Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 04:42:24 GMT From: Marc Escuro <mgescuronopsam.com> Subject: Re: Saab SUV
On 9/3/01 12:30 AM, in article 9mvbi8$rr5$1nopsamnews.rcn.net, "Jeremy Brown" <Jerem43nopsamnet> wrote: > From the October 2001 Motor Trend: > SO LONG SAAB RENDEZVOUS. > HELLO SAAB LAV. > Saab's Pontiac Aztek\Buick Rendezvous based sports\utility crossover is off. > First scheduled for a '04 release, plans have shifted to an all-new model > based on the Sigma-platformed Cadillac LAV. The Cadillac will be introduced > in mid to late 2003 with a 251-hp version of the 3.6L high-feature V-6 > ("News," Sept. '01), while the Saab version will appear at least one year > later and with a 3.2L\321 hp turbo V-6 from the new GM engine family. > Cadillac has hinted its luxury activity vehicle (LAV, not it badge name) > will look like the Vizon show car, but with a sleeker body and better > proportions. I heard the Cadillac LAV was going to be unveiled sometime very early 2002, to be sold sometime later that year as a 2003. It's a very impressive looking SUV... If the Vizon has anything to say about it. > Now some of my opinions > 1. Saab does not need a SUV. > Saab is a car manufacturer that is well known for making tight, fun > cars. GM is forcing a SUV on them because of the current SUV craze here in > the US. I hate [large] SUVs: they are gas guzzling monstrosities that make > the driver of it feel if the are invincible. Most people do not know how to > drive a large truck based vehicle like the Ford F150/F250/F350 or GM > 1500/2500/3500 class SUVs, and as a result are unsafe drivers. (My '85 900 > was rear ended by one of these idiots while I was stopped at a red light. > The only thing that kept the car from being turned into an accordion was > that it was a heavier, well made, steel based vehicle unlike the new cars > today. It was still totaled by the state, I rebuilt it.) I think SAAB is late in the game. Without GM, SAAB would not be a contender on the global scale. They would have eventually been relegated to a niche in the US, and would have eventually been forced out of the market (a la Renault and Peugeot). SAAB has increased its sales over 90% in with the introduction of the new 9-3's and 9-5's. I probably would never have considered the 9-5. SAAB needs to round out it's model offering, if it wants to compete with its Swedish brother Volvo and the German upstart Audi. I'm glad they're building the 9-7.... Or whatever they're going to call it. > 2. This is a bad example of the GM takeover. > Self explanatory. Period. Nope. I wonder if people are saying the same about Ford's takeover of Volvo, Land Rover, Jaguar, Mazda.... Jaguar and Mazda would have been has-beens 10 years ago without Ford. Land Rover would have been stagnant... As usual. Volvo would never gotten its new products out the door as fast as they did. > 3. The Pontiac Aztek and Buick Rendezvous are bizarre. > These two cars are weird looking and an acquired taste. Thank god GM > scrapped them as the base for the Saab SUV. (Which is still a stoopid idea!) Well.... We're in agreement there. But I do like the Aztek. And yes, it does take a while getting used to. > 4. By its description, this vehicle will be a small SUV (an oxymoron) that > is in the vein of the Mercedes ML class, Porche Cayenne, and BMW X class. I > do not know if this is a good thing because it means GM believes that Saab > is equal to these other marques, or if it is bad because GM is trying to > force Saab to become equal to these other European luxury brands. At least > it will be turbo. So you say SAAB *isn't* the equal of these marks??? Why shouldn't it be??? -- Marc Escuro mgescuronopsam.com http://home.att.net/~bryesquire "...when all hope is gone, you know sad songs say so much..."
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
