Saab 9-1 - unofficially official
I heard from a Saab dealer this morning that they’d received an invitation to the Geneva Auto Salon in March to see a premium compact vehicle concept from Saab.
I guess that’s about as good a confirmation as you can get of the Robert Collin stories in Aftonbladet earlier this month.
This is going to be an incredibly important concept for me, personally. As much as I liked the 9-4x concept when I got to see it in the metal, it’s an SUV and SUV’s just don’t excite me. It’ll serve Saab quite well, I’m sure, as it finds it’s place in the market.
But Saab’s have always been about fun-to-drive and great design for me, and I just can’t imagine the 9-4x ticking those boxes for me. But a new compact Saab? That’s another thing all together.
So I’m going to be looking at several things when this car is unveiled, only one of which I’ll talk about here. But these things will go a very long way to determining my own future with the brand and in particular, the continuity of this site. That’s a matter for another post, but until then, we await Geneva with a great deal of anticipation.
Make it a good one, Saab.
——
And by the way, all those blogs that ran with the story about the Saab 9-1 debuting in London in June can kiss my hairy bloggers butt.
I sent around a bunch of emails to various bloggers telling them that this wasn’t going to be the case and not one of them - not one - printed a correcting or cautionary story to set the record straight.
Yes, I’m on the angry pills this morning…..
More from this category
- Jan-Ake Jonsson on the Saab 9-1
- Tell GM About It, part II - Saab 9-1
- Saab 9-X photoshop fun
- How many doors on the Saab 9-1?
More from this author
- IntSaab 2009 schedule posted
- Tuesday Snippets
- Does Automotive News still have an editor?
- TS moves to Russia?
Subscribe to this author
Recent Comments
- ctm on Tuesday Snippets
- ctm on TS moves to Russia?
- Snotfjold on Tuesday Snippets
- Markac on A single EnG snippet that just won’t wait
- 1985 Gripen on Tuesday Snippets
- kdsaab on Tuesday Snippets
- Rogan on A single EnG snippet that just won’t wait
- Burbs on Monday Snippets
- Troll96 on Tuesday Snippets
- MarkS on A single EnG snippet that just won’t wait
Wow, big news. 2009 will be a banner year for Saab, with the introduction of 9-4X, 9-5(?) and more details of the 9-1.
There’s a lot riding on the 9-1. In my opinion, Saab has been ‘a day late and a dollar short’ with their recent offerings. The 9-1 has no room for error, it has to be perfect from day 1.
No offense to ‘CAM’ but if the 9-1 looks anything like his take off on the 9-4x (or the actual 9-4x for that matter) Saab is done for.
Stop teasing us with the concepts and show us some production-ready vehicles
The 9-4X is probably the best bet for Saab’s future in the US while the 9-1 will probably be a hit in Europe. I actually wouldn’t be surprised if the 9-1 would be introduced to the US much later than Europe as other manufacturers haven’t had much luck with premium hatchbacks over here.
Concept cars are getting out of hand. I mean, look at Suzuki, they’re on their third Kizashi concept, and nothing anywhere close to any of them are anywhere near production, as far as I know. Then you have all the other Japanese automakers with their ridiculous toy-looking things that aren’t even supposed to show marketable ideas, they’re just there to draw crowds and bloggers.
I’m with Wulf, show me a production car, Saab!
Any chance TS will be represented at Geneva courtesy of Saab Oz? Hell, Swade yo do more for the brand than GM does so not having you there would be a travesty!
I am looking for something groundbreaking and if I see a mini 9-4X I will cry!
No chance that I’ll be there personally and at the moment it’s not looking good at all for TS coverage. More to come. - SW
“Yes, I’m on the angry pills this morning” (Swade): Lol, that’s me most mornings.
“if the 9-1 looks anything like his take off on the 9-4x … Saab is done for.” (RPG): Ditto.
“Saab’s have always been about fun-to-drive and great design for me” (Swade): Ditto again!
I’m getting old, and if I’m ever to buy a new Saab again, it will be the 9-1. I’m praying they get it right. I keep looking at Subaru’s winning rallies in the snow and keep saying “Why can’t that be a Saab?”. Design-wise, it’s got to be a home run, much better than the 9-4X. The 9-4 is okay, but doesn’t advance the state of the art in any significant way. The 9-1 has got to do that. If not, I’ll just keep buying used Saabs, but always feeling a little empty and unsatisfied inside.
I think there’s so much riding on the 9-1. The next 9-3 will be bigger and so will the 9-5. Europeans and even Aussies are turning to smaller cars and many of us miss SAABs traditional hatchbacks, so for SAABs sake they have to get it right. I just hope they get it to look right too. Big heavy looking noses on smaller cars just don’t work. I hope the inspiration is the 99 Combi Coupe with some 9x thrown in for good measure, but a nose like the 9-3s update will over power it.
The 9-4x is okay, but tradional Saab buyers aren’t into SUVs so I think it will only attract some peripheral sales or Saab owners who can own more than one type of vehicle.
Markac: They could throw the whole 9X in and I’d be happy.
But, a little 99 Combi Coupe would be nice too.
Has the 9-1 or 9-1X names even been registered yet?
I remember some time back that it was said that a great portion of Saab defectors were leaving to purchase an SUV. The 9-4x makes 100% sense in the U.S. and probably elsewhere… even for Saab purist. The typical Saab purist will talk about the utility of Saab. What about when more is needed?
As for the 9-1 it should be a hit in the U.S. as gas prices continue to increase. Make mine in the flavor of a 9X please ;-))
saab yurk: I agree the 9x with a hint of 99 Combi Coupe would be nice. I don’t really like the 9-1/9-1x name as I think it will be closer to the 9-2x in size and I think Saab should keep the 9-1 name in case they ever plan a Opel Corsa size model. But I guess calling it a 9-2 is not a good idea now after the Saabaru!
jc7222 you are probably right about the 9-4x for the USA, but here in Oz I have never met a Saab owner who would consider an SUV, well at least at the expense of owning a normal Saab! That’s probably the same for UK/Europe too where fuel prices are much higher.
this 9-1 business is important to me, not only because i care about how Saab does, but also because it would definetely be my market… for once i might be a potential saab customer…
i hope its somewhat like a modern day c900!
As far as naming, I’d like to see the production names stay just numbers … with the trailing “X” only being on the rebadged models (9-2x, 9-7x). A lineup of 9-1, 9-3, 9-4 and 9-5 wouldn’t be all that bad.
chaaalie - the x means AWD.
I hope the 9-1 has xwd and the 2.0 DI turbo engine from Saturn Sky for the top-o-the range model. It will be an S3 eater for sure (well it will with a BSR ppc to 313bhp)!
chaaalie: the “X” doesn’t mean it’s a rebadged car, as Jeff points-out. Why would Saab want to advertise they’re badge-engineering? It indeed indicates an “AWD” model and isn’t specific to Saab. The AWD models of BMW are also designated with an “X” and the AWD models of ovloV are “XC” for “cross-country”. Take the 9-4X, for example. It’s got the X because it’s equipped w/ AWD, it’s not a badge-engineered vehicle.
There might well be a 9-1X model in the future, though I doubt it as it’s supposed to be an entry-level-priced Saab and fitting of XWD would likely raise the price to a level people wouldn’t be willing to pay. Maybe if there’s a future special-edition sport model of the 9-1 it’ll have XWD (sort of like the BMW M coupe).
jwlanky: too lazy to look it up right now: isn’t the engine in the Saturn Sky Redline (and also the Pontiac Solstice GTP, I think) a variant of the same Opel Ecotec engine the port-injected Saab 2.0T engine is based-on? If so, GM already has the darned engine, why didn’t Saab get it years ago!?!?
Gripen: i think its the same Ecotec block with a twin scroll turbo and direct injection technology. It really is a gem of an engine from what ive read and would make more sense to feature in the the Saab line up than the V6 turbo, but then there the problem of upstaging….130bhp/ltr and 30+mpg is my definition of responsible performance
jwlanky: I completely agree with your sentiment. Saab should’ve had this engine.
However, I think that GM pressured Saab into featuring the V6 to compete with its European luxury competition. From what former Saab USA President Bob Sinclair told us at the Saab Owners’ Convention in August Saab couldn’t get premium car buyers to even come into the showrooms to look at Saabs because of a lack of a six-cylinder engine.
So after so many years of potential buyers going to the competition because Saab didn’t offer a six-cylinder now they do yet still according to Steve Shannon in the same Round Table discussion explained that 80% of Saabs sold in the U.S. are equipped with the turbocharged four-cylinder.
So what was the point of the V6 offering? To get people into the Saab showroom so you can bait and switch them into buying the 2.0T? To have a “halo” car? It really hasn’t resulted in spectacular sales growth, to say the least.
Saab sold (not counting the 9-7X) 27,336 cars in the U.S. in 2007. If only 20% of those were equipped with a V6 engine that comes to 5,467 V6-equipped Saabs sold across the country in a year. Was the addition of the V6 really all that effective for sales? I’d opine not.
For far longer than Saab buyers had been supposedly wanting a six-cylinder they’ve been wanting AWD and we’re STILL waiting for that.
The 9-2X’s purpose was to appease this supposed large group of car buyers who were skipping-over Saab because the brand didn’t offer AWD in any of their models. We saw how that turned-out…
Saab offered an SUV to supposedly stem the brand’s defections and the jury’s out on whether that was effective or not. The original assertion by Saab was that they are losing something like 80% of Saab owners to other marques because those buyers wanted an SUV offering that Saab did not have. So the 9-7X was “born”. But the 9-7X only sold 5,357 units last year. Did that stem the exodus?
What I’m trying to point-out is that it sometimes seems as if Saab is compromising and offering vehicles that are supposedly “needed” only to see sales not increase drastically. Maybe they need to stop listening to whomever is providing them this lame market research and listen to their customers. If they had done this they would have had AWD years ago, wouldn’t have a V6, and would likely have had a more high-tech engine lineup (direct injection at the least, SVC at the most).
Where I disagree with you, jwlanky, is that I don’t think that Saab should get the D.I. 2.0T in place of the V6, I think it should be in place of the port-injected 2.0T and the V6 should be replaced by SVC or discontinued altogether. Let Cadillac be the displacement leader in the segment, let Saab be the efficiency leader.
“1985 Gripen // Feb 1, 2008 at 8:20 am
Where I disagree with you, jwlanky, is that I don’t think that Saab should get the D.I. 2.0T in place of the V6, I think it should be in place of the port-injected 2.0T and the V6 should be replaced by SVC or discontinued altogether. Let Cadillac be the displacement leader in the segment, let Saab be the efficiency leader.”
I agree with you wholeheartedly, The 2.0 direct injection twinscroll engine should replace the 2.0T engine in the 9-3’s, maybe having the 2.0t make ~230-240 hp with the 2.0T making ~260-280.
Throw the direct injection highfeature heads from the 3.6 in the CTS onto the highfeature 2.8 that saab has, and produce a 2.8T making ~300 hp with god’s own torque curve and a 2.8T making making 140 hp/liter. Add a 3.6T making over 400 hp for any special-edition 9-5’s or production aero X’s.
I talk alot about what I’d like to see from saab, so here’s my dream lineup, at least in terms of powertrains:
9-1 S/SE: 2.0t
9-1 Aero: 2.0T, xwd optional
9-1 Turbo X/SPG/Viggen/whatever: ~300hp 2.0T, xwd standard
9-3 s: 2.0t, xwd optional
9-3 se: 2.0T, xwd optional
9-3x combi: 2.0T, xwd standard
9-3 Aero: 2.8t, xwd standard
9-3 Turbo X/SPG/Viggen/whatever: 2.8T, xwd standard
9-4x s: 2.0t, xwd standard
9-4x se: 2.0T, xwd standard
9-4x Aero, 2.8t, xwd standard
9-5 s: 2.0T, xwd optional
9-5 se: 2.8t, xwd standard
9-5 Aero: 2.8T, xwd standard
9-5 Turbo X/SPG/Viggen/whatever: 3.6t, xwd standard
Aero X/Sonett IV S: 2.8T, xwd standard
Aero X/Sonett IV Aero: 3.6t, xwd standard
Aero X/Sonett IV Turbo X/SPG/Viggen/whatever: 3.6T, xwd standard
So what do people think?
EDIT: When I talk about 2.8 engines, the 2.8t is the one with 300 hp and god’s own torque curve, it’s the HOT 2.8T that gets the capital “T”.
XWD should be optional on all models and all engines, not everybody needs or wants to pay extra for this if they are not going to use it.
(Oeps, should have posted it here and not in the Autocar-related entry)
Tried to book test drive at SAAB.COM, but can’t find the link …
(so it’s wait and … looking forward to it).
Just kidding.
But this autoblog-link called ‘related headlines’ got my attention, the loremo-prototype was already interesting, now a convertible is in the pipeline.
If you ask me, this downsizing and keeping weight low is the way to go. If Saab could merge that with is safety-issues, they would have got something more revolutionary and quirky than just another ‘ovlovC30-bmw1-audiA3-contender’ , with only outstanding design (hopefully) and a BioPower-option (which in some countries you simply can’t benefit from) !
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/29/high-mileage-loremo-convertible-in-the-works/
Yeah, I agree, but for anything above ~270 hp xwd becomes a necessity.
It’s a matter of safety and drivability, for the small-engine cars xwd is a convenience option for people living in snowy or wet climates. The fwd cars are still drivable in those conditions, the xwd just makes them easier to handle. With a torque curve like most saabs have, ~270hp is the limit for fwd drivability. In order for the cars to be safe and responsive for most drivers, I think that xwd should be standard on all v6 cars to eliminate torque steer and keep the handling nice and neutral.
Alex: another benefit of Saab’s use of the Ecotec engine is that they can fit direct ignition, meaning they can “BioPower-ize” it. I understand this is the reason why there is no BioPower version of the current 2.8T V6: they can’t adapt direct ignition to it, which is required to manage BioPower.
I agree that any Saab which will output more than around 260 hp should have XWD standard, but I agree with Wulf’s sentiment that many Saab owners (myself included) live in climes where XWD is not a necessity and is simply an additional cost and excessive fuel consumer (due to added weight). Truthfully, though the 280 bhp XWD Aero looks pretty attractive, the practical side of me would opt for the 255 bhp Aero w/o XWD if I had the money to buy one right now.
Let me amend that: I’d get the 210 hp FWD 2.0T I4 rather than the FWD 2.8T V6 if I had the money. Or if I had a little more money I’d go for the 2.3T 9-5 Aero combi.
See, xwd isn’t just about convenience, it’s also about handling. At least with the elsd, xwd helps to fight the understeer that fed saabs, especially the v6 aero are so good at.
The 9-3 aero xwd with the elsd is in every way a better handling car than the fwd one is. The
what’s going on here? That’s your second abbreviated comment this week - SW
Alex’s model lineup made me think of something: I really wish Saab would brink back the S/SE/Aero/Viggen trim levels instead of basing the name off of the engine and turbo size. Ambiguity is a good thing, it hides the fact that the engine is smaller and draws attention to the fact that it’s powerful and efficient.
I hope the 9-1 has something to match the Volvo C30’s T5 engine? It has the power and torque of a stock Viggen! I must admit that Volvo has changed my opinion of Volvos. Previously the only Volvo I ever liked was the P1800, but the C30 T5 doesn’t look bad. If the 9-1 can encompass that sort of concept in a 3 door hatch with a style reminiscent of a 99 Combi Coupe/9x/9-3x and do it better than the Volvo, it’ll have sold me!
Alex gets so excited that he prematurely hits the post button, I think!
As for the eLSD helping with understeer, that’s also what the ReAxs system was designed to mitigate in the FWD versions of the 9-3. Is Saab admitting that ReAxs isn’t enough?
“Jeff // Feb 1, 2008 at 10:24 am
Alex’s model lineup made me think of something: I really wish Saab would brink back the S/SE/Aero/Viggen trim levels instead of basing the name off of the engine and turbo size. Ambiguity is a good thing, it hides the fact that the engine is smaller and draws attention to the fact that it’s powerful and efficient.”
Yeah, that’s what I was getting at, all of the other European brands base their model names off of the size of their engines, so saab should try to be a bit different.
The S-models would be simple, no frills cars with basic luxuries like leather, heated seats, climate control, etc. Basic transportation, with style.
The SE’s would be well-equipped and sporty but not overly so, fast but not excessively so. The SE’s would be the classic stylish, modern saabs.
The Aeros would be like what the 540i was in the 90’s, an unashamed highway cruiser with great handling chops to back up the speed. They would be fast with 0-60 times between 4.9 and 5.5 seconds with an emphasis on acceleration between 30 and 100 mph.
The Turbo X/viggen/spg/whatever models would be the real technological showcases. They would aim to match the performance of the M3 and M5 but with a fwd/awd based platform and less horsepower. Think of how the turbo X compares to the 335i and that’s the basic premise, cars that are similar on paper but very different in execution.
My comment about the xwd and the elsd that got cut off was that xwd offers more in the way of handling than it does in the way of convenience. It will give saab the ability to make a car that doesn’t just handle well for a fwd car, but handles well in general. This will be huge for saab given that their understeering tendancies is usually the weak point in road tests.
Personally I think that xwd will make such a difference that saab needs to offer it on as many models as possible and play up it’s handling benefits. Point out that it’s not just for convenience, but for sharp, responsive handling too. That’s what the saab ad’s should be focusing on imho.