Date: 15 Nov 2002 16:07:24 GMT From: davehinznopsamcop.net Subject: Re: Best built recent Saab?
Someone who looks an awful lot like pablo <pabloATsimplyhombreDOTnet> wrote: > <davehinznopsamcop.net> wrote in message > news:ar0gi3$dhd7c$1nopsam34476.news.dfncis.de... >> >> I think that your understanding of Saab history is severely lacking. > Maybe you can tell us which Saab model, exactly, was challenging BMW's 2002 > or 3 series when it came to curve carving capabilities? Let's see. The Sonett III was reported by the car mags of the time to "...corner like a jackrabbit on speed", but sadly, the 1970 editors of that magazine (Car and Driver I *think*) were careless and incomplete in their research, and didn't compare it to the 2002 model BMW 3 series. An appalling lack of journalistic rigor, don't you think? > If you claim utmost sporting capability ranked tops on Saab's agenda when it > came to developing street cars, then either you're the one that doesn't know > Saab history, or you're looking at it through very rose-tinted lenses. I didn't say "utmost sporting capability", but you were making it look like they didn't give a crap about handling and responsiveness until you happened to discover Saab. Ain't so - handling and driver feedback have been primary since URSAAB. >> ... They >> are an airplane manufacturer, after all - they understand control, > feedback, >> center of gravity, and how these interact. > There are distinct differences between plane design and car design. I do not > think the Saab 37 Viggen engineers really moonlighted as much around the car > design center as Saab brochures want to make you believe. It's a corporate culture thing more than anything. The first car engineers *were* airplane designers; they didn't have anyone in Saab who wasn't. Center of gravity, drag, air tunnel testing - all these things are no different with a car than with an airplane. Engineering doesn't all get different just because you move from one to another. Also, in a company where the high accuracy of air flight has been the normal, engineering decisions were made more on what's the best way to do things, rather than what's the cheapest way to do things. >> ... To have a car that is to be assembled by machine, and have >> it done *well* by machine, it has to be designed with that assembly method >> in mind. ... > But when you do that, you have higher control over quality. Less variation - > and that's what it's all about in mass production. And my point, which you keep missing, is that that car was designed to be built by hand, with limited automation. As such, it does not lend itself well to being fully automated - wasn't set up for it, and no quality reasons to change. > And that is all I was > saying. To claim I am insulting Saab workers in the 70s is ridiculous. I > never stated the product coming out of Saab factories was not a damn fine > car, all in all. In the part which you conveniently snipped, you claimed that hand-assembly invariably causes quality problems. > So use your imagination less, and stick to the points I > really make. Funny how two people can be thinking the same thing, but for oh so different reasons. >> Well, your countering "facts" seem to be saying that Saab hasn't been >> concerned with drivability issues in the past, which is, let's just say, >> contrary to the reality of the situation. [edited version] > Once you lay off the LSD, Charming. Pity that I edited that which I posted above - it originally included the phrase "a complete crock of shit". Consider it to be un-edited accordingly. > you'll see my point was Saab was not trying to > compete with the very sportiest brands on pushing the corner carving > envelope - saabs were designed with more criteria in mind, and longevity, > sturdiness, practicality and safety were blended with a satidfying element > of performance. But boy racers took their business elsewhere. You *were* saying that it wasn't important at all, now you're saying it's just one of the things they considered. If you'd be so kind as to pick what your point is, that'd make it alot easier to hold a conversation. ...or not... >> >> Ah, but the engineering is measurably better. >> >> > Be specific. The engineering of what? >> >> How specific do you want? Alloy of steel in the engine block? The fact >> that it's using 5 main bearings for a 4-cyl engine, rather than the >> usual 3? I could go into details about how that increases the strength of >> the crankshaft, reducing flex and wear on those parts, but what > specifically >> are you asking about? > I just said you have to be more specific, and since you did, you said very > valid stuff. But then there was also a suspension setup that was still using > semi-independent stuff when the more ambitious premium design had moved on. The double-wishbone front suspension was, and still is, a superior design to any kind of struts. The struts are there because it's easier and/or cheaper to build, not because it's better. I'm not as comfortable discussing the dynamics of the rear suspension, as I haven't carefully studied how the 9-5 is doing it. > That is why you can't be all generic and claim *every* aspect of the > engineering was superior. They chose were to really invest more time, > because based on their particular philosophy and priorization that counted > the most. Making the street-racers happy was never a priority, nor should it be. Yes, every aspect of Saab's engineering has been done very carefully, with emphasis on proper engineering rather than "How many models can we cram this engine & tranny into" kind of thinking. >> > ...and hasn't ceased. Many of the Saab innovations mentioned in the Saab >> > museum are quite trivial, car history in hand. >> >> Yeah, who needs dual-diagonal braking systems, practical turbochargers, >> and all that other trivial stuff. > I said "many", not all of them. You were dismissing the innovations, I provided counterexamples. >> Nobody (except you) said they did. But, it's an indication of the good >> engineering you seem to think doesn't exist. > It's a point you're contending with yourself. I never said Saab's aren't or > weren't well-engineered. It's other claiming newer Saabs are not > well-engineered, and that 15 year old Saabs are superior in every respect. The good engineering of Saab has been diluted by the GM influences. Don't mess with a recipe that works. The new 9-3 will be the make-or-break model as far as I'm concerned. I'm not thrilled with a "foreign" engine going into the cars, but Saab has survived it before. > All I said is Saabs weren't engineered to be Beemers, and that the pace of > innovation has not necessarily slowed in the 90s with the GM acquisition. >> I think you're just noticing what Saab has known for decades, and are >> thinking it's something new. > I had been wanting to buy a Saab for 15 years. I always thought the Saab > value proposition very appealing. My point here is that many people in this > forum claim Saab's gone to the dogs since GM acquired it - and that I do not > agree with. Can you at least agree that the V6 was a marketing decision forced on Saab by GM, that was and is a disaster? It's a classic case of the design being changed for exactly the wrong reasons. It was an appeal to those who wanted to count pistons, and they sacrificed the traditional Saab quality to do it. A 4WD Saab, or a Saab SUV, would be more examples of marketing folks screwing around with something that should not be. > Every acquisition comes with moments of disorientation, but I do > not think Saab lost its identity badly - I think it became more what it once > was over the 90s. Say what you like about the new 9-3 -and personally I am > not a huge fan yet- I haven't said much at all about it, other than "We'll have to wait and see", and "I hope they don't screw it up". > but Saabs have never been this close to challenging BMW > and Mercedes and the whole bunch since they came out with the original > Turbos - and that was a while ago. What is your fixation with those two makes? Personally, I don't care if the Rollex-wearing BMW driver wants to come buy a Saab or not. Dave Hinz
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
