Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:00:31 +0100 From: Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelationsnospamail.com> Subject: Re: Have Saab reintroduced hatchback yet?
DervMan wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelationsnospamail.com> wrote > > Adrian wrote: > >> Colin Stamp (col.dustbinnospamp.plus.com) gurgled happily, sounding much > >> like they were saying : > >> > >> > Yep. Looks are the only real reason I can think of why anyone might > >> > actually prefer a saloon to the equivalent hatch. They really don't > >> > have any redeeming features to offset the loss in practicality unless > >> > you prefer the looks big-time. > >> > >> Shell rigidity, too. You've got a much smaller hole in the shell. Not > >> quite > >> relevant to the buying decision for a new car, though. > > > > I suspect a hatch is more rigid because of where the C pillars are > > actually. > > You are wrong. Prove it please. > > They brace the entire rear of the car. > > No they don't. Pillars *always* 'brace' the bodywork. It's their very function. > A hatchback has a great big opening at the back. Saloons don't. The weaker > chassis stiffness of a hatchback can be designed out of the machine over a > given generation - so a mark three Mondeo hatchback is going to be stiffer > than a mark one / two Mondeo saloon, but the hatchback is usually not as > stiff as the saloon. The size of the hole (beyond something really small) is no reliable guide. Graham
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
