return of the classic saab from C.1975-1992?

I hear a lot of rumours that GM execs are pondering this as a way to
'rescue' Saab. That's crap of course since it's GM that needs rescuing as
Saab if let go would get back to being it's old self and producing good
quality safe cars.

The problem is that GM has asset-stripped Saab so badly and has been able to
acquire saab's manufacturing operations in europe which is what GM really
wanted. They dont care about the technology or the safety aspects as far I
can tell since modern vehicles depends on gadgets rather than intelligent
design to make them safe. GM raped Subaru for its AWD technology and then
dumped it's share of Fujitsu Heavy Industries when things started to look
bad. It's all about making money to prop up the US domestic car business -
sadly.

However if GM did suddenly see the light, you would have to hope they let
the genuine Saab engineers and designers do the work of developing the new
car, and not handball it to the fools in detroit.

I think a combination of the classic 900 with the updated technology and
features of the 9000's would be a good starting point. Modern cars now rely
so much on 'accessory' technology like SRS airhags and stuff like ABS, ESP,
etc. that it is probably hard to get a car even approved without that
equipment integrated into the design, but Saab's had none of that until the
early 1990's and they were still one of the safest cars on the road.

So I hope something does happen to resurrect Saab's tried-and-true design
concepts, though if GM attempts to GM-ify it to target directly the US
domestic market with a vision purely to suck up Obama's car industry
'baleout' money, you can bet the product will be second-rate. sigh.

Craig.

--
Craig's Saab C900 Page at | Craig's Classic Saab Workshop - Sydney .au
http://lios.apana.org.au/~c900 | http://www.classicsaab.net and other URL's
EM: | For Saab 99/C900/9000 Enthusiasts World-Wide!
Alt EM: | Web-forums, galleries, library, links, etc.

Saab C900 Viggenist wrote:


So what your saying is you have no ****ing idea about car manufacturing
regulations and country specific safety standards

And SAAB are not the safest vehicles on the road, they are only one of a
group, specifically Scandinavian produced vehicles


Kev

Saab C900 Viggenist wrote:


I should also add the old SAABs were ****ing ugly and their engines were
in backwards


Kev

"Saab C900 Viggenist" > wrote in message
...

> So I hope something does happen to resurrect Saab's tried-and-true design
> concepts, though if GM attempts to GM-ify it to target directly the US
> domestic market with a vision purely to suck up Obama's car industry
> 'baleout' money, you can bet the product will be second-rate. sigh.

The best thing GM can do is find a sucker to buy SAAB, as it's a huge white
elephant.

Still, why anyone would *want* to own the company is beyond me. They're a
****** of a vehicle on their best day.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

Kev > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> Saab C900 Viggenist wrote:
>
> I should also add the old SAABs were ****ing ugly and their engines were
> in backwards
>
> Kev

It's always good to have such a clear indication that a poster's opinions
are based on nothing more intelligent than the droolings of a rabid chimp.

Saab C900 Viggenist > gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

> I think a combination of the classic 900 with the updated technology and
> features of the 9000's would be a good starting point. Modern cars now
> rely so much on 'accessory' technology like SRS airhags and stuff like
> ABS, ESP, etc. that it is probably hard to get a car even approved
> without that equipment integrated into the design, but Saab's had none
> of that until the early 1990's and they were still one of the safest
> cars on the road.

The c900 did get windbags and ABS, of course, and the rest of the
alphabetti-spaghetti electronics is relatively easy to retro-engineer
into an existing shell design.

Whilst the c900 shell - just an update of the 99 shell, of course - is
certainly strong, in certain directions, it's not all that torsionally.
It's also very very narrow by modern standards - a foot narrower than a
Golf V.
Would it get anywhere near modern impact standards? Probably not.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? Probably not.
Not since the modern standards seem to require very high beltlines and
very thick pillars. Since I've never yet been killed in a car without
those "safety features", I'll continue to prefer cars you can actually
see out of. I've always found being able to see other road users a bit of
a boon to avoiding impacts in the first place.

Saab C900 Viggenist wrote:
> I hear a lot of rumours that GM execs are pondering this as a way to
> 'rescue' Saab. That's crap of course since it's GM that needs
> rescuing as Saab if let go would get back to being it's old self

Bankrupt you mean?

--
Kwyj.

Adrian wrote:
> Kev > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>> Saab C900 Viggenist wrote:
>>
>> I should also add the old SAABs were ****ing ugly and their engines were
>> in backwards
>>
>> Kev
>
> It's always good to have such a clear indication that a poster's opinions
> are based on nothing more intelligent than the droolings of a rabid chimp.


Thats what I reckon too
maybe they should send all those SAAB enthusiast back to the zoo

Kev

Adrian wrote:
> Saab C900 Viggenist > gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
>
>> I think a combination of the classic 900 with the updated technology and
>> features of the 9000's would be a good starting point. Modern cars now
>> rely so much on 'accessory' technology like SRS airhags and stuff like
>> ABS, ESP, etc. that it is probably hard to get a car even approved
>> without that equipment integrated into the design, but Saab's had none
>> of that until the early 1990's and they were still one of the safest
>> cars on the road.
>
> The c900 did get windbags and ABS, of course, and the rest of the
> alphabetti-spaghetti electronics is relatively easy to retro-engineer
> into an existing shell design.
>
> Whilst the c900 shell - just an update of the 99 shell, of course - is
> certainly strong, in certain directions, it's not all that torsionally.
> It's also very very narrow by modern standards - a foot narrower than a
> Golf V.
> Would it get anywhere near modern impact standards? Probably not.
> Is that necessarily a bad thing? Probably not.
> Not since the modern standards seem to require very high beltlines and
> very thick pillars. Since I've never yet been killed in a car without
> those "safety features", I'll continue to prefer cars you can actually
> see out of. I've always found being able to see other road users a bit of
> a boon to avoiding impacts in the first place.


So because you haven't been killed yet that makes it Ok to drive old
unsafe vehicles

get back to use when you have a high speed roll over and tell us all how
you got on, if you can that is


Kev

Kev wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
>> Saab C900 Viggenist > gurgled happily, sounding
>> much like they were saying:
>>
>>> I think a combination of the classic 900 with the updated technology and
>>> features of the 9000's would be a good starting point. Modern cars now
>>> rely so much on 'accessory' technology like SRS airhags and stuff like
>>> ABS, ESP, etc. that it is probably hard to get a car even approved
>>> without that equipment integrated into the design, but Saab's had none
>>> of that until the early 1990's and they were still one of the safest
>>> cars on the road.
>>
>> The c900 did get windbags and ABS, of course, and the rest of the
>> alphabetti-spaghetti electronics is relatively easy to retro-engineer
>> into an existing shell design.
>>
>> Whilst the c900 shell - just an update of the 99 shell, of course - is
>> certainly strong, in certain directions, it's not all that
>> torsionally. It's also very very narrow by modern standards - a foot
>> narrower than a Golf V.
>> Would it get anywhere near modern impact standards? Probably not.
>> Is that necessarily a bad thing? Probably not.
>> Not since the modern standards seem to require very high beltlines and
>> very thick pillars. Since I've never yet been killed in a car without
>> those "safety features", I'll continue to prefer cars you can actually
>> see out of. I've always found being able to see other road users a bit
>> of a boon to avoiding impacts in the first place.
>
>
> So because you haven't been killed yet that makes it Ok to drive old
> unsafe vehicles
>
> get back to use when you have a high speed roll over and tell us all how
> you got on, if you can that is
>

It's his choice... there's good reasons (weight) not to buy a car with
features you don't need. IMHO we passed the point of diminishing
returns with safety features years ago. The stuff that is being added
to cars now adds so much complexity and weight and offers absolutely no
benefit to the average competent driver.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel