When youve got a turbocharged 2.3L 4 cylinder that puts out 260+ hp stock, why there was ever a need to cram a V6 into any Saab is/was debatable. Releasing this car without that 4 cylinder, or the twin-turbod diesel is/was…debatable. When youre Swedish Saab, with the snow and brutal winter conditions and you go transverse front-drive, putting maximum power and weight to the wheels, why youd ever louse that up by adding two power-wasting ring and pinions to get the way overrated and 99% unneeded “all-wheel drive” is/was debatable. If anything, an electric rear-drive, not unlike the concept-car of a few years ago, would have been ground-breaking.

Now, virtually everyday, its woulda, coulda, shoulda.

The originals were certainly cool in the 80’s.

Is that because of the depreciation? ;-)

I like Saab’s, I don’t like their reliability, that’s why I got a Subaru.

Chevy gave us a taste of Saab in their ‘04 Malibu Maxx (right down to aluminum suspension components B. Lutz told Chevy to keep). The Maxx was somewhat pricy, didn’t sell well, and was dropped – the Saab original’s a lot more dough and not all that much better.

Theoretically speaking, if GM does declare bankruptcy, files Chpt. 11 or some such event by end of the year, what would happen to Saab? Could they possibly be released on their own or that isn’t possible?

They could, but Saab is a money loser, and there’s no indication that that would improve if it was independent. Sales are low in Europe and pathetic in the US (in the US, total Saab sales each month (all models) are less than two day’s worth of Camry sales alone).

They’d never buy it because Saab is damaged beyond repair. Jaguar at least has prestige, Volvo has safety. Heck, Hummer and Jeep both have virility of product, if not of sales. Saab had quirkiness, originality and the ability to waste Porsches and Ferraris when already moving; now they have a lame advertising campaign and, occasionally, an ignition in a funny place.

GM f_cked Saab the same way they did Saturn: they absorbed them back into the mothership, sucking away whatever raison d’etre they had. They nice enough cars, but they’re not special.

Granted, considering how GM has wasted Saab away, we here — the Best and the Brightest — could probably buy it if we each chip in $100.

Who’s in?

Once you go to the options sheet, you realize someone was thinking they were BMW, and the car comes up to the Roundel’s price. Then, not so much a great deal.

I had a 900 Turbo Classic, and a 9-3 from the 1/2 GM and 1/2 SAAB days. I loved both cars, but they didn’t have the long lasting quality of BMW, so no way was I going to buy a new 9-3 for BMW bucks.

Sad. The 900T broke the “rules” in that it was larger, a bit faster, and built like a brick S$%T house, except for the transmission. I loved that car.

Saab is gone…fold it into Saturn.

About once a week, I see a Saab on the road somewhere (that is how rare they seem to have become) and realize that this marque is still in business. Sad, really, because they used to make pretty good cars that were distinctive and had some purpose other than moving more units of a shared GM platform.

I don’t care what the marketing types say about this class of vehicle, the 6 cylinder is too heavy and too thirsty for my taste. I’d rather try out the 2.0T version without the Limited Edition addons.

http://www.saabhistory.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/1987_spg.jpg

http://www.saabhistory.com/2006/12/05/the-saab-spg/

Others do. When you hear criticisms of Acura, Saab or Volvo for selling pedestrian, front-drive chassis as luxury cars, Audi is conspicuous in it’s absence. And while Saab deserves it’s reputation as an also-ran**, Volvo and Acura do make some very good cars. Especially Acura: excepting the (rebaged Lamborghini) R8, there’s not much in Audi’s stable that Acura doesn’t have an answer for, often with better value and far less potential for trouble.

And yet somehow Audi doesn’t get called for it. I drove an Acura RL a few years back and I couldn’t think of a single reason, excepting the wagon body, why you would pick the A6 over it, especially when dealers were willing to part with the RL for what Audi charges for the A4 3.2.

** I’m pissed at GM’s treatment of Saab. Pissed about the 9-3’s neutering, pissed at the “meh” implementation of the 9-2, the travesty of brand-management that was the 9-7 but mostly the utter screwjob that is the 9-5. Twelve years, at least, on the same platform as the Saturn L-Series. What a terrible way to treat a luxury brand.

Six years ago, Saab had a shot. Now they’re a dead brand walking. I’d rather have seen GM put a bullet in them in 2002 than let them linger on and become pathetic also-ran they are today.

The stuff I’d like to see changed–steering feel, shifter feel, gear ratios, suspension tuning, exhaust note–all add little or nothing to the manufacturing cost. They just require engineers who know what they’re doing–and a company that lets them do it.

Frayed Knot:

Before I had the press car for a week I drove not one but two Turbo Xs at dealers. One of those had an automatic. It reacts very slowly to manual inputs. In a 9-3 Aero I drove a couple of years ago the same automatic exhibited the same shift flare that led to high repair rates in the 2007 Camry V6–which also uses this automatic.

But, above all, I prefer all but the worst manuals to a decent automatic.

psarhjinian:

Who gives Audi a free ride? Maybe others, but certainly not me. I’ve been complaining about their tendency to plow for years.

While the platform is still a bit flawed, the overall driving experience is fun as hell and the motor pulls like a champ. Very, very fun car to drive. Holds four people comfortably and huge hatch will carry whatever you need.

I bought this car for cheap – about $6K. Can’t imagine getting more car for the money. And I do get compliments. Nothing else on the road looks like it anymore and I’m in no hurry to get rid of it. I could have bought a newer vehicle and could have spent more. In fact, I drove a later model 9-3 (4 door sedan) and IMO the newer Saabs don’t compare to the previous generation. More isolated driving experience, motor didn’t pull as hard, build quality didn’t seem as solid. I could go on.

I even found and drove a Viggen but the performance of the 9-3 SE was close enough where I didn’t think spending the extra dough was needed. I feel like I have a cheap, fun, good looking and practical vehicle that is going to last for at least a few more years before I consider buying either a really depreciated Turbo X or – better yet – a cherry E30 M3.

To be fair:
* That’s the 1998-2003 B205/235 engine (which I have, at 190,000kms in my 02 9-3). Highway-miles versions are less susceptible, and it’s a real good idea to make sure the seller has oil change receipts as Saab does cover it to eight years and unlimited mileage. It’s also possible to clean the engine, if you’ve the time or money.
* The old convertible continued into 2003, so if you’re trying avoid the B205/235 sludge issue, keep that in mind.
* I’m not sure, but the 9-5 (which still uses this engine) might still be affected.
* The Epsilon 9-3 from 2003 may be blessed by the sludge-free the 2.0L Ecotec, but the whole rest of the car is flaky bastard from which you should stay the hell away; I’d say, holistically, the 03 is much worse than the 02, and 2006 and newer would be my bet.

As a current 9-3 turbo owner, I can tell you that their quality sucks, really really bad. My transmission had to be replaced at 23K miles, fortunately under warranty. When I called the shop after two weeks to find out what was taking so long, I was told that my transmission failure was “Fourth of seven”. Yikes!

It’s also not encouraging that for this new model year GM is reverting SAAB’s (and only SAAB’s!) power train warranty back to 50K miles, down from 100K miles. That they are doing this just as they are introducing a brand new four wheel drive system probably is no coincidence.

The chances that SAAB got the XWD system right the first time is basically zero. GM is using new SAAB drivers as their testers/guinea pigs for a system they want to roll out on all their sedans.

Don’t be one of them.

Please tell that to State Trooper Lawson, since he nailed me and my Aero at 128 mph (his words) early Saturday morning (checking out the balance on my new tires).

That’s going to leave a mark.

And the absurdly high MSRP is misleading, because all GM/Saab incentives apply in full to the Turbo X. Some have sold in the $35-36k range, which is eminently reasonable considering the performance and very high level of standard equipment. A comparably equipped A4 2.0T quattro is in the same range, and won’t touch the Turbo X’s performance.