Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The automotive industry has a history terrible acquisitions and mergers. DaimlerChrysler comes to mind. BMW, for instance, poured a lot of money into Rover.
But you don't here about Ford when they owned Volvo, jaguar, land rover ,no it's always about GM people are short sited here. They don't know wht happend to GM they weren't in the board room they don't know what decisions were made. All they heard is what the news said like everyone but everyone on here thinks they are a auto manufacturing expert on how GM got in trouble amazing. Im susprised they are not no financial experts on here to say why and how the banks got in trouble.
But you don't here about Ford when they owned Volvo, jaguar, land rover ,no it's always about GM people are short sited here. They don't know wht happend to GM they weren't in the board room they don't know what decisions were made. All they heard is what the news said like everyone but everyone on here thinks they are a auto manufacturing expert on how GM got in trouble amazing. Im susprised they are not no financial experts on here to say why and how the banks got in trouble.
Are you a UAW worker employed by GM? The grammar in this post speaks volumes about the Detroit 3 fans.
Are you a UAW worker employed by GM? The grammar in this post speaks volumes about the Detroit 3 fans.
Proud former UAW Chrysler worker, my father 30 year GM skilled trade UAW worker. Born and raised in Michigan. GM feed our family and took care of my mother when my father died. The UAW made sure her medical stayed when my father died and she recived his pension, untill her death 15 yrs ago.
Maybe Saab would have found other owners. GM was only a majority owner in Saab from 2000. Ford's PAG was also a failure. Volvo is now flourishing under Chinese ownership.
Volvo is hardly flourishing in the US. It's rare to see a brand new Volvo save the occasional XC90. Acuras, Lexus, Audi, BMW, etc are a dime a dozen.
GM has some of the best automotive engineers on the planet. I don't doubt that. Their workers are generally good also.
The problem is management. GM was severely mismanaged for most of it's history. Just look at Roger Smith, a class act if there ever was one.
GM bought Saab in order to KILL IT. And they may have succeeded.
Ford had a similar aim with Volvo, I suspect. American Death Trap Manufacturers get better safety ratings for their garbage, if they can destroy the the safer makes of cars (ratings being relative...).
But to answer the OP question, I think it would have been WONDERFUL. And yes: buyers of the two marques do have similar mindsets and value systems. By now, we would have bought SEVERAL Saabs, had the company been acquired by Subaru. We were loyal Volvo customers, until Ford ate Volvo. We would have moved to Saab, except the company had been eaten by GM. Instead, we moved (mostly) to Lexus.
No way would we have bought Subarus - primarily because the name sounds like something a silly five-year-old boy would like, and because they are ugly and inelegant. 'Saab' sounded sophisticated, and the cars were reasonably statusy-looking.
Volvo is hardly flourishing in the US. It's rare to see a brand new Volvo save the occasional XC90. Acuras, Lexus, Audi, BMW, etc are a dime a dozen.
GM has some of the best automotive engineers on the planet. I don't doubt that. Their workers are generally good also.
The problem is management. GM was severely mismanaged for most of it's history. Just look at Roger Smith, a class act if there ever was one.
Correct GM's former CEOs were former number cruncher's including Rodger Smith and Rick Wagoner. They were not car people like the new CEO. She started from the bottom she went to the GM institute of enginering. Her father was a UAW member and and worked in the plant. She is trying to bring GM back to we're it was. Ever seen that movie Rodger and me, it's all about Rodger Smith my father and all of the rest of rank and file workers hatted him. He had no idea on how to run a auto company.
GM bought Saab in order to KILL IT. And they may have succeeded.
Ford had a similar aim with Volvo, I suspect. American Death Trap Manufacturers get better safety ratings for their garbage, if they can destroy the the safer makes of cars (ratings being relative...).
But to answer the OP question, I think it would have been WONDERFUL. And yes: buyers of the two marques do have similar mindsets and value systems. By now, we would have bought SEVERAL Saabs, had the company been acquired by Subaru. We were loyal Volvo customers, until Ford ate Volvo. We would have moved to Saab, except the company had been eaten by GM. Instead, we moved (mostly) to Lexus.
No way would we have bought Subarus - primarily because the name sounds like something a silly five-year-old boy would like, and because they are ugly and inelegant. 'Saab' sounded sophisticated, and the cars were reasonably statusy-looking.
Kind of makes you wonder why Saab and Volvo were for sale in the first place, I know both were in trouble and GM and Ford had the money to buy them. So don't blame the us auto maker's for trying to save them. I did not see any other auto maker stepping in to buy sabb from GM. And Ford sold Volvo on the cheap side to china because no other auto company wanted them either.
Correct GM's former CEOs were former number cruncher's including Rodger Smith and Rick Wagoner. They were not car people like the new CEO. She started from the bottom she went to the GM institute of enginering. Her father was a UAW member and and worked in the plant. She is trying to bring GM back to we're it was. Ever seen that movie Rodger and me, it's all about Rodger Smith my father and all of the rest of rank and file workers hatted him. He had no idea on how to run a auto company.
That movie (ROGER & Me) also brought out how the UAW members that were laid off could not even hold down a job as simple and mundane as working at Taco Bell! The workers apparently skipped school, not even knowing how to make change, or grasp how to work a cash register. The posts I have read on this and other forums prove they ALL skipped English classes, too. My guess is they were brought up with a union mentality, knowing that despite lack of education, skill, or even if they were addicted, the union would take care of them cradle to grave. Look at the state of the Detroit 3, the city of Detroit, and many parts of Michigan to see how unions can ruin things AND people.
The American built cars from non union factories are extremely well assembled. The workers have to meet criteria in education and ability to get a job instead of just being related to some union slug. They will be promoted if they excel, and fired if they fart off their jobs. It makes for good jobs for hard working Americans, and great cars for the car buyers.
Last edited by outafocus; 01-15-2015 at 07:40 PM..
GM bought Saab in order to KILL IT. And they may have succeeded.
Ford had a similar aim with Volvo, I suspect. American Death Trap Manufacturers get better safety ratings for their garbage, if they can destroy the the safer makes of cars (ratings being relative...).
Oh for goodness' sake, this is just silly. If GM wanted to kill Saab, why would they buy a dying brand, bleed red ink for over a decade trying to resuscitate it, and then kill it? GM bought Saab because they wanted a luxury brand to compete with European luxury marques and it was theoretically cheaper and quicker to buy a struggling European marque than to try to transition one of its existing quasi-luxury brands or create a new brand.
Same with Ford and their Premier Automotive Group (Volvo, Jaguar, Aston Martin, Land Rover). They wanted high-end brands in their portfolio without having to re-position Lincoln or start from scratch. Far from killing them, Ford almost certainly rescued Jaguar from a rather painful and unceremonious death and substantially improved Land Rover's fortunes as well. These brands still had their problems when Ford sold them to raise cash and remain solvent, but they handed off two brands to their current owners (Tata) that were far more viable concerns than they were before Ford acquired them. The state of Volvo when Ford sold versus bought the marque could at worst be described as a wash.
And no, safety ratings are not relative. They are determined by a fixed standard and the results are completely independent of one another.
That movie (ROGER & Me) also brought out how the UAW members that were laid off could not even hold down a job as
ALL skipped English classes, too. .
Just like I hear all TX'ns are either goat ropers or whores....... which are you?
I think Subaru has done a masterful job of marketing a ecological friendly brand that has proven to be somewhat upscale. Not sure that the addition of saab would have been effective.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
which are you?
