????2002年推出的第二代9-3轎車基于通用的Epsilon平臺,，歐寶的威達（Vectra）轎車也基于同一平臺,。而今年年初推出的薩博9-4x則是基于凱迪拉克SRX平臺打造得一款城市SUV。這是一款非常出色的跨界車型,，外形大方,，響應(yīng)迅速，做工精良。不過由于薩博危機不斷,，媒體負(fù)面報道不絕,，因此9-4x并沒有獲得在市場上大放異彩的機會。

????通用收購薩博從一開始就是一個彌天大錯,。而這個錯誤的責(zé)任可以算到到時任通用歐洲總裁的鮑勃?伊頓頭上,。后來伊頓成了克萊斯勒（Chrysler）的首席執(zhí)行官，在他任內(nèi),，克萊斯勒與戴姆勒-奔馳（Daimler-Benz）達成了臭名昭著的“對等合并”,。

????1980年底，賺得缽滿盆盈的底特律三大汽車廠商先后赴歐洲收購豪車品牌,。福特（Ford）成功地把捷豹（Jaguar）,、沃爾沃（Volvo）、路虎（Land Rover）和阿斯頓馬?。ˋston Martin）收入旗下,；克萊斯勒則收購了意大利超跑生產(chǎn)商蘭伯基尼（Lamborghini）。通用也不甘落后,，由鮑勃?伊頓牽頭,，收購了薩博。

????通用收購薩博,，可謂是“在錯誤的時間里邁出了錯誤的一步,，收購了一家錯誤的公司?！碑?dāng)年由于通用CEO羅杰?史密斯拋出了工廠自動化方案和宏大的支出計劃,，導(dǎo)致通用的現(xiàn)金所剩無幾，更別說資助嚴(yán)重缺乏投資的薩博了,。后來通用與菲亞特（Fiat）,、藍(lán)旗亞（Lancia）、阿爾法?羅密歐（Alfa Romeo）等意大利品牌聯(lián)手開發(fā)了薩博9000轎車,，但它一直沒能被薩博的愛好者們完全接受,。其中一個原因是由于薩博車系的點火開關(guān)一向布置在排檔桿后面，但薩博9000的點火開關(guān)卻被安裝在轉(zhuǎn)向柱上,，讓很多鐵桿車迷甚為不快,。雖然薩博9000量產(chǎn)了13年，但總共只生產(chǎn)了50多萬臺,，只相當(dāng)于一個雪佛蘭（Chevrolet）工廠兩年的產(chǎn)量,。

????通用收購了薩博后，曾經(jīng)一度計劃升級它的質(zhì)量,，提高它的產(chǎn)能,，讓這個品牌實現(xiàn)現(xiàn)代化,。通用的初衷是好的，但在執(zhí)行上卻有缺陷,。薩博被收購后推出的第一款車型——薩博900于1993年面世,，它是美國資金、德國工藝和瑞典生產(chǎn)技術(shù)雜交失敗的產(chǎn)物,。它的后續(xù)車型薩博9-5不得不延后推出,，一直到1997年才面世。

????薩博的存在對通用來說沒有任何意義,，雖然薩博接連推陳出新,，仍舊于事無補。促成這起收購的伊頓早在1992年就投奔了克萊斯勒,，而薩博也無法融入通用的任何長期計劃,。通用已經(jīng)有了一個表現(xiàn)不佳的歐洲品牌（歐寶），而且它也沒有什么資源可以轉(zhuǎn)移到瑞典,，更何況薩博扭虧為贏的希望原本就很渺茫,。當(dāng)時，通用將全部心血放到了土星（Saturn）等本土車型身上,，結(jié)果血本無歸,。后來薩博改變了路線，開發(fā)了一款四驅(qū)系統(tǒng),，它本可以增強薩博作為拉力賽冠軍的形象,，在北歐和美洲的消費者中引起共鳴，可惜已經(jīng)太晚了,。

????通用收購薩博的初衷是好的,，可惜他們走錯了路。通用本來可以放任薩博自生自滅,，但硬是留著它撐過了三次經(jīng)濟危機,。薩博的鐵桿粉絲們自然為它的消失扼腕嘆息，但起碼在通用的庇護下,，薩博還是茍延殘喘地多活了20年。

????譯者：樸成奎

????Introduced in 2002, the second-generation model was built on GM's Epsilon platform that it shares with the Opel Vectra. Likewise, the 9-4x -- launched briefly this year before Saab effectively stopped operating last spring -- was based on a platform it shares with the Cadillac SRX. A superb crossover vehicle, it was refined, responsive, and beautifully finished. But with Saab making daily headlines as it careered from one crisis to another, it never had a chance in the marketplace.

????That one big mistake that GM made was to buy Saab in the first place. And the blame for that can be laid at the door of Bob Eaton, who ran GM Europe at the time. Eaton, of course, would go on to become CEO of Chrysler where he arranged the notorious "merger of equals" with Daimler-Benz.

????Flush with profits at the end of the 1980s, Detroit's Big Three went shopping for European brands. Ford (F, Fortune 500) won the bidding for Jaguar, and would also add Volvo, Land Rover, and Aston Martin to its portfolio. Chrysler acquired Italian supercar maker Lamborghini. And GM, not to be left out, grabbed Saab, with Eaton leading the charge.

????It was the wrong move with the wrong company at the wrong time. GM CEO Roger Smith had bled GM dry with his factory automation schemes and grandiose spending plans, and GM had little cash to divert to Saab, which was already suffering from underinvestment. It had joined with Fiat, Lancia, and Alfa Romeo to develop the engineering that resulted in the Saab 9000, which was never fully accepted by Saab devotees because, for one thing, the ignition switch was located not on the floor as was customary with Saabs, but on the steering column. Although the 9000 would remain in production for 13 years, only a little more than 500,000 were built -- equal to two years output from a single Chevrolet plant.

????Once it acquired Saab, GM tried to modernize it by upgrading quality and improving productivity. Its intentions were good, but the implementation was flawed. Its first stab at developing new models -- the 900 that came out in 1993 -- resulted in an unfortunate mashup of Detroit financing, German engineering, and Swedish production techniques. The 9-5, the successor to the 9000, was late and didn't arrive until 1997.

????Saab just didn't make any sense for GM, and the numbers didn't work. Eaton was long gone, having departed for Chrysler in 1992, and Saab didn't fit into any of GM's long-term plans. It already had one underperforming European brand on its hands in Opel and had few resources to divert to Sweden -- especially when there was little prospect of a return. GM was committed to homegrown projects like Saturn that weren't paying off; throwing good money after bad at Saab didn't make any sense. Only too late did Saab get around to develop an all-wheel-drive system that would have reinforced its image as a rally champion and resonated with buyers in northern Europe and America.

????GM had the best of intentions toward Saab, but while they went awry, it kept Saab alive through three recessions when it might have died of natural causes. Saab aficionados will mourn its passing, but at least this automotive invalid was kept alive for two decades past what could have been its projected expiration date.