Talk:Saab 900

Untitled
Can someone please check the new para inserted (03:31, 8 June 2006 68.109.116.217 (→Convertible)). I have relocated it and done a fairly major reword but I feel that it needs verifying and better integrating into the article, so we don't have the comment ref. US/Swedish spec., that is unfitting for an encyclopedic article. - Ballista 04:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Notable appearances
Why did this section have to go? there are a numerous other car pages like [Volkswagen_Beetle] and [De_Lorean_DMC-12] that have either "notable TV appearances" in their page sections. Either this should be done consistently across all car pages or not. I've seen the Saab 900 appear in a lot of good movies / series. Eelke —Preceding comment was added at 19:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The pop culture section for this article was just a laundry list of appearences. It did not say anything about the 900s actual effect on pop culture, which is what the prose section from the Beetle and De Lorean pages try to do.  Pop culture appearences should only mention trully significant usages of the vehicle where it was clearly chosen for specific qualities rather than just being a car driven by a character.  Both the Beetle and the Del Lorean pop culture section need serious clean up, it just looks like no one has gotten around to it yet.  A well written and referenced section on how the 900 impacted pop culture would be welcome, but the consensus both on WP:CAR and elsewhere is that lists of appearences trivial and are better suited for places like IMDB. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

New 'Overview' section needs wikifying
Nice piece of material - however, it needs 'wikification' as soon as possible & I have run out of time today, sorry - Ballista 07:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewording needed after verification
I have flagged this up previously and feel it is still in need of confirmation or verification and rewrite "This may not be accurate for Swedish Saabs, but is for the American versions". This is not encyclopaedic writing. - Ballista 04:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I can definitely contradict the statement. I have an American 1990 model and it has turbo badges on the front fenders as well as the hatchback. El Mariachi 02:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge
To conform with other car articles that deal with model changes Mercury Cougar, Ford Cortina, Jaguar XJ, etc, Saab 900 (NG) should be merged into Saab 900.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 20:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's great, but if you're going to merge anything, please do it right or else don't bother. It is important to delineate between these two completely different cars (with the same name). The overall organization of the article should reflect this fact but still doesn't: one original article was apparently just glued onto the end of the other one. Sheesh! 69.30.112.12 (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A different merge suggestion which is more logical given the body style: Give the 900 Classic its own page with all the special editions of it and the two nose styles. Make a new page for the 900NG and 1st generation 9-3 as the 900NG is a completely new car, and the technical difference between a 900NG and a 9-3 hatchback is comparable to the headlight facelift of the 900 Classic. Finally the current 9-3 (2002-current) should get its own page because that is a complete clean sheet redesign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.107.5.100 (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * They have same GM2900 platform, so its not a new car -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 10:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

What i meant is that there should be one 900 Classic page, and one page for the GM2900 versions... which will make both the 9-3 page and the 900 page a bit more logical. So you get the following pages: - 900 classic - 900NG and 9-3OG on GM2900 - 9-3 Epsilon (84.107.2.21 (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC))

Classic vs. New 900
There are, of course, two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT Saab 900 cars which happen to share that name: those built through MY 1993 and those following. This article is very strongly biased toward the Classic 900, which is probably perfectly reasonable given the vastly greater history, number and variations of those cars, vs. the "NG900" models.

However, in the interests of accuracy, clarity and honesty, I would ask those making contributions to or editing this article to make better efforts to distinguish among the "Classic" and "new" 900's when making broad definitive statements-- in particular in the section titled "Overview"-- rather than blithely and carelessly defining the 900 only in terms of the earlier "Classic" generation. 97.120.77.129 (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Information on BAIC deal wrong
The deal did not include the previous 9-3, but in fact (and to the surprise of many) the 9-3 II, presumably in an earlier incarnation. BAIC has shown a prototype clearly indicating this. Unfortunately, I presently cannot find the reference, but the pictures also emerged on www.saabsunited.com. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Longitudinal engine placement and double wishbone front suspension were not unusual at the time.
I have removed this language from the article: "Very few front-wheel drive cars used a longitudinally-mounted engine configuration. Fewer still used a double wishbone suspension design."

I compiled a list of cars produced during the period contemporary with the "Classic" 900, 1979 - 1998, with their production date ranges and notation of double-wishbone suspension where present. Here is the list:


 * Acura Legend	       1991 - 1995	double-wishbone
 * Acura Vigor	       1989 - 1995	double-wishbone


 * Alfa Romeo 33 Series	1983 - 1995	double-wishbone
 * Alfa Romeo Alfasud	       1971 - 1989	double-wishbone
 * Alfa Romeo Arna  		1983 - 1987	double-wishbone


 * Audi 80 & 90		1966 - 1996
 * Audi 100 & 200		1968 - 1994


 * Citroën 2CV		1948 - 1990
 * Citroën Acadiane  	1978 - 1987
 * Citroën Ami 		1961 - 1979
 * Citroën Axel		1984 - 1990
 * Citroën Dyane		1967 - 1983
 * Citroën GS and GSA	       1970 - 1986	double-wishbone
 * Citroën LNA		1976 - 1986
 * Citroën Visa		1978 - 1988


 * Lancia Gamma		1976 - 1984	double-wishbone


 * Renault 4		       1961 - 1994	double-wishbone
 * Renault 5		       1972 - 1985	double-wishbone
 * Renault 6		       1968 - 1980	double-wishbone
 * Renault 12		       1969 - 1980	double-wishbone
 * Renault 15		       1971 - 1980	double-wishbone
 * Renault 16		       1965 - 1980	double-wishbone
 * Renault 17		       1971 - 1980	double-wishbone
 * Renault 18		       1978 - 1993	double-wishbone
 * Renault 20		       1975 - 1984	double-wishbone
 * Renault 21 (Medallion)	1986 - 1994	double-wishbone
 * Renault 30		       1975 - 1984	double-wishbone
 * Renault Fuego		1980 - 1992	double-wishbone


 * Dacia 1300  		1969 - 2004	double-wishbone


 * Eagle Medallion		1987 - 1989	double-wishbone
 * Eagle Premier		1987 - 1992	double-wishbone


 * Oltcit			1981 - 1995	double-wishbone


 * Subaru XT (Alcyone, SVX)	1991 - 1996
 * Subaru Forester		1997 -
 * Subaru Impreza		1993 -
 * Subaru Leone		1971 - 1994
 * Subaru Legacy (Liberty) 	1989 -


 * Toyota Tercel		1978 - 1988


 * Volkswagen Gol (Fox)	1980 - 1994
 * Volkswagen Passat 	1973 - 1988


 * Wartburg 353		1966 - 1989	double-wishbone

Citroënist (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

headlight wipers
would the 1998 900 model wiper fit the 1987 900 model — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.81.221 (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You should contact a Saab dealer or spares supplier for this info as it's too detailed for this Wikipedia article.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  13:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Uniqueness
"The TE-05 is unique in that its exhaust inlet flange utilizes a Garrett T3 pattern."

Does that sentence make sense? Basically it says that the TE-05 is not unique, seeing as the Garrett T3 has the same pattern. Just thinking out loud here... --Stizzleswick (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * - A lot of the engine development info is beyond me technically, and much of it is unsourced, but if you know about these things, you should make the changes you think best. The whole article needs some serious work, I think. Cheers,  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  12:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, that was not a technical point, but semantic. The article contains the quote I have up there, which makes me scratch my scalp a little because it seems self-contradictory to me. --Stizzleswick (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I've removed "unique".  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  15:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

conflicting information
The first sentence says the car is a mid-sized car. The first sentence of the overview says it's a compact car. On the other hand, that's consensus (all or most editors agreed to it). Wonkopedic (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)