The banner above is an advertisment - if it asks you to download software, please ignore.
Site News - 3/26 M Car Covers (by State of Nine) | 12/12 Make Amazon Pay Saabnet!
Date: 14 Nov 2002 15:47:15 GMT
From: davehinznopsamcop.net
Subject: Re: Best built recent Saab?


Someone who looks an awful lot like pablo <pablonopsamlyhombrenospamnet> wrote: > <davehinznopsamcop.net> wrote in message > news:aqv6md$dmfqq$2nopsam34476.news.dfncis.de... >> >> Exactly, what? I found exactly NO torque steer in any of them. I think >> you're reading into my message things which aren't there. > I am not saying they are or were undrivable. I am just saying Saabs were not > trying to provide the sheer feedback at the limit etc that a Beemer > provides. I think that your understanding of Saab history is severely lacking. > I have no doubt they engineers could if they wanted to, but that > is simply not what they tried to do - not with the 9-3, not with models that > preceeded it. No, I *know* that your understanding of Saab history is severely lacking. Handling and feedback to the driver has been primary from day one. They are an airplane manufacturer, after all - they understand control, feedback, center of gravity, and how these interact. >> In Saab's case, I find it hard to believe that anyone would insult the >> assemblers by claiming their labor was flawed. It's just expensive, not >> defective. > The human element results in higher variation from the average, period. An > expensive, high-quality plant will ensure more uniform standards. It's not > an insult, it is a simple fact that human's can't align parts by the > thousand as accurately and consistently as machines can. A factory like > Saab's has never been an artisan environment: humans excel when you give > them no deadlines, and they have the talent to perform their art. Machines > are far superior when it comes to cranking out a hundred identical pieces in > a single shift. It's not an insult, it's a tried and proven fact in mass > production. Do you know the method by which the classic 900's were built? One team built the entire car; it wasn't Sven bolting the left-rear taillight on each of the 100 cars going by per day. There are times when machine assembly is appropriate, and there are times when it is not. The way the 900 was designed (it's a 99, after all) in the 1960's, manual assembly was appropriate. 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. The classic 900 and cars preceding it, were designed to be assembled by humans...and they were assembled very well by those humans. >> OK, fair enough... whatever works for ya. I still prefer the '62 96 for > winter >> driving. > OK, fair enough... whatever works for ya, back at you. I for one have always > respected individual opinions. What I have a problem with is when people try > to rationalize them with indefensible arguments they present as supposed > facts. 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] >> 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? Perhaps you would benefit from reading a Saab "Engineering Features" book that they gave out as promotionals in the '80's, and maybe before and after. Goes into a high amount of detail on why things are as they are. eBay often has sellers auctioning them. >> ... The list of Saab innovations >> is long and sustained ... > ...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 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. >> I'll be interested in your impressions of the new 9-3 once you've had it >> for a while. > Seems to be getting better with the miles, actually. The engine is > definitely becoming smoother after 5,000 miles, and the service department > has ironed out some of the usual new car quirks. If I'd bought the wrong > car, I'd already noticed it - this Saab is replacing a new Jaguar XJR in my > garage, so it had a high standard to live up to, and it's doing well. It's > not as smooth, but it's way more involving and fun in its own way. I haven't > put many miles on my motorcycle since I got it. Sounds like it's behaving like a Saab. Good to hear. Every Saab I've owned has had the same feel; the same feedback, the same responsiveness in handling. They also, all have the center of gravity at the driver's seat. These are not unrelated. I think you're just noticing what Saab has known for decades, and are thinking it's something new. Dave Hinz

Return to Main Index
StateOfNine.com
SaabClub.com
Jak Stoll Performance
M Car Covers
Ad Available

The content on this site may not be republished without permission. Copyright © 1988-2024 - The Saab Network - saabnet.com.
For usage guidelines, see the Mission & Privacy Notice.
[Contact | Site Map | Saabnet.com on Facebook | Saabnet.com on Twitter | Shop Amazon via TSN | Site Donations]