Have Saab reintroduced hatchback yet?

I suspect a hatch is more rigid because of where the C pillars are actually. They brace the entire rear of the car.

Graham

Says who ?

I don't see it at all. Saloons/sedans look very dated to me. Indeed, as another poster noted, many have almost 'vestigial' boots/trunks now which kind of makes the idea of a boot pointless in the first place.

Graham

How many SUVs have fold down rear seats ?

Graham

I'm not quite sure what you're driving at here. Are you concerned about handling? If so, we can dispel that little myth here and now. If the shell flexed anything like enough to make a significant difference to the handling, there would be all sorts of problems with the hatch as the opening changed size and shape. It'd rattle, leak, burst-open, buckle and the window would break. I'm sure I'd have noticed if anything like that was going on at the back of my car.

I'm not disagreeing that a lot of people see it that way. I'm just pointing out how strange those people are - especially when they supposedly can't bear their cars to be hatchbacks even when they look like hatchbacks.

Yep. People with far more money than sense. It's always amazing how intelligence and wealth really do have absolutely no relationship to one-another.

Cheers,

Colin.

Most if not all.

[...]

Best example of that is the VW Passat. A nice big car, except for the hatch which just seems to be missing, everything else is in the right place. As a consequence, the boot opening is quite small. Just idiotic.

BTW, Graham... I dug out a 1990 copy of CAR earlier for something else.

List prices... Rover 800 range - =A314,995-=A324,870 Saab 900 range - =A311,995-=A325,895 Saab 9000 range - =A315,795-=A326,295

In 1988 I was offered a new Rover 820e for under £10k. So something's amiss with those numbers.

Graham

Which ones? Shall we put them in context? List for a base-spec Rover

414i was =A39,975. A Metro GTi was =A39,500. A Cavalier 1.4L was =A310,065. List for the 820e was =A315,665 for both 4 and 5dr. A 5dr 900S 16v was =A314,995.

Yes, that was 1990 rather than 1988, but any inflation would have affected the Saab price equally. Anyway, 50% inflation in two years?

Would you like me to scan the page if you don't believe me? It's the September '90 issue of CAR, =A32 cover price, Mini Cooper vs the "10 best hot hatches" on the front cover, and a "Giant Test" of Sierra Sapph Cosworth 4x4 vs R21 turbo Quadra inside - the Cossie came off best by a long way, btw. Oh, and the reason I've got that issue is the large obit article for the recently ceased-production 2cv.

No, either you are lying or your memory is failing you.

In the (American) family, we have three, two have folding seats. All three have removable seats. One has a reconfigurable interior, of a sorts.

Car buyers.

As we have tried to explain, you are one voice in many thousands.

It's okay to dislike them, but you can't argue in the face of the sales figures.

There - I corrected the post for you. ;)

You are wrong.

No they don't.

A hatchback has a great big opening at the back. Saloons don't. The weaker chassis stiffness of a hatchback can be designed out of the machine over a given generation - so a mark three Mondeo hatchback is going to be stiffer than a mark one / two Mondeo saloon, but the hatchback is usually not as stiff as the saloon.

It's a bit more subtle than this.

The next time you read a car advert, it may mention that the chassis is X% stiffer than the previous generation, so it can improve the handling and ride - usually at the same time. This is one reason why the (say) BMW

3-Series rides well and handles well. There are other reasons too, like low unsprung mass, which helps.

But anyway, the reason why a stiffer chassis can improve the ride and handling is that as chassis bends and flexes over use, the suspension is less efficient or more compromised. Those small movements do, I'm led to believe, make an appreciable difference.

It'll only be subtle, the bodywork will be built to a tolerance, so you probably won't notice it - not to mention that windscreens are structural components. But bits move ever so slightly. At the same time the suspension components are also moving. Of a sort, the chassis is partially acting as the suspension. Of course, over a tight corner, the suspension is better at being suspension than the chassis twist.

This is partially the reason why your 9-3 will have a top mounted chassis brace in the engine compartment. The other is that it improves crash robustness.

It's strange isn't it? I have a sneaky suspicion that the manufacturers originally designed hatchback-shaped saloons to benefit from the improved structural strength (for crash protection and improving the drive) without making the car _look_ as though it was designed to be stronger, if you see what I mean...

Well, kinda. I don't lease something myself, instead, I prefer to buy them when they come off lease. :)

It's great, isn't it? People who must have the latest in (whatever) usually have no appreciation for what their discarded item is worth.

I love these people. I'm the second buyer of the item. :)

I would consider a VW Passat, was it not for that single serious flaw.

I tried to persuade my Dad not to buy diesel saloon automatic. "If you want a diesel auto it needs to be a Mercedes. Or the estate, just, not the saloon." He insisted. Bought the top spec model.

Now he wants to change. :-/

There is an awful lot of bullshit talked on adverts. a chassis which is a few percent stiffer on a road car will make no discernable difference to the handling. It would be a different story on a race car where the chassis needs to be lightweight, making flex a problem, and at the same time, the suspension is very stiff. What you see on the adverts is just a cynical attempt to sell cars on a bogus parallel with race cars.

Not on a standard road car with standard road suspension. You'd have to stiffen the suspension to a enormous degree before chassis movement started to become significant compared to suspension movement.

My guess is that the strut brace is more of a marketing ploy than anything else - same as the boot spoiler.

You and me both. As long as they don't all make such stupid decisions that there's nothing worthwhile left for us to buy!

Cheers,

Colin.

Well, I got a Cavalier 2.0i GLS For under £10k in April '88. I could have had the top-of-the-range CD model too for under 10k as it happens.

It looks like the 'official' prices are ever so slightly optimistic. I'll bet Saab dealers didn't offer the same kind of discounts that Rover dealers did.

Graham