From: DavidR on 27 Jan 2010 16:33 "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 27 Jan 2010 17:21 "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 27 Jan 2010 18:52 "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 27 Jan 2010 19:08 "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 27 Jan 2010 19:29 On 27 Jan, 23:52, "DavidR" <cured...(a)4bidden.org.uk> wrote: > > > 9000 Carlsson. Nice. > Fiat Croma floorpan
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: Blackwall Tunnel Closures Next: How many die later from serious injuries on our roads? |