9-3 2003-2005 Safety Rating - Double Pick

See

formatting link
Looks like SAAB did a good job engineering in crash safety.

Reply to
dxyzc
Loading thread data ...

They always have.

Reply to
Dave Hinz

skrev i en meddelelse news:8Xqvd.16056$ snipped-for-privacy@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...

Old news. ;o)

Cheers!

Reply to
Henrik B.

The bad news is GM punished the Saab engineers for modifying the car to earn this rating. GM wanted to save money by using the same parts and chassis across several GM brands. The Saab engineers modified the generic GM chassis for the Saab 9-3 model. GM response: the Saab engineering team was broken up and reassigned to other GM units. The GM spokesperson said no one will care if the car has generic GM parts or parts developed only for Saab.

GM is wrong - we do care. I drive a Classic Saab . . .

Reply to
ma_twain

Do you have a source for this? I find it unlikely that GM wouldn't have caught and dealt with the engineers *before* they started mass-producing the car. It seems like it would be rather difficult to modify the chassis without anyone from GM realizing or, if they did realize, without them doing something about until after the car was built.

Reply to
Shane Almeida

It was in the Wall Street Journal, maybe about a month ago.

I find it unlikely that GM wouldn't have

I don't find it unlikely. Do you really think the accountants in the GM headquarters and GM executives get out and prowl around the design labs of every factory? Once the 9-3 was built and crash tested, it was too late amd too expensive to "roll back" the change. The only thing the GM execs could do was make an example of the Saab engineers who pulled a fast one on them.

Reply to
ma_twain

I'm assuming that changing a chassis on a car that's already been designed is not easy to do. Isn't the point of a common chassis reduced R&D and production costs? It seems like that would be an undertaking that wouldn't go unnoticed. Wouldn't you have to modify the assembly line to produce a different product? Unless I'm overestimating the work involved in changing the design, I can't imagine those kinds of changes going unnoticed. Maybe the changes they made were small but important?

Reply to
Shane Almeida

Major changes can go unnoticed by higher level execs and accountants all the time. How many times have your heard "Who authorized that change?" after a product/system fails after being put into production. Only then does it get the attention of the execs. In this case, it was not a failure but an embarassing success. The questions asked probably included why did the Saab chassis do so well when the other common chassis vehicles did not. Yes, the car won the highest crash test rating, but it failed to save money. Which do you think is more important to the execs and accountants?

Reply to
ma_twain

With GM being the proud recipient of that record damages award --

15 gigabucks in 1999, was it? -- GM's brass should be handing out bouquets to the Saab-versives.

-- Andrew Stephenson

Reply to
Andrew Stephenson

Hmm, maybe that should have read...

With GM being the losing defendant in that record damages case --

15 gigabucks in 1999, was it? -- GM's brass should be handing out bouquets to the Saab-versives.

-- Andrew Stephenson

Reply to
Andrew Stephenson

Thanks, I was sort of confused for a moment.

Reply to
Retro Bob

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.