You are quite right about Mondeos and 9-3's being in different leagues. The Mondeo has one of the best suspension systems available on a medium priced car. Forget the Saab name and look under the skin. Its a matter of Ford engineering versus GM engineering. Fortunately for the Saab division a lot of buyers are guided by hype. The best thing about Saabs is their low second hand value for people who want something cheap that appears to be better than the big sellers. Fleet buyers know otherwise.
If Saab want to distinguish their cars from e.g. Fords and Vauxhalls, then they must eliminate rattle and squeaks. My 1993 9000 CSE has none! My Fiat Croma had quite a few rattles and it took all the pleasure away. The folding rear set mechanism was a source of rattle, I fixed it myself by jamming some cloth into the stops. The fascia always rattled, I think a small washer was left behind somewhere and produced the rattle like a rattlesnake.
Motoring journos often write about cheaper plastics being used nowadays, even in quality cars such as Volvo, Mercedes. The explanation given, or maybe the excuse, is that the materials must now be re-cyclable. One more reason to hang on to my 9000.
No action IIRC only escorting Russian planes away from the UK coast. I witnessed the Lightning when the prototype was being flown from Preston. Its ability to flick roll was astonishing and to an engineer it was a joy to watch. It was in a different league to a Spitfire which was a toy in comparison. Incidentally if you are interested in Merlins read 'Not Much of an Engineer' by Dr Stanley Hooker. The coincidence which enabled the Merlins power development is surprising.
The Vulcan was awesome;) I used to see that thing at the Dayton Airshow in Ohio. If any airplane can rattle fillings out of teeth, the Vulcan is it. The last time I saw a Vulcan was ~1982 and shortly after the same bomber crashed at an airshow in Chicago:( I still remember hearing about the Black Buck raids during the Falklands!
But the last great fighter was the F-8 Crusader..."When you're out of F-8's...you're out of Fighters" and "Last of the Gunfighters"
There is a group in the UK raising money to put a Vulcan back into flight.
I understand from my brother-in-law who witnessed it that it was indeed worthy of the term 'Awesome' which tends to be a little over used these days IMHO.
Al
I couldn't agree more. It is very annoying.
I am actually working on fixing at least a couple of the more major door rattles this weekend. Will post my results.
I've read that as well. Given Saab's involvement in auto recycling programmes in the UK, it fits.
- tex
Actually my prior Ford Focus was quiet as could be...not a squeak or creak anywhere
- tex
Hmm, yes I guess image is somewhat important, but the main reasons we choose saabs are, (in no particullar order) Strength/safety (Again old saabs are IMHO safer than most other cars of their generation) Cockpit layout/ergonomics Looks Driveability I guess brand loyalty comes into it too.(stick with what you know) Finding a SAAB specialist I can trust. High mileage achieveable
I am not however ashamed to say I like being seen driving a SAAB, it has kudos for me. I wear Primark clothes, I eat Morrisons food, but I draw the line at what I drive.
True, maybe not out of the box, but Abbott and others can turn them into monsters if that's your desire. Anyway I have my C900 Aero for that....which I guess supports your line eh? :-)
Al
in article RiDve.68709$ snipped-for-privacy@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk, Al at snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote on 26/06/2005 20:25:
The seemingly endless torque on the C900 turbo is something quite special. The relentless acceleration of a straight six BMW is something, too (and quite noisy with a Grüppe M intake) :) I, too, have not felt either in an NG900 or a 9-3.
Now, a tuned 2.3 9000 (or even a standard Aero) is very nice and IMO, more smooth and more relentless than either the aforementioned and that said, a shame that the 9-5 could not quite match that feeling ... and perhaps why people start to look away from SAAB at that point.
It is interesting to note that Maptun offer up to 340 BHP for the mighty
9-5, yet the 9000 has tuning kits offered up to 500 BHP.Paul
Var tog vägen vägen? SAAB : Nothing on earth comes close
in article RiDve.68709$ snipped-for-privacy@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk, Al at snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote on 26/06/2005 20:25:
They do turn heads and a certainly still considered to be the thinking man's marque. Just :)
I continue to drive my C900 because, to borrow a phrase, I can't find a reason not to. I adored the car when I was younger and vowed to own one ... now I do, I'm simply not interesting really in anything as a replacement.
Paul
1989 900 Turbo S
Especially if you're the target!
Tex wrote: >
You apparently did not push them very hard. The BMW, with its RWD and
50/50 weight distribution, is relatively neutral with only a touch of understeer, which can be modulated with varying the input to the (rear) drive wheels. The SAAB being a FWD wants to plow through corners with incredible amount of understeer and pressing the accelerator only makes the situation worse.-Fred W
OK..._you_ tell me if I pushed the 9-3 hard enough. On several runs I got it up to 60-65 mph (100 km/h) then, at short distance (less than 40 ft...about 1/2 sec of drive time) and w/o braking (and other runs w/braking but f/higher speeds / & w/& w/o esp), steered it around an object directly in the line of travel. Now, I can't say it was easy doing this maneuvre, but the car definitely followed my command unhesitantly.
Actually, under hard braking (typical of an emergency accident avoidance situation or simply coming into a curve/corner at high speed w/brakes applied) a car will naturally lurch forward, shifting its weight distribution directly onto the front tires. This is good because this is exactly where the car needs the best traction (both for steering control and braking). So whilst from a topical viewpoint, a car with a 50/50 weight distribution _sounds_ good, in reality a car which has a slight weight bias towards the front wheels will indeed provide the driver better control in both steering and braking.
And you've experienced this firsthand? While this may be true for other fwd cars, it's definitely, not true for the 9-3.
You're bringing this topic up with the right person. Having driven the 9-3,
9-5 and 9-2x under conditions which should have lead all three to illustrate severe understeer, I found neither of them to display severe understeer. I actually did find the 9-2x a bit unruly in the slalom (w/late apex turns) but eventually managed to get it to perform well. The 9-3's and 9-5's both performed very well. Despite its fwd platform, the 9-3 displayed no understeer at all. It gripped amazingly well through the turns w/o even having to tap the brakes once for additional downforce (which I had to do numerous times with the awd 9-2x).I had an accompaying professional race car driver whilst doing these maneuvres and he walked away saying the same things about the car (yes, he was driving it as well).
- tex
I took our 2001 9-3 on a drive through some very tight S-curves on a steep uphill, under full turbo boost. This resulted in a real wresting match between me and the torque steer. Fortunately I won :) I've driven the same thing in a
2.5 L 6 cyl BMW Z3 convertible, and found myself with an understeer problem (rear wheels breaking free of the road a bit). In both cars, the traction control system kicked in. On the whole, I think the BMW has the advantage. It definitely would if I had more experience driving RWD cars.I guess my impression of the 9-3 is that it can easily generate more torque than I can control in tight curves (due primarily to torque steer). I bet the
9-3 could take the 2.5 Z3 in out-and-out acceleration, which is impressive given that the 9-3 is a way heavier car. I don't know what the actual 0-60 time of each car is, so this is all utter speculation.John
A smart driver tries *not* do his steering and hard braking at the same time. It's better to get the majority of braking done *before* entering the corner and the only light braking if any, transitioning to acceleration on the exit.
Yes, under heavy braking almost all of any car's weight will be toward the front. And in the reverse situation, under acceleration, the weight is shifted toward the rear, which is another reason that it makes a lot of sense to have the drive wheels back there, huh? The 50/50 weight distribution thing is a very salient measurement.
Of course.
I must confess that I have not driven one of the newer 9-3SS, and perhaps these are better. But I have my doubts as I *have* owned a
2000 9-3SE CV and it had serious under-steer, as well as torque steer, cowl shake and host of other handling ills. I got rid of it 6 months after I bought it. I also currently own a '98 900SE and a '93 9000CSET and have in the past owned a '93 9000T and a '90 C900. These all pushed pretty somewhat in the corners, though not as bad as the '00 ragtop.I also presently own 3 RWD BMWs, all of which handle far better, IMO. It is simply the physics of Front vs Rear wheel drive. It is a personal preference, I suppose, but the contrast is so stark *to me* that I have difficulty understanding anyone preferring FWD *handling* to RWD. There are other attributes that I could see could make one prefer a SAAB over a BMW, but I just don't see handling being one.
-Fred W
It is probably not a very fair comparison as the Z3 is a sports car (2 seat roadster) and the SAAB is a sport sedan, but you do confirm my assertion about the handling characteristic difference between FWD and RWD.
Just for fun... from the following web page:
The Fastest BMWs: 2002 BMW M Roadster 4.5 sec 2002 BMW Z8 4.5 2002 BMW M3 4.7
A "standard" SAAB sedan: 1999 Saab 9-3 SE 6.8 sec 2000 9-5 Aero 7.0 sec
A "standard" BMW sedan: 1999 BMW 328i 6.9 sec 2001 BMW 330i 6.1 sec 1997 BMW 528i (manual) 6.8 sec
So, you can see that the BMWs elite cars are far faster. Even with the turbo vs NA, they are quite close in terms of 0-60 acceleration when you look at the models that we "mere mortals" might be driving... though my Z3 does have some pretty good numbers:
1997 BMW Z3 2.8L 6.2 sec-Fred W
No TORQUE steer PERIOD in the 9-3SS, a completely different and stiffer drive!
Saab did it well, using this platform.
SaabGuy
True, but if you're the target, by the time you've heard it you probably don't have any ears/brain/anatomy left to register the sound!
Al
Hmmmm. That is news to me, good news. I will have to test-drive one then. Especially considering the fire-sale prices they seem to be going at these days.
I've been tempted to go to the local SAAB stealer anyway and test-drive a 9-2 turbo just for grins. I think the AWD would be kind of fun to play around with and a boxer engine seems attractive to me, even if it is a Subaru. It appears you can pick one of those up for a very short song.
-Fred W
Fred,
Also you won't be able to pick up any more 9-2x's after the end of next year. It
2004, 2005 with 9-2x Linear and Aero models, and then in 2006 will just be a Linear model then that's history, no more.You should have seen the Saab Performance Team driving the 4 red 9-3SS's in Sweden at the 2005 Saab Festival! Amazing the stunts they could pull there with those!
SaabGuy
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.