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

Nate Nagel wrote:

>
> 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.

There are average competent drivers and then there are the average
drivers, huge difference.
And how does one measure what a competent driver is?
I'm sure everyone's self assessment of their driving ability is way
different to their actual driving ability.

How often does the average driver actually get into a situation where
things like ABS and stability control are activated?
Hardly ever. So how do you know the average driver is able to control
the vehicle in such a situation?
You don't.
So with this in mind I'd rather be sharing the roads with people driving
vehicles with these devices than just relying on them being competent
drivers

One person may be a great skilled driver, but that won't stop someone
with barely enough skills to walk, let alone drive, from crashing into
them and killing them. This is where airbags, crumple zones and safety
frames come into play

But go ahead and drive your busted old dungers with crap handling and no
safety features, I know I'll have a far better chance of survival when
you crash into me


Kev

On Feb 9, 6:54*am, Kev > wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> There are average competent drivers and then there are the average
> drivers, huge difference.
> And how does one measure what a competent driver is?
> I'm sure everyone's self assessment of their driving ability is way
> different to their actual driving ability.
>
> How often does the average driver actually get into a situation where
> things like ABS and stability control are activated?
> Hardly ever. So how do you know the average driver is able to control
> the vehicle in *such a situation?
> You don't.
> So with this in mind I'd rather be sharing the roads with people driving
> vehicles with these devices than just relying on them being competent
> drivers
>
> One person may be a great skilled driver, but that won't stop someone
> with barely enough skills to walk, let alone drive, from crashing into
> them and killing them. This is where airbags, crumple zones and safety
> frames come into play
>
> But go ahead and drive your busted old dungers with crap handling and no
> safety features, I know I'll have a far better chance of survival when
> you crash into me
>
> Kev

Seeing as my personal car is a Porsche 944 (no ABS, no airbags, no TC,
etc.) I find your comments amusing. If you can outhandle that car in
whatever you're driving, I'd be surprised.

nate

N8N wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 6:54 am, Kev > wrote:
> > Nate Nagel wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > There are average competent drivers and then there are the average
> > drivers, huge difference.
> > And how does one measure what a competent driver is?
> > I'm sure everyone's self assessment of their driving ability is way
> > different to their actual driving ability.
> >
> > How often does the average driver actually get into a situation where
> > things like ABS and stability control are activated?
> > Hardly ever. So how do you know the average driver is able to control
> > the vehicle in such a situation?
> > You don't.
> > So with this in mind I'd rather be sharing the roads with people driving
> > vehicles with these devices than just relying on them being competent
> > drivers
> >
> > One person may be a great skilled driver, but that won't stop someone
> > with barely enough skills to walk, let alone drive, from crashing into
> > them and killing them. This is where airbags, crumple zones and safety
> > frames come into play
> >
> > But go ahead and drive your busted old dungers with crap handling and no
> > safety features, I know I'll have a far better chance of survival when
> > you crash into me
> >
> > Kev
>
> Seeing as my personal car is a Porsche 944 (no ABS, no airbags, no TC,
> etc.) I find your comments amusing. If you can outhandle that car in
> whatever you're driving, I'd be surprised.

A Porsche 944 LOL! You really mean a re-badged Audi coupe.

On Feb 8, 2:16*pm, 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 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 .auhttp://lios.apana.org.au/~c900|http://www.classicsaab.netand other URL's
> EM: | For Saab 99/C900/9000 Enthusiasts World-Wide!
> Alt EM: | Web-forums, galleries, library, links, etc.

Not long ago i drove one of the last 'real' 900's; a turbo manual 5-
door hatch. I have to say i was completely shocked at how well it
drove. Great power, minimal lag, fantastic handling (Audi can't get
cars with engines slung way north of the front axle to handle as
well), heaps of interior space, a boot that rivals a lot of station
wagons and a very solid feel. I used to laugh at Saab fans lamenting
the loss of character after GM stepped in, but i can completely
understand now. Looks are completely subjective and there are plenty
of specialists out there that have absolutely no trouble working on
them.

On Feb 9, 3:45*pm, johannes > wrote:
> N8N wrote:
>
> > On Feb 9, 6:54 am, Kev > wrote:
> > > Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > There are average competent drivers and then there are the average
> > > drivers, huge difference.
> > > And how does one measure what a competent driver is?
> > > I'm sure everyone's self assessment of their driving ability is way
> > > different to their actual driving ability.
>
> > > How often does the average driver actually get into a situation where
> > > things like ABS and stability control are activated?
> > > Hardly ever. So how do you know the average driver is able to control
> > > the vehicle in *such a situation?
> > > You don't.
> > > So with this in mind I'd rather be sharing the roads with people driving
> > > vehicles with these devices than just relying on them being competent
> > > drivers
>
> > > One person may be a great skilled driver, but that won't stop someone
> > > with barely enough skills to walk, let alone drive, from crashing into
> > > them and killing them. This is where airbags, crumple zones and safety
> > > frames come into play
>
> > > But go ahead and drive your busted old dungers with crap handling and no
> > > safety features, I know I'll have a far better chance of survival when
> > > you crash into me
>
> > > Kev
>
> > Seeing as my personal car is a Porsche 944 (no ABS, no airbags, no TC,
> > etc.) I find your comments amusing. *If you can outhandle that car in
> > whatever you're driving, I'd be surprised.
>
> A Porsche 944 LOL! You really mean a re-badged Audi coupe.

I'm not aware of any RWD Audis, certainly not any with a rear mounted
transaxle!

And if you're referring to the fact that the original 924 was
commissioned by Audi... who cares. It's still one of the best
handling cars made.

nate

jackbadger56 wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2:16 pm, 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 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 .auhttp://lios.apana.org.au/~c900|http://www.classicsaab.netand other URL's
>> EM: | For Saab 99/C900/9000 Enthusiasts World-Wide!
>> Alt EM: | Web-forums, galleries, library, links, etc.
>
> Not long ago i drove one of the last 'real' 900's; a turbo manual 5-
> door hatch. I have to say i was completely shocked at how well it
> drove. Great power, minimal lag, fantastic handling (Audi can't get
> cars with engines slung way north of the front axle to handle as
> well), heaps of interior space, a boot that rivals a lot of station
> wagons and a very solid feel. I used to laugh at Saab fans lamenting
> the loss of character after GM stepped in, but i can completely
> understand now. Looks are completely subjective and there are plenty
> of specialists out there that have absolutely no trouble working on
> them.
They are especially popular over here WA and well regarded by the
owners . Many of teh owners are Uni Professors Doctors and nurses and
the many farmers who have had one for yonks and for some reason hang on
to them

When In Tasssie they appear to have a following" as well .
I acquired one of the last 900 TurboÅ› after spending a few grand on
repairs that had to be done the vehicle ended up over capitalised.

Agree with your synopsis 100 % had it about 5 years and one day in a
car park bloke walks up and asks if I want to sell it ?

When asked what we would offer and knowing that many dealers just low
balled them on trade ins His price was fair and more than it owed me .


He still has it loves the thing keeps it pristine
and often have a yak when meet on the roads out here

He is a Chalkie a about 1200 clicks North but does the 2000 click trips
down to perth Via our way over 350000 on the clock ( I put in the
second engine that has done now about 90 to a 100 ) shocks trim and
other bits . Last Time I drove it not a rattle and miss the comfortable
seats when back in it and no dust and still as tight as a drum .
They also hold up well I can attest when meet livestock and wild life at
warp speed

N8N wrote:

>
> Seeing as my personal car is a Porsche 944 (no ABS, no airbags, no TC,
> etc.) I find your comments amusing. If you can outhandle that car in
> whatever you're driving, I'd be surprised.


So your old 944 can out handle the latest Porsche can it? I find that
amusing, and when you wrap it around a power pole after losing control
showing everyone what a great handling car it is you'll still be carried
off to the morgue



Kev

On Feb 8, 8:40*pm, "Noddy" > wrote:
> "Saab C900 Viggenist" > wrote in ...
>
> > 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.

Almost.

THE biggest problem with SAAB's is that they are owned by GM and
priced the same as quality superior vehicles, you would have to be a
RETARD to buy one over superior for same or less.

They are *ok* in Sweden and that part of the world, best they keep
them there though and not export to here.

Just WONDERFUL resale [not!] 50%+ tearup in the first year

NO SUCKER wants to buy SAAB, GM can die with it

A great brand in the past, just let it die [with sister Volvo] as per
Rover

Cheers

"N8N" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 9, 3:45 pm, johannes > wrote:
> N8N wrote:
>
> > On Feb 9, 6:54 am, Kev > wrote:
> > > Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > There are average competent drivers and then there are the average
> > > drivers, huge difference.
> > > And how does one measure what a competent driver is?
> > > I'm sure everyone's self assessment of their driving ability is way
> > > different to their actual driving ability.
>
> > > How often does the average driver actually get into a situation where
> > > things like ABS and stability control are activated?
> > > Hardly ever. So how do you know the average driver is able to control
> > > the vehicle in such a situation?
> > > You don't.
> > > So with this in mind I'd rather be sharing the roads with people
> > > driving
> > > vehicles with these devices than just relying on them being competent
> > > drivers
>
> > > One person may be a great skilled driver, but that won't stop someone
> > > with barely enough skills to walk, let alone drive, from crashing into
> > > them and killing them. This is where airbags, crumple zones and safety
> > > frames come into play
>
> > > But go ahead and drive your busted old dungers with crap handling and
> > > no
> > > safety features, I know I'll have a far better chance of survival when
> > > you crash into me
>
> > > Kev
>
> > Seeing as my personal car is a Porsche 944 (no ABS, no airbags, no TC,
> > etc.) I find your comments amusing. If you can outhandle that car in
> > whatever you're driving, I'd be surprised.
>
> A Porsche 944 LOL! You really mean a re-badged Audi coupe.

I'm not aware of any RWD Audis, certainly not any with a rear mounted
transaxle!

And if you're referring to the fact that the original 924 was
commissioned by Audi... who cares. It's still one of the best
handling cars made.

nate

I have a 1989 Toyota Corolla that I will race you in, only proviso is I get
to choose the track :-)
the lesson you will learn is that you should not make bets you cannot always
win.

--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

N8N wrote:

> Seeing as my personal car is a Porsche 944 (no ABS, no airbags, no TC,
> etc.) I find your comments amusing. If you can outhandle that car in
> whatever you're driving, I'd be surprised.


I should also point out that having a good handling car is no safer if
the driver is incompetent
Now let me guess
you think your a top driver and could handle any situation

Peter Brock was a top driver too


Kev