You'll see that my good friend Philip wrote about the new Saab Aero-X concept. He loves it. And he thought I would, too. But I don't. I really, really like my Saab 900s (quirks and all) for smart design, great versatility and superb handling. It also has the best driver's seat I've ever sat in.

What's wrong with the Aero-X? It's not Saab. At least not to me. I know Philip has the history of growing up with Saab and he's far more into the racing dynamic than I am, but I think of Saab as an alternative to the mainstream. Not alternative to be alternative, but alternative to be better. The idea of taking a car and make it the way it should be, rather than what, because of creed, has to be.

Robert Farago thinks the Aero-X is a sure sign that Saab is on its way out when he writes: General Motors Death Watch 59: X Marks the Spot.

If you want to know why GM makes such a broad range of substandard products, why they can't or won't build a truly magnificent Saab, there's your answer: centralized power and control.

I don't happen to believe my 1998 Saab 900s is magnificent, but compared to the current 9-3, my car is a fighter jet! An example? Sure thing: buttons. Sure, all cars have a lot of buttons today, but in my car they are clustered together by function and have distinct feel so that I don't have to take my eyes off the road. The new Saab 9-3? The dash easily has dozens and dozens of similar-sized buttons placed very closely to one another.

The Saab Aero-X is what GM thinks a Saab should be, not what Saab thinks a Saab should be. I really hope for more.