Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:47:48 GMT From: Craig M. Bobchin <CBobchinnospamcom> Subject: Re: Just Do It GM-Change SAAB into "GMW"...dichotomoy
Keith, I agree with almost all of what you said except that the 9^2 and 9^7 are Saabs. I currently own a '94 9k and an '02 Viggen. We are probably going to let the Viggen go when the lease is up, but will most probably not be buying a new Saab. I just don't like the direction that GM is taking the company. They seem (to my eyes at least) determined to get rid of the wonderful Saab engineering and safety as you so abely pointed out. In article <Ysqdna0PB9jhANffRVn-qgnospamopenwest.com>, noonenospamay.com says... > I guess I fall in the middle. I consider all but the 9^2 and 9^7 to be > saabs, even now. > > Keep in mind that GM is also trying to reduce the safety of the Saabs as > well. The 9^7 SUV (Trollblazer, TrailBlaab) is anti Saab and less safe > than any other current Saab. Keep in mind that safety is not only how > well it absorbs energy in an accident, but also how nimble and > controllable the vehicle is which allowy the driver to avoid an accident. > > The 9^2 is an Subaru with saab refinements. The platform has not been > enhanced for safety like a swedish designed model (at least to date!) > The GM900 was compromised at best. I had one and got rid of it in a > year. The C9^3 (98-02)was , purportedly better, though I have no > experience with that. I have my family in a 9k and will move to a used > 9^5 when it is time. > > I am not saying that Saab engineering is perfect, look at the T7 > engines. Sludge and short life is a problem because of the inherent > design problems AND the GM inspired long oil change interval. They have > still not fixed the PCV issue which is a contributor. All they have done > is extend the engine warranty as a show of goodwill. The soultion is to > move back to a more T5 piston style which they are not doing as the > engine is dead once the current 9^5 plays out. The NG9^5 will have the > (seriously Saab enhanced) global4 and the learnings here may not apply. > I really do not know as I have never taken one apart. > > Lutz has said that the bleeding needs to stop and that Saab 'wasted' so > much money on the redevelopment of the new 9^3. In his mind, the > platform was perfect and should have been used 'as is' and Saab just > needed to hang body panels on it and slap a leather interior in it and > be done. Saab engineers, refined the platform for safety (steel supports > where the general uses magnesium or AL for weight). Instead of seeing > this as a positive development that they could incorporate in all other > common platform models, they see it as extra waste. Ditto for the > pendulum engine mount system developed for reduced torque steer in the > face of 200+ hp in a fwd platform! even though the same block and > platform are used in the rest of world and these developments could have > been amortized over the product line for years to come. Ditto for the > CAN system developned for the 9^3. The way I see this one is that it was > to offset the added steel weight by reducing copper weight... You get my > point. GM is still run by the bean counters and will continue to be run > into the ground until it dies. Saab has already been killed. I know Lutz > is a car guy, but he has very little control over that. Trollhattan will > no longer produce any 'saabs' after 2008, wasn't it? The way I see it, > buy a Saab now while you can as they will all dissappear when the 9^3 > moves to Russelsheim. I really doubt that the general will allow 2 cars > so dissimilar as the vectra and 9^3 to be made on the same line... My > guess is that they dumb down the 9^3 to make it more like the Vectra > instead of vice versa. > -- Remove MySkin to E-mail me.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
