|
|
|
UER Store
|
|
sweet UER decals:
|
|
|
|
Activity
|
|
764 online
Server Time:
2024-05-09 23:19:00
|
|
|
Samurai Vehicular Lord Rick
Location: northeastern New York Total Likes: 1901 likes
No matter where you go, there you are...
| | | Re: Saab gone too? < Reply # 6 on 11/25/2009 2:24 PM > | Reply with Quote
| | | Posted by wannabeotaku
Certainly right there. They don't produce good cars long enough, but they'll produce the same car for 10 years with minor updates. At least with the Japanese, you get new crap every 4-5 years. That's kind of nice sometimes. Just to note, I'm not really bitching about shared chassis. I'm bitching about the same vehicle being produced forever with little or no update. All 3 of the big 3 are guilty of this, as are a few Euro and Asian makes. At least change SOMETHING about the car.
| how ironic that it's this design philosophy of gradual improvement that came from the Japanese. How long did Ford stay with the Fox body? Or GM with the J-body? It wasn't because they felt like being boring. When Detroit/Dearborn got serious about building cars, they turned to the Japanese to implement 'lean manufacturing' techniques. In fact, GM's NIUMMI and Geo projects, as well as Fords' Mazda liasons were evidence of that. The Japanese favored gradual product improvement on chassis that were designed to be used for a decade at least. GM used this philosophy with it's Alphabet cars (however their styling departments dropped the ball hard). Fords first attempt was in 1978 with the Fox body and later on with the Erika program (Escort). Chrysler never really embraced this philosophy until the Intrepedi/LH program and then it was under the guise of 'cab forward' engineering. In retrospect, look at the Germans and their approach to model engineering; How long did BMW stay with the same basic platform for both the 3 and 5 series? How long has Porsche stayed with the same layout with the 911, Cayman and Boxster? Even Audi favored gradual improvements as evidenced by the A4, A6 and A8. You knotheads just want to bitch and moan and bash something. This is not 1999. Oh and one of the biggest reasons that the Cobalt SS is NOT AWD is price... the WRX/WRX STi and Evo are extremely expensive here. The Cobalt SS, even in the loaded Turbo SS form, is very affordable and will hang with these cars... Even a Supercharged SS will give an Evo fits on the run. Add the complexities of an AWD and management and the price tag will shoot to over what the target market of this car can afford. The Cobalt SS is what it is, an affordable, fun to drive compact car with enough power under the hood to make one smile and enough suspension to keep one from flying of the road in a ball of fire? Why harp on the fudge? Saab has always been a problem brand. Sometimes there is a point where you're TOO unique. Sure they were a rugged car, but if the average joe isn't buying it, what's the point? There has never been a clear cut demographic that has bought Saabs, even as far back as the 60's. I feel GM bought them in order to have a 'niche' brand, akin to Ford buying Volvo. The move to use GM global corporate chassis was both good and bad. It was good in that it lowered the cost of a Saab, but it was also bad that it somewhat diluted the image of Saab with existing Saab customers. Also, the last advertising campaign for Saab, "Born From Jets" was ridiculous... whoever okay-ed that campaign in the GM pantheon needs to be killed (it was probably the same guy who approved the Aztek). So, again, the foreign weinerheads here make generalities and rants and raves on something they either haven't researched or just don't care enough about to talk intelligently about. Geez, who didn't see that coming?
| |
| Samurai Vehicular Lord Rick
Location: northeastern New York Total Likes: 1901 likes
No matter where you go, there you are...
| | | Re: Saab gone too? < Reply # 10 on 11/26/2009 1:10 AM > | Reply with Quote
| | | Posted by Nismo lol @ ss making WRX's and Evo's sweat
| shows how much you know, Nismo. Your ignorance is stifling. As for showing the two cars you did, the Breeze/Stratus/Cirrus were not what they appeared to be. They had nice sheetmetal, but underneath, they were a couple year old Mitsubishi chassis with a Neon engine and transmission. The optional engine for the "Cloud" cars were a nightmare... the 2.5L V6 had to be disassembled to do a tuneup... These cars also had terrible corrosion issues and, after driving one, weren't put together all that well. The Ciera was not the best car to choose as an example as in 1995, it was about be retired and replaced by the Intrigue (w-body) in 1996. The Ciera was also an A-body, which has its roots in the X-body from 1978. In 1995, GM was only starting to face problems... there was still brand differentiation and that car appealed to a certain demographic. In 1995, Oldsmobile was in it's last phase, GM knowing that they needed to start turning a profit. Cars like the Ciera were, despite being solid sellers, the nail in the final coffin of Olds. you see, you think you're taking cheap shots, but all you're doing is showing a great deal of ignorance either due to age or personality. I don't care which it is.
| |
| velcrozeppelin
Location: Rochester, NY Gender: Male Total Likes: 3 likes
Mandalorian Mayhem
| | | | | Re: Saab gone too? < Reply # 11 on 11/26/2009 1:37 AM > | Reply with Quote
| | | Posted by Samurai the Breeze/Stratus/Cirrus were not what they appeared to be. They had nice sheetmetal, but underneath, they were a couple year old Mitsubishi chassis with a Neon engine and transmission. The optional engine for the "Cloud" cars were a nightmare... the 2.5L V6 had to be disassembled to do a tuneup... These cars also had terrible corrosion issues and, after driving one, weren't put together all that well.
| sam, the chassis was a dodge design, the 2.0 i4 and the 2.4l i4 were the chrysler-lambo co-design that mitsubishi raped. the 2.4 i4 is nearly indestructible, but a fucking bitch to repair. rust issues are true, but those were design flaws that collected water at the bottom of the doors, in the drivers side frame, and at the nose of the hood. thats why any 95 to 2001 stratuses are rusted out like that. there are a ton of gen 1 stratuses around out here but none have 176k miles like mine. the common problems are wheelbearings, as the stratus likes to eat them. There was the 2.5 v6, im not sure that was mitsubishi? i know the 2.7 was definitely, and the stratus coupes with the 2.7 v6 were indeed mitsubishis. sam, good call on the v6... i forgot there was the 2.5 and the 2.7, but the i4's and body stuff was still off... those were chrysler designs... not great ones, but still pretty good ones.
[last edit 11/26/2009 2:18 AM by velcrozeppelin - edited 1 times]
| Me goin' legit would be like JarJar on speech therapy. I'm on Flickr now! My Flickr Stream | I'm about as thick as a Bryk. |
| |
This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private. |
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 140 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 741183071 pages have been generated.
|
|