Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 20:53:06 GMT From: "Lance" <lanceknopsamam.here.blueyonder.co.uk> Subject: Questions on 9-3 SE Convertible
Hello all, I took a test drive in a 2000 model 9-3 SE LPT 2.0 convertible. I have had two Saabs, (1985 900 Turbo and a 1996 900i). Unfortunately, I am limited to getting an automatic for domestic reasons, so I wasn't too worried when the Turbo aspirated engine, although seemingly smoother than my '96 non-turbo, didn't seem to have the same responsiveness. But the steering was shocking. It was very unresponsive (lots of understeer) and at around 40mph, shook like a tin shack in an earthquake. I've never had a convertible before and the salesman said it was a combination of the car requiring wheel alignment/balancing and the fact that it is a convertible.. apparently (according to the salesman), because it is minus a roof, its structural integrity isn't so true and the steering is slightly compromised. The latter may be true, but isn't part of the reason why convertibles cost so much more partly because of the increased structural strength they have to build into the body? In any case, the car had under 9000 miles (15,000kms) on the clock, so I wouldn't have thought it would beed an alignment/balance so soon unless it was either driven hard or had a bump (e.g. with a kerb or something). My questions are.. should the steering be a bit more warbled than the non-convertible examples, and by how much? And is it normal for them to require steering adjustments after 9000 miles? The braking also seemed less responsive than my '96, but I'm also chalking that to the slush box rather than the manual. As a side note, some time ago I drove an MX-5 Mazda.. About a '94 model.. As I recall, its steering was far more responsive (so much for the structural integrity stuff), although, I mainly drove large 4x4s back then as well as an Aussie Commodore.. both not the best handling vehicles on the road... So its not a fair comparison Thanks in advance, Lance
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
