I attended the Saab 9-3 press introduction when that model debuted back in 2003
. At the time Saab representatives made something abundantly clear to every journalist on the trip -- Saab's were no longer to be thought of as "quirky." While not officially demanding we banish the word from our stories, it was obvious they didn't want to see it in the text, unless it was used to say, "Hey everybody, Saab's are no longer quirky!"
Certainly the 9-3 is the least quirky model in the company's history (not counting the badge-engineered 9-2X and 9-7X, of course), but with the 2008 Saab 9-3 Turbo X SportCombi I feel like the company has injected some of the old "Saabness" back into this version of the 9-3. More importantly, it's the "Saab" elements I most enjoyed on the vehicle.
Whether we're talking about the Turbo X's styling, stark black color (both inside and out), old-school turbo boost gauge or "Night Panel" dash lighting, it's these types of...uh...quirks that give the 9-3 something an A4 or C-Class or 3 Series can't offer.
The bummer comes when you get beyond these quirks and delve into the larger issues, like acceleration, handling and interior quality. These areas either barely meet, or fall short, of the competition. And they do it at a price that seems unrealistic given the car's offering. For the 9-3 Turbo X's base price of $43,000 I can pick up a BMW 328xi wagon and add $6,000 in options. Or I can get an A4 Avant Quattro with the 3.2-liter engine and add $3,000 in options.
What am I getting for my extra money spent on the Saab? Better handling? No. Better all-weather capability? No. Better interior? No. Better styling? Not really (though arguably the Saab's exterior has more personality). And at 15/24 EPA mileage estimates I'm not even getting better mileage than a larger, three-row crosover.
After driving this Saab I was left thinking the same thing I thought back in 2003. "Okay guys, go ahead and ditch 'quirky' if you want to, but what exactly does that leave you with?"
Here's a thought -- crank the quirky quotient back up and lower the price tag. That might give German car buyers a reason to visit their Saab dealer, if only to experience something different.
More expensive and less quirky? Not working for me.
By dougtheeng
on August 14, 2008
06:17 AM
I almost bought a used 9-5 last year, but I read some reliability reviews on various car forums and its pretty much scared me off forever - which is too bad, because I like the unique (in the case of the 9-5, dare I say handsome?) styling and the interior features (bizarre and fun).
The turbo in that car made it go like you know what.
By ahightower
on August 14, 2008
07:12 AM
Well, the 9-3 sportcombi starts much lower at $30K for the 2.0T, $37K for the Aero. The Turbo X is the top trim level, and comes with a LOT of standard equipment. So that money you had "left over" for options will be gone in a hurry. Comparably equipped, it's about the same price as a 328xi.
And apparently there ain't no such thing as an A4 Avant quattro 3.2 any more. Or at least not yet. All they have currently is the 2.0 automatic, and again it's about the same price, comparably equipped.
Pound for pound, the Saab is not too expensive. It's a more powerful than either of these competitors (280 hp vs. 221 Audi and 230 BMW). Although, speaking of pounds, the Sab is heavier than either of them. But apparently Saab thinks it's just as good when it comes to quality, luxury, performance. So we need you to conduct a new AWD sport wagon camparo and sort this out.
By cruiserhead1
on August 14, 2008
07:14 AM
I used to own a 900T and loved its quirks. The upright windscreen which always kept me in the shade, the HUGE cargo area, low load floor and massive hatch that could hold as much as a truck...
I really like the Sport-Combi's style. It's different and yet clean and euro. (unlike the ugly, bloated Jetta wagon...ugh, can't wait for the redesign already!)
However, I have to agree about pricing. It is not justified.
There seems to be a dirth of sporty wagons... the other one that caught my eye was the Volvo V50 wagon, which seem to be popular around my area.
If the Jetta TDI wagon looked like the V50, I would have put my deposit down already.
By cruiserhead1
on August 14, 2008
07:23 AM
ahightower,
I simply do not see the Saab on the same level as a Audi A4. Saab needs to give more for less money, that's just the way it is for a small player against a premium brand like Audi or BMW.
I think if there is a "wagon shootout", go for the most value-based models. I would be more interested in the 2.0T for mpg's and most for my money.
By karjunkie
on August 14, 2008
07:27 AM
Nice performance stats on this vehicle, but I think the price is a deal breaker. I would also worry whether there is a Saab division at GM in the next 5 years. I think the A4 Avant Quattro makes a lot more sense.
By kurtamaxxxguy
on August 14, 2008
07:42 AM
Quirks certainly make vehicles unique (my long-gone VW Superbug had heaps of 'em), but this Saab cousin of now-deceased Malibu Maxx seems long on attitude and expense, short on value and refinement.
Karl, was this Saab blessed with the "Turbo Rush" so many find desirable?
A "high-priced-hatch" shootout of this Saab against a current A4 Avant and BMW's X3 would be worthwhile.
By louiswei
on August 14, 2008
07:43 AM
I'll take the performance of the 3-series, quattro drive of the A4, the reliability and class-leading interior of the IS and the value of the G and TL over the quirky Saab 9-3 on any given day.
By chavis10
on August 14, 2008
09:19 AM
What Karl forgot to mention is that there will only be 600 Turbo X models and the regular Aero with XWD will cost less with the same features and performance.
By vvk
on August 14, 2008
10:30 AM
Used SAABs are excellent buys. New ones... not so much. Besides, all SAAB fans know that 4 cylinder is the only way to fly in a SAAB.
By cx7lover
on August 14, 2008
11:02 AM
2.0TFSI Premium plus quattro comparably equipped is almost the same price, whilst being much, much better. It's not a V6 but then again it doesn't have the turbolag the SAAB has.
By ahightower
on August 14, 2008
11:24 AM
And why exactly do we expect less turbo lag from a VW/Audi 2.0 4-cylinder than a Saab 2.8 V6?
By cx7lover
on August 14, 2008
01:40 PM
Because I've drive the 2.0T everyday.
SAAB's engines have off the line turbo lag. And even when passing.
By cx7lover
on August 14, 2008
01:40 PM
Because I've drive the 2.0T everyday.
SAAB's engines have off the line turbo lag. And even when passing.
By louiswei
on August 14, 2008
02:06 PM
Even the Audi 2.0T isn't that great with turbo lag. You want an almost non-lag turbo engine? Get the BMW TT 3.0L I6.
By cx7lover
on August 14, 2008
03:18 PM
It does have slight lag of the line, then you're greeted with a fat torque surge. On it's feet there is no lag.
By autoboy16
on August 14, 2008
03:46 PM
Saab should make Twin Turbo Ecotecs! The styling is ok but I prefer the 2003-2007Exterior and the current interior.
A standard 2.2T w/ 220hp
Saab can even use the current 2.4l Turbo from the HHrSS/Colbalt SS/ Sky Redline thats good for 260hp but just add a 6At and 6Mt. A Twin Turbo of that engine should be good for about 300hp IMO.
Imagine a Theta(Vue/Equinox)saab, The 9-4X with these Engines and AWD! I personally think this would work.
Saab are still great cars and I honestly can say I see more Saab than Subaru...
-Cj
By savetheland
on August 14, 2008
05:51 PM
How it compares to Saturn Aura (without turbo of course)? 9-3 is essentially based on Aura. And Aura costs much less.
I drove 9-3 a few times and IMO it is hardly a luxury car. GMs only luxury line is Caddy and thats pretty much it.
GM is moving Saturn upscale and very soon every car will have turbo. Where it leaves SAAB?
SAAB is a jet company, but cars with propellers are winning the race.
By chavis10
on August 15, 2008
04:01 AM
savetheland-
The previous generation Malibu and 9-3 were the first two cars off the current Epsilon platform. The 9-3 in Vector/Aero trim rides much firmer than the Aura and is tuned more aggressively. It also feature passive rear wheel steering which none of the other Epsilon cars offer.
cx7lover- I've driven the 9-3 fairly aggressively (5spd auto 2.0T) and found the power delivery very fun and entertaining with no egregious lag. There is some but it's not at all exaggerated. Haven't driven the current Audi 2.0T but I would imagine that it would have better throttle response and reduced lag since it has direct injection and VVT, both of which the 9-3 I-4 lacks.
By 1487
on August 15, 2008
12:08 PM
"GM is moving Saturn upscale and very soon every car will have turbo. Where it leaves SAAB?"
GM has never said all Saturns would have turbos. Also, no Saturn car offers AWD. The 9-3 is lighter, smaller and more nimble and it has far more features than Aura/Malibu.
The Turbo X is a limited production car so complaining about its pricing is stupid. Most people will never see one or have a chance to buy one. As Chavis said you can get XWD on lower trims for less money. The Turbo X is expensive due to its special trim features and exclusivity.
By 1487
on August 15, 2008
12:12 PM
""GM is moving Saturn upscale and very soon every car will have turbo. Where it leaves SAAB?""
Oh you mean every car will have a turbo period? That is hardly the case. Toyota, Honda and many others do not deal with turbos too often.
By cx7lover
on August 15, 2008
01:15 PM
I wasn't aware that they would offer the 280HP V6 in the Aero, that would make this car pointless.
XWD SportCombi Turbo V6 with NAVI costs 43K, the A4 Avant Quattro with NAVI and the 2.0T turbo costs 41K.
Sorry but even the regular sportcombi isn't worth it. The A4 Avant is undoubtedly better.
By savetheland
on August 15, 2008
05:55 PM
"Oh you mean every car will have a turbo period? That is hardly the case. Toyota, Honda and many others do not deal with turbos too often."
All Ford cars will have DI twin-turbos to achieve high mpg. And everybody knows that Ford has the best FWD chassis in industry besides VW. Honda, Toyota, Renault/Nissan and GM simply are not there. Like Focus, Mazda6, Mondeo. It is not difficult to assume that Ford cars wilth twin-turbos will be better than Epsilon-II, even if in case of SAAB. As a matter of fact Mondeo regularly beats all FWD cars in tests except of Passat/A4.
By svt_rs
on August 17, 2008
01:44 PM
If I may, I believe i can comment on this because I owned an 06 Saab 9-3 2.0T with 5/spd manual. and i also still own an 1999 audi a4 2.8 quattro also with the 5spd manual as well...
one thing for sure, Saab was just a pretty face and got good gas mileage... but for everything else it wasnt even close to the audi despite the years between the 2...
the Saab's clutch and tranny were never on good terms, isolated is what comes to mind, the engine seemed to lose power at 5000 regardless of the 6300+ rpm redline. interior material was horrible, by just 15 months of ownership, the seats looked twice as worn as the audi...and now for the real reason not to get the Saab... I bought the car new for close to 26 grand ...when i went to trade it in, and i tried numerous dealerships, the best i could get for it was $9,600 with 25k miles on it, my a4 retials more than that and its close to 10years old and has close to 100k miles...tried selling it independently and had no luck either... so yeah, stay away friends... also, mechanics will charge an arm and a leg to fix if you're thinking of getting a bargain deal on one of those...
By 1487
on August 18, 2008
11:53 AM
"Honda, Toyota, Renault/Nissan and GM simply are not there. "
Ford has never said every model will have EcoBoost. Thus far we know Flex, MKS and Lincoln crossover will have ECOboost. Also, as of right now GM is using more turbos in the US than Ford. Ford doesnt even sell a turbo engine in the US right now.
By mcmanus
on August 18, 2008
12:53 PM
Saab has always hyped the top of the line models, cars that don't represent their best value.
Quirky is the #1 reason to own a Saab. That has been all but lost thanks to the GM take over.
By myob
on August 18, 2008
11:25 PM
I owned a 2003 9-3 for over 70,000 miles. Decent car at the time. Safe, competent performance, comfortable.
But horrible resale, not particularly reliable, sufficient turbo lag to affect how you drive in traffic, and more than its share of rattles and early aging.
There is really only one reason to own a Saab today. You want a car that handles and accelerates well in its size category, but are put off by the image pretentiousness and envy issues you run into with a luxury brand.
Well, you may also just want to be quirky and different. With just what, 30,000 units sold in the US each year, you sure won't see yourself on every corner.
The depreciation on a $43,000 Saab must be breathtaking.
By vvk
on August 20, 2008
08:38 AM
You have to be silly rich to buy a new SAAB. Depreciation makes them outstanding used car buys! 9-5 is an excellent car, despite being very, very old design. Highway acceleration is better than many supercars! Fuel economy is better than many economy cars. I would avoid 2003-2006 9-3 but starting in 2007 they have upgraded it enough to be comparable to 9-5, 900, 9000 and older models. Just don't be fooled into buying it new!