Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:08:09 GMT From: Paul Halliday <pjghnopsamyonder.co.uk> Subject: Re: What to call the "new" 9-3 ?
in article b5solh$2c2hjm$2nopsam34476.news.dfncis.de, davehinznopsamcop.net at davehinznopsamcop.net wrote on 26/03/2003 17:40: > Someone who looks an awful lot like 'nuther Bob <noemailnopsammain.com> wrote: > > >> Seems OK at first, but then we have: > >> 900/OG900-->900/NG900-->9~3(equiv NG900)-->NG-9~3 > >> So, if someone posts "How hard is it to change the struts in a 9-3", >> I'd have to say "an NG900 9-3" or an "NG 9-3" ? > > Naah, they'll either give a year making it unnecessary, or they'll ask about > changing the struts in a "93" and I can post a confused-sounding post about > how the Saab 93 (1956-1960) uses shocks, not struts, post a link to a > picture or two, and ask for clarification. > >> Maybe it works if we start calling the 9~3 the OG9-3 and the >> new 9~3 the NG9~3 ? SO now it's: > > I'm thinking that whatever we decide on as a group today won't be known > by anyone else coming in anyway, so it's not all that important anyway. Quite! Model and model year is a good enough convention. Stating an '89 900 T8 would ring bells with the knowledgeable as distinctly different from an '88 900 T8, or an '89 900 T16. As it stands, there are only two major revisions of the 9-3, so "old" and "new" seems fine for now for those in the know, but, as you say, a new poster (who was unaware of any internal nomenclature) would be most likely to simply state "9-3" and then be asked for model year if it pertained to the question. [I believe you've simply posted "Model year, please" in reply to such a posting before.] Paul
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |