Saab may have been "Born from Jets," but there's little about the brand's current offerings that you'd call state-of-the-art. The 9-3 has changed little since its ‘03 introduction. The 9-7X dates back to the ‘02 Chevy TrailBlazer. And the 9-5 has been stuck in holding pattern since ‘98. I recently tested a 9-5 to see if the quirky car lives up to its high tech brand proposition. My range-topping tester's trim designation: "Aero." That pounding sound you hear is GM's marketers driving home the high-altitude hype.
Luxury sedan buyers tend to place beauty at the top of their list of priorities. Fortunately, the 9-5's lines have worn well over the past nine years. But they have, well, worn. In 2006, Saab applied a masked-rider makeover to the front fascia. The result: a familiar face wearing Ray-Bans. In today's world of flame-surfaced shapes, it's not enough. The Saab's crisp, formal three-box shape lacks presence, and displays less than modern panel gaps.
Unfortunately, the 9-5's exterior is the apex of its aesthetics. Stepping into the cabin admits you to the Museum of Premium Interior Materials, circa 1997. The 9-5's instrument panel is utterly artless, a drab plastic escarpment with scatter-shot secondary controls. Buttons and knobs feel hollow to the touch, and a single cupholder collapses loosely out of the dash. Born from a U.S. Airways galley, perhaps.
With petrified polymers filling your peripheral vision, it's difficult to feel much love at the 9-5's helm. Is that a Suzuki Forenza's mirror-adjuster pod? It is! Assessed discretely, some of the cabin's bits delight. Chief among these are the 9-5's seats. The chairs are wide, soft and all-day supportive: a welcome departure from the Teutonic class norm. Ditto the large windows and low beltline, which afford an airy view out. Passenger space is first-class.
I'll avoid the usual hoopla over the 9-5's console-mounted ignition, and focus instead on what happens when you twist it: turbulence. On paper, the Aero's 260-horse, 2.3-liter turbo four seems like a timely alternative (20/30 mpg med stick) to the thirsty sixes and V8's common to this class. In person, the mini-mill idles with an economy car's dry, raspy drone, sending the wrong sort of tingles up your spine in the process. In a car that purports to rival 528is and E350s, what we have here is a failure to communicate.
Despite its hopelessly proletarian character, the 9-5's engine has its charms; specifically, its ability to inhale straightaways in strong, gratifying lunges. Unfortunately, with the standard five-speed manual transmission, such efforts are accompanied by strong, less-than-gratifying lunges towards the hedgerows. Torque steer, the tendency for the front wheels to squirm in a rubber-smoking hunt for traction, is obvious by its presence.
Thus, while I normally implore shoppers to consider the stick shift rather than defaulting to the automatic, I'm flip-flopping this time. The autobox quells the 9-5's tendency to torque steer and spares you the numb, ambiguous shift action typical of Saab sticks.
You might expect the 9-5's driven front wheels to spoil its handling, too. In fact, its at-the-limit behavior is remarkably poised. The Aero benefits from a lower chassis (10mm), firmer springs and more aggressive shock absorbers. Hustled around a closed course, the Aero exhibits surprisingly gluey grip and a wispy, tossable nature that eludes most German iron.
Driven below the limit, however, the Aero feels significantly less graceful. Its power-assisted rack and pinion steering is precise enough but over-light, and there's a gritty, insubstantial quality to this aged platform's ride. Arthritis? More like Parkinson's. Textured surfaces feed a steady stream of high-frequency shivers through the 9-5's structure and steering column. Combined with the tingly engine vibes, this car's manners are better compared with Mazda than Mercedes.
Which brings me to a pointed question for prospective 9-5 buyers: why buy a new Aero when you can spend Mazda6 money on virtually the same car, used? For $25k, a low-mileage 2005 Sport Wagon certainly represents a more interesting (and roomier, more agile) family taxi than the CamCord.
Moreover, as competition for the current 5-Series and Infiniti M, the Aero is worse than marginal; it's a curio, an irrelevance. No discerning luxury buyer would suffer the 9-5's downscale tactile sensations, and the Birkenstock-shod professors who used to resonate with Saab's brand values are now tooling around in Prii.
So what does the future hold for the 9-5? Um… nothing, really, unless you're squinting into the hazy distance that is model year 2009. That year's all-new 9-5, built on GM's Epsilon 2 platform, must be a true flagship product. It has to be evocative in design, unique in character and engaging on the road. Otherwise, Saab's promises will continue to ring more hollow than a Viggen's intake nacelle, and must eventually fall silent.
83 Comments on “Saab 9-5 Aero Review...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Saab’s biggest problem is that GM thought it would be a great idea to take them over and build Vectra-platformed designermobiles on the cheap, sort of like IKEA on wheels. Of course, they thought Saab would then still appeal to its cliché customer base, i.e. the Granola-with-money crowd. Naturally, the customers tended to be more intelligent than that, wondering why they should spend €/$ 10,000 more on a Vectra/Subaru/Chevy just because it was “Born from Jets.” (Pigs would fly if they were born from jets.)
So far, GM has done absolutely nothing to fix this problem, apart from a dubious nose job on the 9-5. (Lipstick on those flying pigs, anyone?) – and evidently they still have no real idea of the direction the brand is supposed to take. The Saabrolet Jetblazer is a case in point. I have my doubts as to whether the 2009 9-5 will be able to win Saab’s customers back.
Probably one of the most expensive and difficult brands of car to repair. When you call the dealer for parts prices, sit down and hold the phone well away from your ear. I truly cannot ever find a raison d’etre for this car.
Dead brand walking.
PJ identifies the limited number of reasons to buy one of these: great seats, airy cabin (better driving position than the 9-3), somewhat entertaining handling…and cheap price used.
I included the 9-5 Aero in a recent blog entry on used car bargains:
http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=63
New the 9-5 is clearly not a good value, which explains why monthly sales are only around 400.
(20/30 mpg hos stick) – where the word “hos” is supposed to mean, what?
“hos” is supposed to mean, what?
Swedish for “with”
I’ll admit some amount of affection for the platform, since it also underpinned the Saturn L300 I used to drive. But what made for cheap thrills in a used Saturn is not what makes a satisfying driving experience in a $38k sedan.
The comment about interior materials is spot-on: the interiors of both the 9-3 and the 9-5 are just bad, bad, bad, with the exception of the seats and the steering wheel. The Saturn Aura significantly out-classes most of the Saab’s interior materials, and is built on a much more modern version of the Vectra donor chassis. Its V6 puts the same number of horses down in a much smoother fashion, and never exhibits the kind of torque steer found in the 9-5. And all of this costs less than the base 9-3 sedan.
Parts are indeed expensive. A pair of brake rotors set my neighbor back over 200 dollars. The other day it would not start and the fix was a very expensive sensor only the dealer had. Overall a rather mudane car that offers nothing new and everything about it screams badge engineered.
The days of SAAB glory are over.
This car needs a eulogy not a review.
GS650G:
April 20th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Parts are indeed expensive. A pair of brake rotors set my neighbor back over 200 dollars.
The pair of Brembo rotors for my ‘01 9-5 wagon sitting on the floor next to me cost me $49 apiece. The trick with Saab parts is never, ever buying them at the dealer. Mail order is far more reasonable.
It’s worth noting that this car is still one of the very safest on the road, best in its class according to IIHS Injury & Death statistics, beating much newer designs. The wagon is quite nice, with a cavernous trunk and wide backseat that allows 2 adults & a car seat in comfort.
Saab owners (myself amongst them) are noted for their fervent brand loyalty. GM appears intent on beating that loyalty out of us. Pushing the new 9-5 back to 2009 is a travesty and GM has systematically starved Saab for product for years. Now with the Cadillac BLS, it appears that GM is intent on transforming Cadillac into their global luxury brand, while ignoring Saab’s near-luxury, cross-continent brand. The Aero-X and 9x concepts shows that there’s plenty of terrific design ideas in Trollhatten, but there’s no love for them in Detroit.
My wagon cost me $13k when it was 3 years old with 50k miles. An unbeatable deal. It’s excellent highway performance has saved my bacon more than once.
I wouldn’t spend that kind of money for a new one. There are much better cars out there, but the 9-5 Aero is a compelling used car bargain. I have owned two. Saabs CPO program is tops; 6yr 100k bumper to bumber with no deductible and they fix even minor things (replaced a slightly faded Saab Griffin badge on the hood) without being asked. Great local dealer, comfy seats, great Harmon Kardon audio, and it is very safe for it’s size with one of the lowest insurance injury claim rates for any car. Newer ones seem cheaper interior wise than the pre 2006 models which for better or worse have a more Saabish (non GM) array of buttons and knobs. Refinement and dynamics are lacking in some ways, but for me the plusses far outweigh the minuses.
Anyone wishing for a Saab experience today, with all the classic Saab emotions, should buy an Alfa Romeo.
Anyone wishing for a Saab experience today, with all the classic Saab emotions, should buy an Alfa Romeo.
I’ll be first in line for a Brera in the US.
There is nothing in Saab’s lineup that is remotely competitive. Perhaps that is why you can get $8,000 off on a 2006 9-5 and $5000 on a 9-3.
Honestly who in their right mind would buy a Saab over an Infiniti, Lexus, BMW, MB, Audi, or even Volvo?
My friend’s 1999 9-5 just died a very expensive unexpected death due to massive oil leaks brought on by a PCV system design flaw. Saab released at least three updates to the PCV system without notifying customers, so people who had their maintenance done at an independent shop often never found out about them. (Supposedly this isn’t an issue with current production 9-5s, but there still is no reason to buy one.) Now my friend who has been running Volvo 240s for 250-350k miles for years has a worthless 9-5 with 110k miles on it. I know him well and know that he did oil changes on schedule, etc.
The 9-5 is perhaps the worst new car value on sale today. Anyone who compares a new 9-5 to a new Acura TL and buys the 9-5 is seriously judgement impared.
discoholic:
I’m not usually one to complain about someone’s comments, but you owe me a new keyboard!
(Lipstick on those flying pigs, anyone?)
And SherbornSean:
I’ll ask you to pay for screen-cleaning for
“Dead Brand Walking”
I’ve always followed the fortunes of SAAB because my dad owned a series of them in the 60’s, back when they WERE designed by the Jet Engineers. Those engineers did some fascinating things in structural design, safety and aerodynamics (the air flow was designed to keep the windshield clean, even in the rain). Unfortunately they didn’t know a damn’d thing about engine design, and so my dad’s cars all had those 3-cylinder two-stroke wonders.
We always owned the Rally (Monte Carlo winners!)versions with the Halda speed calculators and the ‘Shrike’ engines that had a carb for every cylinder! This got them up to something like 60 hp. My dad’s favorite quote about these little screamers was “The red line is the same as the destruction point of the materials”. Unfortunately, he proved that several times over the years.
So, it’s with some disappointment that I’ve watched SAAB’s turned into Chevy’s wearing little badges that say, “Kiss me, I’m Swedish!”.
P.S. Used 9-5s can indeed be had at a low price, which means that the unfortunate person who bought the car new got slaughtered on trade-in value.
Saab loyalists can’t last forever, and I doubt Saab is making many converts with this lineup. And it doesn’t look much better on the immediate horizon.
(Feel free to replace “Saab” with many other GM division names.)
I am an example of a “lost” SAAB customer. I’m driving my 3rd and, unless things change, my last SAAB currently, a 2004 9-3SS Aero. The car was frankly pretty nice when I first got it. Better handling than my previous Viggen if not as much pep, gorgeous exterior looks (subjectively speaking of course) and traditional safety and good fuel economy. The car was in the shop on numerous occasions for various internal equipment failures but really nothing out of the ordinary for most Euro brands these days – I could live with these because they were handled under the warranty.
At about 10K miles though the interior began to “let go” and the cheap OEM suspension components lost any semblance of refinement. With a go kart like ride quality and poorly assembled interior (with plasticky materials poorly disguised by a 1mm layer of thin rubber that eventually begins to peel like a bad sunburn) the car began to shake, rattle, roll, vibrate and every other thing that makes daily life with a car kind of difficult in the city. It’s one thing if you’re driving an old car, but a 9 month old car with 10,000 miles on that purports to be “premium”? I don’t think so. I’ve lived with the car now up to 38K miles. The drivetrain has been flawless and on smooth mountain roads the car is still fun to drive, but for me not a very good daily driver. I will take a large depreciation hit (not to mention that the current Aero now offers a 250HP V6 vs. my 210HP 4-banger).
I picked up a 2007 BMW 335i in Munich in late March and as soon as it arrives at my dealer the SAAB will be sold to any takers, or to CarMax if necessary and it will be a bittersweet relief. The car has not been that unreliable but just very unsatisfying based on my expectations. To quote someone I don’t like very much: “There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”
Bummer. I like the idea of SAAB and it’s a shame they are losing folks. I test drove the WRX wagon version SAAB and really enjoyed it. It had nicer seats and seemed to have better sound insulation. Sad to see them go downhill so quickly.
I liked the 9-2 because it was a much better looking WRX with a better warranty for a few dollars more (but it was no SAAB). The 9-7 is an abortion and embarassment to the brand. The 9-5 is huge, quirky and a decent $27k car.
I do, however, love the 9-3 Aero convertible. It’s got a beautiful, subtle design, decent ergonomics, and is a blast to drive with the manual (IMHO, certainly more fun than the A4 and Volvo, on par with the 3 series).
I hope to snag an ‘05 certified for $25k…. about $20k off list.
Its funny that saab exec (I forget his name) just got switched to Buick after turning Saab around (what?). He was also credited prior to saab.. for turning cadillac around. Hopefully, he will do a great job with Buick’s fortunes.
Enough of him. I liked Saabs a long time ago. They were rock solid. Pity how the brand declined. Three reasons I can think of.
1. Saab and Volvo were for middle class before. They were turned into luxo fighters pitted against MB, Lexus etc. Well only price changed but nothing else did.
2. Brand marketing made a conscious effort to distance itself from “professor’s car” image so much so that they went on to insult the very type of customer who wanted one.
3. Putting GM’s radio and dials on interior is not a good idea. Also, materials with ride quality suffered mysteriously. Original saabs were completely opposite. They were rock solid and a pleasure to be in.
The only Saab I would not be scared of owning is the Subaru one, sadly.
I presently own and enjoy a 2006 9-5 Aero. This is my 3rd Saab (2nd 9-5) and I am quite happy with the car. It provides a very nice combination of performance, handling, comfort, reliability and all weather ability (I live on north east coast of Canada, lots of snow) in a car that is of sufficient size to comfortably accommodate my family, something the Audi A4 certainly couldn’t do. I think the whole is more then the sum of the parts and I will take character over uber refinement.
All too often the 9-5 it is compared to BMW’s, Audi’s and others and it doesn’t quite measure up in some areas. Really the key feature for me is value. I am leasing and for my low lease payment, which is less then what I paid for my previous 02 9-5 linear (base model). I could not find anything that appealed as much for my money. The Acura TL, Audi A4 Quattro, Volvo S60 T5 all cost at least $150 Cdn per month more to lease.
I am a happy owner.
Dave M.:
The 9-7 is an abortion and embarassment to the brand.
I think the 9-7 is the best looking of all the GMT360 platform variants (except maybe the Envoy). But you’re right in that it shouldn’t be sold as a Saab.
It should be a Chevy “Insertmodelnamehere” and drop the price 10-12K, it’s better looking than the TrailBlazer (which isn’t saying much, I know). Ditch the TrailBlazer name – it’s not appropriate – no one blazes trails in them.
Last month I entered a Saab dealer to see what the 9-5 wagons were like, sadly the battery was dead on EVERY SINGLE 9-5 wagon on the lot (12). It managed to take the dealer 4 tries to find a Saab 9-5 sedan with a live wire to go for a test drive while they charged up a 9-5 wagon for similar duty. The most distressing experience was the excitement that gleamed in every employee’s eyes that there was a live body on the lot looking at a Saab.
Unfortunately the cars born from jets are similarly born to disappoint. Plastics are Rubbermaid grade and the color matching of dash board components seemed to be circa 1970: non existent.
The fact that GM believes that the 8 year old 9-5 with it’s rough and obnoxious 4 cylinder engine is the rival of BMW 5 or Audi A6 just indicates their inability to grasp reality. Volvo has nailed Scandinavian chic but Saab is still searching.
As a long time Saab devotee who has owned a classic 900, a Viggen (which I kept for 3 years despite not having enough headroom) and now (albeit ashamedly) a 9-2x, the travails of the 9-5 are saddening. I was close to getting one t replace the Viggen but, once again, a distinctly unmodern lack of headroom (crazy for a large flagship sedan but indicative of the Saab’s mid 1990’s design age) kept the car out of my hands. I don’t see much reason to splurge for a 9-5 sedan even on a discount — there is just too much out there that is as good or better. The wagon is a different proposition — if only because for buyers who want wagon carrying capacity without SUV silliness, there aren’t many competitors out there. On a discount the 9-5 Wagon is a good deal and even semi-reliable (for a European car) if one is to believe Consumer Reports. GM’s benign neglect of Saab, born of GM’s collapse, has killed the brand.
Saab 9-5 sales in the United States for March, 2007: 369
That’s it.
Excluding medium duty trucks, it’s the second worst selling GM vehicle still in production (the worst was the Saturn Relay minivan, at 178, although production of that may have stopped-2007 is the last model year for that sales failure). Now, also note I said “still in production”-GM dealers frequently sell small quantities of long-discontinued vehicles that appear in it’s sales charts. For example, two brand new Pontiac Azteks were sold by Pontiac dealers during March 2007.
Total sales for the Saab brand overall for March were only 2,837. One could make a pretty good argument for shutting Saab down completely (in the US at least-it’s doing better in Europe).
@Geotpf
Saab’s managing in Europe due to mad incentives — the cars suck just as bad here. Extremely sad – was looking at a 9-5, and a 9-3 cab last year, but just spent half an hour with the cars. Too disappointed.
What are the comparable sales figures for BMW?
Excuse me! Criticizing that cute fold away cup holder just cannot stand (Push in and it POPS out!). A couple of years ago my son and I, for once not actually looking to buy a car that year, decided to base our entire car show foray on cup holder cuteness. The SAAB and the MB coupes with their cute pop up ones were easily the winners. Ok, they looked like they would break on the third use, but they won the “clever” awards. Just because Lego’s are made of better plastic doesn’t mean some asst. design engineer somewhere shouldn’t get a special logo coffee cup and an “attaboy” for his efforts.
Yup, that cupholder won more points with my ten year old nephew than the pop-up and swivel number in the C-230 Kompressor.
I recently drove the 9-3 Aero Sport Combi. Loved the driving dynamics — was unimpressed with the interior though.
Being out sold almost 4:1 in the USA by Volvo should indicate to those in Trollhattan that it’s time to abandon Saab and focus on saving the mother ship. The GM plan of badge engineered Saabs made in Germany will not improve matters.
I’d rather they kill it now instead of prolonging its life. That way we can avoid having to watch GM foist upon us more abominations and insults to Saab’s heritage like the 9-7x, or criminally neglect good cars like the 9-5, or miss the mark with the 9-3. The AeroX concept shows that there is life within Saab yet, but it’s all in the execution, and GM is terrible at execution. Methinks the AeroX concept and, to a lesser degree, the way cool 9-3 SportCombi are Saab’s last dying light.
SAAB = Born from Junk
I owned two Saabs = a 900 and a 9-5 wagon.
900 was decent and cool.
9-5 wagon was okay until it fell apart 2 years into a 3 year lease.
Now a happy 2007 BMW 335i owner and won’t shed a tear when Saab is shut down … probably during GM’s coming Chapter 11 reorganization.
It breaks my heart to see what Saab has become…
A pseudo-European subsidiary of GM.
With an 8,000 rebate incentive does anyone know how much these cars go for in real world pricing?
Seems like if you buy the car at invoice with light options (auto trans, metallic paint) it would be only about 28K?
Sure it doesn’t compare to other entry level sport sedans but it seems like it’s seriously cheaper (as much as 10K real world) too.
I currently own a 1997 9000CSE 5 speed, and a 2004 9-5 wagon with an automatic. I’ve had the 9000 for about six years. It has been great. I bought the 04 9-5 ARC wagon, which stickered for $38k, for $24k. For that price, I knew of no other station wagon with the same performance, safety or economy. Late last year, you could still buy a new 9-5 for around $25 after the rebates. A Honda Accord EX V6, is less safe, and does not not out-perform the Saab.
It is true that the 2.3 4cyl turbo idles a bit rough. Forget about the “luxury car” BS. The car is very fast. I would put it against any other car under $30K for 40mph-80mph. It might not win against all, but it can hold it’s own on the highway. I have surprised many a driver in my 9000. When the turbo kicks in, it goes like a rocket. It is very fun.
Yes, the Saab is an old design. But so what? Who cares about the “quality of the plastic?” It is all made from the same blood-soaked oil.
To me, many of the remarks I have read here take on the air of snobbishness. I’ve owned many cars including Alfas, BMWs, MB. They were all fun and performed well. None were perfect. I don’t think I would want a “perfect” car anymore than I would like to marry a “perfect” woman, or work for a “perfect” boss. Cars are made by humans. They all have compromises. As long as they have ESP, ABS, Air bags, get 30 MPG on the highway, have decent seats, and a decent sound system, they are not as bad as some of your comments would indicate.
Okay, can I be the one person here willing to defend Saab?
First: Saab engineers are very good at what they do. Unfortunately, GM just doesn’t allow them to do anything but styling exercises anymore.
Second: Saab is currently suffering from a 30%+ pricing deficit thanks to the exchange rate. BMW, Mercedes, they raise the prices and exclusivity and complexity of their vehicles. Unfortunately, GM merely cheapens the underlying platform. Yeah, that’s why your imported parts cost so much. GM thinks they can make more money with expensive parts.
Finally: Saab could be great again, if GM would just let them create something new and exciting. If all Saab has to work with is aged GM platforms, well, then it’s over. What incentive does the average buyer have to buy a pathetic GM chassis with expensive imported Swedish design frills?
The old 9000 5-door and my friend’s 900 hatchback were among the toughest cars I have ever seen. Modern ones are not bad, just overpriced, thanks to GM’s continued mismanagement. Let’s hope Saab gets a chance to do something new, because the entire lineup is just plain stale.
Folks, this is what happens when people who think in terms of “brand” take over a marque. It’s happened to a lesser degree with the other Swedish car, but from what I have read about the most recent S80, even there, the unique character of Swedish cars has been greatly diminished.
The greatest insult came when GM slapped a SAAB grille on a Subaru and tried to pass it off as a SAAB, the “SAABaru” as it became to those of us who know a real piece of Swedish steel, when we drive one.
The people I’ve met who drive SAABs aren’t so dumb as to be fooled; of course, the brandmeisters want to “expand the brand” and hope that a lot of the people who watch PBS – and see those institutional ads at the beginning of prime-time shows – and know almost nothing about cars, will be sucked into the “brand” that built – still does I seem to recall – airplanes.
My pal Nate Tennis, who races a SAAB 99 in rally racing, and whose father and uncle are legends in the SAAB community, and I regularly share our sense of bemusement and sadness at what has become of our favorite Swedes. But then, Nate also has a Fiat X1-9; like any real SAAB guy, he treasures automotive eccentricity.
“…it’s a curio, an irrelevance.”
Perfect description right there. Sums up the 9-5’s existence in one simple sentence.
At $25k brand new the 9-5 would be an interesting alternative choice, but at the $34k and up range it stickers at the car is a complete failure to compete. Currents carsdirect.com retail price starts at $31k, which is still far to much for what you get.
I bet many of the people on this site who disparage Saabs, have never driven one. But honestly, if you are the kind of person who is afraid to change his own oil, air filter, spark plugs and coolant – buy a Toyota or a Honda. Saabs only make economic sense to people who like to touch their cars.
Go to motoralley.com and see how cheap 9-5’s have been recently. Figure on getting at least 30 percent off of MSRP. Of course, later in the year is better. Would I rather buy a new Passat wagon or V70 over the Saab and pay an extra 5-15k? I don’t think either of those two wagons are worth the extra money. If all things were equal, I would rather have the V70R. But they cost much more.
everything gm puts their claws on is watered down ,watered down , then liquified. if the patient wants to survive , he needs to gets rid of parasites that pretend to be beneficiaries.look at that berth, where mr. mitsubishi is sleeping, after cutting navel cord from gm, it gets better every day.saab- run! run! run away from gm colossal squid ! and you can always stop bleeding by putting that all- new platform patch!
jurisb,
While i’m not really sure what you mean most of the time, your posts crack me up!
But your comment does bring up a good point: could GM leverage a RWD zeta platform and build a quirky Saab off it? I’d be interested assuming the interior improved and reliability was atleast average. It would give those FWD-biased Volvos a run for their Swedish money.
“Would I rather buy a new Passat wagon or V70 over the Saab and pay an extra 5-15k?”
The information I see on motoralley.com and carsdirect.com does not agree with this premise. Passat wagons can be bought for thousands less than a base model 9-5 wagon based on the current information.
If the best argument for an entry luxury vehicle is that the dealers and manufaturer are discounting them down to Honda Accord price levels then something is very wrong with the vehicle and/or it’s marketing.
I’ve liked Saabs for a long time and have come close to buying one several times. Every time I have shopped for a car in the past 15 years I’ve test driven and considered Saabs, but the spotty dealer network, generally uncompetitive designs along with the trouble my Saab owning friends have had always chased me away.
The born from jets advertising really ticks me off as well. There is absolutely nothing a modern Saab has in common with aircraft. A Saab 9-3 has more in common with the recently departed Saturn L series than it does with anything that flies!
If the best argument for an entry luxury vehicle is that the dealers and manufaturer are discounting them down to Honda Accord price levels then something is very wrong with the vehicle and/or it’s marketing.
Does this then mean something is wrong w/ Accords because they now sell at Civic prices? ($3K+ off MSRP w/ incentives)
Huh, timely article, I just left Saab TODAY. Coming off my second lease of a 9-3 and I just couldn’t bring myself to get another one, not even the aero. And not even with the GM eomployee discount and all the rebates. Ended up getting a real American car made in Indiana – a Subaru Legacy GT. Good luck Saab.
Replying to bfg9k:
It’s worth noting that this car is still one of the very safest on the road, best in its class according to IIHS Injury & Death statistics, beating much newer designs.
You are using the wrong study. IIHS Injury & Death is only about injury/death claims, not about safety. Driver behaviour weights heavily in this study. For instance, Toyota Prius scores better than MB E-class, because of the slow driving owners. For the same reason, the score of Saab 9-5 is artificially inflated, considering Saab has a good reputation for safty and those who seek safety pick Saab.
If we just talk about crashworthiness, look at the Crashworthiness Evaluation from IIHS. In that study, Saab 9-5 ranks 9th out 13 in its class.
Replying boredlawstudent:
Does this then mean something is wrong w/ Accords because they now sell at Civic prices? ($3K+ off MSRP w/ incentives)
This is the last model year for this Accord. All the development and tooling costs have been paid and the 2007 Accord is the most profitable one in this model run.
So, yeah nothing wrong at Honda. They can do whatever pricing they want as long as the cars return a fat margin.
Technically, Saab is free to set its pricing as well. But their stake holders may see something wrong as they lose money on each car they sell. Nothing that I care, I am a (tiny) stake holder in Honda.
Just to add, the United States of America is a free country. Capitalism at its bloodiest.
There is no forced buy or sell. Products are sold at their worth, not their MSRP. If a 9-5 lists at $40k and sells for $24k, then it is worth $24k. If an Accord sells for $24k, then the Accord is worth, well, $24k.