Date: 21 Nov 2006 00:54:56 GMT From: Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospaml.com> Subject: Re: Lifetime of Saab
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 20:19:12 +0100, Greg Farris <farrisnospam.org> wrote: > In article <4sdo5qFvabpkU2nospamindividual.net>, DaveHinznospaml.com says... >> >>I'm having trouble with motivation on that one given your tone to those >>who have spent the time. > > Yes I got that you were having trouble with it . . . In other words, you're not worth wasting much time on, you see. I mean, I could go out and google _for_ you, but I really don't see what would be in it for me. Was it you who was wrong also about the balance shaft gear? >>Pardon, but you said "SAAB engines". You know, that would be the ones >>designed by the Saab engineers. > Would it? There have not been very many of them. Ford, Triumph, Ricardo - > perhaps you are referring to the 2-stroke, three cylinder models. No, those were designed by DKW, as you should know given your arrogant claims of expertise. And, while the 1.75 and 1.85 litre inline 4's could be considered the Triumph/Ricardo engines, and the "B" engine could marginally be, by the time of the H engine (as in the car the OP was asking about) it's been pretty much completely re-engineered. As you must know, of course. > Sorry - don't take it badly. I am as much the Saab enthusiast an anyone here, > and have probably owned more of them than most. It's just that, as an engineer, Hint: You're not the only engineer here, several of us on the board may have owned more types and examples than you have, and I know plenty of other engineers who try to talk with authority on situations they do not understand adequately. > I cannot accept the assertion that any mechanical device will last "forever". > Even if we accept the implied hyperbole, it is just plain poor advice to > suggest that an engine with 400,000 km on it still has a lot of useful life > remaining. Is it? http://www.saabnet.com/tsn/faq/miles/miles900.html Maybe all these people are just, you know, lying or something. > Saabs are pretty well made cars, and have attained near cult status amongst > enthusiasts, where they enjoy fierce loyalty for their image and design > features. Objectively, however, one can be proud of their spirit of innovation, > while admitting they have really "invented" very little. There you go again. Here let's pretend I researched and posted a laundry list of things Saab either did first, or made workable first, and you disregard them as trivial and/or not purely original. Then let's pretend that we played word games and bullshit over the definition of "invented" and got nowhere. (whew) just saved 3 iterations of posts. > Once they acquired the > knowledge transfer for the Triumph OHC engine, they continued to develop it and > refine it, but this is similar to what all of their competitors have done as > well, and unless you can suggest otherwise, I see no reason to consider the > product very differently from that of the competition. Yes, it's apparent that you don't see it.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
