Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:21:28 GMT From: Johannes H Andersen <johsnospamouvxawzcsizefitterxceazauvcse.com> Subject: Re: New 9-3 not so bad after all?
stephen wrote: > > "Johannes H Andersen" <johsnospamouvxawzcsizefitterxceazauvcse.com> wrote in > message news:414340CD.EA04E3CBnospamouvxawzcsizefitterxceazauvcse.com... > > As I picked up an oil filter from my Saab dealer, I was handed a Top Gear > > Special (BBC) comprehensive report on small executive cars. The cars > tested > > were: > > > > Saab 9-3, Audi A4, BMW 3, Alfa 156, Jaguar X, Merc C, Lexus IS, MG ZT, > > Rover 75, Skoda Superb, Volvo S60. Three models for each car was tested > > according to emphasis, e.g. diesel, performance, value, comfort, tax break > > ect. > > > > Surprisingly, the Saab was the only car awarded 5 stars overall. The high > > 5 scores came from styling, accommodation and value, whereas performance > > and driver appeal got 4. > > > > The cars that only got 3 stars overall were Lexus IS, Rover 75, Volvo S60. > > > > The only cars that got higher marks than Saab in driver appeal were: > > Alfa 156, BMW 3 - that's it. But apparently you have to pay for that in > > other ways, notably accommodation. However, new models of those cars are > > around the corner. > > The Alfa 156 i just got rid of was unreliable and drank a lot of fuel. > > Back to Saabs....(9-5 in my case) > -- > Regards You're quite right that there is a weak point in such comparative tests; the test are made by motoring journos rather than knowledgeable engineers, hence they don't go very deep under the skin of the cars. They focus on show room appeal and immediate desirability. While this is important, it doesn't tell how the cars will perform in the long run, or if they will be able to sustain a rear shunt (like I had recently to my 9000) without any noticeable damage.