 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Saab Cars / June 2005In What Year?..............
...........did GM take over Saab The reason i ask is i would like to buy the latest year model BEFORE the takeover (before the beancounters moved in) Teleman Teleman bräkte: > ...........did GM take over Saab > The reason i ask is i would like to buy the latest year > model BEFORE the takeover (before the beancounters > moved in) > > Teleman 1990.  SignatureÐIÇK Climbing out Just hold your heading true Got to get your finest out Your number 1 anticipating you M. Oldfield > ...........did GM take over Saab > The reason i ask is i would like to buy the latest year > model BEFORE the takeover (before the beancounters > moved in) 1989. Signature---------------------------------------------------------- Saab - Fordi livet er for kort til biler med dårlig sikkerhed! >> ...........did GM take over Saab >> The reason i ask is i would like to buy the latest year >> model BEFORE the takeover (before the beancounters >> moved in) > > 1989. oh - i thought it was later than that -1994 ish? >>> ...........did GM take over Saab >>> The reason i ask is i would like to buy the latest year [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > oh - i thought it was later than that -1994 ish? It was much earlier than you think 1989/1990 sounds about right. They didn't actually do much with SAAB mechanically, but SAAB was making a significant loss until GM had to cut so many corners in management and the engineering ... I'm sure someone knows the story much better than I do. The 900 model up to MY 1993 (1994 for the convertible) is regarded as the classic 900 and a pure SAAB model. The 1994 onwards 900 is the often regarded as the one that GM "messed with". So, if you're after a 900, then the pre-1994 models are the ones to go for. With the later years, you should be able to get all the comforts. The later light pressure turbo models are a good lower power car and kind of a replacement for the old 8V turbos. The 16V injection only models are also very good cars. The turbo models are the better ones though, IMO. What about a 9000? They got much better after MY 1993. Face-lifted, direct ignition, climate control, airbags ... In fact, all the good things that went into the GM900 without the rubbish. The 9000 remained a very good car right through to it's end of production in 1997. The V6 engines are not well regarded in hindsight. SAAB do four cylinder turbos very well. The 2.3 FPT with Aero styling is a very swish car. Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ >>>>...........did GM take over Saab >>>>The reason i ask is i would like to buy the latest year [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > 1989 900 Turbo S > http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ I think your timeline is a little bit off, Paul. The 9000 facelift did happen in '93, but my '92 9000T already had ABS, SRS, DI, ACC, so that was not when these changes took place. I think these changes were already in the Trollhattan pipeline before GM got financially (and otherwise) involved. I would bet that GM had some input into the '93 9000 facelift though... The car became considerably prettier from the outside, but the rearward vision from the driver's seat became somewhat of a problem. Safety was obviously not the primary consideration of that facelift as SAAB designs had always been in the past (beauty be damned). FWIW, I seem to recall that GM bought an interest in SAAB in the late 80's but did not obtain a controlling interest until the early 90's sometime. -Fred W >I think your timeline is a little bit off, Paul. The 9000 facelift did >happen in '93, but my '92 9000T already had ABS, SRS, DI, ACC, so that >was not when these changes took place. I think these changes were >already in the Trollhattan pipeline before GM got financially (and >otherwise) involved. That's why a lot of people (including myself) regard the pre-1993 9000's as 'classic' 9000's (ie. C9000's), much like the pre-1994 900's (except for the commemerative 1994 convertible) as 'classic' 900's (ie. C900's). With the 9000's it's more of an 'administrative' division, unlike the C900's and NG900's which are clearly completely different cars from the ground up. >FWIW, I seem to recall that GM bought an interest in SAAB in the late >80's but did not obtain a controlling interest until the early 90's >sometime. Well Saab's have used GM parts well before GM ever expressed any interest - the power steering units are a GM product and the purely mechanical ones (surprising that this was actually an option in some markets!) probably were a GM product as well. Craig. SignatureCraig's Saab C900 Page --> http://lios.apana.org.au/~c900 Sydney, NSW Australia Craig's Saab C900 Workshop -- For all Saab C900 Enthusiasts world-wide! http://www.saab900classic.net http://www.saab900.org c900@lios.apana.org.au Come and explore our site, and check out our web-forums, mailing list, etc. > >I think your timeline is a little bit off, Paul. The 9000 facelift did > >happen in '93, but my '92 9000T already had ABS, SRS, DI, ACC, so that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 9000's it's more of an 'administrative' division, unlike the C900's and > NG900's which are clearly completely different cars from the ground up. But seriously ? Do you actually think that a '97 9000 is inferior to a '93 9000 ? - aside from having no 'glove box' in preference to a passenger airbag ? When I get my finances back on track I'm intending to get the best '97 - maybe '98 9000 I can lay my hands on. Ideally Aero but Anniversary 2.3 fpt might do ! I gather that a few were even registered in '98. Garham >> >I think your timeline is a little bit off, Paul. The 9000 facelift did >> >happen in '93, but my '92 9000T already had ABS, SRS, DI, ACC, so that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> 9000's it's more of an 'administrative' division, unlike the C900's and >> NG900's which are clearly completely different cars from the ground up. >But seriously ? Do you actually think that a '97 9000 is inferior to a '93 9000 ? >- aside from having no 'glove box' in preference to a passenger airbag ? No I don't. I have never personally owned any Saab 9000's so I am open-minded about the pre-93 and the post-92 9000's. It just seems sensible to draw up some sort of boundary between the two phases of their design/production and give each phase a different name so it's easier to work out whether the reference is to older 9000's or the newer ones. >When I get my finances back on track I'm intending to get the best '97 - maybe '98 >9000 I can lay my hands on. Ideally Aero but Anniversary 2.3 fpt might do ! I >gather that a few were even registered in '98. If I could finance buying a much newer car I would certainly look at trying out some 9000's and perhaps even try a NG900 just so that I can have some personal experience with each group of Saab's from the 80's and 90's. I like the current 9-3 and 9-5 models (esp. the 9-5 'estate' wagons) very much but with a pricetag of more than a whole year's gross income for a basic model, they're not going to be my target car for quite a number of years to come. 8-) But I like the C900's because they're good 'enthuiasts' Saab's, and because there are so many other Saab enthusiasts in the same field as myself so there's plenty of support and help to draw on (and contribute to myself). Regards, Craig. SignatureCraig's Saab C900 Page --> http://lios.apana.org.au/~c900 Sydney, NSW Australia Craig's Saab C900 Workshop -- For all Saab C900 Enthusiasts world-wide! http://www.saab900classic.net http://www.saab900.org c900@lios.apana.org.au Come and explore our site, and check out our web-forums, mailing list, etc. >>> I think your timeline is a little bit off, Paul. The 9000 facelift did >>> happen in '93, but my '92 9000T already had ABS, SRS, DI, ACC, so that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 9000 ? > - aside from having no 'glove box' in preference to a passenger airbag ? I didn't read it that way ... I think C900 owners regard MY 1993 as a pivotal year and perhaps get a little confused about the engineering level of the 9000 around that model year as a result. I was not saying the older 9000s were inferior to the later ones. ... And for the look, it's all a matter of taste. I do like the facelifted Aeros and Anniversaries, but I think the CD looked a lot better with the larger headlamps and the Carlsson accentuated the rear windsreen very nicely. > When I get my finances back on track I'm intending to get the best '97 - maybe > '98 > 9000 I can lay my hands on. Ideally Aero but Anniversary 2.3 fpt might do ! I > gather that a few were even registered in '98. A friend of mine has just replaced his 1994 CSE (which had pistons sticking out of the case) with a 1997 2.3 Anniversary. It's lurvely!!! Paul Var tog vägen vägen? SAAB : Nothing on earth comes close >>>I think your timeline is a little bit off, Paul. The 9000 facelift did >>>happen in '93, but my '92 9000T already had ABS, SRS, DI, ACC, so that [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 9000 I can lay my hands on. Ideally Aero but Anniversary 2.3 fpt might do ! I > gather that a few were even registered in '98. Actually, the last pre-makeover year was '92, and yes, the '92 was a quite different car. Better? Not sure because although they were similar, they had very different personalities. My '92 9000T had very sporty handling (for a FWD). The suspension was pretty firm right from the factory. The turbo 2.3L engine that year was as powerful as the later Aeros. All of the post makeover 9000's I've driven were much more biased toward comfort than sport. I even drove an Aero (forget which year) and thought that it was not as sporty feeling as the '92. But that does not make it worse... On the highway, and especially in the city (Boston), my old '92 was like driving a buckboard wagon. I've heard that the '98 is the one to have as they all have the equivalent of the Aero set-up. Never driven one so I can't speak from experience... -Fred W > Actually, the last pre-makeover year was '92, and yes, the '92 was a quite > different car. Better? Not sure because although they were Nope, it was 1991. ;o) > the factory. The turbo 2.3L engine that year was as powerful as the later > Aeros. You could get a 9000 2,3S in 1991 and 1992 (old body), which had 220 Bhp. The later Aero had 225 Bhp. The "regular" 9000 2,3L always had 200 Bhp. Cheers! >>I think your timeline is a little bit off, Paul. The 9000 facelift did >>happen in '93, but my '92 9000T already had ABS, SRS, DI, ACC, so that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 9000's it's more of an 'administrative' division, unlike the C900's and > NG900's which are clearly completely different cars from the ground up. Agreed. The only three parts that carried over from the C900 to the NG900 were the three chromed numbers on the rear deck lid. -Fred W > I think your timeline is a little bit off, Paul. The 9000 facelift did > happen in '93, Nope, happened in september 1991. ;o)) Just you "yanks" that are a year behind. ;o)) > but my '92 9000T already had ABS, SRS, DI, ACC, so that was not when > these changes took place. I think these changes were already in the > Trollhattan pipeline before GM got financially (and otherwise) involved. Correct, as DI was introduced late 1988 on the 1989-models. ACC came out with the car i 1984. > The car became considerably prettier from the outside, but the rearward > vision from the driver's seat became somewhat of a problem. Safety was > obviously not the primary consideration of that facelift as SAAB designs > had always been in the past (beauty be damned). Wrong. The CS is a much safer car, than the old CC. The CS-body is reinforced, especially in sideway collisions. Saab-engineers where here in Denmark, back in 1987, when a 9000 was spilt in two, in an accident. I sent them the pics of the car. Cheers! >>I think your timeline is a little bit off, Paul. The 9000 facelift did >>happen in '93, > > Nope, happened in september 1991. ;o)) > Just you "yanks" that are a year behind. ;o)) I was talking model years, not actual dates. >> but my '92 9000T already had ABS, SRS, DI, ACC, so that was not when >>these changes took place. I think these changes were already in the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Denmark, back in 1987, when a 9000 was spilt in two, in an accident. I sent > them the pics of the car. The added side protection does not negate the loss of visibility. It was a good thing they reinforced the body since you could no longer see what the hell was behind you. ;-) I still contend that they allowed the "styling" of the new rear end to override the obvious safety factor of good driver vision. That is not something the SAAB designers were known to do prior. -Fred W >>>I think your timeline is a little bit off, Paul. The 9000 facelift did >>>happen in '93, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I was talking model years, not actual dates. Ergo, the CS was introduced as a 1992-model. :o) > The added side protection does not negate the loss of visibility. It was > a good thing they reinforced the body since you could no longer see what > the hell was behind you. ;-) I have no problems in that respect. > I still contend that they allowed the "styling" of the new rear end to > override the obvious safety factor of good driver vision. That is not > something the SAAB designers were known to do prior. That's why Saab has large and good side view mirrors. Not like VW, that puts a pocket mirror on the right side of the car. Signature---------------------------------------------------------- Saab - Fordi livet er for kort til biler med dårlig sikkerhed! >> oh - i thought it was later than that -1994 ish? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > loss until GM had to cut so many corners in management and the engineering > ... I'm sure someone knows the story much better than I do. GM bought 50% of the Stock in 1989, and purchased the rest 10 years later, in 1999 - From Investor AB, which is part og the Wallenberg family.. > What about a 9000? They got much better after MY 1993. Face-lifted, direct > ignition, climate control, airbags ... In fact, all the good things that DI came in 1989. ClimateControl was introduced together with the 9000, back in 1984. It was, however, upgraded (changed a bit) i 1989/1990. Cheers! > ...........did GM take over Saab > The reason i ask is i would like to buy the latest year > model BEFORE the takeover (before the beancounters > moved in) A "classic" 900, or a 9000, would be the last unmolested designs. I really, really like the 900. >>...........did GM take over Saab >>The reason i ask is i would like to buy the latest year [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A "classic" 900, or a 9000, would be the last unmolested designs. I > really, really like the 900. As do I. I wonder how many they could sell now, if they just dragged out the old plans and cranked out faithful copies of the C900. The funny thing is that even though it is such an old design, it stands the test of time and has a certain "Je ne sai qua?" I'd have mine normally aspirated (I know, blasphemer!!) 5 speed, 4 door sedan, w/ cloth seats. You know... the base model. Just like the one I had back in 1990. But then I let her (it) get away... <sigh...> -Fred W >> A "classic" 900, or a 9000, would be the last unmolested designs. I >> really, really like the 900. > > As do I. I wonder how many they could sell now, if they just dragged > out the old plans and cranked out faithful copies of the C900. I'd buy one. > I'd have mine normally aspirated (I know, blasphemer!!) 5 speed, 4 door > sedan, w/ cloth seats. You know... the base model. Just like the one I > had back in 1990. I'm driving an '86 900, n/a, 8-valve, 5-speed, until I get my little 9-5 lubrication issue/Saab letter thingy worked out. Red, rusty, and like a comfortable, worn-in set of sneakers, it's just right. > But then I let her (it) get away... <sigh...> Could be worse...lots worse...
|
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.