Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 20:35:51 -0800 From: "pablo" <pablonopsamlyhombreNOSPAMnet> Subject: Re: Best built recent Saab?
<davehinznopsamcop.net> wrote in message news:aqv6md$dmfqq$2nopsam34476.news.dfncis.de... > > .... Even back in their day, those cars were leagues behind the better > > handling Beemers. > > Exactly, what? I found exactly NO torque steer in any of them. I think > you're reading into my message things which aren't there. I am not saying they are or were undrivable. I am just saying Saabs were not trying to provide the sheer feedback at the limit etc that a Beemer provides. I have no doubt they engineers could if they wanted to, but that is simply not what they tried to do - not with the 9-3, not with models that preceeded it. > Saab and BMW appeal to different types of people. I'm perfectly OK with > that. So am I, and that is all I am saying. > In Saab's case, I find it hard to believe that anyone would insult the > assemblers by claiming their labor was flawed. It's just expensive, not > defective. The human element results in higher variation from the average, period. An expensive, high-quality plant will ensure more uniform standards. It's not an insult, it is a simple fact that human's can't align parts by the thousand as accurately and consistently as machines can. A factory like Saab's has never been an artisan environment: humans excel when you give them no deadlines, and they have the talent to perform their art. Machines are far superior when it comes to cranking out a hundred identical pieces in a single shift. It's not an insult, it's a tried and proven fact in mass production. > OK, fair enough... whatever works for ya. I still prefer the '62 96 for winter > driving. OK, fair enough... whatever works for ya, back at you. I for one have always respected individual opinions. What I have a problem with is when people try to rationalize them with indefensible arguments they present as supposed facts. > Ah, but the engineering is measurably better. Be specific. The engineering of what? > ... The list of Saab innovations > is long and sustained ... ...and hasn't ceased. Many of the Saab innovations mentioned in the Saab museum are quite trivial, car history in hand. I think Saab has a history of innovation, don't get me wrong. As has Citroen, as has Mercedes, and have others - Saab does not have an exclusive claim on innovation. But I do not think it is true that Saab has stopped innovating because GM acquired it, which is a point that has been made in this forum. The link that was provided to the Saab museum showed that Saab has not stopped innovating in the 90s - and I do not think that the head-rests they introduced in the 90s are so inferior to something like day-lights, which was one of the ground-brealing 60s innovations. > ... call the word "innovations" crap if you want ... > ... they have a *ton* of firsts in their designs... The have several, yes. But my point is they didn't stop coming in the 90s. Saab is as innovative as ever, arguably. Just because others came first with air suspension or distance control does not mean Saab is no longer innovating. It's not like in the past they pioneered every single aspect of car engineering. That's all. Keep things in perspective. > I'll be interested in your impressions of the new 9-3 once you've had it > for a while. Seems to be getting better with the miles, actually. The engine is definitely becoming smoother after 5,000 miles, and the service department has ironed out some of the usual new car quirks. If I'd bought the wrong car, I'd already noticed it - this Saab is replacing a new Jaguar XJR in my garage, so it had a high standard to live up to, and it's doing well. It's not as smooth, but it's way more involving and fun in its own way. I haven't put many miles on my motorcycle since I got it. ...pablo
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |