William Maley

SAAB News: Not This Again: Spyker Sues GM Over Saab Sale

35 posts in this topic


William Maley

Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com

August 6, 2012

Former Saab owner Spyker has filled a $3 billion lawsuit against General Motors for its actions of blocking the sale of Saab to Chinese automotive firm, Youngman Automotive.

"This lawsuit seeks redress for the unlawful actions GM took to avoid competition with Saab Automobile in the Chinese market," Spyker said in a statement.

"GM's actions had the direct and intended objective of driving Saab Automobile into bankruptcy, a result of GM's tortiously interfering with a transaction between Saab Automobile, Spyker and Chinese investor Youngman that would have permitted Saab Automobile to restructure and remain a solvent, going concern."

"It is hard to believe. We have no comment until we see the lawsuit," GM Spokesman James Cain told Reuters.

GM might not have seen the lawsuit, but we have. The suit filled in U.S. District Court for the eastern district of Michigan alleges that GM prevented the reorganization of Saab even after agreements were put in place that no GM technology went to Saab's Chinese partners. Saab's Phoenix platform, which was developed separately from GM, was going to be sold to China. The lawsuit further alleges that GM even torpedoed an 11th hour agreement that would have prevented any near term participation of Youngman until after Saab's use of GM technology had passed.

Source: Reuters

Spyker's Statement and Filing is on Page 2

William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at william.maley@cheersandgears.com or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.


SPYKER FILES A THREE BILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS

Zeewolde, the Netherlands, 6 August 2012 -- Spyker N.V. ("Spyker") announced that it has filed a complaint against General Motors Company ("GM") in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan today at 08.00 AM EST. Spyker filed the complaint in its own right and on behalf of its 100 percent subsidiary Saab Automobile A.B., which was declared bankrupt on December 19, 2011.

This lawsuit seeks redress for the unlawful actions GM took to avoid competition with Saab Automobile in the Chinese market. GM's actions had the direct and intended objective of driving Saab Automobile into bankruptcy, a result of GM's tortiously interfering with a transaction between Saab Automobile, Spyker and Chinese investor Youngman that would have permitted Saab Automobile to restructure and remain a solvent, going concern. The monetary value of the claim amounts to US$ 3 billion (three billion US dollars).

Since Saab Automobile is in receivership and hence incapable to contribute to the costs of litigation, Spyker and Saab Automobile have entered into an agreement pursuant to which Spyker will bear the costs of such litigation in exchange for a very substantial share of Saab Automobile's award when the proceedings are successful. Spyker has secured the financial backing required to see the lawsuit through to the end from a third party investor.

Victor R. Muller, Spyker's Chief Executive Officer said: "Ever since we were forced to file for Saab Automobile's bankruptcy in December of last year, we have worked relentlessly on the preparation for this lawsuit which seeks to compensate Spyker and Saab for the massive damages we have incurred as a result of GM's unlawful actions.

We owe it to our stakeholders and ourselves that justice is done and we will pursue this lawsuit with the same tenacity and perseverance that we had when we tirelessly worked to save Saab Automobile, until GM destroyed those efforts and deliberately drove Saab Automobile into bankruptcy."

The Complaint, as filed this morning at 08.00 EST, is attached to this Press Release.

Click here to view the article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spyker! Spyker! Spyker! Spyker!

Looks like I picked the wrong week to file bankruptcy.

Edited by Oldsmoboi
Can't hotlink to that picture apparently.
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be surprised if this actually goes anywhere. GM exercised their right and this is the end result. Grow up spyker

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be surprised if this actually goes anywhere. GM exercised their right and this is the end result. Grow up spyker

That is the whole thrust of the lawsuit. Spyker alleges that the deal with Youngman was structured in such a way that GM no longer had the right to interfere.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

honestly, they both need to grow up. this is old hat. somebody--whoever ends up with Saab--needs to just liquidate them and be done with it. I think that unfortunately, Saab is long past saving. not exactly the best scenario, but it's proably best for everybody. what else can be done, honestly? It seems as though Saab has changed hands--or almost changed hands-- so many times, it's hard to keep track. and every next owner knows that if they try to save it, Saab is just going to drag them down with it.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be surprised if this actually goes anywhere. GM exercised their right and this is the end result. Grow up spyker

Agree with you there, sir!

In the olden days when GM had a lot of money and power, they would have squashed Spyker like a bug.

Hopefully, they do so now....

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would have been very nice if GM in its entirety had been allowed to die. In reality, this suit seems reasonable. GM is focusing only on the Chinese market at this time as this is where their profits are being made. Their American cars, with the exception of a few buicks that are Opel clones, are junk. The Volt is a joke that is being propped up by government purchases and loss-leading leases. They can not run Opel because their attitude about giving the customer the lowest quality product they will accept has made their vehicles less desirable than those made by the VW group companies. Ford is doing a good job, they have quality, competitive products, both here and abroad, they treated Volvo, Aston Martin and Land Rover well when they were sold, and they are pushing forward. GM used threats and the media to squash Saab's deal with the Chinese that was perfectly within the bounds of their technology licensing agreements with GM. GM, apparently, even threatened to stop producing the SUV made for Saab in their plant under contract.

This entire issue is even more absurd when one considers that GM has very little technology worth stealing. GM's technology is dated, it is not an innovative company, it is simply a dinosaur run by dinosaurs who still have the misguided belief that the American car industry, and the country as a whole, is a leader and on top.

I had to laugh. In a conversation with friends recently, no-one had owned a GM vehicle. No-one had friends that had GM vehicles. Several had distant family members in the midwest that still drove GM cars, but the family members were old, and being from the midwest, conservative and backwards thinking. Many had Hondas and Toyotas, a few had Fords, there were a few Jeeps, many BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Volvo drivers, a few Saabs, but nothing from GM. The opinions of the group were that Cadillacs were tacky and driven by old people, drug dealers and people striving to attract attention to themselves. Buicks were for middle class people who were disappointed with their lives and needed tacky chrome trim to show that they were not poor, and Chevrolets were rental cars. police cars, and a brand favored by white trash. The trucks and SUVs were for tradesmen, people with large families (Suburban) and rednecks. GM had lost any credibility with successful people from 25-45. The subject of the Volt brought a chuckle. The typical response was "Why buy a Volt when we could buy a Prius?"

  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess Victor Muller is shooting a shotgun with a 6-inch barrell on Cheers and Gears?

The Question like - "Why buy a Volt when we could buy a Prius?" makes your enlightened statmement as ignorant as the GM owners you are ranting about. Oh does Prius not have any subsidy from government both US and Japanese?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess Victor Muller is shooting a shotgun with a 6-inch barrell on Cheers and Gears?

The Question like - "Why buy a Volt when we could buy a Prius?" makes your enlightened statmement as ignorant as the GM owners you are ranting about. Oh and I guess Prius does not have any subsidy from government both US and Japanese?

Someone is trolling...wonder if it's smk's alter ego...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, Victor Muller should be nullified by GM. Court should call the $3B lawsuit as frivolous and throw it out of the window. When SAAB was worth less than tenth of the price how can he claim that much money? We need to see GM's side. I hope Ackerson and company knew what they were doing when they made those calls for denying the takeover.

And whoever his financial backers are, they just like before, will lose money of their shirts and skirts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

many BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Volvo drivers, a few Saabs, but nothing from GM. The opinions of the group were that Cadillacs were tacky and driven by old people, drug dealers and people striving to attract attention to themselves. Buicks were for middle class people who were disappointed with their lives and needed tacky chrome trim to show that they were not poor, and Chevrolets were rental cars. police cars, and a brand favored by white trash. The trucks and SUVs were for tradesmen, people with large families (Suburban) and rednecks. GM had lost any credibility with successful people from 25-45. The subject of the Volt brought a chuckle. The typical response was "Why buy a Volt when we could buy a Prius?"

"A few Saabs but nothing from GM".... uh.. what? Unless they're driving a 25+ year old Saab, they're driving something from GM.

but, your anecdotal evidence from inside your bubble is just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my demographic bubble of people I know personally IRL (well-educated people 25-45 working in the software industry, primarily developers, a few management types) in the Phoenix and Denver metro areas, I know very few GM owners...for mainstream brands, most have Honda, Toyota, some Nissan, VW, and Hyundai products, and for premium brands, Acura, BMW, Mercedes, Infiniti, and Volvo..a few Jeep owners.

I do personally know very few people out of this sample that are GM owners--one couple has a TrailBlazer and a Rendezvous, the other has his-and-hers Escalades (a regular one and an EXT--they previously had a BMW X5 and a Merc ML), another guy has a 4th gen Camaro Z-28 convertible and a Silverado, another has a '69 Chevelle and is looking at buying a new Camaro 1LE.

Anecdotal, to be sure, but troubling considering the preponderance of Camrys, Civics, Corollas, and Priuses in my circle of friends and colleagues.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moltar,

GM's problem is perception. The person above gives a good cross-section of ignorance that GM has to deal with. Honestly critics like these need to be taken with heart by GM and worked on. That is where marketing should be effective and concentrated. GM is not doing a good job with marketing.

With his token we can say the same about the brands his cohorts own.

Honda and Toyota - bought by clueless, vanilla public who are still stuck in reading their bible on appliances - Consumer Reports. And by younger kids who want to rice those vehicles.

BMW, Mercedes, Audi - owned by deuchebags and strippers, a herd at higher level.

Volvo - owned by old cadavers who want to keep their skeletons safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moltar,

Honda and Toyota - bought by clueless, vanilla public who are still stuck in reading their bible on appliances - Consumer Reports. And by younger kids who want to rice those vehicles.

BMW, Mercedes, Audi - owned by deuchebags and strippers, a herd at higher level.

Volvo - owned by old cadavers who want to keep their skeletons safe.

Those are stereotypes also, though....I know some DB BMW/MB/Audi owners, but most I know are good people..hard working tech professionals..same w/ the Prius drivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moltar,

Honda and Toyota - bought by clueless, vanilla public who are still stuck in reading their bible on appliances - Consumer Reports. And by younger kids who want to rice those vehicles.

BMW, Mercedes, Audi - owned by deuchebags and strippers, a herd at higher level.

Volvo - owned by old cadavers who want to keep their skeletons safe.

Those are stereotypes also, though....I know some DB BMW/MB/Audi owners, but most I know are good people..hard working tech professionals..same w/ the Prius drivers.

I agree, "Observing and Reporting" was making stereotypes of GM owners. I just wanted to point out that same can be said of car brands his cohorts own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my demographic bubble of people I know personally IRL (well-educated people 25-45 working in the software industry, primarily developers, a few management types) in the Phoenix and Denver metro areas, I know very few GM owners...for mainstream brands, most have Honda, Toyota, some Nissan, VW, and Hyundai products, and for premium brands, Acura, BMW, Mercedes, Infiniti, and Volvo..a few Jeep owners.

I do personally know very few people out of this sample that are GM owners--one couple has a TrailBlazer and a Rendezvous, the other has his-and-hers Escalades (a regular one and an EXT--they previously had a BMW X5 and a Merc ML), another guy has a 4th gen Camaro Z-28 convertible and a Silverado, another has a '69 Chevelle and is looking at buying a new Camaro 1LE.

Anecdotal, to be sure, but troubling considering the preponderance of Camrys, Civics, Corollas, and Priuses in my circle of friends and colleagues.

def more domestically oriented around me at work. One Mini-Cooper (that is turning into a reliability nightmare) and the rest domestics. My boss in Houston just bought a CTS over the weekend.

Off the top of my head the people who sit closest to me:

LeSabre

Mustang/Focus Hatch

Mini Cooper

Commander (on their second one)

Durango

Harley Davidson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my current company (which is a consulting company w/ only 12 people):

Grand Cherokee ('00) (moi)

Grand Cherokee ('02) and current-gen Chevy Tahoe (sales VP)

VW CC (my boss/CEO)

Acura TL (current gen, co-CEO)

VW Jetta (1997 or so)

Honda Civic hybrid

Honda Civic (2003 or so)

Hyundai Sonata (previous gen)

Toyota Tacoma (this guy also has a Cessna and '71 Chevelle project car)

Toyota Prius

Honda Accord (about a 2000 or so)

VW Golf GTI and Mercedes Sprinter camper

This company has a much lower percentage of Toyotas that other larger places I've worked over the last 15 years...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"GM's problem is perception. The person above gives a good cross-section of ignorance that GM has to deal with. Honestly critics like these need to be taken with heart by GM and worked on. That is where marketing should be effective and concentrated. GM is not doing a good job with marketing."

It has little to do with marketing and more to do with product.

How about simply making appealing products that don't feel and look cheap, and don't feature over-the-top styling and lackluster fit and finish? I have no animosity towards American cars, or any particular love for many of the foreign brands, but I know that every vehicle from GM's core group of vehicles that I have driven or ridden in has been a disappointment on many levels. Some had good engines, some had good styling, some had ok interiors, rarely did they posses all three things. Some examples are below:

Rentals:

Chevy Malibu: OK styling, wheezing engine, cheap plastics inside. An Accord is so much better it is amazing!

Camaro: OK styling, cheap interior, decent engine (the V6-the V8 is fun but old-fashioned)

Cadillac DTS: Cheap Cheap Cheap interior, poor ride quality, engine sounded like a powerboat,

Chevrolet Traverse: Nice styling, nice interior with the exception of many plastic details that were cheap, storage compartments whose latches did not work, poor alignment of panels, and fabric that felt as though it came off a dead mouse. Reasonably smooth engine. Why would a person buy this over a Pilot or Highlander??

GM vehicles test driven while shopping for recent car purchases.

Buick LaCrosse-Excellent styling with the exception of the excessive plasticized chrome (which was rough and uneven on the edge of many surfaces. Good engine, nice interior with too much bling. Cheap fake wood, shiny surfaces that reflected off the windshield. It wants to compete with Acura and Lexus, it even comes close, but it is so far away in the details.

Cadillac SRX: TOO MUCH CHROME ON THE INSIDE. 3.6 engine lacked oomph and sounded rough, instruments difficult to read. many squeaks and rattles. Audi Q5, Lexus RX do it better for the same money. Electronics in the Cadillac were also about 5 years out of date.

GMs halo cars are cheap and fun. The corvette handles well, has lots of power and is inexpensive compared with its rivals. It may have leather that came from a plastic factory and fit and finish that leaves much to be desired, but it is fun and can be a reachable dream for an average person. It is not as well made as a Porsche, but it is viable and a good mid-life crisis car for Joe the Plumber.

The Camaro is much the same-good cheap fun. Not something you would want to drive everyday, filled with antique engines and engineering, a throwback to the late 60s, but great at doing smoky burnouts on deserted country roads. It doesn't have to compete with anything other than the Chrysler and Ford equivalents because they are the only cars occupying this class.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, "Observing and Reporting" was making stereotypes of GM owners. I just wanted to point out that same can be said of car brands his cohorts own.

I was not trying to be rude, this is what came up in a lively conversation, in all fairness it was over dinner at a restaurant/pub and was very animated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason to buy a Traverse over a highlander or pilot is room room room without any sacrifice in fuel economy or power.

There is nothing "ancient" about the Camaro V8. If you're talking about it not having DOHC, DOHC has been around longer than pushrod/ohv.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a Toyota Corrolla with a 4-speed automatic transmission and no platform update since 2003 is a complete package?

The mahogany-tinted high-gloss wood looks like it came from a downmarket furniture store, and what's with the old Mercedes-style shift gate for the shift lever? And we nearly called an anthropologist when we spied the ES 350's cassette tape player. Sure, Lexus drivers are known enthusiasts of books on tape, but does Mark Levinson know it's still there?

That is the high quality and completely packaged Lexus for you.

Or Honda with its 5-speed transmission, no direct injection engines and design that will put GM's 90s design blandness to shame is a complete package? The quality of my 2005 TSX is better than the new TSX. But yes, they are cars that people buy.

How about the howlers from Nissan - Sentra and Versa. Are they complete packages as well?

BMW's fit and finish is nothing short of glaringly deficient. The plastics of my 2005 BMW 330i are terrible, the upholstery is peeling off, leather is blemished. The TSX and my 98 Lumina look better in shape than the BMW. The car has had electrical gremlins and also seen all its windows motors replaced. That is indeed a quality product! Have you heard of BMW's HFPF problem? The F30 has no design theme, the plastics look cheap and the interior is virtually unchanged since 1990s. At least Bangle had balls to be creative and polarizing.

And as for the Corvette and the stereotypes you are adding to the car - the ignorance is similar to the one in your comment about Prius and Volts. Yes Porsche may put clubbed baby seal leather in its anemic 320 odd hp Boxter S but then it clubs the customer $85k for that car. For half that price you can get the 370Z and club the Boxter if you are willing to forget the 85% quality at 105% performance. If I was shelling $200k on a Panamera Turbo S, I will expect the car to have clubbed baby Panda leather sewn by Matthias Muller with his own hands.

I still stand by my statement that GM lacks in perception game that Japanese and Germans have mastered and now Koreans are mastering. The GM products except for a few are vastly better than the perception you have. Is there a room for improvement? Sure, but they are not howlers as you claim to be.

I agree, "Observing and Reporting" was making stereotypes of GM owners. I just wanted to point out that same can be said of car brands his cohorts own.

I was not trying to be rude, this is what came up in a lively conversation, in all fairness it was over dinner at a restaurant/pub and was very animated.

Neither was I. What I mentioned about those brands also came casually in a lively conversation with informed automobile enthusiasts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      After a month-long strike and threat earlier this week, General Motors and Unifor Local 88 have reached an tentative agreement for workers at the CAMI assembly plant. Last night, Unifor Local 88 made the announcement via email to its workers. Details of the agreement are being kept under wraps until a ratification vote is held on Monday. If the agreement is approved, workers will return to the plant starting at 11 PM Monday night.
      "We have addressed job security which will be in this deal. I think it's a fair agreement  ... and everybody is looking forward to going back to work and making vehicles their customers want, knowing there will be some sort of job security there," said Mike Van Boekel, the union's plant chair at CAMI to CBC News.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), CBC News

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      After a month-long strike and threat earlier this week, General Motors and Unifor Local 88 have reached an tentative agreement for workers at the CAMI assembly plant. Last night, Unifor Local 88 made the announcement via email to its workers. Details of the agreement are being kept under wraps until a ratification vote is held on Monday. If the agreement is approved, workers will return to the plant starting at 11 PM Monday night.
      "We have addressed job security which will be in this deal. I think it's a fair agreement  ... and everybody is looking forward to going back to work and making vehicles their customers want, knowing there will be some sort of job security there," said Mike Van Boekel, the union's plant chair at CAMI to CBC News.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), CBC News
    • By William Maley
      The news isn't getting any better at General Motors' CAMI plant where workers have been on strike for a month after the automaker and Canadian union Unifor were unable to reach an agreement. Already, the strike has caused GM to make adjustments and idle some of their plants in North America, and there are concerns about the shrinking stock of Chevrolet Equinoxes. 
      But now the stakes have been raised. According to Reuters and Automotive News, General Motors issued a warning to leaders at Unifor that it will start winding down production of the Equinox at CAMI unless the strike is called off. Unifor leader Jerry Dias was told by GM officials that the automaker would begin ramping up Equinox production at the San Luis Potosi and Ramos Arizpe, Mexico plants if the strike was not called off.
      "GM just told us today that they are going to ramp up production in Mexico. They have declared war on Canada," Diaz told Reuters.
      GM had no immediate comment on Dias' statement when reached by Reuters.
      According to a source at GM, the discussions between them and Unifor have been going nowhere and there is "a high degree of frustration." Because of this, GM is planning to study how quickly key suppliers for the Equinox could move their operations down to Mexico. No final decision on CAMI's fate has been decided according to the source, but the time frame for getting a deal done is narrowing.
      Mexico has been the dividing point between GM and Unifor. The union objected to GM's decision to lay off 600 workers at CAMI when it moved production of the GMC Terrain to Mexico. Unifor wants CAMI to be the lead plant for Equinox production by "giving it more production if Equinox sales rise and making it the last to scale back production if sales fall." But GM has invested $800 million into the plant for retooling to build the new Equinox. The automaker believes this should be enough commitment and putting it into writing isn't necessary. According to the source, there is no such language in any of the other union contracts.
      The strike has gotten so bad that the Government of Ontario has stepped in, urging both groups to resolve this rift.
      “I feel like we’re engaged in a poker game, but the interests of Ontario are sitting on the table right now,” said Brad Duguid, Ontario's Economic Development Minister.
      “It’s an uncomfortable place to be, obviously, and we’d really like to urge the parties to find a resolution to this as quickly as possible before permanent damage is done.”
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), Reuters

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      The news isn't getting any better at General Motors' CAMI plant where workers have been on strike for a month after the automaker and Canadian union Unifor were unable to reach an agreement. Already, the strike has caused GM to make adjustments and idle some of their plants in North America, and there are concerns about the shrinking stock of Chevrolet Equinoxes. 
      But now the stakes have been raised. According to Reuters and Automotive News, General Motors issued a warning to leaders at Unifor that it will start winding down production of the Equinox at CAMI unless the strike is called off. Unifor leader Jerry Dias was told by GM officials that the automaker would begin ramping up Equinox production at the San Luis Potosi and Ramos Arizpe, Mexico plants if the strike was not called off.
      "GM just told us today that they are going to ramp up production in Mexico. They have declared war on Canada," Diaz told Reuters.
      GM had no immediate comment on Dias' statement when reached by Reuters.
      According to a source at GM, the discussions between them and Unifor have been going nowhere and there is "a high degree of frustration." Because of this, GM is planning to study how quickly key suppliers for the Equinox could move their operations down to Mexico. No final decision on CAMI's fate has been decided according to the source, but the time frame for getting a deal done is narrowing.
      Mexico has been the dividing point between GM and Unifor. The union objected to GM's decision to lay off 600 workers at CAMI when it moved production of the GMC Terrain to Mexico. Unifor wants CAMI to be the lead plant for Equinox production by "giving it more production if Equinox sales rise and making it the last to scale back production if sales fall." But GM has invested $800 million into the plant for retooling to build the new Equinox. The automaker believes this should be enough commitment and putting it into writing isn't necessary. According to the source, there is no such language in any of the other union contracts.
      The strike has gotten so bad that the Government of Ontario has stepped in, urging both groups to resolve this rift.
      “I feel like we’re engaged in a poker game, but the interests of Ontario are sitting on the table right now,” said Brad Duguid, Ontario's Economic Development Minister.
      “It’s an uncomfortable place to be, obviously, and we’d really like to urge the parties to find a resolution to this as quickly as possible before permanent damage is done.”
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), Reuters
    • By William Maley
      General Motors has brought back a concept idea from their past for the modern era. This is SURUS (Silent Utility Rover Universal Superstructure) which takes the hydrogen skateboard platform from the GM Autonomy and Hy-Wire concepts from the early 2000s and supersizes it.
      The platform uses GM’s new Hydrotec fuel cell system that is comprised of a gen 2 fuel cell, storage tank that can provide a range of 400 miles, electric drive units, and a lithium-ion battery. This is placed onto a commercial truck chassis that will allow it handle various tasks and terrains such as military transport or a mobile medical unit in an area after a natural disaster. The platform also features autonomous tech.
      “SURUS redefines fuel cell electric technology for both highway and off-road environments. General Motors is committed to bringing new high-performance, zero-emission systems to solve complex challenges for a variety of customers,” said Charlie Freese, executive director of GM Global Fuel Cell Business.
      GM will be showing off SURUS fall meeting of the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) from October 9th to 11th.
      Source: General Motors
      Press Release is on Page 2


      GM Outlines Possibilities for Flexible, Autonomous Fuel Cell Electric Platform

      Washington, D.C. — General Motors aims to solve some of the toughest transportation challenges created by natural disasters, complex logistics environments and global conflicts. The company will display its Silent Utility Rover Universal Superstructure (SURUS), a flexible fuel cell electric platform with autonomous capabilities, at the fall meeting of the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) from Oct. 9-11, 2017. The commercially designed platform could be adapted for military use.
      SURUS leverages GM’s newest Hydrotec fuel cell system, autonomous capability and truck chassis components to deliver high-performance, zero-emission propulsion to minimize logistical burdens and reduce human exposure to harm. Benefits include quiet and odor-free operation, off-road mobility, field configuration, instantaneous high torque, exportable power generation, water generation and quick refueling times. 
      Fuel cell technology represents a key piece of General Motors’ zero emission strategy. It offers a solution that can scale to larger vehicles with large payload requirements and operate over longer distances. SURUS was designed to form a foundation for a family of commercial vehicle solutions that leverages a single propulsion system integrated into a common chassis. The SURUS platform is equally well-suited for adaptation to military environments where users can take advantage of flexible energy resources, field configurability and improved logistical characteristics.
      GM is evaluating multiple applications for SURUS, such as:
      Utility trucks Mobile and emergency backup power generation Flexible cargo delivery systems Commercial freight Light- and medium-duty trucks, improving upon the Chevrolet Colorado ZH2 that has been evaluated by the U.S. military under guidance of the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) and is undergoing testing on bases Future military-specific configurations SURUS will deliver highly mobile autonomous capability and agility in unpredictable terrain. Operating multiple vehicles in a leader-follower configuration could reduce manpower needed. For future potential military uses, the system’s inherent low heat signature and quiet operation offer benefits in environments to reduce detection and risks. TARDEC has been in discussions with GM evaluating the commercial SURUS concept as a next step of the broader collaboration to evaluate fuel cell technology for future military applications.
      “SURUS redefines fuel cell electric technology for both highway and off-road environments,” said Charlie Freese, executive director of GM Global Fuel Cell Business. “General Motors is committed to bringing new high-performance, zero-emission systems to solve complex challenges for a variety of customers.”
      The SURUS platform leverages GM’s vast experience in fuel cell technology, high-voltage batteries and electric drive systems, autonomous driving and vehicle manufacturing. The platform boasts:
      Two advanced electric drive units Four-wheel steering Lithium-ion battery system Gen 2 fuel cell system Hydrogen storage system capable of more than 400 miles of range Advanced propulsion power electronics GM truck chassis components An advanced, industry-leading suspension Hydrotec Technology
      The SURUS commercial platform draws on GM’s more than 50 years of research and development of fuel cell technology. The scalable and adaptable technology enables land, sea and air applications across commercial and military environments.
      Since April 2017, the Army has been testing the commercial Chevrolet Colorado ZH2 on its U.S. bases to determine the viability of hydrogen-powered vehicles in military mission tactical environments. The vehicle has been operating in off-road conditions to evaluate its power generation, reduced odor, acoustic and thermal signatures, high wheel torque, extended operating range and the potential to use the byproduct water.
      Military testing has shown the ZH2 reduced acoustic non-detection distance by 90 percent compared to current military vehicle in operation. This means the ZH2 can get 10 times closer before being detected. Leaders also observed the potential advantages for stationary power generation over diesel generators, including a significant reduction in idle noise and fuel use. Testing will continue through spring 2018.
      Partnerships remain an important part of GM’s electrification strategy. Last year, the U.S. Navy unveiled a GM fuel cell-powered Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (UUV) for testing purposes that leverages GM fuel cell technology common with the Colorado ZH2.
  • My Clubs

  • Who's Online (See full list)