Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site zehntel.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!jackh From: jackh@zehntel.UUCP (jack hagerty) Newsgroups: net.auto Subject: Re: any hard data on saab/volvo reliability/low maintenance cost? Message-ID: <1761@zehntel.UUCP> Date: Thu, 7-Feb-85 12:53:07 EST Article-I.D.: zehntel.1761 Posted: Thu Feb 7 12:53:07 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Feb-85 05:39:40 EST References: <671@whuxlm.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Zehntel Automation Systems Inc, Walnut Creek CA Lines: 33 > Saab owners seem fanatical about the 'quality' of their cars. but can > anyone point to some hard data on relative reliability maintenance cost > of these compared to other makes? I would sure like to see something > 'real' before I plunk down so much cash for a car. > Two references: Every April, Consumer Reports' annual auto issue rates Saab as a "best buy" (or whatever) indicated by printing the name in color. They admit, however, to not having tested one since 1982. I don't know if they've tested one since last April; I don't subscribe to CR but sneek peeks at my parents' copies whenever I need to buy something. In the middle of last year (May? June? July?) Road & Track published an Owners' Survey for the Saab 900 and Turbo (making the distinction between the two types of Saab buyers). The consensus was that the owners were very pleased overall but found that the day-to-day reliability was not as good as, say, Toyota or other Japaneese brands. On the other hand longevity was much better with the cars still running well long after your basic Nipponese product had been recycled into Kelvinators. One surprising result was that the Turbo models seemd to have somewhat better reliability than the basic 900 dispite being driven harder. Better assembly at the factory? Better quality components? Or are the base 900 owners just pickier? I side with the latter. -- Jack Hagerty, Zehntel Automation Systems ...!ihnp4!zehntel!jackh