Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 21:25:50 +0000 From: C Sutherland <cggsnopsam.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Best built recent Saab?
In article <aqtull$d12dc$4nopsam34476.news.dfncis.de>, davehinznopsamcop.net writes > >A few months ago, I did some torque steer comparisons (finding none in >each case, but different thread) between my classic Saabs, and my 1999 9-5. I couldn't say that my c900T16s was free of torque steer. All part of the fun. > >The handling is *very* similar in all of them. I figure this has to do >with the weight distribution, and c.g. of the car being at the driver's seat. > > >Just because it takes longer to build, doesn't mean that that time was >adding value. The c900 was built as if it were designed in the 1960's, >because in effect, it was. I'm not saying that's bad, I loved my c900. >But, to survive in the 90's and beyond, you have to be smart about where >you're spending your time. Of course you do. It would have been madness for Saab to carry on building an over-engineered obsolete design like the c900. The sadness is that as manufacturers strive towards an ideal of safety, efficiency etc the design converge towards a common identity. The only thing that I'm trying to celebrate and obviously failing to communicate is how such an ancient design can still be such a useable and enjoyable car in 2002 and for pleasure of ownership to compare so favourably with its modern replacement. I can't comment on the 9-5. > Neither of us know enough details about the >specific changes, so I'm not going to guess, but just because it's quicker >to build doesn't mean it's less solid; those two things aren't related. I wasn't trying to suggest they were. But the eccentricity of some aspects of the design were part of the pleasure (apart from when it came to repair them) Probably the new cars are safer with their airbags and so on but subjectively I still think the old cars had an indestructible heavy duty feel which is essentially absent from the GM 9-3. > > >Well, the fact that the deserved reputation of quality is getting out >is hard to see as a bad thing... For Saab it's great but didn't we used to enjoy driving a design that was relatively uncommon? Since I'll never buy a new one I need then to depreciate really badly. Selfish? Of course. > >> Life moves on but the old 16S battlewagon will be much missed. > >I really, really like my 9-5. I'll be taking a close look at those once they age a bit and the prices drop. They look good. >I think that the NG900 was a stop-gap design, >and we're seeing the first real new smaller Saab in the new 9-3. I think that's true. Shame they're not building a 5 door new 9-3. If you want to carry an occasional sheep it'll be necessary to buy the estate and they'll probably be scarce and overvalued on the used market. That's what annoys me about Passats which look like a good used diesel buy. > >...but, they'll never compare to driving a bull-nose two stroke 96 in the >winter. Never drove one in winter but the free wheel was fun. CS --
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |