Talk:Saab 9000

page re-write

I re-wrote this page because, as a 9000 owner, I felt that it was incomplete, poorly written and in places inaccurate. I would welcome any input. I removed the timeline setup because it is unbecoming of a Wiki page, as far as I can tell.150.212.14.106 (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

edits by somebody who vandalized elsewhere

I do not know if the edits by User:Ohlins8990 are valid or not. The user, with a new account, has vandalized other pages today, so I don't trust him/her. Could somebody who knows check through the history of this article and see if the changes by that user make sense? And Ohlins, care to give me a reason not to want to revert everything you contribute? Please, make yourself useful.  Sean Lotz  talk  08:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

9000 Cabrio

I've NEVER heard of that in my life. Anyone have any evidence that such a thing existed, and what we're looking at is in fact that, and not a 900 with different headlights. Mjl0509 02:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, at https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=935577946482734 there is a video by Valmet showing the process of making the concept car. // Liftarn (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Dimension changes

According to the article, the car length was changed from 4.66 to 4.76 m (i.e. 10 cm) in 1992, and the width was changed from 1.67 to 1.77 m in 1997. This are significant changes; however, the article contains no information aside from the mere data. I mean, 10 cm wider! How was that done? Did it benefit the cabin space, or was it an external sheet metal change? Weird. Thyl Engelhardt 213.70.217.172 (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Those figures are wrong.

• model original 9000 CS CD
• lenght 4620 mm 4761 mm 4780 mm
• width 1764 mm 1778 mm 1764 mm

--Typ932 ^T·C 17:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

BHP Figure ...

I notice that 220 bhp is the stated output re: 9000 Carlsson. This may be true of the 2.3 CD, but my 1990 one has 204 bhp. I checked this with the guys on saabcentral.com. Either a correction or clarification is needed I think. Deadpc (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

EPA "Full Size" Car

The Saab 9000 was the first import to be classified as a "Large Car" by the EPA. It had 8 more cubic feet of passenger volume than a comparable Volvo 740. It also had a larger interior volume than the Rolls-Royce which the EPA classified as a Midsize. The Mercedes-Benz 380SE was a Compact in 1986 (the first year the Saab 9000 was sold in the United States) while the Jaguar XJ was a mere Subcompact at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevjgav (talk • contribs) 12:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No 'Flatnose' picture

83.70.249.14 (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)deadpc

I would associate the 9000 most typically with the original mid '80's 'flatnose' model, and I suspect that many others would too. There used to be a picture of a black Carlsson version of said car on the page, and I'm at a loss to figure out why it was removed?

Generations

(Originally posted here) — I just saw that you made some useful edits to Saab 9000, I have some issues with the current organization of the page and would like to run them by you before I do anything. Dividing the 9000 into "first" and "second" generations is not a really productive way to view the steady stream of changes which the 9000 underwent. To recap, the 9000 began with the original hatchback version (later called the 9000 CC, for "Combi Coupé") and was later complemented by the 9000 CD (sedan). The CD received a more sloped nose, which was later fitted to the CC as well. Leter yet, the redesigned 9000 CS hatchback appeared, with new rear and front designs. The CS front end was eventually fitted to the CD as well. Meanwhile, the 9000 CC remained available in some markets as a cheaper version.

The engines also kept changing, starting with the 2-litre Turbo and eventually including a 2.3-litre version and then the V6. The main issue I take is that these gradual changes have to undergo some severe contortions before they can be fitted into a basic "MkI" and "MkII" article structure, leading to some awkward compromises and half-truths. I welcome your inputs in advance of making some changes; I propose simply dividing the article into a 9000 CC, 9000 CD, and 9000 CS section - perhaps with a separate section on engine developments. Best,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I was going to attempt the change, but it was getting late and I couldn't be bothered thinking so I just worked around the current layout. Your proposal sounds good, so long as we aren't going to the extremes of the Volvo 700 Series page which basically treats the 740, 760, and 780 as almost separate models. I propose that we just have a "general" article with smaller subsections describing each body style (as opposed the Volvo's entire sections). Either that, or we can emphasise the original five-door "CC" model by mentioning the history of it first and describing the car in details (powertrains, et cetera). Smaller sub-sections would then deal with and explain how the CS five-door and CD sedan differ. This is what I have started to attempt at Holden VE Commodore. Here, the more prominent sedan version is given precedence and the wagon section diverges from it (I plan to finish it off with the utility version as well).

I am happy to help with this article as the 9000 is easily my favourite model of Saab. That said, the selection palette of Saab vehicles is limited and the new 9-5 and 9-4X are compelling in design. The fact that Saab had to accommodate the Italian versions (Fiat Croma and Lancia Thema) with identical side profiles meant Saab could not use their trademark hockey stick C-pillar design which was at its worst during the 1980s. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Seconded in full. The various Volvo 700-series' did lead more different lives than did the 9000 versions, so the watertight distinctions make some sense there.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've made a start, but much more work is needed. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Revert

Regarding this edit — The 9000 was introduced to Europe in 1984. This is a Swedish car, so please don't prioritise the US market with its model years (MY 1985).

Regarding this full revert — There was only ever one generation of 9000. Trying to mold the car into generations based on the CS with its slim front-end does not work. Please read what is said above... This looks more like a series of gradual changes than a black-and-white generation one and generation two. Rather than reverting fully, please take the liberty to fix up any resulting errors as they come. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Image issue

User: Mr.choppers please explain the following:

• Howcome a car with a broken rear bumper or any broken bits began to be considered as a good representation of the automobile on which the article is written?
• You seem to have not read WP:CARPIX yourself like you instructed in your latest edit summary at Lancia Thema especially point 6 which states "Use images of cars in good, complete, clean, and original condition whenever possible." which is not true in your persistent insistence to use an image of a Saab 9000 CD with a broken rear bumper and rusted components.

223.29.234.202 (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Having looked at the options, I think a compromise is in order - I agree that the damaged white Saab is a poor choice, but I'm also not enamoured by the alternative two images proposed by the IP - while good examples of the 9000, they're not good examples of WP:CARPIX. I think a compromise is to remove the white shed and instead leave the two 1990 US 9000 images. I'd support that. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, although the white car shows the rear of the facelift model - so I think all three might be of some use. Not sure what IP's comments about broken and rusted are referring to?  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The car is clearly damaged. No one in their right mind would put tape on the rear bumper of their car. I have also removed an image of a 9000CS with broken rear lights which editors thought were "good" images. 223.29.234.202 (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd also support the removal of the image of the white car. 223.29.234.202 (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

As per the IP editor - the white 9000 is damaged on the rear bumper and held together with duct tape. That's not a good example of the model. I'll also offer up apologies to the IP editor, as having had a look at the history it's apparent that Mr.choppers is in the wrong, especially with the inappropriate comment of restore until discussed in the edit summary here when it was he himself who added the image here. Dscussion should be done without the contested image in place. If I'd seen that, I'd have reverted as well as commented. (Although I see the IP has since removed it again pending discussion and consensus.)

So - to be clear, I'm not supporting the removal of the image, but contesting the insertion of the image. A subtle difference, but an important one in the path of consensus and etiquette. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Good etiquette like this would encourage new editors to contribute to Wikipedia. I have observed with the said user that they give their opinion more weight over others, do not follow the guidelines in place themselves and then complain about things not being discussed.

With that out of the way, I am contesting the addition of that image. Because as seen in the history of this article, there is evidence that WP:CARPIX was not being followed in spirit before with images of broken examples present in the article which I took time to replace. For all that hardwork to be reverted on the click of one "undo" button simply because it did not meet the invisible guideline of "traditionality" is something very discouraging. 223.29.234.202 (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The white car was included originally; the purpose is to show what the facelifted 9000 CD looks like from the rear. Feel free to add a better picture of the facelift model. All I have asked from the IP is to follow WP:BRD instead of just edit warring.  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That purpose was not clear in the thumbnail description. Instead, the main focus was just the market name when there are no discernable differences between the US market cars and the Australian market cars. Neither the article makes any differentiation between the two.

Secondly, your adherence to WP:BRD is also questionable as highlighted above. This was not the case in the past as shown by your discussion with the User OSX from 2011 in this very talkpage.

Third, this image of a broken example was also included in that revision shown by you.

If a bad practice is being followed and no one has noticed it for a long time, does not mean it won't ever be noticed.223.29.234.202 (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I restored the content as it were on September 16, before your edits - following BRD to the letter. The original captions included the years (1987-1994 versus 1990-1997) and I additionally clarified what the purpose of the white photo was in my comment above.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The captions also included the markets, like the captions in most of the article when there are no notable differences in the mentioned markets. 223.29.234.202 (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)