Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:22:30 -0800 From: "pablo" <pabloATsimplyhombreDOTnet> Subject: Re: Best built recent Saab?
<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? 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. > ... 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. > ... 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 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. So use your imagination less, and stick to the points I really make. > 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, 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. > >> 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. 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. > > ...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. > > I think Saab has a history of > > innovation, don't get me wrong. As has Citroen, as has Mercedes, and have > > others - Saab does not have an exclusive claim on innovation. > > 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. 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. 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- 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. ...pablo
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
