The banner above is an advertisment - if it asks you to download software, please ignore.
Site News - 3/26 M Car Covers (by State of Nine) | 12/12 Make Amazon Pay Saabnet!
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:58:05 -0800
From: "pablo" <pabloATsimplyhombreDOTnet>
Subject: Re: Best built recent Saab?


<davehinznopsamcop.net> wrote in message news:ar3kgm$eesrp$1nopsam34476.news.dfncis.de... > > ... Sonett III's... Nobody is saying it's > a top sports-car choice of it's day... Good, then we're on the same page. > ... if you're going to claim that > it has bad performance ... I didn't, not once in this dicussion. > And, as you obviously know, the handling was very good. Or maybe you > don't. But you claim repeatedly that it wasn't a concern, now you're > saying it wasn't the best of the best. Your argument keeps changing. Only because you have a binary view of the argument: either you say the car was a brilliant sportscar (a point you distance yourself from above, though) or the car was total crap. Since my point has been, from the start of the discussion, that the truth is somewhere inbetween, and that Saab engineers certainly did not set out to challenge "top sports cars" (reminder: this was my exact wording), you are merely confused because the windmill you're charging against is located somewhere else entirely, and nowhere close to where I stand. Slow your horse down, Don Quixote... > Saab was far more limited in the range of its product line. > > You say that like it's a bad thing. ... Exhibit A: I merely make a factual statement, you bring in the value statement and try to attack me based on a point I never made. I just neutrally and factually stated Saab didn't produce 20 different cars for all sorts of market segments. They targetted the middle market segment, and did so bringing a very valid recipe with cars that were well engineered for it. But -and this is where this all started- they were not attacking the sports-car market head on. With then 900 Turbo, that's when they merged sports car performance with great practicality and their other traditional values. > > ... Which did not consist of performance enthusiasts until the > > 900 Turbo came along - > > So, the 99 turbo didn't exist then? The 99 was a good car when they turbo'd it. But it was the 900 that truly opened new doors for Saab. > Whatever. Your point seems to be something along the lines of "Saab has > never been as good as it is today", I think. Not quite. I say that, if Saab had to pick some of the higher points in its history, they would probably pick the era of the 900 Turbo's launch, and probably today. > ... to claim that the older Saabs were > not designed with performance (which, by the way, is more than just > the 0-60 times) and handling in mind, you're very very wrong. Since -I'll say this again, and I think I have been pretty consistent at it- it is a point I never made, all I can do is marvel at the persistency with which you want to make me believe I claimed no Saab model ever has had any dynamic merits. > Well, you snipped my statements when you responded to them, and it's > not worth the effort of googling for your original words. That's how > they came across, in any case. Go back to Exhibit A, and see why I do not put a lot of faith in your individual perception of my words. I ame a neutral statement, you go out of your way to make it sound like I am claiming Saabs were poor copies of Trabants... > ... > Certainly it's not something new due to GM's influence; it's something that > is surviving *despite* GM's influence. Here I sit, picturing how Bob Lutz calls you on a weekly basis to confide his sinister intentions regarding Saab. They want to bury it, and there is no way any GM strategist would ever remotely comprehend the benefits of allowing certain brand traditions to surivive. You just *know* what GM really wants to do is rebadge Saturns, and claim the plastic doors are one more of Saabs innovations. > Yes, but they're doing it on cars _designed_ to be put together by > machines. And there's a reason to design cars to be put together by machines. And it's not *just* cost. Sure you can build garbage using any method. But there are resons why state of the art car plants cost up to a billion bucks. And quality control is one of them. Let's put it like this: when you have a Rolls Royce Corniche, it is a charming thing to have some wood and leather come off after a few years, and look at it and see obvious marks of artisan work. The feeling isn't quite the same when it's a middle-class car. And there's reasons why it happens on a regular basis on the Rolls, and not in the mass produced cars. > ... I'd rather have a carefully hand-built car, than > a perfectly built but crappily designed car, any day. I like the former as the car I car about, the latter I'll take as an everyday beater for when the other car is in the shop. > "Higher variation from the average" equates to being a bad thing, right? In mass production, as a generic rule, the answer is a re-sounding "yes". It means less control, more warranty claims, more hassle, more dissatisfied customers. > ... So is it not then accurate > to say that you're claiming that hand-assembly is a bad thing? For an entry-level luxury sedan, I don't have to say a word. The car industry has unanimoulsy spoken. > ... accusing someone of use of hallucinogenics is rarely an > effective rhetorical technique. That was inappropriate, and I apologize. It does get frustrating when you tell em again and again I am making a point that I am in fact not. > > ... Saab was not really competing with top > > performance brands. > > ... Who cares; wasn't a priority. ... For someone who accuses me of inconsistency, it's interesting to see you bouncing around claiming car is oh-so-performance-focussed, and then again not. Like I said from the very start: Saab defines its very own performance metrics, and does that successfully. Obviously, they do not want to build cars that drive like Porsches. > > It had a reputation for stodgy cars well into the 70s. > > As the aura of the initial 900 turbos diminished, the stodgy image > > resurfaced, and that directly resulted in them getting into trouble and > > being sold to GM. This all started with someone claiming Saab was more or > > less Lamborghini, > > Who said that? I must have missed that post. Yeah, you did come in the middle of another argument. > You overestimate the importance with which I regard your opinions. > I'm not even mildly irritated. You sure take your time with stuff that is utterly irrelevant. > > Perhaps because you know it's been an Achilles heel of Saab since the 80s, > > when other brands in its price class moved to fully independent set-ups? > > No, it's because (as I wrote, but you snipped,) I haven't studied it > in detail. ... Tell me exactly how it was deficient? One of the reasons a Saab's ride is sometimes seen as harsh is because of the semi-independent rear setup. There was an article in CAR a few years ago where they speculated about it in length, and marvelled at what they saw as idiosynchasies of the Saab design compared to the 3-series they were also testing. In the end, the article stated that the BMW (a 328) was rationally the better car, but the Saab appealed to them very much - and that it worked well. > > Granted, this is engineering, and you don't have to always use the most > > fashionable technology to make things work well. The whole thing about > > "innovation" is that it does not ofter lead to cars that drive better. Was > > the first brand to put auto-sensing wipers an awesome innovator? Was the low > > pressure turbo born out of necessity, or *truly* because its *exactly* what > > Saab wanted to do and represented their ideal? We'll never know how all > > these things come together. > > Yeah, it was just an accident that they stumbled in to, right? I mean, > they don't actually know what they're doing or anything. At least, not > until GM came along. Sine I am not sure what this is about, I'll just try to let someone else make sense of how my previous paragraph triggers this particular response. You might just as well have talked about tuna sandwiches. If I must answer you rethorical questions, I'd go: (A) I doubt they stumbled into it by accident. (B) They know what they are doing. (C) I have no way of telling GM's influence into Saab's R&D. > > (1) It *has a venerable tradition of innovation and solid engineering > > As long as the marketing people don't interfere, yes. And how do you know it wasn't those evil amrekting people that said "we need our next car to be more A, B and C", and the Saab R&D folks came up with innovations because of that market feedback? You think technology innovation just happens in a total and utter vaccum? I am an engineer, but heaven help us from this perception of "technology for technology's sake". Give me direction, tell me which problems to solve. > GM taking the money pressures off of Saab may very well have enabled > Saab's engineers to spend more time on innovations. Hard to say. > The LPT and motor management, though, have been in the works for a very > long time. Who's to say that some of the other innovations that Saab brought to market didn't actually start somewhere else as ideas? That's a diversionary tactic. Fact is some innovation that has benefitted Saab enormously came out under the GM umbrella. And, again, that is the only point I was trying to make. > > Here we go: how exactly did it work so well? Why was Saab in trouble when GM > > scooped it up? Wonderfully engineered cars that just weren't marketed well? > > No: they had fallen behind: their quality reputation has suffered badly. > > We see to have a different understanding of the market forces involved. > The 80's weren't a pleasant time for most of the car industry; it wasn't > a purely internal issue. I'd be curious to know why you think Saab got sold to GM then. They didn't have *any* internal issues? They had not lost market share for 4 years in their major markets? > Evasion noted. Let's try that again. The V6 is a crap engine. I agree - GM does not have a very impressive engine line-up. Supposedly Opel is working on a sixpot. > If their strategests are aiming for the BMW and Mercedes crowd, then > they're pointing the wrong direction. I agree - I think Saab's power lies in innovation, not only at a mere technology level, but coming out with new concepts that combine practicality, safety and reliability with quality and downright fun. ...pablo

Return to Main Index
StateOfNine.com
SaabClub.com
Jak Stoll Performance
M Car Covers
Ad Available

The content on this site may not be republished without permission. Copyright © 1988-2024 - The Saab Network - saabnet.com.
For usage guidelines, see the Mission & Privacy Notice.
[Contact | Site Map | Saabnet.com on Facebook | Saabnet.com on Twitter | Shop Amazon via TSN | Site Donations]