1979-1993 & 94 Conv [Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
 | [Main C900 Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Re: 900 vs. 9-3 Posted by Saana88 [Email]  (#207)  [Profile/Gallery]
(more from Saana88) on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:26:49
In Reply to: Re: 900 vs. 9-3, Saabnutt, Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:31:19 Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup |
The engine's orientation will not have any direct effect on handling, but the fact that a base model GM900 weighs about 350 pounds more than my base model C900 will. Beyond that, tires, tires, tires, and physics.
Snow driving takes many of the suspension quick-fixes out of the picture. For example, softer bushing materials will make a car such as the 9-3 handle more softly with less inertia to overcome before the suspension activates. Unfortunately, this means that engineers take the liberty to put in softer springs, in essence allowing your suspension to float over bumps more like an Oldsmobile than keeping everything pressed down like a Benz. Other additions like sway bars mean they turn around and specify slower-dampened shocks to amplify the effect. I'm trying to back my '92 S convertible out of this chasm. Compared with my '88 900 four-door (base model, stiff springs, no sway bars, Boge Turbo Gas shocks) the '92 bounces all over the place. The difference? Starting in 1991, all 900s had the same springs (can you say cost reduction?). In '88 the base car came with stiffer springs. To make the '92 handle like the aforementioned Eldersmobile, they used slow-reaction mush for the dampers so every time I go around a corner over a bump the rear mudflaps scrape the ground, despite the sway bars. As soon as the snow melts and the temperature goes above 45 or so, I'm replacing the shocks on the convertible.
In the snow, driving a car devolves into basic physics. Yes, I know, it applies all the time, but when it snows the playing field is leveled out. You don't corner quickly enough to need sway bars or wide tires, and the road surface is uneven and covered with snow or ice or potholes or all three, so the reaction time of your suspension starts to matter more. Narrower tires will chew down into deep snow instead of going up and over it, similar to hydroplaing. Also, everyone else in their horsepower hogs suddenly get a wakeup call. All of a sudden your acceleration rate is no longer determined by the amount of raw output coming out of the drivetrain. It's determined by how well you can actually transfer the power, balanced by the other forces holding you and the vehicle back. A car with not much power and a manual throttle and no torque converter has a lot of finesse potential.
Technically, you don't even need the cool and efficient, aerodynamic shape because you won't have to deal with that much wind drag when you don't clear 45 except for brief periods sans traffic. Your ability to move suddenly is dictated by what tires are on the car and its weight distribution over the driving wheels, and how much it weighs. This is where I disagree with everyone pushing AWD. Sure, it's nice to have when the going gets really bad, but for me it's not worth the extra 350 pounds on the vehicle. I then use my clutch and manual gearbox to make more intelligent decisions on what gears to use when starting off. Traction control is for people with lead feet driving overpowered cars with automatic transmissions. Here comes the weight factor again. Even if you've got four-wheel drive, your two-ton truck is just going to sit there in the snow. It's called inertia. With less inertia to overcome, a smart application of power (with a clutch, a throttle with fine control, and using the right gears at the right times) has allowed my 110 horsepower 900 four-door outaccelerate many testosteronemobiles over the years. They failed physics. It's fun, really.
Speaking of physics, while the heavier trucks may have more weight pressing them down to the road, they also need to change the direction of all that weight. A lighter car will require more attention and a heavier truck will require more distance. This is where I think Saab got it right with the 99 and the lighter variants of the C900. The car is heavy enough that it will maintain its course in the snow, but not so heavy it can't get out of its own way or turn or stop.
All this being said, I have yet to drive in the snow this year. I'm going to pick up the snow car tomorrow. Poor car, bored to tears.
Stopping? To a point, I actually prefer my non-ABS '88 unless I'm going over 45 or so, and as I said before, you just don't get the opportunity to do that in the snow very often. In snow I can lock up the front wheels and build up big mounds of snow in front of them, which actually helps the car stop. Also, being able to put the back end out a bit and get the rear tires going sideways helps them to brake the car more effectively, given the oblong shape of a tire's contact patch.
Finally, in actual snowstorms, the C900 has about five inches of ground clearance. Newer cars don't have that, and they force themselves on top of a snow drift more easily.
New cars, although safer, need to go on a diet. Once someone has the brilliant realization (the same as the one in the seventies) that lighter cars get better mileage, maybe this trend will regulate itself.
, Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:48:17, Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:26:49 <-- Viewing This Message, Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:18:51
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
