1999 Saab 9-5 Base Wagon 4-door 2.3l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

What car brand should come back?

Congratulations, wishful thinker! You've been granted one wish by the automotive genie or wizard or leprechaun or whoever has been gifted with that magical ability. You get to pick one expired, retired or fired automotive brand and resurrect it from its heavenly peace! But which one? That's a tough decision and not one to be made lightly. As we know from car history, the landscape is littered with failed brands that just didn't have what it took to cut it in the dog-eat-dog world of vehicle design, engineering and marketing. So many to choose from! Because I am not a car historian, I'll leave it to a real expert to present a complete list of history's automotive misses from which you can choose, if you're a stickler about that sort of thing. And since I'm most familiar with post-World War II cars and brands, that's what I'm going to stick to (although Maxwell, Cord and some others could make strong arguments). So, with the parameters established, let's get started, shall we? Hudson: I admit, I really don't know a lot about Hudson, except that stock car drivers apparently did pretty well with them back in the day, and Paul Newman played one in the first Cars movie. But really, isn't that enough to warrant consideration? Frankly, I think the Paul Newman connection is reason enough. What other actor who drove race cars was cooler? James Dean? Steve McQueen? James Garner? Paul Walker? But, I digress. That's a story for another day. Plymouth: As the scion of a Dodge family (my grandfather had a Dodge truck, and my mom had not one, but two Dodge Darts – the rear-wheel-drive ones with slant sixes in them, not the other one they don't make any more), I tend to think of Plymouth as the "poor man's Dodge." But then you have to consider the many Hemi-powered muscle cars sold under the Plymouth brand, such as the Road Runner, the GTX, the Barracuda, and so on. Was there a more affordable muscle car than Plymouth? When you place it in the context of "affordable muscle," Plymouth makes a pretty strong argument for reanimation. Oldsmobile: When I was a teenager, all the cool kids had Oldsmobile Cutlasses, the downsized ones that came out in 1978. At one point, the Olds Cutlass was the hottest selling car in the land, if you can believe that. Then everybody started buying Honda Civics and Accords and Toyota Corollas and Camrys, and you know the rest. But going back farther, there's the 442 – perhaps Olds' finest hour when it came to muscle cars.

New owners of Saab don't get to use the name

Saab won't be revived as a Chinese-backed electric car brand. Aerospace and defense company Saab AB has declined to let the new owners of the dormant automaker's old designs and factory use the name on new cars, Automotive News reports. It's a blow to fans of the Swedish brand, who hoped the name would be revived on new vehicles coming out of the same factory as models like the 99 Turbo. National Electric Vehicle Sweden, known as NEVS, bought major assets of the Saab operation in 2012 following former parent Spyker's decision to liquidate the company in December 2011. This not only included the Trollhattan assembly plant in Sweden, but the rights to the Saab 9-3 and the platform of its successor. NEVS built some new 9-3s using leftover parts and powered by the old 2.0-liter turbo engines, with the intent to raise money to produce new electric vehicles for Europe and China – and to use the Saab name. When General Motors bought all of Saab Automobile in 2000, it used the name under license from the Saab AB. That permission was then passed to Spyker in 2010 and later NEVS, albeit without the griffin logo. But when NEVS sought creditor protection in 2014, Saab AB revoked the naming rights. Following reorganization, NEVS in August announced a deal with Dongfeng Motor Corp. to develop a new lineup of electric vehicles, which was revealed in December to include five new models by 2018, some assembled in China by 2020 – the first of which being an EV version of the old 9-3. However, Saab AB told Automotive News that discussions have ended regarding the use of the Saab name on these vehicles. NEVS owner Kai Johan Jiang told a Swedish radio station the company will find a new name to market the cars under when they go on sale. It's similar to what happened to SAIC when it purchased vehicle technology from bankrupt British carmaker MG Rover. While it had the tooling to essentially make the Rover 75, the brand name at the time belonged to BMW and barred SAIC from using it, so the Roewe brand was created in China. It's unclear why talks broke down and also where NEVS will get a new name (there aren't nicer ways to spell Saab, and it was originally an acronym, anyway). Will Saab AB attach its name to another line of cars? Probably not. What it does mean, however, is that Saab fans have to cling tighter to their old cars now. Perhaps that's for the best. Related Video:

GM denies Spyker claims in $3B Saab lawsuit

Reuters reports General Motors has dismissed claims by Spyker outlined in a $3 billion lawsuit. Spyker alleged GM deliberately bankrupted Saab by preventing a deal with Chinese investor Zhejiang Youngman Lotus. GM, meanwhile, filed a response with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan saying that as the former owner of Saab, GM had the legal right to approve the deal with Youngman. But Spyker's lawsuit claimed GM's refusal to approve the deal with Youngman stemmed from the fact that the American automaker didn't want to create a competitor in China.
GM has said the issue stemmed more from the fact that it would stop licensing its technology to Saab or stop building vehicles for the manufacturer in the event it was bought by Youngman. Since Saab built its own platform that didn't use any GM tech, Spyker says that argument is meritless.
The lawsuit has Spyker seeking $3 billion in compensatory damages, though that number could swell with interest, punitive damages and legal fees, as well. Victor Muller, Spyker chief executive, has said the lawsuit is being funded by an anonymous third party. That party will share in any settlement. Youngman has refused to comment on whether or not it's footing the legal bill.