2006 Saab SportCombi
I drove this one last night, and I told myself I wouldn't comment on the name...but I can't help it. I know what a station wagon is, and I know what an estate is. I even know what a shooting brake is, and I think I know what a "sports tourer" is. But what the hell is a SportCombi? I guess it's a Saab station wagon, though I wish they'd just call it such...
I like this vehicle's design -- both in and out. The seats are comfortable, the interior material quality is satisfactory, and the exterior looks sort of like a large Mazda 3 wagon (not a bad thing). Better yet, it rides and handles like a SAAB (unlike the last "Saab" I drove). However, throttle response was problematic, with a sort of dead zone whenever I initially pressed the gas pedal. I consistently had to push past this dead zone to get the car to go, at which point it did indeed go quite well. The 2.3-liter turbo does not feel overtaxed despite the car's size and weight. I can also deal with the center ignition key (classic Saab trademark) and even the location and operation of the quirky window switches. But I can't deal with a $30,000-plus luxury wagon that doesn't even have a single one-touch window function (up or down), and I was disappointed with the lack of storage space in the cabin. Happily, the auxiliary input for MP3 players in the audio system somewhat balances out that flaw. Still, with this car's primary competition being Audi, BMW and Volvo I think this would be my fourth choice out of those four.
So you experienced turbo-lag in a Saab? Say it ain't so! =) Along with wicked torque-steer (though that has been quelled pretty well in years since the 9-3 Viggen), turbo-lag seems to have become a traditional Saab characteristic, at least with the high-pressure versions of their engines.
GM did a terrible job with Saab, starting with the redesigned 9-3 in 2003. I'm not even going to harp on the fact that they got rid of the quirky hatch body style that had become one of the brand's trademarks (though the Sedan is not bad looking). Instead, I'll point to the sub-par materials quality and fit & finish that they infused into every redesigned 9-3. How about the multitude of electrical problems experienced by early owners? How about the final bastardization of a brand by forcing badge engineering on a formerly fiercely independant company? Everything was wrong with the situation. The new 9-5 atones for some of this, but as with everything GM these days, it's too little, too late.
GM should have originally taken a long and hard look at what Ford was doing with Volvo. After all, at least Volvo has been profitable for it's parents...
"Still, with this car's primary competition being Audi, BMW and Volvo I think this would be my fourth choice out of those four."
I would have to agree. I would even think GM knows they half-assed this one. It is just a refresh of an already very old design.
Maybe GM will actually give Saab some much needed $$$$ for unique and desireable product - if not, they should just dump the brand.
How funny you have such a hard time knowing what a Combi is while BMW's wagon is called a Touring, Audi's is called an Avant and most of Volvo's are Cross Countrys. So lets be somewhat fair shall we? As for the dissapointment about no express up and down controls, the rest of the world does get that feature but sadly with our litigious society, it is not available here. And as for the bastardization of the brand, I guess people must go for that sicnce sales of the 2003 and newer are at levels Saab could only dream of on the "old bodystyle"
VW has used the "Combi" (actually "Kombi" in German) name for decades on their minibus transporter.
http://vintagecars.about.com/od/greatcars/p/vw_transporter.htm
What order, Karl, would you put the 4 "wagons" in?
And will we soon see an Edmunds "sports wagon" comparo between Dodge Calibre, Toyota Matrix "sports version", Audi A3, etc.?
I would guess Karl would rank them like this -
1-BMW
2-Audi
3-Volvo
4-Saab
A good guess. Actually, there's something about the Audi wagons I really like. I think it's a combination of the exterior styling (which Audi really nails on their wagons) and the fact that wagons, by their nature, aren't really as performance oriented as sedans or coupes. This means the slight driving dynamics advantage held by the 3 Series over the A4 isn't as important to me, and the superior styling and functionality -- and value -- of the A4 mean even more when talking wagons. So I'd probably go 1-Audi 2-BMW 3-Volvo 4-Saab.
The V in V70 is for Versatility, that's the label Volvo puts on its wagons. XC is really for the lifted, crossover/SUV alternatives.
You mention the lack of auto down windows (a critical luxury feature if there ever was one) but you dont mention the abundance of standard equipment on the 9-5. Few, if any, of its competitors have leather, 3 position memory, heated front/rear seats, moonroof, 6 CD changer, uplevel sound system, etc. as standard equipment. There arent even that many options on the 9-5. I think some of those standard features might overshadow the lack of auto down windows.
Do you really drive these cars?
Karl....again with the "no one -touch down windows"criticism???Does anyone provide you with a vehicle walk-around or at least an owners manual before you test drive the cars.As I have stated before it's this kind of sloppy reportage on the little things that brings your entire point of view and opinion into question.'"The devil is in the details "as they say and you dont seem to grasp that fact .I sell Saabs for a living and personally lease a 2006 9-5.The car most certainly DOES have one touch down front windows on both drivers and passenger sides.If that is such a sticking point for you......at least get it right .And by the way how does an mp-3 jack have anything to do for making up for what you perceive as lack of storage space in the cabin???Pleas 'splain Lucy how one mitigates the other???