Date: 14 Nov 2002 03:52:45 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:aqtull$d12dc$4nopsam34476.news.dfncis.de... >> >> A few months ago, I did some torque steer comparisons (finding none in >> each case, but different thread) between my classic Saabs, and my 1999 > 9-5. > Exactly. I refuse to believe the old Saabs are such pure driving machines - > they never had a reputation for it. Even less so in the late 80s and early > 90s. Even ack in their day, those cars were leagues behind the better > handling Beemers. 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. > Saab hasn't tried to challenge someone like BMW until they > came out with the latest 9-3. 70s-80s-90s, Saab articulated a different > value proposition. Saab and BMW appeal to different types of people. I'm perfectly OK with that. >> Just because it takes longer to build, doesn't mean that that time was >> adding value. > As a rule, lots of manual labor is a bad thing. It is an indication you do > not have the cash for a quality plant these days. Even Rolls and Bentley are > cutting down on manual labor - not to cut cost, but to up quality standards > where it mechanically matters. 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. >> I really, really like my 9-5. I think that the NG900 was a stop-gap > design, >> and we're seeing the first real new smaller Saab in the new 9-3. > Arguably, it's less of a "Saab" than the 9-3 hatchback it replaces. But > that's been discussed before, and Saab needs some mainstram success to > bankroll other, more "authentic" cars. If I felt strongly about it, I might be interested in discussing that particular sub-topic. > I actually like my 9-3 a lot - *because* of the quirks, and because it does > not attempt to be a BMW. It works surprisingly well in California - it's > invulnerable to high curbs, it works well on some of the dirty and > patched-up roads we have around here. It's a convertible that seats four > people comfortably. Compared to so many other cars in CA you can tell > yourself you're doing something for the environment by avoiding > gas-guzzlers. The seats are superbly comfortable - far more so than Merceds' > or BMWs'. I do not fall prey for the notion that I need the ultimate > driver's car for being stuck in traffic, and when I go canyon carving on > weekends it's on my motorcycle... no car can match that for excitement and > involvement. So the Saab's a great car, and the '02 9-3 is -for me- a much > better car than any old Saab would be. OK, fair enough... whatever works for ya. I still prefer the '62 96 for winter driving. > The fact of the matter is that people have to respect other's taste, and try > to not over-rationalize their particular infatuation with their own car > bringing up lame superior engineering arguments. Ah, but the engineering is measurably better. The list of Saab innovations is long and sustained - call the word "innovations" crap if you want, but whatever word you want to use, they have a *ton* of firsts in their designs, which have now become mainstream. That's not the result of marketing, that's a result of sound engineering. I'll be interested in your impressions of the new 9-3 once you've had it for a while. Dave Hinz --
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
