On 26/09/13 1:44 AM, Paul Saccani wrote:
> Ok, well, as it happens, I do drive both, the SAAB handles better,
> brakes better, goes faster, accelerates much faster and uses way less
> fuel. I even find it roomier. I'm not sure that driving both would
> lead to a "No, they don't, actually" conclusion. But the SAAB is set
> up so that the spare wheel well will only accommodate a bastard space
> saver spare, so you could sling that against it.
You're the first person I've ever heard say they would prefer a SAAB
over something like a Ford Falcon.
> SAABs don't have a turbo lag problem, as a rule, let alone a terrible
We're talking about *SAAB's* here, right? :)
> I've found 250 kmh with five people and a full boot satisfactory, and
> it handles well too.
I used to do a *lot* of work for an exotic car broker, and he had a
thing for SAABs which meant I got to drive more than my fair share of
them unfortunately. Apart from the fact that I thought the things were
all gutless, quirky beyond belief and looked and felt like they were
built in a sheltered workshop from left over Meccano pieces, there were
none that I ever drove that I could imagine would come even *remotely*
close to comfortably cruising at 155 miles per hour with 5 bums and
luggage unless you were talking about one of the late model Aeros, and
even then you'd be hard pressed.
> So true. OTOH, the SAABs actually got a lot closer to that than
> anyone else, with the 2.3 l direct ignition turbo engines.
Yeah but they were still a SAAB. It's a lot like saying you had a great