2006 Saab 9-3 2.0t Sedan 4-door 2.0l Excellent Condition on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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

New owners still struggling to secure rights to use Saab name

Not to state the obvious, but if you're going to buy an automaker, it's probably advisable to secure rights to use the name.
That's what the new owners of Saab are trying to work out after buying the iconic Swedish automaker earlier this month, Automotive News reports.
National Electric Vehicle Sweden (NEVS), the Chinese-Japanese conglomerate, acquired the company's physical assets, including its factory in Trollhättan, but didn't get rights to use the Saab name and logo. Truckmaker Scania and defense company Saab AB maintain the name and logo rights, and will need to sign off on NEVS using it, according to the publication. The parties are in discussions.

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.