From: Adrian on
NM <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> > 9000 Carlsson. Nice.

> Fiat Croma floorpan

Yes, the tipo quattro platform was shared with the Croma, the Thema and
the 164. It was a joint design between Fiat Group and Saab, though, with
all of those four cars factored in to the design.

I really don't think Opel had the 9-3 particularly in mind when they
knocked up the Vectra.
From: Steve Firth on
Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, the tipo quattro platform was shared with the Croma, the Thema and
> the 164. It was a joint design between Fiat Group and Saab, though, with
> all of those four cars factored in to the design.

Of those cars, I'd say the 164 and the SAAB 9000 were the only decent
builds, with the SAAB being the better of the two. The 164 is much
better than most Brits are willing to acknowledge. But it still suffers
from Alfa's dreadful UK dealerships and the usual Alfa problems. The
9000's were typical SAABs in a way that the 9-5 isn't.


From: NM on
On 28 Jan, 08:42, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> NM <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> >> > 9000 Carlsson. Nice.
> > Fiat Croma floorpan
>
> Yes, the tipo quattro platform was shared with the Croma, the Thema and
> the 164. It was a joint design between Fiat Group and Saab, though, with
> all of those four cars factored in to the design.

Agreed 900 Carlson, Nice, we had one as a loan car when they did the
clutch in my turbo.

>
> I really don't think Opel had the 9-3 particularly in mind when they
> knocked up the Vectra.

I know nothing about Vectra's but I've got a couple of NG 900's, The
turbo is one of the last before it went to 9-3, I was told the 9-3 was
just a facelifted 900 and side by side there is little to distinguish
them, do they have different floor pans?
From: Adrian on
NM <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> I really don't think Opel had the 9-3 particularly in mind when they
>> knocked up the Vectra.

> I know nothing about Vectra's but I've got a couple of NG 900's, The
> turbo is one of the last before it went to 9-3, I was told the 9-3 was
> just a facelifted 900 and side by side there is little to distinguish
> them, do they have different floor pans?

No. A heck of a lot of other differences, but the same basic car.

The 9-3ss after 2003 is a completely different car, though, on a later
Vectra platform. The new 9-5 is on the Insignia platform.
From: DavidR on

"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7sc2rjFt9fU10(a)mid.individual.net...
> "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".

These are perceived as "premium" brands where adding expense can add value.
Saab would seem to be a bit stuck for profitability if it has lower turnover
than BMW but can't ask BMW prices.

>>> - 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.

The thought occurs that if the earlier car was based on a Vectra, how did
they manage to make it worse than a Vectra?

>>>> 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.

It is from an old mag and I scanned it yesterday. Basically there is no such
thing as a good car ad and never has been but some are more gut churning
than others. I thought Saab's "we make aeroplanes so our cars must be good
(but please try to ignore that we also make lorries)" was sufficiently dire
enough but I distinctly remember having a good retch over this particular
one when I saw it originally.

>>> 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.

Meanwhile, it still costs well over half a $billion to develop and tool a
new car.