Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 05:12:26 +0100
From: "DervMan" <>
Subject: Re: Have Saab reintroduced hatchback yet?

"Colin Stamp" <> wrote in message news:42m2f39vh8ivh9d3jfv1kfuquhj65b7tcqnospamcom... > On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:55:12 +0100, "DervMan" <> > wrote: > >>"Colin Stamp" <> wrote in message >>> 1. Get a pointless saloon so others will look at my car and think >>> "Cor! he's really arrived! He has such an impractical car that he must >>> have a butler to take his rubbish to the tip". When I do actually need >>> to ditch a sideboard, I'll be stuffed. >> >>Heh. Saloons are not pointless. > > Others may be able to get away with their glaring practicality issues, > but, for me, they are utterly pointless. That's the point, though: they are not all that impractical for many people. >>As a long story short, I had to replace my >>written off Ka and I wanted a larger car - saloon, hatchback, whatever. >>So >>I bought a '99 Honda Accord saloon. With the seats folded down, the car >>was >>surprisingly spacious. > > For a saloon, maybe. >>The 2000 9-3 has that ledge between boot and rear >>seats and, worse, in order to put the seats forward I can't have the >>driver >>seat all of the way back. This makes it exceptionally uncomfortable for >>me. > > They're not hatchback problems though, they're 9-3 problems. Yes, you are right, I was clouding the hatchback / 9-3 issue. > No-one is > saying the 9-3 is the best executed hatchback in the world, but it's > still no-end more practical than any similarly-sized saloon. It's not > overall luggage space that's the problem, it's accommodation for the > occasional outsized item. It's the occasional thing that people have issue with. Some people, for whatever reason, prefer the shape or security of a saloon car. The Accord looks better as a saloon and does a reasonable fist of being spacious when it needed to be. Outside items - yeah you're into needing a van or a trailer. > I've owned saloons before, and even such > simple things as buying a PC from a shop became a ridiculous palaver. When we moved last year, we started with the Accord and ended with the Saab. I could get more in the Saab, absolutely yes. It was easier to use. But I still needed a van. And I've not moved yet. The 9-3 is more Ikea-friendly too. >>The best compromise for by far is a tow ball and a trailer... given how >>little I need the extra space. > > I can't recall the last time I had to move anything that didn't fit in > the 9-3. Ahhha okay. I can. :) I guess it depends on what you need to move and when. > Why on earth would I want to go to all the trouble and > expense of trailers and tow balls, complete with the accompanying > storage nightmare, just so I can have the "satisfaction" of driving a > saloon instead of a hatchback? I'm the same, but for me, either / or as far as hatchback or saloon goes. I can't get a wardrobe* into either. For the once or twice a year that it's handy to have the hatchback area it isn't worth worrying about. It's the same with the towbar that the car came with. But now I can either hire a van (boring unless it's rear wheel drive) or a trailer (slightly less boring). *oversized item picked at random. >>> 2. Get an estate, which doesn't have much more load carrying >>> capability than my hatchback, yet is bigger, heavier, slower, doesn't >>> handle as well and is more expensive to buy and run. >> >>Hmm. They are bigger, slightly heavier and slightly slower, for the >>majority of people any difference in handling and economy is a moot point; >>you can't tell on the road (if you can tell the difference in handling >>you're in the wrong kind of vehicle, maybe *grin*). What you pay more for >>up front you tend to get back when it's time to sell it on. Estates - or >>wagons or whatever they're called - are not as bad as you make out. > > They're not big problems, but added together they're annoying at the > very best. Hmm. Not convinced. But happy to disagree. > I have to say there are some estates I wouldn't mind > having, maybe a Volvo T5 something-or-other, but a hatchback T5 would > be far more appropriate. >> >>The above all said I still don't want one... :) >> >>It used to be easy. Swedish design, estate: Volvo. Swedish design, >>convertible: Saab. Now you can have either / or... >> >>> 3. Go "down market" to brands who's marketing men have their heads >>> just far enough out of their arses to realize that people still want >>> hatchbacks. >> >>To a degree you've already done that anyway with the 9-3... :p > > Yep. I didn't actually buy the Saab because of the badge. One big > reason was that I could have 0-60 in less than 7 seconds with an > engine under my 2.5L company fuel-card limit :o) So was it the performance or the hatchback that swung it? I mean, Lotus Elise and all... :) >>> 4. Keep the 9-3 until it falls apart. >>> >>> I'm going with option 4, followed sooner or later by option 3. I'm >>> sure drivers of "executive" cars will look down their noses at my old >>> hatchback, but I'll have the last laugh when they need take a dustbin >>> home from the shop. >> >>Except you're missing the point... they have somebody do this for them... > > Bastards! :) It's what I'll do at weekends, though. People with little concept of how much 80 is are great. >>or a tow hitch. > > I bet they wouldn't be seen dead with a tow hitch. You'd be surprised, though. Many of the company car chumps, err, users insisted on adding a tow bar to their <insert name of boring German saloon> for the caravan / trailer / impressing the neighbours. Would I add one to the 9-3 TiD? No. But it has one, and it has been useful. -- The DervMan

Return to Main Index

The content on this site may not be republished without permission. Copyright © 1988-2019 - The Saab Network -
For usage guidelines, see the Mission and Purpose Page.
[Contact | Site Map | on Facebook | on Twitter | Shop Amazon via TSN | Site Donations]