When you KNOW you better be wary of a review

Posted by swade on May 31st, 2007 8 Comments Printer-Friendly

This isn’t actually a review. It’s more of a “hey, this car exists” piece.

But you know you’ve gotta be wary when it starts like this:

WHEN the Saab 9-3 was launched, it looked so like the old 900 I thought it was just a quick warm over and was gobsmacked to find it was a completely new model.

And yes, this is the 9-3 that he’s talking about….

That looks “so like the old 900″????

And here I am stuck in a job I don’t enjoy and there’s people like this employed to write about cars.

I dunno.

Comments (8)
Trackbacks & Pingbacks (0)

Comments

ChrisG said:

I think when the review says that the new 9-3 looks like the old 900, they are talking about the change in ‘98 between the NG900 and the 9-3 hatchback, which do look very similar. The review also talks about the older models being cheaper and shows prices for pre-9-3 Sport Sedan models under its “fast facts”:

FAST FACTS

Saab 9-3 2.0t

Price: Pay £2,200 for a ’98 R-reg 185bhp 2.0T SE 5dr, £3,000 for an ’00 X-reg S, £8,200 for an ’03 03-reg 2.0t 175bhp Linear, or £12,300 for an ’04 54-reg 2.0t Vector.

-May 31st, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Swade said:

I dunno, Chris. The reference to a “completely new model” and the photo present a pretty compelling case.

Actually, on a second look, I can see where you’re coming from. He makes more of the 900-to-93 transition than he does of the hatch-to-sedan transition, which is still quite a worry.

-June 1st, 2007 at 12:33 am
ChrisG said:

It’s definitely not a good article by any means - even if the writer is talking about the ‘98 9-3 he fails to even mention the ‘03 changes. I’m just trying to give the writer the benefit of the doubt

-June 1st, 2007 at 12:41 am
Jon said:

I think he pulled most of the review from a buyers guide. Still Swade, to be fair he did give it 8/10…

I think when you are over with SAAB you should offer to do an article for their magazine on running this blog. I think we get it twice a year in the UK.

They might even pay you…

-June 1st, 2007 at 1:59 am
saab9x said:

apparently, it’s harder to see through a sterotype than it would appear.

-June 1st, 2007 at 2:04 am
logan said:

how about this bit

“Engines are all four cylinder units, with balancer shafts to reduce vibration, and are two and 2.3-litre petrol or 1.9 and 2.2-litre turbo diesel.”

2.3 in 9-3SS?? I’m pretty sure NOT! I can’t say anything about the 2.2TiD, but I thought it was just a 1.9TiD?

-June 1st, 2007 at 2:57 am
Psycho Dave said:

It is pretty obvious that the test is of Saab 9-3 98-02, if they would have changed the picture the only fault would have been the comment about the 1.9 diesel.

-June 1st, 2007 at 3:27 am
Robban said:

omg what a numbnut!

-June 1st, 2007 at 4:10 am