Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:15:45 -0400 From: "Fred W." <Fred.Willsnospampam myrealbox.com> Subject: Re: As read in the NY Times....
"Johannes H Andersen" <johsnospamfitter_spam_gets_fried.com> wrote in message news:40B3BD1C.5306129Fnospamfitter_spam_gets_fried.com... > The funny thing about that is that the 9000 is a hybrid from a consortium > project, although the 9000 are probably the more durable of its cousins. > The chassis is simpler than the 9-5; when the 9-5 first arrives, it was > hailed as modern advancement, although in truth it felt better to some > because the suspension was softer. The 9000 CSE is fun to drive, and it > can be difficult to contain yourself and drive sensibly. I knew this would be pointed out when I posted it, ie. that the 9000 was not a "Real SAAB" such as the prior 9's. Heck it doesn't even have the key between the seats!! But I still maintain the 9k is more SAAB in character than any of the new 9-'s which all handle much more GM like. > > There is probably just one mathematically correct shape, just like the > airliners look alike. While this is probably technically correct, I don't think any of them are actually making them in that shape (yet?). Thankfully, there is still enough marketing value in design for cosmetics that we don't have to yet squeeze the last nth degree from the coefficient of drag, fuel economy, etc. OTOH, if the designs did go further in that direction, it would be the death knell for all the big SUVs... and that wouldn't be such a abd thing, now would it? -Fred W
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
