 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Saab Cars / January 2008Have Saab reintroduced hatchback yet?
I lost interest in Saabs about five years ago when they stopped making hatchbacks. Have they reintroduced them yet? It was their best feature! > I lost interest in Saabs about five years ago when they stopped making > hatchbacks. Have they reintroduced them yet? It was their best feature! Do I presume you're in the US? Here in Europe, much of the "executive car" market - where the 93 sits - view hatchbacks as being inferior to saloons, and will buy a saloon in preference. Want the load capacity? Buy the estate version. If it's good enough for the German marques, it's good enough for mere mortal manufacturers. With that in mind, I doubt very much that there will be a 93 hatch. There hasn't been a 95 hatch since they launched it a decade ago, killing off the 9000 hatch - which was outsold by the saloon. > > I lost interest in Saabs about five years ago when they stopped making > > hatchbacks. Have they reintroduced them yet? It was their best feature! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > hasn't been a 95 hatch since they launched it a decade ago, killing off the > 9000 hatch - which was outsold by the saloon. Are you sure? I see far more 9000 CS/CSE's around here than the CD/CDE. The 9000 CS is a nice design, it manages to be a spacious load carrier without looking bulky as an estate. I did a google on the Saab 9-1 hatchback, there are plenty of sketches out there, but I was not very impressed with what I saw. It looked awkward compared to the elegant Volvo C30. >> With that in mind, I doubt very much that there will be a 93 hatch. >> There hasn't been a 95 hatch since they launched it a decade ago, >> killing off the 9000 hatch - which was outsold by the saloon. > Are you sure? I see far more 9000 CS/CSE's around here than the > CD/CDE. Thinking about later ones, I'd certainly guess so - but let's not forget that it's skewed by the survival rates. Big hatches are unusual, so 9000 hatches may well have survived better. I'm fairly sure that "back in the day", there was a load more late 9000 saloons than hatches. > I did a google on the Saab 9-1 hatchback, there are plenty of sketches > out there, but I was not very impressed with what I saw. It looked > awkward compared to the elegant Volvo C30. It gets worse. It's a Vauxhall Astra underneath. > >> With that in mind, I doubt very much that there will be a 93 hatch. > >> There hasn't been a 95 hatch since they launched it a decade ago, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > It gets worse. It's a Vauxhall Astra underneath. Here is an interesting website. http://www.gminsidenews.com/naias/revitalization/saabria/ The Americanization of next Saabs is quite obvious from these pictures. > http://www.gminsidenews.com/naias/revitalization/saabria/ > The Americanization of next Saabs is quite obvious from these pictures. <shrug> Guesstimates from an American perspective, so of course they spin it as fitting what they perceive. The 1-series BMW and A3 may be laughable, but will a tarted-up Astra get even close to cutting the mustard against 'em? Not a cat in hell's. > > johannes gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > http://www.gminsidenews.com/naias/revitalization/saabria/ > The Americanization of next Saabs is quite obvious from these pictures. Gross isn't it ? I recently saw the Top Gear where Clarkson commented on the 9-5 'facelift'. His comment was that they'd put Dame Edna Everage's glasses on it ! http://farm1.static.flickr.com/44/143335616_d909084b9c.jpg?v=0 Graham >Gross isn't it ? I don't know what this thing is with the cartoonized front end on new cars but I'd be embarrassed to drive one. Frank /~ http://newmex.com/f10 @/ >I recently saw the Top Gear where Clarkson commented on the 9-5 'facelift'. His >comment was that they'd put Dame Edna Everage's glasses on it ! > >http://farm1.static.flickr.com/44/143335616_d909084b9c.jpg?v=0 > >Graham > >Gross isn't it ? > > I don't know what this thing is with the cartoonized front end on new > cars but I'd be embarrassed to drive one. > > Frank /~ http://newmex.com/f10 That's a link to an ampliifer site. Graham >>>johannes gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > http://farm1.static.flickr.com/44/143335616_d909084b9c.jpg?v=0 Which is the same thing he said about the BMW 5 series when uit was last updated. This is clearly NOT a US / Americanization issue.  Signature-Fred W > >>>johannes gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : > >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Which is the same thing he said about the BMW 5 series when uit was last > updated. Funny you should say that. There's one of those in the street here and I noticed it earlier. It looks like it's been given eyebrows. I think it looks silly. > This is clearly NOT a US / Americanization issue. More chrome (as in the case of the 9-5) is generally seen to be a US fad by us lot. Graham >>>>>johannes gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > More chrome (as in the case of the 9-5) is generally seen to be a US fad by us lot. Anything less than desireable is attributable to the US by you. Signature-Fred W [...] > Anything less than desireable is attributable to the US by you. No, its mainly historical. People in US have certain taste for how a car should look, so we get heavy front features and chrome surrounds. You can often see these style elements rooted from way back to the 1950's large cruisers. Companies such as Audi and Volvo once introduced squared chromed headlamps for US market only. Some of this styling is considered garish by European eyes. We think a car should have a clean efficient shape. Fashion plays a huge role for what we would like to bee seen in. >[...] >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >efficient shape. Fashion plays a huge role for what we would like to >bee seen in. A classic case of pandering to American tastes was the Vulva 760 which aped the Lincoln Town Car look. That design didn't do it any favours in my part of the world. Honda pander better than most, they offer an Accord in both American and Euro styles. As for the eyebrows/Dame Edna look you can blame that on Chris Bangle. When I first saw that design idiom expressed in BMWs I wasn't sure if I should laugh or vomit. Today, so many cars have adopted the cliche that it kind of looks normal. The Japanese too were into anthropmorphic design very early on. Asian tastes also play a major role in style today. By Asian I don't mean Indian, rather the burgeoning middle classes of S.E. Asia and China. Taste in those parts has always been quesionable. Not all European design is attractive - the French are very good at creating nasty odd ball designs. Very few US car designs do it for me, but they have come up with some design classics over the years - the original Ford Mustang being a notable case in point. Car design here is pretty interesting, we mix elements of US and European and Asian design - take the Holden HSV Senator Signature as an example http://editorial.carsales.com.au/car-review/1994414.aspx For me, I still like the looks of the Saab 900 SPG/Aero, it is a true design classic. It is remarkable how they turn the heads of the younger generation today. > >> With that in mind, I doubt very much that there will be a 93 hatch. > >> There hasn't been a 95 hatch since they launched it a decade ago, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > hatches may well have survived better. I'm fairly sure that "back in the > day", there was a load more late 9000 saloons than hatches. I'm sure 9000CSs outsold the CD (by a large margin) in the UK. I'd never buy a saloon/sedan simply because in a rainy country like England a rear wiper is essential for safety IMHO. Also, they're more difficult to park in tight spaces like we typically have here for on-road parking. Graham >> >> With that in mind, I doubt very much that there will be a 93 hatch. >> >> There hasn't been a 95 hatch since they launched it a decade ago, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > England a > rear wiper is essential for safety IMHO. Hmm. Not so sure I agree on you there. If you're parking it's extra handy, otherwise, seeing through a wet rear window serves its purpose as to "there are three cars behind me, two are tailgating the other." Annnd even in heavy rain, at speeds over around 40 mph, you'll find the rear window is scrubbed by the aerodynamics - something my 9-3 hatchback does, come to think of it. > Also, they're more difficult to park in > tight spaces like we typically have here for on-road parking. They're no harder than the majority of hatchback designs, unfortunately. SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com > > Adrian wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > otherwise, seeing through a wet rear window serves its purpose as to "there > are three cars behind me, two are tailgating the other." But you can't see even that much without a rear wiper. > Annnd even in heavy rain, at speeds over around 40 mph, you'll find the rear > window is scrubbed by the aerodynamics - something my 9-3 hatchback does, > come to think of it. So, no good around town which is where accidents are more likely to happen as a rule. > > Also, they're more difficult to park in > > tight spaces like we typically have here for on-road parking. > > They're no harder than the majority of hatchback designs, unfortunately. I don't agree. Graham >> > Adrian wrote: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > But you can't see even that much without a rear wiper. I can. >> Annnd even in heavy rain, at speeds over around 40 mph, you'll find the >> rear [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > as a > rule. You're overplaying the ability to see if the lady behind is wearing a wedding ring or not. >> > Also, they're more difficult to park in >> > tight spaces like we typically have here for on-road parking. >> >> They're no harder than the majority of hatchback designs, unfortunately. > > I don't agree. Fair enough. Have you tried back to back comparisons between a variety of machines? Say, a Passat saloon and a Mondeo hatchback? SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com > I'm sure 9000CSs outsold the CD (by a large margin) in the UK. Let's look at it another way - if the hatch HAD have been the big seller, Saab UK would have been clamouring for a hatch 95... If the hatch HAD have been the big seller in multiple markets, there would have been a hatch 95. >> I'm sure 9000CSs outsold the CD (by a large margin) in the UK. > Let's look at it another way - if the hatch HAD have been the big > seller, Saab UK would have been clamouring for a hatch 95... If the > hatch HAD have been the big seller in multiple markets, there would > have been a hatch 95. I should add... Remember the Mk3 Granada/Scorpio? Rover 800? Both started out as hatch-led ranges, in roughly the same market as the 900 (my mother replaced her 900i with an 820e, both company cars) - both finished up with the saloons massively outselling the hatches. In the case of the Scorp, it started out with no saloon available, and finished up with the hatch being dropped way before the saloon. Across Europe, there was a sea-change in the exec car market around the turn of the 80s/90s, with hatches and "mass-market" brands becoming pariahs. > >> I'm sure 9000CSs outsold the CD (by a large margin) in the UK. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Remember the Mk3 Granada/Scorpio? Rover 800? Both started out as hatch-led > ranges, I don't recall ANY hatchback Granada/Scorpio ever. Furthermore I always recall the Rover 800 being available in both body shapes. It was ther SD1 that was only a hatch. > in roughly the same market as the 900 (my mother replaced her 900i > with an 820e, both company cars) - both finished up with the saloons > massively outselling the hatches. In the case of the Scorp, it started out > with no saloon available, and finished up with the hatch being dropped way > before the saloon. But neither of these are Saabs ! > Across Europe, there was a sea-change in the exec car market around the > turn of the 80s/90s, with hatches and "mass-market" brands becoming > pariahs. Why ? I don't agree. I think boots are stupid. Graham [snip] >> Across Europe, there was a sea-change in the exec car market around the >> turn of the 80s/90s, with hatches and "mass-market" brands becoming >> pariahs. > > Why ? I don't agree. Because those people who do agree bought more cars than you... :) > I think boots are stupid. Depends on the lady wearing them. SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com >> Remember the Mk3 Granada/Scorpio? Rover 800? Both started out as >> hatch-led ranges, > I don't recall ANY hatchback Granada/Scorpio ever. http://snipurl.com/1qw02 Launched '85, B-reg, as hatch only. Saloon came a couple of years later. After the "fish-face" facelift, only the saloon was available. > Furthermore I always recall the Rover 800 being available in both body > shapes. Yes, I know. That's why I said... >> in roughly the same market as the 900 (my mother replaced her 900i >> with an 820e, both company cars) - both finished up with the saloons >> massively outselling the hatches. In the case of the Scorp, it >> started out with no saloon available, and finished up with the hatch >> being dropped way before the saloon. Perhaps you ought to read it again. Or once. > But neither of these are Saabs ! No, but they were amongst the main competition at the time. You really don't quite understand, do you? Saab do not build cars in isolation from the rest of the market. >> Across Europe, there was a sea-change in the exec car market around >> the turn of the 80s/90s, with hatches and "mass-market" brands >> becoming pariahs. > Why ? I don't agree. I think boots are stupid. Fine. I don't much like German cars, either. However, we're quite obviously in a tiny minority amongst the buyers of new £20-30k cars. > >> Remember the Mk3 Granada/Scorpio? Rover 800? Both started out as > >> hatch-led ranges, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Launched '85, B-reg, as hatch only. Saloon came a couple of years later. > After the "fish-face" facelift, only the saloon was available. Oh that thing. I'd completely forgotten about it. > > Furthermore I always recall the Rover 800 being available in both body > > shapes. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Perhaps you ought to read it again. Or once. Because it makes no sense. You appear to be saying that because Brand X sells more saloon cars then hatchbacks then so should Saab. The numbers on the road say otherwise. I very rarely see a 9000CD, but CS models are numerous. There must have been a reason for that unrelated to Ford or Rover. > > But neither of these are Saabs ! > > No, but they were amongst the main competition at the time. You really > don't quite understand, do you? Saab do not build cars in isolation from > the rest of the market. You seriously think a potential Saab purchaser was really likely to be thinking of buying a Granny or a Rover 800 !!! ??? I don't see it myself. I'm astonised actually. Graham >> >> Remember the Mk3 Granada/Scorpio? Rover 800? Both started out as >> >> hatch-led ranges, >> > I don't recall ANY hatchback Granada/Scorpio ever. >> http://snipurl.com/1qw02 >> Launched '85, B-reg, as hatch only. Saloon came a couple of years >> later. After the "fish-face" facelift, only the saloon was available. > Oh that thing. I'd completely forgotten about it. The Mk3 Granada, yes. Congratulations. > You appear to be saying that because Brand X sells more saloon cars > then hatchbacks then so should Saab. You really think that the people who choose new Saabs are somehow very different to the people who choose new Mercs/BMWs/Volvos/Lexuses/Alfas/ <whatever>? > The numbers on the road say otherwise. I very rarely see a 9000CD, but > CS models are numerous. > There must have been a reason for that unrelated to Ford or Rover. Indeed. Big hatches are scarce, because nobody bought 'em new, so when they filter down the market, they don't get scrapped quite as readily. As I suggested several posts ago. >> > But neither of these are Saabs ! >> No, but they were amongst the main competition at the time. You >> really don't quite understand, do you? Saab do not build cars in >> isolation from the rest of the market. > You seriously think a potential Saab purchaser was really likely to be > thinking of buying a Granny or a Rover 800 !!! ??? I don't see it > myself. I'm astonised actually. Not *now*, no, because you can't actually buy a Granada or Rover 800... But, yes, back in the late 80s - as the exec car market moved massively towards German "premium brand" saloons - yes, they were. Again - your reading skills are obviously lacking, so I'll remind you... >> >> in roughly the same market as the 900 (my mother replaced her 900i >> >> with an 820e, both company cars) > >> >> Remember the Mk3 Granada/Scorpio? Rover 800? Both started out as > >> >> hatch-led ranges, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The Mk3 Granada, yes. Congratulations. EXCUSE ME ! Why on earth would I ever want to commit to memory such an utter piece of trash ? Thank god, they're no longer around. Graham > > You appear to be saying that because Brand X sells more saloon cars > > then hatchbacks then so should Saab. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > filter down the market, they don't get scrapped quite as readily. As I > suggested several posts ago. AHEM ! If 'noboby' bought them new, then how come there are so many around ? Did Saab especially build second-hand ones maybe ? I await your answer with fascination. I presume logic isn't your strong point btw ? Graham >> Indeed. Big hatches are scarce, because nobody bought 'em new, so >> when they filter down the market, they don't get scrapped quite as >> readily. As I suggested several posts ago. > AHEM ! If 'noboby' bought them new, then how come there are so many > around ? Did Saab especially build second-hand ones maybe ? <sigh> A relative "nobody", rather than an absolute one. > >> Indeed. Big hatches are scarce, because nobody bought 'em new, so > >> when they filter down the market, they don't get scrapped quite as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > <sigh> A relative "nobody", rather than an absolute one. You're an idiot. Graham >> >> Indeed. Big hatches are scarce, because nobody bought 'em new, so >> >> when they filter down the market, they don't get scrapped quite as [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You're an idiot. You're funny. You write, "noboby" and then claim Adrian is an idiot. You are also unable to formulate any sort of argument that is remotely considered. SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com > > Adrian wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You are also unable to formulate any sort of argument that is remotely > considered. Perhaps you can explain why there are so many 9000CSs on UK roads if 'nobody' ever bought them ? Graham >> > Adrian wrote: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 'nobody' > ever bought them ? [quote] >> >> <sigh> A relative "nobody", rather than an absolute one. [/quote] SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com > > You seriously think a potential Saab purchaser was really likely to be > > thinking of buying a Granny or a Rover 800 !!! ??? I don't see it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > towards German "premium brand" saloons - yes, they were. Again - your > reading skills are obviously lacking, so I'll remind you... Let me explain something to you. In 1988 I had the pleasure of getting a budget of £10k to buy a company car of my choice. I could have got a Rover 820e for that money. That wasn't the base model 800 either. There's no way £10k would have bought any new Saab at all. You're comparing chalk and cheese. Graham > Let me explain something to you. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You're comparing chalk and cheese. <shrug> C190KWJ F469GET Same person, same job, same company. > > > You seriously think a potential Saab purchaser was really likely to be > > > thinking of buying a Granny or a Rover 800 !!! ??? I don't see it [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Graham Yes, you needed 15k then to buy a Saab 9000 in 1987. Hence I bought the poor man's 9000; a FIAT Croma CHT for around 10k. This car I had for 10 years. Then in 1997 I bought my current 1993 9000 CSE for 11k, still in mint condition. >> > You seriously think a potential Saab purchaser was really likely to be >> > thinking of buying a Granny or a Rover 800 !!! ??? I don't see it [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > car of > my choice. I could have got a Rover 820e for that money. Oh really? Can you prove that? > That wasn't the base > model 800 either. There's no way £10k would have bought any new Saab at > all. > > You're comparing chalk and cheese. Have a look at the (very old) road test on this web page. http://www.rover800.org.uk/ SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com >> You're comparing chalk and cheese. > Have a look at the (very old) road test on this web page. > > http://www.rover800.org.uk/ Or, indeed, Keith Adams' website, www.austin-rover.org.uk - specifically the "Rivals" page. Oh, look. 9000. http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?xxrivalsf.htm I count six hatches and 12 saloons in the "rivals" list. Of those available as hatches, only three didn't have a saloon version - XM, R25 and Croma. Strange how none of those three set the sales charts alight. > >> You're comparing chalk and cheese. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > as hatches, only three didn't have a saloon version - XM, R25 and Croma. > Strange how none of those three set the sales charts alight. Has it never occurred to you that a bad or uninteresting car might not set the sales chart alight simply because it was a bad or uninteresting car ? I test drove a Renault 25 as it happens but it was uninspiring and the armchair seating was rubbish. I also test drove an Astra GTE and it was INSANE. The saleman from the garage looked somewhat stunned as we returned. Graham >> Or, indeed, Keith Adams' website, www.austin-rover.org.uk - >> specifically the "Rivals" page. Oh, look. 9000. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> R25 and Croma. Strange how none of those three set the sales charts >> alight. > Has it never occurred to you that a bad or uninteresting car might not > set the sales chart alight simply because it was a bad or > uninteresting car ? Would you actually recognise a clue if it ran up to you, waving a big banner with "I'm a clue!" written on it, and bit you in the bollocks? OK, here's a challenge for you... Name me *one* executive-class hatchback that's sold in anything other than relatively insignificant tuppence-ha'penny numbers since the mid 90s. > >> Or, indeed, Keith Adams' website, www.austin-rover.org.uk - > >> specifically the "Rivals" page. Oh, look. 9000. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Name me *one* executive-class hatchback that's sold in anything other than > relatively insignificant tuppence-ha'penny numbers since the mid 90s. Do you consider Saab 9000 sales to be insignificant ? Of course, you can't sell something that doesn't exist can you ? Maybe you missed that 'clue' ? Furthermore, is sales volume the only figure of merit your understand ? How does Aston Martin for example do in that regard ? I expect you think they must be rubbish becasue they don't sell very many. I suppose that probably makes the Mondeo the best car around too. Graham >> Name me *one* executive-class hatchback that's sold in anything other >> than relatively insignificant tuppence-ha'penny numbers since the mid >> 90s. > Do you consider Saab 9000 sales to be insignificant ? By the time it was dropped towards the end of the mid-90s, yes. It was bloody ancient. The 95's been out for damn near a decade now. > Furthermore, is sales volume the only figure of merit your understand? It's the only figure of merit that the manufacturers understand, yes. > How does Aston Martin for example do in that regard? Are they in the £25k exec car market now? I must have missed that. > I expect you think they must be rubbish becasue they don't sell very > many. I suppose that probably makes the Mondeo the best car around too. <adds basic economics to the list of subjects Eeyore has no clue about> > > Adrian wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Oh really? Can you prove that? Why would you feel the need for me to 'prove' that ? I could have had a Golf GTi too (just barely from a local dealer). Graham >> > Adrian wrote: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Why would you feel the need for me to 'prove' that ? It's entrapment, because I know you can't. > I could have had a Golf GTi too (just barely from a local dealer). SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com > Have a look at the (very old) road test on this web page. > > http://www.rover800.org.uk/ A search for the words 'road' and 'test' reveals no links. Graham >> Have a look at the (very old) road test on this web page. >> >> http://www.rover800.org.uk/ > > A search for the words 'road' and 'test' reveals no links. Is this another example of you claiming something, but not knowing if it's true either way? SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com On Sep 19, 2:31 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Let me explain something to you. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You're comparing chalk and cheese. BTW, Graham... I dug out a 1990 copy of CAR earlier for something else. List prices... Rover 800 range - ?14,995-?24,870 Saab 900 range - ?11,995-?25,895 Saab 9000 range - ?15,795-?26,295 > > Let me explain something to you. > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Saab 900 range - £11,995-£25,895 > Saab 9000 range - £15,795-£26,295 In 1988 I was offered a new Rover 820e for under £10k. So something's amiss with those numbers. Graham > > > In 1988 I had the pleasure of getting a budget of £10k to buy a company car of > > > my choice. I could have got a Rover 820e for that money. That wasn't the base > > > model 800 either. There's no way £10k would have bought any new Saab at all. > > > > > > You're comparing chalk and cheese. > > BTW, Graham... I dug out a 1990 copy of CAR earlier for something > > else. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Saab 900 range - £11,995-£25,895 > > Saab 9000 range - £15,795-£26,295 > In 1988 I was offered a new Rover 820e for under £10k. So something's amiss with > those numbers. Which ones? Shall we put them in context? List for a base-spec Rover 414i was £9,975. A Metro GTi was £9,500. A Cavalier 1.4L was £10,065. List for the 820e was £15,665 for both 4 and 5dr. A 5dr 900S 16v was £14,995. Yes, that was 1990 rather than 1988, but any inflation would have affected the Saab price equally. Anyway, 50% inflation in two years? Would you like me to scan the page if you don't believe me? It's the September '90 issue of CAR, £2 cover price, Mini Cooper vs the "10 best hot hatches" on the front cover, and a "Giant Test" of Sierra Sapph Cosworth 4x4 vs R21 turbo Quadra inside - the Cossie came off best by a long way, btw. Oh, and the reason I've got that issue is the large obit article for the recently ceased-production 2cv. > > > > In 1988 I had the pleasure of getting a budget of £10k to buy a company car of > > > > my choice. I could have got a Rover 820e for that money. That wasn't the base [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Yes, that was 1990 rather than 1988, but any inflation would have > affected the Saab price equally. Anyway, 50% inflation in two years? Well, I got a Cavalier 2.0i GLS For under £10k in April '88. I could have had the top-of-the-range CD model too for under 10k as it happens. It looks like the 'official' prices are ever so slightly optimistic. I'll bet Saab dealers didn't offer the same kind of discounts that Rover dealers did. Graham >> > > > In 1988 I had the pleasure of getting a budget of £10k to buy a >> > > > company car of [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > bet Saab > dealers didn't offer the same kind of discounts that Rover dealers did. Either way, Rover dealers won't have been offering >30% as a discount. Either you worked for the owners of Rover or you have selective memory. SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com > > toomany2cvs@gmail.com wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Either you worked for the owners of Rover or you have selective memory. Wrong again. Graham >> > In 1988 I was offered a new Rover 820e for under £10k. So >> > something's amiss with those numbers. >> Which ones? Shall we put them in context? List for a base-spec Rover >> 414i was £9,975. A Metro GTi was £9,500. A Cavalier 1.4L was £10,065. >> List for the 820e was £15,665 for both 4 and 5dr. A 5dr 900S 16v was >> £14,995. >> Yes, that was 1990 rather than 1988, but any inflation would have >> affected the Saab price equally. Anyway, 50% inflation in two years? > Well, I got a Cavalier 2.0i GLS For under £10k in April '88. I could > have had the top-of-the-range CD model too for under 10k as it > happens. List price in Sept '90? Well, there wasn't a GLS in the range. GL was £12,225, SRi £13,305, CD £14,725, GSi £16,730. > >> > In 1988 I was offered a new Rover 820e for under £10k. So > >> > something's amiss with those numbers. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > List price in Sept '90? Well, there wasn't a GLS in the range. GL was > £12,225, SRi £13,305, CD £14,725, GSi £16,730. Yes, it only makes sense to quote the official list prices; there are (were) all sorts of other deals available, so the price you pay may vary considerable. >> > Well, I got a Cavalier 2.0i GLS For under £10k in April '88. I >> > could have had the top-of-the-range CD model too for under 10k as >> > it happens. >> List price in Sept '90? Well, there wasn't a GLS in the range. GL was >> £12,225, SRi £13,305, CD £14,725, GSi £16,730. > Yes, it only makes sense to quote the official list prices; there are > (were) all sorts of other deals available, so the price you pay may > vary considerable. Oh, indeed. Supply and demand is all... In that very magazine, there's an interview with Bob Eaton, then head of GM Europe, in which he says that they could easily have sold many more Cavaliers, but they had serious supply problems. Doesn't sound like 30% discounts would have been readly available. <thinks> Actually, given that we're talking about '88-'90. '88 would have been the last of the Mk2 Chavalier/Ascona C, which had been replaced by the much, much better Mk3/Vectra A by '90, so it's not really an apples-for-apples, given that they probably would have been desperate to shift the last of the old ones in '88, so discounting very heavily. There's also a piece about how the (freshly launched) Vx/Opel Calibra would be sold in the US under the Saab badge... > >> > Well, I got a Cavalier 2.0i GLS For under £10k in April '88. I > >> > could have had the top-of-the-range CD model too for under 10k as [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > desperate to shift the last of the old ones in '88, so discounting very > heavily. The mark 3 didn't come along for another 4-5 months after I got mine. Supply of that was slow to ramp up too plus the range was limited so I disagree about them being desperate to shift stock. > There's also a piece about how the (freshly launched) Vx/Opel Calibra > would be sold in the US under the Saab badge... And the USA is now finally going to be getting the Astra and Vectra under the Saturn brand AIUI. Graham >> There's also a piece about how the (freshly launched) Vx/Opel Calibra >> would be sold in the US under the Saab badge... > And the USA is now finally going to be getting the Astra and Vectra > under the Saturn brand AIUI. They've had 'em for years - the Mk2 Ashtray was the Pontiac LeMans, and the current Vectra's the Chev Malibu. > >> There's also a piece about how the (freshly launched) Vx/Opel Calibra > >> would be sold in the US under the Saab badge... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > They've had 'em for years - the Mk2 Ashtray was the Pontiac LeMans, A rarity. And certainly not current. > and the current Vectra's the Chev Malibu. It's not actually a straight Vectra. The Aura however appears to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Aura also .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Astra You don't get much right do you ? Graham > >> > In 1988 I was offered a new Rover 820e for under £10k. So > >> > something's amiss with those numbers. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > List price in Sept '90? Well, there wasn't a GLS in the range. They changed the model range. > GL was £12,225, SRi £13,305, CD £14,725, GSi £16,730. Different specs but I'd say the SRi would have been the closest Graham >> > Let me explain something to you. >> > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > amiss with > those numbers. No, either you are lying or your memory is failing you. SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com > > toomany2cvs@gmail.com wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > No, either you are lying or your memory is failing you. You're wrong on both counts. Graham [...] > You seriously think a potential Saab purchaser was really likely to be thinking > of buying a Granny or a Rover 800 !!! ??? I don't see it myself. I'm astonised > actually. I once looked at the 'new' Granada when it came out in mid 80's. The hatchback style was then a departure, and thought to appeal to a younger and more trendy professional man. The Granada I looked at had an 1.8L 90 bhp engine, 4 gears and no power assisted steering. How things has changed... > > You seriously think a potential Saab purchaser was really likely to be thinking > > of buying a Granny or a Rover 800 !!! ??? I don't see it myself. I'm astonised [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > professional man. The Granada I looked at had an 1.8L 90 bhp engine, 4 gears > and no power assisted steering. How things has changed... I have *never* looked at a Granny. It was an utter POS IMHO. Graham >> > You seriously think a potential Saab purchaser was really likely to be >> > thinking [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I have *never* looked at a Granny. It was an utter POS IMHO. Oh, so you don't have any opinions of your own, you just recite other peoples' drivel. That's one of the most blinkered spouts I've seen for a while. Chump. You don't have a clue if it was any good or not... because you didn't bother investigating. SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com > > I have *never* looked at a Granny. It was an utter POS IMHO. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You don't have a clue if it was any good or not... because you didn't bother > investigating. My experience of other peoples' Grannies was enough. No need to prolong the torture. Graham >> > You seriously think a potential Saab purchaser was really likely to be >> > thinking [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I have *never* looked at a Granny. It was an utter POS IMHO. I doubt they sold many 1.8's.... The v6 was nice. I liked them, well equipped, roomy. as good as a 9000 for less money IMO.... > >> > You seriously think a potential Saab purchaser was really likely to be > >> > thinking [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The v6 was nice. I liked them, well equipped, roomy. as good as a 9000 for > less money IMO.... Yes, the top of range Scorpio model was a nice car. Later on they all became Scorpios to escape the granny tag. > > I'm sure 9000CSs outsold the CD (by a large margin) in the UK. > > Let's look at it another way - if the hatch HAD have been the big seller, The numbers on the road say it was. > Saab UK would have been clamouring for a hatch 95... If the hatch HAD have > been the big seller in multiple markets, there would have been a hatch 95. One country asking alone isn't likely to be enough. Graham >> If the hatch HAD have been the big seller in multiple markets, there >> would have been a hatch 95. > One country asking alone isn't likely to be enough. Have you ever considered reading the posts you reply to? > > I lost interest in Saabs about five years ago when they stopped making > > hatchbacks. Have they reintroduced them yet? It was their best feature! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > view hatchbacks as being inferior to saloons, and will buy a saloon in > preference. Really ? > Want the load capacity? Buy the estate version. If it's good > enough for the German marques, it's good enough for mere mortal [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hasn't been a 95 hatch since they launched it a decade ago, killing off the > 9000 hatch - which was outsold by the saloon. Certainly not in the UK. 9000CDs are very rare but CSs are quite common. Graham >> > I lost interest in Saabs about five years ago when they stopped making >> > hatchbacks. Have they reintroduced them yet? It was their best feature! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Really ? Yes, absolutely. Hatchbacks are for neds / pikeys / scruff, because they need to carry things. Saloons are for carrying people. Or so that's the spirit of it. :) >> Want the load capacity? Buy the estate version. If it's good >> enough for the German marques, it's good enough for mere mortal [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Certainly not in the UK. 9000CDs are very rare but CSs are quite common. From the sounds of it, that depends on where you are. I worked at a place where we had lots of Saabs, we had more 9000 saloons compared to hatchbacks. SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com > > Adrian wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Or so that's the spirit of it. :) You're the first person I've come across to say anything like that. I reckon your attitude is a good enough reason to not want to drive a saloon. I'd hate to be associated with ppl with such small brains. Hatchbacks look smarter to me anyway. The lines are tidier and they do typically have lower drag too. Graham >> > Adrian wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > You're the first person I've come across to say anything like that. Hmm. > I reckon your attitude is a good enough reason to not want to drive a > saloon. > I'd hate to be associated with ppl with such small brains. LOL. Okay, well if that's what you think. If you're trying to have a go at me for having a small brain, first you should consider writing out your post in full rather than dropping text speak in there. Second, I'm vomiting up the opinion of all too many a company car driver, not my own - hence "that's the spirit of it." On the fleet I managed, people would whine about the colour, minute detail of the specification and this wonderstuff called "image." I was led to believe that a Mondeo saloon was something completely different to a Mondeo hatchback, because it was so much stiffer, therefore handled loads better, oh and it looked better too. "Okay, like, whatever" was my usual response to such idiots. Unfortunately, people have this belief that somehow driving a saloon makes the car "better" or less utiliatian than otherwise. Me, personally? I prefer a hatchback, I can deal with a saloon. All bar one of my cars have been hatchbacks and the current (2000 9-3 diesel) is a hatchback. > Hatchbacks look smarter to me anyway. The lines are tidier and they do > typically > have lower drag too. The Cd figure varies model by model, and really *really* isn't something to pick a different machine for... If you prefer the look, that is. SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com > Second, I'm vomiting up the opinion of all too many a company car > driver, not my own - hence "that's the spirit of it." On the fleet I > managed, people would whine about the colour, minute detail of the > specification and this wonderstuff called "image." And who is it that Saab are building cars to sell to...? Yep, those company car drivers. >> Second, I'm vomiting up the opinion of all too many a company car >> driver, not my own - hence "that's the spirit of it." On the fleet I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yep, those company car drivers. Tell me about it. Still *sighs* I benefit from this. The first owner of my 9-3 was... yes... you guessed it... SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com > > Second, I'm vomiting up the opinion of all too many a company car > > driver, not my own - hence "that's the spirit of it." On the fleet I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yep, those company car drivers. It wasn't that way before. Graham >> > Second, I'm vomiting up the opinion of all too many a company car >> > driver, not my own - hence "that's the spirit of it." On the fleet I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It wasn't that way before. Lots of things have changed. Change is progress, for better or for worse. SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com >> > Second, I'm vomiting up the opinion of all too many a company car >> > driver, not my own - hence "that's the spirit of it." On the fleet I >> > managed, people would whine about the colour, minute detail of the >> > specification and this wonderstuff called "image." >> And who is it that Saab are building cars to sell to...? >> >> Yep, those company car drivers. > It wasn't that way before. Before when? It's been that way for twenty years. > >> > Second, I'm vomiting up the opinion of all too many a company car > >> > driver, not my own - hence "that's the spirit of it." On the fleet I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Before when? Pretty much before the 'new' 900 actually. > It's been that way for twenty years. No. Just over 10 years. Graham >> >> > Second, I'm vomiting up the opinion of all too many a company car >> >> > driver, not my own - hence "that's the spirit of it." On the fleet [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > No. Just over 10 years. It's waaaay closer to 20 compared to 10. SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com > > Adrian wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > It's waaaay closer to 20 compared to 10. Since when is 13 closer to 20 than 10 ? Introduced 13 years ago in 1994. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_900_(NG) Do you DELIBERATELY lie ? Graham >>>>>>>Second, I'm vomiting up the opinion of all too many a company car >>>>>>>driver, not my own - hence "that's the spirit of it." On the fleet [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Graham Technically you are both wrong. The NG 900 was introduced as a '94 model year car in 1993. That was *14* years ago. (still closer to 10) Signature-Fred W >>>>>>>>Second, I'm vomiting up the opinion of all too many a company >>>>>>>>car driver, not my own - hence "that's the spirit of it." On >>>>>>>>the fleet I managed, people would whine about the colour, minute >>>>>>>>detail of the specification and this wonderstuff called "image." >>>>>>>And who is it that Saab are building cars to sell to...? >>>>>>>Yep, those company car drivers. >>>>>>It wasn't that way before. >>>>>Before when? >>>>Pretty much before the 'new' 900 actually. >>>>>It's been that way for twenty years. >>>>No. Just over 10 years. >>>It's waaaay closer to 20 compared to 10. >> Since when is 13 closer to 20 than 10 ? Introduced 13 years ago in >> 1994. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_900_(NG) >> >> Do you DELIBERATELY lie ? > Technically you are both wrong. > The NG 900 was introduced as a '94 model year car in 1993. > That was *14* years ago. (still closer to 10) But since the disputed 20/10yr ago date was being given as when the UK exec car market started to move massively away from hatches and "mass brands", it's more than slightly irrelevant WHEN the NG900 was released... apart from to identify when it was *BEFORE*. And since we're all agreed that we're talking about before 1993, we're looking at 15 years bare minimum - hence nearer 20 than 10. >>>>>>>>>Second, I'm vomiting up the opinion of all too many a company >>>>>>>>>car driver, not my own - hence "that's the spirit of it." On [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > And since we're all agreed that we're talking about before 1993, we're > looking at 15 years bare minimum - hence nearer 20 than 10. Ummm. You are aware that the NG900 was still a hatchback right? Signature-Fred W >> But since the disputed 20/10yr ago date was being given as when the >> UK exec car market started to move massively away from hatches and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> And since we're all agreed that we're talking about before 1993, >> we're looking at 15 years bare minimum - hence nearer 20 than 10. > Ummm. You are aware that the NG900 was still a hatchback right? <bangs head on table> > >>>>>>>>Second, I'm vomiting up the opinion of all too many a company > >>>>>>>>car driver, not my own - hence "that's the spirit of it." On [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > And since we're all agreed that we're talking about before 1993, we're > looking at 15 years bare minimum - hence nearer 20 than 10. But not as regards Saab. Who still thought a hatchback was the way to go for at least another 5 years with the 9000. Saab were offering hatchbacks in both the 900 and 9000 ranges until 1998. Graham >> But since the disputed 20/10yr ago date was being given as when the >> UK exec car market started to move massively away from hatches and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> And since we're all agreed that we're talking about before 1993, >> we're looking at 15 years bare minimum - hence nearer 20 than 10. > But not as regards Saab. Why do you have this strange notion that Saab sell into a market of their very own, isolated from all other market pressures and trends? > Who still thought a hatchback was the way to go for at least another 5 > years with the 9000. Saab were offering hatchbacks in both the 900 and > 9000 ranges until 1998. Indeed they were. BUT... When the hatch or saloon 9k was replaced with the 95, they dropped the hatch completely. When the hatch only NG900/93 was replaced with the 93ss, they dropped the hatch completely. If hatches were such a sales success, why would they shoot themselves in the foot so solidly? > Indeed they were. BUT... When the hatch or saloon 9k was replaced with the > 95, they dropped the hatch completely. When the hatch only NG900/93 was > replaced with the 93ss, they dropped the hatch completely. > > If hatches were such a sales success, why would they shoot themselves in > the foot so solidly? Just to clarify: The 9000 CD was produced 1988-1995, production stopped 3 years earlier than for the 9000 CS. That suggests that the hatchback was the definitive Saab 9000. GM might was noticed that BMWs sold in huge numbers, that is also evident just from watching the traffic (South UK). So they wanted to re-focus for a slice of that market. The BMWs were positioned slightly higher up than Saabs at the time; more cylinders, RWD etc. >> Indeed they were. BUT... When the hatch or saloon 9k was replaced >> with the 95, they dropped the hatch completely. When the hatch only [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> If hatches were such a sales success, why would they shoot themselves >> in the foot so solidly? > Just to clarify: The 9000 CD was produced 1988-1995, production > stopped 3 years earlier than for the 9000 CS. Odd, that - since there's several '97 CDs for sale on AutoTrader at the mo. > >> Indeed they were. BUT... When the hatch or saloon 9k was replaced > >> with the 95, they dropped the hatch completely. When the hatch only [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Odd, that - since there's several '97 CDs for sale on AutoTrader at the mo. Odd indeed. It may have been registered fist time in 1997 and still produced in 1995? I bought a FIAT 132 Special end-of-line offer in 1981. It did have some initial rust blistering which was fixed under warranty. One day I found a paint shop ticket behind the sun visor, it stated that the car had been in the factory's paint shop in 1978! >> > Just to clarify: The 9000 CD was produced 1988-1995, production >> > stopped 3 years earlier than for the 9000 CS. >> Odd, that - since there's several '97 CDs for sale on AutoTrader at >> the mo. > Odd indeed. It may have been registered fist time in 1997 and still > produced in 1995? All of 'em? > >> > Just to clarify: The 9000 CD was produced 1988-1995, production > >> > stopped 3 years earlier than for the 9000 CS. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > All of 'em? Entirely possible. They did sell slowly as has been explained to you. Graham > >> > Just to clarify: The 9000 CD was produced 1988-1995, production > >> > stopped 3 years earlier than for the 9000 CS. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > All of 'em? Dunno, there could also be errors in AutoTrader, it happens... >> >> > Just to clarify: The 9000 CD was produced 1988-1995, production >> >> > stopped 3 years earlier than for the 9000 CS. >> >> Odd, that - since there's several '97 CDs for sale on AutoTrader at >> >> the mo. >> > Odd indeed. It may have been registered fist time in 1997 and still >> > produced in 1995? >> All of 'em? > Dunno, there could also be errors in AutoTrader, it happens... Ah, so the photos of P-reg 9000CDs are all photoshopped? Well, stranger things happen at sea, I s'pose. > >> >> > Just to clarify: The 9000 CD was produced 1988-1995, production > >> >> > stopped 3 years earlier than for the 9000 CS. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Ah, so the photos of P-reg 9000CDs are all photoshopped? Well, stranger > things happen at sea, I s'pose. I concede that there are differences of opinion and 1995 may not be strictly correct, but the CD was taken out of production before the CS. Here are some total production figures that I found: http://www.saabhistory.com/2007/01/25/the-saab-9000-1984-1998/ Saab 9000 CC 216385 Saab 9000 CD 112177 Saab 9000 CS 174525 A clear victory for the 9000 CS! > I concede that there are differences of opinion and 1995 may not be > strictly correct, but the CD was taken out of production before the > CS. Here are some total production figures that I found: > http://www.saabhistory.com/2007/01/25/the-saab-9000-1984-1998/ Ummm, Johannes... That very page says... "1998 model - The CD variant was taken out of production." > Saab 9000 CC 216385 So that's hatch 84-92 - avg 27,000 per annum > Saab 9000 CD 112177 Saloon, 89-98 - avg 12,464 per annum > Saab 9000 CS 174525 Hatch, 92-98 - avg 29,087 per annum > A clear victory for the 9000 CS! OK, now somebody's found some real figures - yes, I'll cheerfully accept that the hatch was indeed selling more across the life of the 9k. I'm also surprised that the facelift hatch sold more per year than the pre-facelift. I suspect that's because it didn't have any real rivals left as an exec-class hatch. Sales in '97 were certainly way down on '96, but that may just have been that it was so ancient by then. > > I concede that there are differences of opinion and 1995 may not be > > strictly correct, but the CD was taken out of production before the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > left as an exec-class hatch. Sales in '97 were certainly way down on > '96, but that may just have been that it was so ancient by then. I got the CD final production year 1995 from this site. I wonder if the CD was temporarily stopped but came back again? http://home.swipnet.se/danny/history28.htm > I'm also surprised that the facelift hatch sold more per year than the > pre-facelift. I suspect that's because it didn't have any real rivals > left as an exec-class hatch. Did you just get a clue by any chance ? Graham |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message