![]() |
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:07:34 -0500 From: "Russell D. Ollie, Sr." <russell.ollienopsams.com> Subject: Re: 9-5 beats A6,E-Class,5-Series,S80,300M
I seriously doubt that Volvo's active head restraint system, WHIPS, is inferior to anything that's been tested to date. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety just conducted several test on the WHIPS system and found it does a much better job than anything they've ever tested. I don't think they've tested Saabs AHR system yet. Follow this link for details: http://www.iihs.org/press/pr120898.htm -rdo russell.ollienopsamnet 1998 S70 T5, 27k miles (for sale) Justin VanAbrahams wrote in message <36756BCC.4FDFnopsamnet>... >Radek =?iso-8859-2?Q?Hul=E1n?= wrote: >> >> Forgive me if I am wrong, but it is a common notion of all people >> I speak to that Volvo is the main inventor of new things >> and Saab just follows new features Volvo (with bigger R&D budget) >> has implemented. > >I think you are mistaken... Volvo has traditionally followed >Saab's innovation, not the other way around... > >Saab started using unitized body (unibody) construction >and front wheel drive platforms YEARS before Volvo did, >and until recently Volvo swore that FWD was inferior to >RWD, yet it's noteworthy almost their entire lineup is >FWD. > >Saab added a turbo to a passenger car four years before >it occured to Volvo, Although the BMW 2002 Turbo might >technically be the first, it was regarded as a failed >experiment due to unacceptable lag and questionable >performance. Not only that, but Saab's APC system from >'82 was light years beyond Volvo's very basic wastegate >management - and it wasn't until the mid '90s that >Volvo had anything to counter APC; and their system >came from Bosch! > >Saab implemented pyrotechnic seatbelt tensioners on the >'85 9000, and I don't believe Volvo even offers that >yet (though BMW added it two years ago). The Saab 9000 >also got ABS in '88 and SRS in '89 as standard, non-optional >features, something which you had to wait until the early >'90s to get on a Volvo. > >Saab added AHR (active head restraint) and Volvo >copied with an inferior variant to avoid patent >law. *No one* believes that Volvo's system, >which reclines the front seats, is anywhere near as >useful as Saab's, and I've even read some reviews on >it which question its safety in the first place. > >Finally, it wasn't until recently, with the T5R, that >Volvo had *any* engines worth looking at. The main >staple of their engines throughout the '80s has been >the 2.3l Turbo (originally from the 7-series, 1985) making >160hp. The Saab 16v Turbo, introduced the same year, >made tha same HP and more torque out of a smaller >displacement (2.0l vs. 2.3l). Better gas mileage >and more power? Inferior? I doubt it. I readily >acknowledge that the new inline turbo 6 is a powerful >engine, and arguably better than Saab's full pressure >2.3l four (225hp vs. 268hp) but it's worth noting >that the S80 is still slower to 60 than a 1998 >Saab 9000 Aero despite it's healthy hp advantage. > >I don't dislike Volvo - I think they make some great >cars. But they based the last 30 years of production >on their safety features and REALLY lagged behind in >technical innovation. The irony is that Folksam, >Sweden largest insurer, rates the Saab 9000 as the >safest car in Sweden, and not a Volvo. > >Please, play again... > >-Justin
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |