 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Saab Cars / November 2005airbag for 93 9000CSET
My mechanic tells me I need a new airbag for $1100.!!!!! And it's illegal here in the US to buy or sell a used one. Is there any way around that? Yes, I'm willing to take my chances as a hardened criminal. Is it difficult to install? > My mechanic tells me I need a new airbag for $1100.!!!!! And it's illegal > here in the US to buy or sell a used one. Is there any way around that? Yes, > I'm willing to take my chances as a hardened criminal. Is it difficult to > install? If you screw up, you can die, either during screwing up when it blows up with you right in it's face, or later when it doesn't perform as it should. Also, the reason it's illegal to buy a used one is because you don't have a history on the unit, _and_, I expect, to discourage people from digging them out of cars along the street. Bad enough they take our lights, isn't it? There are times to cheap out, and there are times to do it right. This is not one of the times to bargain-hunt. Dave Hinz > My mechanic tells me I need a new airbag for $1100.!!!!! And it's illegal > here in the US to buy or sell a used one. Is there any way around that? Yes, > I'm willing to take my chances as a hardened criminal. Is it difficult to > install? Is it really? Why is it I can find listings upon listings of airbags in http://car-part.com/ Depending on makes, normally you should disconnect the battery before doing anything to it. If your SRS light blinks or is on afterwards, have it reset by a dealer or an indy. But what is the symptom on your 9k? >> My mechanic tells me I need a new airbag for $1100.!!!!! And it's illegal >> here in the US to buy or sell a used one. Is there any way around that? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > But what is the symptom on your 9k? Blinking SRS light. My mech. reset it and it came on again in a few weeks. He's the one that told me used airbags are illegal. Great site. I guess they don't enforce it real well. I wonder if a late model 96-98 airbag would fit. I am NOT putting $1100. into a car with 170k. A used airbag is better than no airbag. > >> My mechanic tells me I need a new airbag for $1100.!!!!! And it's illegal > >> here in the US to buy or sell a used one. Is there any way around that? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I am NOT putting $1100. into a car with 170k. A used airbag is better than > no airbag. Don't rush to throw money at the problem. My understanding is airbag rarely goes bad. How's your battery? If your battery is old, low voltage can trigger the SRS. > Don't rush to throw money at the problem. My understanding is airbag > rarely goes bad. How's your battery? If your battery is old, low > voltage can trigger the SRS. Interesting you should say that. My voltage display has been showing ~9.9 where it used to show 13.x but the mech. tested the battery and it was normal. Natural Light Black and White Photography http://mysite.verizon.net/vze76ane/ -George- 9.9 volt constant? That can't be right. If it is 9.9 volt constant, you can't keep the SRS light not blinking. That's too low. > 9.9 volt constant? That can't be right. If it is 9.9 volt constant, > you can't keep the SRS light not blinking. That's too low. 9.x (varies) at startup. After that I don't pay much attention but I wll from now on. Maybe the display is bad.  SignatureIt is not our patriotic duty to send children to be butchered & slaughtered & to butcher & slaughter others every time a general or a politician gets a hardon for a war. Rather, it is our patriotic duty to demand the highest burden of proof to justify war. > > 9.9 volt constant? That can't be right. If it is 9.9 volt constant, > > you can't keep the SRS light not blinking. That's too low. > > 9.x (varies) at startup. After that I don't pay much attention but I wll > from now on. Maybe the display is bad. I thought the display deliberately 'held' the cranking voltage so as to make battery deterioration more apparent. If you cycle the display back to voltage I rather think you'll find the voltage is more normal once the engine is running. Graham >>9.9 volt constant? That can't be right. If it is 9.9 volt constant, >>you can't keep the SRS light not blinking. That's too low. > > 9.x (varies) at startup. After that I don't pay much attention but I wll > from now on. Maybe the display is bad. No, that isn't how the voltage display works on the 9000 onboard displays. If you look at the voltage display on the onboard display before you start the car it will show the voltage charge of the battery. When you first start the car the display then shows the minimum voltage it measured during cranking. That would be your 9.x volts. If you then cycle through the info available and come back to voltage you will see the "running" voltage that is being output from the alternator while charging the battery. I don't east cheeseburgers (very often), smoke only cigars and I have not had been involved in an automobile collision in 30 years. Oh... and I am not in denial. Signature-Fred W 9.x volt at start up is normal. After starting the car voltage should be above 13 volts. Below 13 volts you have great potential of triggering the SRS if it has not happened already. A sudden increase in load before the electrical system has time to respond will trigger the SRS light and makes it blinking. At least that has been my experience. You did not say how old is the battery. >>>My mechanic tells me I need a new airbag for $1100.!!!!! And it's illegal >>>here in the US to buy or sell a used one. Is there any way around that? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I am NOT putting $1100. into a car with 170k. A used airbag is better than > no airbag. I have a theory, if you wear your seatbelt, you don't really need an front airbag. Airbags were used because people refused to wear seat belts and the car companies were looking for a Supplemental Restraint System (SRS). It is not a Primary Restraint System (seatbelt). > I have a theory, if you wear your seatbelt, you don't really need an front > airbag. I think that's largely true. But at the same time, in a collision where the car is getting compacted from the front, the steering wheel and dashboard could easily intrude on the driver's personal space regardless of seatbelt use. The airbag provides a large, soft buffer to prevent the steering wheel and dashboard from causing injury to the head and chest. John >>>> My mechanic tells me I need a new airbag for $1100.!!!!! And it's >>>> illegal [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > companies were looking for a Supplemental Restraint System (SRS). It is > not a Primary Restraint System (seatbelt). Incorrect theory. Airbags are only useful when used in conjunction with a primary restraint system (read seatbelt). An airbag by itself is practically useless. But I have a better and irrefutable one. If one never gets in collisions (note that I did not use the term accident, since it seldom is one) they need neither a seatbelt nor an airbag. Signature-Fred W "Malt_Hound" <""Malt_Hound\"@*spam-me not*yahoo.com"> wrote in message > > Incorrect theory. Airbags are only useful when used in conjunction with a > primary restraint system (read seatbelt). An airbag by itself is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (note that I did not use the term accident, since it seldom is one) they > need neither a seatbelt nor an airbag. I have another theory. People who drive and think they'll never get in an accident (sorry, collision) and eat greaseburgers everyday and think they won't get a heart attack and smoke and think they won't get cancer are in denial. SignatureIt is not our patriotic duty to send children to be butchered & slaughtered & to butcher & slaughter others every time a general or a politician gets a hardon for a war. Rather, it is our patriotic duty to demand the highest burden of proof to justify war. > "Malt_Hound" <""Malt_Hound\"@*spam-me not*yahoo.com"> wrote in message > > > Incorrect theory. Airbags are only useful when used in conjunction with a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > won't get a heart attack and smoke and think they won't get cancer are in > denial. In recent years I have twice been reversed into ! Try and dodge that one ! Graham >>"Malt_Hound" <""Malt_Hound\"@*spam-me not*yahoo.com"> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Graham That is what the noise maker we call the "horn" is for. Signature-Fred W > I have another theory. People who drive and think they'll never get in an > accident (sorry, collision) and eat greaseburgers everyday and think they > won't get a heart attack and smoke and think they won't get cancer are in > denial. Fully agree. I've been in two collisions in the last year. Both were caused by the other driver (one ran a stop sign and plowed into me, the other one pulled into my lane on top of me on the Interstate, both were yapping on cell phones) and would have been a lot worse for me without the Saab's ability to get out of the way. I drive like everyone else out there is a raving lunatic. I'd be in a lot more collisions if I didn't drive that way. >>I have another theory. People who drive and think they'll never get in an >>accident (sorry, collision) and eat greaseburgers everyday and think they [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ability to get out of the way. > I drive like everyone else out there is a raving lunatic. ...and you would be correct more times than not. ;-) I agree that some collisions are somewhat unavoidable once the situation develops. But we also tend to put ourselves into the positions where these unavoidable situations occur. When we drive, and where on the road we are at any given moment, that sort of thing. For instance, when the driver ran the stop sign did you see him approaching and *assumed* that he would stop? How about the other one where they pulled into your lane? Were you approaching him from his rear (blind spot)? Had you not noticed that if you pulled alongside that car you would not have an escape route? See, I ride a motorcycle too (only for pleasure) and the huge potential for incurring major bodily harm due to even the most minor of "collisions" has shaped my perspective even when driving in a well protected car like a SAAB. I *never* assume that a car is going to stop at a crossroad even if there is a stop sign or light. And I always assume that a driver is going to do about the most asinine thing possible. A true story: This past weekend I was out on a ride around my semi-rural hometown. I happened to pass by a big soccer field complex where there was a line of cars illegally parked on the side of the road instead of in the parking lot provided. As I approached the cars I thought to myself, "I really need to go slow here, looks kind of congested, some kid might dart out from between the cars, or a ball could come rolling out or, etc...". Well, as it turned out it was none of those things. Some soccer Mom in her SUV decided to try to make a nifty 3-point turn directly from her parking spot on the side of the road, just as I approached, which of course put her fully broadside across both lanes of the road directly in front of me. I can still see the look of horror on her face as she stared at me as it appeared I would not be able to stop without nailing her. My Ducati has some really good brakes and sticky tires, so I was able to come to controlled stop without splattering myself across her lovely kid hauler with a few feet to spare. My bike has the headlight on at all times, so I'd be willing to bet that she never bothered to turn her head and look. She probably just "peeked" in the side mirror, if that, before making her "big move". She asked me three times if I was OK, even though I obviously did not hit her. I was too livid to even scream insults at her and could only manage to demand that she "look first next time,eh?" Just to take my argument to the extreme, if you don't drive at all you will never get into collisions. Where, when and how you drive will all increase your chances proportionally. And I'm still not in denial... ;-) Signature-Fred W >>> I have another theory. People who drive and think they'll never get >>> in an accident (sorry, collision) and eat greaseburgers everyday and [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > will never get into collisions. Where, when and how you drive will all > increase your chances proportionally. And I'm still not in denial... ;-) I agree with you on defensive driving. Always, always leave youself an escape route. This obviously means no tailgating and watching the cars beside you. I also use the theory that it better to be behind a truck than in front of a truck - I can stop faster than the truck. If possible, never get between two trucks. You also mentioned to assume the other drivers are idiots and they will do every stupid thing possible. I drive the beltway enough to be able to predict which cars will come over without looking or signaling. I also practice pushing my Saab to its winter handling limits on a safe area - a flat empty parking lot. I know the car's/tires limits - and more importantly - my limits. I based my theory on seatbelts and airbags on over 20 years of hands on and "hands in" operating room experience. All thoughts of riding a motorcycle went out the door after we worked on a person who slid over the gas tank of his motor cycle in an accident. The motorcycle had a gas cap that stuck out of the gas tank. You can guess what part of his body hit the gas cap . . . > I based my theory on seatbelts and airbags on over 20 years of hands on > and "hands in" operating room experience. All thoughts of riding a > motorcycle went out the door after we worked on a person who slid over > the gas tank of his motor cycle in an accident. The motorcycle had a > gas cap that stuck out of the gas tank. You can guess what part of his > body hit the gas cap . . . Yikes. Luckily for me my Duc is very aerodynamic and everything is flush. ...at least till you get to the speedo and bars. ;-) Signature-Fred W > For instance, when the driver ran the stop sign did you see him > approaching and *assumed* that he would stop? How about the other one > where they pulled into your lane? Were you approaching him from his > rear (blind spot)? Had you not noticed that if you pulled alongside > that car you would not have an escape route? I didn't see the driver before she ran the stop sign. She was coming out of the entrance to an apartment complex and pulling out into a very busy street and right into me. On the interstate, I was just driving along and the car next to me suddenly pulled over on top of me. No signal, nothing. Simply changed lanes. Try keeping an escape route on a busy interstate through a construction zone -- no shoulder. Any empty spots are quickly filled by idiots who think it will get them there faster. The only way I got out of it was by running between the two lanes of traffic on the driver side. Luckily the 900 fit and I just lost a side mirror to a semi. >>For instance, when the driver ran the stop sign did you see him >>approaching and *assumed* that he would stop? How about the other one [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the two lanes of traffic on the driver side. Luckily the 900 fit and I just > lost a side mirror to a semi. Laura, I definitely do not want to appear to be "picking on you" or anything like that, but your two situations support my position precisely. I also know that I am over simplifying this, but just trying to make the point that all "accidents" are avoidable. In the first, you did not see the errant driver (until too late I imagine) because the street was busy. If the street was that busy were you moving at an appropriate speed for the circumstances? And I don't just mean relative to the speed limit. An appropriate speed would be one at which you have enough time to see and react to all of the possible problems. In the second (again in heavy traffic), you point out the trap that we all tend to fall into. We can't leave an opening (an escape route) because some jamoke will jump in and fill it. I see this all the time. Unfortunately it is human nature to then "retaliate" by leaving too small of an opening for those miscreants to move in. But the irony is that by doing this you are only putting yourself in jeopardy, not the miscreants. What is the downside to just backing off again? I know, you won't make good speed and get to where you are going quick enough. I think more bad things happen because we are all in such a rush than for any other single reason. Leaving an escape route isn't just about staying 3-4 seconds back from the car in front. It's also about intentionally leaving openings in the adjacent lanes to allow evasive moves in a lateral direction too. Signature-Fred W > Leaving an escape route isn't just about staying 3-4 seconds back from > the car in front. It's also about intentionally leaving openings in the > adjacent lanes to allow evasive moves in a lateral direction too. Are you usually the only car on the road? I live in a city. On the interstate through downtown, particularly at rush hour, any openings between cars are quickly filled by other cars or by someone who thinks they can get somewhere faster by weaving in and out of traffic and tailgating the person in front of them. I would like to leave gaps, but there aren't any. When I got hit, I was traveling at 20 mph in a school zone. Any slower and I would have been rearended by the car behind me. Some accidents cannot be avoided no matter how careful you are because it depends on everyone else driving in a sane manner and that just does not happen. The two accidents were the first I've had in 25 years -- and hundreds of thousands of miles of driving. I don't think it's a coincidence that both involved cell phone users. >>Leaving an escape route isn't just about staying 3-4 seconds back from >>the car in front. It's also about intentionally leaving openings in the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > thousands of miles of driving. I don't think it's a coincidence that both > involved cell phone users. You are right, I don't drive in the city if I can at all avoid it. I used to drive in Boston all the time for work, and that is a much bigger challenge. I agree that driving while using the cell phone is one of the biggest hazards out there. My advice to avoid those bad situations? Move out of the city! Life is far more enjoyable out here in the boonies! ;-) Signature-Fred W > I have a theory, if you wear your seatbelt, you don't really need an front > airbag. > > Airbags were used because people refused to wear seat belts and the car > companies were looking for a Supplemental Restraint System (SRS). It is > not a Primary Restraint System (seatbelt). Its more interesting than that. An airbag can also possibly kill you (especially in the US). Airbags were indeed designed as a supplementary restraint to be used in conjunction with seat belts. However, in the US seat belt use is not/was not mandated by law, which meant that the calibration and violence of the airbag deployment is different. In countries where seat belt installation and useage is mandated by law airbags are safer. > Its more interesting than that. An airbag can also possibly kill you > (especially in the US). Airbags were indeed designed as a supplementary > restraint to be used in conjunction with seat belts. However, in the US > seat belt use is not/was not mandated by law, which meant that the > calibration and violence of the airbag deployment is different. I don't you have a cite to back up what seems pretty unlikely, do you? > In countries where seat belt installation and useage is mandated by law > airbags are safer. So the part numbers are different then, are they? >>Its more interesting than that. An airbag can also possibly kill you >>(especially in the US). Airbags were indeed designed as a supplementary [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So the part numbers are different then, are they? No of course not. Just as the last time this old wive's tale was discussed. The airbags in the US don't cause any more (or less) injuries than they do anywhere alse. We are just a more litigious sort... Signature-Fred W >>>In countries where seat belt installation and useage is mandated by law >>>airbags are safer. >> So the part numbers are different then, are they? > No of course not. Just as the last time this old wive's tale was > discussed. Sssshhhhh, I was trying to, well, nevermind. > The airbags in the US don't cause any more (or less) > injuries than they do anywhere alse. We are just a more litigious sort... An airbag is a hell of a lot softer than a dashboard, steering wheel, windshield, etc etc etc. If you wear your belts, you'll even be in the right place for it to help you. I've been an EMT for a dozen years or so, and I still can't think of anyone with head trauma who was belted and had an airbag. Plenty of folks with trauma who were unbelted. For the record, going head-first through the windshield, and then back, is really bad for your nose. But, people will continue to badmouth airbags, not wear seatbelts, and think that they're speaking authoritatively on the subject without doing basic reasearch. I suppose that won't change. > But, people will continue to badmouth airbags, not wear seatbelts, and > think that they're speaking authoritatively on the subject without doing > basic reasearch. I suppose that won't change. Nope. It's the same geniuses whose whole mission in life is to turn off DRLs. It's mostly a "guy" thing. Or I should say a "stupid macho guy" ego thing. "I don't need to wear a seatbelt because my reflexes are so incredibly quick and I'm so unbelievably clever I can avoid any accident" Some men need to feel in control at all times. They won't acknowledge they're subject to the same forces of nature as everyone else and they have no concept of the forces involved. One genius actually told me, "If I don't wear a seatbelt I'll be able to jump out of the car to avoid injury." In a nanosecond? I don't think so. That brain surgeon Dale Earnhardt wouldn't wear a head restraint; he called it "The Noose" even though the guys with lots of letters after their name proved a hundred different ways how it worked. He knew better. Guess what killed him. So, I guess I better replace that airbag. >> But, people will continue to badmouth airbags, not wear seatbelts, and >> think that they're speaking authoritatively on the subject without doing >> basic reasearch. I suppose that won't change. > Nope. It's the same geniuses whose whole mission in life is to turn off > DRLs. It's mostly a "guy" thing. Or I should say a "stupid macho guy" ego [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > wear a seatbelt I'll be able to jump out of the car to avoid injury." In a > nanosecond? I don't think so. Well, let's be realistic; we're talking milliseconds, not nanoseconds. Distorting the reality doesn't do your credibility any good in an argument. The point I'd make at that time would be that the car is designed to protect you, if you're _inside it_. Being ejected (or worse, "partially ejected") is a really bad thing - cars are large and heavy, and better to be inside than under. > So, I guess I better replace that airbag. I'd still pay someone else to do it, if it were me. But yeah. >> Its more interesting than that. An airbag can also possibly kill you >> (especially in the US). Airbags were indeed designed as a supplementary [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So the part numbers are different then, are they? Here are some cites from the Dept of Traffic and Road Safety in Australian Mr Ignorant. http://www.dotars.gov.au/transreg/str_airbig.aspx/#Injury > Here are some cites from the Dept of Traffic and Road Safety in Australian Mr > Ignorant. http://www.dotars.gov.au/transreg/str_airbig.aspx/#Injury This'll work... http://www.dotars.gov.au/transreg/str_airbag.aspx SignatureMH '72 97 '77 96 '78 95 '79 96 '91 900i >> Here are some cites from the Dept of Traffic and Road Safety in >> Australian Mr Ignorant. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.dotars.gov.au/transreg/str_airbag.aspx Thanks mate! Its is also called the Department Of Transport and Regional Services - duh! The GovCo here is always changing the names of its various departments. In a similar vein ABS systems here in Australia are/were also better. Because of the large amount of dirt roads in rural areas, the controller firmware was developed to use a different strategy and it actually locks the wheels to build a dam of dirt in front of a wheel. Don't ask me to cite you on how the firmware senses unmade roads but it does. You can use google to get your own cites for this. Sweden also has large network of unmade roads so I expect that their ABS strategies are similar. > In a similar vein ABS systems here in Australia are/were also better. > Because of the large amount of dirt roads in rural areas, the controller > firmware was developed to use a different strategy and it actually locks > the wheels to build a dam of dirt in front of a wheel. Don't ask me to > cite you on how the firmware senses unmade roads but it does. Pure heresay. First of all substantiate firmware used down under is different anywhere else. Secondly, even if it is, define "better". What is better downunder may actually be worse up yonder where there are mostly paved roads. >>> Its more interesting than that. An airbag can also possibly kill you >>> (especially in the US). Airbags were indeed designed as a supplementary [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Here are some cites from the Dept of Traffic and Road Safety in Australian > Mr Ignorant. > http://www.dotars.gov.au/transreg/str_airbig.aspx/#Injury I looked at your "cite", and it doesn't back up your claim that Saab uses different parts in the US for the airbags. Maybe I missed it. I do like your new name though. > ... it doesn't back up your claim that Saab uses different parts in the US > for the airbags. From http://www.dotars.gov.au/transreg/str_airbag.aspx : "US airbags must fire earlier and with greater force than the systems seen in Australia. . ... The US airbags fire with much greater force and are designed to stay inflated longer in order to prevent the unbelted occupant from going through the windscreen." To me, this implies that some parts must be different. SignatureMH '72 97 '77 96 '78 95 '79 96 '91 900i >> ... it doesn't back up your claim that Saab uses different parts in the US >> for the airbags. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "US airbags must fire earlier and with greater force than the systems seen in > Australia. . Yes. I read the article. The bias in the writing is extreme, it's vague, and doesn't mention "Saab" once. > The US airbags fire with much greater force and are designed to stay inflated > longer in order to prevent the unbelted occupant from going through the windscreen." In general, perhaps. > To me, this implies that some parts must be different. In some cars, perhaps. >>> ... it doesn't back up your claim that Saab uses different parts in the >>> US for the airbags. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > In some cars, perhaps. This stuff is mandated by ADRs. Australian Design Rules. No new car can be sold in Australia unless it complies with the ADRs. It is as simple as that. That includes Saab cars. The cost of complying with ADRs has a benefit in that it keeps a lot of junk out of the market (especially of US origin). >> Yes. I read the article. The bias in the writing is extreme, it's >> vague, and doesn't mention "Saab" once. > This stuff is mandated by ADRs. Australian Design Rules. No new car can be > sold in Australia unless it complies with the ADRs. It is as simple as > that. That includes Saab cars. So you have a different cite then? > The cost of complying with ADRs has a benefit in that it keeps a lot of junk > out of the market (especially of US origin). Yawn. Your bias is showing again. >>>>... it doesn't back up your claim that Saab uses different parts in the >>>>US for the airbags. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > The cost of complying with ADRs has a benefit in that it keeps a lot of junk > out of the market (especially of US origin). I'll help you out here. See, I have the CD version of the SAAB Electronic Parts Catalog virtually at my fingertips... Hmmm. It seems there is only one part number for the subject 1993 SAAB 9000CSET Air bag module regardless of whether for a right hand drive or left hand drive version car. It is part number 44 16 061. Well perhaps things changed later than 1993 after the Australian government "got on the ball" so to speak... Let's see what it looks like in model year 2002 9-3. Oh, there *are* two different part numbers for airbags in 2002. They are part numbers 52 04 243 and 52 05 059. The latter has the switch for the radio incorporated. So it appears that the same airbag modules are used in the US and Oz even in 2002. Thank goodness. I'd hate to be killed by one of those rogue airbags!! Signature-Fred W What's funny is I think the same Australian government web site was used as "evidence" the last time we had this discussion. ;-) >>>Yes. I read the article. The bias in the writing is extreme, it's >>>vague, and doesn't mention "Saab" once. >> This stuff is mandated by ADRs. Australian Design Rules. No new car can be >> sold in Australia unless it complies with the ADRs. It is as simple as >> that. That includes Saab cars. > I'll help you out here. See, I have the CD version of the SAAB > Electronic Parts Catalog virtually at my fingertips... Oh good. I didn't want to dig through my microfiche just for this. > Hmmm. It seems there is only one part number for the subject 1993 SAAB > 9000CSET Air bag module regardless of whether for a right hand drive or > left hand drive version car. It is part number 44 16 061. Maybe the Australian parts are post-factory modified. Or maybe that guy's cite is, you know, wrong in this case. I suspect the latter to be more likely. > Well perhaps things changed later than 1993 after the Australian > government "got on the ball" so to speak... Let's see what it looks > like in model year 2002 9-3. Oh, there *are* two different part numbers > for airbags in 2002. They are part numbers 52 04 243 and 52 05 059. > The latter has the switch for the radio incorporated. So it appears > that the same airbag modules are used in the US and Oz even in 2002. Hm. Dontcha just hate it when facts get in the way of a good anti-American rant? > Thank goodness. I'd hate to be killed by one of those rogue airbags!! Ah, but don't you see? That's how good the Australian's laws are, they protect us, too! Dave "or something like that..." Hinz >>>>Yes. I read the article. The bias in the writing is extreme, it's >>>>vague, and doesn't mention "Saab" once. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Dave "or something like that..." Hinz After I posted I googled around on this for a while. I did turn up a link at the DOT that had similar language to the Aussie site. You know, US airbags were originally designed to protect both with and without a seatbelt. That sort of thing... But at least as far as SAABs go, there just isn't any difference that I can find so I'm not sure what that means. I wonder which "standard design" SAAB's airbags are aimed at. Signature-Fred W |
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.