Lifetime of Saab

in article 4561f5c9$0$2446$ snipped-for-privacy@news.zen.co.uk, DervMan at snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote on 20/11/2006 18:16:

FIATs have come a long way since those dark days ... Our '99 Punto Sporting just refuses to do anything wrong or show signs of failing. True, it's getting on a little now but we've done nothing but normal maintenance and it's bailed us out a couple of times when the old SAAB has been a little reluctant :)

That said, our son has one of those MK2 Selespeed time bombs (you know, with the Ferrari paddles) :( On the face of it, it seems okay, but it's going to go horribly wrong one day ...

Paul

1989 900 Turbo S

How old do u want them? The 1986 Croma had galvanised body. My 1987 model I had didn't rust on the body for 10 years, only the side window frames.

In other words, you're not worth wasting much time on, you see. I mean, I could go out and google _for_ you, but I really don't see what would be in it for me. Was it you who was wrong also about the balance shaft gear?

No, those were designed by DKW, as you should know given your arrogant claims of expertise. And, while the 1.75 and 1.85 litre inline 4's could be considered the Triumph/Ricardo engines, and the "B" engine could marginally be, by the time of the H engine (as in the car the OP was asking about) it's been pretty much completely re-engineered. As you must know, of course.

Hint: You're not the only engineer here, several of us on the board may have owned more types and examples than you have, and I know plenty of other engineers who try to talk with authority on situations they do not understand adequately.

Is it?

Maybe all these people are just, you know, lying or something.

There you go again. Here let's pretend I researched and posted a laundry list of things Saab either did first, or made workable first, and you disregard them as trivial and/or not purely original. Then let's pretend that we played word games and bullshit over the definition of "invented" and got nowhere. (whew) just saved 3 iterations of posts.

Yes, it's apparent that you don't see it.

In article , snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com says...

Rather than prentending we did all kinds of reasearch we haven't really done, and came up with all kinds of astonishing results that are not really demonstrable, a more rational approach would be to look at the intentions and acheivements of the marque. Saab began as a diversification effort for an aircraft manufacturer who saw their market eroding at the end of WWII. Their intention was unabashedly to make the most economical car they could, and their model was the DKW. Through the 1960's their production could be compared with the most economical cars available on the market. As they sought to move their market to a more global stature, Saab, like other European maunfacturers, felt they needed to make a market shift upwards, partly to make more inroads on the US market. The 99 models had lots of teething problems, but did manage to move the car into the doctors' and lawyers' court, largely through a slightly "offbeat" design program that fit with Americans' taste for things European at that time, as well as a spirit of innovation and a demonstrable concern for safety features. They did a remarkably good job of maintaining this spirit and image through the 900 model years, but the iconoclast image increasingly became a "niche" market, unable to fulfill their global sales objectives. No longer able to subsist in a world market, on the basis of their sales alone, they were acquired by GM, who have until now striven to preserve the appeal of the marque whilst applying a "rational" program of supply, manufacture and distribution. Automobile manufacture today comprising very few real trade secrets, there is absolutely nothing wrong with an Opel Astra car and a Japanese engine with a slightly "remodeled" Saab exterior, even if, inevitably, the car begins to look more and more like the banal, mix-and-match production it has become.

I don't see anything wrong with this story, except for the unhappy ending. I regret, as you probably do, that this slightly unusual, forward-looking approach could not, in today's market, be greeted with better success, but this is not sufficient for me to subscribe to every sort of mythology about the marque, or to ascribe to them all sorts of secret inventions, so sophisticated as to be as yet impenetrable to the rest of the industry, not the least of which is the reciprocating piston engine not subject to the types of wear their bretheren suffer, and thus capable of lasting "forever".

GF

Because this car does not belong in the post 94 GM world of one lump fits all.

Before Ebay banned the sale of organs, pets and children?

You are again assuming you're the only one who knows about the topic. But by all means, do go on and on with your interpretation of that which some of us know possibly better than you; go ahead, we're all waiting with, um, varying degrees of interest I suppose.

You're also apparently unaware that sometimes ones doesn't have to to "research" on a topic, if they already know about it. Do I have to "research" that a workable turbo went into production in 1977? (insert quibble about the word "production", go ahead if you must).

Wrong. So much for your "facts". Hint: there's this thing called "google", another called "wikipedia", and a third being direct personal experience. You would benefit from applying any of them.

Wow. That was a really long sentence. You seem obsessed about this "forever" word. So what did you think about the high mileage listings? Yes, on a cosmic time scale, these cars don't last "forever", nobody has claimed otherwise.

Did you have any facts to add to the discussion, or should I just expect you to come up with more errors like your claim about Saab making a model called the DKW...

DKW was the manufacturer of 2 & 3 cylinder 2 stroke engine which saab up to and including the 96 model

Ken

Saabfreak!

88 900T SportsPack 8v (Battleship Galactica) '72 99 2.0 CM4 (Old Git) '96 9000T CSE '93 900 16v SE LPT (F**king Shed!) '83 99 5spd

The later the Saab, the more generic - but that's not to say there are not still different and unique features in '94 onwards Saabs.

I was wondering if anybody would spot that. Here it means "born" heh.

Yes - they have. Most manufacturers have too, I'm pleased to say.

Some *cough Volkswagen cough* have not.

That's perfect, though. Oh, hold on, it's Italian: perfect-o, heh. :-p

Yes. My Cinquecento was reliable. Okay except for the indicator stalk refusing to self correct, the rust that came up in the back and the tappets failing. It was great fun...

:)

Ahhh you don't know your cars do you?

You were bought around 9 months earlier. You came off the production line 2 weeks before the Fiat was bought.

In your case your owners had to pre-order you, pay a deposit and then keep paying the installments for anything like the next 20-25 years. Had you been ordered in pink colour the installments could reappear

10-20 years after your owners thought they paid for you.

And on it goes ... bottom line I don't like the 9-3 (too small) and the

9-5 is too big. So what am I going to do after the 9000.

:-) Charles

PS. Might as well contribute some complete and utter garbage to the discussion too.

Two 9-3s?

(slight chuckle) I admit my phrase was not well formulated. By "model" I meant "example" - the thing they were emulating! I actually saw the ambiguity, but out of laziness I decided to credit the reader with sufficient understanding - but then - need I say more? I do apologize for the ambiguity.

Contrary to what you seem to think, I do not believe or profess to be any sort of expert on Saab automobiles. If you read the thread I don't think you'll find any assertion of the sort. In 1990, when I bought my 5th Saab, the company sent me a book, "The First Forty Years," and I read it. I'm sure many others here have as well. Not enough to make one an expert, but just enough to know that DKW (and BMW, and Volvo) are not Saab automobiles!

Do I detect a short-term memory failure? I was only responding to your own claim of "pretending" to do research! This was supposed to be so compelling as to preclude any possible rejoinder on my behalf! (A usenet classic - I'll have to remember that one!) For my part I have not done, or even pretended to do any research in the context of this discussion.

Well, that -IS- the topic of this discussion. It would appear I need to remind you of your own argument. Your argument is in defense of the proposition that Saab engines last "forever". I know it was not you who made that claim, and I accept that the claim was made with some degree of hyperbole, but my objection to it is the basis of your reaction, and if one is to credit you with the least grain of sanity, it can only be that you believe this claim to be true.

So what did you think about the high mileage

I have an axe that's as old as me and will survive me. It has had three new heads and four new handles . . . I have also owned six Saabs, and changed out about that many engines and gearboxes. Those listings do not say anything about that.

I do think it's interesting that many of the cars that have inspired the most boastful claims for longevity and reliability are those that were developed with no pretention other than to make the cheapest, most accessible transportation. The French 2CV. The Volkswagen Beetle. The early Saabs. The Mercedes, incontestably better engineered machines, do not have vociferous fan clubs in the background, measuring mileage statistics!

GF

Yes, on a cosmic time scale, these cars don't last "forever",

Sort of. They designed it originally but Saab modified the design significantly throughout the years, and manufactured it.

Oh true. Very true. Infact, one of the possible options to replae the octie come change time is a GM Saab, although I might be tempted by a late 9000 2.3 FPT.

Have you looked closely at the newer 9-3 Sport Sedans yet? While the exterior dimensions have not changed greatly from the OG 9-3's, the interior room is quite a bit better. The back seat is actually usable by full size adults.

I had one as a loan when mine was in for a service (yes I pay dealer prices ... getting old to get underneath the car on a gravel drive). When I am on the drivers seat you could only get a 10 year old behind me. Simply getting in/out of the car, reaching the controls etc. the

9-5 is more agreeable with me. Then I would like it in estate form (station wagon) but it could double up as an undertaker's car :-)

I also had on loan a 9-5 estate diesel (2.2L engine yikes) which did nothing for me ... It was battleship gray outside and it was battleship gray inside. How interesting :-(

Both cars made me appreciate the one I have. It is more fun, and if it is a bit short on the leg position for the driver it feels more vroom-vroom (if you know what i mean). Also if I go vroom-vroom I tend to sit more upright (as in the C900s). The newer SAABs give me the impression that the seat is lower (more like BMWs).

All said and done a 9-5 aero wheel spinning and sliding a bit might put a smile on my face. The 9-3 I drove (also diesel 1.9 sport, and the 9-5 diesel) where a bad move from the dealer to give them to me as courtesy cars.

For now I am staying with the 9000 for a while longer. It will soon mark 100k miles.

:-) Charles

"Charles C." wrote

Did you find the seat height adjustment? I personally like my 9-3 seat just above the lowest position to keep my head off the headliner. Seeing as you are under 100k, you got plenty of time to change driving styles before making a real decision.