The Saab 9-7x scored eighth place in TTAC’s Ten Worst Automobiles Today awards. Its crime? As Jonny Lieberman wrote so eloquently, “It is a Chevy TrailBlazer with the ignition key between the seats.” With these words echoing in my mind, I set off to test the 9-7x to determine if, indeed, the Born from Jets Saab SUV is nothing more than a Chevy TrailBlazer with the ignition key between the seats.
At first glance, the Saab 9-7x looks just like a Chevy TrailBlazer. On second glance, it looks like a GMC Envoy. Stand to the side and squint and the 9-7x resembles a Buick Rainier. Behold the grille from the straight ahead and, finally, you gaze upon a vaguely Saabish vehicle. Unsurprisingly, the rest of the "TrollBlazer" (referring to the Trollhättan factory where the 9-7x isn’t built) looks like a TrailBlazer pimped-out with 18” alloy wheels. Oh, and blackened ground effects trim designed to foster the illusion of gen-u-ine SUV ground clearance.
Despite deploying equally unconvincing ersatz wood and sharing many of its dials and buttons with its platform partners, the Saab SUV’s interior achieves an elegance denied its sisters under the skin. In quintessentially quirky Saab fashion, a small, fragile cupholder flips out from the dash at the push of a button. Also true to form, the ignition key is located between the seats. Nearly every other feature is standard, including leather chairs, a premium Bose blaster, moonroof, full-time all-wheel-drive and a trailer towing package. My only ergonomic complaint: the seatbelt emanates from the top of the GM-sourced seat back, placed irritatingly and irretrievably lower than my medium-height shoulder.
The 9-7x comes in two flavors: six-cylinder or a V8. The inline 4.2-liter six produces 290hp, while the 5.3-liter V8 stumps-up 300hp. Thanks to GM’s Active Fuel Management system, our always optimistic friends over at the EPA rate both engines at 15mpg city and 21mpg highway. For an extra two grand, the 5.3-liter mill also provides 53 ft.-lbs. more twist and a throaty engine note that's distinctly lacking from the I6. If you’re already throwing nearly $40k toward a fancy TrailBlazer, the larger powerplant seems a perfectly justifiable extravagance.
Although the 4,781lbs V8 9-7x moves with some authority, it’s not what you would call fast. If you plan on motoring from zero to sixty, you'll need to set aside a little under eight seconds of your valuable time. The quarter mile comes up (eventually) in 16 seconds. Speed freaks note: the Chevrolet Trailblazer SS has a 395hp version of Corvette’s 6.0-liter LS2 engine tucked under the hood that motivates the Nürburgring-fettled bowtie clad family truckster from zero to sixty in about six seconds, and hits the quarter in 14. Just sayin’…
The 9-7x’ engines are coupled to a knuckle-dragging four-speed transmission that's two cogs short of a quorum. Passing other road users requires an extra two seconds or so for the dim-witted mechanism to select the right gear. With so few cogs to choose from, you'd be forgiven for wondering why the 9-7x doesn't respond a little faster to throttle input. But then Saabistas might also wonder why the brand didn't stick to front wheel-drive turbo four-powered hatchbacks. Just sayin'…
Saab’s suspension tweaks are the brandgineers greatest contribution to the GMT360 platform. The loosy-goosy base TrailBlazer flops though bumps and corners like Michael Richards handles hecklers. (That is to say, dangerously.) In SS form, Chevy’s over-strung suspenders punish and maim. The 9-7x' underpinnings achieve the "just right" ride to satisfy the most discerning automotive Goldilocks. Double A-arm front suspension keeps the front wheels on track while a 1.42” stabilizer bar keeps the Saablaizer relatively flat through the corners. An electronically controlled air suspension manages the live-axle rear end like The Queen of Mean once managed the Helmsely Palace Hotel. All-season P225/55R18 tires complete the package and perform without a peep at eight tenths.
With an updated tranny, this Saab’s other shortcomings might quickly diminish. But is it worth $41,240 for a TrailBlazer whose pinky finger remains politely erect while sipping tea? Most buyers will say– have said– nej. If nothing else, the price isn’t right. The Saab 9-7x is about $5k more than a similarly equipped Chevy TrailBlazer and roughly $2k more than a similarly-equipped Corvette-powered TrailBlazer SS.
I suppose most TTAC readers who voted the 9-7x into the TWAT Hall of Shame never set butt in Saab’s SUV. Its inclusion was a vote against badge engineering and brand mismanagement. And no wonder, given the fatuous claims that the 9-7x is somehow related to Saab’s aeronautic legacy: “Have a Safe Flight,” “Skip the Garage. Get a hangar,” etc. In fact, the 9-7x says more about GM and Chevy than it does about Saab, a dead brand motoring. The 9-7x’ existence begs the question, why aren’t all Chevy TrailBlazers this refined?
76 Comments on “Saab 9-7x Review...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
The last pair of sentences pretty well sums it up for me. Seeing these things on the road is about as thrilling as gas pain. I would not ever be in the market for one of these things, but I hope your review is helpful for those who are.
“…Saab, a dead brand motoring.”
Maybe in the USA, but in Europe GM has stayed away from introducing new models and I don’t think I’ve ever seen as many Saabs on the road. Keeping to 2.5 models (9-3, 9-3 convertible and 9-5) has kept the brand strong. Volvo’s gone all mainstream and your discerning premium sedan buyer is all over GM’s Swedish brand.
Full disclosure: I own a distinctly retro ‘92 900S. It is awesome. I am happily biased.
Having driven the Saab 9-7x and actually owning a Trailblazer SS, I would agree with you on the suspension tuning. On more than one occasion, I wished my TBSS was tuned a bit softer – because the chassis doesn’t have the torsional rigidity to pull off the spring rates when you hit bumps just right. And I live in south Florida, where the roads are glass smooth – I couldn’t tolerate it in other areas of the country.
That being said, I like the exterior styling of the 9-7x over the TBSS. They made the most of the GMT-360 platform in my opinion. I thought the fit and finish of the 9-7x was just as poor as my TBSS, though, and generally abysmal – panel gaps ranged from large to Grand Canyonish – and I’m sure it suffers from all the normal quality problems that continue to plague the GMT-360 platform even in it’s 5th year of production.
However, if you like speed – the LS2 overcomes all that – and once you learn how to launch it, will turn in sub 14 second quarter miles. And the aftermarket parts market for the LS2 is overwhelming – a few hundred dollars and 10 minutes and your LS2 powered vehicle can add another 30-40 HP. More HP is just a mouse click away, typically.
Plus, thanks to GM’s “Bleeding Red” Tag prices last December – out the door, tax, tag, title, mine was $29,203. I know they’re whoring the Saab, too, but not that much.
I think I a lot of people think the perfect GMT-360 would be an LS2 powered vehicle styled like the 9-7x, but not wearing the Saab badge. It would dilute both the Chevy and Saab brand. Kinda like this one does.
Having lived with the aforementioned cupholder in a 9-5 for several years I can assure you it's not fragile. But I suppose it's difficult to accurately ascertain such details when you are in the throes of beating the **** out of a dead horse.
This is precisely what is wrong with GM. Please kill this monstrosity before it kills Saab.
“Trollblazer” – very funny, even better than Saaburu! AND a reference to Leona? Monty, you are on fire, man!
Besides the fact it is a Trailblazer with inconvenient ignition, the 9-7 is an affront to the SAAB brand because the safety scores of this platform are rather lame. Until now, SAAB took a lot of pride in the safety of their vehicles, and the 9-7 doesn’t measure up.
This is the one car reviewed on this site over the last couple years that I have never once seen in person. It’s not a Saab-aversive area, I see them daily. And it’s definitely not GM-aversive. But apparently many people just can’t meld the two this closely, mentally (myself included).
In our market, Saab is the brand of the “Kerry 04″ and “bright blue dot” bumper sticker, the conspicuous consumption crowd that finds Audi and BMW just too plain and common (and surely who want to deny Saab’s true ownership). GM is the other end of the spectrum, the everyman vehicle. Maybe it’s just basic cognitive dissonance.
As a long time Saab guy, I’m not even vaguely interested in the Trollblazer. To me and others, it’s no more a Saab than the 9-2X. I haven’t driven one, but when I sat in one at the local Saab store I found my head hits the roof, even with the seat all the way down. And I’m not unusually tall, just 6′2″ and have lots of headroom in my 9-5 and even in my 9000.
Adding this “car” to the Saab line up is typical GM-think: have something for everybody in every brand. Works great, too, especially if you want to kill an entire company. Which seems to be the plan.
Interestingly, here in NH, which has a heavy Saab population, I see few 9-7s. Lots of newish 9-5 wagons, but people who prefer Saabs know a Chevy when they see one, even if the ignition key is where it belongs.
Again in a very Saab friendly area, I have seen one of these. Perhaps the driver brought his 9-3 in for service and got stuck with this as a loaner.
I imagine this disaster is supposed to compete with the XC90, X5, Toureg and M-Class. Does it at all? That list is pretty strong and the amount of XC90s and X5s on the roads demonstrates that BMW and the other Swedish company must be doing something right.
This demonstrates what is wrong with GM – this offering is so uncompetitive,why even show up at all? Maybe Saab dealers were clamoring for an SUV, but this SUV is not it. The damage this car does to Saab, which after the Saabaru just shows they cannot design their own vehicles will take years to recover from. Saab’s customers are supposed to move from a 9-3 or 9-5 to this? This goes back to the whole question of Saab’s existence- does the 9-7 even help? Does Saab existing even help GM? Would killing Saab (at least in the US) be cheaper than letting it suffer? Without as many dealers as the other brands on life-support this might be a solution. But the wiser solution of which I dream is that Subaru will take Saab.
Imagine those cars. Saabs and Subarus sold alongside each other. Subaru could strengthen their luxury/premium offerings and Saab would exist.
K.
This is amusing. Go to:
http://www.saabusa.com/comparator/saab/comparevehicle.jsp
and try to compare a Saab 9-7x with a Chevy Trailblazer.
The website won’t let you.
When I drove both vehicles, I found more to dislike with the ride quality of the Saab than the TB SS. But I didn’t drive them back-to-back or over the same roads. So if the TB SS owner above says the Saab rides better, I’ve got to believe him.
The sheetmetal of the 9-7X is very similar if not identical to that of the Buick Rainier, which adopted most of the sheetmetal of the discontinued Olds Bravada. The Olds was designed to be more car-like than the TB and the Envoy, to be the SUV for people who would otherwise have a luxury sedan. The Chevy and GMC both have more angular styling, and also differ from one another. I think these vehicles look more different than people give them credit for.
Great write-up. As a former owner of an ‘03 Trailblazer, while I enjoyed it, it most definitely was bloated and lacked refinement. The one thing I will say, is that the Trailblazer/Envoy/Rainer/97 handled pretty well for such a bloated body design that’s very prone to body roll. Much more so than the previous generation of Blazers…
I don’t know why anyone would choose the Saab except to say “well, I didn’t buy a chevy”.
Alas…these can’t hold a candle to the Toyota 4 Runner, the Acura MDX, or the Grand Cherokee anymore…
I think the 9-2x is more Saab than this is. And least it is semi quirky.
I used to have a warm place in my heart for Saab, but this bastard child of an ill considered affair should have been left somewhere near the artic circle where the Detroit-to-Sweden GM executive jets criss-cross. Saabs should make one dream of spending long Swedish winter nights curled up with a Nordic delight. Instead, the 9-7 makes those nights just seem long, cold and pointless.
Gee, look what the Isuzu Ascender has done for that brand :(. Just how many mediocre vehicles can GM build out of the Trailblazer? Poor Isuzu, relegated to selling copies of the Trailblazer and Colorado. This should be a lesson to any company thinking of tying the knot with GM.
Fiat, Isuzu, Saab, Subaru …. at least Subaru managed to keep the Detroit idiots out of their shorts for the most part. Building a few Saabarus isn’t likely to do Subaru any real harm. Luckily for Subaru the GM era is soon to be a distant bad memory. Isuzu is going the same way as the newest member of the Toyota clan. Every time GM gets rid of something, Toyota picks it up and makes something usefull out of it.
I still think that some smart Swedish folks should buy Saab from GM and Volvo from Ford and use the two to make a kick-ass car company with a distinctly Scandinavian viewpoint.
John
I still think that some smart Swedish folks should buy Saab from GM and Volvo from Ford and use the two to make a kick-ass car company with a distinctly Scandinavian viewpoint.
Great idea, if Ford could let go of Volvo.
Just another instance of badge engineering and dilution of a brands focus. Saab should stick with the quirky sedans and hatches, maybe offer more with AWD. The only good think about GM owning them is you can get 5k off the invoice price on a 2006 9-3 and that isn’t half bad.
I just realized a problem with badge engineering for me. I have owned Volvos and thought they were wonderful cars. The problem now is I am not willing to do the research to make sure I am not buying a Mazda or other Ford with Volvo badge. Same probably holds for Saabs and Jags. The badge is not worth a 10-15% premium in price. I would just buy the similar Mazda, GM or Ford.
This issue probably less of a bad effect than degrading the Brand with rebadged cars but certainly stops me from even looking at Volvo, Saab or Jags when I am in the market for a car.
Howard
Howard
JT
Just so ya know you got that colorado canyon thingie backwards. The colorado canyon is an Isuzu, designed by them. Chevy should feel bad having to sell a copy of it.
The only part gm had in it was the electronics and the engine and trans. Isuzu supplies the rest.
jazbo123: And call it “Saabolvo”?
Kinda like the new equi and torrent which are suzuki XL7’s half engineered in canada and built there.
hawaiiJim:
…or Volvaaba
HawaiiJim:
And call it “Saabolvo”?
Volvaab.
Mind you, I’ve always wanted to buy a Mazda3 with the ignition key between the seats.
*Boratishly Long Pause*
Naat!
Brendan McAleer:
Mind you, I’ve always wanted to buy a Mazda3 with the ignition key between the seats.
*Boratishly Long Pause*
Naat!
That’s funny because the Mazdaspeed 3 is basically a cheaper, better handling Saab Viggen — funky looking, FWD, 2.3l turbo, 5 door hatchback, stinking fast, wish it was AWD, can haul a couch, comfy front seats.
Brendan McAleer:
November 30th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
HawaiiJim:
And call it “Saabolvo”?
Volvaab.
If they build enough of them, they could call the shipment a Salvo.
JT
Just so ya know you got that colorado canyon thingie backwards. The colorado canyon is an Isuzu, designed by them. Chevy should feel bad having to sell a copy of it.
Agreed. GM should have merely put a shrink ray to their Silv/Sierras like Dodge did with the Dakota.
Cavendel:
If they build enough of them, they could call the shipment a Salvo.
We have a winner.
“Born from Jets”. 1. When did GM ever build jets? 2. Note the fine print on their ads – “not affiliated with Saab Aircraft”. Other than the fact they had money to burn at that moment (because their mid-size cars were category killers back then), why did they buy Saab? Saaburus and Saableblazers. Sigh. They could go with that whole Scandinavian thing, Vsaabvo.
Should Volvo and Saab merge? Perhaps. I’ve suggested MB+Volvo and BMW+Saab.
Remember when Volvo AB (=trucks) wanted to buy Scania? Then the Germany-bribed EU-people said NO, because the market share in Northern Europe would be too big… Now Volvo+Saab isn’t that dominant as Volvo+Scania would have been, but you never know…
Volvo+Saab was suggested around 1980, but failed due to fwd vs rwd and some other issues. Another idea was Volvo + Norwegian Oil, now that would have been a great deal for Sweden. And perhaps that would have helped the norwegians too, now they have around 100% tax on cars. Having a brand of their own would probably lover that tax.
Bubba Gump,
The XL-7 is all Torrant/Equinox. No real Suzuki content.
CliffG,
RE: Born from Jets
Agreed. To me, the most putrid thing about the Trollblazer is the whole SAAB jets claim. Go to Saab’s Web site or read the 9-7x product brochure – page after page of aircraft references. GM must really think that their potential customers are morons to believe this relationship.
Howard-
Volvo, Mazda and Jaguar suffer from platform engineering. There only seems to be some similarities between the s40 and Mazda 3 sedan. What strikes me about the Volvos, is how much is stamped, “Made in Sweden.”
Mazda and Volvo demonstrate how to share platforms- but differentiate between two entirely different brands.
K.
Saab is born from Jets….
Toyota Trucks can survive the Lockness Monster…
The CRV can drive it’s self and dodge jewel thieves…
The Dodge Nitro can travel through the center of the earth…
The Caliber is fairy resistant…
It’s advertising… Get over it.
Imagine if more manufacturers played on their distant historical connections, no matter how tenuous?
BMW – The Ultimate Killing Machine
Mitsubishi – Wake Up and Bomb
VW – Sudetenlandvergnugen
Jeep – Ho Chi Minh Trail-rated
Those probably wouldn’t work as well.
jthorner, you took the words right out of my mouth, regarding isuzu…
How does a company go from building a truck deamed worthy to carry a Honda badge to what is arguably the most bottom feeding position in the automotive lexicon in less than a decade?
I guess the answer is they signed a deal with the devil (GM).
1984, advertising that clearly isn’t quite working on you… its the Rav4 that can drive itself and dodge jewel theives :).
It’s certainly nice to know that there’s some engineering difference for the extra money one would pay to get the SAAB version of the Trailblazer. Why is the Trailblazer as refined in its handling indeed? As the driver of an old crock of a Volvo, who grew up reading the late Warren Weith’s great columns on both Swedish marques, I second the notion of someone buying both and making them into one “kick-ass” Swedish car company. But I don’t see that happening, unfortunately – unless maybe someone can get Captain Kirk to sell all of his GM stock and use the cash to do that. Wouldn’t that make a hell of a story for the business section of every paper and web site around the globe? My hunch is the 9-7x will join the “SAABaru” 9-2 in the next year or so, in that Sargasso Sea of old nameplates.
Meant to write, “Why isn’t the Trailblazer as refined in its…”
I don’t see what all the fuss is about, I’m thrilled to see that GM brought the Bravada back. Now, I wonder when I’ll be able to order my new Cutlass Supreme…
RE: 1984: It’s advertising… Get over it.
I don’t have a problem with Jeep Liberty’s erupting from volcanoes, Joe Isuzu blasting past a 911 on the Autobahn, or any of the examples you cite because they are complete fiction. I do have a problem with the Trollblazer / Jet relationship because it is an intentional falsification of the factual history of Svenska Aeroplan Aktiebolaget, which does not include the development of an American SUV.
The ads proclaim that Saab was founded by 16 aircraft engineers. You would think that these Sweeds are still building away, applying adapting technology from today’s fighter jets. Not true. If any of them are still alive, their greatest concern is the health of their prostate because Saab Automobile AB was founded in 1949 when the only SAAB jet in production was the 21R, a British turbojet-powered variant of a WWII era push-prop airplane. This is a far cry from the modern jet aircraft featured in the ads and it has nothing to do with the truck designed in Detroit and built in Moraine, Ohio. I’d be happier if GM said that the 9-7x could rocket to Mars or slay dragons.
You mean it can’t slay dragons? That’s it; I’m crossing the 9-7x off my Xmas list.
1984, advertising that clearly isn’t quite working on you… its the Rav4 that can drive itself and dodge jewel theives :).
Awww crap… I guess I zone out everytime I see a cute-ute.
Well said Mr. Montgomery, that is what I detest about the SAAB ads, their intentional falsity. I can live with the Joe Isuzu’s, even the beer ads promising better looking women and good times, it is the D****’s (ooh, the old Amway thing now in yellow and built in Malaysia!) type crap that drives me crazy. Better to claim that Hummers are direct descendants of DUKW (which GM built in WWII), and thus are just as tough and can ford rivers.
RE:supremebrougham
Now THAT’s funny.
Saabravada?
Jazbo123: Having lived with the aforementioned cupholder in a 9-5 for several years I can assure you it’s not fragile. But I suppose it’s difficult to accurately ascertain such details when you are in the throes of beating the **** out of a dead horse.
I will defer to your experience regarding the frailty of the Saab cup holders, but they certainly look and feel flimsy. Measuring durability takes more time (e.g. months and years) to determine than can be measured in a typical test drive.
I also don’t think I was beating on the 9-7x other than for its incestuous relationship with other GM SUV’s. I point out that it has authoritative acceleration, an elegant interior and refined suspension. It’s not best in class in any of these categories, but overall it’s a decent vehicle. If only…
Saab born from jets…
And then partial-born aborted by GM.
Whatever it is it’s the best looking T360, not that it justifies the name or the cost.
Here’s another example of GM messing up what could have been a decent idea.
Ever go to a Saab dealer? They have 2.5 cars to sell. The non-selling 9-2 (1/2 car) Impreza that doesn’t fool anybody, the 9-3 which is their bread and butter and the slow selling 9-5. Not a lot of choice on the lot. A cross-over would have given them a something to bring more people onto the lot. But what did GM do? Chose one of the most mediocre products they make, a lackluster truck-based SUV. Born of Jets? Not even born of cropdusters.
What these jokers should have done was use the Caddy SRX as the basis for the Saab 9-7.
@Montgomery
I’m in tune with what you write, but thought I’d correct a few things. SAAB was founded in 1937, to build aeroplanes. As WWII ended the company was suddenly without orders. Sixten Sason (later designed the first Hasselblad camera) was asked to design the car, in a team led by Gunnar Ljungström. The ursaab was presented in 1947 – basically two aeroplane wing shapes merging into one car. Brilliant solution to provide extremely low drag (0.32).
Saabs aren’t born from jets, but from necessity – and were created by a twenty man team.
Today, Saab Aircrafts and Saab Automobiles are separate companies. And speaking of born from jets and using jet whines in the ads is more than a bit devious, since it’s Volvo that builds the engines in Swedish jet fighters.
Yet when GM bought a stake in Saab the connection between the two companies was stronger, and one could have made that claim with greater certainty. GM wasn’t interested, as they felt that the jet link was played out in the 80’s and because they wanted to build a luxury sedan. (I know, since I began working with creating advertising for Saabs in the mid 90’s and butted heads with robot GM-managers who refused to accept what Saab is all about.)
The 9-2x and 9-7x are abominations. (And I suspect that the “sixteen man team” from the ads is the result of some copywriter getting his facts mixed up with Sixten Sason’s name. :-)
The problem with the 9-7x is that it is ill-concieved from the beginning. First, Saabs SUV was supposed to share a platform with the Cadillac SRX. Now, That should have been a great idea! A true contender to the X5/XC90-crowd. Cheaper, softer and more intelligent than the SRX. But Cadillac said no. Something about “brand dilution”. I don’t know what they were talking about… Then, the Saab SUV was supposed to share platform with the Subaru B9 Tribeca. Until GM sold their shares. That would have made sense also, as the late fifties Saab 93 seems to have been separated at birth from Subaru. At least they share some similarity in the front. Put a Saab sticker on a B9 and it is just perfect. Ugly, quirky and intelligent. Just look at this picture and compare:
http://www.nnauto.cn/nnauto/Factory/Saab/1956_Saab_93-02.jpg
But know, five years later, building an SUV on the GMT360-platform, almost seven years after its debut, is just silly. It is truly an insult, and those involved should be ashamed. I can’t possibly imagine how the GM-people thought when they thought that sticking the ignition-key between the seats would make a Saab of this monstrosity. One can almost feel the pain that those engineers must have felt just looking in the mirror while shaving and not be able to see themselves in the eyes. The horror, the horror, they thought…