 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Saab Cars / June 2005Funny quote about the SAAB 9-3 based Cadillac BLS
>From www.sniffpetrol.com under Cadillac BLS: One of the more intriguing Geneva debuts was this Europe-only Caddy, based on the SAAB 9-3. "The logic behind this is simple," said a spomkesan (sic). "No one seems to like SAABs anymore so we thought we'd re-body one of their models as another kind of car that Europeans don't like". > >From www.sniffpetrol.com under Cadillac BLS: > One of the more intriguing Geneva debuts was this Europe-only Caddy, > based on the SAAB 9-3. "The logic behind this is simple," said a > spomkesan (sic). "No one seems to like SAABs anymore so we thought we'd > re-body one of their models as another kind of car that Europeans don't > like". If GM think Europeans want to buy US styled barges, they'd better think again. Over here owning a Cadillac would be a bit like making a really strong ' I have really bad taste ' statement. Chrysler also seem to think they can sell this monstrosity here too. http://www.chrysler.co.uk/chrysler/300cpage.aspx?ID=287,17 Based on the previous generation E class Merc chassis I believe. Apparently it handles like a boat. Maybe the Caddy will handle better unless that's been Americanised too ? Graham >>>From www.sniffpetrol.com under Cadillac BLS: >>One of the more intriguing Geneva debuts was this Europe-only Caddy, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Graham the 300c kicks a.s. My Dad has one and it is a great car for the money. > >>>From www.sniffpetrol.com under Cadillac BLS: > >>One of the more intriguing Geneva debuts was this Europe-only Caddy, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > the 300c kicks a.s. My Dad has one and it is a great car for the money. I recall the Top Gear 'review' of it. If you can live with the 'gansta looks' it's good value. Still handles like a barge though. Where are you posting from btw ? Graham >> >>>From www.sniffpetrol.com under Cadillac BLS: >> >>One of the more intriguing Geneva debuts was this Europe-only Caddy, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Graham Going back to the original post, it's a tongue in cheek article. Quite amusing actually, included on the same page is a report of how the Mazda MX5 has been made 15% more manly..... If you look in their archive, issue 8 asks "what's a SAAB?" and fondly takes the mick out of GM in particular and Americans and Swedes in General, with references to Ikea and ABBA. It's all in good humour and should be viewed that way. Al > >> >>>From www.sniffpetrol.com under Cadillac BLS: > >> >>One of the more intriguing Geneva debuts was this Europe-only Caddy, [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Al As far as I can remember back, and that's many years since my childhood, new cars launches have always been accompanied by claims of substantial increase of torsional rigidity. Say, if this is 50% each time, then new cars must be about ~1.5 ^12 = 130 times stiffer than they were in the 60'ies. Amazing! >>>>>From www.sniffpetrol.com under Cadillac BLS: >>>>One of the more intriguing Geneva debuts was this Europe-only Caddy, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Graham I am posting from USA. Yes, the car is big so it is not going to handle like my Saab 9-3 Aero or my brothers CTS-V. But for its size it handles very nicely. >>>>>> From www.sniffpetrol.com under Cadillac BLS: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > like my Saab 9-3 Aero or my brothers CTS-V. But for its size it handles > very nicely. In this case, size has nothing to do with handling. If you want, you can even make a Crown Vic handle - like the police cars. The Grand Ntional was not a small car, but it had power and handling. But as you stated, for its size it handles nicely and not every one wants a SPG or Aero - especially on a rough road. > > I am posting from USA. Yes, the car is big so it is not going to handle > > like my Saab 9-3 Aero or my brothers CTS-V. But for its size it handles > > very nicely. > > In this case, size has nothing to do with handling. Sorry - have to disagree - big time ! More like weight than pure size actually. Ever driven an earlyish Golf GTi or even an Alfasud ( pref cloverleaf ) ? 'Point and shoot' cars. Unbelievably responsive ! You simply can't make a large heavy car handle like that. > If you want, you can even make a Crown Vic handle - like the police cars. Uh ? What's a Crown Vic ? > The Grand Ntional was not a small car, but it had power and handling. But as > you stated, for its size it handles nicely and not every one wants a SPG or > Aero - especially on a rough road. Aeros aren't intended for rough roads. They're intended for 'metalled' roads. You may prefer to consider a Land Rover in your case however. Graham > Uh ? What's a Crown Vic ? See: http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/crownvictoria/ Commonly used in the US as a police vehicle...for size (accomodating equipment), speed (having a sizeable V8, fews cars will outrun it), durability/reliability. > Aeros aren't intended for rough roads. They're intended for 'metalled' > roads. You can say that again! Read my recent post "Another winter tire question...frost heaves". - tex > > Uh ? What's a Crown Vic ? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You can say that again! Read my recent post "Another winter tire > question...frost heaves". Oh yes - I saw that. How did you resolve the problem in the end ? Graham > Oh yes - I saw that. How did you resolve the problem in the end ? As far as the Aero is concerned, the only quasi-solution is to get skinnier/higher profile snow tires and put them on 16" rims. That should soften up the ride somewhat, whilst also resolving any ice/snow slippage. I say "should" because I've not yet tried it. As winter is (hopefully) winding down here, in Boston, I'm waiting until September to outlay the money for it. When I purchased the car I had also tried the Linear and Arc flavors (both on 16" rims). I hadn't noticed them to be all that much softer in the ride department. But I admit, that wasn't of dire concern at the time and that would have been only one aspect I was paying attention to, amongst many. - tex >> Oh yes - I saw that. How did you resolve the problem in the end ? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >- tex Where do some people get the idea that a narrow track ( or Tread) makes a better snow tire? Have they forgotten the elementary formula that friction + the coefficient of friction X the force(that is the mass of the car)normal to the surface. It is independent of the area in contact. The bigger that area the more the force (mass) is spread out. Malcolm > >> Oh yes - I saw that. How did you resolve the problem in the end ? > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Malcolm Malcolm, A skinner, taller tier (185/65) tire is the most classic Saab tire in Gislaved. It is a proven fact, look at all of the Land Rover adventures, notice their skinny yet tall tires to get them in and out of the much. SaabGuy >> >> Oh yes - I saw that. How did you resolve the problem in the end ? >> > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >SaabGuy All that i can say is that the extra height must be devoted to deeper lugs and tires like that must really sing on pavement. Narrower tires would not cut . They are lat on the bottom. The best you could get is a water film or ice. Malcolm > All that i can say is that the extra height must be devoted to deeper > lugs and tires like that must really sing on pavement. Um, no. > Narrower tires would not cut . They are lat on the bottom. The best you > could get is a water film or ice. Do you drive in snow at all, Malcolm? > Where do some people get the idea that a narrow track > ( or Tread) makes a better snow tire? Because the >tension< is higher. > Have they forgotten the elementary formula that friction + the > coefficient of friction X the force(that is the mass of the car) > normal to the surface. Yes, correct f = F/N, coefficient of friction = Fricton (force) / Normal presure (weight/mass of car) or F = f x N > It is independent of the area in contact. The bigger that area > the more the force (mass) is spread out. Exactly, but friction F is a force, working on an area; the larger the area the smaller the pressure, as pressure = F / A Why do people use studded tires on ice? What knife cuts better; a sharp one (with small A) or a dull one (with larger A) ? -- MH '72 97 '77 96 '78 95 '79 96 '91 900i 16 http://go.to/saab96 <snip> > Where do some people get the idea that a narrow track ( or Tread) makes > a better snow tire? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It is independent of the area in contact. The bigger that area the more > the force (mass) is spread out. Malcolm I think you are looking at this to simplistically. On a nice clean street the forces to roll a wheel are more complex than that, and once you add in a few inches of snow the formulas really get complicated. When driving in snow, you will be applying a force to move forward. The snow you are running over will be pushing the wheels back the other way (higher rolling resistance from packing down the snow). Wider tiers have to compress more snow, so need to apply more force to the road to get to the same place, increasing chances of slipping. Also, don't forget that the skinnier tier has to move less slush to get down to the road. Once the tier makes contact with the road, slipping is much less of a problem then when riding on a half inch of slush. Narrow tiers are far less likely to hydroplane than wider ones. -- Stephen B. >>As far as the Aero is concerned, the only quasi-solution is to get >>skinnier/higher profile snow tires and put them on 16" rims. That should >>soften up the ride somewhat, whilst also resolving any ice/snow slippage. > Where do some people get the idea that a narrow track ( or Tread) makes > a better snow tire? I'd say empirical study probably came into it, rather than just theory? > Have they forgotten the elementary formula that friction + the > coefficient of friction X the force(that is the mass of the car)normal > to the surface. Nope, but what you've forgotten is that the smaller an area the weight of a car is sitting on, the higher pressure in pounds per square inch there is, given the same weight of car. A wider tire will "float" on top of the snow - and the friction of snow is a lot less than that of pavement. Gotta cut through the snow to the pavement, and skinny tires are great at doing that. > It is independent of the area in contact. The bigger that area the more > the force (mass) is spread out. Independant, until you lose contact with the road. > Where do some people get the idea that a narrow track ( or Tread) makes > a better snow tire? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It is independent of the area in contact. The bigger that area the more > the force (mass) is spread out. For STATIC friction which is the case if the tire is skidding. Since most of use care about ROLLING (static) friction where the coefficient of friction *does* depend on the normal force. Sorry, but you have fallen victim to the oversimplification found in many introductory Physics texts. Bill >>>Oh yes - I saw that. How did you resolve the problem in the end ? >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Where do some people get the idea that a narrow track ( or Tread) makes > a better snow tire? They get the idea through many, many years of trial and error. As the old hookers will tell you, experience counts for something. > Have they forgotten the elementary formula that friction + the > coefficient of friction X the force(that is the mass of the car)normal > to the surface. > > It is independent of the area in contact. The bigger that area the more > the force (mass) is spread out. Exactly right. So tell me, do you want the mass to be widely spread out so it can better float on the surface of the snow or do you want the mass to be applied to a narrower area with the intent that the tread will better penetrate that same snow? -Fred W > I recall the Top Gear 'review' of it. If you can live with the 'gansta looks' yes, it's either a Cadillac (or most other US car) or a BMW... -- MH '72 97 '77 96 '78 95 '79 96 '91 900i 16 http://go.to/saab96 > Chrysler also seem to think they can sell this monstrosity here too. > http://www.chrysler.co.uk/chrysler/300cpage.aspx?ID=287,17 > Based on the previous generation E class Merc chassis I believe. I've seen some of those here in the US. I did kind of a double-take and thought "what in hell is THAT ugly beast!?" A new contender for the Ugly Award, along with the Honda Element and that old favorite the Pontiac Aztec. Peugot are welcome to enter a few of their models, but so far it's a US-only competition. >>Chrysler also seem to think they can sell this monstrosity here too. >>http://www.chrysler.co.uk/chrysler/300cpage.aspx?ID=287,17 >>Based on the previous generation E class Merc chassis I believe. > > I've seen some of those here in the US. I did kind of a double-take > and thought "what in hell is THAT ugly beast!?" the 300c was the N.A. Car of the Year (http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/tw/nactoy.htm) so a lot of people must consider it a good looking vehicle. [snip] > >>Chrysler also seem to think they can sell this monstrosity here too. > >>http://www.chrysler.co.uk/chrysler/300cpage.aspx?ID=287,17 > >>Based on the previous generation E class Merc chassis I believe. > > > > I've seen some of those here in the US. I did kind of a double-take > > and thought "what in hell is THAT ugly beast!?" And if you're posting from the US...... just think what us Europeans make of it ! > the 300c was the N.A. Car of the Year > (http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/tw/nactoy.htm) > so a lot of people must consider it a good looking vehicle. I can only comment that US tastes in vehicle styling have generally always seemed somewhat eccentric to me. As for your Dad's 300c - If he's happy with it - great. Europeans roads are better suited to rather less large and nippier handling vehicles though. More ( tighter ) corners, narrower carriageways, and stuff like that. Graham >[snip] > I can only comment that US tastes in vehicle styling have generally always > seemed somewhat eccentric to me. In what way? The most popular car in the US is a Honda Accord and it has been for several years. If you want to identify US tastes, look at the car most people buy, not the oddly styled products that are trying to grab attention and market share. I found all the comments about the oddly styled Diamler-Chrysler cars funny because that company is all German upper-management and it also has been that way for the past several years. Walt > Graham >>[snip] >>I can only comment that US tastes in vehicle styling have generally always [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Walt When Congress ask Chrysler who bought who, they said the compnay was called Chrysler-Diamler and it was a US owned and US run company. I think the compnay was asking for tax breaks or something to prompt these questions. > If GM think Europeans want to buy US styled barges, they'd better think > again. Over here owning a Cadillac would be a bit like making a really > strong ' I have really bad taste ' statement. Ahhh..the aroma of pure, unadulterated euro-elitism ;-) I've never been much of a Cadillac fan myslef, but I hold out hope. Their cars are generally brash and much less subtle than their cousins in the luxury car segment. Notably, one of the worst Cadillacs ever ever was actually designed by Europeans...remember the Allante? I'm not convinced the designers (presumably americans) took their styling cues purely from an American perspective on this car. It actually looks very similar to the Bentley Arnage...a car clearly intended for a supposedly "more sophisticated" Euro-centric audience. The stance and general outward appearance on both cars are almost identical. The biggest difference is really in the price tag. - tex > > If GM think Europeans want to buy US styled barges, they'd better think > > again. Over here owning a Cadillac would be a bit like making a really [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > generally brash and much less subtle than their cousins in the luxury car > segment. I think that's a very large part of it. A Saab on the other hand has always seemed to me to be the ultimate 'subtle' upmarket car in a nicely stylish but pleasantly understated kind of way. > Notably, one of the worst Cadillacs ever ever was actually > designed by Europeans...remember the Allante? I didn't know about that. Must look into it. > I'm not convinced the designers (presumably americans) took their styling > cues purely from an American perspective on this car. It actually looks > very similar to the Bentley Arnage...a car clearly intended for a supposedly > "more sophisticated" Euro-centric audience. You sure about that ? I think they ( Bentley ) were always targeting the US market. > The stance and general outward appearance on both cars are almost identical. > The biggest difference is > really in the price tag. That's for sure. Graham > You sure about that ? I think they ( Bentley ) were always targeting the > US > market. If they were targeting the US market, it was a wasted effort. 99.99% of the US popluation seeing a Bently go by (if that should ever happen) would think it is a Rolls-Royce with a funny grille, assuming that they would recognize a Rolls-Royce. Even fewer would know where to buy one. If they got past all of that and had the wherewithall, they would purchase the Rolls because of its name recognition. I don't even know how these models apperance has changed after the Rolls-Bently selloff to the Germans. Actually, most people in the US think the same of a Rolls-Royce as Europeans think of a Cadillac - gawdy, bloated, ostentatious, overpriced, horribly uneconomical and it is one of the few cars where buyers get to pay the US "Gas Guzzler Tax" as part of its purchase. GM has managed to avoid that tax in all but the Holden Monaro based Pontiac GTO with automatic transmission. Even the typical Cadillacs and Corvettes manage to avoid this tax. > Graham > Actually, most people in the US think the same of a Rolls-Royce as Europeans > think of a Cadillac - gawdy, bloated, ostentatious, overpriced, horribly > uneconomical and it is one of the few cars where buyers get to pay the US > "Gas Guzzler Tax" as part of its purchase. GM has managed to avoid that tax > in all but the Holden Monaro based Pontiac GTO with automatic transmission. > Even the typical Cadillacs and Corvettes manage to avoid this tax. Surely the Hummer H2 doesn't avoid this tax? John > Actually, most people in the US think the same of a Rolls-Royce as Europeans > think of a Cadillac - gawdy, bloated, ostentatious, overpriced, horribly > uneconomical I can't really disagree with that description. The current model is especially grotesque. Graham |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.