Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:48:33 +0100 From: Colin Stamp <col.dustbinnospamp.plus.com> Subject: Re: Have Saab reintroduced hatchback yet?
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:55:12 +0100, "DervMan" <thedervmannospaml.com> wrote: >"Colin Stamp" <col.dustbinnospamp.plus.com> 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. >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. 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. I've owned saloons before, and even such simple things as buying a PC from a shop became a ridiculous palaver. > >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. 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? > >> 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. 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) > >> 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! >or a tow hitch. I bet they wouldn't be seen dead with a tow hitch. Cheers, Colin.