The banner above is an advertisment - if it asks you to download software, please ignore.
Site News - 4/9 Saab Owners' Convention Day Pass Raffle | 3/26 M Car Covers (by State of Nine)

The Saab Network Mailing List FAQ
Search:

Main Index
[ Prev by Date ] [ Next by Date ] Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Re: 9-3 vs. Monte Carlo
Posted by John Edward Miller (more from John Edward Miller) on Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:35:07
In Reply to: , Kok Chen, Sat, 17 Dec 1988 12:00:00 

> As I said in my original post- *I* pay my money and *I* take my choice.
> But I will respond to each of the points that were made in the last Saab
> vs. Monte Carlo post.

I don't believe you've ever answered my question: have you DRIVEN one?

Don't compare on numbers.  Compare on feel from the driver's seat.  If you
are the kind of person who likes Saabs (or, for that matter, any other
decently-well-connected-to-the-road European or even some American and
Japanese hardware) for how they feel, then the MC will not impress.  

It - and the rest of the heavily-isolated GM intermediate range - is
disconnected, wobbly, and does not provide the feeling of confidence in
one's ability to place the vehicle on the road that you get with even the
most basic Volkswagen (or, for that matter, Honda.)

I had a new Olds Intrigue rentacar today - with the 3.5L four-cam V-6.  The
engine (a 90-deg configuration) was smooth, flexible, and worked just fine.
The car is a pretty shape.  I wanted to like the car - it's definitely a
better piece of hardware than the Monte.  But the seats don't fit my
backside, the interior is an agglomeration of pieces that don't quite fit
together, the throttle response is jerky, the nose bobs up, down, right,
and left with changes in throttle position, and the ABS cuts in prematurely
on the rear wheels in even moderate brake applications.  

>>> The Monte Carlo is a ~3500 pound, 200 inch long beast<<
> 
> The Saab 9-3 is pretty close in weight at 3200 +/- lbs. - no big
> difference

The MC is considerably LONGER.  It's longer than a BMW 7er.  It's far
longer than it needs to be, and it feels even bigger from behind the wheel
- and IMO that's not a good thing.  

Those Godawful Chrysler LH-cars - the LHS, Intrepid, etc - are shining
examples of Detroit's reversion back to the Bad Old Days - they're fully as
long as many '60s monsters, but you don't get the big engines, rear drive,
or towing capacity to go with the bulk.  You just get a big windshield too
flat to see out of, and a truly huge rear overhang.

>>> move two people down the road<<
> The back seat of my 4 dr. 9000 is no better, the 9-3 has less elbow room
> and about the same headroom as the MC

You must own a different flavor of 9000 than I do; the back seat in our
9000 is immense (notably roomier than our BMW 540i, for instance, and for
two people roomier than just about anything else on the road) and certainly
much better than the MC.  Besides, the MC is missing two doors.  It's
academic anyway - anyone buying a 2-door car is hardly concerned about
back-seat utility.  

> Immaterial! If a design delivers the goods without major shortcomings, why
> change? EPA fuel mileage and Motor Trend 0-60 times are better with the
> MC. A pushrod engine excels at low speed and high torque operation. My
> 4.0L Jeep delivers 21 MPG with full time 4WD on a trip-the engine turning
> 2300 rpm at 65 mph!

Agreed, that Buick V-6 is a decent piece of hardware - Buick's engineers
have done miracles with the thing since it started out in '64 as one of the
worst engines ever built.  But that low speed operation comes at a price -
tall gearing and a general lack of responsiveness unless you REALLY beat
the crap out of it.  Blame the transmission calibration, not the engine -
the current 3.8 rockerbox revs quite nicely to 6K.

>>> It still has the 90 degree angle between banks of the old V-8's rather
> than the more optimal 60 degree angle used for modern V-6's. You might be
> too young to remember that in the gas crisis of the 70's...(snip) the
> engine shake in its mounts to see what I mean).<<

The current Buick V-6 is a balance-shaft, even-fire configuration and works
just fine.  The Saab/GM V-6 is a 54-degree engine, for compactness.  The
purist arguments don't wash, it's much easier to make a case that a
2.3-liter four is a bad design, far too big to be smooth, and that balance
shafts are an ugly band-aid whether applied to a Buick V-6 or a Saab four.

A Saab 9-5 could still be a very nice car with a Buick 3.8 V-6.  A Chevy
Monte Carlo with a Saab Aero 2.3 230HP turbo four would still be a POS.
The engine here isn't the issue, the rest of the car is.  

John.

Posts in this Thread:
StateOfNine.com
SaabClub.com
Jak Stoll Performance
M Car Covers
Ad Available

The content on this site may not be republished without permission. Copyright © 1988-2024 - The Saab Network - saabnet.com.
For usage guidelines, see the Mission & Privacy Notice.
[Contact | Site Map | Saabnet.com on Facebook | Saabnet.com on Twitter | Shop Amazon via TSN | Site Donations]

This is a moderated FAQ - Posting is a privilege, not a right. Unsolicited commercial postings are not allowed (no Spam). Please, no For Sale or Wanted postings, SERIOUSLY. Classifieds are to be listed in The Saab Network Classifieds pages. This is a problem solving forum for over 250,000 Saab owners, so expect to see problems discussed here even though our cars are generally very reliable. This is not an anything goes type of forum. TSN has been a moderated forum since 1988. For usage guidelines, see the TSN Mission and Purpose Page. Please remember that you are not anonymous
Your address is: 3.139.97.157 - Using Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko; compatible; ClaudeBot/1.0; +claudebot@anthropic.com) - Logged.
Site Members do not see red text instructions, green links, and bottom of the page banners.
Click here to see all the Site Membership Benefits!