A quick Google search has come up with more Saab news:-

Javed Akhtar returns to the small screen with a documentary honouring the work of the legends of Indian cinema. Classic Legends premiered on Zee Classic on 11 th of December and reminces the Golden Era of Bollywood.

“We can’t put up the entire life span and achievements of all luminaries from 50s and 60s we are talking about, but we are presenting a broader image of them” is what Javed Saab had to say when asked what all can be expected from the show.

Some of the legends to be featured in the show are Raj Kapoor, R D Burman, Madhubala, Nargis, Kishor Kumar, Bimal Roy, Shammi Kapoor, Mehboob and Guru Dutt. At present Kishor Kumar is the only singer to be featured in the show however Javed Saab believes that musical legends like Rafi and Mukesh are worthy of an episode also perhaps in the future.

Zee Classic is a channel that aims to keep today’s generations up to date with the era gone by. The channel has taken it up as a challenge to invoke curiosity and admiration amongst the youth of the legends that they have missed out on. However Javed Saab says that the show for him is a to share his memories and views of some of the greatest names of Indian cinema. He believes that the fact that he has personally known many of the personalities to be featured will set the show apart from all other published works and other TV shows that have covered the lives of the legends to be featured in Classic Legends.

As for chances of seeing Mr Akhtar on the small screen again, he says that if show meets his standards than he’d love to be a part of it however that is something that is in the hands of the channel walon

I'm not harbouring a grudge due to a disapponting past experience. I axknowledge that some of their cars were well engineered and solidly built.

However, my tutors always told me that plagarism was a cardinal sin. I adhere to that view. Saab have consistently been among the very worst offenders in respect to plagarism. I shan't shed any tears at their demise. More deserving individuals have disappeared without trace, their contributions left unrecognised.

Have you never wondered why Saab have one of the highest brand loyalties? It's nothing to do with the past, it's to do with the cars. Something special, unlike the Ford Mundano et al.

If they've got high brand loyalty then why are they going out of business? I suppose you'd say the better selling Ford's dont have any brand loyalty, they just sell more. Unfortunately selling cars is what matters. Ford, BMW, Merc, Audi, Vauxhall, Peugeot and i think even Skoda sell more cars than Saab, do those firms not have high brand loyalty?

I wouldnt call a Saab 'something special' a Jaguar is something special, a Bentley is something special. You put a Saab and a Mondeo side by side how is one more 'special' than the other? Mind you im actually inclined to call the latest Mondeo a bit of a flop really as i think its too expensive for the market it most needs to appeal to - company car and fleet users.

The cars aren't perfect, and certainly since the GM days not what they were having lost some of their individuality. After all, Clarkson loved the 9-5 Aero, so they can't be all bad ;-)

Clarkson also said the Mondeo ST220 was a spectacular car and everytime he drives one he gets out wondering why we buy anything else. I think the fact 'the cars arent perfect' is more the reason behind Saab's demise. Individuality doesnt sell mass market cars and buyers in this sector want fuss free. You can even sell dodgy cars like small Peugeot's if they have a nice pricetag and a bit of panache which Saab's do not. If you were to recommend a Saab to somebody and they asked you why they should buy it over such and such in the same class and price range i doubt you could make a compelling case and that is why they're struggling.

I'd agree with that, the lifespan of all the cars was too long and technology moved forward quicker than they designed new cars. The previous model 9-5 soldiered on from 1997 to 2010 with only minor tweaks, and that's too long these days. New customers weren't likely to be attracted by 10-year old designs.

The problem is, that they were easily turned into something better - revised suspension, power upgrades etc - but few people would see that, and even fewer would bother, particularly new customers.

It is because the 'Mundano' as you sneeringly deride it, and the maligned vectra became so good that Saab became redundant. You fell into the trap of allowing familiarity to breed contempt. The mundano is ubiquitous because it is superb at what it does.

The continuous fierce competition between Ford and Opel/Vauxhall has certainly driven up standards in the affordable mainstream in all it's aspects, equipment, reliability, performance, handling, etc. Generally, other "premium" manufacturers have reacted and upped their own game to avoid the gap closing too much - but Saab seemed to have stuck in a time warp - even Bentley know you can't do that.

Now folks, was it Saab's fault or GM's for not developing a replacement?

If you want a GM developed car, why not buy...er..a GM branded one? If Saab don't develop cars, what is the purpose of their existence? Why should GM spend a fortune on developing a car and only permit a niche group to use it?

By the time a car maker is visibly ailing, it is basically a basket case. You can't expect a bigger company to subsidise a subsidery indefinitely. BMW couldn't turn around Rover-in spite of constant cross subsidy. If Ford had known how bad Jaguar's position was, they never would have bought it and Jaguar would no longer exist.

The car market is fierce and there is little room for sentimentality.

jamie, just read your post about Ford Mondeo prices. This is just what I've heard in the past, I thought Ford/Vauxhall etc heavily discount their cars for the fleet sector?

Indeed, the Mondeo ST220, is from all I've read about it a superb car. Before my parents bought their last Saab 9-3 hatch I drove a 1998 Mondeo. I must say I felt it drove better than the Saab. The steering and handling were sharper. The Saab felt stodgy by contrast, because it was based on a Vectra. Apparently Autocar/Car magazine rate the Mondeo a better drive than the Vectra. BTW my parents had already owned 2 Saabs, so no matter how much better the Mondeo drove, it was going to be difficult to sway them.

Anyway, I think I see more late 90s Saabs on the road than Mondeos.

What's so funny?

That was BMW's fault. I've heard senior BMW high ups admit that.

John Towers and his cronies didn't get very far either-even after squandering a £500 million legacy from BMW. Towers spent most of his time siphoning off BMW's redundancy package while half-heartedly trying to con the Chinese into paying for him to play at being a car maker. Saab are now trying the same wheeze. The Chinese are canny with their money-and aren't interested.

Edited by unthrottled on 17/12/2011 at 19:00

Now folks, was it Saab's fault or GM's for not developing a replacement? I wonder if GM bought Saab and virtually forgot all about the company. I get the feeling they didn't understand what they had, otherwise they wouldn't have put a SAAB nose on a Subaru WRX to sell it as a Saab. No surprise it flopped, much like the Saab 9-7, which goes down as one of the worst cars ever made. The Saabaru, to my mind, underlines the fact GM didn't understand SAAB.

GM didn't understand Subaru either - it was blinkered meglomania.

But looking back at the Vectra-B and comparing it to it's Cavalier mk3 predecessor and Vectra-C successor, GM didn't understand Opel/Vauxhall at that time.

It is because the 'Mundano' as you sneeringly deride it, and the maligned vectra became so good that Saab became redundant. You fell into the trap of allowing familiarity to breed contempt. The mundano is ubiquitous because it is superb at what it does.

Why can't you you define what makes Saab special? Is it simply that they are an uncommon sight on the roads? That's snobbery at its very worst!

It wasn't meant sneeringly, I genuinely thought it was a common term of endearment, it seems to be used often enough here! I had a Mondeo back in 1997 as a company car, and was very pleased with every facet of it - IMHO the mark 2 Mondeo was the best looking of the bunch. I'd have another tomorrow as a daily hack.

What makes Saab special? Very difficult to define. Perhaps the quirkiness of the central ignition switch. Perhaps the feeling of complete security on a wet, cold, windswept night. I don't need to define it, I just experience it. And I'm keen on a Skoda Superb or a Passat as my next car. Does that make me OK :-). Or does that throw up a totally new perspective on my psyche :-)

Edited by Mike H on 17/12/2011 at 19:43

John Towers and his cronies didn't get very far either-even after squandering a £500 million legacy from BMW.

Indeed, £500 million wasn't enough. It must also be mentioned that Towers and co. were said to have incompetent. BMW could have made a success of Rover. The Quandt family were allegedly too impatient.

To my mind, the aircraft design influence makes Saab unique.

Someone should tell Rolls Royce...

Loads of carmakers were involved in building aircraft during the war. The marketing campaign will try to tell you that it's unique-it aint.

Just buy a Skoda and move the ignition barrel to the centre console.

P.S. Didn't British Aerospace own Rover for a while. Did aircraft design influence the Rover 25? ;)

Edited by unthrottled on 17/12/2011 at 20:32

unthrottled, 'Did aircraft design influence the Rover 25? ;)' Most certainly, there are design cues all over the shop. If you haven't spotted them................they're hidden. :)

Anyway, not as much as the Spitfire aeroplane influenced the Triumph Spitfire. :)

BMW owned the company for six years. How long did Rover need to be supported for?

Well, longer of course....................dear me Rome, or indeed New Rover, wasn't built in day! It was ONLY 6 years.

The £500 million was just the redundancy package-on top of the money BMW pumped in whilst they ran it.

BMW don't seem to be incompetent when it comes to building their own cars.

Indeed they don't, but they didn't half know how to **** up the only major launch of a Rover car while they owned the company!

But, like Saab, the fanatics will claim that BMW diidn't 'get' what Rover were about etc etc.

No, that's not true. They didn't own Rover long enough to find out. BTW, just incase you're wondering................I'm not a Rover fanatic.

Edited by Trilogy on 17/12/2011 at 22:23

Avant, 'and that silly positioning of the ignition key on the centre console. If you have other keys on the keyring, as I do, they slide about noisily every time you go round a corner. You can see it can't you - the designers didn't have other keys and it never occurred to them'

Avant, well you shouldn't have driven on roads with corners. :) Seriously, I drove the family's 9-3 hatch for 2 weeks earlier in the year. To my mind it's the most natural place to have the ignition key. I liked the way you just start the car and slip the car into gear, with the same hand and then drive off. Then when you come to park you put the car in reverse (excellent idea for times when you park on an incline, as a back up for a handbrake failure, btw I expect most competent people on here leave their car in gear on an incline, but plenty of people don't) and your hand just moves naturally to take out the key. Naturally, the car is locked in reverse. Even though it had only been 2 weeks, it took me longer to get used to going back to the Skoda, than going from Skoda to Saab. BTW we always keep other keys away from car keys...............on all cars.

Anyway, there's another safety related reason why the Saab ignition key is where it is. I hope you never have an accident in your Skoda. Just remember, your knee and your keys, on impact. Yes, that could be very painful! :)

I can understand why you didn't like the 9-3 estate. I think you were fortunate with your Safrane's reliability, nevertheless, a much under-rated car.

Sorry, Saab - GM took what USPs you had away from you. Some. :)

Edited by Trilogy on 17/12/2011 at 22:49

Or you could argue that putting the ignition key on right side of the steering wheel allows you a quicker start upon entering the car because your right hand can switch on the engine and wipe the windscreen clear whilst, simultaneously, the left hand puts puts the car into gear and drops the hand brake. Pefect for the discerning bank robber with no accomplice.

Luckily Saab don't design cars for bank robbers. Such a shame everyone else is so obliging!

Seriously, arguing about ignition key position is akin to debating th merits of using the left or right stalk to control the indicators. It makes no difference.

No correlation with left or right indicator stalk.

Lots of manufacturers swear that mounting the gear level on the dashboard is superior to mounting it on the floor-can't say I ever saw the advantage myself.

Nah, They think locking the steering wheel is better than stopping your car rolling down a hill. And its easier to push a car when its not locked in gear. Anyway that's very rude of them to *****. I like to use asteriks instead. :)

I'm extremely surprised they never developed an Astra sized Saab, which would have been a rival for the VW Golf.

But why would i buy an Astra/Golf sized Saab when i could buy an Astra or a Golf? Or more importantly a Ford Focus?

To my mind, the aircraft design influence makes Saab unique

Marketing spin of the highest order. Seriously if i went into a Saab dealer and got into a 9-5, what part of that car is lifted from the Aeronautics industry? Honestly tell me which part.

Living with them day to day you appreciate them.

But people arent going to live with them and then buy them, its the other way around. If Saab cant make their vehicles appealing on the dealer forecourt in the way other companys can then thats where they're going wrong.

jamie, just read your post about Ford Mondeo prices. This is just what I've heard in the past, I thought Ford/Vauxhall etc heavily discount their cars for the fleet sector?

Yes they do discount heavily, as to Vauxhall and other mainstream makes but that counts for nothing when it comes to company car tax which is based on LIST price of the car and co2 emissions. If you ask any middle management company car driver he or she will tell you that the BMW 3 series is a more cost effective company car than a mid range Mondeo.

Anyway, I think I see more late 90s Saabs on the road than Mondeos.

Its easy to see things you're looking for. Do a survey of cars which drive past your house (or on the main road at the end of your road if you live in a quiet side street) in the space of 30 minutes and tell me what percentage of them are Saabs. However late 90s Mondeo's are becoming surprisingly rare now, the mk1's seem to have died entirely. Scrappage scheme victims?

The vectra was softer than the Mondeo-and the motoring pundits panned it because of this-quite unfairly.

But the vectra was the best motorway cruiser in the business-smooth, comfortable, quiet, stable-and economical. For high milers this was far more important than skid pan tests.

Ive commented before that the Vectra's steering is very vague, unprecise and akin to an 80s American Land Yacht. Ideal for motorway runs up and down the country where its handling goes from being vague and unprecise into being non-twitchy and comfortable but as an all round package the Vectra has always been behind the Mondeo. I dont particularly mind the last generation of Vectra, its a perfectly decent car which could make sound sense for plenty of people.

If you want a GM developed car, why not buy...er..a GM branded one? If Saab don't develop cars, what is the purpose of their existence? Why should GM spend a fortune on developing a car and only permit a niche group to use it?

This is where we get to the crux of the issue. The Saab fans want there to be an Astra sized Saab just so as it can have a Saab badge on it, when an Astra sized Saab would merely be an Astra with a Saab badge on it making it pretty pointless and would only be bought by the fanboys who think Saabs are brilliant because nobody else has one. The only reasons ive heard for saving Saab is so as there can be Saabs out there.

And as for the comparisons with Rover, they were dead long before BMW wasted their time but the 75 was a fitting final hurrah and was actually quite a good car. I'll say that i actually do see a fair few around.

So what did GM give Saab?

What they didn't do was just give the billions of $$$s and free-rein to built whatever they wanted - GM imposed an attempt at profitability by making existing platform, suspension, engine, transmission, systems technology available - but this gave buyers little more than Saab trim versions of existing Vectra models or in the case of the 900/9-3 the previous Vectra model and not enough extra sales to justify the investment.

From GM's point of view, they'd have been better off not getting involved in Saab at all, or Subaru for that matter, and investing a fraction of their total into Opel/Vauxhall.

From Saabs point of view, the GM era simply seems to have delayed the inevitable by a decade so let's keep our fond memories of the 3-cylinder 2-stroke models and the 99-derived models and move on.

You don't have to go as far as a Saab dealer, nevertheless if you go, that will be a most lovely experience for you. I thought I'd make it easier for you as it's a Sunday. BTW, I expect you've not much time with all the tapping.......... you're doing. ;)

I'll go along with the last bit ;) but you haven't answered my question of what part of the 9-5 comes from the plane industry?

Taken from Autocar website

But perhaps the killer blow was GM’s decision, in late 1995, to cancel an all-new 9-5. Conceived during the GM-Fiat partnership, it was the sister car to the Alfa 159 and based on the all-new Saab designed ‘premium’ platform (the name gives a clear clue to Saab’s frustration at GM's limitations). Saab finally had a bespoke premium car, but GM’s split with Fiat saw the project canned. Saab simply never recovered from the loss of the 9-5 that never was.

GM didn't get involved at Saab until 1995, on a 50% ownership basis - they eventually took full control of Saab in 2000 and in the same year entered a joint-venture agreement with Fiat.

So how on earth was a new 9-5 cancelled as early as 1995? Methinks your memory has some decade-shift!

RT your memory is the one that's playing up. GM was involved in 1990. BTW, The new GM based 900 was launched before 1995........... in I seem to remember 1993.

RT, Saab had a new 9-5 for launch in 2005, based on the ‘Premium’ platform (used on the Alfa 159), which was engineered by Saab. But when GM and Fiat ended their partnership, GM insisted that Saab shelve the car.

So RT, you're right, time for me to be chastised with a virtual slapping. Seems as though we're a pair of................................best I don't go there!!! LOL

BTW, sme say the 159 could have had 6 stars in the ncap test, if there had been such a rating, no surprise there! :)

After all this time what is actually left to sell, just the badges?

Rebadging Ssangyongs as Saabs would cut down on spelling mistakes!

Update..................from elsewhere. :)

Plans to restart the Saab production lines and complete up to 100 part-built cars have been vetoed by workers' unions, Autocar has learned.

The company administrators had planned to call some workers back in to complete the part-built cars on the production line, in the hope that the finished cars could be sold.

However, reports from Saab's home town, Trollhattan, suggest that the workers' union has said its members will not return to the plant. Discussions are, however, ongoing.

The situation is further complicated because Saab's plant was sold to an investment firm in order to raise money several months ago, and it is reported to be keen to empty the buildings and find a new use for them if the car company can't be sold as a going concern.

6-7 companies are interested.