Eeyore wrote:
>
> johannes wrote:
>
> > Adrian wrote:
> > > johannes (johsnospam-85635457321546-fitter.com) gurgled happily, sounding
> > > much like they were saying :
> > >
> > > >> >> > Just to clarify: The 9000 CD was produced 1988-1995, production
> > > >> >> > stopped 3 years earlier than for the 9000 CS.
> > >
> > > >> >> Odd, that - since there's several '97 CDs for sale on AutoTrader at
> > > >> >> the mo.
> > >
> > > >> > Odd indeed. It may have been registered fist time in 1997 and still
> > > >> > produced in 1995?
> > >
> > > >> All of 'em?
> > >
> > > > Dunno, there could also be errors in AutoTrader, it happens...
> > >
> > > Ah, so the photos of P-reg 9000CDs are all photoshopped? Well, stranger
> > > things happen at sea, I s'pose.
> >
> > I concede that there are differences of opinion and 1995 may not be
> > strictly correct, but the CD was taken out of production before the CS.
> > Here are some total production figures that I found:
> > http://www.saabhistory.com/2007/01/25/the-saab-9000-1984-1998/
> > Saab 9000 CC 216385
> > Saab 9000 CD 112177
> > Saab 9000 CS 174525
> >
> > A clear victory for the 9000 CS!
>
> That's about 3 1/2 hatchbacks sold for every booted version.
Well, not a fair comparison, you should only compare the years when
the CD was sold alongside the hatch.
> And I maintain that the CS is the better looking car too. Plus it's 6 inches
> shorter which is a blessing round here for parking.
Yes, this is also reflected in second hand prices. On the face of it,
it was not logical to make 9-5 a saloon. But I guess GM must have had
an eye on the BMW market, as these saloons sold in large numbers, even
at premium price.