Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 08:17:00 -0400 From: "Tex" <texnospamm101.org> Subject: Re: The C900 hatch to make a comeback!
"Paul Halliday" <pjghnospamyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:1115462554.103928.222300nospam2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Not a load lugger? Then it's hardly the successor to the C900 then, is > it? The combi/coupe design was sheer genius ... it was a hatchback AND > it was a load lugger. Well, this is pure speculation. We're attempting to guess what they mean exactly by "load lugger". My interpretation is that they simply meant it wasn't going to be a wagon (like the combi...sport hatch/wagon), but a true hatch, like the C900 hatch. Secondly, "load lugger" sounds like the term a journalist might use, not official Saab diction. Third, we have no idea of the actual dimensional specs of the car, so to say one way or another based purely on a colloquial remark from an oscure auto-writer is wasted effort. > The best analysis I've seen of this news is over on SAAB Central forum > board: > <http://www.nospam.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49648> "Best analysis"??? More like standard snobbist opining/whining. > "It's not going to have any connection to the C900 except for some > intellectualy famished advertising man's utterly lame attempt to scrape > a bit of credibility out of Saab's heritage to make up for a total lack > of quality ideas. People wouldn't buy it if it looked like one (except > a few nutters on here), they wouldn't tolerate a transmission that is > so fragile that it requires a bit of skill to keep going, And bringing back a gearbox that needs repairs would be a good thing? And to think there has never been a better gearbox built since. I actually view the problem more so as being related to the linkage. Without the shifter dipping directly into the gearbox Saab has had to rely on good linkage. I consider myself lucky to not be a snobbist/purist like this ding dong. It would be utterly dumb for Saab to build the exact same car they built in 1993. > it wouldn't > handle like a C900 because suspension standards have changed, it won't > carry a load like a C900 (they say so themselves), Again, this ("load lugger") was a quote from the auto-writer, not a direct Saab quote, so it's hard to say. > it won't be totally > (and unprofitably) over-engineered, Why should Saab not make money? > it'll be replacing a car based on a > Subaru, so just how the hell do these marketing prats think anyone is > going to believe it will be "a spiritual successor to the C900"?" Volvo underpinned their S40 with a Ford Focus...but look at it and drive it, and it looks & feels nothing like the Focus. Further the two articles are slightly contradictory: "underpinned by the next Impreza with a look that will be all Saab" vs "it will also form the basis of the next Impreza". This second comment from the original autoexpress article actually means that Saab technology will underpin the Subaru, not the reverse. - tex
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
