This response is directed to the entire sub-thread, not just the post - it IS true that Star Wars opted to steer clear of explaining its sci-fi tech where Star Trek revolved around the tech itself. But I have to completely disagree about Star Wars not being sci-fi.
If Jules Verne wrote a book about a version of the 20th century where carriages were propelled without horses, but failed to explain some sort of combustion engine as being the driving force, would that have made his work less sci-fi? Much of good science fiction literature relies not on the explanation and believability of the science, but of the fiction. In The Time Machine my H.G. Wells, it was not explained exactly HOW the time machine traversed time, but that is surely science fiction.
What makes Star Wars great science fiction is that the technology used integrates smoothly with the worlds in which the story it set - the hover car on Tattouine fit in place mach as a normal car fits in on Earth, the technologies presented blended with the settings in which they existed and didn't seem forced or in need of explanation. By the 'science fiction equals explained science' definition, would Battlestar Galactica be science fiction?
As for the story - yes, Star Wars was story-driven (at least the originals). Sure a lot of the fundamental story ideas were borrowed from other source, that fact doesn't negate a story being present. But in truth there are very few works of fiction that are truly original - the fundamentals are fairly constant and reused in pretty much every story ever. What makes Star Wars work is the relatability of the story - the course of events made enough sense and the characters actions and reactions were those we could see ourselves or people we knew doing in such circumstances (something that Star Trek occasionally could have used a little more of).