By on April 6, 2011

Prices for the Saab 9-5 SportCombi have leaked in Sweden, and according to Autobild, the wagon version actually costs €114 less than the sedan. Whether they’ll make the same offer outside of Sweden isn’t clear… but then neither is anything about Saab’s future. And instead of haranguing the poor Swedes about the questionable financial sense of this decision, let’s just agree that desperate times call for desperate measures. If nothing else, Saab’s wagon-centive sets it apart from the industry’s business-as-usual.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!


15 Comments on “Is Saab Taking A Stand Against The Wagon Penalty?...”

  • avatar

    The folks at SaabsUnited say the sedan pricing will also be dropping.  So, the penalty will probably still be there.

    This is such an odd article considering the recent Saab articles here at TTAC.  What no gloom and doom and mobsters?  Nice investigative writing in general though.

    • 0 avatar
      Paul W

      You’re correct and Mr Niedermeyer didn’t get the whole story. The sedan will see a price reduction in 2012 and with that taken into account, the wagon will still be more expensive, although the price gap will be smaller than usual, at an extra cost of 780$.

  • avatar

    This would be nice if it (the price difference) would transfer to the States, but I still think the 9-4X crossover will be the preferred choice for those buying Saabs here.  At this point I don’t care as long as Saab can continue as a viable company, a Saab sold is a Saab sold regardless of the model.
    Ed, you’re probably already aware of the halt to the production line in Trollhaettan for the next several days.  Apparently Saab management have decided it’s best to stop everything in Sweden while they work out the financial arrangements with their suppliers.  They need some new investment to restore their liquidity (Antonov, perhaps?) so it’s best not to move forward with fits and starts. Here’s the shortlink:

  • avatar

    I wonder if that pricing difference reflect similarly-equipped vehicles?

    I saw the 9-5 wagon and the 9-4x last month in Geneva and again side-by-side at a Swiss Saab event. The 9-5 wagon is gorgeous IMO. It also has more usable space inside than the 9-4x, both in the back seat and the cargo area. Still, us silly Americans will probaby buy the 9-4x in much larger numbers… assuming that the production lines in Trollhattan start back up and produce the 9-5 for US consumption.

  • avatar

    Amazing. This is a really good looking car. If I were buying on looks alone, this would be one of my top choices. Very clean lines, and grace.  And it’s a real wagon. None of that crossover balderdash. “Crossover” is just marketing speak for “We know station wagons are about as cool as a pocket protector so we’re going to make this thing ugly so we can call it by a different name.”

    • 0 avatar

      David, I’m certainly not a Crossover/CUV/SUV kind of guy, but the 9-4X is, IMO, a really attractive vehicle.  It has very clean lines and uses a similar fascia to the new 9-5.  I much prefer its looks to its sibling, the Cadillac SRX.

    • 0 avatar

      Craig, compared to most crossovers (Murano!), the 9-4X should get a beauty award. But it’s still imo a kind of a clunky shape, and not nearly as graceful as this wagon. And, yes, in total agreement with you re the Cad SRX.

    • 0 avatar
      Paul W

      At least the factory in Mexico is up and running…

  • avatar

    Saab could probably promise a unicorn with every US 9-5 wagon.

  • avatar

    Wagons are very popular in Europe. In Sweden it is the biggest segment. It is unbelievable that the Volvo V70 (the best of Volvos) are not sold in the USA! What happened? USA invented the great wagon. There used to be lots of wagons 30-40 years ago in the states. A wagon is better in every aspect for normal use compared to a SUV/Crossover. Roomy, more MPG, good handling, beautiful. I would say there is no reason for sedans, the difference in sound and ride is neglectible.

    • 0 avatar


      But Americans are stupid, on average. Wagons are just not cool here, nor are hatches of any kind unless they are jacked up on stilts and made to look all big and butch. Sedans are completely useless vehicles. And the smaller they are, the more useless they become. If you want useless, buy a coupe, and at least get sexy honest uselessness.

      Even though I am selling my last Saab and defecting to BMW (328i Wagon), I have best wishes for Saab going forward. I hate the look of the 9-5 Sedan (and it has no headroom in the back seat), but the wagon is lovely.

    • 0 avatar
      DC Bruce

      Because of the way US corporate fuel average economy regulation works, SUVs are called “light trucks,” which is a different category with less stringent requirements than for “passenger cars.”  Recognizing the public’s desire for a versatile wagon-like vehicle with substantial capacity but not wanting to hurt their fuel economy averages for passenger cars, US manufacturers began building “light trucks” to meet these needs.  First min-vans and then SUVs.  Also, many buyers like the more upright seating position that a higher vehicle permits — see just about any car made before the 1960s.
      Interestingly, one US manufacturer’s effort to revive the traditional station wagon — the Dodge Magnum — did not sell well and, I believe, is no longer made.

    • 0 avatar

      I often have this argument with co-workers who don’t understand why I insist on wagons and hate sedans and SUV/CUVs.  They accept my points that wagons are superior to SUVs and sedans but ultimately come back to “wagon = dorky” even if their reasoning can’t hold water, which it doesn’t.  I do however like that wagons are different and you don’t see them very often, but it makes my auto shopping options, especially here in the midwest, extremely difficult.  Fortunately, my wife feels as strongly as I do about insiting on having the versatility of a wagon so at least I don’t have to fight that battle.

      I wouldn’t necessarily say that Americans are stupid but are easily misled by marketing and image.  The fetishisation of automobiles generally has led Americans to not purchasing based on rational ideas, but on image.  There is also a lot of cogintive dissonance when it comes to many purchase decisions and the idea that a CUV is any less a mommy-mobile is pretty hard to rationalize.

  • avatar

    Is Saab going to exist in 2012? Or even next week?

  • avatar

    9-5 wagon…..Buick Roadmaster with a stick!

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • WheelMcCoy: Kobe, or not Kobe? Alas, not Kobe.
  • scottcom36: People love that third row, whether they need or use it is another question. My friend was trying to sell...
  • 30-mile fetch: $31K with either manual or automatic would make it difficult to want to step up to a $36K minimum V6...
  • scottcom36: They’re sensational!
  • pdieten: No, Brexit hasn’t officially happened yet, but that’s not how financial markets work. They are...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote


  • Contributors

  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States