Business Week on the 2008 Saab 9-3 Convertible
Business Week isn’t admittedly the first rag one turns to for automotive news, but for those of you unfamiliar with the publication, it has a huge weekly (duh) circulation: about one million copies each week. It seems that this article was contributed by the writers at thecarconnection.com, which lends a air of credibility, and it also lends an air of “more of the same”, which I’ll get to in due time.
Overall, this is a fair-to-good review of the car as a whole — but that whole perception is nine-tenths thing gets in the way, right away.
It takes a special kind of enthusiast to appreciate Saab’s lineup of sedans, wagons and convertibles. There’s nothing particularly different on the spec sheet, but for whatever reason - some quirky cachet - they appeal to a very specific breed of driver.
That’s right, the “q” word is used twice before the first paragraph is over, and it’s used no fewer than four times before the article is done.
Perception. Nine-tenths.
The next paragraph is no better; they politely warn us that it’s the same-old, same-old when it comes to BMW and Audi comparisons:
And while the Swedish carmaker’s 9-3 Convertible gets the same kind of top-to-bottom renovation that the sedan and wagon models also receive for the 2008 model year, it doesn’t move the needle much when it comes to wooing new buyers away from the likes of BMW and Audi, not to mention cheaper hardtop convertibles with Euro nameplates.
Perception. Nine-tenths.
But, then, listen to the praise given to the 9-3 convertible in the same article:
“…it’s a good-looking, solidly built, decently powerful, and an entertaining drive…”
“…[it's] the 9-3’s large trunk (12.4 cubic feet) and rear-seat legroom that tops other four-seater ragtops…”
“…the seamless gearchanges of its six-speed automatic that feels right…”
“Typical for Saab, the front strut and multi-link rear suspension has a taut performance feel, but it’s nicely controlled and not at all stiff-kneed. Some drivers might prefer the harder edge of BMW’s convertibles, but we like the relatively plush feel of the 9-3 Convertible.”
“Braking feel was a good surprise with the Saab. The pedal felt firm and the brake response was controlled…”
“It looks crisp and tight and modern, while retaining the distinct profile that helps this Saab stand out from the crowd.”
“In terms of comfort, the 9-3 Convertible has the best front seats in the class.”
Yet the whole tenor of the article is one of faint praise and “too bad it’s not as good as the Bimmer”. What? It bests the Bimmer in many ways, you’ve said so yourself! So, it has to completely crush the BMW in every category for a little love? I don’t get it.
And, there are times when I really wish that we would let go of the whole key between the seats thing just to get that monkey off our collective backs:
“…try out the inadequate cupholder and ridiculous ignition placement that keeps a real cupholder from being installed.”
“Ridiculous”? Would they ever dare use such a word for say, the slope of the BMW X6 roofline when it eats into rear headroom? I don’t think so.
As I said, more of the same. Those quirky Saabs, they’re not Bimmers, so they’re obviously inferior. Yet, they are better in many ways, but they’re still inferior. What a load.
This could be 1987 all over again. Will Saab’s relationship with the automotive journos ever change? At this rate, the answer is no.
More from this category
- Djup Strupe and the 2009 Saab 9-3
- Thursday Snippets
- The good, the bad and the unknown for Saab in the US today
- 2009 Saab 9-3 - US model details
More from this author
- If you’re in the market for a Saab, now’s the time
- EnG Weekend Snippets
- A new leader in the “Worst Accessory for your Saab” category
- Saab Classic 900 vs. the Bear
Subscribe to this author
Recent Comments
- Ned on Automotive Rites of Passage
- 1985 Gripen on If you’re in the market for a Saab, now’s the time
- papluh on Automotive Rites of Passage
- Mag-X on A Quick Thankyou
- SaabKen on A Quick Thankyou
- Mag-X on EnG Weekend Snippets
- Mag-X on A Quick Thankyou
- ELBOBO on A Quick Thankyou
- eggsngrits on A Quick Thankyou
- eggsngrits on A Quick Thankyou
give a little, take a little. the ignition comment is absolutely absurd, feels like he was looking for something else to rag on. rather have it between the seats, then slamming me knee.
What is it with cupholders? Are they really that important?
I realise that the pop out cupholder in SAABs is not as sturdy as a static cup holder. However, I very rarely use it and prefer to have it out of the way until I need it.
And I object to the horsepower comparison to the toyota engine and the slow 0-60mph comment. There is nothing more satisfying than overtaking larger displacement cars going up a hill, with a high pressure turbo.
Excellent commentary, Eggs. I read the review with a hint of hope but experienced the same exasperation.
The Saab 9-3 Convertible is one of the best ragtop convertibles out there, a truly useful four-seater convertible that provides for truly memorable motoring, yet they assess it as if it’s supposed to be a track vehicle in some parts.
It’s the same as I’ve been saying all along. Some journo’s just don’t get it.
It’s the some thing over and over again, all over the world…
For some reason, BMW and Audi are the cars that everything is compared to. This is in itself strange since there are different brands because people obviously want different things. It’s like eating a meal with curry and then complain that it doesn’t taste as a meal with cinnamon. What’s the point?
So, obviously everything has to be something like a BMW or an Audi. But if it try to compete and be like a BMW or an Audi, then it get criticized for that because it can’t be exactly the same. But, on the other hand, if it try to do something different, then it get criticized for not trying to be the same as BMW or Audi. Which always makes me wondering why the review was ever written.
ctm: Perfect. Right on the money. EnG
Like I said before, automotive news is like the mainstream news reporting: 95% ideology and agenda and 5% real news (news is something that has already happened). They distort everything.
I stopped buying Road & Tracks and Cars and Drivers, a long time ago. It’s a hecking waste of money
“cdp88 // Jan 26, 2008 at 4:11 pm
And I object to the horsepower comparison to the toyota engine and the slow 0-60mph comment. There is nothing more satisfying than overtaking larger displacement cars going up a hill, with a high pressure turbo.”
The problem is that saabs today just aren’t as fast compared to the competition as they used to be. Say what you will about saab’s reputation back in 1987, but the SPG only had a ~20hp defecit on the BMW m3, and was just as fast in real-world conditions. Likewise, people seem to forget the time when the 9000 turbo was the fastest large sedan on the market, period. Even in the late 90’s, the 9-5 Aero offered 540i beating highway performance and the viggen could run with the US-spec E36 M3, at least in a straight line.
The article is right, things HAVE changed for saab, and while some people hate the dreaded “q” word, I like it. The problem for saab is that the quirkiness was a good thing back when the cars offered blistering straight-line and highway performance that gave the germans a run for their money. When you take that all away, the quirkiness loses most of it’s luster and the cars just make you ask “why”.
Back in the 1980’s, a 900 turbo would roast a 325i in the straightaway, just as the 9000 turbo would eat the 535i’s lunch in terms of sheer acceleration. Over the past 15 years, the germans have raised the game while GM has let saab slip relative to what it used to be.
If saab was the same company relative to the competition that it used to be, the base engine for the 9-3 would be the 260 hp direct injection ecotec, and the V6 in the aero would make ~120 hp/liter and ~330-340 hp total. The 335i is just today’s equivilent of the 325i, and saab needs to make a faster car than the 335i if it wants to be considered seriously by the automotive press.
Personally I think that there are alot of saab fans in the automotive press, people who remember the performance of the cars in the 80’s and part of the 90’s. What they don’t like about today’s saabs is how much they have slumped compared to the competition. I really think it’s a “build it and they will come” situation, saab needs to build cars like they used to make them, and the praise will come.
GM seems to have the looks and the build quality down pat, now bring on the horsepower and handling!
Very interesting analysis, Alex. I hadn’t thought of it in such concrete terms.
Alex:
I guess that my response to your comment is this: You’re right, I really hoped for more performance out of the 9-3. However, straight-line performance isn’t everything. I’m just looking for a straight-up compliment where they are due. The Saab has many great features that are cast aside as if they mean nothing in the face of the almighty Bimmer.
In other words, I can live with the criticisms if you also give me the postives with the same emphasis.
I’m with Alex on this one. Saab has slipped in terms of performance and now the likes of Audi are eating its lunch. Many journos dislike the association of Saab with GM per se, but there are positives in this relationship and I am hopeful they will finally be utilized in the coming years.
Real-world performance is, of course, what matters the most. But let us all remember Saabs were famous racing cars in the past, and they built a reputation for an automaker that does things differently, yet right. Alex was right on the money with Saabs in the 80s - they were fast and compared favourably to the BMWs of the day. There was substance behind turbocharging - Saabs offered V6 performance with four-cylinder fuel economy. Now it seems it’s turbocharging for the sake of turbocharging and staying true to Saab heritage.
People are missing the point here - the philosophy behind turbos was “make a fast yet fuel-efficient car, offer BMW performance in a more eco-friendly manner”. In the past decade or so it’s all gone downhill and we keep hearing excuses from Saab HQ. At the price premium a Saab is sold globally, there must be substance behind the quirkiness.
Imagine the Turbo X was 420 bhp/450 Nm twin-turbocharged ethanol engine (from the Aero X, slight;y updated)… It would eat the lunch and supper of any comparable M3, RS4 or AMG C-class. That should be Saab’s contemporary approach - beat V8s and V10s with a turbocharged V6. And that would very much be in tune with Saab’s philosophy and staying true to the brand’s heritage.
It’s funny how we all brag about Saab being a performance brand, Volvo drivers driving in the right lane and all that, yet we fail to criticize the company when they are clearly struggling to stay true to this philosophy. So, like one of Saab’s honchos told Swade, no more excuses please!
Let me elaborate on what I said. Right now your average 2.0T 9-3 is nothing but an overpriced jetta with a cheaper interior and the ignition key in a funny place. Compare a ~$23k jetta GLI with a ~$33k 9-3 2.0T.
The Jetta has just as much power, a much nicer interior, bluetooth, a DSG option, better build quality, a direct injection engine, and better fuel economy. Why would any smart buyer choose a 9-3ss over a jetta, hell the VW even handles better.
Now go back to the 80’s, and that base model 900 has a powerful 16-valve engine (DOHC was the direct-injection equivilent of those days), a luxurious interior and the best FWD handling on the market. Meanwhile, that base-model 80’s jetta has an anemic non-crossflow SOHC engine, a hard, cheap feeling interior, and inferior handling. Even the fast jettas of the 80’s with 16v engines didn’t make the kind of power that a NA 16v 900 would make.
People can talk about “real-world performance” and say “Saab isn’t about horsepower and straight-line acceleration” all they want, but as far as I’m concerned that’s just making excuses for GM. People need to pull their heads out of the sand and realize just how much of a contender Saab used to be. Saab used to be able to equal or beat the Germans at their own game, and under GM saab has slumped to the point that their best-selling car is not much more than an overpriced jetta wannabe. Since this all happened after GM, I can only assume that it’s because of GM holding the brand back on purpose rather than letting it keep up with the germans they way they could and should have.
I agree that saab should push the envelope in terms of turbo technology. Back in the 80’s making almost 100 hp/liter was a huge deal, but now cars making 100 hp/liter are a commonplace. What I would like to see for saab is a lineup of cars that make the same kind of hp/liter numbers that GM’s 260 hp ecotec does. It’s inexcusable that the aeros only make 100 hp/liter with a turbo, with today’s direct injection technology they should be making 150 hp/liter. But then they’d overshadow cadillac and make GM’s flagship brand look obsolete and behind the times.
I think the big problem with a company like saab being under the ownership of a company like GM is that their goals and cultures are completely different. GM is great at making high-margin, low-tech cars that sell well based mostly off of advertising and their looks. Sure cadillacs offer many luxury features, but people still buy them because of the image more than the cars.
Saab was a completely different sort of company. Saabs looked unusual, and their selling point was their good driving dynamics and cutting-edge powertrain technology, with styling and things you can advertise taking second fiddle behind the “high-tech” nature of the cars. The problem is that GM already has a “flagship” brand, and in this increasingly high-tech savvy world, letting saab do their thing will overshadow cadillac.
Alex, I concurred with your previous statement, but I completely disagree on comparing the 9-3 to the Jetta. Have you driven a Jetta? Seriously? For more than 2 hours? Those cars are quite hideous, and utterly boring. I am not quite sure what made you think a Jetta handles better than a 9-3. Sounds like you haven’t driven both cars for comparable periods of time. Even the Volvo S40 is way behind the 9-3 in terms of power delivery, handling, etc. I am all for constructive criticism, but this is taking it too far.
I am also a firm supporter of the 9-3 interior, in fact I think this is one of the best features of the car. It’s comfortable, well laid out and user-friendly without unnecessary clutter.
Alex, it is true turbo charging doesn’t put SAAB as far ahead of the competition as before. I do still like the surge of power that you can access for overtaking.
The other area where SAAB has slipped is fuel economy. BMW have really worked on this to the point that their six cylinders get better economy than my 9-5 on the highway. I still have more power but I am no longer able to claim better economy as well.
It’s a very simple circle which is difficult to break:
German brands offer a lot of treats to the journos - journos are obliged to write good about the Germans so this can be repeated - more treats - good writing - treats….etc.
Saab does not stand a chance, I’d say. Even Lexus can’t break the German voodoo, how can little Saab manage it?