Saab 9-3 2.0t 2007 Sedan Collision Damage In The Front on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Saab has ruined all Swedish cars for me

It's easy to dismiss my hatred of all Swedish automotive manufacturers as a simple result of bad experiences. I mean, we're all products of our own experiences, some we learn from, others we don't, and some we need to be hit over the head with time and time again. I've been hit over the head too many times with Saabs (and one lonely Volvo), and as a result, I can't bring myself to buy a Koenigsegg. It started with a 900 Turbo sedan. You know, the ugly duckling sister of the beautiful two-door coupe that spawned the Aero, which managed to look stunning from the front, and like a child with a full nappy (diaper) at the rear. I bought it at an auction (mistake number one) for $6,500 (AUD) because as a bloke in his early twenties, I wanted to be noticed – and a greasy-haired bespectacled musician driving a turbocharged Swedish luxury car was my way of standing out. On the drive home I noticed two things: one, it handled like it was on rails – it just gripped! And two, the turbo wasn't working. I took my new wheels to the mechanic, who promptly told me a custom exhaust system would solve the problem – mistake number two. During the fitting, Mr. Shonky's Repair Shop managed to fry some computer thingy. I won't try to remember or understand what it was, but he did tell me that it should have been replaced and that I would have to pay for it. I agreed. Mistake number three. Twelve months later I had spent more than double the original purchase price on repairs, and the turbo still wouldn't work. I sold it for about $4,000, and moved on to something more sensible. But the beautiful handling and quirky design had left an itch that I just couldn't scratch. Many cars and motorbikes later, I sold my Mazda RX-8 because it was too perfect. You know those cars that have spotless paint, an unmarked interior, low kilometers, and you're just too damn scared to park it anywhere? Yep, it was one of those. I would spend 30 to 40 minutes trying to find a vacant spot with vacant spots on either side, and even after leaving the car I would walk back to check if anyone had parked next to me. If they did, I moved. Not a low-anxiety vehicle. So I bought my second Saab – this time a 9-5 turbo wagon – from an auction. Wasn't that mistake number one? This one had reasonably low kilometers, and was even on LPG (a fairly common conversion is Australia – just not on Saabs) and only set me back $2,200. I drove it home, and low and behold, the turbo worked!

Boeing, Saab take first flight in T-X trainer 36 months after starting development

This post is appearing on Autoblog Military, Autoblog's sub-site dedicated to the vehicles, aircraft and ships of the world's armed forces. Bringing a new fighter from drawing board to its first flight is generally a lengthy endeavor, taking years of planning and tweaking and engineering. Or, at least it normally does. Boeing and Saab just took their new joint-developed training fighter, the T-X, out for its first spin just 36 months after starting development. According to Saab's deputy program manager for the T-X, Eddy De la Motte, that's half the time it usually takes to get a new jet in the sky. "We went from [critical design review] to first flight in 12 months. We don't do that very much at the Boeing Company," Boeing's program manager for the T-X, Ted Torgerson told Defense News. "I don't want to say it has not been done, but for a manned aircraft to go through a complete production-ready design, that is as fast and as efficient as we've ever been through it." Boeing/Saab's first test flight was a simple, 55-minute matter for Boeing test pilots Steven Schmidt and Dan Draeger. The pair took the plane up to 10,000 feet and hit speeds of 231 knots (265 miles per hour) while running handling checks on the twin-tail, single-engine jet. "I've been a part of this team since the beginning, and it was really exciting to be the first to train and fly," pilot Schmidt said. "The aircraft met all expectations. It's well designed and offers superior handling characteristics. The cockpit is intuitive, spacious and adjustable, so everything is within easy reach." "It was a smooth flight and a successful test mission," Draeger, who rode shotgun in the instructor's seat said in an official release. "I had a great all-around view throughout the flight from the instructor's seat, which is critical during training." Boeing/Saab's T-X is one of four jets competing for the role as the US military's next training aircraft. Northrop Grumman is fielding a clean-sheet design that allegedly flew earlier this year, while Lockheed Martin and Raytheon are modifying existing designs with partners – the South Korean KAI T-50 for Lockheed and the Leonardo M-346 for Raytheon. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. News Source: Defense NewsImage Credit: Boeing, Saab Saab Military

Spyker files $3 billion lawsuit against General Motors over Saab's demise

"Smack." That's the sound of Spyker's process server dropping a big ol' pile of legal documents on the doorstep of The Renaissance Center, home of General Motors - or wherever GM's attorneys live during business hours. Contained therein is a Complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and demanding a jury trial, that seeks $3 billion in damages due to "the unlawful actions GM took to avoid competition with Saab Automobile in the Chinese market." Spyker accuses GM of "tortiously interfering" with Saab's business relationship with Chinese automaker Zhejiang Youngman Lotus Automobile (Youngman), actions that Spyker CEO Victor Muller (above) said "deliberately drove Saab Automobile into bankruptcy."
(From Wikipedia: "Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships.")
The interference in question specifically refers to the very last potential deal, called the Framework Agreement, that Spyker worked out with Youngman. With lots of GM engineering embedded into the 9-4X and 9-5, The General had the right to approve any Saab partnership that would involve the transfer of GM intellectual property. Spyker had been rebuffed over every previous deal with a Chinese firm, including two bids by Youngman, due to GM concerns over its IP getting into Chinese hands and having to face Chinese-market competitors using its technology. The Complaint alleges that the Framework Agreement would have put a firewall around all GM IP - Youngman would only work on Saab's Phoenix platform, said to be just about free of GM tech, and would have no access to 9-3, 9-4X or 9-5 technology until after Saab ceased all ties to GM.