Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:37:50 GMT From: Johannes <johsnospam-spam-sizefitter.com> Subject: Re: saab 9000 best model year / best configuration ?
Walt Kienzle wrote: > > "Johannes" <johsnospam-spam-sizefitter.com> wrote in message > news:445678DA.427DA3CAnospam-spam-sizefitter.com... > > > > > > Walt Kienzle wrote: > > >> > >> That brings up an interesting point. I don't recall the OP stating his > >> location, but there is no such thing as a 2.0L in a 9000 after 1991 in > >> the > >> US. 1990 was the last year for 2.0L Turbo, and 1991 was the last year > >> for > >> 2.0 NA. By 1992 all US bound 9000's were equipped with a 2.3L engine. > > > > I think this applies to most imported cars for the US. Fuel taxes are much > > less and you prefer automatics, so the manufacturers don't bother about > > importing lesser engined models. But ironically, you also drive slower > > as you have lower speed limits. > > > > However, a 150bhp LPT is nothing to be ashamed of, and it can take a lot > > of > > abuse as the engine contain 10% more metal than the modern 9-5 equivalent. > > At 122,000 miles my 9000 2.0 LPT is still sweet. > > Actually, this applies to anything shipped long distances. It has less to > do with buyer preferences and more to do with economics. Are shipping fees > from Sweden to the US substantially different for a 2.0L equipped model than > a 2.3L? No. Can a seller ask a higher price for a 2.3L model than a 2.0L? > Yes. Does it cost more to maintain inventory for multiple SKU's/Model > configurations? Yes, even more so if everything is shipped from far away. Hmm. Not so sure about this explanation. We get a lot of small cars shipped from South Korea. The recently named 'Chevrolet Matiz' is a good example. In spite of the name, it's a tiny 5 door hatchback, 0.8L engine and 3.5m in length. Hence the name is a bit of a joke. It was actually a 'Daewoo', but GM took control, so they could put the more attractive Chevrolet badge on the car! Luckily, they didn't put a Saab badge on... Perhaps if the carrier can take large numbers, then the shipping costs can be kept in proportion. > So importers ship the configuration that will let them realize the highest > profit. As you state, taxes also play a role. Some countries charge higher > taxes for cars with bigger engines, and the insurance costs are often > higher, so configurations with smaller engines can be cost justified in > certain markets. The US typically doesn't have those taxes, costs and > restrictions to make low end configurations cost-effective for importing. > Mercedes doesn't ship anything lesser than the "C" class and Toyota produces > their most popular models in the US as their way to address these economic > factors. I think it is dictated by what the market wants. You're used to large cars with big lazy engines. You also spend much time driving around to visit all places in the US.