Spy Photos: 2012 Saab 9-4X Taking Shape

I think it is suicidal for SAAB to introduce cars in hotly contested and mass marketed segments. At this point SAAB needs to insert new models in the gaps.

This 9-4X is just another fish in a crowded sea of crossovers. Too bad.

According to ed124c, I guess the 9-3 should just be scrapped then. The compact luxury sedan segment is pretty fierce, after all, right?

And cruiserhead1 seems to have not remembered that GM hashed out a deal with Spyker during the sale to supply the latter with chassis and engine options for a few years until Spyker gets the brand off the ground. Does anyone really expect a boutique, exotic sports car manufacturer to just jump into a competitive, mainstream environment by designing their own cars out of the gate? That's silly.

Spyker is doing just fine right now. Their plan with Saab has always been to compete with the best while offering lower prices than what GM did. It's going to take a bit for them to do this. Which is why they worked out a supplier agreement with GM. Designing a car doesn't take months, it takes years. Give them a chance first before you write them off. The only thing to worry about now is if Spyker holds up to their promises in the long-term.

should be a good car to help get the new saab moving, even if it is the last attachment to the old GM.

"Their plan with Saab has always been to compete with the best while offering lower prices than what GM did."

Not sure you can say that considering the 9-5 Aero starts at 50 grand. The outgoing 9-5 Aero started at 40, and I'm not sure an off-the-shelf 2.8T from GM (used in the Cadillac SRX) warrants another 10.

Whatever the case, I think this is infinitely better looking than the SRX. I have generally been a fan of Cadillac's second-generation Art and Science design scheme, à la CTS and CTS Wagon, but the SRX front end looks oversized and out of proportion with the rest of the vehicle. The Saab here looks to be a cleaner, better scaled vehicle, if nothing else.

Also, in regard to the 9-5 pricing, keep in mind this new generation is offering more in the way of techno-gadgetry, like the active damping system and Saab's XWD. Nevertheless, I do question them offering ONLY the Aero model at the get-go. Seems to be the same mistake BMW made by offering only the 550GT and not the 535 in the product mix early on.

Looks like the last generation Equinox in the back with the front end from the GMC Terrain. Sick of this rebadging crap.

Really sad that some people think a handful of styling cues is what makes a car brand special.

This isn't a SAAB, it's a GM crossover with a fake moustache. Good enough to fool some people and that's all that matter to GM these days.

@ JustinLInk

the 9-5 was under development of GM, so the price was not Spykers fault. People on here forget that Spyker has yet to develop anything for SAAB, it's all still from GM. I think the next Saab thats going to actually be developed by Spyker is the 9-2; THEN we can start judging. As for this 9-4; its not terrible. Being re badged and all, its good looking and will hopefully be packed with enough goodies to make it worth the price assuming it'll be equipped like the caddy...I'd defiantly buy one. Hell, this is 100000 times better then the 9-7x in that most people wouldn't immediately identify this as a re-badged SRX...unlike the obvious ties to the Trailblazer...thank god GM is not in control any more, can't wait to see where Saab goes.

Thank you 93aero. I was going to make the same comment to JustinLInk about the 9-5 being fully developed under GM and Spyker had absolutely NO say in how much the new model would cost.

Expect the next 9-5 to be infinitely cheaper than this over-priced, GM-derived garbage.

Doesn't anyone on here slam Ford and Chrysler for badge engineering? Jesus! Those two are the WORST at it. The new Lincoln MKZ Hybrid... UGH!!! Just buy the damn Fusion! It's the EXACT same car, except for the headlights, taillights and dash. OMG! WAKE UP!

Then you have Ford... they stretch the life out of a platform 3 times more than ANY other manufacturer! Ford: "Let's keep slapping new headlights and grilles on the Ranger for another 20 years. I'm sure we can fool enough people into thinking we spent tons of money to develop a brand new vehicle." It's no wonder they didn't go bankrupt. The Taurus is STILL on the same platform from Volvo the 500 used. Are people really this stupid?

At least when GM badge engineers something, it doesn't share 99% of the same sheet metal like Ford and Chrysler does. The only thing they change are the lights, grilles and dashes... maybe stitching for the seats, and a few different options. They all LOOK identical. Perfect examples of HORRIBLE badge engineering. Hello 1980's!!

redgeminipa,

You're kidding, right?

The Taurus looks nothing like the Volvo it's based on. And the Ranger is the exception rather than the rule.

Just one example for you: Chevy Aveo and Pontiac G3. Nuff said.

With the exit of Pontiac and Saturn, GM's badge-engineering has been significantly less than usual. But GMC and Chevy both have identical vehicles. Same with Buick and Chevy. It's silly to think that GM is somehow "better" at badge-engineering than any other manufacturer. And that doesn't apply to just GM. It's true to any company.

Also, sharing a chassis/platform is completely different than sharing identical sheet metal. Every manufacturer shares platforms. It's economical. But most don't allow the sharing of sheet metal to dilute their character as much as GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

other than the minivan, what chrysler products are obvious rebadges?

The obvious one is the Charger and 300. Before the Aspen was canned, it and the Durango were identical. The same's also true for the Sebring and Avenger.

All three examples have identical body lines, and in some instances are nothing more than differing headlights and/or grille.

sebring and avenger have different styling though overall dimensions are similar but we already know they use the same platform so that isn't a surprise.

The 300 and charger are even more different. The rooflines and sides are completely different. Size is comparable because, again, they obviously share a platform.

I'll give you the aspen/durango, but they aren't made anymore so it doesn't really matter.

GM's rebadging only get different rears and front clips, sides and internals are identical.

Ford is doing better by ditching mercury where most of the obvious rebadging took place.

I have always thought the 2.8T was a Saab engine that was sourced to GM.
I like this 9-4 much better than the SRX.

I think Saab should really stay away from the SUVs and Crossovers for awhile. Just stay with wagons. Those seem to work best for them. In my point of view this vehicle brings back all the bad ideas GM had with Saab. Not good to me. Regardless though, I hope that when this comes to production that it will sell well for them.