The same argument needs to be made for the AMERICAN AUTO INDUSTRY. However, not on DETROIT’s behave, rather on behave of the smaller automakers that are willing and, owing to a lack of cash, so far unable to to get a good start to become self-sufficient car companies on a large competitive scale.

This would not be the Government outright owning a company but putting up the seed money for a new company to solidly come on line or a current but small company to expand.

DETROIT can make some money selling or leasing factories to these start-ups who would get loans from Uncle Sam,

The Loans would come with some strings attached of course, like no paying yourself more than a government employee. The PRESIDENT makes about $400,000 a year. The owner and EXECs for these new or small companies can not be paid more than that by their company until the loan is fully paid off.

Certain product goals need to be met, such as safety, fuel efficiency, Environmental standards (CALIFORNIA is just being dumb with how high the bar is here), and price point (No high-dollar supercars unless you were already making them before you got the loan though the other two requirements may mean you can not lean on said supercars or make them anyway).

No one propulsion solution can be imposed or favored by any state or the Federal government (NO HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS – cost too much and don’t work as normal consumer product yet).

The Federal Government has always handed out loans and grants for various things. They now need to make it clear that Small US carmakers and US start-ups can ask and be taken seriously.

The auto industry in Sweden will NOT be nationalized. Will never happen. Period. It’s not even worth to citing people with that opinion since they only want to have some 15 minutes of fame.

GM and Ford must be salivating at this prospect. Who better to negotiate with than a government waving their country’s flag for all to see. That’s political points scoring big time. It’s a far better solution than both brands using the American flag to drape the coffins.

Ford is in a better position to keep Volvo. A few of the Saabs are GM rebadges and that’s it. Ford/volvo/mazda do a lot of combination work.

C1 Platform and they are considering opening it up to more
Ford is in the best shape out of the Big 3, and if anything will hold on to Volvo for as long as possible

From what I remember, volvo sells most of its vehicles in the US as well.

Yeah, blakkarr. Restoring an existing auto sector that employs millions would be a much worse idea than pumping money into a handful of Tesla wannabe startups that employ dozens each. Good God. Where do you guys come from?

+1 for oldraven

And Blakkarr, have you been taking grammar lessons from the LLN writers? Good talk.

Maybe IKEA outlets could be Saab/Volvo dealers? Just a thought.

Those are some super boring ass brands, there’s only 1 cool Volvo I can think of…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBu6STlhh8Q

I actually like Blakkars idea. It would be great to see some entrepreneurs who want to build actual vehicles, not eco-weenie vehicles or electrics either. I mean, a new American automotive company.

But of course, in this established market, that’s just crazy talk… It’s not like Americas automobile brands have an competition from others on their own turf…

Write me a paper, justify your exsistence biatch. These automotive experts (University professors) need to just STFU, honestly. Step off campus once, and see the real world. ‘Never again’… sheesh

At least Volvo still has some real Swedish style/feel to the vehicles, Saab’s a muddled mess. The 9-3 is mediocre at best, even the revised “Turbo X”; even with a good drive train and engine set up, it still is an outdated car based on front-drive architecture that has been lagging the competition for years, and continues to do so. The 9-5 might as well not even exist in the mid-size luxury sedan class, considering it’s based on a front-drive platform and features a pathetic 2.3L turbocharged 4-CYLINDER that makes, wait for it….260 bhp at…5,300 heart-thumping rpm! Such an unrefined, outclassed vehicle. Then there’s the 9-7x which is a bastard for all intensive purposes. And…even though it’s gone, the OTHER Saab bastard, the 9-2x, which is probably the best Saab of recent years, and IT’S actually a SUBARU!

Damn.

lol

pzimet, that is an ignorant post.

We get it, the 9-5 is old, way to old. Agreed, GM has done a very poor job managing Saab.

Your comment about front drive platform makes no sense. Saab cars are designed and built in Sweden. Sweden has snow much of the year. Saab will always be FWD or AWD, (if they make it out of this crisis). In the real world, most people don’t drive their cars to the edge of it’s capabilities or take it to the track. A properly tuned FWD car can be a fun, and safe, driving experience for the majority of drivers out there.

You commented on the “pathetic 2.3 turbo charged 4 cylinder that makes, wait for it…260 bhp at 5300 heart thumping rpm!.

Here are some stats on the BMW 5 series and the Audi A-6 via edmunds.

2008 BMW 528: 3.0 liter 6 cylinder, 230 horsepower, max horsepower at 6500 rpm, torque 200 ft-lbs, max torque 2750 rpm.

2008 Audi A-6: 3.1 liter 6 cylinder, 255 horsepower, max horsepower at 6500 rpm, torque 243 ft-lbs, max torque at 3250 rpm.

2008 Saab 9-5 Aero: 2.3 4 cylinder, 260 horsepower, max horsepower at 5300 rpm, torque 258 ft-lbs, max torque at 1900 rpm.

As you can see, the Saab has better performance figures especially in torque numbers, down low where they count. For overtaking on the highway, from 40 mph on up, Saab is one of the fastest cars on the road. That’s all you get though…no high performance variants. Still, not too shabby.

The 9-5 is way overdue for replacement and it’s sales figures clearly show that. The original design was very good in it’s day but 10 years is far too long in such a competitive class….come on GM.

Saab has unique character and heritage. It would be a shame if the brand disappeared.

Absolutely both these brands should be nationalized and returned to their Swedish roots. I would love to see both these brands return to glory….especially Saab which like everything GM touches has been destroyed due to poor management and badge engineering.

Oh…and regarding the Trollblazer. I’m not a fan of the trailblazer to begin with. I don’t have a need for an SUV, I’m not against them either, just not my thing. From what I have heard from owners, Saab did a pretty good job tuning the suspension on that ride. It was a poor stop gap measure from GM to get Saab into the SUV craze. They should have let them work their magic on the SRX platform instead but what do I know.

9-2X, even stupiders.

Both Saab and Volvo are companies worth saving. In fact, Saab hit record worldwide sales in 2007. And Volvo has more models in more segments and even better sales.

Btw, folks, this isn’t the first time Saab offered badge-engineered models. They sold the Lancia Delta as the Saab 600, and the Autobianchi/Lancia A112 as a Saab, too. Both in the ’80s.

I don’t know how both could be nationalized. They’re direct competitors, and managing competing lines of cars would be very difficult.

Yes, the 9-5 is ancient. But there’s a replacement well on the way. And its 2.3L turbo 4 is a fantastic engine. The new 9-3 is MUCH improved (I want one), attractive, well-engineered, and well-performing. It’s basically the safest car on American roads, to boot. And the 9-7x is breathing its last, but is easily the best GMT360 available, in interior quality and dynamics. Besides, the new 9-4x seeks to replace it with a much more proper Saab.

While I’m less of a fan of Volvo, they offer attractive, well-designed vehicles, even if they are a bit dull to drive. I wish Saab had the lineup that Volvo has, actually.

At any rate, I hope that both Volvo’s and Saab’s parent companies make it through this difficult time, and that both divisions come out more competitive on the other side.

However, if they can’t, the next best thing would be for both to go back to the Swedes again.

Good post inline 6.

I don’t know why everyone continues to bring up “badge engineering” and consider it a bad thing.

The fact is, nearly all the major automobile companies develop shared platforms, Audi does it extremely well.