Saab

[poci1957]

Well, something to think about, I guess, thanks Dave!

[RPrice]

I, personally, am happy that Saab was saved. They were always a bit quirky and appealed to a very loyal group of drivers/owners. I remember driving one of their 3 cylinder, 2 stroke engined cars back in the '60s. Yes, they were quirky all right, but they seemed to steer the auto industry to front wheel drive plus they were fun to drive.

Rog

[Vila]

I couldn't resist.

I drove my 1975 saab hatchback from new for 220,000 miles, then gave it to my son who drove it another 70,000 until the junk man hauled it away.

Then my 86 Turbo when 230,000 until my daughter hit a telephone pole going 55 MPH after falling asleep and came out of it with a bruise on her right knee. Replaced that with another 86 with 150,000 and she drove that until 280,000.

I just got rid of my 1992 Saab Turbo 2 weeks ago with 220,000 miles and it was not in my heart to get a GM 4 door SAAB that looks like all the Japanese cars.

Is my math correct, 850,000 miles on 4 SAABs with no major repairs. Not bad.

Thanks to Spyker for rescueing SAAB from the evil GM that almost ruined them. All Spyker needs to do now is de-GM-ize SAAB and get rid of all the 4 door SAABs that GM thought SAAB drivers wanted and get back to the roots of what true SAAB drivers reallly want, Sporty 2 door hatchbacks.

If Spyker gets them back on track I'll be back with SAAB.

By the way, why is there so much about HUMMER on a SAAB posting.

Bob Beers

1933 Chevrolet

1962 Triumph TR4

1984 BMW 633 CSi

Edited February 28, 2010 by Vila (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

By the way, why is there so much about HUMMER on a SAAB posting.

Because they're the last 2 GM bits to be shed, and because they make a very good contrast in history and potential.

[Bhigdog]

[quote

Remember, London and Paris are flat as pancakes and landlocked as well. :cool:

I can't speak to London but I found Paris, besides being flat, to be filthy, odorous, over priced, and the locals ill dressed, lazy and surly. I'll take Pittsburgh any day of the week................Bob

Edited February 27, 2010 by Bhigdog (see edit history)

[Guest Siegfried]

Vila, RIGHT ON about the Saab. They were designed to be safe if a crash occurred, and they were designed to run forever or there about with decent maintenance. That’s why I love European cars. In my opinion the majority of them are safer and better engineered mechanically.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

Take a look at Volvo. Here's another underestimated Swedish car. A bit different from a Saab, but just as safe, and they last a long time.

[Guest weaving]

after many years as a Volvo owner, I bought my first Saab a while ago, the comments are many, most negative:mad:

janne sweden:)

[poci1957]

1910, you have hit on an industry-wide problem IMO. With styling and the annual model change, it was Alfred P Sloan's stated goal to make the new car so appealling as to motivate the owner of an older model to want to trade.

Bottom line, a happy owner of an older model who has no intention to buy a new one is of little value to the automaker. I have the same issue with Jeeps. I had a new 2000 Grand Cherokee that I really liked and in 2003 when I was ready to upgrade the new ones were not enough of an improvement to motivate me to buy one, and I still haven't. If Chrysler was doing it's job I should be on my third Grand Cherokee, rather than driving a 100,000 mile Jeep today. Todd

[junkyardjeff]

I did not know Spyker was still in buisness or did it recently became reborn.