Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 19:51:16 GMT From: r600nopsamejanews.com Subject: Re: 9-5 V6 is here!!
I have to disagree with you guys. What went on prior to the '90s what that Saab, even though it was a much smaller company, out-innovated its larger competitors. In the '90s, the Germans are no longer asleep at the wheel and are using their larger size to invest more dollars in product development than Saab can (GM could invest funds to make Saab superior to MB and BMW, but GM is clueless...). Regardless, it is important to keep in mind that Saab still delivers on innovation. Considering that its competitors are so much larger, isn't it interesting that Saab still builds the safest cars (based on actual insurance company accident records as well as recent euro NCAP best-ever score by 9-5)? Or that Saab is the first to introduce the active head restraint to prevent whiplash, the most common injury in a car accident? Or that Saab's turbo engines provide real-world performance (acceleration, low-end torque, fuel economy) that most of it's competitors can't match? Compare a 9-5 2.0T in Europe to BMW 520i or A6 1.8T and you'll see what I mean. Compare the 9-5 3.0T to the BMW 528i or A6 2.8 in the U.S. and again, you'll see what I mean. Compare versatility of a Saab to almost any other car and you'll find Saab to be superior. Finally, look at the new 9-5 Wagon. Already it is winning head-to- head comparison tests with Volvo V70, BMW 5-Touring and A6 Avant. The fact that Saab delivers superior performance and safety at a lower price means greater VALUE -- something the company can be proud of. Finally, take a look at sales for 1998. Saab sales in Europe are up nearly 40% compared to 1997. Why? Germans, Brits, French, Italians, Swedes and others are looking at Saab again and they like what they see. Unfortunately for Saab, the U.S. consumer (I am one) is less adventurous. If it's not an Accord, Camry, I30 or ES300, they're not likely to be interested. In article <36670C26.AEB9EBD8nopsamedu>, Tom Young <try0548nopsamedu> wrote: > Like several other Saab owners, my views on the GM takover were mixed. I mean, > out of the Big Three US automakers, I like GM the least. The construction of > their cars has symbolized nothing but mass-production at work, particularly in > the department of build-quality. To see an independent like Saab fall into their > grasp, I could only shake my head. > The problem was, the independant aircraft company guys just couldn't keep up in > the ultra-money market. The value of the early Saabs cannot be denied. Depending > on how you look at it, in my opinion, the 900 illustrated both Saab's finest > effort, and signaled it's death knell. Prior to the 900, the Saab was always seen > as attainable the 'common folk'. It was a peoples car of sorts, made be versatile > and withstand the rigors of the Nordic winter. True, the 99 may not have been > 'refined', it was a car you could GET without an executive position in a major > company. The 900, while flawlessly built and engineered, was considerably more > expensive. Whether it was intentional or not on the part of Saab, the 900 > signaled Saab's movement into a more upscale market. > I can draw a similar parallel to Volvo as well, at roughly the same time. > In my opinion, the 240 turbo was Volvo's last 'great' car, and it disappeared in > '83. They've gone steadily more upscale from there. > Maybe it was the '80's? > Back to the question of GM. I shook my head when they bought out Saab, but the > fact remains that she would have gone under if it weren't for GM's money. And > dangit! I NEED those parts to keep my cars on the road! > All in all, I think it's better to see Saab still alive and bought out, than > killed outright. > > >> PS feel free to reply, this is a very nice discussion > > Indeed, this is what newsgroups are all about. > > Keep 'em on the road! > > -SAABhuman > > njahnopsamejanews.com wrote: > > > In article <01be1ca3$d8ff2780$987c86c2nopsam8140>, > > "Harrie van Dijk" <icu08140nopsamnet.nl> wrote: > > > Your statement is absolutely correct; Saab delivers what the market wants. > > > In the old days it was the other way around the build a good car and > > > astonished the car world. The 99 was a sensation in 1967 whem marketed and > > > the 99 Turbo set standards in the car world that weren't achieved by other > > > manufacturers for years. > > > > > > If your happy in one of the new models so be it. But Saab is losing his > > > identity and his real fans really fast. The old ones get in your blood, the > > > new owners usually only brag about the price the paid, not knowing anything > > > about Saab or their cars. > > > > > > Harrie > > > > > > PS feel free to reply, this is a very nice discussion > > > > > > > I agree to a certain extent but in real engineering terms the classic 900 and > > 99 where both departures from SAAB's previous cars i.e. strong light cars > > with small engines replaced by big heavy cars with big engines. I think you > > would also agree that in terms of refinement the 900 was alot better than the > > 99. However in terms of how these cars compared to their competitors the > > situation is very different now to 15 yrs ago. Back then SAAB made cars that > > where safer faster and maybe even more desirable than their competitors. > > Compare my own car 84 900T16 to any BMW or Mercedes available back then, and > > then compare the current 9-3 to the BMW and Mercedes available now. The > > situation is indeed a sad one and it would appear that SAAB's only selling > > point now is that they are cheaper than the German cars. > > > > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- > > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own > > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own