Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:50:17 -0300 From: Dexter J <lamealameadingdongnospamlamelame.org> Subject: Re: Montreal resident thinking of dropping '99 9-3
Salutations: On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:15:27 -0400, ma_twain <ma_twainnospamo.com> wrote: > Dexter J wrote: >> Salutations: >> Well - after spending almost $100 each to take the bends out a used set >> of factory wheels following someone else's adventures on low profile >> tires - I was advised that I should consider a taller sidewall profile >> than factory on NG/GM SAAB's by at least an inch. >> >> It was explained at the straightening service that the factory wheels I >> picked up (three spoke 5-bolt) where 'almost as soft' as after market >> wheels they'd fixed and thusly if you are considering moving to after >> market 17" wheels - I have to think you are even more likely to bend >> them. I'm an ex-Montrealer myself, I understand the problem - bet the >> Ville Marie still looks like it's been shelled. >> >> Anyway, the NG SAAB line is *very* sensitive to wheel condition and >> will quickly beat out it's control arm bushings and steering rack seals >> if you are feeling any serious vibration in the wheel. So in operation >> - you are stuck repairing the wheels or paying way more to repair the >> damage done once your wheels are bent. >> >> The thinking at the shop was that I could go to a very high profile >> tire without loosing any 'real world' handling - if I just spent some >> time shopping for a thick/stiff sidewall. This advise is supported by >> the fact that the NG steering rack usually needs to be 'braced' to >> really exploit stiffer springs and shocks. >> >> Frankly, while I am now the first to admit that the overall performance >> characteristics on the NG SAAB are in fact better than the c900 and in >> some ways the 9000 lines, the trade off appears to be that the >> suspension was generally lighter built to achieve it. Less >> agricultural, less durable = snappier handling at greater speeds. >> >> <Snip> > > If you are concerned about ground clearance for the potholes, I would > think about not doing anything to lower to suspension. I have two > Saabs, a normal 900S and a SPG. The SPG is s great handler but it > scrapes on speed bumps because it is so low. The 900S had more ground > clearance and is great in the winter and with the potholes. > > As for the NG Saabs having a "better overall performance" than the > Classics, everyone is entitle to their opinion. Perhaps the "more > agricultural" design of Classic makes it a great car in the winter. I > will test drive a new 9-3 convertible and get a $50 certificate. I will > be able to see how it compares to the SPG in handling. There is a big > handling difference between the SPG and the 900S. But that is why I own > both - one is simply inspiring on smooth roads and the other is > unbeatable in snow and ice. Hey, don't get me wrong brother Mark - we've owned a '79 99GL, an'82 900 three door, an '85 4 door, an '87 4 door and an '89 9000CD Turbo and what I liked about them was - specifically - the agricultural type build, much more like rally cars than sports cars. The '89 9000T being the very best overall family car of them all and in my mind, perhaps one of the most well thought out cars ever built. All my pre-GM 900's and the 9000 were very literally driven well into the 300 and 400 thousand kilometer range and often used as 1/4 ton trucks when not occasionally blowing off the lower end BMW's and Audi's they found themselves next to on the road at the time. I very much doubt my NG900 (currently in the 225 thousand km range) will likely last as long or survive the hard use I put my any of old ones to. But, the current '94 900s as compared to c900s's is a more snappy handler at speeds and a bit quicker at the top end. Your SPG is a completely different beast of course as all my 900's were/are stock 4 and 5 speed S types and I should have qualified myself on that. Please forgive the familiar nature of my comments. Anyway - while I maintain that the stock non-turbo NG900 is a better 'Sports Car' than the stock c900 non-turbo, do not take that to mean the NG900 is desirable to me personally. Being completely frank here, except for the radio I don't actually like my NG900 very much and will be selling it when I find a rust free '89 9000T 5 speed in need of an engine at the right price. As to the 9-3/9-5 line I can't comment as I haven't owned one yet. I assume, given they are really still an uprated NG900's under the fancy panels, it will be similar to my current NG900. It should have a lighter touch at speed and should accelerate like a demon one you get above 3400 rpm. Cornering should be very precise and it will have less of a tendency to drift the front wheels at high speed through tight dry corners. However, I found my NG900 doesn't work as well in the snow as my c900. I think these characteristics are related in that the transverse engine layout puts more weight directly on the wheels - but - given the lack of double A-Arms, the contact patch doesn't seem remain as broad as it did at high speeds on the c900. This might account for more precise handling on dry payment with increasing speeds - but less overall traction in slippery conditions. I haven't pushed mine far enough to find out, but I bet the front end snaps out and hops around rather than drifting politely as did my c900's. Very interested in your impressions on the latest models - please don't forget to follow up if you can. -- J Dexter - webmaster - http://www.dexterdyne.org/ all tunes - no cookies no subscription no weather no ads no news no phone in - RealAudio 8+ Required - all the Time Radio Free Dexterdyne Top Tune o'be-do-da-day June Christy - It's Been A Long Long Time http://www.dexterdyne.org/888/104.RAM
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
