Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:45:44 -0600 From: "Walt Kienzle" <wkienzlenopsam.net> Subject: Re: Saab 9-3 hatchback - if & when?
Ken, You have a point, but everything is relative. That was then, this is now. The wagon is big compared to the sedan and it is very big compared to my 9000. A friend of mine had a Country Squire wagon that had your Gran Torino beat for size (probably the larger station wagon you were thinking of). Luckily it had a hood ornament so that it could be aimed properly when driving down the road. BTW, in the mid '70s (actually the late '70s) I drove an AMC Javelin. As large at that was, I believe it was smaller than the 9-5 station wagon. At least it seemed smaller on the inside ;-). Walt "Kenneth S." <nimrodnopsams.com> wrote in message news:3E729725.17D3nopsams.com... > Walt: > > You call a 9-5 station wagon "huge"? I recently looked at some old > photos that included the Ford Gran Torino station wagon that I used to > drive in the mid-70s. Now, THAT's huge. It came with a 400 cubic inch > (about 6.5 liter) engine. And there was an even bigger station wagon in > the Ford range in those days. > > > > > > Walt Kienzle wrote: > > > > Ken, > > > > I agree with everything you say (except I haven't found the 4 door > > hatchbacks from Mazda or Toyota on their US websites yet). > > > > The problem is that 1) I have been told "We have the 9-5 wagon; that's > > _better_ than a hatchback." Assuming that I would immediately understand > > why or how a huge wagon is better than a hatchback. 2) European > > manufacturers like Mercedes and BMW don't make hatchbacks (please ignore the > > discontinued 318ti and the new C230 coupe because they are 2 door models). > > > > > Why on earth would Saab drop one of its distinguishing features in this > > > market, and become yet another entry-level luxury vehicle (and one that, > > > unlike its competitors in the U.S., has a four, rather than a > > > six-cylinder, engine)? It just makes no sense to me. > > > > That sums it up perfectly. I see Saab's current product line as the best > > way to make them an "also ran" among the vast lineup of models available. > > The only thing they have going for them is their turbo technology, and that > > may be a negative for many people that remember the unreliable turbo powered > > cars from Chrysler when they put small engines in big cars. > > > > Walt Kienzle > > 1991 9000T > > > > "Kenneth S." <nimrodnopsams.com> wrote in message > > news:3E71E905.391Bnopsams.com... > > > Tara Murphy wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't believe there is any plan to make a hatchback version for the > > new > > > > 9-3. > > > > > > > > "Ric" <spamnopsamcom> wrote in message > > > > news:b4sca7$ahl$1nopsam-reader11.wanadoo.fr... > > > > > Is there going to be a hatchback version of the new 9-3? If so, when > > in > > > > > Europe? > > > > > > > > > > > I have to say that I simply don't understand the logic behind this > > > situation, particularly for the U.S. market. I bought my 1996 900 SE, > > > partly because I'd always been interested in Saabs, but also partly > > > because quite a few years of renting hatchbacks during visits to Europe > > > had convinced me that this was what I wanted to drive in the U.S. > > > > > > Although hatchbacks are very common in Europe, the Saab is almost the > > > only four-door hatchback on the U.S. market, particularly two years ago, > > > when I bought mine. Recently, however, such vehicles seem to be making > > > a comeback in the U.S., with Mazda and Toyota versions being available. > > > > > > Why on earth would Saab drop one of its distinguishing features in this > > > market, and become yet another entry-level luxury vehicle (and one that, > > > unlike its competitors in the U.S., has a four, rather than a > > > six-cylinder, engine)? It just makes no sense to me.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
