Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 17:16:14 GMT From: "john" <jsmith1456nospamo.com> Subject: Re: Lifetime of Saab
"Greg Farris" <farrisnospam.org> wrote in message news:ejpt5n$8tc$1nospamoron.nerim.net... > In article <1163823344.249474.46450nospam2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > smaartaassaabrnospaml.com says... > > >> >>What country, Finland, Sweden? When was it retired from the police? >> >>If it is in good shape then it is. The engines last forever. . . > > > No they don't. > SAAB engines are no different from other engines in the category, and are > subject to the same wear and failure modes as their counterparts. If > anything, > the turbocharged models run at typically higher IMEP and specific output, > and > should thus be subject to greater wear. > > I believe the reason behind the SAAB reputation for longevity is the pride > in > ownership that leads many owners to take excellent care of them, and as > well to > boast of their achievements in long-lasting reliability. After all, the 96 > generation already had a reputation for fantastic longevity, yet they had > a > demonstrably inferior body design, leading to massive rust problems, and > their > engine was nothing other than a Ford V4, the same as used in the Taurus > models, > which did not benefit from any particular cult reputation. The gearboxes > were > notoriously short-lived, a tradition SAAB has unhappily managed to > perpetuate > through the model-years! > Well OK. volvo and saab were very solid long lasting vehicles in the 70's compared to most stuff. especially when the alternative was english or italian... If you bought one new you could expect 15 years of decent motoring....with a Fiat you'd be getting the filler out after 5....
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
