Comments on: What Saab nuts can learn from the Chevy Cruze

By: No.9

No.9 — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:34:40 +0000

van god los: The golf was the bench mark on that particular comparo (We don’t have the Focus II in NA)

By: 1985 Gripen

1985 Gripen — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:25:19 +0000

eggsngrits: did you forget about the Subaru B9 Tribeca? It’s not the Tribeca part that I object to, it’s the B9. I mean, was Subaru worried that people would get the Subaru Tribeca confused with the Mazda Tribute or something so they had to throw-in that “B9″?

By: van god los

van god los — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:19:24 +0000

links : It's in the technical specifications

By: van god los

van god los — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:00:11 +0000

I hope you guys are right with regard to the torsion beam but I have my doubts. If it doesn’t make such a difference, why do cars then have those multilink suspensions ?

I think it’s the same with engines : yes, those older petrol engines are still relatively good but compared to modern direct injection engines, they aren’t as good.

So I do believe there are (very) good torsion beam suspensions but a multilink suspension is simply a better system.

Just for the record :

1) I’ve been driving multilinks for 10 years or so now and never had any problems with them, nor high maintenance costs.

2) the VW golf is not the benchmark. The ford focus II is.

3) the 9-x air concept has a torsion beam, it would surprise me that gm would – for once – technologically upgrade the production car compared to the concept car.

By: albert

albert — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:44:57 +0000

Who told us:
a: that the Cruze and/or the Astra have a torsion bean rear axle,
b: that the next 9-3 will have this axle.
I haven’t read anywhere about the type of axles GM will use in the global premium architecture, so it is all speculation.
What we know is that the current Astra has a torsion beam. What we also know is that according to more than one GM executive, the new architectures will be very flexible. In fact, mr. Forster already stated that Epsilon and Delta will have a lot in common.
What we see in the Insignia is that there are two rear axles, so it probably can be done on Delta too.
BTW: a torsion beam axle is to be considered as “independent axle construction” and not as a live axle. Depending on the position of the torsion beam it has more or less the characteristics of a live axle (when the position of the beam is at the rear) or more the characteristics of an axle with longitudinal arms (when the position of the beam is at the front of the wheelarms).
The current Astra versus the Golf V showes that as far as roadholding is concerned a torsion beam axle can be quit good. It is in the comfort zone however that you pay a price.

By: No.9

No.9 — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:16:33 +0000

Good points by Bernard which echo what I was trying to say. Auto journalists are very snobbish. For example, they will knock down a car because it doesn’t have the latest multi link suspension (that will cost a fortune down the line), even though the car performs very well on track. Let’s not forget that ideally, a Saab offers a balanced approach to motoring, providing many qualities within the same car, which very few manufacturers have achieved. For example, I prefer a simpler but efficient suspension in a car with a real trunk, as in our 9-5.
To echo Bernard’s point, the road test I saw of the Saturn Astra on TV was very revealing. Before the test, the pseudo journalist was reading the spec sheets. When he read semi-independent rear suspension, he discarded the term as just another a marketing scheme and decided the Astra had a rigid rear axle. But when he attacked the pylons, he couldn’t believe how well the car behaved, even ranking it better than the benchmark VW Golf. Let’s not try to make Ferraris out of daily drivers…

By: Kroum

Kroum — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:56:44 +0000

Saab can fit in any suspension they want on the platform. These new global platforms are so advanced and modular you can have completely different cars riding on the same platform.

I personally find the current 9-3 suspension to be very good, and I’m on my second 9-3 SS. The only downside with the Turbo X suspension is driving on Toronto’s “postwar” roads.

Interior quality and engine choices will be the big tasks for Saab engineering to get right for the new 9-3. I am not sure why everyone is whining about driving dynamics on the 9-3 – they are not that bad, esp. with XWD. And I won’t be surprised if all 2011 9-3s have XWD as standard, just like the new 9-5 will.

By: Bernard

Bernard — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:34:30 +0000

A good torsion beam suspension is much much better than the average independent suspension, especially if the independent suspension needs an anti-roll bar (which makes it semi-independent just like a torsion beam).

My mechanic and I were looking at the rear suspension from a Maxima the other day, and it had 10 different bushings and roughly CDN$4000 worth of components that will absolutely wear-out and need to be replaced (prices not including labour).

I don’t know how many people here have driven a Maxima but, compared to a Saab, the car has no trunk/boot space, doesn’t handle and is crap over rough roads.

The only reason that this car has a “multi-link rear suspension” is that it fills-out the brochure and impresses people who don’t know the first thing about cars. Salespeople can go on about the “multi-link rear suspension” until customers’ eyes glaze over and they are sufficiently hypnotized to sign on the bottom line. Five years later, the car is basically junk because no one can afford to fix the suspension.

Just my personal opinion, of course.

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:52:47 +0000

I’m fairly certain that Saab will get it’s own rear suspension, not the torsion beam, especially since there will be AWD versions and rear-wheel drive is physically impossible with a torsion beam suspension. What Saab really needs to work on is handling and driving dynamics, that will make or break this car. Now that they have a light, tossable platform, the FWD cars will need to handle like GTI’s or the old TSX, and the sporty XWD models will need to have R32 reflexes. Likewise, the next-gen halo model can’t just be “great for a Saab”, it fully needs to offer evo/STI acceleration and reflexes combined with everything else that we love about Saabs. If they can do that, and do it in a package that’s as beautiful, practical and unique as the NG900/OG9-3 were, then we should have something really, really special on our hands.

Oh and there need to be choices, IE choices between a 3-door fastback hatch, wagon, 5-door hatch, and vert, choices between that 320hp direct-injected high-pressure turbo 4, the TTiD, the 170hp 1.4T base engine, the 260hp 2.0T Arc engine, and the 200hp 1.4t hybrid.

By: No.9

No.9 — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:01:12 +0000

The torsion bar set-up is indeed a very big handicap, even though the Astra has that set-up and beat cars with 4 wheel independent suspensions on the track. But I agree, it would be a set back for the 9-3, although it would probably cost less in maintenance. I thought it was mentioned the next 9-3 would retain the reaxx set-up introduced on the 2003 9-3. Could have been a dream…