Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 19:44:07 -0500 From: Four Weis <mweinopsamcom> Subject: Re: Saab or GM?
I am basing my experience from driving Saabs since the mid 80's. I have talked with owners of the NG Saabs and newer models. I have heard enough "sob" stories and complaints about problems I never had. My manager could not wait until he could get out of his lease for his GM Saab He promptly bought a Jetta, swearing to never drive another Saab. Complaints were expensive tires and major engine work, while done at no cost under warranty, the time lost and the fear of what would happen when the warranty ran out made his decision easy. I exceeded 200,000 miles without any engine or transmission work on the mid 80's models. I have also talked with the technicians who have work on the Classic Saabs and the new Saabs - the people with daily hand on experience. Based on this I concluded that the newer Saabs are less reliable and durable than the classics. Are there any specific issues about the classic Saabs that you recall giving the early Saabs a bad reputation that were fixed in the new models? One major issue was the relatively weak automatic transmission used on the early turbo models - it was not designed to handle the power. As for sale of new Saab being on the rise, when I bought my Saab in the '80s, they were selling every one they could make and ship to the US, even the line green base models without radios and leather. Is Saab able to sell every car they can make today? I would like to think so. On a more far more subjective metric, the newer Saabs are better because they have more power, more electronic features and far better factory sound systems, and some say they "handle better". tom reingold wrote: > Four Weis wrote: > > > If GM saved the Saab name by supplying GM parts, then it is good. Whether it is > > a coincidence that the quality started to drop at this time or not does not > > really matter - more problems were reported with the NG Saabs. Even though these > > problems may have been with minor components the reputation of reliability and > > durability suffered. However, the good thing is Saab is still in business and > > there is hope yet. > > Where are you writing from? I think the US, right? I'm surprised you > say Saab's reputation for reliability suffered. From my viewpoint, it > has been on the rise for many years. I've owned Saabs since 1991. At > the time, Consumer Reports rated them badly. At the time, this was to > my advantage, because it caused resale value to be low, and I only buy > used cars, which made them a good value for me. > > I know Consumer Reports isn't the be-all and end-all of sources for > reputation, but it's one source. Also, Saab sales have been on a steady > rise. > > I do remember the problems the NG 900 had in 1994 and 1995, its first > two years. Other than that, I believe their overall record is a hell of > a lot better than it was in the 1980's. Am I wrong. What sources are > you referring to? > > -- > Tom Reingold > Noo Joizy
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
