Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 20:19:12 +0100 From: Greg Farris <farrisnospam.org> Subject: Re: Lifetime of Saab
In article <4sdo5qFvabpkU2nospamindividual.net>, DaveHinznospaml.com says... > > >>>You are vastly oversimplifying things, and quite honestly, you're >>>dismissing careful engineering and lumping everyone's design criteria >>>together. This is unfair to Saab's engineers, and incorrect. > >> A single example would help your argument ever so much. . . > >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 . . . > > >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. 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, 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. 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. 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. GF
