Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 20:59:43 GMT From: BobR <BobRosnopsamdnet.att.net> Subject: Re: Mixed Saab Results...
The GM 900 Saabs look, feel and drive like junk - they are 900 "replicas", knock-offs - even though the company that currently passes for Saab made them. Ahh, but there's always the 9000 - it has a build quality that, whenever you look under, or into anything or take something apart, absolutely boggles the mind. As much as I've liked my 99 and classic 900 - this baby is built better. And it retained the 5-door hatchback configuration I've missed since my old 99 wagonback. And since they made these 'til '98 I think, it satisfies the "newer" car requirement too. I avoided them for years, thinking it was a yuppiemobile for some lawyer with Buick driving tastes/skills who felt the need to be seen in something "foreign" - but boy was I wrong. But I can't give up my classic '86 900 either. (Good thing the insurance is cheap - I got way too many cars). C Rode wrote: > > I've had three Saabs. The first was an 87 900. I actually bought it > for my wife, but it was so underpowered that a year later I traded it in > for an 88 900 Turbo. Now THAT was a great car. I put 100K on it in > eight years, and loved every minute of it. But thinking that 8 years > was long enough, I bought a 96 900SET. This car, I'm not so happy > with. The sheet metal is flimsy, the electronics fail occasionally, two > batteries have died, the ignition switch has died...it's just not that > reliable. So, now I've had this one 7. If I could somehow recapture > the experience (and confidence) of my 88, I'd buy another Saab in a > heartbeat. I have no desire to re-experience the 96. So, which of > these cars was the anomoly? Are the 9-3s better? > > Just looking for general comments, and what better place than the > internet? > > tia. > > Craig