Did she consider a Volvo V70 XC? Do they market that in the US? It's like a Swedish Subaru Outback, if they don't - very, very, very nice indeed, but more expensive than our American-built favourite :)
(My dad, with my encouragement, has an Outback, after he used my Legacy
2.2GX, bought it off me, then replaced it with a Legacy 4Cam Turbo (which I got back for a little while when he got the Outback. That was a lovely car)).
Actually, point out that the Outback is made in America. Maybe that'll help.
I saw it at the LA auto show, and my buddy and I knew going in that it was "based" on the WRX, which I took to mean chassis and drivetrain, but we were surprised to see just how much WRX was visible. They had it roped off on a pedastal, but it had the WRX dash with the same A/C vents, with basically the same trim except faceplates for the stereo/AC controls were different. Looked like the same instrument cluster and steering column controls, and it even had the same pedals as the WRX. I don't remember if they kept the Momo wheel, but I probably would have remembered if it did. All the quoted HP and other engine specs were identical to WRX. There was nothing about the car that suggested the differences were more than a few sheet metal pieces, stereo faceplates and the leather seats, and leather door panel trim.
I thought it sounded like a interesting car, and I still do, just not very interesting. I like the body, especially the wagon, and I liked the idea of a WRX with a bit more upscale interior. But the car I saw did not look upscale enough to justify the price premium they will want. For me, it's not worth any premium over the WRX, but still a cool little car.
When I saw it they didn't have brochures published yet, so maybe that car was not 100% production, but it will still be very Subaru.
Not exactly. The reviews I've read seem to indicate that the Tribute's suspension is tuned for better handling than the other versions.
Well - doing a bit more research finds that the current Volvo Cross- Country is built on the same platform. Of course Ford owns Volvo Cars (but not trucks), Land Rover, and a controlling interest in Mazda. There has been some "cross-pollination" between Ford and Mazda, such as the MX6/Probe.
Why would it be problematic? It will just kill most of the 9-3 sales. Big dial.
9-3 is a piece of garbage anyway. Imagine the DBwhatever/Thunderbird on ice commerical in the latest Bond flick replaced by a commerical for two crappy FWD european cars. I would imagine the words coming out of the mouth of the professional drivers trying to stop the spins and do the other fun stuff they did with the cars in the movie :-)
A lot of car buyers don't care for anything, but the badge on the grille. I'm reminded of that simple fact every day by grandmas in beemers tiptoing around the corners. I'd be surprised if the vast majority of the Saab customers would know where
9-2 came from and would care much if they did. 9-2 would be a statusmobile and a Subaru just can't be because it does not have any "prestige" status associated with the marque. It's all about brainwashing (this particular flavor is called "branding" in the mba-speak, I think)
One could argue that AWD system in A4 is by far better than that in a Volvo. It's probably even better than that in a Subaru with an automatic and probably at least as good as awd in a 5sp Subarus. If not better.
They WILL be the same car for 2005. As it stands, the 2004 Freelander is currently mfg in England. Of course, each badge is free to make minor tweaks to suit their customers.
The 9000 was a joint venture with Fiat, and was distinctly a Saab through and through. The 9-3 and 9-5 were all GM (who also owns Vauxhall). My wife had a 9-5 SE and it was a pretty good car. I've owned 3 80s 900s, 2 90s 900s and a NG 900s and 9000 as well as the
9-5. the 9000 was as much a saab as any. the new generation 900s and
9-3, well, lets say for me it was the beginning of the end for my relationship with Saab as a loyal owner.
I think that you're way ahead of yourself on both counts, after doing some research. The next gen Freelander is apparently tipped to use the Escape/Maverick (both the same Ford, Maverick is the tag in the UK) chassis, but the current one is a Land Rover design (BMW ownership era, IIRC). It's been nothing but trouble for Ford, so I can't blame them.
The XC40 - and 'current' S/V40 models, rather than the Carisma based model recently on sale (and still available from stock) is based on the next gen Focus; or to be more precise, the next gen Focus and present C-Max are based on a Volvo/Ford designed platform; this may have elements of the Escape/Tribute/Maverick platform or the next gen models of those may also be based on the C-Max platform. Platform is a very loose term, after all.
I reckon so with the XC90, since it's huge and a BMW X5/Toureg/M-class competitor (and IMO considerably better value than any of those in the UK).
These things seem to change all the time. However - I believe that my source was an article from a Land Rover magazine, and it might have been before it was in the design stage. I thought I'd read that the current Freelander was also built on the Escape platform, although it may have just been some articles about Ford's future plans.
I've heard from a pretty reliable source that the 9.2X will start at $22k and top out right around $30k. According to the Subaru web site the WRX is also right aroud $30k. The Saab will have nicer interior, a better suspension and of course have the Saab name on it and Saab dealers to back it up. It is much smaller than the 9.3 and I don't forsee too many people trading their 9.3's on it. It really is targeting a whole different audience. I can see Saab owners buying the 9.2 for a second car or as a car for their teenage drivers. It will also bring in new owners to Saab, who have always wanted one but couldn't afford one. I for one think it will be a success.
As far as saying the 9.3 is a piece of garbage, the 9.3 Sport Sedan is one of the best Saab's they have ever made. What makes you say it's a piece of garbage, I'd be curious to know. Is this from experience or do you suffer from euro car envy. (The fact that you can't afford one)
Since Subaru make world-beating rally cars /now/ when Saab haven't made one for, oh, about 20-30 years, I think I know whose suspension is going to be 'better' - and it ain't the company that bases cars on old Opels.
As for the interior, everything I've seen states that the 9-2's dash is just the same as an Impreza dash; plasticky, bland, well made but utterly, utterly un-Saab like, rather like the current 9-3 in fact.
I know this isn't in response to me (I wouldn't, though, I'm lucky in that I have a threaded newsreader. Learn to quote), however... the 9-3 is /not/ one of the best Saabs 'tney' have ever made. It's a bland, derivative car based on a lifeless platform, and is an insult to the name Saab - the last good Saab was the C900 (classic 900, with proper wrap-around windscreen) Turbo. The 9000 is a Lancia Thema with a nicer dashboard, the 900/old 9-3 is a Vauxhall Vectra with a makeover and a nicer dashboard, and the 9-5 is a 9-3 on a stretched chassis. It's not bad, but it's not a good Saab.
As for Euro car envy, don't kid yourself. The world is bigger than the US, and I'm guessing that your response was aimed at someone from Australia, where they get the best mix of Euro styling and ideas and US 'technology' - and a lot of excellent machinery from Japan since they drive on the left and are very close. As for me, I don't suffer from Euro car envy because a hell of a lot of Euro cars are cheaper here than in the US. I can't afford a 9-3, but you know - if I could, I'd have almost anything else, perhaps a Mercedes, or a BMW, or Audi, or maybe a Volvo, or a Subaru Outback, or a Chrysler 300M (I like the 300C a great deal, and the M has the correct driven wheels and a V8), or a VW Passat W12, or... well, you get the idea. The 9-3 is /not/ a good car, there are considerably better, more attractive, more competent, more innovative cars on the market. This is what happens when GM gets hold of a company.
I like real GMs; tough old Cadillacs and Buicks with separate chassis, suspension that will take a dirt road, and interiors that may be ugly and brittle, but at least the seats are comfy and most of it works until the car dies. When GM tries to do 'sophisticated', it ends up with 'mess'.[1]
Richard [1] The exception to this rule is Cadillac, with the CTS-V and the XLR (IIRC), both deeply attractive, technologically advanced cars that actually do things well - though Cadillac has always been innovative. Mercedes want to harp on about the S-class 12-cylinder engine which shuts off cylinders, or 'closure assist' features on the trunk and doors? A 1981 Eldorado has those things.
To me any FWD car >$15-20k is trash. Below that it's economy :-) I think BMW
3 series are pretty decent, as are A4 quattros. I don't think I suffer (much :) from Euro car envy (with the possible exception of A4, but, much to my relief, they got uglier this year). Of course if you're like my ex and are only concerned about the shape of the sheet metal then BMW maybe is a car for you. But to me WRX and STi are better value for the money. Nevermind the looks of the STi :-(
This is priceless. Thank you. My understanding is that the same system is used in Audi A3, TT and VW Golf R32. The shopping list is getting smaller and smaller :-)
Actually - the WRX STi (a totally different beast altogether) runs about $30K. I think a WRX wagon would likely top out around $26-27K with factory options.
The one thing GM does really well is pickup trucks. Big engine, big transmission, big suspension. I don't know if anyone really makes better pickup trucks than GMC or Chevys.
I remember looking up a GM transmission, and finding out the 5-sp automatic used in the CTS is made in Strasbourg, France. It's also used in various BMWs (3-series/X3/X5/Z4), the Opel Omega (not familiar with it), and Range Rovers. Of course I'd probably get a CTS with the stick, if I didn't think it looked absolutely hideous.
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.