Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 11:05:02 +0100 From: Leif Lindgren <vtempnopsamliu.se> Subject: Re: Audi weak????
jbaruthnopsamorshospital.org wrote: > I am leaving both previous posts up so the interested readers can see > how this, er, "discussion" has progressed. > > In article <7coul3$tjf$1nopsam1.dejanews.com>, > r600nopsamejanews.com wrote: > > In article <7cb8lu$bo7$1nopsam1.dejanews.com>, > > jbaruthnopsamorshospital.org wrote: > > > r600nopsamejanews.com wrote: > > > > You're obviously not speaking from real knowledge. The 9-5 shares a > floorpan > > > > with the Vectra -- it was co-designed by Saab and Opel engineers, and > > heavily > > > > modified by Saab. > > > > > > co-designed,eh? The same way the Cavalier platform was co-designed before > > > it became the 900/9-3? This 9-5 is not based on the revamped Vectra > appearing > > > in Europe now; it's the old Vectra, which was developed before GM purchased > > > Saab. Unless that center ignition key operates a time machine, the current > > > generation of Saabs should be recognized for what they are --- warmed-over > > > Opels with Saab styling cues. > > > > Actually, the 9-5 is based on the current Vectra floorpan -- co-designed by > > Saab and Opel engineers. The 9-3 is indeed based on the previous Vectra > > platform. > > I'll need your sources on this. Automobile magazine and Car have both > stated that the 9-5 is from the previous Vectra. In addition, *everyone* > knows that the 9-3 is off the Cavalier. > > > > >What is the A6 after all? A modified Passat -- same > > > > floorpan, more road hugging weight and an underpowered engine... > > > > > > The B/C platform was designed on Dr. Piech's command to provide multiple > > > automobiles. That has nothing to do with re-engineering an old Opel. > > > > There is no difference between what Saab has done and what Audi has done. > > Regardless, the 9-5 has an excellent floorpan. If there's a problem with the > > 9-5, it is styling that's not as creative as Audi's. > > Certainly there is a difference. The B/C was designed to work well in > multiple configurations from the small Audi A4 to the V8-powered A6 3.7 > and upcoming Grand Passat. > > As to whether or not the Saab has an excellent floorpan, I would be forced > at this point to inquire about the contrast between Saab's mass-market-style > suspension and the aluminum four-link setup of the B/C. Moreover, the Audi > is more rigid, and this is apparent in back-to-back drives (courtesy of > what has to be a rarity, an Audi-Saab-VW-BMW dealer in the area) > > Saab has done the best they could with a vehicle designed to serve a lower > market. Lincoln has done the same thing in modifying the Taurus platform > to the Continental, and it does not work any better there. > > > > > Regardless, the question in this discussion is which car is more fun to > > > > drive? Clearly it's the Saab. > > > > > > Nobody in the automotive press has seconded your opinion. > > > > Wrong, I've seen many times over superior ratings for Saab in terms of "fun to > > drive." Drive the two cars and you'll see for yourself. > > Again, name the sources. My general source is "Car" magazine for this > stuff. Car & Driver in the US placed the 9-5 behind the A6, Volvo S70T, > and Lexus GS300. > Auto Motor & Sport rated the 9-5 above BMW 530d, Volvo S80 2.9, MB E280, Audi A6 and Chrysler 300M. The 9-5 beating the A6 in almost every category. They also rated the 9-5 wagon as better than the A6 Avant. /Leif
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
