Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 19:44:23 -0400 From: dscvnopsamltranet.com (Robert Anderson) Subject: Re: Looking at the 9-5
In article <6j78ud$ot7$1nopsam1.dejanews.com>, sfoynopsamhealthplan.com wrote: > > > > In article <3554D82B.18ADF40Cnopsam.pipex.com>, Tom Lloyd > > <t.lloydgsdeenopsam.pipex.com> wrote: > > > > > Smashing car to drive - suspension much improved over 9000 model. > > > Regards > > > Tom Lloyd > > > > > We have a '96 9000 CS and have no complaints about the suspension. > > We took a 9-5 out for a test drive. I found the suspension softer > > with more body roll. Is this the improvement you talk about? > > > > /Bob > > It amazes me how many 9000 owners do not want to accept the > reality that the new 9-5 is a much nicer car than their 9000. The > 9000 has a primitive rear suspension (same design found on many > minivans!), rides harshly, and handles poorly on rough roads. Maybe > they are trying to protect the resale value of their 9000's by insisting > that the 9-5 is no better (or even worse!) than their 9000. > Steve, Your slam is unnecessary and unappreciated. I did not find a noticable improvement in the 9-5 other than the cup holder. They are equivalent cars. There are some things that are definitely better in the 9000 like the hatchback and better visiability over the dash. The major benefit of the 9-5 is price reduction. The last of the 9000s sold for $38,000+. The entry level price for a 9-5 is $29,995. This by itself is a major achievement. We will probably order a 9-5 in a few years for European delivery. If a 9000 hatch were available, I would prefer it to the 9-5. Bob Anderson
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
