Saab On It's Deathbed But SHOULD It Have Been Volvo Instead?

Volvo continues to put out interesting concepts/technologies for example their new plug in diesel. SAAB hasn't offered anything for decades now. GM originally bought SAAB because they thought they could fix the broken company, in many ways they did, for the first decade sales sky rocketed.

The only way SAAB could have continued is if it became a boutique automaker producing limited run models such as the wicked Aero-x concept. Less overhead and higher profit margins is what would have kept it going. Or... if GM cut out one of its other competing core brand names.

Both companies have been in "no-mans land". They did not and do not have the cache of being able to price their vehicles like Audi, BMW, or Mercedes. However they also struggle against Ford, Opel, Vauxal,VW Peugeot Etc..Both have struggled to figure out where to market their vehicles. Saab was simply the unlucky one. Instead of being gobbled up by Ford, they were gobbled up by GM. GM has had a very different philosophy for it's vehicles then did Ford.Ford also restructured where GM did not. Ford did not seem to have trouble letting a Chinese company own Volvo as far as vehicle architecture is concerned. When Ford owned Volvo as with all it's other Euro car makers Ford invested time and money into them to make them a better product. In addition Ford used Volvo architecture for some of it's own platforms. If Ford had owned Saab it would have most likely improved the Saab brand. When the time came to unload brands Ford acted in a proactive way. They would probably not have offered Saab to Spyker(Swedish Automoblie) in the first place. Rather Geely would have most likely owned Saab rather then Volvo.As for platforms the Mondeo platform most likely would have been shared with Saab for the 9-3 and 9-5. It would have simply been a much better automoble.So in my opinion neither brand deserves to die.

Volvo shared it's technology and platforms with Ford. Even though it has been sold, Ford materials and build quality greatly improved because of Volvo.

SAAB was doomed from the start. They were bleeding money. Chevy then took a bold step and cheapened the brand by rebadged their own cars and SUV's as SAABS. No one wanted a SAAB Trailblazer. In almost two decades of GM ownership, it made a profit only one year, in 2001

Neither company deserves to die and leave so many dedicated workers without Jobs. However, Volvo is clearly the stand out here! Even when sales were down there was never a fear of bankruptcy. And now, with fresh models, they are going strong. Year-to-date sales are up 25.8 percent over the first eleven months of 2010.

Volvo makes great cars. Saab, not so much.

Ford would have made Saab a better brand period. Ford only used Volvo engines for it European product.True, in the US Ford used the Volvo S80 platform. Most likely the platform of the Mondeo(which is pure Ford would have been used for the 9-5 and 9-3. The platform for the Volvo S40,V50, and C30 was shared with Ford and Mazda and would have been also used for a baby 9-2. Had Ford bought Saab it probably would have paid a lot less for it. Saabs would have used Fords 4 and 6 cylinder duretec) engines. Saab would have been a better riding,handling car. It's quality control would have been better under Ford. When Ford bought Jaguar it was bleeding money and had terrible quality control problems. Same with Aston Martin. Volvo was not as bad but Volvo still had a lack of competative product.In all cases Ford was pre-emptive in it's actions to find reasonable buyers for it's Euro brands. GM simply dumped brands. So the bottom line is that Saab, who was in bad shape before GM bought them would probably been in a much better place had Ford owned them.Perhaps they might still be in existence.

Lol what a stupid question. Why does any company who continues to provide exciting cars, interesting concepts and new technologies deserve, or "should have been", closed more than a company that has been using the same car for the past 20 years, changing headlamps and whacking on a new model name, not to mention an uncompetitive price tag. SAAB caused its own death and you can't put this car manufacturer (well, not for long) in the same class as a quality brand such as Volvo.

I believe if GM had bought Volvo like they originally wanted(Volvo was their 1st choice but Ford got it),it probably would have gone the way of Saab. Ford not only gave Volvo a lot more autonomy,it used Volvo's 5 cylinder for the Euro Ford Mondeo and Focus as well as the S80 platform's for Ford ,Mercury and Lincoln large car platforma.GM had a ton of platforms and would have insisted that Volvo abandon its architecture in the same way that Saab had to do. That would have been the kiss of death for Volvo.Most likely for economies of scale Volvo would have been forced to use the then inferior Opel/Vauxhal platform that Saab ended up with.GM ,at that time and to some degree today(although much improved) still has that cheap beancounter mentality to it.Saab could only work with the platforms it was given by GM.Things would have been very different with Ford. Just look at the 4 brands that Ford owned and sold. Jaguar/Landrover, Aston Martin, and Volvo. In all cases Ford left those brands better off when sold then when Ford first bought them. Aston was making less then a few hundred cars a yr. Jaguar had appauling quality control, Land Rover had been owned by BMW, and Volvo sales had been flat due to unappealing product. Without Ford, I doubt Volvo could have invested in the improved FWD architecture, or had been able to make and produce the SC90 SUV.Ford let Volvo develop their own V6 and V8 engines. GM would never had done that.Saab was a dead brand very soon after GM bought it.While it was never a success that Ford had hoped for, they simply did a better job of nurturing it's foreign owned brands then did GM. Look at the Fiat fiasco from 8 yrs ago. Thank god Fiat had Marchionne. What do you think would have happened to Fiat had GM excersied it's option to buy Fiat out. Fiat would have been like Saab is today. No- this has been and continue to be the fault of GM.

Put in a parallel universe, should the U.S.government have bailed out Pan Am instead of bailing out Eastern? :)

In theory so should have Volvo.