Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 12:21:25 -0800 From: "pablo" <pabloATsimplyhombreDOTnet> Subject: Re: GM plans Saab Restructuring
"tom reingold" <tlr244nopsamnline.net> wrote in message news:3DE281FF.4010200nopsamnline.net... > > I visited Paris in July 2002. Almost every car there is a hatchback. > Only the expensive ones have trunks. Actually, that still confuses me. > Why are hatchbacks associated with lower priced cars? Hatchbacks are > just better in every respect, as far as I can tell. And Americans just > don't seem to get it. There were times when even luxury cars were hatchbacks: Jensen in the UK comes to mind. The Lamborghini Espada looked like one. The first Audi Coupe's in the 80s were hatch-backish. I totally agree - hatchbacks, when well made, can represent the best of everything: the elegance of 2-door design combined with the practicality of a station wagon. I think it's a natural fit for people without kids. If there was a very stylish hatchback in the market, I'd probably immediately look into buying it. And, the car market being as cyclical as it is, I think if Saab held on to it it would come back. I read an article that stated there are truly no *official* plans to bring the hatch back tihin the new 9-3 series: convertible and station are the only extensions truly committed into 2005. Hatchback lovers will have to wait, or buy elsewhere. Shame. And maybe a big mistake. Every Mercedes C230 sports coupe sold could be a Saab hatch - and I see quite a few of those Mercs. And the Saab design for a hatch was far more elegant. ...pablo
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
