Skip to main content

Add new comment

Neil (not verified)    December 23, 2011 - 9:24PM

In reply to by Keith (not verified)

Actually, with some irony, if you go back to when GM originally invested in Saab in 1989, there was a reason. Saab needed an investor - because it was not a sustainable business then. If one studies Saab's entire history as an automaker - it never was a successful business on its own. It was first subsidized by the Saab air business, then Scania trucks, and finally by GM.

GM lost billions propping up Saab for 20 years. Muller signed an agreement with GM and GM made him follow it. It didn't have an escape clause for not being a "high volume company". I sincerely don't believe it was GM's obligation to hand over GM technology to a Chinese company to use against GM and GM's Chinese partner. "Saab Technology" is a bit of a misleading phrase - it was mostly GM.

GM is big, and it seems an easy scapegoat in this. It just isn't accurate. Saab's problem was it didn't sell enough cars.

Maybe we can agree on this. Saab will be missed. I liked those odd cars.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote cite> <ul> <ol'> <code> <li> <i>
  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.