Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 14:47:44 +0200 From: "Jan Soderberg" <jan.soderbergnopsamail.com> Subject: Re: Opinions on the 1999 Saab 9-3?
KBB wrote in message <7fl0kn$mv8$1nopsam3.Belgium.EU.net>... > >Eventhough the 9-3 has many qualities and lots of character, the latest >crash test results from the insurance institute for highway safety >completely turned me off: it is a shame that a company that has built its >reputation on safety does sell a newly redesigned car that cannot achieve a >"good" rating in crash tests. >It doesn't make sense that a near 30k car should perform much worse than a >cheap Lumina, Taurus or Camry ; >especially knowing that the 9-5 is among the best performer in crash tests. >--------------> Wait for the new Volvo S40 to arrive in the US : it's an >handsome car with lots of character as well and it'll be cheaper than the >9-3 Take a look at http://www.carsafety.org/ictl.htm (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) for some info on the 900. Surprise it's the safest - lowest injury rate - midsize? You will also find that the 9000 is number 3 for midsize luxury cars. Not bad for a 15 year old design! (The collision rate in the level of BMWs and Mercedes says more about the drivers than the cars?!) Even though Saabs might not be rated highly in every crach tests, I have never ever seen any statistics from real use where Saab (at least for the last two decades) has not been ranked among the safest. Please give us some reference where the 9000 has been rated poorly! The fact that the 9000 was based on a smaller and weaker basic design (Alfa-Romeo/Fiat) is one of the reasons why it's so safe - all structures but the safety cage work as good energy absorbers. All Saabs are designed to be safe - in real accidents rather than crash tests Jan Soderberg
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
