Another defence of the 9-7x

The Truth About Cars has done the predictable and voted 6 GM vehicles in it’s Ten Worst Automobiles Today awards. I say predictable because…well….when the site’s done almost 100 GM Death Watch entries the readership is likely to be conditioned one way or another, aren’t they? Sure, a lot of the entries are pretty darn ugly (photos at Autoblog) and are quite possibly amongst the worst cars around, but there’s one in particular that I don’t agree with (obviously) on either of those criteria.

The awards worked this way: Vehicles were nominated through the comments section of the site and a final 20 was selected by the guys that run the site. This final 20 was voted on by all comers and then whittled down to the final 10 they’ve published today.

My (albeit brief) observations of the nomination process saw some interest in the 9-7x, though this was way less than for many other cars, including the Toyota Camry (which didn’t make the editor’s cut for the final 20 despite its total lack of soul and dated-in-three-years looks). By allowing the voters to decide the final 10, TTAC can say “Hey, it wasn’t us. it was the voters” but the fact remains that voters could only vote on cars that were subjectively decided upon by the editors.

“Hey, it’s all just a bit of fun” will be the next defence, but you can bet your bottom dollar they’re absolutely loving the press coverage and enjoying the influence that such an exercise in groupthink can generate. At the time of writing 62 commenters have joined in the backslapping and more than a handful are suggesting the results should be posted wide and large in Detroit. They’re not all wrong, but they’re not all right either.

Upon releasing the final 10, various TTAC contributors were asked to provide a 150 word ‘summary’ of one of the cars and why it deserves its place. The job of deriding the 9-7x fell into the increasingly incapable 10-and-2 hands of Jonny Lieberman, who once again displays an utter lack of imagination by coming up with this:

The Saab 9-7X is a Chevy Trailblazer with the ignition key between the seats. Moreover, the Saab 9-7X is a Chevy Trailblazer with the ignition key between the seats. I can’t stand the fact that the Saab 9-7X is nothing more than a Chevy Trailblazer with the ignition key between the seats. And when you stop and think about it, the Saab 9-7X is a Chevy Trailblazer with the ignition key between the seats. Who did GM think they were fooling when they released the Saab 9-7X, which is nothing more than a Chevy Trailblazer with the ignition key between the seats? You know what I hate most about the Saab 9-7X? It’s a Chevy Trailblazer with the ignition key between the seats.

Talk about insight.

Just like the 9-2x, the 9-7x is a short term solution. It’s been spoken about as such by GM and Saab themselves. Unlike the 9-2x, the 9-7x was actually done as right as possible given the time and budget constraints that Saab were under.

Following are a bunch of comments and remarks from road tests and owners. Unlike just about anyone at TTAC they have actually driven the 9-7x. (That’s in bold because it’s important).

Fort Wayne Journal Gazette:

Obviously, the Saab 9-7X was developed from the same SUV elements that make up the Chevrolet Trailblazer and a few other General Motors spinoffs. That’s not bad, however, and the 9-7X is the best of the bunch in my estimation.

The Province (Canada)

Saab is a latecomer to this important vehicle category but it’s hardly a first effort given its GM association. It’s a good addition to the market segment and competitive with its luxury competitors.

On this site, in comments

I have owned one for over six months and 10,000 miles. My last two cars were a 9-5 and a 9-3. I needed more room and AWD, but wanted a Saab. The 9-7 has proven to be a good road car, much better than I thought it would be. A true Saab SUV would be a better option, but this one wins over everyone who rides in it. It’s not 100% Saab, but the part that is keeps reminding me it’s there.


the 9-7X offers a lot of Saab traits and it’s unique enough to fare well against the major players of the category — the Acura MDX, Lexus RX and Volvo XC90.

The Saab’s performance was impressive. Beginning on a side street blanketed by about 15 inches of snow, the 9-7X effortlessly exited a driveway. Proceeding slowly, there was almost no slipping or sliding as I turned and headed toward a wider street. This one had been plowed, but there still was close to a foot on the ground and no sand or salt to boost traction. The 9-7X provided great grip as it accelerated.

By the time I reached a gently curving highway entrance ramp, my speed was 35 mph. I slowed while approaching the ramp, which was covered with hard-packed snow. Since the area was deserted and the 9-7X felt surefooted, I got frisky. As I entered the ramp, I nudged the throttle and elicited the intended reaction from the 9-7X. It started to fishtail a bit before its Stabilitrack anti-skid program –standard equipment on the Saab — kicked in.

A few minutes later, I also was able to test its four-wheel antilock disc brakes. Another desolate highway ramp covered with hard-pack –this one an exit — provided an opportunity to brake later than any prudent driver would have done so. As expected, the dual-caliper pistons squeezed the vented 13-inch discs and locked the wheels. But the ABS circuitry kicked in immediately, pumping the brakes to help me retain steering control while halting the vehicle in a surprisingly short distance.

I was impressed.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

All things said, if you look at the 9-7X as a capable, well-appointed, comfortable SUV — regardless of brand — you may find yourself pleasantly surprised.

Relative to others in its class, Saabs sport utility handled with the grace of an experienced telemark downhill skier and, combined with its electronic all-wheel drive and GMs Stabilitrak stability control system, probably saved my life when a slow-moving (15-25 mph slow, in case youre wondering) vehicle tried to merge into my highway lane as I was traveling at posted speeds. A surge of brakes, correctional steering onto the shoulder, then back into the lane before kissing the median and I was thanking Saab for every airbag they had available, and more importantly, at least this time, for the amazing control I was able to exert in order to avoid having any of those airbags deploy. The 9-7Xs ability to handle emergency maneuvers did more than merely impress.

New York Times

Before I actually drove this Saab truck, I had figured that G.M. was corrupting the Saab brand with another S.U.V. designed for Everyman. But the 9-7X proved me wrong. It may not be Swedish, and it may not be a Saab through and through, but it ranks a couple of notches above a basic Chevy truck.


So is the 9-7X really a Saab? I’d say it qualifies – certainly vastly more than the 9-2X does. It’s almost as much a Saab as the 9-3, which shares basics with several other GM models, including the Chevy Malibu and Pontiac G6.

Truck Trend

The 9-7X looks, smells, and sounds like a GM midsize SUV. It’s even built on the same assembly line. But it sure doesn’t feel like one–actually, it feels better. Our initial driving impressions of the Saab 9-7X–the first SUV offered by the GM-owned Swedish car company–is that it rides and drives better than any of GM’s GMT360 SUV platforms….

….After a few minutes behind the wheel, we were surprised to discover that Saab chassis and suspension engineers have done in two years what GM’s truck designers haven’t been able to do in 10: Give a GM midsize SUV the handling and ride quality of a sports car without sacrificing the utility of a frame-on-chassis truck.


Built in Moraine, Ohio, along with its midsize SUV siblings, the 9-7X is clearly a GM product. But Saab AB chassis integra­tion engineer Per Jansson says technical specifications and design work were done in Trollhattan. The stamp of the Swedes shows. Driving the 2006 9-7X in Quebec—in both I6 and V8 versions—we were impressed with its overall performance.


Is this the SUV that Trollhattan would have come up with if left to its own calipers and CAD/CAM specs? No. But it is the SUV that Saab needs. Even with the midsize lux market holding its breath to see if the drop in big-SUV sales is a cold that the smaller SUVs are going to catch, it’s the SUV that Saab needs. Because without GM, Saab would be a ghost, talked about but dead, like Austin Healey, Packard and now, MG.

But is the 2006 Saab 9-7X a Saab? Well, folks, there are no hidden meanings. The 9-7X feels like a GM SUV that was brought to Sweden to get an infusion of legitimate Saab character, which — no surprise — is exactly what it is. And if you’re a Saab person, there’s no reason you shouldn’t feel proud driving the Saab/GM 9-7X. Because the alternative would be nostalgia

The Detroit News

Saab engineers went to work on stiffening up the flabby underpinnings of the GMT360. The results, to judge by a test drive along the banks of the Saint Lawrence River are quite remarkable.


Like I said, the comments above are from people that have actually driven the vehicle, which is an important distinction to make. The 9-7x, whilst not being a traditional Saab, is a more-than-capable competitor in it’s class and for what it was intended to be, it does its job remarkably well.

It’s just my opinion, but TTAC’s inclusion of this vehicle in its final 20 (at the editor’s discretion) and in the final 10 (at the voter’s discretion) says more about them than what it does about the 9-7x.


Those mechanical changes they all keep talking about in those reviews are listed in full below:

To ensure that the new 9-7X meets those expectations, the following enhancements were made to the chassis and suspension systems of GM’s award-winning midsize SUV architecture upon which the 9-7X is based:

– Ride height lowered by one inch
– Additional braces between the cross members and frame
– Firmer springs and shocks
– Stiffened and quicker steering
– Larger front anti-roll bars
– Larger brakes
– Specific Dunlop tires
– Limited-slip differential
– Specifically, here is a list of characteristic Saab driving dynamics and the enhancements that were applied to the 9-7X to achieve the desired results:

Steering (for on-center feel, feedback and precision)

– Toe-in adjusted from 0.1 degrees to 0.2 degrees
– Caster increased an average of 0.5 degrees
– Revised steering valve characteristics including a larger torsion bar
– Steering gear mount stiffened from 6,000 N/mm to 9,000 N/mm
– Intermediate shaft isolator stiffened 33 percent
– New 18-inch Dunlop tires provide better stability and higher lateral stiffness
– Additional braces between cross member and frame at the front

Steering (for response and linearity)

– Steering gear ratio lowered to 18.5:1 from 20.3:1
– Steering gear mount stiffened from 6,000 N/mm to 9,000 N/mm
– New 18-inch Dunlop tires provide better stability and higher lateral stiffness
– Additional braces between cross member and frame at the front
– Front anti-roll bar diameter increased to 36 mm from 34 mm
– Revised shock absorber settings for improved body control (average 70 percent more damping at the front and 20 percent more damping at the rear in the V-8 and 40 percent at the front and 10 percent at the rear in the L-6)
– Added front lower control arm bushing travel limiter

Handling (for stability)

– Toe-in adjusted from 0.1 degrees to 0.2 degrees
– Caster adjusted from 3.5 degrees to 4.0 degrees
– Steering gear mount stiffened from 6,000 N/mm to 9,000 N/mm
– New 18-inch Dunlop tires provide better stability and higher lateral stiffness
– Standard limited-slip differential

Handling (for linearity and predictability)

– Revised shock absorber settings for improved body control (average 70 percent more damping at the front and 20 percent more damping at the rear in the V-8 and 40 percent at the front and 10 percent at the rear in the L-6)
– New 18-inch Dunlop tires provide better stability and higher lateral stiffness
– Front anti-roll bar diameter increased to 36 mm from 34 mm
– Rear suspension upper link bushing stiffened from 4,600 N/mm to 7,000 N/mm
– Rear suspension lower link bushings stiffened from 3,200 N/mm to 4,600 N/mm

Emergency handling

– Standard StabiliTrak
– New 18-inch Dunlop tires provide better stability and higher lateral stiffness
– Revised shock absorber settings for improved body control (average 70 percent more damping at the front and 20 percent more damping at the rear in the V-8 and 40 percent at the front and 10 percent at the rear in the L-6)
– Standard air spring rear leveling
– Standard limited-slip differential
– Front anti-roll bar diameter increased to 36 mm from 34 mm
– Ride height lowered by 25 mm (approximately one inch)

Ride comfort (for body motion and control)

– Front and rear springs stiffened by 15 percent
– Revised shock absorber settings for improved body control (average 70 percent more damping at the front and 20 percent more damping at the rear in the V-8 and 40 percent at the front and 10 percent at the rear in the L-6)
– Front anti-roll bar diameter increased to 36 mm from 34 mm
– Standard air spring rear leveling
– Ride height lowered by 25 mm (approximately one inch)
– Front suspension upper shock mount is stiffer by 33 percent

Brakes (improved brake performance, response time, pedal feel and travel)

– Front caliper material changed from aluminum to stiffer cast iron
– Piston diameter increased to 48 mm from 45 mm
– Brake booster diameter reduced to 240 mm from 260 mm
– Master cylinder diameter increased to 27 mm from 25.4 mm
– Brake pedal ratio reduced to 3.6:1 from 3.8:1

You may also like


  1. While Jonny Lieberman’s critique of the 9-7X was vastly over simplified – it’s message behind the theater of his (funny) prose that drives home the point that the 9-7X is GM badge engineering at its worst.

    If Saab needs an SUV (which I think it doesn’t), then why couldn’t GM done right by Saab as Ford did right by Volvo in making a truly comprehensive, independent (looking) SUV with character all its own?

  2. Even the Germans who drve it liked it. From a Google translation of

    portive achievement and security in the double luggage with the Saab 9-7X has the driver everything in the GriffSUV with comprehensive equipment for active individualists
    Chassis guarantees good responsing mode and very good controllableness all-wheel drive and rolling over sensors is in series on board
    Extensive safety equipment and unusually high active security

    With an incomparably elegant model, which associated Saab rightfully with the name, excellent responsing mode shows, occurs the European Premiumhersteller the market segment of the compact Premium SUV fastest increasing in the USA.

    * Excellent guidance responsing mode and handling in close curves and a good feeling for the road center

    * Excellent Grip of the tires

    * Well controllable Karosseriewankung

    * Good cross-wind stability

    * Taut, nevertheless pleasant driving by good balance ability of unevenness and waves on bad distances

  3. The 9-7x is GM badge engineering at it’s worst?

    You’re not trying very hard, Gunnar.

    How can it be universally accepted as the best GM360 vehicle, be well reviewed accross the board as well as outsell the 9-5 in the US if it’s badge engineering at its worst?

    Look, it’s not a straight-up natural fit for the heritage of the brand. No-one has pretended that it is. It was a short term solution to an immediate problem (no SUV entrant in the market). For that purpose it’s done its job – it’s provided a well regarded vehicle (by those that have driven it or purchased it) at minimal cost.

    You might not agree with it, but decrying it as the ‘worst’ job GM have done in this vein is pretty subjective and a bit over the top.

    Even Farago himself has said that it shouldn’t really be in the final 10 (check Jalopnik’s precast).

    And Lieberman didn’t write that because it was funny, he’s just a hack.

    Regarding your second point, Saab definitely does need an SUV and the stats on customers leaving the brand prove it. We’re talking about market practicalities here. Saab’s financial history and GM’s poor decision making didn’t leave room for proper development in this segment. The 9-7x is the price Saab have paid for that. Thankfully the fact that it was well done and that it’s been pretty well received has minimised that price.

    The upcoming 9-4x should show a lot more of Saab and I think it’ll win more than just a few conquests.

    Should GM have given Saab the same treatment as Ford gave Volvo? Absolutely. They’re suffering for not doing so now. But if you look into Saab history you’ll see that Saab weren’t always the best managers of GM’s money, either. It can’t all be a one-way critique here.

    Thankfully, I think GM are starting to have a bit more faith in Saab and I’m pretty sure after the lessons learned with the 9-3 that Saab will not have the desire nor the ability to spend as ambitiously as it did before without proving the benefits first.

  4. I agree with Swade — the 9-7x is a good vehicle made better for being a Saab.

    I encourage you to think of the 9-7x this way: it’s Saab cues and engineering helping the Chevrolet to be a better vehicle. Don’t think of it as something forced on you. Saab needs the 9-7x to keep vehicles flowing through the dealerships.

    I saw one today (in Dallas, TX). Dark blue, but it needed a wash very badly.

  5. Love it or hate it look at things this way, without the 9-7X Saab sales would be in the doldrums in the USA!

    I have yet to see one here in Vancouver.

  6. Swade > Your argument for the 9-7X comes from the Porsche Cayenne-philes’ playbook. Even if it were the best damn SUV (which it isn’t) on the market, the model has got no business existing. Again, I use MINI as a successful niche example, if they can profitably sell hatchbacks to a select group of buyers (without an SUV version) than so too can Saab. No brand dilution there.

  7. Ok, maybe I’m in the minority.
    On the last Saab Club meeting in May I have also driven the 9-7x.
    It was surprisingly better then I expected, however my “preconception” was very bad.
    It was comfortable, and relatively easy to drive in contempt of the bulky body.
    But the main problem is that it didn’t feel like Saab, at all.
    It feels like a neat attempt to modeling some Saab features on a completely alien and very american SUV.
    Maybe 9-7x is better than its ancestor (Trailblazer), but a Saab owner who knows Saabs and the real Saab feeling impregnated his/her soul will find it disappointing, I think.
    One of the leading Hungarian internet car magazin did a test and they declared it acceptable, but avarage. Off-road it didn’t perform well at all, city traffic is also not its world (especially because of the high fuel consupmtion), the only positive is the high speed driving on speedways with the V8 engine.

  8. I think that one thing that makes people having trouble with something like the 9-7X, is the fact that we couldn’t see it coming. The first 35 years, Saab only produced small and mid-range cars. Then the 9000, basically just to compete with the Volvo 700-series. Saab is not a brand one connect with big cars. I think it offends people.

    And if you think back… It’s 1995. Someone is telling you that in 5-10 years time, BMW gonna build cars like the X3 and X5. Would you believe them?

    The market place changes. Saab has to adapt. It was a question of getting a piece of the action or nothing at all. And with Saab’s poor finacial figures, this was the best they could do. Sure, it’s pure badge engineering, but what do we expect? There just wasn’t any money to do something else.

  9. Ctm,
    Ok, but BMW developed X5 and X3 on its own, and not by badge engineering. They are the same brand to the core, so do Mercedes ML, Audi Q7, VW Touareg, etc.
    I just affraid that feeling the relative success of 9-7x in terms of sale GM will continue to keep on the wrong way of more and more badge engineering.

  10. Well, if you sell 1.000.000+ cars a year and not 130.000, then you can develop them yourself from tires and up. 🙂 The question still remains: customers were asking for SUVs. Saab didn’t have one and didn’t have the time or money to develop a new one. They just needed _something_ until the brands strategy was sorted out after the buyout from Investor. Of course, it is not 100% “Saab” as in “Saab made in Trollhättan”. But 1) there sometime seems to be as many opinions on what makes Saab a “Saab” as there are Saab owners, and 2) if we just gonna sit down and wait until the manage to build something 100% Saab I’m afraid the wait is gonna be long and it may be too long.

    And there is still the other issue Ivan writes about. Badge engineering proves to be successful, and we run “the risk” of more of that thing because it brings in the money to Detroit. But, would I rather have some badge-engineered models and some true Saab-models and a brand that is selling 200.000 cars a year, or just two enthusiats models for premium prices that hardly no one can afford and running the risk of Saab just fading away and becoming an enthusiast brand selling 40.000 a year? I know what I want… 🙂

    I have no problem with beeing picky about Saab, och demand things. I’m a Swede (not a Swade.. :), I grow up with this Volvo vs. Saab thing. 10% of the cars around me every day are Saab’s. But I look forward. I don’t really care about 2-strokers and all that thing. That was then. Nice history, but that’s it. It’t time to move forward.

    It’s a lot like Apple. They hang on to something old they thought was great, and didn’t (want to) see that everything around them changed and other brands catching up. They just talked about their history, and how great and special they were back then in 1984. They were so absorbed in doing it perfect again, that absolutly nothing happened during a whole decade and the customers grow tired and left. That almost destroyd them. Sometimes you just to have to cut som corners, bit the sour apple, sell your soul to the devil in order to survive. Saab was in that postition. I don’t think we really want to know just how close it was that they had to shut the whole thing down.

    Question: I never ever hear Audi fans tell me about the Audi history, or beeing proud of it. Ok, my view is that there is not that much to be proud of, but still it’s a premium brand and they get people to spend money on it despite the fact that they share so many parts with cheaper VW, Skoda and Seat models. Why is that that we Saab people spend so much time thinking about the past? Isn’t that a sign of someone who has almost given up? Sometimes it’s like people here would rather have Saab building a 2-stroker again than having a new ultra-modern 9-3… 🙂

  11. ctm,
    No, I definitly don’t think about 2 stroker.
    I like to see (and have) 9-1/9-3/9-5/9-4x designed and built in the same thought and innovative way as the C900 was in that times.
    Maybe the badge engineering will keep the brand alive – but it will became just an another name on a usual car built from Opel/Holden/other GM parts, and using some external styling which related to what the mass think about Saab…
    I don’t want to drive an Opel/Caddy/etc which is looks like Saab at the surface but the core is the same like other GM cars.

  12. ctm,
    Just one more thing: Audi is Audi, it’s not a brand owned by an American manufacturer who wants to get a premium brand but don’t manage it with a clear, thought strategy and long term concept and don’t maximize the advantages of the excellent innovative background of Saab engineers and designers.
    Audi, BMW goes on their own way and not a marionette of an impotent American megacompany’s management. :(((

  13. MuzX,
    Funny you should mention VW Touareg since it is also available as Porsche Cayenne. Strange that nobody puked over badge engineering when VW Sharan, Seat Alhambra and Ford Galaxy was released.

  14. There is an important difference: both of Touareg and Cayenne are very good, much better than 9-7x.
    If 9-7x would be so good in features and quality than these germans I wouldn’t complain.
    The VW, Seat and Ford are mostly usual cars for the mass without any unique character, so who cares about badge engineering? The targeted customers are quite different than Saab customers.

  15. Perhaps one of the reasons why people don’t make much of the Audi/VW thing is because despite Audi being owned by a ‘lesser’ brand, their ownership at least resides in the same country, therefore sharing philosophies etc.

    Just a thought.

    Gunnar, the Cayenne argument doesn’t really wash with me. Porsche-philes may be upset about the Cayenne because it represents such a huge departure from Porsche’s normal stock-in-trade – 2-door pure sports cars.

    The addition of an SUV to a range based on midsize sedans is a much more natural progression. Saab did it in a cost-effective way and will do it even better with the next one.

    I might add at this juncture that this is my first comment made on a Mac 🙂

  16. The bottom line still is: if you have money, you can do anything the way you want. Saab didn’t have any money.

    Let’s face it. Saab may have had the best engineers in the world (at least they have in many Saab fans mind), but it all comes down to bring in money buy selling enough cars at a high enough price.

    Maybe the old-school Saab way of doing thing can not attract more then 100.000 buyers world-wide every year? Maybe that’s the bitter truth? They have do to something, or the brand will die. The 9-7X is second best selling model of the Saab lineup in the U.S. I would not want to go around to those who bought it and tell them they are stupid people who don’t know anything about “true Saab” and that they should get the hell out of “our brand” because they “don’t get it”. That is not what Saab need right now.

  17. ctm,
    I have never said that Saab has the best engineers.
    I say that following the history of Saab the oompany has excellent amount of innovations compared to its size, capital and market position.

    Ok, it was obvious at the 80’s that the manufactured volumen of Saabs couldn’t make enough profit to continue the necesseary developments. That was the reason why they started the cooperation with Fiat making the 9000, but later this relationship seemed not enough fruitful. To increase sales Saab had to conquer more of the US market.
    Then started the relationship with GM. Saab needed what GM had: wide range of parts, ready-to-use technologies, worldwide dealer networks, better position to negotiate with suppliers. In the other hand, GM also needed Saab, because: their had no real premium brand, especially in Europe.
    It seemed to a perfect match. But it isn’t.
    In 1990 GM bought the half, then in 2000 the rest of Saab. And all the problems that GM (which is an unflexible, out-of-date car manufacturer giant, with very low innovative potential and confused management) suffered has been transfered to Saab, while the problems of Saab haven’t solved.
    GM has never invested enough in Saab to make it really competitive. They just changed the outdated Saab products/parts to low cost/low quality GM solutions. In 1993 they started the NG900 on Opel Ascona platform which represented the technology of the 70’s, then started the 9-5 (as an upgrade of 9000) in 1997 on Opel Vectra platform, which is just slightly bigger than the Ascona base and represented also a mediocre level of technology. Why they expected the sales volumes to grow if the technology they transferred to Saab was outdated and the model lineup isstill poor? Later, they started to cooperate with Fiat (GM-Fiat Powertrain) and developed a quite succesful turbodiesel engine used also in Saabs, but after the fall of Fiat and a not enough carefully created contract (by GM) led to divorce causing high loss to GM (again). The badge engineering was on the way resulted the 9-2X (which was cancelled soon – again a toughtless GM action) and the 9-7X.
    The whole story line clearly shows the lot of mistakes of GM. :(((
    So, the trend is now to focus only to US, make cars to US market with badge engineering, design andmanufactur the rest in Germany…

  18. Ivan,
    You can gripe about GM all you want but it doesn’t change the facts. Without GM, Saab would be dead. Go back and read Swades entry from Edmunds. Here’s the money quote: “Because without GM, Saab would be a ghost, talked about but dead, like Austin Healey, Packard and now, MG.”

    You and others seem to think that GM should write SAAB a blank check to spend unlimited amount of money to develop “true SAAB” models built and designed in Sweden. It ain’t gonna happen. The only hope for SAAB is to use the parts and development of a larger, richer company such as GM.

    If you want to get all misty-eyed about the “true Swedish” SAABs of yore, thats fine. That’s no way to run a car company though, which is why you are commenting on Internet blogs rather than running a car company.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *