Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:32:49 GMT From: hohnopsamlid.invalid (Goran Larsson) Subject: Re: What to call the "new" 9-3 ?
In article <4fds7vcu7cnfvs8s2jnbctf78176npgk27nopsamcom>, Martin Rich <M.G.Richnopsam.ac.uk> wrote: > In fact how many Corollas *do* Toyota make? I rented a Corolla in the > US once and another Corolla in Ireland a few months earlier. There > was nothing in common between the two cars beyond the name and I'm > fairly sure the American Corolla was a shape that I've never seen in > Europe. Mass market cars like the Corolla is very often manufactured in several places, e.g. in Japan, in Europe, and in the US. Sometimes differences are due to local preferences (e.g. soft and mushy suspension in the US) or because they could share parts with some local model. > Back to topic: how about calling the new 9-3 the 9-3 'epsilon' which > is apparently GM's name for the platform it's based on What if a new 9-3 is also based on that platform? OG and NG is also not suitable if Saab decides to spin a third generation of the 9-3. Why not do what Saab does in this situation? When there is a conflict Saab uses the internal model numbers, e.g. Old 9-3 is 9400 so Saab writes "9-3 (9400)" New 9-3 is 9440 so Saab writes "9-3 (9440)" 9-5 is 9600 Writing 9-3 (9400) and 9-3 (9440) is clearly the best alternative. If that is good enough for Saab it should be good enough for a.a.s. -- G–ran Larsson http://www.nospam.com/saab/