Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 08:10:59 -0500 From: "Walt Kienzle" <wkienzlenospam.net> 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... > > > "Fred W." wrote: [snip] > > All of this lamenting of the SAABs of yore sounds very similar to the > > caterwailing that is going on in alt.autos.bmw newsgroup over the new 5, 6 > > and 7 series models. The funny thing is that I agree with both camps. The > > newer 9-3's and 9-5's are no match for the Classic SAABs C900's or even > > 9000's any more than the new BMW's are for their past models. > > 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. [snip] The part I find funny is that nearly 20 years ago, when the 9000 was introduced, the common cry was that the 9000 is not a "real" Saab because of the consortium development. History has shown that Saab made the 9000 unique and it survived longer than the models from the other consortium members. Also of note (at least to me) is that the 9000 is the only model from the consortium to have been sold in the US. Fiat and Lancia were gone from the US market by the time these models came out. I have to wonder how the 9-* models will be regarded 15 or 20 years from now. Maybe I'll have to drive one of the 9-* models to see if they are that bad - I mean "different" - or should I say "improved"?
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
