|
There are often discussions on here about the plus and minus points of the old Vectra and how certain motor journalists really slagged it off, saying that it was one of the worst cars on the road. But why was the 9-3 not categorised in the same boat (apart from the convertible which caught quite a lot of flack despite being the UK's best seller). After all they have exactly the same chassis which I believe was the basis of all the criticism. Is this just brand snobery or is there something more to it?
|
|
It wasn't exactly the same chassis, Saabs was improved over the Vectra's and shortened 100mm. I think the answer lies with the Saab's comfy seats, better looks, better engines and nicer dealers.
|
|
Agree. The Saab may not have been anything special - but it didn't have to be. The cabin is a lot nicer place to be for a start.
|
|
|
|
I'm guessing SAAB probably screwed their cars together better. Whilst the car may have shared the chassis it certainly, going by reliability report and the backroom etc etc, doesn't seem to be anything as badly built or unreliable.
Essentially SAAB is operating as a seperate company to GM (as Volvo is to Ford) but they are now forced to share components for cost reasons.
A greatly exaggerated example but Ferraris use many FIAT parts but you wouldn't put them in the same boat would you! :)
|
|
I've never owned a Vectra, but my 9-3 was the most reliable car I've ever had. 3 yrs and 80,000 miles and the only thing that ever went wrong was the little cap on the top of the gearstick came off. Best dealers of all the makes I've had. Bizarrely everyone I know who's had one of these cars also had this happen to their gearstick - clearly a major design fault worthy of a recall
|
I think you'll find that the old 9-3 got caned regularly in the enthusiast press on the handling front, both for a general lack of finesse and an inability to put the power down cleanly in the more powerful versions. The humble origins of the floorpan were usually held up as one of the major culprits.
It as still a nice car in its own way and what appeal it had stemmed I guess from its individuality and the fact that Saab is a distinctive but not brash brand.
The new 9-3's floorpan is also shared with other GM models, but the difference this time is that Saab had a say in the design from the start. The a result is a more appealing car with much more rounded talents.
|
I think you'll find that Volvo is now well integrated into Ford, like Jaguar and Land-Rover; but then Saab is now well integrated into GM.
A lot of initial perceptions about a car are down to the suspension settings used at launch. Ford used to have different suspension settings for each country in Europe but has rationalised down in number. GM used to use the same settings for Vauxhall as Opel which is why Vauxhalls have never been rated for ride or roadholding, on UK roads. Using their sports car subsidiary in Norfolk during development is now giving benefits for all GM brands.
|
|
|
|
