From: DavidR on
"Road_Hog" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> Why would a SAAB buyer want a car that is basically a Vectra chassis with
> a different body and pay several thousand more for the privilege.

A platform is only a few bits of bent metal. But bits of metal fashioned in
a clever and very expensive way.

The expense is now so high is it possible to for a small company with a
small budget able to make something better (and make a profit)?

Actually, I think Saabs downfall must have started long before GM took
over. A reminder of what things were like in 1989. ...
http://www.david.eazyrider.co.uk/public/pictures/SaabAd.jpg



From: Adrian on
"DavidR" <curedham(a)4bidden.org.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

> "Road_Hog" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Why would a SAAB buyer want a car that is basically a Vectra chassis
>> with a different body and pay several thousand more for the privilege.
>
> A platform is only a few bits of bent metal. But bits of metal fashioned
> in a clever and very expensive way.

No, not really.

It also defines the basic dimensions, the suspension layout (Did I
mention I hate MacPherson Struts?) - and, in the case of the 94-02
900/9-3, a really brain-dead way of attaching the steering rack which
meant torque steer was almost guaranteed and RHD bulkheads would crack
badly...

> Actually, I think Saabs downfall must have started long before GM took
> over. A reminder of what things were like in 1989. ...
> http://www.david.eazyrider.co.uk/public/pictures/SaabAd.jpg

9000 Carlsson. Nice.

Oh, and 1989 was the year GM bought 50% of Saab...
From: DavidR on

"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7sbsjoFt9fU5(a)mid.individual.net...
> "DavidR" <curedham(a)4bidden.org.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
>> "Road_Hog" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Why would a SAAB buyer want a car that is basically a Vectra chassis
>>> with a different body and pay several thousand more for the privilege.
>>
>> A platform is only a few bits of bent metal. But bits of metal fashioned
>> in a clever and very expensive way.
>
> No, not really.

You're probably thinking of the end result. It takes an awful lot of money
up front to make something cheaply. Presumably, to make it better either
requires an awful lot more money up front or the improvements have to be
added on the line, which harms works cost price.

> It also defines the basic dimensions, the suspension layout (Did I
> mention I hate MacPherson Struts?)

Yes, and I understand what you mean. Does the expense of the alternative add
value for the manufacturer?

> - and, in the case of the 94-02
> 900/9-3, a really brain-dead way of attaching the steering rack which
> meant torque steer was almost guaranteed and RHD bulkheads would crack
> badly...

But it came right eventually?

>> Actually, I think Saabs downfall must have started long before GM took
>> over. A reminder of what things were like in 1989. ...
>> http://www.david.eazyrider.co.uk/public/pictures/SaabAd.jpg
>
> 9000 Carlsson. Nice.

Did you read the text? Advertisements are meant to make people want to buy a
product. I wonder how many potential customers (and of lesser models) were
actively put off by this one?

> Oh, and 1989 was the year GM bought 50% of Saab...

....and 10 years later they had the lot. By choice or necessity?


From: Adrian on
"DavidR" <curedham(a)4bidden.org.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> It also defines the basic dimensions, the suspension layout (Did I
>> mention I hate MacPherson Struts?)

> Yes, and I understand what you mean. Does the expense of the alternative
> add value for the manufacturer?

It seems to work well enough for Merc, BMW, Audi... Sure, their volume is
a bit higher than Saab's - but nowhere near "mass-market".

>> - and, in the case of the 94-02 900/9-3, a really brain-dead way of
>> attaching the steering rack which meant torque steer was almost
>> guaranteed and RHD bulkheads would crack badly...

> But it came right eventually?

Only by replacing it with a completely new car on a considerably newer -
and fundamentally better - platform.

>>> Actually, I think Saabs downfall must have started long before GM took
>>> over. A reminder of what things were like in 1989. ...
>>> http://www.david.eazyrider.co.uk/public/pictures/SaabAd.jpg

>> 9000 Carlsson. Nice.

> Did you read the text? Advertisements are meant to make people want to
> buy a product. I wonder how many potential customers (and of lesser
> models) were actively put off by this one?

FFS, it was 20-odd years ago. Look back at old mags. That's hardly
atypical for the time.

>> Oh, and 1989 was the year GM bought 50% of Saab...

> ...and 10 years later they had the lot. By choice or necessity?

Look at the changes in the rest of the car market at that time - Saab,
being a VERY low volume manufacturer, just didn't have the development
money to put into the electronics etc on their own.
From: NM on
On 27 Jan, 23:52, "DavidR" <cured...(a)4bidden.org.uk> wrote:

>
> > 9000 Carlsson. Nice.
>

Fiat Croma floorpan