Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:36:34 GMT From: "Fat Sam" <samandjanetknoxnospamco.net> Subject: Re: Why the number 9?
johannes wrote: > Fred W wrote: >> >> Dave Hinz wrote: >>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 16:54:45 GMT, Fat Sam >>> <samandjanetknoxnospamco.net> wrote: >>> >>>> I've wondered this for a while now. >>>> What's the signifigance to the number 9 in Saabs naming convention? >>>> All their cars seem to feature a number 9 in the title....900, >>>> 9000, 93, >>>> 95..... >>> >>> >>> Saab numbered their models sequentially. So the Saab 91 was the >>> "Safir" (link here: http://www.fcfk.com/safir/ ), the next thing on >>> the design >>> board was the Saab 92 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_92 ) >>> >>> Once they got into cars, they reserved the 2-digit 9x range for >>> them. >>> The 99 turned into the 900. By then marketing folks were in charge >>> rather then engineers, so it got a bit wodgy and we ended up with >>> 9-3 >>> and 9-5 which have only vague meanings relative to the original >>> naming scheme. >>> >> >> Yes, I do believe that the marketing people looked at the BMW models >> and said: This 9 competes with the 3 series so let's call it a 9-3. >> That one competes with the 5 series, so 9-5. If not intentional, >> what a huge coincidence, eh? >> > > The new naming 9-3 and 9-5 is a bit ugly IMO, it doesn't even match > what is written on the cars, that's more like 9 with a smaller 3 or 5 > hovering above, easily seen as 93 and 95, or perhaps it is 729 and > 59049? Hence, total confusion. Added to that is that 900 and 9-3 > models straddles between different shapes. Really interesting stuff guys. Thanks for all the replies. Particularly interesting what you said Johannes, about the 9-3 and 900. I have noticed that it's quite remarkably difficult to tell the difference between an early 9-3 and a late 900. Is it effectively the same car, but Saab just decided to re-badge it?
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
