 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Saab Cars / September 2007New 9-3 - Form over Function? pah-leeze...
http://www.saabusa.com/saabjsp/93Reborn/?cmp=2007saabiowners&source=aug07saabiowner Much to my chagrin as a long time SAAB buyer / owner, it appears that the new direction of SAAB design is in line with all the other marquees. That is: form over function. Examples: They make a big deal about the clean sides of the car without any rub strips. Looks like more trips to the ding doctor to me... The tail lights are pure bling with no explanation of if / how they effect the rear visibility of the car and therefore safety. Nothing is mentioned in the "video" of passenger protection, superior technology, or almost anything of real merit. Just sales puffery at it's best (worst). In the past (thinking back to the late 80's and early '90's) a huge attractor for thinking people in buying SAABs (over the other brands) was all of the little safety oriented and intelligent design features. Today, I'm afraid, it's just another car pandering to the public perception of coolness. Too bad. And I say this as a guy that currently owns 4 SAABs (2 sport sedans and 2 NG900's) and has owned over a dozen all told over the years.  Signature-Fred W > http://www.saabusa.com/saabjsp/93Reborn/?cmp=2007saabiowners&source=aug07saabiowner > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Too bad. And I say this as a guy that currently owns 4 SAABs (2 sport > sedans and 2 NG900's) and has owned over a dozen all told over the years. You left the seats out. They are not as good as the old ones. Charles SignaturePlease remove _removeme_ to reply. > You left the seats out. They are not as good as the old ones. Typical. Good seats are critically important. Ford know how to make really nasty ones btw. Graham > > You left the seats out. They are not as good as the old ones. > > Typical. Good seats are critically important. Ford know how to make really nasty ones > btw. > > Graham Here is Ford's version of 'Form over Function'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIFaktVOu6g Try to decode the Ford pseudo speak: "Really emotional product..." "More cultural in terms of esthetic execution..." "Kinetic design language...shows a lot of emotion..." "colour story, related to fashion..." and wait for it "Inspired from mobile phone..." LOL! > > > You left the seats out. They are not as good as the old ones. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Here is Ford's version of 'Form over Function'. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIFaktVOu6g That has to be one of the most ugly cars I've seen recently. Bizarre. The body height appears to be totally out of proportion. Graham >> You left the seats out. They are not as good as the old ones. > > Typical. Good seats are critically important. Ford know how to make really > nasty ones > btw. Odd. I've never had any problem whatsoever with any Ford seats. My Ka's leather seats were as comfortable as my current Saab seats, come to think of it: and they saved my back from serious injury too. SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com > > "Charles C." wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > leather seats were as comfortable as my current Saab seats, come to think of > it: and they saved my back from serious injury too. I have twice encountered Ford seats that gave me significant pain. The first time was a Granada with inadequate thigh support. It was merely uncomfortable. The second time was an Escort's rear seat. It left me in agony through inadequate back support. Graham > http://www.saabusa.com/saabjsp/93Reborn/?cmp=2007saabiowners&source=aug07saabiowner > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Too bad. And I say this as a guy that currently owns 4 SAABs (2 sport > sedans and 2 NG900's) and has owned over a dozen all told over the years. These things you mention are essentially entirely due to GM's influence (tinkering) For the life of me, I can't understand why American car companies have bought various European brands and then diluted their traditional brand values by Americanising them ! The rather gross chrome front-end treatment of the 9-5 a year or so ago is a case in point. I saw that Americans generally seemed to love it yet it was ridiculed in Europe, its strongest market ! Also see the 'Saabillac'. Cadillac's BLS based on the 9-3 has all but sunk without trace despite Lutz making it his 'big thing'. Frankly I reckon there are too many cultural / value differences between the USA and Europe / rest of the world for each others' cars to easily cross the divide in geat numbers (with the exception of Japanese cars of course - although it seems many they sell in the USA don't make it anywhere else). Graham >These things you mention are essentially entirely due to GM's influence (tinkering) > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Japanese cars of course - although it seems many they sell in the USA don't make it >anywhere else). Speaking as an American... most Americans them have little taste when it comes to car style. Secondly, GM lives in the long past and doesn't have a clue. It's one of the worst managed companies in the world. That said, their greatest mistakes as of late have been what you alluded to. They buy a brand that has a following for a specific reason (e.g. Saab... European... known for engineering) and they ruin it by introducing crap into the line like the Saaburu and the Chevy SUV. They bought a brand that had a following for some very specific reasons and introduced cars into the line that run 180 degrees from that following. They did the same thing with Cadillac, taking a brand purchased as the definitive large American luxury car and brought in small cars that they recycled from other foreign lines. Again, introducing models that run 180 degrees from what their core audience wants. Now they talk now about how they finally realized that having six car brands that sell the same models with only minor differences is a bad strategy... but as noted above, they are setting up the above two lines to follow in that role - just more recycled vehicles from other lines, badged to match successful lines, and destroying the brand's following in the process. GM lives far in the past, with archaic, ignorant, incompetent, useless management that doesn't have a clue. > <snip> > Now they talk now about how they finally realized that having six car > brands that sell the same models with only minor differences is a bad > strategy... but as noted above, they are setting up the above two > lines to follow in that role - just more recycled vehicles from other > lines, badged to match successful lines, and destroying the brand's > following in the process. British Manufacturer BMC at one time used to make Austin, Morris, Wolseley, Riley and sometimes even Vanden Plas versions of single models. Even when they rationalised it they still continued with Austin and Morris versions of the same thing. Look at what happened to them. > GM lives far in the past, with archaic, ignorant, incompetent, useless > management that doesn't have a clue. That certainly seems to be the case. Bad news for Saab too. Graham > > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Look at what happened to them. Remember their dreadful advertising of BMC "Now we're motoring", implying that they weren't before, LOL! Wasn't that for the Morris ITAL which they claimed accelerated faster than a BMW. Though not any BMW; that one was the large and lowly engined BMW 518 in the 80's. Seen any Morris ITAL recently? Nope. But still many old BMW 5 series around. >> GM lives far in the past, with archaic, ignorant, incompetent, useless >> management that doesn't have a clue. > >That certainly seems to be the case. Bad news for Saab too. It isn't going to change, ever. Ross Perot, a guy who was a self made billionaire back when it meant something, a no nonsense manager who always got the job done no matter how complex or challenging, a manager to model for "get it done" kinds of guys, gave up in frustration after a couple years on the GM board and sold his previously acquired stake. That says something about how hopelessly entrenched they are in their commitment to never learning and never changing. > >> GM lives far in the past, with archaic, ignorant, incompetent, useless > >> management that doesn't have a clue. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That says something about how hopelessly entrenched they are in their > commitment to never learning and never changing. I find it truly quite bizarre. The same kind of thinking killed the UK motor industry too. The largest UK owned auto manufacturer is now the outfit that makes London taxis ! Graham >I find it truly quite bizarre. The same kind of thinking killed the UK motor >industry too. The largest UK owned auto manufacturer is now the outfit that >makes London taxis ! > >Graham A few months ago the GM CEO gave a speech where he argued that raising US Gov't mandated CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards for trucks wasn't fair to GM and would put them at a competitive disadvantage because "Japanese Auto makers sell a lot more smaller trucks". Then in the same speech, he said that sales were down for GM because they have a lot of large trucks that are not selling these days. Apparently he could not connect the two dots. > http://www.saabusa.com/saabjsp/93Reborn/?cmp=2007saabiowners&source=aug07saabiowner > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Examples: They make a big deal about the clean sides of the car without > any rub strips. Looks like more trips to the ding doctor to me... This is utter stupidity! Cars always get knocked and bumped. Luckily, I have a 9000 with rub strips all round. |
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.