Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tektronix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!kurtk
From: kurtk@tektronix.UUCP (Kurt Krueger)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: any hard data on saab/volvo reliability/low maintenance cost?
Message-ID: <5135@tektronix.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Feb-85 15:16:30 EST
Article-I.D.: tektroni.5135
Posted: Wed Feb 13 15:16:30 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Feb-85 04:48:26 EST
References: <671@whuxlm.UUCP> <1761@zehntel.UUCP>
Reply-To: kurtk@tektronix.UUCP (Kurt Krueger)
Distribution: net
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 14
Summary: 

Consumer reports reliabilty reports are based on user surveys.  Their car
issue does indeed rate the Saab as a good car.  They always indicate when
they last did a full test on a car for the purpose of reference, but the
reliability data is as current as possible.

I take exception to the statement that because a lot of old Saabs are still
running indicates that they have better longevity than, for instance, a 
Toyota.  Most any car can be made to run for umpteen hundred thousand miles
if the owner wants to pour enough money into it.  The situation arises that
the 10 year old Saab (or Porsche, or Benz) has enough value that it is
worth it to rebuild the engine whereas the Toyota that was originally purchased
for $2500 has depreciated to near zero. Therefore the fancy expensive car gets
fixed and the poor Toyota becomes a Kelvinator. I should add that the Saab must 
have at least reasonble longevity or there wouldn't be that many around still.