Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 01:39:59 GMT From: Saab Guy <nothingnospamo.com> Subject: Re: C stands for Classic and here is the "Historical Timeline"
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:00:56 GMT Johannes <johsnospam-gets-lost-sizefitter.com> wrote: > > > Saab Guy wrote: > > > > On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:04:28 GMT > > Saab Guy <nothingnospamo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:00:54 GMT > > > Johannes <johsnospam-gets-lost-sizefitter.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saab Guy wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:23:21 +0100 > > > > > Grunff <grunffnospam.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Johannes wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the 9000CS is not a GM model as is implied on the site. In fact, Haynes > > > > > > > manual is titled: Saab 9000 1985-1998, thus indicating the mechanical > > > > > > > continuity of the range. It is far from a "complete re-design" by GM as > > > > > > > suggested on the site. I doubt very much that GM was involved at all in the > > > > > > > 9000CS, apart from buying a share stake in the company. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed - the changes are really quite minor - it's a facelift, similar > > > > > > to that which was carried out on the C900 in 1988. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Grunff > > > > > > > > > > So, this means that in 2006/2007 the 9-5 will be the C9-5 > > > > > > > > > > SG > > > > > > > > Possibly. I think GM has a very different rear wheel drive car in mind. > > > > > > > > > Jonannes, > > > > > > Right, the rear from the spy shots looks BMWish > > > > > > SG > > > > So here is the Historical Timeline for the 900 and 900. > > > > The years may vary depending on country > > > > I believe the years indicated below are internationally accepted > > > > 1979-1994 (C900) - Classic 900 > > 1994-1998 (NG) - New Generation 900 > > 1999-2001 9-3 > > > > 1984-1992 (C9000) - Classic 9000 > > 1993-1998 (NG9K) - New Generation 9000 > > 1997-2005 (C9-5) - Classic 9-5 > > 2006-? (NG9-5) - New Generation 9-5 > > > > SG > > These are obviously not Saab's own descriptions, so I can't see this > having some kind of international status. They may be convenient labels > for the purpose of discussion, but NG9K is not a label I would want to > see in general use when there is already the CS/CSE labels. But that's > just IMO. > > The C900 and NG900 are very different cars, whereas C9000 and CS are > not. The NG900 are build on a platform shared with GM Opel cars at the > time, whereas the CS carries on with the same platform as C9000. This > platform was superficially shared with Type 4 cars, but Saab used their > own Panhard rod rear suspension. The CS was a facelifted C9000, unlike > the NG900 which was a completely different car from C900. As said, > Haynes manual is titled 'Saab 9000 1985-1998', indicating the mechanical > continuity of the range. There is no merit in distinguishing the CS > as a different creation, the difference is cosmetic. Some people like > the C9000, others think the CS looks cleaner. It's a matter of taste. Johannes, I completely agree with you, and I'm sure others do but.. that means that if you are saying "same platform" then there is no NG that can be applied. It's almost like saying that the Pontiac GrandAm is A Saab 9-3 SS, saying that there really is no different "Since" they are on the same platform, and I disagree, there are enough changes. I mean, if we line up the last year C9000 (1992) with a 1993 CS, they LOOK different, and there were some changes with the engine, etc. The entire rear was redone, even though it is technically on the same platform. SG
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
