that is true; but you speak like you have experience so I assume you are in your 50's or so.

I can only assume you've driven all of Ferrari's current lineup to come to this conclusion... because those that have all disagree with your assessment.

Ferrari making 3000 more cars a year is a nail in Enzo's coffin? Shit man, you trotted out EVERY worn out Jalopnik buzzword for insulting success in one comment, that's impressive.

Stop bloviating, sell your two shitty projects and go buy a Miata. What the hell is stopping you? You work for a major automotive blog. You have nearly endless automotive resources at your disposal. Buy a fucking miata already. It's easy. It's not fucking rocket science or open heart surgery. You find one on…

Wait, wait, wait. Why is it on one side of Jalopnik we decry a 612hp SUV from Mercedes when on the other we're demanding that Chrysler make a Grand Cherokee Hellcat?

my day has arrived!

Synopsis :

Cursed implies that Saab did everything they could to make it work and by some dumb unlucky coincidence they failed.

Saab had more free reign than any other GM brand. They choked themselves with it.

Actually, Saab's true beginnings were forged when they built mighty submarines which fought in the great Gulf War.

Instead of "Why can't Saab survive?", why aren't you asking "Why can't we let Saab go?" They haven't made interesting or broadly appealing cars in a couple decades, yet for some reason, there's a small group of fetishists here that continues to think Saab will make it if they just get the right opportunity or…

As I am working hard to be an automotive journalist, this post is media enriched, much like Saab.

Drive Free or Die.

Interesting. I can see why he wouldn't be so up front with that. That would be like if the Editor in Chief of Jezebel be a man, or the EiC of Gizmodo have a flip phone. People would have their heads.

And of course here is Matt's car, oddly enough it's the same make & model as the previous editor-in-chief!

I'm aware it's somewhat broad, but the issue persists even when you factor in population distribution. The remaining 20% of America accounts for some 62 million residents, which is a population greater still than all of England, spread out over 3 million square miles. We can never be fully reliant on public transit…

Because England is 50,000 square miles with 61 million people living in it (1,220 people/sqmi). The United States is 3,800,000 square miles with 313 million people living in it (82.3 people/sqmi). With 15 times the average population density, it's 15 times more cost-effective to invest in public transit options for…

Even if Google's car eliminates all user error from roadways, thousands more people will still die on roads than will be killed while riding a bus, train or other forms of public transportation.

Dear Auto-journalists: The Word 'enthusiast' Needs To Die Forever