Worried about the Chinese? Give me a break...who in the world would buy a Chinese made car given all their production, safety and labor issues.

They would be sold in China,India,Africa,South America and many other countries looking for low cost cars Thus reducing/eliminating any possibility for an American car manufacturer to sell to that market, The Chinese already charge a 20% tariff on any US auto sold in their country, Why should we give them our technology, Scr3w the Chinese.

Let's not only blame the Chinese for this. Let's assign some blame with our politicians that keep making ridiculous trade agreements with all of these countries that end up screwing us. Yeah, send us more tainted dog food and toys with lead paint. Start charging a 20-30% tariff on everything coming into this country.

By the way, I've owned a few Saabs, the best was my pre-GM 1985 900 Turbo 2 door hatchback. Drove like a bat out of hell, great gas mileage, and you could fit a love seat in the back with the seat down. I never had trouble picking it out in a parking lot. I hated the day GM got involved with Saab. Have you looked at the recent models? No styling, they look like three other generic cars, cheaper interiors, worse gas mileage. Way to go GM.

Stupid to blame the Chinese for everything. The notion that Saab has technology that GM wants to keep secret from the Chinese is ludicrous. If the Chinese want the technology, they'll find a way to get it whether or not they own Saab. And if I were GM, I'd get ready for a Chinese car invasion because they are coming, like it or not. Would I buy one, probably not. I'm fond of my American-made Japanese car. I would, however, NEVER buy a GM car.

LostinthePineBarrens, it is not the tariff that keeps our cars from being sold in China, it is the failure of American Car companies to meet the fuel effenciency standards set there.

SAAB sold itself to a losing company. So blame GM, no doubt. But also blame those who sold SAAB out.

To all the Passionate Owners of the SAAB,

It cannot be all about GM, though GM does deserve a good bashing. In 1993 ish at a dinner with some friends I first learned of the name behind SAAB. It was at that time that I knew the future for SAAB was shortened by a complete disdain for the product from it's makers. One in the dinner party was a regional representative for SAAB North America. He asked if I knew what the acronym stood for and I began guessing "Scandinavian Automobiles Assemblers---??

He quickly corrected me with the answer, "Some A--hole Actually Bought it" I knew from then on the future was not bright. After repeated cash flow issues, bankruptcies, etc. the day has come.

Raging capitalist - You are right, as an outsider if you could have guessed it in 1983 that Sabb's future is in danger, what were own their excutives and sales people doing for these 30 -year and could not come up with a salvation plan? Well, then bankruptcy was well-deserved...

Hyundai: Hope you understand nothings drivable and inexpensive.

KIA: KEEP IN ASIA.

FORD - Found on road dead, or Fix or repair daily.

Dodge - Dead or Dying Generally Everywhere

Toyota - Toyota Owning Yuppies Overprice This Auto

Fiat - Fix It Again, Tony!

Old hat, Raging Capitalist. Old hat...

FORD - Found on road dead, or Fix or repair daily.

Don't for get

Ford= F@&#(@ over rebuilt Dodge

jrs

If you were to note successes, you would find Hyundai and Kia are kicking the backside of the Japanese. You might note also the Fiat was looking for a door to sell their product through and the gubamint opened it for them via NO-COST LOANS. Ford will survive and they might actually come up with other good products. Kudos to Ford for having integrity and pride. GM, we know the acronym there and the volt is a huge embarrassment. All the hype and hardly 20 miles??? Please, copy a Toyota or something to save yourself. As to Old Hat, how about New Hat now?

Hoped for Christmas cheer, wound up with a Saab story instead.

I am disappoint.

Don't forget,,,,,, @!$%#ed outta real driving.

In a perfect world, GM never would have bought Saab and Ford never would have bought Volvo. In a pluperfect world Volvo, safe and dependable for decades, would have been able to merge with Saab Automobile, safe and dependable for decades. (Hopefully, Saab Aeronautics lives well into the future and far from meddling U.S. fingers, which it likely will.) But I'm a bit biased. Am only breathing and walking today because my 1995 Saab 9000 withstood being t-boned at 45mph by some idiot Chinese immigrant who full blown ran a stop sign and didn't even have a driver's license. My Saab needed a new rear passenger door but otherwise was pretty much okay, even the side pontoons. His Toyota didn't fare so well.

A bold statement indeed. Please list the facts that support your claim. Do you know more about this than the GM engineers and attorneys?

TX,

We only read what is written for us to read. If GM blocked sale to China, then GM blocked Saab sale to China Company. End of facts for this story.

Here is a micro fact, Saab cars suck. High maintenance. I owned two. Never again.

Without govenmetn intervention GM would have went the way of SAAB (out of business). Face the facts, the unions had nothing to do with GM going bankrupt, Bush bailed out the banks. The banks took that moneyand instead of loaning it out, bought up the competition and GM could not get a loan for it's operating costs. That is why they were facing bankruptcy plain an dsimple, so we provided them and Chrysler a loan, same as Reagan did for Chrysler and Harley Davidson in the 80's....

Kilo, GM is profitable today. You need to quit watching Faux and listening to limpdick. Don't you have any other sources you can use to get other news? Doesn't seem like it.

And just which union thug, do you have names for all of them, or is it just your teabagging hate of unions make you vomit here?

Dear Justice Fleeting,

First of all, let’s be clear about one thing. It’s you that sucks, not Saab. And, please, don’t lie about your Saab ownership. You didn’t OWN two Saabs. Richard’s Bank and Tropical Fish Emporium, or whoever went out on a limb to grant you financing, owned your vehicles…not you.

Please refrain from using such a broad, opinionated brush to paint such a disparaging picture about a safe, reliable brand of automobile.

And I loved your “We only read what is written for us to read” blurb. Truly profound. You’re like the Confucius of our time. Thanks for that.

I hope that you have a lousy holiday season.

Enjoy your Hyundai.

Boy! I am very glad to read that some owners love/d their SAAB! Seriously.

As for me, a former garage owner, I always thought SAAB cut it's own throat what with the front of the engine against the firewall, having to lift the engine to take off the oil pan to get to the water pump, etc.

For me this is just another Saab Story.

Kylobite: And Ford selling Volvo to the Chinese and Jaguar and Land Rover to the Indians, was also Obama's fault? Stop watching FIX News and get your facts straight.

Don't blame GM or sigh for Saab, their cars were over-priced and required a lot of maintenance. Lastly, not much in the way of innovation with their products. You can't price a car for the luxury segment and put bare bone features in the things, at least Volvo would make state of the art safety features in what generally is a bland product in terms of power and feel on the road. Free market right?

Rick-881466

Thank you GM for destroying another brand. There is no, zero, zilch, nada GM technology that would give anyone a competitive advantage.

Yet, if that were true, Saab would have had enough value to be sold. However, contrary to your ignorant statement, even the Saab folks said that the company had no value outside of those licenses.

Gm may be profitable, but the company as a whole cost more money to the taxpayers than originally thought. So far with GM's stock price ( which probly wont ever go up, quality is down, sales are down, nobody wants a poopy government motors 4 year old technology junk, while paying 4-5k more than any other competitor) We will only recoup like 1/4 of our investment into GM. I call that a horrible return on investment considering in a modern day bankruptcy court GM could have cut labor costs, cut union benefits or just cut the unions out all together. Cutting unions would increase productivity, hiring, and quality.

Long gone are the days when you can turn a 6'' bolt to the right for a 90k/year job/pension.

And we wonder why us automakers went bankrupt?

The failure of Government Motors and it's aquired brands was the result of union thugs holding the corporation hostage for the sake of their own greed and Obama rewarding the unions with a taxpayer funded bailout - while also throwing Saab under the bus. Without liberal corruption, both Saab and GM might be profitable brands today

It was not the "union thurgs" holding the corporation hostage for their own greed. It was poor management. Funny, the union worked with Ford and made concessions, why couldn't they with GM? Also, it was Bush that bailed out GM, NOT Obama.

Brendon, they could have also cut upper management's salaries, that would have saved the company A LOT more than cutting union workers salaries and benefits. No one was getting paid $90k a year to turn a 6" bolt. That is a wingnut lie.

Saab is not a victim of General Motors, but still another example of what happens to companies and it's employees in socialistic countries. First they are lulled into a poor work ethic by a sense of job security that is not earned. Next the whole lot can no longer compete in a global market, which is promoted by the power elete at the controls of these countries and they become economic slaves. It's really nothing more than a modern version of the feudal system.

Kilo, it wasn't Obama that bailed out GM, it was Bush and he was the one who promised it would be paid back.

old-pilot, you have no idea what you are talking about. BMW, Mercedes, and other European cars are made in "socialist countries" and are not in danger of bankruptcy.

Brendan-UAW wages and benefits amount to something like 2.5% of a vehicle's cost.

The D3 currently employ 115k UAW and 66K supervision/management, and will this year pay more in wages and benefits for those 66k than for the UAW, clerical, and engineering combined.

Think about it. 1 management employee for every 1.8 UAW.

Where could Detroit's problem possibly be..........

Tom, Saab stopped using the old Triumph slant engine in the late 1960s.

The GMocrats and their boss Obama do have more covert reasons than the Chinese getting technology for the failure of Saab. They are absolutely to stupid and ignorant to run an automobile company and they didn't want people to find that out.

@ejv122086

Have you owned a Saab?

I own a 2005 Saab 93 Linear Convertible that has never been in the shop durring my 3 years of ownership. I love this car, and the brand that made it. It is sad to see them go under.

I've had 6 Saabs, and ejv is exactly right. GM killed Saab.

Well, the same thing can be said about Saturn. I have owned two used ones, had no problems, and the one I now have, I bought brand new, and have no problems. It was also sad to see Saturn discontinued, because of bad management. And union haters, Saturn wasn't a real union plant.

C on a crutch, can't you tea baggers quit vomiting your hate about unions? Someone complained that blaming Bush was getting stale, well, so is blaming Clinton, and unions. What goes around comes around.

My 2007 9-3 station wagon is a fantastic car. Never had a problem with it. Too sad GM killed it, but it was a niche car in a rapidly changing market. but we'll be keeping it because nobody else has one!

Brian, I agree but it's even more philosophically crippling. Instead of telling management to make decisions and making them responsible we've become a business community devoted to "committee decisions" so no one ever has to be responsible and we can excuse this by saying we want all the parties to "buy in" to the decision instead of doing what has to be done.

No genius, it was to stop losing more. For job creation you have the gophers and the TPers, along with the Redumblicans. If you don't believe me, see how many jobs they created...

news flash kilobyte the supposed union thugs did not get the money from the bailouts. the ceos and upper tier stockholders where the ones that received that money. when they received that money they took huge bonuses from it instead of reinvesting in their business with it. hence why they are having so much trouble now. it was not the fault of the unions.

@ Eric

WHAT LOL???

The creditors ( Stockholders, gm bondholders) got the huge middle finger and didn't get back a penny of thier investment. Yet the unions get control of the company itself?

This was the biggest violation of free market or capitalistic principles ive ever seen. Obama and his chrony greedy fingers basically told the creditors of the company to piss off and take a 100% loss on investment. He then proceeded to hand billions of dollars to the unions to buy a stake in GM. Talk about unions negociating with themselves.

Obama and GM are the worst, absolutely pathetic and i do hope that GM along with any company it owns goes under and all those union parasites lose jobs and pensions. It would only be fair and serve them right.

I "dated" a track girl in college who used her parents Saab as a virtual battering ram down the back alleys of town when she got drunk. She would drive down the alley hysterically laughing as she hit garbage cans at 40 mph.

Yeah, she was nuts, but there's a reason I was with her! And it wasnt the conversation

GM did little more then cosmetic changes to the brand. GM however got the turbo and safety technology that came with Saab. This is the technology that they are not wanting to get sold to anyone.

very quick look, but I don't really see any turbo developments by saab engineers of any importance or value.

Just slapping a turbo on any en gine is not cause for innovation.

besides, I miss Pontiac more than I will ever care about the loss of Saab automobiles from a foreign country that has passed legislation banning internal combustion car sales in the year 2025!

ohio lacoste man - very quick look, but I don't really see any turbo developments by saab engineers of any importance or value.

Just slapping a turbo on any en gine is not cause for innovation.

Sounds like you don't know much about Saabs or turbos. Saab had what is still the best engine management system in the industry, having pioneered not only turbos but ionic sensing, knock detection, direct ignition and variable compression (allowing a very wide range of fuels in a single engine). There are lots of patents developed under Saab that have value, and I can see why GM is afraid of a strong competitor gaining control of that patent suite.

Cyclone2000 - You are right, Why would China want their obsolete technology when its already making i-pod to i-phone to every frikin latest and greatest in modern technolgy... It was just another of GM's own short-sightedness that accelerated Sabb's demise...

One can easily see how G.M. would thirst for technology so advanced that at the height of production Saab sold 133,000 vehicles.

The biggest set back to Saab selling vehicles was the price. It is hard to justify a bill of $50,000 for a convertible when you can buy another brand for a lot cheaper minus the features that made a Saab special.

Beev...

From my understanding, GM paid back all the money they received from the bail out. I'm guessing you didn't receive your loan repayment check, either. I wonder if the Chinese did?

My guess is, the gub'ment just took the proceeds of the loan, including interest, and gave it to some other entity as equally deserving of preservation as GM was.

They paid back the "loans", yes, but the Federal Government (i.e., us) still owns about 33% of the stock in the company and GM is still getting all sorts of tax credits on top of it.

We're about 85 billion in the hole at this point.

(and, no, I haven't seen my dividend check or have had my pension 100% funded, either. I'm not a union member.)

I am interested in what lifestyles the Saab was not suited well for? It was a very safe vehicle and came in the same shapes and sizes as most US vehicles (Sedans, 2 door convertible, Hatchbacks). If anything, I would hope that US cars would take an approach based more on safety and less on profit. Of coarse this will never happen, but we can all hope.

Not sure what you mean by this. 5 star safety records, efficient powerful 4 cylinder engines that outperform most American V6/V8s, a wide range of hatchbacks, sedans, SUVs, convertibles....how does that range of vehicles not meet the American lifestyle? I'm guessing you never actually owned a Saab? I've been a long time Saab owner and I can tell you first hand that they are fantastic cars....just as reliable as any other European car out there.

Saab was a hard sell in a country that doesn't value either safety or excellence ... or style, for that matter. The U.S. will always be redneck at heart: Ford Tough, Dodge Ram - Finish Strong, Chevrolet draping itself in the American flag in order to sell anything. LOL. If you want a great, safe and well-built car, you now have one choice: German.

My 1985 900 Turbo was my first Saab, and probably the best. I regret selling it. I think it was a peak year for them.

I agree completely - I've had 6 Saabs to date (all getting from 300-500K miles) and the classic 900 turbo was the best, although the more recent engines were of course improved.

Seems like everything GM touches goes sour sooner or later, even their own company.

It is interesting. I think one of the problems we face is that in the US, laws govern the treatment of workers and the pay they are given. In China, they can produce the same things that the US is, but pay little to nothing. In some cases the items are being made in sweat shops and under child labor. When China doesn't have to pay a fair wage or fund the resources to govern it's corporations treatment of employees, it becomes a lot easier to produce more then other countries. China has a long way to come in the humanity department, (remember the girl that was ran over and about 18 people walked by and left her?) and until they do, they will be able to cut corners on industry and beat out other countries with ease.

Interesting observation. I would say between nations, there is no real fairness/moral values. The only thing remains is whether is any material gain. If the free market benefits a nation, then of course that nation will promote it; if not, then there is no reason to, and people there will view "free market" as unfair.

When US is dumping corn products into other countries under free trade, those countries can also argue that US agriculture is environmentally unfriendly, and their human-intensive method is in fact more environmental-friendly, and thus can not compete with US-made corn. It is a valid argument from their perspective, but to a US farmer, it is probably easily dismissed by "why don't you just use our way?" Similarly, those Chinese manufacturers can dismiss ejv122086's argument by saying "why don't US law makers just change the law?"

That is a point I find hard to argue. I imagine it all amounts to the point of perspective.

Interesting? yes. Surprising? No. China is a rapidly developing nation, it and India will soon surpass the US, it's as simple as that. I hate to say it, but unless we make some major, major political changes, we will have to accept that fact that our power is falling throughout the world. Our nation's corporations do not like competition, of course it leads to a possible loss of money for them (while maintaining as much of a monopoly over markets as possible is guaranteed profits), so it doesn't surprise me in the least that GM would block the efforts from China.

Our problem is debt. China does not have it. Our people, companies, countries have already borrowed at interest assuming certain level of income. We cannot accept wages that does not pay our debt. Therefore we cannot compete with China!

The debt load of the economy is too much. It cannot carry the burden of servicing excessive debt. Nothing has been fixed. Debt was the problem to begin with and we have more of it now. Google for "DEFLATIONARY CRASH" to understand the deflationary forces in the economy.