A Requiem For Saab

Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that auto enthusiasts across the country are dismayed by the news that General Motors is planning to shut down Saab, the Swedish carmaker it bought two decades ago, after a deal to sell it fell apart. Even with its modest and steadily declining sales, Saab, an acronym for Svenska Aeroplan Aktiebolaget, or Swedish Airplane Company, long stood out as a powerful brand in spite of itself. 'It wasn't designed to be a fashion statement,' says Ron Pinelli, president of Autodata, which tracks industry statistics. 'It was designed to provide transportation under miserable weather conditions.' Many Saab owners consider the brand's glory days to be the 1980s, when Americans began buying cars again after a recession and energy crisis. 'The cars were communicative,' says Pinelli. 'They didn't try to numb the experience like cars do today.' The cars had odd touches and appealed to those who appreciate the unconventional. Swedish engineers assumed drivers would be wearing gloves, so they designed big buttons for the dashboard. Though the cars were compact, with long hoods and short rear ends, there was plenty of headroom inside. Now Saab, a brand that once had one of the clearest identities in the industry, seems headed for extinction just as automakers are searching for more distinctive designs to help set them apart. 'It's a shame that Saab is a victim,' adds Pinelli."

Comments

Two questions from ignorance

[paiute]

1. Who owned SAAB before?
2. If it is such a good brand, why don't those previous owners buy it back?

Re:Two questions from ignorance

[cyclocommuter]

This is not much different from a big company like Microsoft acquiring/buying a smaller company... sooner or later the smaller company gets its life suck out of it.

Re:Two questions from ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I owned a 1994 900S for years. I liked it but the repair costs were atrocious. That said, it had nearly 200k miles on it and was still very dependable when I got rid of it.

In the later years GM tried to rework Saab as a traditional luxury brand a la Audi/Infinity/Lexus by watering down Saab's classic quirkiness. Loyal fans were alienated and there were too few advantages to win over fans of the competing brands. It's death is not surprising.

Re:Two questions from ignorance

[maestroX]

Among other cars, I've owned Saabs from the 80s. Till the 80s, Saab delivered innovation, comfort, ergonomics and durability. At a price though, because comparable cars (i.e. Volvo's, BMW 5 series) were cheaper and in some respects, better; I think this is the major reason for decline in sales until 1989 en the sell-out to GM in 1989.

IMO Saab is dead since 1989. The innovation, comfort and ergonomics just didn't improve at the rate competitors did, and seemed bad rehashes of existing stuff; the 9-7x was a Subaru, 9-5 refurbished 9000, 9-3 refurbished 900 and later Aero's just muscle versions instead of special versions. I miss the Saab touch of the 70s and 80s

Competition learned and moved beyond (just look at Audi); the common 2L engine has seen very little improvements over the last decade, despite efforts towards bio-ethanol etc.
Too bad, I haven't experienced car seats as good since I owned a 9000 and worse were available in later models.
I'm still fond of the 96,99 and 900's and black sheep 9000 which were special in their days. After that, nothing really special setting it apart from the competition.
Thanks Saab for the fond memories, money well spent.

Re:Two questions from ignorance

[digitalunity]

GM really needs to shrink. They don't need to die. They're a huge monolithic company trying to maintain a dozen brand names in a market that just contracted. To top it off, with few exceptions they built largely uninspired cars at cut rate prices to compete with Toyota, Honda and Ford and pumped out trucks like there was no end to demand despite Ford having the market for trucks tied down nicely.

GM is a failure of managements foresight, ability to create a car people really want, failure to compete. Dare I say it, but it's also a clear case of when a workers union can destroy the company they rely on. That a union could expect their workers to make $20 an hour with benefits for punching buttons is ridiculously shortsighted. For a long time now, GM has been under the debt burden of an overpaid union and retirees who just aren't dying as fast as they expected.

The unions resisted automation, which would have allowed GM to deliver better cars for cheaper and made them truly competitive. Out of all the failures in GM, I would say the UAW is at the top of my list.

numb driving experience

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never driven a Saab and have no opinion on how they fared in this way.

But what is it with Americans preferring numb cars that totally insulate them from what the car is doing? They all seem to like very mushy suspensions where the car tips around corners, and automatic transmissions. Then, because they drive very tippy cars with very high centre of gravity, they're deathly afraid of corners, and they nearly stop every time there's the slightest bend in the road.

It seems the automotive equivalent of removing all the taste from one's food. Sure, it'll still keep you alive, but you go through your life eating bland and boring food.

Re:numb driving experience

[onionman]

Have you examined the typical American diet? It's very bland; flavored only with fat, sugar, and salt.

Re:numb driving experience

[bhtooefr]

Quite a lot of roads in the US are poor quality, and straight.

So, you don't care about handling, and you want something that soaks up the bumps.

Re:numb driving experience

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, chatter all you want but don't talk bad about automatic transmissions. AT has, in the words of one of my relatives, completely obsoleted the need for manual transmissions. And I'm Spaniard.

But yeah, it numbs the "driving experience". That's why I prefer to walk with my hands, because I like to feel the texture of the ground, the gravel softly puncturing my palms... FFS.

Re:numb driving experience

[mi]

But what is it with Americans preferring numb cars that totally insulate them from what the car is doing? They all seem to like very mushy suspensions where the car tips around corners, and automatic transmissions.

The simple answer is, Americans drive. A lot more, than anyone else in the world. Whereas most Europeans can comfortably live without a car at all — relying on government-run public transportation (and when those are on strike — stay home) — most Americans need a car to get anywhere. So, in Europe a much higher share of drivers are enthusiasts — people, who like to drive. In the US everybody is a driver, even if they'd rather not be — and so there is a much bigger bias towards comfort over excitement.

Even for enthusiasts, if you spend 90 minutes in your car every day (45 minutes each way to work and home), for example, you'll value certain features, that you wouldn't care for, if you drove for 90 minutes a week.

Re:numb driving experience

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US everybody is a driver, even if they'd rather not be — and so there is a much bigger bias towards comfort over excitement.

Even for enthusiasts, if you spend 90 minutes in your car every day (45 minutes each way to work and home), for example, you'll value certain features, that you wouldn't care for, if you drove for 90 minutes a week.

In the US, everybody is a driver, yet astoundingly few people are skilled drivers. Most drive as if they expect the car to make the decisions for them -- they just happen to be sitting behind the steering wheel, which is a bummer since it's a lot harder to eat that triple cheeseburger and catch up on their texting.

Someday, technology will eliminate the tradeoff between control and comfort. In the meantime, I prefer a manual transmission and responsive suspension because they allow me to interact more effectively with the outside environment. In fact, they require me to interact -- a good thing when all that stands between me (and my passengers) and a body bag is a thin layer of aluminum and a reaction time measured in fractions of a second.

Driving is an inherently dangerous activity; it is physically and mentally challenging, and it requires constant, intense concentration to do it safely. As long as "comfort" encourages drivers to ignore this fact, and as long as driver "education" in this country remains a grade-school joke, we'll just keep scraping tens of thousands of innocent people into body bags every year.

Speaking for myself as a Swedish brick driver,

[aussersterne]

I lose any interest in the brand the moment an American company buys it, because I know that the quality of the "American version" isn't going to hold a candle to the Swedish version. Once the Americans get their grubby little hands on it and start to try to integrate it into their manufacturing and supply chain and QC practices, the car's gonna just be another Chevy.

If I wanted a Chevy, I'd buy a chevy.

I'm finally getting ready to replace my '84 with 300k miles on it. When I do, I'm buying used, and I'm buying the "last Swedish year." I'm not touching any GM Saabs or Ford Volvos.

Your argument is over 20 years out of date

[FranTaylor]

"Is that why they built a bunch of intensely front-heavy FWD vehicles with atrocious understeer?"
"They also had reverse-mounted engines"

They stopped making these cars in the mid 80's.

Neither of those criticisms applies to the cars that they make today.

Re:Your argument is over 20 years out of date

[drinkypoo]

Neither of those criticisms applies to the cars that they make today.

Unfortunately for you, the quotes that I attacked were about how great Saab was back in the Eighties. My point was that it was NEVER great. So your criticism does not apply to my comment. The Saab autos of today are just like anyone else's, and they are not the leader in any class — they have always been mediocre autos at best. Why should they survive?

Re:Your argument is over 20 years out of date

[drinkypoo]

Actually, sitting in our Volvo 240 GLE comes only second to sitting in a(n old) SAAB. Front-wheel drive, safety, it was a great car; and greatly missed here.

It's easy for me to be jaded, because I own a 1982 Mercedes 300SD. 100% high-strength steel, crumple zones, available airbag (Standard on all non-diesel models, which can easily do over 100mph... unlike the diesel) PLUS actually being fairly sizable makes it one of the safest cars of its day. It also outhandles Saabs which come in at a fraction of its mass. I ALSO own a lifted 1992 F250 XLT Diesel with an added turbo, which is one of those bumpy things. In fact, it makes the ride on anything that comes from the Jeep factory feel downright posh. But I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who doesn't need a work truck, because of the bumpy ride. But what I really want to know is, how did you even decide to bring Jeeps into the conversation? We're talking about cars here, and Saabs blow compared to the much cheaper competition. A Honda or a Nissan is a better-handling, cheaper, easier-to-repair vehicle which gets better mileage and is definitely in the same ballpark when it comes to safety, let's make THAT comparison. People want the Saab because they don't want to buy something everyone else has. Everything else is just apologia.

Re:forgot something...

[Datamonstar]

Car makers have spent the last 100 years not inventing anything new

You forgot one thing: Car makers have spent the last 100 years not inventing anything new... and strong-arming everyone who was trying to invent something new out of the market.

Victim of its own success (sorta)

[digitalhermit]

SAAB was once quirky and bizarre, the choice of folks who needed some particular features. Then people started buying it, not for the suitability for cold weather or whatever, but precisely because it was quirky. Then the customers even stopped caring about the quirkiness and started buying them for the nameplate. Sure, there were a few folks who needed some strange features, but for the most part, people only cared about the name. GM, though not having the brightest business acumen, sought to capitalize. Instead of quirkiness they sold the brand on its name. Alas, in circles of people who cared about these things, GM and exclusivity are mutually - ahh - exclusive. The cars stopped selling.

There's a right way and a wrong way to capitalize on quirkiness, I think. Apple used to sell their products as the choice of the minority. Their "Think Different" campaign was not so much about suitability but about the mere fact of being different than the masses. That campaign might not have worked a few years later when nationalism and homogenized thinking was seen as patriotic, but it was perfect for the times.

So here was GM peddling SAAB as the choice of the oddball right during the time when it was gauche to be different. Then when that failed they started talking about SAAB's roots in a foreign military when US patriotism was near a peak. I suppose if they had survived, GM would have marketed it as the choice of banking executives. "Look! SAAB is the number one choice among failed banking executives!"

Horrifyingly poor management

[FranTaylor]

Back before they developed the yuppie image and the high prices, they were just a nice solid car that was unstoppable in bad weather. Certainly they were more expensive than the typical car, but not so much so that they were unaffordable.

But GM really destroyed them by pushing them into a market that they were designed for.

We New Englanders still need a nice winter car, and Saab is not there for that purpose any more because they are just too darned expensive now. I only have one because I bought it used, there's no way I'm going to pay $40K for a car.

Saab was a modest company making a modest profit on a modest sales. GM came along and doubled their production and raised the prices. In the process they made the company much more fragile because now they had to maintain sales levels to pay down the expenses of expanding.

Really the story is not all that different from the typical failed high-tech company: crash and burn while attempting to grow out of the initial successful market. The projected sales increases don't happen. This failure pattern happens over and over again so many times, you'd think managers would learn.

A lesson to be learned and yet another reason for Europeans to be annoyed at Americans.

Re:Horrifyingly poor management

[TarPitt]

Their union contracts have strangled their ability to compete in a fair market.

You mean the same United Auto Workers union that the very successful Ford has worked with for decades? Amazing how that union has brought down GM, but somehow the same union represents workers at the successful Ford.

Scott Adams made fun of the tendency of management to blame the least powerful individuals for management failing.. The UAW is a convenient scapegoat for right-wing talking heads, but the decision to manufacture poorly-made cars that do not meet a market need is purely management's.

Re:Horrifyingly poor management

[jmauro]

But ask your self how did these long-term retiree contracts even exist if management hadn't thought it was a good idea to offer them in lue of a 50 or a dollar an hour raise back in the 1950s? How did the become under-funded over years of management not funding them?

Did these contracts appear out of thin air? Nope each side went into the agreement with something they can accept and signed on the dotted line and expected the other side to hold up their end.

These were all management decisions that were made by GM's board and the decisions they made catasrophicly bad. They based them on assumptions that became appearent in the late 60's were not holding up, but GM kept making them over and over again. Based on their size it let them asorb the hits until the 80's, but by then it was way, way too late to make the changes.

Blaming the guy on the factory floor trying to keep a middle class life for things he cannot control is sad.

Re:Horrifyingly poor management

[hedwards]

You're going to have to cite sources on that. The UAW workers get a lot of crap from conservative hatchet men that are basically opposed to any sort of union because workers shouldn't have any rights. GM was brought down by it's own incompetence. Saturn is a good example, people loved Saturn's quirky way of doing business and the cars themselves weren't exactly crap either, they were affordable and people loved them. 4 or 5 years of no refreshes or any signs of meaningful development work and it had to be sold off. Fortunately Penske has the foresight and understanding to bring it back into profits, but without the mismanagement of GM it wouldn't need to be.

That's not the UAW's fault, that's better blamed on anti-environment conservatives and incompetent managers at GM. It's not at all in the UAW's best interest for GM or really any of the automakers to go under. There's very little sense in making concessions when management makes no hint of actually reforming the way that they do business to become more productive and profitable again. If the company's going to be run into the ground, then at least the retirees get their share of the pie rather than the fat cat execs that did this to themselves.

Re:Horrifyingly poor management

[hedwards]

That's a load of bullshit you've got right there. The mortgaging of the assets before the credit freeze was a bit of extremely good luck, but there's far more going on than just that. The quality of the vehicles has been going up significantly in recent times. They've cut the number of possible options down markedly, for a while there was something like 4,000 different tauruses available when you factored in options. They've spent a lot of time and money on making cars that are more likely to sell well on the coasts rather than focusing tunnel vision on middle America.

And they've been getting a lot of very positive press coverage for it as well as positive reviews on their new models. Not to mention that JD Power has given them similar marks to Toyota for quality.

Bottom line though is that sales have been picking up and they've been managing to eat other car companies lunch in the last year or so, something that wouldn't have happened in the recent years. Sure they've going to be a smaller company than previously, but they've realized that producing large volumes of vehicles then having to deep discount them to get them sold isn't a viable strategy for making solid profits.

Near-Death Experience of Saab

[reporter]

In the middle of this decade, General Motors (GM) owned part of both Saab and Subaru and attempted to save some money by re-badging a Subaru as a Saab and calling the finished product "Saab 9-2X". This single act signaled the end of Saab. Though Subaru has acceptable quality, the re-badging destroys the Saab mystique. You would encounter the same problem if Ford had re-badged the Mazda RX-8 as a "Mustang".

Nonetheless, you need not cry for Saab. It will live again. According to a news report just issued by the "Wall Street Journal", Spyker has made another offer to buy Saab. This time, we have the real deal.

GM is the Computer Associates of the car industry

[TarPitt]

They take brands past their prime and run them into the ground

(damn, a computer analogy for a car story. A first for Slashdot?)

Re:Let's just be clear on what they mean here

[grolaw]

Oh, come on....

The reverse-mounted engine made replacing a clutch in my '82 900 T something a neophyte could do. Yes, the Haynes manual suggested using a belt to hold the clutch pressure plate compressed, but that doesn't work - yes, you do need the two special tools SAAB made to compress the pressure plate fingers and then a spring-steel c-shaped ring expands to hold the fingers compressed... But, having borrowed the tools from the dealership for an hour - at no cost - I was able to complete the job with just a small set of metric sockets.

The brakes did need a "special tool" because the brake activator had a hydraulic cylinder with back-facing notches - it ratcheted forward as the pad wore down and had to be screwed back up to the new pad position. The face of the cylinder had two depressions in it and a flat wrench with two prongs was called for to screw in the cylinder. I made one with a flat, metal ruler and two pop-rivets. It took only a few minutes to create and worked until a jerk in a 3/4 tom pickup ran a redlight and hit me in the left-front quarter-panel - spinning my SAAB more than 360 degrees... the truck's bed came up and over and the truck that hit me wound up landing on its cab roof and skidding 45 yards upside down down a city street.

My 6 year-old son and I, both belted in, were completely unharmed.

I have one of the last SAAB 900 Turbos manufactured out of Trollhatten - with mostly SAAB parts - albeit that GM changed the window / cab profile. It is at 160k and doing very, very well today - averaging 32 mi/gal and just passed the CA emissions test (not too bad for a 14 year-old car that never seems to age). Compared to my twin-turbo Volvo S-80 '01 vintage (also with 160k) I've put far more money into repairing the Volvo than I ever did that SAAB.

Understeer can happen in any vehicle with even weight distribution (mid-engine) or front-heavy design. The famous Porsche 911 has massive understeer - big deal.

All that you do to deal with understeer is to accelerate and brake as you enter a curve forcing the front tires (drive & steering on the 900) down to greater road contact, then accelerate out of the turn. Easy and solid turning control with the tight and well crafted SAAB steering & brakes. Yes, you do need good tires - Pirelli, Yokohama & Michelin have been my go-to brands - with the Michelins winning the wear/performance battle.

Quirky?

[Waccoon]

Remember the 9-2X? It was a re-badged Subaru Impreza. Even by SAAB standards it was a flop. You can't keep a niche brand going with re-brands!

Saturn went out pretty much the same way, and that's why I traded my Saturn SL2 for a Subaru Impreza, rather than a Saturn ION. The Subaru has lots of unique things about it. Saturns became typical, boring, unreliable American cars.

Way to kill all the interesting brands, but keep Buick on life support.

Eh, you give the answer. Food

[SmallFurryCreature]

Compare an american pizza with an italian one. A real hamburger with anything from any american restaurant. American beer? Coffee? We got Starbucks in holland now and frankly, their coffee sucks. I can get better from an espresso machine. Ben&Jerry icecream? For the price, not nearly as good as you would think.

That is not to say everything american is bad, it is just that when you have to appeal to 360 million people, you end up becoming distinctly average. The US HAS got local restaurants, even chains of them, that provide something different, something with a taste that dares not to appeal to everyone. To be unique, but they will always be local affairs that don't make it out of their local area, let alone across the ocean.

The big american cars you know are aimed at the general US population. They require a car NOT for local travel but for long distance travel (or at least, they think they do). The world is filled with car-buyers who buy a car for the situation they might one day be in that they seen in the movies and not the one they need every single day of their real lives. Every american dreams of driving along a long highway into the sunset. For that you need a 3-ton car with soft suspension. And you want plenty of room on an 12 hour ride. Oh sure, it is hell on the short daily trips, but one day you might drive away from it all and you will be glad for it then.

What amuses me most is the episodes of myth-busters where they test fuel-efficiency myths in 3 ton gas guzzlers. That is because no american can drive anything less then a v8. Because you need those extra horsepowers if you ever need to accelarate fast for some idiotic safety reason (that you would accelerate faster in a lighter car with a better power to weight ratio is something no american can understand).

There is a reason every famous car comes from europe. The same reason Michelin guide is french. Americans do big and succesful, europeans do financial failure but do it beautifully.

Re:Eh, you give the answer. Food

[Dun Malg]

Compare an american pizza with an italian one.

The best pizza I ever had was in Amsterdam, actually. The second best was in New York City. Italian pizza is, sad to say, largely unimpressive. It was, however still better than american pizza from a chain like Dominos.

A real hamburger with anything from any american restaurant.

I can direct you to no less than six unbelievable hamburgers within 20 miles of where I currently sit in the US, as can anyone else in a medium or large sized city here. What you won't get is directions to a chain restaurant like McDonald's or Burger King.

American beer?

I have to agree with you there. Beer here is terrible.

Coffee?

I can direct you to no less than a dozen good coffee places here where I live... What you won't get is directions to a chain coffee place like Starbucks.

Are you picking up on the pattern? There's nothing wrong with our pizza, hamburgers, or coffee. The trouble is that franchised chains that specialize in these products do not make good stuff.

Re:Eh, you give the answer. Food

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that American food and beer is mostly crap and local stuff "average." I've been to Holland, but I don't think you've been to the US (yeah our immigration and visa policies are asinine) so let me help you out a bit. Pizza Hut is the McDonald's of American pizza restaurants, chains included. Any American town bigger than 3,000 people will have at least one pizzeria that kicks the crap out of Pizza Hut or any other megachain. Any American city will have a pizzeria that could compete just fine in Italy. The best burgers in the world are American and are present in any decent bar and grill. McDonalds doesn't count as it isn't actually food. The other burger megachains are borderline acceptable if one is in a hurry. If not, go to a decent American bar, order your burger, and wash it down with the local microbrew. American beer is more than the Miller, Busch, and Budweiser mass-produced, unhopped, rice and other adjunct-laden, tasteless, colorless, flavorless crap. Yes that's the lion's share but microbreweries have been accelerating for thirty years and some aren't so micro anymore. American microbreweries can and do compete with any beer in the world. Coffee? I wouldn't know since I find it utterly vile, although Starbucks is the stuff of jokes here too. American cars are admittedly hit and miss and generally have crap gas mileage, but not all European manufacturers are Lamborghini: there's also Peugeot. V8's are rare outside of work vans/trucks. The most popular cars are no longer SUVs but instead compacts and sedans. Driving across the country sucks hairy monkey balls and it takes four 12-hour days to do it.

American megachains are highly successful at selling cheap, mass-produced, bland, tasteless, over salty, fatty, sugary sweet, over-processed crap to markets worldwide. That's 6 billion consumers, not 360 million. Local produce and local restaurants are losing market share to our worst crap. That can't happen unless there's a lot of people who want the stuff. People are basically the same the whole world wide and that's why mass produced flavorless crap sells. It just so happens that Americans came up with the business model first. Cheer up: your coming diabetes and obesity epidemics won't be as bad as ours because you've got a functional health care system.

Re:Eh, you give the answer. Food

[couchslug]

"Oh sure, it is hell on the short daily trips, but one day you might drive away from it all and you will be glad for it then. "

Hell in the city perhaps, but not in the suburbs or rural areas.

I prefer pickup trucks (I haul lots of tools and equipment) and cannot fault them for commuting in the many areas they fit.
They are comfortable, torquey, have excellent visibility, and other drivers treat them with much more respect than they do small cars or motorcycles.

I won't commute on my Harley any more due to the route being packed with crash-prone idiots, but those same idiots give my trucks a wide berth (++for front bumpers made from 8" I-beam and railroad rail!).

There is a place for sporty cars, those who prefer them should buy lots of them, but they don't do shit for me.

Re:Eh, you give the answer. Food

[Brett Buck]

What amuses me most is the episodes of myth-busters where they test fuel-efficiency myths in 3 ton gas guzzlers. That is because no american can drive anything less then a v8. Because you need those extra horsepowers if you ever need to accelarate fast for some idiotic safety reason (that you would accelerate faster in a lighter car with a better power to weight ratio is something no american can understand).

    Once again, another moronic comment. Given that you actually do have to drive for long distances, as you note, you want the car to be the way it is. Included in those long distance drives are some interesting topological features we refer to as the Sierra Nevadas, the Wasatch range, the Rocky Mountains, the Siskyous, etc. Even in the middle of Nevada there are very long climbs up very long hills. You can get, say, a Chevy Monto Carlo with a V6. Start in Reno, drive to Salt Lake City on the interstate. About once an hour you will need to climb a big mountain you never heard of at 85 MPH. Please note your speed at the top of, say, Golconda Summit. If you don't blow the motor on the way up, presumably. Even better, drive the 40 miles from SLC to Park City. It will gut itself out for 15 straight minutes at 50 mph.

        Yes, a very light Lotus Elise would have no problem climbing that hill with a 4-cylinder because it's light. But try doing that for 14-16 hours straight. For 2-3 days straight.

          You guys have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. By the way, I do that trip 2-3 times a year in a Mazda mini-van, chosen because it has the best power-weight ratio and can climb the hills at full speed. And my other cars are a Lotus Esprit, a Porsche Cayman S, and until last wednesday, a Mustang Cobra SVT.

            Brett

Re:Eh, you give the answer. Food

[kklein]

YES.

I live in Japan. I get so tired of people telling me that the food/beer/coffee in America is bad. I always follow up with "where did you eat?" The people who complain the most about the food, no shit, answer "McDonald's."

Really? The food at McDonald's in America is bad? Really? So, you mean, it's exactly the same as at McDonald's in Japan? Really? Why did you go to McDonald's????

Beer? Oh, you drank Budweiser and Coors. Well, that right there is why no one with more than a high school education touches that crap. Micros abound, especially in my home state of Colorado, and many of them are fantastic and award-winning.

Coffee? Did you go to Starbucks? You did, didn't you? Did you happen to notice that it tasted exactly the same as in Japan--burnt, bitter, and then dressed up with more sweetened milk than coffee in a futile attempt to hide the fact that they spend nothing on their beans? You did? Then why did you go there?

When I'm in the states, I love to grab foreigners and take them eating. It's not that food is bad in the US. We have some really phenomenal food--both at the high, hoity-toity end, as well as the hearty "food of the people" end (truck stops FTW!)--It's just that, as a foreigner, you go for what gets in your eye first, and that's going to be a chain. Chain food, no matter what country, is bad--or, at least, nowhere near as good as if you go to an independent place.

America has many problems, but lack of delicious food is not one of them. In fact, I've never been to a country that did not have delicious food, but usually you need a local to show you where to eat.

Re:I guess you could call it a ...

[segedunum]

Latest news is that Spyker haven't given up completely yet. They are right now handing in a new bid and it's up to GM to decide if they want to sell.

I wouldn't hold your breath. Vauxhall in Britain and Opel in Germany were all set to be sold, with German government money there no less, and GM did a sleight-of-hand and changed their minds.

Re:My Saab Story

[Vellmont]

What a horrible story. A few years ago I thought about buying a Saab someday, but then I looked up the reliability on Consumer Reports (generally poor). That and the price tag killed any thoughts about Saab.

I think the lesson learned from your story (apart from not buying a 1.0 version of anything) is to not import a car into a country where it's not normally sold. I'd bet a lot of your negative dealer experiences can be explained by just this one simple fact. The mechanics don't know anything about it, the sales guys don't give a rats ass about it's reputation, the support people don't know anything about recalls, your local dealership doesn't see any loyalty towards you since you didn't buy it from THEM, and the regional office finds it easier to just ignore you since your model doesn't even show up under magnification.

Re:I guess you could call it a ...

[Runaway1956]

You seem to be describing all victims of globalization. Make a better burger, catch McDonald's attention, be bought out, and your burgers disappear. Make a better car, catch the attention of a major auto maker -----

Obviously, I'm no fan of globalization. I'm perfectly happy to allow the Finnish to do things their way, South Africans do things their way, and New Yorkers to do things their way. I can look at each, and decide for myself which is best for me - if any. Screw those megacorporations - they decrease the number of choices we all have.

Re:I guess you could call it a ...

[Man On Pink Corner]

Obviously, I'm no fan of globalization. I'm perfectly happy to allow the Finnish to do things their way, South Africans do things their way, and New Yorkers to do things their way. I can look at each, and decide for myself which is best for me - if any

That is globalization.

Re:Eheh, where is the american Beetle

[modecx]

I won't deny that Europe has iconic cars. American icons, however, were mostly cars of the people, in that if you had a modest job, you could probably afford to buy it (at least the version with modest trim leve) in your lifetime. i.e. Middle Class people. Iconic European cars, however were (and are) mostly (with rare exception) items which could be afforded only by the wealthy.

Examples: when I think iconic American car I think Mustang, Camaro, GTO, Corvette, Classic AMC, Buicks, Plymouths etc. Most were relatively affordable late 50's-60's and 70's models with Muscle and personality. This market segment didn't really exist in Europe--or alternatively little attempt was made to fill it.

VW/Mini/MG/Triumph/Fiat/Alfa/Peugeot etc... All made interesting cars in their own right, but they just don't get the blood pumping the same as American muscle, and aren't as memorable to *us*. Even now, the currency to buy a value-priced compact car in Europe could buy a more fun, if slightly handicapped copy of an American classic... And the market lessons here have forced manufacturers to really step up in the quality department.