1999 Saab 9-5 Sedan on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Saab to hire 200 engineers, might build gas cars with Mahindra

The brand formerly known as Saab is still intent on teaching The Little Engine That Could a few ticks about persistence. We say "formerly known" because it turns out that National Electric Vehicle Swedent (NEVS), the Sino-Japanese investment consortium that just bought the majority of Saab's assets, minus Saab Automobile Parts AB, may not actually own the rights to the Saab brand name. According to a report in Di.se via Saabs United, NEVS will need to negotiate with Scania and the Swedish aerospace and defense group, Saab AB, for the right to name its forthcoming electric car the Saab 9-3.
NEVS is hiring 200 engineers now to work on its electric car program, and reports are that it will hire more as it gets closer to the 2014 launch. It will be based on the current (read: ancient) 9-3, and we hope NEVS is succeeds in getting the naming rights, because the NEVS 9-3 just doesn't have the same ring. NEVS will likely target China as the model's main market.
However, it's rumors of their second negotiating ploy that we're really rooting for: to work with Mahinda & Mahindra, the Indian company once in the running for Saab's assets, develop a petrol-powered 9-3 on the next-generation Phoenix platform, based on Jason Castriota's design.

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.

Court extends Saab reorganization bid until end of November

Saab parent company National Electric Vehicle Sweden refuses to go down without a fight. After a recent trip to court, the company is emerging with an extension on its reorganization until November 29. According to Europe Online Magazine, there's also an appointed committee of creditors and union representatives to monitor NEVS' restructuring process.
NEVS still isn't giving up hope of saving itself, and the company claims there are has two potential strategies for getting back on its feet. The main plan is to "finalize the negotiations with the two Asian automotive manufacturers," according to a press release. Those firms still aren't identified, but Mahindra may be involved. According to Europe Online Magazine, one of the businesses is looking to take partial ownership of NEVS, and the other is considering some sort of cooperation with it.
If that plan fails, the second option is to take advantage of the factory and become a contract manufacturer.