Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:52:32 GMT From: Saab Guy <nothingnospamo.com> Subject: Re: Why is this newsgroup all technical troubleshooting?
MA_TWAIN, I know, it's soo sad. It reminds me of that comedy with Chris Farley, "Tomm= y Boy" when they when the auto parts plant was closed because this other co= mpany bought them out, and I vividly recall them saying that "all they care= d about was the name and not the people". Is Volvo suffering as bad as Saab= with Ford? I'm thinking not really.=20 I wish A) the European Union didn't force Scania to separate from Saab or v= ice versa or potentially B) Ford buying Saab as well may have been a good i= dea opposed to GM as Saab has worked with Ford in the past (ie. Remember th= e Saab model 96 with the Ford V4 engine)? Saab Guy On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:48:24 -0400 ma_twain <ma_twainnospamo.com> wrote: > The sad part is, GM would force Saab to use as many common GM parts as=20 > possible in the commemorative/vintage C900. A saturn engine and those=20 > crappy electrical components that keep failing under warranty in all of=20 > the other GM models. Perhaps they will even buy the fire starting FORD=20 > cruise control units - because they are cheaper. To quote the GM execs=20 > "No one cares what is in the car, all they want is the Saab name". >=20 > Saab Guy wrote: >=20 > > Grunff, > >=20 > > I'm glad you think that's an interesting idea. It would actually be pos= sible ironically since Saab's factory in Trollh=E4tten is currently running= at half the capacity. So they should use the other 50% for the C900, C9000= and NG900 by bringing them back as commemorative / vintage editions which = of course use today's technology, so everything would be virtually upgraded= (not falling back to shotty replacements found here in there in contempora= ry models). > >=20 > > You know they had the Viggen, but they could always bring in models suc= h as the following > >=20 > > "Gripen" > > "Draken" > > "Tunnan" > > "Lansen" > > "Safir" > >=20 > > Also keep in mind Talladega was had in 1986 with the C9000 and 1996 wit= h the NG900, so why can't Saab run the 9-3 SS in 2006 down at Talladega int= ernational speedway? > >=20 > > Saab Guy > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >>Saab Guy wrote: > >> > >> > >>>I hear you. I know what you're saying, but "better" is subjective. The= re maybe others that think the new 9-3SS is better than their C900, but the= n I would just like to say it's different.=20 > >>> > >>I actually meant better than its peers. You can argue for a loong time= =20 > >>about whether a C900 is 'better' than a 9^3 - I don't think that matter= s. > >> > >>To me, the real question is: It's clear that a C900 was a much better=20 > >>car than the vast majority of directly comparable cars available during= =20 > >>its production run. Can the same be said of a 9^3? > >> > >> > >> > >>>I think the problem is, is that Saab is "replacing" Saabs with other S= aabs instead of simply "adding" to a fleet. If Saab kept C900 or NG900s for= that matter, or both of them and kept upgrading them then adding the 9-3SS= to the fleet, everyone would be happy. > >>>It would be nice to see a 2005 C900, 2005 NG900 along with the 9-3SS a= nd 9-3 SportCombi. Now that would be good! > >>> > >>Hmm, interesting idea ;-) > >> > >> > >>--=20 > >>Grunff > >> > >=20 >=20 >=20