25 responses so far ↓

• 1 eggsngrits // Apr 4, 2008 at 11:21 pm

  Dame Edna 9-5 = great in my opinion.

  Cam? Boxer? Death Trap? The hint eludes me.

  Swade: Nothing good can come from this Alfa fixation. Just find a Sonett and let nature take its course.

• 2 Joe Meek // Apr 4, 2008 at 11:36 pm

  Thank GOD for Bluetooth! I was riding around in my friends ‘07 Nissa Versa (MSPR $16K) all the while he was giving voice commands for his phone and audio system, talking hands-free, accessing contacts, etc. via the car’s Bluetooth system. Didn’t even want to be drop off in my technologically inferior ‘07 9-5 Aero SportCombi (MSRP $43,795).

• 3 zippy // Apr 5, 2008 at 12:20 am

  Did somebody say 2.0T with XWD and Bluetooth?

• 4 Dan // Apr 5, 2008 at 12:29 am

  I wonder if the XWD 2.0T will get a power boost seeing as the V6 XWD Aero did.
  Im thinking in the ballpark of 230 horsepower to help offset the weight addition, and it won’t intrude on the fwd aero in terms of power at that level.

• 5 joemama // Apr 5, 2008 at 2:42 am

  Zippy – yup, sounds like it’s going to happen! XWD and bluetooth – that’s what people want!

  Swade – Any more specifics on the bluetooth? When you say 2009 do you mean MY09 or in 2009 as a MY10?

  It’s it’s MY09 I’m sure it can be retrofitted in older cars as GM wouldn’t change the stereo/wiring until the redesigned 9-3 comes out.

• 6 mo // Apr 5, 2008 at 4:09 am

  eggngrits, i totally agree with you. the 9-5 is one of the most distinctive saabs at this time. on the road it looks nothing like anything else.

• 7 Matt // Apr 5, 2008 at 4:38 am

  DAN,

  I agree, there needs to be a boost in power on the 2.0T. Audi is boosting its MY09 A4. Saab’s current 2.0T has been around for ages (in the car world) with no improvements in power. It shocks me that a DI 2.0T is not a lock for ‘09, while many other competitors have already gone that route.

  If they can put a 2.0T with DI into a Chevy and have it produce 260hp and 260lbs of torque, why the hell can’t they put it in the Saab? Better performance with comparable if not better fuel economy….

• 8 mo // Apr 5, 2008 at 6:00 am

  because that 2.0T will overshadow the aero 2.8.

• 9 Bernard // Apr 5, 2008 at 6:44 am

  Who cares if the 2.0T overshadows the 2.8?
  Saab’s been telling us for the past 30 years that small turbocharged 4 cylinder engines are better than larger engines, and now they won’t release their best 4 cylinder turbocharged engine because it’s better than a 6?

  Come on Saab, it’s time you ate your own dog food. Your credibility depends on it.

• 10 mo // Apr 5, 2008 at 6:51 am

  i feel the same way, i always wanted the 2.3T 9-5 engine in the 9-3 as an aero to. logically if they put the 2.0T with 260 in the base the non xwd aero will have to have the 280 engine, and the xwd would have to have 300. really thats how it should be but that means they would have to up power in all of their engines.

  if i was buying an aero i would be pretty pissed that i am buying a car with a bigger engine and paying more for it but gets less hp. it just would be unfair to the consumer to get a less powerful car when they are paying for one.

• 11 Charles // Apr 5, 2008 at 7:07 am

  What really makes no sense, is why isn’t Saab using the turbo’d 2.0 that is now in the Solstice GXP/SKy RL (RWD), but now its in the HRR SS and Cobalt SS which are both FWD.

  And Saab isn’t getting it because?

• 12 Charles // Apr 5, 2008 at 7:08 am

  Duh, the engine is rated at 260hp. Forgot to mention that haha

• 13 Matt // Apr 5, 2008 at 7:15 am

  Mo,

  So by that logic, are all Saab owners getting the shaft because the Cobalt SS is getting 260hp and is less expensive than a 9-3 or 9-5? Or what about the new G8 that gets 300+hp and is less than $30k?

  The bottom line is the fact that Saab has not increased the 210hp since its introduction is insulting. Look at the progression in HP that the 9-5 has had throughout its years.

  I am not craving more HP for the sake of it, but there are clear ways to increase the power and keep or improve the fuel economy. This is what I call responsible performance.

• 14 Bernard // Apr 5, 2008 at 8:16 am

  In related news, Mercedes is going to offer their C-class with a supercharged 1.4…

  Soud familiar? Saab is promising and someone else is delivering.

• 15 mo // Apr 5, 2008 at 11:08 am

  matt i understand, i am also very angry and confused at having less hp than a chevy. im just trying to give a perspective from the saab side. we are getting shafted but ever since the 2.8 v6 came out the idea of a 260hp 2.0 is hard to imagine for saab or gm or whoever is calling the shots. they should be using the 2.0T in all applications of the 9-3. it should be 210 for the base currently, 260 for the aero, and 300 for the xwd aero. the 2.8 is giving bad mpg at 15/24 and the 2.0T would make that much better.

• 16 Charles // Apr 5, 2008 at 2:34 pm

  I can see the 2.8 disappearing. Who else uses it? I know the non turbo’d version was used in the 1st generation CTS, but no longer.

• 17 Talonderiel // Apr 5, 2008 at 3:09 pm

  Charles, I agree… I have a feeling we’ll be seeing a Variant of the 3.6L, that resides in the CTS/STS, in the next gen 9-3 and 9-5 …

  Prolly something like 3.2L for the 9-3 and the 3.6L for the 9-5… of course, both turbo’d if not twin-turbo’d …. Hell, the 3.8L V6 in my 98 Buick LeSabre is pretty powerful, I’d love to see the 3800 series II engines twin-turbo charged and with the VVT/DI tech

• 18 mo // Apr 5, 2008 at 3:18 pm

  charles so far the only cars that use the 2.8 turbo are the Cadillac BLS ,Opel Vectra,Opel Signum, and Saab 9-3.

• 19 mo // Apr 5, 2008 at 3:24 pm

  talonderiel sorry to tell you that the 3.8 V6 is about to be chopped or already is. Ive forgot but either this is its last year or last year was. My family loved that engine as it powered many of our cars, awesome reliability and pretty good mileage. I dont they should use the 3.2 – that engine always had problems in its life. the 3.6 engine imo should be used in at least in the 9-5, which we have had two cars with is a very nice engine, gets good mileage and good power, a great replacement for the 3.8.

• 20 PT // Apr 5, 2008 at 8:55 pm

  From my limited perspective,at Its hard to see the Saab 2.8 V6 going. Apart from the fact that Sasb keep their engines for a long, long time, this engine is key to a lot of Saab engines and also external sales (Alfa Romeo for one). Its block is apparently quite variable and allows for a lot of different configs. It runs as a 3.+ litre in Holden Commodores here in Australia for instance. Relative to the Saab this is a low- spec engine BTW.

  Anyway, I reckon that the General has got to squeeze every cent out of every singel investment so the 2.8 in some form is gunna be hanging around .

• 21 Dan // Apr 6, 2008 at 12:29 am

  I agree, the 2.8 V6 will be around for some time.

• 22 Scott // Apr 6, 2008 at 12:59 am

  $22,995.00 is what the Chevy Cobalt Coupe SS costs…I just don’t see how GM could do this to Saab. Who would have thought that the Caviler’s replacement would be able to beat a Saab…Frustrating especially when you own one…

• 23 Robert L // Apr 6, 2008 at 9:47 am

  I still like the 93 SC 2.0T FWD 6 speed as is, just waiting for the EDP is become active so I can start planning my trip.

• 24 LP // Apr 6, 2008 at 12:45 pm

  2.0T with XWD, Bluetooth and European delivery for 2009 are great news. Good enough, in fact, that I won’t go into a tirade about how it should have come years ago. (Sorry, couldn’t help myself.)

  Thank you for the update. Much appreciated!

• 25 Bruce // Apr 6, 2008 at 1:57 pm

  I like the “Dame Edna” nickname for the current 9-5 . . . at many levels. The good news: When we pull up in parking people often comment on the good looks. The bad news: Then they ask what kind of car it is. We should be optimistic, however; the General does seem to be getting its bread-and-butter cars up to a much higher standard, and the fact that a Cobalt or HHR as the hp of my 9-5 does not bother me in the least. And Swade, ENG is right–get that old Alfa out of your dreams and spend your fun time driving rather than fixing. My 1971 1750 Spider Veloce (bought new) was tremendous fun for the 50% of the time when it actually ran. Otherwise it was an electrically tempermental rustbucket in the 7 years I owned it.