Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:43:33 +0100 From: Sleeker GT Phwoar <carl.robsonnospamcing-czechs.com> Subject: Re: NG900 owners, what are you opinions of it?
In article <BEF86A71.15249%pjghnospamyonder.co.uk>, pjghnospamyonder.co.uk says... >in article 42d28e55$0$7809$da0feed9nospam.zen.co.uk, Grunff at >grunffnospam.com wrote on 11/07/2005 16:24: > >> As for the NG900, most disappointing drive of my life. And I've driven >> Triumph Heralds. > >They've got none of the "go" of either the C900 or the 9000, none of the >style of either and certainly none of the luxury of the latter. Very poor >cars, IMO, both for performance and for safety. The Talladega might sound >like a special car, but it just doesn't feel like a SAAB. Given that fact, >why not go for a fast Vectra or a turbo Astra? > >When I was in a similar position recently, fed up with putting up with >little problems that I could sort out at my leisure if my C900 was a "second >car", I started looking about and came to a number of conclusions: > >1. There are very few cars that are anywhere near the style, power, >performance, stability, fun and "wow" factor as the C900. I would say, for >the price, but they are very special cars. I agree, that is why I was hoping an owner who has had both either at the same time, or one after the other for a decent period of ownership could come up with some info. >2. As a C900 owner, the NG900 simply does not stand up. In it's own right, >it does not compare to other cars of its peerage. Again, I would say for the >price, but BMWs of the era out-class them and are no more expensive. Heck, >even the Vauxhall Vectra is definitely a better car! I know what you mean. Instead of being in the Mercedes/BMW league it is in the Vectra/Modeo class with bits on. >3. A "daily car" would need to be very much an exact opposite of the C900 >for me to be interested. That, or be another SAAB, which is where I started >to look very seriously at 9000s and drive a few 9-3s and 9-5s to see how I >liked them. > >I found the 9-5 to be a very nice car indeed; more so than the 9-3, but >that's my opinion. The 9-3 did not feel to have anything like the C900 in >the good ways, but the 9-5 had very much the feel of the 9000, but less >spacious. More like the humble C900 (updated, of course) in many ways, I >felt. Thats good, because the price of 9-5's is starting to come down, although I do admit, I like the excellent space in a 9000 after a 900. >What about a 9-3 of the right vintage for the price? I gather the very early >ones were almost a simple re-badge of the former NG900, but I could well be >wrong. 1999 seemed like a good year to take as a starting year when I was >looking :) But if the NG900 is a bad car, then surely a rebadged NG900 at a steeper price will equally be a bad car but more money? >Of course, someone who has owned a NG900 as a daily driver may well have a >very different story to tell, but do bear in mind that they are now a couple >of years older since you last owned a SAAB and as a general rule of thumb >are cheaper than C900s in the "trade". That, in itself, is starting to tell >a story. > Agreed. that is why I was asking. NG900's even 2.3's and turbos are appearing at prices closer to low end 9000's than C900's. It tends to be V6's that are rock bottom, but even turbos are cheap. I would be back in a Saab, it would be a lot for the money, and the missus would be happy. -- Carl Robson Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
