Originally Posted by Turbotx
Agreed. This, plus I have zero respect for government motors for crawling tails tucked and hands out for help after running themself into the ground. Then they double-fukked Saab, first by ruining them with their pathetic platforms, then blocking their sale attempts. Too bad Saab didnt have a rich governent 'daddy' to go running to for help, like gm did....
At any rate, the only comparison that explained in simple terms why the ats isnt ready for the spotlight yet was road and track; its slower, less refined, thirstier, less practical, has a lame shifter and CUE sucks compared to idrive. So Im curious again, why should this thing be taken seriously?
Wait, wait , wait. LOL, SAAB? SAAB was about dead when GM, errantly, took them over. GM did't kill SAAB, it was dead and GM tried to resuscitate it by amortizing production costs over a wider range of platforms (go read up on how VW makes on the order of 19 different models off of one platform). It's a global market folks. Small, independent car companies like SAAB can't make it in today's (since the 1990's) global automotive market. SAAB had a rich commercial car company bail them out and at a cost to GM of bankruptcy.
And go read up on how many other industries (like the food you eat) are subsidized by Uncle Sam.