Mini Review...

It's ok I'd suppose. Welcome to Saab, although not the classic stuff, if I may say so. Here I drive a 1995 9000 CSE 2.3 Auto Full Turbo, but brilliant; timing chain, balancer shafts, genuine Saab engine. Also very rapid if I may say so. Spacious and practical large hatchback.

At the 50mph roadworks, I was recently tailgated by a Boxer in the fast lane. When the cancellation sign came up, he immediately blinked that he wanted to get past. The turbo APC + kickdown left him as a pinprick in the rear mirror... Couldn't resist.

Didn't think those Peugeot vans were particularly fast?

Eurww, spoiler. It wasn't Peugeot van I referring to... :)

So you meant "Boxster"?

As someone who has a Boxster and a Saab... If it was a poverty 2.5 Boxster, then the Saab would leave it standing. But not if it were a 3.2S.

Really? 2.5 has similar power weight ratio . . .

but the owners have light feet.

A N/A with the same power as a turbo will be very deficient in mid range. So a block down change would be needed and if not prepared for the turbocharged departure would be caught out.

Which is a point I might have made, having just gone from a lazy turbo petrol to an 8000rpm vtec. Similar 'power' and pace on paper, but takes a lot more, er, commitment to get anything out of the Honda.

Quite a hoot, all the same :-)

Also, the Saab turbo has APC which allows momentarily overboost until things gets too hot. That's how it can sprint away. Only problem is a slight lag when full blast is demanded. But that wasn't a problem in the above situation.

Urban stories says that it will outsprint Ferraris and Porsches, though don't necessarily believe everything, but that one seems to go around for a while, even mentioned in Top-gear, although with the usual Clarkson smirk...

Obviously, if you boot an auto it will give its best. With a manual, you'd need to be in the right gear.

Basically, when you get these stories about an 'ordinary' car beating a Porsche etc, it may just mean the Porsche wasn't trying.

On 30/11/2014 12:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: [////]

So why was he tailgaiting and flashing near the end of 50mph roadwork?

Because he wanted you to slow down, it is remarkably effective at getting people off your tail.

You are mixed up there, I wasn't tailgaiting anyone.

Yes, quite so - 'operator error' :-)

I'm not used to driving a high reving car, and the combination of noise, getting in the power band, and accurate gear changes takes getting used to.

That would be my view. Coupled with many drivers don't know how to try, or feel they may break the car.

Well, I think you know the answer. The reason you left them behind is as much to do with the way that the cars were driven, as the cars themselves, IMO.

Could be you were doing rather less than 50 mph. Who knows? But it doesn't mean he would accelerate at the maximum possible when passing you anyway.

Odd that he would be waiting until near the end of 50mph roadwork.

Quite true. However, I have learned to predict driver behaviour in many new situations based on observation of particular driving style. I can often predict when e.g. a driver wants to get ahead at all costs or just stay behind. When a driver will offer you space or will just close the door.

But we also want conserve the mechanics; this is not a race track. I'm well aware of this driving a 19 year old car...

A Boxster 2.5 only has 204bhp. They're not fast and are relatively heavy.

Never worried about that with the old Rover - and it's 30 years old. ;-)

Because you were not passing anything at the time? That does not mean he was wanting accelerate as much as possible, nor to race with you.