UER Mobile Forum

UER Mobile Forum UER Mobile - Not logged in
Home Search User Search Login Register
Messages New Posts Favourites Recent Posts Recent Views My LDB My Buddies

[1](2)(3)>
UER Mobile > Private Boards Index > Car Talk > Saab gone too? (Viewed 6451 times)

post by Shael

Saab gone too?
< on 11/25/2009 5:09 AM >

http://autos.aol.c...oenigsegg-deal-off

GM was going to sell Saab to Koenisegg, a company that manufactures some specialty vehicles in Europe.

Well, that idea shit the bed earlier today too as Koenisegg weaseled it's way out of the agreement, those are the article's words, not mine.

I don't know if GM will ever fix itself at this point.

Shael

| Reply with Quote

post by jeepdave

Re: Saab gone too?
<Reply # 1 on 11/25/2009 5:20 AM >

I honestly didn't know they still existed. Never really did care for them tho. Always seemed overweight an underpowered with love it or hate it styling. Maybe its just me.

| Reply with Quote

post by big dave

Re: Saab gone too?
<Reply # 2 on 11/25/2009 5:44 AM >

The only Saab i ever liked, was the 93 Viggen. Other than that, fart.

GM is run by idiots who still to this date, refuse to build cars that people want, and cars that would compete with what people are buying.

The Cobalt SS should be AWD to compete with the hot selling STI and Evo, for example.

Idiots!

[last edit 11/25/2009 5:47 AM by big dave - edited 1 times]

| Reply with Quote

post by Otaku

Re: Saab gone too?
<Reply # 3 on 11/25/2009 7:46 AM >

SRT4 wasn't AWD.

GM's issue is perception. A lot of people think this is still 1999 and their cars are still shit. Not the case.

| Reply with Quote

post by big dave

Re: Saab gone too?
<Reply # 4 on 11/25/2009 8:01 AM >

Posted by wannabeotaku
SRT4 wasn't AWD.

Right, and it was only produced from 2003-2005. Its like a trend for domestic manufacturers to shoot themselves in the foot by halting production of something good.

| Reply with Quote

post by Otaku

Re: Saab gone too?
<Reply # 5 on 11/25/2009 11:02 AM >

Posted by big dave

Right, and it was only produced from 2003-2005. Its like a trend for domestic manufacturers to shoot themselves in the foot by halting production of something good.

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.

| Reply with Quote

post by Samurai

Vehicular Lord Rick

Re: Saab gone too?
<Reply # 6 on 11/25/2009 2:24 PM >

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?

| Reply with Quote

post by Nismo

Re: Saab gone too?
<Reply # 7 on 11/25/2009 10:28 PM >

lol @ ss making WRX's and Evo's sweat

| Reply with Quote

post by Otaku

Re: Saab gone too?
<Reply # 8 on 11/25/2009 11:48 PM >

Sam, I see the Fox body as a good execution of keeping the same chassis forever. It was a pretty solid chassis that got incremental updates. My bitches are the GM letter bodies that didn't get much incremental improvements, and bread and butter cars like the Panther body. How long has that chassis gone without a real improvement? I know the P71 got better brakes in 2003, but that's all I can recall. That car has looked the same for nearly a decade. That's unacceptable.

| Reply with Quote

post by Nismo

Re: Saab gone too?
<Reply # 9 on 11/26/2009 12:23 AM >

I liked the saab 9-3 aero even though its jsut a rebadged WRX. And about the GM thing look at it this way

walk into a GM showroom in 1995 -

walk into a dodge showroom in 1995

| Reply with Quote

post by Samurai

Vehicular Lord Rick

Re: Saab gone too?
<Reply # 10 on 11/26/2009 1:10 AM >

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.

| Reply with Quote

post by velcrozeppelin

Re: Saab gone too?
<Reply # 11 on 11/26/2009 1:37 AM >

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]

| Reply with Quote

post by \/adder

Re: Saab gone too?
<Reply # 12 on 11/26/2009 1:49 AM >

good riddance.

| Reply with Quote

post by velcrozeppelin

Re: Saab gone too?
<Reply # 13 on 11/26/2009 2:04 AM >

Posted by TheVicariousVadder
good riddance.

yeah, pretty much how i feel. nothing too great in recent years. pudgy cars with no get-up-and-go for what they were supposed to be.

oh well. somebody will buy it because people like saab for sone reason.

| Reply with Quote

post by big dave

Re: Saab gone too?
<Reply # 14 on 11/26/2009 4:54 AM >

Posted by Samurai
shows how much you know, Nismo. Your ignorance is stifling.

LOL Samurai, the pot calling the kettle black. People over here building a MODERATE track car dont even consider the Cobalt SS. Its a nice little stock cruiser thats near its max performance straight out of the factory. You seriously need some exposure. Save the rant and insults for someone thats actually going to believe your sheltered northeast GM loving butt

| Reply with Quote

post by Agent Skelly

Web Sheriff

Re: Saab gone too?
<Reply # 15 on 11/26/2009 5:30 AM >

Posted by big dave

LOL Samurai, the pot calling the kettle black. People over here building a MODERATE track car dont even consider the Cobalt SS. Its a nice little stock cruiser thats near its max performance straight out of the factory. You seriously need some exposure. Save the rant and insults for someone thats actually going to believe your sheltered northeast GM loving butt

Track Cars are not what Samurai does.

| Reply with Quote

post by big dave

Re: Saab gone too?
<Reply # 16 on 11/26/2009 7:11 AM >

Posted by Agent Skelly

Track Cars are not what Samurai does.

Oh yeah i forgot about his state of the art testing facility. Driving to and from work, hahaha.

| Reply with Quote

post by Samurai

Vehicular Lord Rick

Re: Saab gone too?
<Reply # 17 on 11/26/2009 7:40 AM >

i need some exposure??? oh i suppose that southern california is just the center of the known universe for cars. Man, if you guys got your heads out of your asses and took a look at what folks are doing with the Ecotecs and Cobalts, you might shut the hell up.
of course, anything I say is wrong...

| Reply with Quote

post by big dave

Re: Saab gone too?
<Reply # 18 on 11/26/2009 7:46 AM >

Posted by Samurai
oh i suppose that southern california is just the center of the known universe for cars.

Actually it is. There is so much car stuff going on here, that your head would explode. Ill even host you if you come out for a week.

Posted by SamuraiMan, if you guys got your heads out of your asses and took a look at what folks are doing with the Ecotecs and Cobalts, you might shut the hell up.

Sam, the thing is, I know what the Ecotec and Cobalts are doing. They are nifty little cars, but nothing competitive. Throw enough money at anything, and its going to be whatever you want it to be. Whats your point?

| Reply with Quote

post by Samurai

Vehicular Lord Rick

Re: Saab gone too?
<Reply # 19 on 11/26/2009 7:53 AM >

Posted by big dave

Actually it is. There is so much car stuff going on here, that your head would explode. Ill even host you if you come out for a week.

Sam, the thing is, I know what the Ecotec and Cobalts are doing. They are nifty little cars, but nothing competitive. Throw enough money at anything, and its going to be whatever you want it to be. Whats your point?

the same can be said about fucking VW's, Hondas and Nissans... sure you throw $10gs at a Honda Civic you can outrun a bone stock Camaro. What's the point?
after 11 years of this superior attitude, it wears fucking thin. I used to LOVE going out to the Bridge Road and shutting import assholes up... with a CAVALIER. Nothing better. I'm getting tired of explaining myself. I like what I like because of experience. I've raced my Cavaliers and my Cobalts and had fun doing it. Are there faster cars out there? Always. There is always someone faster than you, you just haven't met them yet. That's just the zen yoda rule of racing.

and i have to listen to this shit day after day after day.

| Reply with Quote

Reply
[1](2)(3)>

This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private.

78 ms gen time