OMG! Saab 900 2nd gen and Saab 9-3 1nd gen were terrible! What was saab thinking when married to GM. Saab 9-5 was fantastic and I am glad that I chose one. Although it was also partly GM product it was and is safe.
Saab 900 (2nd Generation) was based on Opel Vectra (B), which also failed Euro NCAP crash test in 1997. And Saab 9-3 (1st Generation) was a facelift of Saab 900 (2nd Generation).
i dont think they are that bad actually, similar cars like the bmw e36 actually got a worse rating by ncap. folksam the insurance company credited the car as quote "well abouve average" we have simply forgotten how unsafe cars used to be.
They were thinking this; "HELP!!" The original 900 was a revised 99, which was designed in the 1960s, desperately showing its age, in need of replacement. This is very expensive, they didn't have much money, and a shortened 9000 looked wrong. The problem is that GM doesn't appear to waste much time worrying about quality and "brand identity", and SAAB weren't given free rein - or the budget - to take their existing platforms and parts, and revise them to be "built like a tank" or drive better. The entire story of SAAB under GM ownership - and afterwards - is essentially one of sabotage, a small company trying to make something good that they're proud of while their owner makes it impossible to do so or survive as a company.
@@moukka1760 Saab 900 (2nd Generation) has a one star and a half, BMW 3 Series (E36) also has a one star and a half. The safety of E36 and 2nd generation 900 is similar. In moderate overlap frontal crash test the driver won't survive in both cars.
@@HOONIGAN2011-jt4oz they will probably survive, but be seriously injured. The driver gets worse g loads in the BMW according to ncap in the front offset, but it's a small difference. They are both similar, but according to folksam the car is somewhat better ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Special thanks to:
Euro NCAP
Wooo
OMG! Saab 900 2nd gen and Saab 9-3 1nd gen were terrible! What was saab thinking when married to GM. Saab 9-5 was fantastic and I am glad that I chose one. Although it was also partly GM product it was and is safe.
Saab 900 (2nd Generation) was based on Opel Vectra (B), which also failed Euro NCAP crash test in 1997. And Saab 9-3 (1st Generation) was a facelift of Saab 900 (2nd Generation).
i dont think they are that bad actually, similar cars like the bmw e36 actually got a worse rating by ncap. folksam the insurance company credited the car as quote "well abouve average" we have simply forgotten how unsafe cars used to be.
They were thinking this; "HELP!!"
The original 900 was a revised 99, which was designed in the 1960s, desperately showing its age, in need of replacement. This is very expensive, they didn't have much money, and a shortened 9000 looked wrong.
The problem is that GM doesn't appear to waste much time worrying about quality and "brand identity", and SAAB weren't given free rein - or the budget - to take their existing platforms and parts, and revise them to be "built like a tank" or drive better. The entire story of SAAB under GM ownership - and afterwards - is essentially one of sabotage, a small company trying to make something good that they're proud of while their owner makes it impossible to do so or survive as a company.
@@moukka1760 Saab 900 (2nd Generation) has a one star and a half, BMW 3 Series (E36) also has a one star and a half. The safety of E36 and 2nd generation 900 is similar. In moderate overlap frontal crash test the driver won't survive in both cars.
@@HOONIGAN2011-jt4oz they will probably survive, but be seriously injured. The driver gets worse g loads in the BMW according to ncap in the front offset, but it's a small difference. They are both similar, but according to folksam the car is somewhat better ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Glad I drive a 2011 9-5….
Wow, it is too rare...
Well..THIRD COMENT..😁
SECOND COMMENT! 👍