The functional benefits of aerodynamics are never in question, but historically, aerodynamic efficiency as a sales tool tends to fall flat as often as it hits. Chrysler learned this the hard way with the Airflow. Introduced for 1934, the Airflow was arguably the first mainstream American car design to take wind resistance into account. This ability to cheat the wind rewarded them with a drastic drop in sales and cars glued to showroom floors.
You might find it hard to believe if you weren’t around in the eighties, but Ford’s forays into aerodynamic car design met with a surprising amount of resistance. A big chunk of the buying public initially thought the 1983 Thunderbird and the 1986 Taurus looked like “giant jellybean cars” until the market slowly caught on and eventually took off in a very big way, leaving GM and Chrysler looking literally like old squares.
Even bicycles manufacturers tried the “aero” marketing angle. The Huffy Aerowind featured a flattened frame plus streamlined brake components and pedals. Streamlining tiny parts of the bike like that has to be good for…well, absolutely nothing, but it looked cool! Isn’t that the guy on Brawny paper towels? That open jacket has to be bad for aerodynamics, by the way. Crank up the yacht rock and enjoy the commercial:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=533316370647357
Few of us are aerodynamics experts, and many times we’re dead wrong with our assumptions. As a kid I had no idea that cars like the Countach and Porsche 928 generated drag coefficient numbers that were nowhere near the industry best (and, in the Porsche’s case, was possibly more aerodynamic going backwards). It’s not like these sports cars were billboards or a cabover Isuzu trucks in terms of aerodynamics, but there were many far more upright looking machines (like an Eagle Medallion) which were far better (a claimed 0.38 for the Porsche with lights down versus a claimed 0.31 for the big Renault/Eagle sedan).
The only thing I, a non-expert, can honestly say about cars I’ve seen that I know are truly proven to cheat the wind and boast ultra-low drag coefficient numbers is that they’re typically rather teardrop shaped and kind of odd looking. A company that wants to successfully build and sell such aero cars needs to embrace the weird, and most companies don’t.
Saab was one of them that did.
Saab (an acronym for “Svenska Aeroplan Aktiebolaget” ) actually started in 1937 with the specific intent of building planes for the Swedish Air Force. With a weakening fighter aircraft market after World War II, an automobile design initiative called “Project 92” was launched, ultimately resulting in Saab’s first car, the model 92 (all of which were painted green with surplus wartime production paint).
The slick-shaped 92 had a still-pretty-good-for-today drag coefficient of 0.30 and was obviously a product of aerospace engineers, beginning a tradition of cars that continued through the 93 and 96 models into the more-conventional-but-still-unconventional 99, 900, and 9-3 hatchback models.
Saab was purchased entirely by General Motors in 2000, marking the beginning of the end for the brand as GM tried to transition them it to a profitable, high volume division of their faceless company. A sale of Saab to Spyker in 2010 resulted in bankruptcy not even two years later, and a subsequent relaunch by National Electric Vehicle Sweden didn’t make it past 2014 (with no newly designed cars being introduced by any of these later owners). Today, the name is still revered by fans of the brand and former owners, commonly intellectuals and enthusiasts. In an article from The Guardian, writer John Crace described owners as ‘Snaabs”, often “creative advertising executives with large spectacles” (yes, that is The Bishop’s look and professional title, and I did in fact own a silver 2000 9-3). Even if many Saab owners could afford more expensive cars, they didn’t want something that mainstream and showy; with the death of the brand these buyers were reluctantly assimilated into more ubiquitous choices like BMW 5 series (me again).
You’ll see Saab revival concepts online, and even a decade ago there were attempts at new Saabs, but they all seemed to miss the boat with the real essence of the brand. Many sketches I see look like modern crossovers with a 2010-era grille stuck on front, which couldn’t be further from Saab’s original mission statement. Even associates at the brand itself near the end didn’t seem to recognize what Saab meant. Here is a concept called the PhoeniX from 2011.
The video below is an exchange from 2011 between the lead designer of the then-dying Saab brand and BMW’s design head infamous Chris Bangle; Bangle is looking at this concept and asks the designer “Why is it a Saab?” Chris is not buying the answer; whether you like the concept or not, I don’t see how you can possibly justify it to a core Saab person.
You see, a typical “Snaab” would sooner buy a Trans Am than something with extroverted looking wings and fins like that. I can’t fault the guy for trying to bring in new buyers at the eleventh hour, but that likely wouldn’t have worked and would have certainly alienated any true Saab buyers, who had consistently been some of the most loyal customers of any brand. Talk about losing your way.
I’ve received requests for a Saab redux that I’ve been ignoring since I don’t really “do” present day cars, but I think it’s time to bite the bullet and take a look at such a proposal. Seeing college-age enthusiasts like our own Rob Spiteri show interest in the brand gives me hope that it could have had a future.
When Saabs were still true to their roots (and not rebadged Chevy Trailblazers and Pontiac G6s) they were all about aerodynamics; the “born from jets” tagline was not a joke. Pure, simple forms with the only adornments (like the rubber tail spoiler) were totally functional pieces. Sure, they were fun to drive rally-capable cars, and very safe, but the aero is what made a Saab a Saab, and if it looked a bit strange to you than that was your problem to deal with. The only real reason to bring back the Saab name would be to make the most aerodynamic car on the market, so we might as well do a Google search of “lowest-drag-car” to see what that shape might even look like today.
Surprisingly, the current title holder of “most aero” is also from a northern European company, and one that appears to be as dead as Saab, at least for now. The Lightyear 0 was designed to be a “solar electric” car, but as you might expect the solar panels just add a little more range to this EV in ideal summer conditions and hardly replace the need for charging stations. The shape, however, reportedly boasts a GM EV1-record-breaking 0.175 drag coefficient.
It’s pretty obvious that the Lightyear was shaped in the wind tunnel, and then black solar panels were added to any horizontal surface. Graphically the car is rather uninteresting, and somehow just doesn’t look like the over-$200,000 machine that it was; combined with the rather weak “solar” proposition it sort of explain why they found so few takers and the company is no longer producing cars. Lightyear claims it’s developing a sub-40,000 euro (~$42,000) car now. Additionally, it would still be a car with no name recognition or prestige factor.
What if it were a Saab? Could Lightyear (or another one of the startups that appear seemingly every other Tuesday) get the rights to the great Swedish nameplate and revive the brand? Look, I cringe at the whole “revival” thing as much as anyone, but if it really stayed true to the core seventy-year-old values of Saab and not the mess that they were by the end of aughts I’d by down with the idea. Honestly, the core values that Saab brought to the table are sorely needed right now: cutting edge ergonomics and solid performance encased in rational, functional styling. If the Lightyear really was unmatched in terms of aerodynamics, it would be an ideal starting point for our new Saab.
The transition from Lightyear 0 to a now-EV 900-style four door hatchback Saab doesn’t take much. Besides signature three spoke wheels, the greenhouse shape will be tweaked and a simpler tail with 900 style taillamps installed.
A pop-up whale tail and fender skirts could be offered as options for maximum efficiency. Door cuts go all the way to the bottom of the car, just as on the original 900 to keep the rocker panels and your pant legs clean in winter. It’s extremely unstylish, completely rational and sort of the polar opposite of the things many carmakers are doing today that will appear laughably dated in five years. Saabs always looked somewhat out of place no matter where they were and what year it was, which had the positive effect of allowing them to transcend time and status. The fact that the shape of the most aerodynamic car in the world can quickly be made instantly recognizable as a Saab from two hundred feet away on a raining night is a sign that we might be on the right path with this ultimate-aero direction.
Up front, there’s a stylized Saab nose with fake grilles added (probably smoother than I’ve shown for maximum aero), plus you’re notice the cut line for the “frunk” lid is similar to the old 900 and allows for a large opening (BUT I don’t know if I’d have it tip forward like on the original 99/900).
Now, for the sedan I was using the original 900 as an inspiration, but what about a non-hatchback coupe that uses the look of the 93/96 for the tail shape? Again, detailing off of the 1949 car fits an ultra-aerodynamic modern shape almost eerily well. Part of me really likes it while another part finds it disturbing; does that mean it’s a proper Saab?
Interiors of Saabs always had some quirkiness, and ohhh boy will this new one be quirky. The Lightyear has a Tesla-like slab-o-dash with a screen stuck in the middle of it, and our Saab will have none of that. No, the original Saab company still makes airplanes, so you can be damn sure we’re going to have fighter craft-style wraparound driving “center” with a driver-centered screen not unlike on a Viggen jet.
We’ll copy the multi-level presentation of controls from the jet. Old Saabs famously had the ignition key mounted on the center console, and ours will have a captive key there as well, surrounded by a circle that you turn for “gear selection”. Saabs had a “night panel” function that killed all displays in the car at night except for the speedometer, and ours will have the same feature which lowers the center screen for few distractions after dark. Surfaces adjacent to the touch screen that act as “track pads”, a bridge between touch screens and “iDrive” type controllers.
Note the three-dimensional seat “voodoo” doll for intuitive control; memory and heat/cooling controls for the seat sit on the adjacent surface. The armrest slides forward to prevent inadvertent activation when it isn’t being used.
Our Saab will feature the LCD sun visors built right into the glass that I mentioned in an earlier post, which means that there is plenty of room for more overhead switches in the place where old mechanical sun visors used to reside. Like many traditional Saab features, at first they’ll be as foreign to you as the symbols on The Predator’s watch, but after a few hours you’ll wonder why all cars don’t do this.
I don’t see a manufacturer ever getting this thing to that 40,000 Euro price Lightyear was talking about, but that’s beside the point. Saabs were never cheap cars, and the buyers typically had means. If we use the profile of a Saab buyer from forty years ago, that same person today would be cross shopping the Tesla Model S and other cars well above the six-figure mark. Just ditching the Lightyear’s solar panels would likely knock a bunch off of the price.
A big silver teardrop is too weird for you? That’s the point. Saab was never meant to be a high-volume, appeal-to-everyone type of brand, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have existed or couldn’t have succeeded. Back in the day, guys in turtlenecks that played Steely Dan “The Royal Scam” on their Bang & Olufsen stereos as they sat in an Eames chair reading Noam Chomsky knew that intelligent people needed intelligent cars, and that mean they’d need to make an unconventional choice. Can’t we offer the modern equivalent of that buyer today a similar option? There’s still a Volvo dealership down the street for “normal” people.
A Daydreaming Designer Imagines If Saab Had Rebooted The Sonett In 1985 – The Autopian
So much want! Take my money (and give me first some to give away)!
I mean I guess. The NEVS Emily actually makes a pretty great Saab in my book. The Lightyear I’d always seen more as a Citroen executive the like we haven’t seen since the C6, but I guess it’s too small and Dutch for that. Just license the DAF name from PACCAR and start calling it the 88 or something.
Meh. The Emily looks like a elephant sat on a corvette with a Camry rear end.
That was kinda Saab’s entire thing.
I assume that pulling the door opening all the way down would sacrifice some battery capacity since you have to “cut in” to the floor pan for that opening? And the usual skateboard chassis style would also need that cut-in I guess.
That might be a tough sell at the price point but a lot of people still like weird and different so it could work.
I do wish there were still more niche vehicles and trim levels that catered to individual tastes and needs instead of our current world of one-size-fits-all choices. If they can start it up at the top end of the market maybe it could trickle down to the more affordable options, even the mid range (60K-ish) would be a welcome change.
It would have to be done with a deep-pockets, single investor I think. I don’t see any startup with VC money being able to do anything other than mass appeal offerings sadly. But I do love the concept. Bring back the weird.
> our current world of one-size-fits-all choices.
I don’t think that’s accurate. There are a bazillion trim levels and badge engineered models catering to different audiences.
Yeah, there are a lot of trim differences, badges, and facias you can choose from for your Common Universal Vehicle offered in small, medium, large, and Xtra large (“extra” misspelled because starting with “X” makes it more exciting) in black, white, silver, or 1 of 3 shades of gray. The choices are truly paralyzing.
Aero design and windtunnel claims are the biggest they’ve ever been in nice-used-car-priced road bikes.
“Ground breaking plastic surgeons designing aero-shaped humans to match their bikes”
— Dr. Aaron Schaper
The person riding the bike is about 75-80% of the overall CdA of the bike.
This is why velomobiles pose such massive gains by comparison, in spite of weighing another 50+ lbs over the road bike.
My Milan SL has a drag coefficient of 0.08 and a frontal area of 0.41m^2. I’m not the strongest rider in the world, but I am quite strong, and I can pedal this 70 lb bike carrying 15 lbs of tools, a gallon of water, and some food to roughly 50 mph on flat ground. It takes a mile and a half of full effort pedaling to reach. I can hold 30 mph for the same effort it would take to hold 14 mph on a mountain bike. I can cover 150 miles in a day if I absolutely have to, on a whim.
A non-athlete won’t be doing that on a road bike looking like some Lance Armstrong wannabe.
I plan to motorize it soon. 2.5 horsepower will be enough for 80 mph on flat ground.
I’m glad you found an excuse to kick that poor dead horse a few more times, but the point was that the *marketing* around aero bikes, as mentioned in the article, is still alive and well regardless of whatever merits it may or may not have.
I’ll keep kicking it until it is completely unrecognizable as a horse, all mutilated and grotesque, rotting and covered in maggots, reeking of the sweet smell of putrefaction, and then keep on beating it until its morale improves, dammit! And because marketing in these times is deceptive and in many cases even predatory.
What extra speed you get per dollar spent on a high-end aero road bike purchased for $10k, over say a decent comfort-oriented touring rig purchased new for $2k, is not much. Some of these road bikes go for over $20k…
One can buy a new Bulk velomobile for the cost of a high-end road bike, about $10k. It has similar drag to the Milan, but more ground clearance, smaller turning radius, more storage space, than the Milan. Very few people know about them, and the cost is high as a result of being hand-built. Mass production could potentially bring the prices down to less than 1/3.
I’m just working towards the opportunity so that when the right time and place to build non-bicycle microcars out of that velomobile shape comes, I’ll be in a position to sell them. A modern take on the Messerschmidt using the Bulk’s form factor with an EV powertrain would be very interesting: extremely inexpensive to operate, inexpensive to build compared to all of the other EV cars on the market, and potentially off the charts regarding hoonability and fun factor. Imagine a sub 200-lb vehicle that only needs 6 horsepower to hold 120 mph, except you have 150 horsepower in it and AWD, which if mass produced, could be priced similarly to a moped…
Hmmm…A greatly emotional SAAB story, this is!
– Yoda
Calling the 9-3 a re-badged G6 is shameful. The 9-3 predated the G6 and Malibu it shared a platform and Saab and Opel had a part in the development of the platform. Much of the 9-3 was unique to SAAB and wasn’t shared with other GM brands. The entire drivetrain, electronics platform and every body panel and glass were unique. If anything the G6 was a cheapened 9-3.
The 9-7X and 9-2X deserve all of the flack for being cheap re-badge jobs, but the 9-3 and to some extent the 9-5 do not.
Wonderful, really wonderful. ????
“…and former owners, commonly intellectuals and enthusiasts.”
Ah, that’s where I went wrong. I’m a current owner.
This is prime grade Bishop right here. Yes to everything, please. (ftr, I owned an ’88 900 Turbo, miss it)
my favorite part of owning one was having people pointing at some big object that we had just bought, looking at our 9-3 hatch and saying “you’ll never get this home in THAT!”. Oh yeah? Watch this….
I had a buddy in college who would fit his standup jetski in the back, and just drive the car down into the lake to load and unload it. That was a fun day on the lake.
Most people seem to have never played Tetris and think they need a truck (which they bought with a bed smaller than the load area of an old compact wagon) to move anything larger than a carry-on. I built 18’ of built-in cabinets and shelves all transported in a GR86, including a bunch of 9’ boards. On one trip, a couple guys with a truck watched me load it in the parking lot after seeing the car I stopped at with all the lumber. At least I didn’t hear the cliche of the unimaginative: you’re going to need a truck.
The 900-based three-quarter view is dead sexy. I wouldn’t drop the coin to buy one, but I’d covet the living snot out of it.
Glad you like it!
So, another 6 figure electric car in a sea of other 6 figure electric cars. Nope, this “SAAB” isn’t going to fly either. And that “cockpit design” is overly complicated and almost claustrophobic. I think people want room in their cars, not to be closed into a fake safety cell that limits their movements. I do like the overall design and shape of the car tho……
Sonnett had around .31 (I think) and whatever comes back should have the start button in the center console.
I put in a captive key like on most new Porsches, which allows for a more defined callout of “off” or “on”. Plus, the whole “key on the floor” thing needs a key for old time’s sake.
Saab was like an animal that evolved to fit into a highly specialized niche. While that can be successful for a time by limiting competition, that also limits its ability to expand its range and leaves it unable to adapt to a major climactic or other environmental change. As a car, they had limited wide appeal and appealing to intelligence doesn’t tug on the kinds of emotions that makes people pay as much as they needed them to with the limited volumes they could get. Sure, many of their fans could have afforded to pay more, but these were ultimately rather practical people, so few would have paid it. I loved Saab, but energy has been too cheap and most people don’t want to stand out enough (or want to stand out a lot more) for really aero cars that don’t give the impression that the owner is powerful, virile, or rich. Ultimately, people don’t really change, which is why I am so misanthropic. Mechanically, their once standout attributes of FWD and safety engineering had become the norm, giving people other options, particularly cheaper ones that appealed to practical types.
when I learned that my E39 is 0.26 cd I was quite impressed because sandblasting on the healdights and hood at 120k km was not agreeing with that
Sandblasting on the hood and headlights? That’s not poor aerodynamics, it’s from tailgating at high speed on the highway, which simply means you’re driving like a typical BMW driver.
well to add to what I said I have owned it for 2 years out of its 26 years of life and did maybe 3000miles so you might right but it was not me
So, as my username suggests, I have always wanted to properly ruin an old viggen by throwing an electrified drive-train into it. That, for many obvious reasons, is not really in my ability to do at the moment.
However, this summer, after our old Kia crapped out on us on a road trip with the cats in tow, we realized we needed something vaguely reliable, particularly as I drive a lot for work. We had ended up renting the only available car nearby to continue our journey, which happened to be a Polestar 2. We liked it so much we ended up saying fuck it and buying a used one the next week.
Strangely enough, it’s actually met a huge chunk of what I loved about old Saabs, and ended up being an all around fantastic choice.
Weird Swedish styling? Not particularly aerodynamic, no, but it’s definitely different and was sensible to me when it came out. Check!
Driver focused ergonomics? The android automotive UI is by far the simplest, forward-thinking, and best interactive experience I’ve had in a modern car, bar none. It’s got all of what I want, and nome of what I don’t, and it’s right there in front of me. Key controls are available on the wheel or on a easy-to-use touchscreen. I’ve happily been putting miles and miles on it for work. In fact, it’s so driver-focused it only has one cupholder! (Not the best decision, but still…check!)
Good performance? Absolutely. The performance pack suspension tuning is excellent compared to other EVs I’ve driven/ridden in, even if it’s a heavy car.
As a whole, it’s effectively replaced my desire to go through the effort of ruining an old Saab–why bother when I already have a car that hits most of the mark?
Yes, our own Patrick George claimed that Polestar is the new Saab, so I’m glad to hear he wasn’t off the mark.
I have two take aways from this.
1.) The Eagle Medallion/Premier was, and is, criminally underrated. I still openly lust for one.
2.) The Bishop absolutely nailed that new 900 design. I’d drive the hell out of one if they were available in an alternate timeline.
It was actually the Renault Premier and then the Eagle Premier, but it was indeed a clean Ital Design effort. The Medallion was smaller, but also an overlooked car, particularly the seven seat wagon.
Glad to hear you’d hoon on in a parallel universe.
Ah, that’s right! Got crossed up there, thanks for clarifying. Regardless, you’re clearly someone with good taste. 🙂
My favorite Bishop article to date.
We can go lower than 0.176 Cd.
-1954 Fiat Turbina, 0.14 Cd
-1967 Panhard CD Peugeot 66C LeMans race car, 0.13 Cd
-1985 Ford Probe V, 0.137 Cd
-2000 GM Precept, 0.159 Cd
-2020 GAC Eno 146, 0.146 Cd
-Aptera 2E, 0.13 Cd
Lots of shapes to take inspiration from.
If Saab did what you suggest, they could have a 2.0L turbo 4 ICE getting 60-ish mpg highway at a steady 70 mph, and topping 200 mph on less than 250 horses. Or a 3,500 lb EV that only needs 150 Wh/mile to maintain 70 mph on the highway, opening the possibility of a long-range EV for a relatively low cost by keeping the battery pack size down.
glad to hear that Toecutter approves! Yes, plenty of other shapes to look at; I’ll take a look at them all
Re that Turbina:
“The bodywork had undergone wind tunnel testing at the Politecnico di Torino facilities, with tests showing a drag coefficient of Cd=0.14 on a one-fifth scale model of the car.”
I assume that 1/5th model didn’t have the wire wheels of the full size one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_Turbina#/media/File%3AFiat_Turbina.jpg
Seems strange to go through all that trouble to cheat the wind then put wire wheels on it.
This looks great and plausible, although I think a new Saab would not keep the original front-clip design language out of nostalgia or sentimentality. The designers would come up with something that made sense for an electric.
I recently purchased a 9-3SS with the 2.0, and despite the GM ownership it is really well put together. I wonder what weird quirky features they would’ve had if they were still produced
I spent 30 years and over 500k miles in the driver seat of an ‘86 Saab 900 Turbo.(well, I wasn’t literally in the driver seat for 30 years). Best car ever. I would buy your Saab Lightyear. The only exterior quirk I wish you could’ve retained is the wrap-around windscreen; otherwise, I think you’ve admirably captured the Saab aesthetic. For the record, I think my friends referred to me as more of a Slaab than a Snaab. Not sure why.
My one quibble is the screens-for-mirrors approach. Saab designers and engineers usually put a lot of effort and money into things that improved the experience, but often avoided features that didn’t offer many advantages over a traditional approach. On the other hand if they did go that route you can be sure they’d have sunk an enterprise threatening amount of SEK into developing a truly excellent system.
Edit: I thought of a second quibble: It needs the griffin logo on the hood too!
“It needs the griffin logo on the hood too!”
Only if its screaming like a Pontiac chicken.
yeah, flush for best aero
I drove a ’99 9-3 convertible for 15 years. I’d buy that sedan in a heartbeat. Well done.
For giving a long speech on people misunderstanding Saab, and then giving us that sketch of the interior, is pretty fun.
You claim it’s “fighter craft” inspired, and yet it looks nothing like any Saab (car) interior ever before. Heck, it looks more like Startrek inspiration than anything else.
I say this as an avid Saab fan (’73 96 and ’96 900 turbo).
You are absolutely correct, but I just always wanted a Saab interior that was as different as the exterior.
Which is giving me Jason Castriota flashbacks (though, you mentioned him)
I don’t have a problem with the console mounted key, but can you just put in a NORMAL gear selector? Please?
The console mounted key originally locked the transmission in place. It served a function, and then GM tried to turn it into a trait of the brand… which is silly, because the brand was largely known for favoring functional design, not pointless bullshit.
Everything I’ve ever read on the topic states it was a safety feature. They removed a major injury point from steering column where kneecaps would get taken out by key barrels in the column. By putting it center, that risk was removed.
By even the 80’s how was the key actually locking the transmission when they were FWD? There was nothing under the console for it to lock. Was it locking the shift lever?
from what I remember it locked the lever in reverse, or park on the auto
also seem to remember a parking brake acting on the front wheels. No Rockford turns with these
Other way around, the Rockford is the only 180 you’re pulling in a Saab (no e-brake used in a proper Rockford)
It locked the transmission in reverse. On C900’s, the ignition cylinder housing and the shifter housing were the same part. Most Saab’s starting with the 99 had this feature, manual and automatics. You couldn’t shift out of reverse without the key.
is it true you couldn’t get the key out of the lock until it was in reverse? I think that’s how they forced you to put it in reverse.
Yes. Even on my automatic ’96 900 that was true.
My ’73 96 had a 4-speed on the column that had to be in reverse to get the key out.
Idea for cool articles: The Bishop borrows/drives the cars that are the inspiration for his pieces. Of course, coordinating the cars to drive would be a bit difficult, but it’d be interesting to see how driving a few of the cars change your inspiration after the fact.
A Lightyear Saab could be cool, but they’d never do the cockpit-inspired interior, which is too bad. Instead, they’d get the name, make an aerodynamic car with a tablet on the dash and call it good. And maybe some other company would somehow also get rights to the name and do the interior, but screw up the exterior. Neither will end up selling and they both go under.
Okay, maybe the multiple DeLorean companies are a fluke and that second company wouldn’t happen, but this is all a thought experiment, anyway.
Hey, like many Autopians, I have a hankering for cars that typically act as paperweights for dealership parking lots.
Getting the name would be pretty hard, NEVS tried when they bought Saab’s physical assets out of bankruptcy, but Saab AB has adamantly stated they have no interest in licensing it for further automotive use (the car company had never actually owned its own name, was always a usage license since 1993)
How about a workaround. Instead of “Svenska Aeroplan Aktiebolaget” be Svenska Aerobil AB.
Volia! SAAB is back baby!
The initials haven’t actually officially meant anything in a very long time, the car business was either “Saab Automobiles AB” or “Saab-Spyker NV”, the defense business is just “Saab AB”, don’t think they’ve officially used their full, original name since the 1960s
Well as long as the courts see SAAB AB =/= SA AB we’re good.