Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:55:39 -0800 From: "pablo" <pabloATsimplyhombreDOTnet> Subject: Re: Best built recent Saab?
<davehinznopsamcop.net> wrote in message news:ar363s$dqdrl$1nopsam34476.news.dfncis.de... > > Let's see. The Sonett III was reported by the car mags of the time to > "...corner like a jackrabbit on speed", but sadly, the 1970 editors of > that magazine (Car and Driver I *think*) were careless and incomplete in > their research, and didn't compare it to the 2002 model BMW 3 series. Couple of things here: the Sonnett was a very agile car. A top sportscar it was not, even in its time. It was more Miata than M-tricked Beemer, and you know it. 3-cyle engine, 850cc - more Simca than Merc. Great little car, but not something that qualified as a top sports car choice in its day. Fun- yes. Performance leadership - only if you lived in Russia... > An appalling lack of journalistic rigor, don't you think? The 3-series did not exist in 1970, as you well know, and my comparison is with sports car of its day. In 1970, as you well know, there were capable sports car. Not only BMW or Mercedes -which I mention because I used them as a well-known benchmark others are measured on in the segment- but also Lancia, Alfa and even Fiat had some very snazzy cars back then on the top of the range. Saab was far more limited in the range of its product line. Again: I am not saying they wre not damn fine cars for their time. For their target audience. Which did not consist of performance enthusiasts until the 900 Turbo came along - that was the car that gave Saab a new "image". For all of the "image does not count" vibe this forum is about, fact is that, when the Turbo 900s came out, it was a huge image gain for Saab. And that was exactly what they intended. Before that, Saab had not a very exciting resputation. > I didn't say "utmost sporting capability", but you were making it look like > they didn't give a crap about handling and responsiveness until you happened > to discover Saab. That can be shown to be untrue and a mere figment of your imagination by going back a few messages. Please don't over-shoot like that. To try to put a relative measure to some of the more absolute claims that have been made in this forum to you is to utterly slam Saab, claim the cars were garbage, and that the workers consisted of crude troglodytes. It's ridiculous - all I am and have been saying is the past of Saab is not as glamorous as some think to believe. As, by the way, isn't BMW's, or Audi's, or many others. Your interpretation of my comments sometimes borders the hysterical. You are extremely knowledgable, and I respect that. In fact, I don't like the bitter undertone of some of the praragraphs, I don't like arguiong with you, but when you claim I say something I never claimed I can't help but tell you it's utterly untrue. > It's a corporate culture thing more than anything. Thanks for making my point. The airplane thing is a great psychological tool to use, and I have no doubt it has influenced the design philosophy: Saabs have also tried to be lighter than other comparable cars, without having to resort to more exotic materials. The combination of lower weight and yet sturdiness is a unique Saab trait. > ... Also, in a company where the > high accuracy of air flight has been the normal, engineering decisions > were made more on what's the best way to do things, rather than what's > the cheapest way to do things. Believe it or not, cost is a factor they do consider in airplane design as well. Heavily. The correlation between high cost and reliability and safety is not as high as some think - you can build expensive and thoroughly engineered stuff that is not as safe as a cheaper, proven design that places sturdiness as highest priority - and the airplane industry has done it repeatedly. For every Gripen there is a Cessna 172. Excuse me, the ratio is more like 1:1000... > And my point, which you keep missing, is that that car was designed to be > built by hand, with limited automation. As such, it does not lend itself > well to being fully automated - wasn't set up for it, and no quality reasons > to change. The entire car industry disagrees with you - there are several jobs machines do better by any rational standard, and they'll do it over and over again. The artisan approach has an obvious appeal of its very own, and other advantages: cars that are easier to work on, and probably have more convenient very-long-term durability. It is a combination of many things, of course. But state-of-art plants to result in cars with a type of quality assurance you could have never achieved in the 70s or 80s. But if you're trying to say you can deliver a mass-produced car these days by hand labor if you just design the car right... you're wrong. You won't be competitive. > In the part which you conveniently snipped, you claimed that hand-assembly > invariably causes quality problems. Go back and quote me. Here's what I said "The human element results in higher variation from the average, period. An expensive, high-quality plant will ensure more uniform standards." *That* is my point. please -stop making up your own. > Charming. ... It's not a quality I would see when someone is continuously making up points I never meant. > You *were* saying that it wasn't important at all, now you're saying it's > just one of the things they considered. If you'd be so kind as to pick what > your point is, that'd make it alot easier to hold a conversation. My point was very specific all along: Saab was not really competing with top performance brands. It had a reputation for stodgy cars well into the 70s. As the aura of the initial 900 turbos diminished, the stodgy image resurfaced, and that directly resulted in them getting into trouble and being sold to GM. This all started with someone claiming Saab was more or less Lamborghini, and that GM has done its worst to put it to the grave. The truth is far more complex, and the truth is that Saab owes its existence, and its resurgence, to GM. That, and nothing else has been my point. You have nitpicked by going after individual points, exaggerating the hell out of some supposed claim I made, and all in all reacting hysterically. > ... I'm not as comfortable discussing the > dynamics of the rear suspension ... Perhaps because you know it's been an Achilles heel of Saab since the 80s, when other brands in its price class moved to fully independent set-ups? Granted, this is engineering, and you don't have to always use the most fashionable technology to make things work well. The whole thing about "innovation" is that it does not ofter lead to cars that drive better. Was the first brand to put auto-sensing wipers an awesome innovator? Was the low pressure turbo born out of necessity, or *truly* because its *exactly* what Saab wanted to do and represented their ideal? We'll never know how all these things come together. My innovation points as they relate to Saab have been: (1) It *has a venerable tradition of innovation and solid engineering (2) It has not detectably slowed after the GM acquisition: motor management, low-pressure turbo, head restraints etc etc. Calculate the innovsations/decade ratio, and arguably the 90s is the best innovation decade Saab's actually had. > Making the street-racers happy was never a priority, nor should it be. Thanks, again, for making my point. > Yes, every aspect of Saab's engineering has been done very carefully, with > emphasis on proper engineering rather than "How many models can we cram > this engine & tranny into" kind of thinking. I agreed with this from the very start. > You were dismissing the innovations, I provided counterexamples. I was *NOT*, for Christ's sake, stop the paranoia. Go to the Saab museum, look at the innovation timeline: some are very important, several seem to be about as ground-breaking as the introduction of the cup-holder. Not every innovation can be as important as the introduction of, I don't know, disc brakes or ABS or fuel injection. Again, I only said this in the context of making the point that Saab's innovation, to my eye, hasn't slowed down that much, and argaubly not at all, since the GM acquisition. I have never disputed Saab has been an innovative company with good cars. > The good engineering of Saab has been diluted by the GM influences. Don't > mess with a recipe that works. Here we go: how exactly did it work so well? Why was Saab in trouble when GM scooped it up? Wonderfully engineered cars that just weren't marketed well? No: they had fallen behind: their quality reputation has suffered badly. Their reputation for safe cars that actually performed very well had suffered, since others were producing cars with the same or more horsepower and safety ammenities with a lower lemon ratio. That was Saab in '90: the recipe wasn't working at all. All cars brands go through up and downs. BMW's fall from grace is pre-programmed. The fall of the Mighty and such. Not long ago, VW, Audi or Porsche went through some very rocky patches. Saab went through one, and it wasn't large enough to surivive the slump if GM hadn't scooped it up. > ... The new 9-3 will be the make-or-break model > as far as I'm concerned. I think it is a transitory model. The success is important, and that's why they are going for a safe formula, but I hope they use that success as a basis for more differentiation, and for a *different" value proposition again. It will be other new models that will establish Saabness in the new millenium. 4-door sedans seldom make car history. > ... I'm not thrilled with a "foreign" engine going > into the cars, but Saab has survived it before. The base engine for the much-beloved 900 Turbo was British, I seem to remember... > Can you at least agree that the V6 was a marketing decision forced on > Saab by GM, that was and is a disaster? It's a classic case of the > design being changed for exactly the wrong reasons. I do think one of the areas were air-engineering shows through is weight. Weight is a performance killer, and Saab is the brand that fights weight the most effectively without actually doing anything exotic about it. 6 and 8 cyclinders do not go well with this philosophy - I do actually like the Saab philosophy of turbo-charging the venerable 4-pot, which can be made to be a very smooth engine when it's an engineering priority, and probably can shave of a significant amount of weight. > ... A 4WD Saab, or a Saab SUV, would be more examples > of marketing folks screwing around with something that should not be. Withers with low weight, too, but it might be something that Saab has to look into as it ups the power. > What is your fixation with those two makes? Personally, I don't care if > the Rollex-wearing BMW driver wants to come buy a Saab or not. Oh, neither do I. I just use them as benchmarks, since obviously GM strategists do, and thus it is very relevant for Saab's future... ...pablo
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
