2002 Saab 9-3 Se Convertible Very Nice! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Greetings from Trollhattan. I'm Emily, but I'm not a Saab.

What’s Swedish for “never give up”? Saab, apparently. The fondly-remembered car company formerly called just that — and now named NEVS — is only a shell, employing just a limited crew in the land of trolls. But itÂ’s got something to sell, and that something seems like it's really something. ItÂ’s called Emily. The Emily GT exists as six prototype electric cars, according to NEVS, with a combined horsepower rating (per car) of 484 powered by an enormous 175-kilowatt lithium-ion battery thatÂ’s good for 600 miles of range. In development almost since Saab's demise — the company, once owned by General Motors, was closed down in 2010 — the Emily is a very real product and needs a real sponsor, according to NEVS CEO Nina Selander, speaking to Carup. “It is for sale, it is also a joy to be able to show it. It should be allowed to live on, itÂ’s too nice, too good and too modern a car for nothing to come of it. Interested parties are welcome,” she said. Photos of the car show a modern, forward-thrust profile with handsome lines, a look similar to the last Saab 9-5 and VolvoÂ’s S60 (must be a Swedish thing) and a fashionable, sci-fi-ish interior. A hopeful engineer on the project estimates that the car is less than two years away from some kind of series production, but according to the modest NEVS website, the company is currently in “hibernation” even as it continues to solicit buyers for the Emilys. Said Peter Dahl, the Emily project manager, “Many have asked us what we have been doing for 10 years. We have developed 13 different car projects, this is one of them.” Related video: Volvo Saab Automotive History Electric Future Vehicles Classics

GM SUV window switch recall urges owners to park vehicles outside

It's not unusual for there to be a lag between an automaker announcing a recall and the official documentation showing up on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration website. So it's no surprise that a recent GM campaign took about a month to appear in its official capacity. However, there appears to be some big differences between the two reports with potential safety implications.
In late June, GM announced that it needed to recall 181,984 examples of the Chevrolet Trailblazer, Buick Rainier, GMC Envoy, Isuzu Ascender and Saab 9-7x from the 2005-2007 model years, plus the 2006 Chevy Trailblazer EXT and 2006 GMC Envoy XL. The new documents paint a slightly different picture with 184,611 needing repaired and different model years listed.
The reason for the fix is still the same, though. It's possible for fluid to contact the master power window switch module in the driver's door, which can corrode the part. Eventually this could cause a short circuit, leaving the buttons inoperable and potentially leading to a fire. But the new NHTSA documents add an important note: "A fire could occur even while the vehicle is not in use. As a precaution, owners are advised to park outside until the remedy has been made."

Spyker's $3B lawsuit against GM for blocking Saab sale thrown out

US District Judge Gershwin Drain has dismissed a $3-billion lawsuit Spyker filed against General Motors. In the suit, Spyker accused GM of attempting to bankrupt Saab after the US automaker had already sold the company to Spyker. GM in effect blocked the sale of Saab to China's Zhejiang Youngman Lotus Automobile Company by prohibiting the transfer of some of its intellectual property. But the court found that GM had a "contractual right" to approve or disapprove any change of ownership. Furthermore, Reuters reports Judge Drain said the contract between GM and Spyker "is clear, unambiguous and absolute" on the matter.
GM, meanwhile, says it is pleased with the ruling. Spyker CEO Victor Muller has not said whether or not his company will appeal the ruling. The Dutch automaker is expected to make a final decision once the court issues its written order on the case.
You can read the official Spyker press release about the court ruling below for more information.