Date: 30 Apr 1999 02:40:00 GMT From: blairdavidnopsamcom (BlairDavid) Subject: Re: '98 900 vs '99 9-3
In article <7g7rkc$fqt$1nopsam3.Belgium.EU.net>, "KBB" <kentbassbutlernopsamo.com> writes: > >The 94-98 900 is probably one of the worst Saab ever. Based on an Opel >platform ( GM Europe ), the 900 was a little bit the result of conflicts >between Saab and GM. Reliability was among the design flaws of the design >and the front suspension was really mediocre. Oh come on. First of all, reliability ratings for the 96-98 cars are excellent. And, you are complaining about front suspension in a car without independent rear suspension? The front suspension was fine, especially if aligned properly to minimize following roadgrades. It's not a buick, you know. >The 9-3 is far superior to the 900 . The intent of Saab was to give more of >the "old" Saab feeling and look to the 900 as well as further improve the >ride and handling of the vehicle. An another reason was to improve the crash >test performance of the 94-98 900, which were among the worst of any car !! Where do you get this stuff from? Crash test performance was excellent for these cars. >You will find more effective side-impact airbags, much better headrests > for rear impact protection ). >The 9-3 should be considered as a " real" Saab, to the contrary of the 94-98 >900, which was really a Opel Vectra in disguise! That's good since the 9-3 is essentially the same Opel chassis underneath. --Blair
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
