I too love the 9-5. The 9-5 is a well concieved automobile. I don’t know what to say about some of the comments above. What the comments do confirm is that the 9-5 is a unique auto. It achieves a remarkable balance of performance, comfort, gas milage, handling, and verve. Being front wheel drive, forget about the snow – can use all season tires year round in Massachusetts. FWD beats RWD in snow, and FWD is 90% as good as AWD in snow, yet will get better gas milage year round.

My first SAAB was a 2001 9-5 5sp manual; loaded – vent seats, HK stereo, 185HP (plenty), 34mpg+ hwy. Great highway ride, great commuter, more than enough power for practical use. Suspension was a little floaty when pushed. Loved the car (150K), but, traded it in . . .

For a 2008 9-5 Aero, 5sp manual, 260hp (trying to win over some HP crazies out there). The Aero suspension was what was missing in my first 9-5. I love this Aero.

A word about the competition (IMO) – the Japanese cars, while the quality is the best, the looks are the worst – they can’t do sheet metal like the Euro’s and American’s can and most have floaty rides. The Euro’s – BMW 5 series – great; the only thing wrong with them is the base models are RWD, not good in NE. The 3 series interior is too small for me. Ditto the Audi A4. The A6 has gorgeous sheet metal, but, don’t like the dash, and the 9-5 has a more supple ride. The American cars are getting better. The Cadillacs (CTS, STS [guzzler]) look great and handle, but, again base models are RWD.

So when the smoke cleared, its was the SAAB 9-5 for me. Everything you need and nothing you don’t. Old doesn’t mean inferior – Forbe’s has it listed no. 8 out of 15 (ahead of the 5 series B) in it’s list of best buy luxury cars.

But, alas, ‘find your own road’ . . .

I’m a believer in Saabs turbo technology. I’ve driven up in very high mountains where other cars were obviously choking on the thin air and passing them w/ my Saab w/ ease.

I really like my Saab when I’m filing up for gas averaging about 24mpg in hard driving conditions (hills, lots of stop and go and I like to drive fast). When I take a long freeway trip I average about 29-30 mpg.

There’s no accounting for taste, but one of the reasons I like the older 9-5’s is that they don’t feel like a “Stepford” car. Geez, there’s nothing worse than a boring car. (Except maybe a car that doesn’t run.)

I think the older 9-5’s are actually the last of the “true” Saabs. There is a sense about them that they were still designed very carefully, with a lot of emphasis on engineering and design. They aren’t so “plastic” feeling inside.

I don’t agree with the knocks on the turbo 4. As others pointed out, you can get 30 mpg cruising at high speeds. Right about now, with gas over 4 bucks, a power plant that does that while plastering you into your seat when you pass sounds like a pretty intelligent proposition. I’ve also heard that the sludging issue is not a problem if you change your oil like you’re supposed to. I have 90K and zero sludge.

The acceleration is pretty impressive for such a heavy car. Plus a very rock solid ride at high speed. And fantastic seats.

Whatever the crash stats say, if you look under and into your Saab 9-5 and see how it is built, I am pretty sure you’d prefer to be in the 9-5 over many other cars in an accident. It is extremely solid. Don’t forget cars are designed to get high crash test ratings, because that’s what marketing departments want. (Yes, I’m cynical.) Unless you are going to go out and hit an IIHS test wall, the ratings may not mean much when you roll down an embankment or have a moose hit your windshield. I mean seriously, would you rather have the misfortune of a rollover in an Acura or a Saab? Take a look at the windshield pillars on a 9-5 and compare them to some Japanese cars.

I agree though that the car is now overpriced new. However, I bought my 01 in 03 with 10K miles and paid $20K, a very good price and value. Have put 80000 almost trouble free miles on it. It has had issues like ignition cassette failure and SID failure, but overall been very good.

I also completely agree with many of you that Saab is in big trouble. I wouldn’t buy a new one now. I, too, feel that GM has really diluted the brand and doesn’t understand or support it properly. I don’t want to buy a Saab that isn’t really designed and made in Trollhattan. It feels like it is becoming a committee produced car.

I have no ideas as to what can save Saab from going away. But I wish them luck! God knows they’ll need it!

I say this about my ‘03…I have sat in the newer ‘06 and ’07’s and GM’s refresh of the interior is subpar. Cheaper dash plastics, no heated rear seat, and lots of issues that won’t make me upgrade to a newer one. I have an ‘06 9-3 Aero convertible too (brand loyalty, I know…), and “tolerate” the somewhat cheap looking interior. It was also more than $10K cheaper than a similarly equipped ‘06 330ci convertible at the time. $10K can buy a lot of other stuff.

Saab needs an infusion of quality in its newer products. I’ve ordered a diesel ‘09 BMW 335d as the wagon’s replacement, since I’m not sure I’m ready to buy a newer 9-5 until it’s thoroughly redesigned.

Presently I own a 9-5 wagon and a 9-5 sedan. Cars owned prior to the SAABs: BMW 540I sport wagon, Mercedes E320, Infiniti Q45, Volvo S80. Therefore, what I write below is an actual and factual comparison.

The reviews complain about high parts prices. That is correct when compared to parts purchased at Auto Zone for a Dodge caravan. Try buying a throttle body doe the S80 ($ 872) or replace and engine on the 540 IT ($5233) or the ignition key receptacle on the E320($ 1464)or the transmission on the Q45 ($ 2443). Compare those prices to SAAB parts prices purchased from numerous non-dealer parts suppliers and you will see why a 9-5 is a great value.

Let’s look at economy. The SAAB 9-5 leverages the Turbo and Trionic 7 systems to achieve 30 MPG on trips. The others would get 20 MPG on a good day.

Let’s look at emmissions. The SAAB 9-5 has the lowest rating of lbs of CO2 emitted per mile of any luxury car, while being able to do 0-60 MPH in 6 seconds.

Let’s look at ergonomics and safety. The SAAB 9-5 has one of the highest scores in crash testing in addition, your knee cap does not have to be gouged by the ignition key sticking out of the dash in case of an accident. It is much more comfortable than the e320 or the 540 IT on long trips with the longest range of any gasoline powered luxury car. In ice and snow, it runs circles around the e320, 540 IT or the Q45 due to its front wheel drive system and traction control and dynamic stability control.

I do not reference the S80 because first you have to get it to run long enough without breakdowns to be able to compare it. The S80 was one of the most electrically unstable cars I have owned. Timing belt failures, oil leaks, transmission failures, intermitent no start, etc. are issues that the S80 faces on a good day. The S80 T6 is much more challenged than the S80 2.9.

In summary, the SAAB 9-5 is a great deal of a car with incredible features. Yes it has problems like the ignition module recall, the plastic clip breakage on the HVAC system, etc., etc.

All in all, if one can spare few minutes to read up and technically understand the 9-5, they will be rewarded with an eco conscious luxury car that is tuetonic in nature with no trinkets but able to far exceed the needs of driver.

The writer is an an ASE Certified Master Tech and an automotive engineer who has consulted at Mercedes, VW, GM, Ford, Toyota and other OEMs.

So on price and somewhat on age of design, we went with the 9-3. So far, it has performed well, but we’re only 3,000 miles into the relationship. We both noticed the lack of character compared with the 2002 9-3 we drove previously.

One quick note…for the few people that are interested in this sort of thing…the Aero package does still give the cheapest (as far as I know) access to a driving school as part of the entrance fee. So the value equation gets better with the Aero.

Maybe it’s the marketers’ fault. Stop telling people they are looking at a BMW alternative…tell them the 9-3 is a better alternative to a loaded Altima 3.5 or Camry Sport trim and see what happens to sales.

Large tax cuts for individuals and companies using E85 cars also were handed out, including not having to pay congestion charges in Stockholm.

I digress though, lifes not that easy. My name is Jordan, and I’m addicted to Swedish cars.

I want to like the 9-5, I really do. Honestly though, it’s like trying to still be a fan of OJ’s. GM is a bad parent. If your kid tells you he doesn’t want to be a doctor like you, dont force him to be one, anyway.

A Saab based on for example BMW platforms but at a lower price with somewhat cheaper materials etc. could be viable.

Looking back it’s sad that Volvo and Saab didn’t merge their car divisions in the early 1980’s. Then Sweden still could have a real big Swedish car manufacturer.

The BMW is relevant because it’s Saab’s self-identified competition, and for most enthusiasts, is a better buy.

The branding issues are relevant because they’re the reason you won’t be able to buy a Saab at all in ten years.

I went from a 2002 9-5 linear, which is basically the same as 03 model, to a 2006 9-5. The 06 is an Aero specification car with 260hp verses 185hp in my 02. It has 17″ wheels, larger brakes, sport suspension, sport seats, 6 disc CD player and the sticker was only $1000 more then my 02 linear. The only decontenting I could see was the Weather band in radio,the cassette player, and Date display on SID, all basically meaningless. In fact my lease payment went DOWN by $40.00 per month. If this is decontenting, bring it on!!!!

wsn:
“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.”

Yes, the Saab 9-5 ties with the Mercedes C Class and comes in better than the following cars:
2007 Lincoln MKZ
2007 Acura TSX
2007 Jaguar X-Type
2007 Infiniti G35

One may also note that the Acura TL received a Marginal rating for Rear collisions.

Only the Saab 9-3 and the Audi A-4 received the top scores in this class.

Interestingly, I think the Saab may be the least expensive cars in that whole class.

The 9-5’s problem is that, with only ~400 units sold per month, there won’t be many devotees like you to defend the old thing (let alone recognize its name) three years from now.

No question the interior quality wasn’t as high as in some other cars, but everything worked and I had no major mechanical problems.

And while the steep depreciation was the reason I could afford the car at all, I think it’s telling that I didn’t replace it with another used Saab.

I’m fond of the marque, but for many of the reasons listed above, it just seems like too much of a risk to dive in again. Still, she was a beautiful car. RIP, Sonja.

The 9-5 (and all Saabs for that matter) are decidedly NOT mainstream cars. That’s a problem and a curse, especially since the Bozos at GM got their hands on the marque. Unfortunately, Saabs have to compete with other cars in their price range and GM has badly decontented the 9-5 line so much that a mid-range ‘03 model like mine is a far nicer car than a new one. This is made worse by the average car buyer’s affection for electronic gadgetry and 4 cupholders per passenger, so Saab comes up short. Why not put this stuff in a Saab? Go ask GM.

Mechanically Saabs aren’t all that bad. Even Consuer Reports recommends them, for what that’s worth. The 9-5 isn’t as DIY friendly as the 9000, but it is still not terrible. And parts are only expensive for those stupid enough to buy from a dealer. Yes, the engine is a bit rough at idle, but on the highway it is smooth and sufficiently powerful, and it gets 30-33 mpg at 75-80. I’ve also found that a 9-5 (or even my old 9000) is not a car you appreciate on a test drive. You need a long ride–preferably in bad weather on crummy roads–to realize some of the value these cars offers.

A big failing on 9-5s were sludging issues, but don’t forget Toyota, VW and others have had these, too. The latest PCV mods supposedly have fixed this, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

At 53K, ours is tight, everything works as intended and it is an excellent “long road” car. It is not quite on a par with a BMW or an Audi, but it’s not far back and it costs a helluva lot less. And I never pay for the supposed “prestige” of a Bimmer or Audi. Who cares?

Don’t blame Saab for not being all you think it should be. GM has had a lot to do with it. And since there was so much blatant personal opinion in the review, I’ll just say that I’ve never seen an Infiniti, Lexus, or other Japanese car that I’d want to spend money on. Boring to the core. I do like the current Audi’s and the BMW 5-series, but the last 3-series I drove was like a Toyota with better handling. Yawn.

Whatever floats your boat.