’ve got you looking at the rows when you should be looking at the columns. They’re using your sentimental attachment to the rows to blind you to the columns.

That may not really be the intent, but it’s the effect. And while in your case it works to their favor, for those who didn’t grow up knowing Oldsmobiles (back when they were actually distinct from other GM brands) were their own kind of great, there was no sentimental attachment to work with. The same obfuscation of platforms meant that the Intrigue (W-body = good) was getting painted with the same brush as the Alero (N-body = bad).

Q: What do you get when you mix a spoon full of crap into a barrel full of ice cream?

A: A barrel full of crap.

Olds was the first casualty of this process, but it managed to infect every GM brand and the company as a whole. Meanwhile, Honda and Toyota, while they did engage in some badge engineering, kept their brands more distinct from one another, and more importantly didn’t try to mix in crap with their ice cream.

edit: Everything in this post also applies to Saab, except the time frames for innovation (if you want to call “weird for the sake of weird” innovation, in Saab’s case) is shorter.

Hah. The 9-2x was the best looking Saab since the 1st generation GM 9-3, and the best looking Subaru since the SVX. It was also a better car than Saab had sold in years, and Subaru’s own uniqueness made it seem a much more worthy pairing than GM and Saab.

All the Saab fans on another forum I frequent were hoping Subaru would take Saab over. (And that Mazda would buy Volvo.) Really you couldn’t ask for a better pairing than that, if you were going to have Saab be anything but independent.

Hah. They were probably using the hammer handle 30 years earlier, too.

Amazingly, the body design for longevity of my SAAB 99 was better than later models with superior drainage and underbody deflection panels. But, turn over is a key to long term profitability, and it’s a balancing act for auto makers to feint quality to max the sales while producing cars that require service to max the profits. GM just hasn’t kept up with the act as well as others and their treatment of the SAAB, Saturn and Olds names as you have stated is a testament to that.

Amazingly, the body design for longevity of my SAAB 99 was better than later models with superior drainage and underbody deflection panels. But, turn over is a key to long term profitability, and it’s a balancing act for auto makers to feint quality to max the sales while producing cars that require service to max the profits. GM just hasn’t kept up with the act as well as others and their treatment of the SAAB, Saturn and Olds names as you all stated is a testament to that.
Toyota for one has “captured” the quality mindset, while still managing high dealer service cost and those surprising $500 brake jobs while other “less reliable” makes may actually cost less to own over the life of the car. Guess which make yields the most profit ?

I guess my soap knowledge is even worse than my automotive knowledge. I wash my clothes only once a decade and 2010 is the year, so I’ll brush up on my soap brands. Happy New Year to all.

“The only one that wasn’t currently shared was the Aurora, since it continued longer than its platform-mate the Buick Regal.”

The Aurora shared the G-body with the Riviera. The Regal lasted longer than either the Riviera or the Aurora. The aurora ceased production in 2003 and the Regal lasted one more year. The Olds Intrigue shared the W-body with the Regal, Century, Grand Prix, Impala and Monte Carlo.

I don’t think it is appropriate to compare GM and Toyota (or Honda) in this way. Honda and Toyota only had 2 brands, and the luxury brands are relatively new. GM had 5 brands for decades. How can you equate the two in this way when they intersect at such a different point in the lives of the companies?

“The sale of Opel means that this avenue for technology is not as “open” as it was before…”

GM didn’t sell Opel. Your President’s board of director’s nixed the deal. This was announced a few weeks ahead of the Saab shut down.

My mistake, re: the Regal, but it still was just the one car.

Also, the rampant badge-engineering at GM and Ford and Chrysler began only about a decade before Honda and Toyota started their luxury brands, and only got rampant about 4 or 5 years before. They are directly comparable. The fact that they only have 2 brands (3 for Toyota in many countries–Daihatsu…4 if you count Hino) is an example of something that they are doing right.

Although the talks with Spyker are on again, I would still agree with jt; Saab does not have much of a future in the hands of a very small Dutch supercar manufacturer. That type of manufacturing has very little in common with mass producing mid priced cars to be sold the world over. And the Dutch government will certainly not bail out Spyker if it gets into financial trouble.

So, say goodbye to an icon and move on. I don’t think anyone in Sweden is shedding tears over it.

Let’s hope the Chinese Geely company can improve Volvo to make it viable.

“Also, the rampant badge-engineering at GM and Ford and Chrysler began only about a decade before Honda and Toyota started their luxury brands…”

That would peg the Detroit 3’s rampant badge engineering to the mid-1970’s. But I think it’s older than that. GM has been using cross-brand platforms since the 1950s. My parents owned a 1964 Model 62 Cadillac that used an Olds engine and transmission. The Ford Falcon and Mercury Comet twins were of the same vintage.

“And the Dutch government will certainly not bail out Spyker if it gets into financial trouble.”

It’s nice to see that some things don’t change, like the Dutch adage:

“We’re OK, you’re OK, let’s make some money.”

But I hope you and I are wrong about the demise of Saab, Doc. Just as I hate to see the Detroit 3 workers and their suppliers lose their jobs, I dread it happening to our friends in Sweden.

Appreciate the comment; at this stage the Saab is probably made up of Swedish and German (Opel) parts. If Saab bites the dust, what’s left of the Swedish facilities will likely shut down or sold to Volvo which, in Chinese hands, will gradually phase out the redundant parts.

Swedish taxpayers will likely pick up the tab for the displaced wokers until they find other jobs, or take early retirement.

The industrial division of Volvo which makes construction and other equipment, recently shut down one plant in each of Canada and the US, and moved all manufacturing to Brazil. The company was exceptionally generous to the phased out workers, and the local papers had nothing but compliments for their separation package.

They had done it before here and there, but until the 70s there were more differences between cars that shared platforms or engines. They usually didn’t share both, or if they did it was across fewer trim levels. By the 70s you got to the point where they were putting out models where the only significant differences were the front fascia and the tail lights. By the mid-80s that was most of their cars.

Acura, Infiniti, Lexus and Audi never took it past 1970s levels, and in North America the first three never went past 2 brands. (And VW never did either unless you’re including Bentley and Lamborghini.)

Sharing bodies became prevalent when the automakers used unibody designs in the 1960s, but there was a lot of duplication before that. The duplication across car lines is one of the reasons GM grew so large. They saved a lot of money.