Anyways, good luck with your new purchase.

MarioV

I love the blue color; mine has parchment leather w/ charcoal inserts.

I’m coming from a Cooper S w/ Sport Suspension, anything will be more softly sprung! Two things swung me for the Aero – the satin metal dash, and the contrasting leather inserts. For me the suspension was fine.

The runner up was a 2008 Subaru Outback, and third a new Jetta Sportwagen. I liked the Subaru, but they are everywhere in Pittsburgh, and an 07 Limited, or even an 08 Special Edition, were more than the 9-5 Sportcombi. Things I wanted – cargo space for three dogs, heated seats, aux audio in or iPod connectivity, at least 20 mpg combined fuel economy.

Some would call me crazy, but I love the dash, with it’s fly-in-face-of-style flatness. The hatch will hold all three of our dogs behind the rear seats. I never seen them. . . anywhere. Reasonably cheap to insure. Great visibility.

As Ferris said, “It is SO choice. If you ever have the opportunity, I highly suggest picking one up.”

1) The Aero has a stiffer suspension, as if that is needed, since the normal version already has a stiff suspension.

2) The Aero’s alloy wheels are not as attractive as the normal version’s, but that is subjective.

Good luck, and if you’re getting yours from a dealer, see if it’s certified. Mine is, and I got a warranty extension with that certification.

I’ve got an odd list of vehicles for consideration, mostly a result of the auto industry abandoning wagons – 06-08 9-5 Sportcombi, 06-07 V70/XC70, 06 and up Subaru Outback, 09 Escape/Mariner, 07-08 Edge/MKX.

I wouldn’t call any of these driver’s cars per se, but I’ve been driving in Pittsburgh with a Mini Cooper S / Sport package, and the tight handling and tight suspension aren’t enjoyable on our severely poorly maintained streets and highways.

First of all, unlike stated somewhere above, the Volvo V70 is not larger than the Saab 9-5 Sportcombi. According to the specifications of both manufacturers, the Saab has more passenger volume (98.8c.f. vs. 98.0c.f.) and total interior volume (136.5c.f. vs. 134.2c.f.) than the Volvo. The V70 does however have more cargo volume behind the second row seats, but only by 0.6c.f. Therefore the 9-5 is larger than the V70.

Second, unlike stated above again, the 9-5 Sportcombi is more than 2% larger than the 9-3. The passenger volume of the 9-3 is 95% of the 9-5, and the cargo capacity is only 80% of the 9-5.

I am extremely pleased with this vehicle. It has plenty of power, more than my 2001 VW Passat V6, has great fuel economy, 30+ highway, and is pretty much the largest vehicle in its class when compared to MB E350, BMW 5, Audi A6, VW Passat, and Volvo V70.

And why would anyone compare it to Subaru Outback or XC70. Those are AWD offroad bound vehicles, while the Saab is a sports wagon. If one is going to compare the Saab to a Volvo or a Subaru, it should be the V70 2.5T and the Legacy.

There are however a few not so hot characteristics of the car. The engine does sound trashy, and the ride is loud, due to the tire, road, and wind noise. But I am not a picky driver, and the powerful stereo does cover up the noises well. So, if you’re looking for a luxury ride from this sport wagon, you’ll have to look elsewhere, because what you’ll get is a sport ride, and what a ride it is. Oh, and there is that super cheap door handle in the inside of the doors. GM should have spent extra $5 for something that fitted there better. Oh well.

Since this is my first Saab, I’m hoping the car will be a reliable one. I did have a conversation with an independent mechanic regarding the reliability of Saabs, and he did state that from the European wagons, the Saab is at the top with the Benzes and BMWs. The Volvo is slightly behind, and the VWs and Audis lag a good distance. And supposedly the Subaru Legacy is the champ of them all, but who wants to drive a dull Japanese.

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 for 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 emissions. 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, and transmission failures, intermittent 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 simplified in nature with no trinkets but able to far exceed the needs of driver.

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

As for me, the 2007 Aero SportCombi replaced a 2004 BMW 325i with the Sports Package. Damn that car looked fast sitting still, but it was very, very slow with only 184hp (and I had a munual tranny). Add to it the fact that even small children couldn’t fit comfortably in the back, and a change had to be made. My buddy has an M3 and he says that his car is pretty fast. He wonders why I got rid of the 325 (he has no children, though). He also never drove the 325.

The 2005 is/was boring, looked extremely outdated, especially on the inside, but is/was reliable, useful, and very economical, getting about 34 mpg on the highway. Nevertheless, we just couldn’t warm up to the dated styling inside and out.

The 2007 Aero is an outstanding car. No doubt I take some ribbing for driving a “wagon”, but my friends and colleagues ride in the car with nice cooled, leather sports seats, and feel the car rocket off the line, the jokes end. The car still can get over 32 mpg on the highway (it has 40 more hp than the 2005), but I drive it much too fast for that. This car prefers to be driven at between 80 and 90, and I can’t get as good of mileage driving that fast.

I considered the BMW 5-series wagon, the Audi A6 wagon, and the Mercedes wagon, and while those are really nice cars, they are all $20,000 more comparably equipped. In 2007, my Aero was $7000 less than a stripped A6 Avant (the car I came closest to purchasing). Car reviewers comparing these cars seem to forget that a BMW or Mercedes wagon is 50% more expensive than the Saab. A fully-equipped Volvo could be had for only $5000 more, but Volvos are really, really ugly. In my book, the only better wagon out there is the AMG wagon, but it is like $90 grand. If money was no object, I’d get the AMG wagon.

Reliability is outstanding, and I liked the fact that it was ranked as the safest car in Sweden. I really enjoyed the Saab Aero Academy at Road Atlanta. It may not be for everyone, but I am very pleased with this car, a lot of fun to drive.

For Saabophiles (myself included), over the years we've gotten our share of brickbats over our choice of cars. Most of us will let it slough off, because in the end its US who like the cars, and don't need the approval of others who have more stake in the "Aura" of the marques they drive.

But objectively, it's clear that the current 9-5 is just too old (restyling and brisk sales of the E85 versions in Europe notwithstanding). The Classic 900s soldiered on for more than a dozen years, but in the 80s and early 90s a long model life was a more viable proposition, and even then it was outmoded at the end.

But in the meantime, drive your 9-5s because you like them, not because you need validation from others.

Now, 9 years later, it still suffers from the underinvestment earlier, and the underinvestment in the process of developing a new 9-5.

Let us hope that the 9-5 biopower gets an E85 (sales) boost in the USA, like it has got in Sweden.

Make no mistake, I don’t think the 9-5 is comparable to a V70R — the V70R is the superior vehicle in just about every respect. As I said, I bought the V70R over the 9-5 Aero wagon because while the 9-5 had some advantages, they were outnumbered by many disadvantages.

Saab’s ambitious pricing is, of course, a problem but only one of perception. I don’t know many people who pay anything close to MSRP for their Saabs. I purchased a Viggen in 2001 for $31.5k with all the rebates and loyalty ofers — a full $8k less than then-MSRP, and I bargained a dealer down to the low 30’s for a well-equipped 9-5 Aero wagon a few years later before I decided not to buy one. To say the car competes in the same price range is misleasding — yes if you only go by MSRP, but the market tells us that you need to discount 10-20% off MSRP to get the true sale prices of these cars. Saab’s pricing speaks more about GM’s stupidity than the inherent value of the cars.

Finallly, the Saab, in being a wagon, offers something no GM model currently offers — performance, comfort and cargo capacity without fuel sucking SUV’ism. Plus it sill has plenty of that old Swedish character — from the oddball design stuff to the buttery leather seats — to make it desirable.

“Funny you should mention Saturn. This is the same platform as the now-defunct and slow-selling L. If you park one next to an L wagon, their profiles match exactly..”

The Saturn L series was based on the Opel Vectra B series. Its basically the same chassis that underpins the Saab 9-3, except it is slightly longer and wider.

The Saab 9-5 is built on the GM2900(since 2003 known as Epsilon) platform which underpins the Opel Vectra. The 9-5 has never shared platforms with any other GM North America offering to date.

IMO you are looking a lot at specs, which is fine, but the overall feel of the Saab vs the Volvo is important. I haven’t driven the V70 R, so I can’t comment, but compared to the regular Volvo wagons, I find the Saab fun to drive while the Volvo is merely pleasant. Is the Volvo a better buy? Maybe, depends on what floats your boat.

But while the Saab 9-5 comes up short in some areas, it’s unfair to criticize it from all angles. You know, most people who buy wagons don’t care about 10/10ths handling, fastest 0-60 or any of that stuff. They buy what works for them, or what they can get the best deal on.

Sure, the 9-5 is overpriced these days, an unfortunate result of the homogenization of all GM sells. It’s too bad, because Saabs are good cars that GM is totally mismanaging. They are decontenting the cars each year, removing any trace of the uniqueness that made Saabs different. And which made people who liked that difference buy them

Saabs don’t necessarily appeal to people who want the image of BMW, Audi or Mercedes. They don’t fit with the appliance-like persona of just about everything from Japan, Inc. And they can’t really be Americanized well, although it seems GM is doing its level best.

I’m really not hugely impressed with most other cars I drive and often note how they don’t do many things as well as my daily driver, a ‘96 Saab 9000. I do like the A6 Audi better than my wife’s 9-5 wagon, but it’s not worth the extra money to me. Value is in the eye (and wallet) of the buyer.

I’m hoping (in vain probably) that the next generation of Saabs will bring back some of the uniqueness the marque is known for. So far the specs look good, but it’s how they feel on the road that matters. It doesn’t really matter if something else is a little faster or handles a bit better on a track. I don’t get on a track very often, and there are enough other variables to at-the-limit performance so that the car is only some of the equation.

In regards to comparisons of the 9-5 to the V70R (no longer made), the 9-5 just does not stack up. This is not as egregious as Volvo comparing a V70R to an M3 coupe, but it’s close. 40 more HP, 40 lb-ft more torque, AWD, full leather interior, 6 speed transmissions, no turbo lag, more cargo room, EBD, more electronic goodies, a Nav system that isn’t an eyesore and a cargo cover that doesn’t resemble a mouse fur coated piece of plywood. Combine this with incredible on-limit handling, an adjustable suspension and honest to goodness oversteer (as opposed to plowing the roadside in corners) and the 9-5 is outclassed for about $1,500 more.

In terms of real-world fuel economy, the EPA and I must have both received duds. I tested my 9-5 for 4 days and averaged 18MPG when driving it hard and in my normal commute I received 25MPG with an average speed of 68MPH (manual transmission). This is hardly impressive fuel economy.

If you want a FWD hoonmobile, the 9-5 is not a bad choice with the manual transmission, but GM’s FWD V8 models would be more entertaining at a better price point.

In all fairness, 9-5 shoppers haven’t been to the Volvo dealer checking out an R, or at a BMW dealer looking at a 5 series wagon. The biggest competition for the 9-5 is the 9-3 and this is where the 9-5’s poor sales numbers can be understood. The 9-3 is barely smaller, has a much more modern interior, far less torque steer, a smooth turbo V6, and 6 speed transmissions for $3K less. When you consider the next generation 9-3 with the schnazzy new AWD system and a 280HP turbo V6, this is the car that gives Volvo a run for it’s money.

I have 3 Saabs in the driveway, two 9000s and an ‘03 9-5 wagon (all bought used). I agree that the ‘06 and ‘07 9-5s are definitely victims of the dreaded GM BCE (bean counter effect) and I would hesitate to buy one, because they are a real step down from the ‘03 in terms of interior quality. The one thing you can count on GM to do is go cheap in places where it’s really obvious.

Mechanically, though, I don’t have a problem with Saabs. I don’t see the issue with the idle. Is it Honda or Toyota smooth? No. But why is a perfectly smooth idle of any real importance? It is hardly a good indicator of much of anything. What’s more important is how that engine feels on the road, doing things like passing from 40 to 60 or 60 to 90. I’ll take a Saab turbo in either the 4 or 6 cylinder flavor for real world driving any day over some smooth-idling mill from the other side of the Pacific. Have driven those and they are nothing to write home about.

Then there’s fuel mileage. Our 9-5 gets 24 mpg locally and 32-34 mpg on the highway, typically at 75 or so. That’s about what you get out of some little Honda Civic.

As for reliability, our Saabs have been fine. This is a real “Your Mileage May Vary” issue, but ours don’t require much beyond normal maintenance. And from talking with friends with Audis, BMWs and Mercedes, I’d say our Saabs spend a lot less time in the shop than the real Euro premium brands. And they do a lot better than VWs. They are not Japanese reliable, but they are not Japanese boring either.

Saabs also shine in long road comfort. An eight hour ride in a Japanese car has my back screaming for a masseuse. The same run in a Saab is just another ride in the country. An Audi or BMW is the same, of course, and they certainly have nicer interiors, but I don’t feel the added cost for those marques is worth what you get. And Volvos are nice but still feel stodgy to me.

Does the old 9-5 need a new chassis and a more modern interior? You bet. But for real world driving–in a wagon, for pete’s sake–the 9-5 does just fine. And yes, they are priced too high. And given the cheapened interior it’s easy to see why people aren’t lining up to buy Saabs. That’s more GM in action. All the more reason to buy used ones, especially if you get a nice CPO car.

GM’s meddling aside, Saabs still manage to look and feel different than anything else on the road. This is not a bad thing, but in an increasingly homogenized world, being different just doesn’t play all that well.

From today Automotive News:

The next generation of Saab's mainstay 9-3 and 9-5 lines will shift to GM's Epsilon 2 global architecture in 2009. Both will be built at the Opel plant in Russelsheim, Germany. (So much for Swedish DNA.)

"You can stretch your ambitions for a premium brand too far," says Carl-Peter Forster, president of General Motors Europe and chairman of Saab. (Fair enough. And yet…)

For a new entry-level model, Saab is refitting its assembly plant in Trollhattan, Sweden, to build the 9-1, a four-door wagon. Saab sources said the 9-1 will compete with the Audi A3 and BMW 1 series. (Still trying to compete with the premium playas, this time at the "entry level.")

Engine : 4 cylinder, turbocharged DOHC, front engine FWD
Displacement : 2,290 cc
Valve : 16 valves, 4 valves per cylinder
Transmission : 5-spd manual, 5-spd automanual
Fuel economy : city – 20-22 mpg
highway – 29-31 mpg

Suspension : F – Independent MacPherson strut
R – Independent multilink
Brakes : F – Vented discs
R – Solid discs

Horsepower : 250 hp @ 5300 rpm
Torque : 258 lb-ft @ 1900 rpm
Redline : unknown

Top speed : 150 mph
0-60 mph : 6.6 sec.(manual), 6.9 sec.(automatic)
0-¼ mile : 15.2 sec @ 94.4 mph
60-0 braking distance : 125 ft
200 ft skidpad : 0.83 g

Curb Weight : 3470-3530 lbs(sedan), 3620-3730 lbs(wagon)
Overall length : 190.0 in.(sedan), 190.1 in.(wagon)
Wheelbase : 106.4 in.
Overall Width : 70.5 in.
Height : 57.0 in.

Also, with regards to the noises made by the Saab 2.3 4 cyl, you may want to remember that the Saab uuses a timing chain rather than a timing belt. The belt-driven cars are usually quieter. The Saab also uses twin balance shafts, and this could also add to the perceived noise. Even with all that, I wouldn’t classify the sound as clattering, except for some injector noise. But I guess everyone has a different notion of what a motor should sound like. For me, a 2.3 liter engine that puts out over 250 hp, gets 30 mpg while doing 80 on the freeway, and moves a 3600 lb station wagon to 60 mph in under 7 seconds, is still fairly unique.

“Great benchmarks for reliability that you have chosen.”

Just making a point amongst the European brands I’ve owned in the past including BMW, Audi, Mercedes and Volkswagen, the Saab is the one I’ve ‘driven like its been stolen’ and keeps running trouble free 150k miles later and counting. My experience with BMW, Audi, Mercedes and VW has been of encountering serious mechanical or electrical problems during the new car warranty period. Very disconcerting.

I wish one of Acura, Infiniti or Lexus built a fule efficient premium wagon (the old IS300 sportcross doesn’t count-too small, too thirsty). I would love to flog one of those.