Car and Driver do a quickie on the Turbo X

May 7th, 2008 · 23 Comments

Car and Driver have posted their first drive article on the Saab Turbo X. This is just a short review of the Turbo X rather than a full-on test and it’s a good reminder as to why Car and Driver consistently give me the sh!t$.

The good news is that they barely find any fault with the car at all:

Although the Saab’s front-drive architecture is usually a recipe for understeer, the XWD and the eLSD do an effective job of masking this trait.

For those who didn’t recognise it, that was a compliment. They even go on to pay the ultimate C&D compliment:

Playful oversteer is easily invoked with simple throttle modulation.

Oversteer!! ooooooooh.

On the downside is this:

Turbo X sedans start at $42,510; add $800 for the SportCombi wagon. At those prices, the Turbo X is by no means the deal of the year, especially with faster cars such as the $41,575 BMW 335xi on the market.

Yes, C&D manage yet another BMW reference. Ka-ching! And it’s a flat out description of the BMW being faster (and by implication, better) where recent testing by a former Formula 1 driver in both the Turbo X and the 335xi showed the Bimmer to have a lap time just 0.33 of a second faster in the dry and slower in the wet. It’s got a second rate AWD system and is as ugly as abashed crab. And that price on the BMW is before you even glance at the options list. Did that get a mention? Noooooooo. Mustn’t upset the BMW gods.

Second is the mis-information on XWD equipment. C&D imply that the eLSD will be an option on the 2008 Aero and will be available for all Saab 9-3s on the 2009 model. That’s in direct contradiction to what I’ve been told both via email from Saab Sweden and whilst sitting in a car in Detroit with product manager for Saab USA, John Libbos.

The Turbo X is the only 2008 model with eLSD available, and it’s standard equipment. The 2008 XWD Aero has no option of getting the eLSD as they’re still tuning the system to the Aero’s specific setup. For the US market, the eLSD will most likely be standard with the XWD Aero in 2009. I haven’t heard anything about whether it would be available on the 2.0T when that comes with XWD in 2009, nor if it will be standard or optional if available.

Tossers.

At least they had nothing bad to say about it, which should mean that they’d actually say something good. Not to be. Not yet, at least.

Tags: Road Tests · Saab Black Turbo · Saab Turbo X

23 responses so far ↓

1 Saabrep // May 8, 2008 at 12:14 am

Acording to the 2009 order guide, there is no XWD option on the 2.0. The only XWD is the Aero and it is standard.
2 Vector // May 8, 2008 at 2:22 am

Why is it that Car and Driver always see BMW as this ultimate god of the automobile industry?

Granted, they make good cars, but how can you compare every make and model they make to every other company?

I don’t know about everyone else, but I would buy a Honda or Toyota before I would buy a BMW 3-series (if Saab didn’t exist). The 3’s are just as plentiful and just as crappy.
3 Warren // May 8, 2008 at 2:29 am

Not all american car magazines are displeased with our beloved TurboX:

http://www.motortrend.com/gm/saab/index.html
4 Edonis // May 8, 2008 at 2:38 am

I couldn’t resist the temptation, so I had to write a comment to the article at Car and Driver. I don’t think it matters how good a Saab is, it will never be as good a car as a BMW in C&D’s book. Needless so say, it’s been a very long time since I bought a copy of C&D.
5 jayarekay338 // May 8, 2008 at 3:07 am

Devils Advocate Post #1.

As far as brands as a whole go, I love SAAB, hate BMW. The fact that the general public is certain that just having the Bimmer emblem on the car makes the auto a nice ride disgusts me. I am tired of seeing so many people on the road with 325s stripped versions just so they can have the name….however, looking at the Turbo X as a car(not a saab) and looking at the 335i/xi as a car(not a Bimmer)……..the BMW is a really awesome car. Sorry guys, someone had to say it.
6 Sam // May 8, 2008 at 4:29 am

Did I mention that I let my subscription to Car and Driver lapse? Maybe I didn’t. Anyway, their continual fawning over BMW 3 series was one factor. Another was the comparison tests. All you need to do is tell me which car brands they are comparing, and I could tell you who would win, and pretty much what order they brands would rank without even looking at the article. The latest comparison test that included a BMW 3 series had the whole first page explaining why the fact that they had picked BMWs as the winner since George Washington was a child didn’t mean that BMW would win this comparison. Then BMW won the comparison. Why spend your hard earned money on a magazine when you pretty much already know what they will say?
7 saablance // May 8, 2008 at 5:02 am

Just got off of Edmunds.com and built a 335ix
8 saablance // May 8, 2008 at 5:06 am

sorry…hit the enter button prematurely.
Part 2….comparably equipped 335ix comes out to an M.S.R.P. of $48,470.00. I guess C&D didn’t want to weaken it’s continual BMW bias by going into factual detail!
9 SAAB007 // May 8, 2008 at 5:13 am

That the BMW has one extra turbo and 20 more hp, but beats the Turbo X by a measly .33 seconds is a win for the SAAB in my book. If the Turbo X had 20 more hp (on par with the BMW), then it would be a better comparison.

On paper, I would’ve expected the 335xi to have better performance numbers by virtue of its extra turbo and 20hp advantage over the Turbo X.

SAAB should’ve intro’ed the Turbo X with 300hp….not that 280hp is paltry, mind you…
10 SnoFun // May 8, 2008 at 6:20 am

So, according to the article, the *9-5* will be available in the fall with AWD.

Is this true?
11 Alex // May 8, 2008 at 6:23 am

Remember that the 335i is the SLOWER of the two 335 cars. BMW has and always will be a RWD-based company, and the x-drive system in the 335i is all about winter driveability, not performance. If you want to compare the sporty Turbo X to a sporty 335, compare it to the RWD 335i which is a good deal faster than the 335xi, not to mention being a couple grand cheaper.

Now the Turbo X is a pretty good car, but let’s face it, aside from the Saab badges there’s nothing at all that makes it quantitatively or even qualitatively better than the 3-series and everyone knows that.

It would have been a fantastic car for Saab back in 2003, but for $43k in 2008, it leaves a great deal to be desired.

Now add 40 hp, slash $5k from the price and it would get a great deal more respect.
12 Swade // May 8, 2008 at 9:00 am

Actually, Alex, I think the Turbo X would be a markedly better and more desireable car than anything in the 3-series but for perhaps the M3.

Your premise that we shouldn’t look at the TX in comparison to BMW’s AWD car is rediculous. It’s their AWD car! Apples with apples and all that. If they can’t make their AWD car quicker than their RWD car then does that make Saab look bad, or them?

And I’d love to see your faster RWD car’s time in the wet.

Sorry, cobber. You’re making no sense.
13 rogan2915 // May 8, 2008 at 9:37 am

Yeah, there aren’t really any cars that I can think of in the price range that I’d rather have than a turbo x right now. And that isn’t because of the Saab badge. It’s not really about car x can go 0-60 .000001 seconds faster than car y. It’s about the total package. That’s where this new Saab really deleves.

I was looking back on an old C&D comparo today where the ‘06 9-3 Aero came in 8th out of 8. Funny thing was, they couldn’t really come up with any good reasons for it to be there. One of their biggest complaints was that power was cut near the readline. Seriously, come on. Just shift, idiots!

The other car I’d most want to have in that group was the S60 R, and it came in 7th. Probably next would be the Audi A4 or the Acura TL, and they came in 5th and 4th, respectivley. The Lexus IS350 (ewwww) got second, and I’ll let you take a wild guess who got first.

I guess what I’m getting at here is that Saab is awesome and C&D sucks.
14 rogan2915 // May 8, 2008 at 9:42 am

Oh, and if that’s not enough… look at the image for this 330i long term test.

And there usual don’t hate us for being BMW fanboys speach…..
15 turbin // May 8, 2008 at 10:08 am

Alex,

I agree with Swade, in the Jalopnik dry track test the M3 soundly thrashed the Turbo X but the 335xi had a fraction of a second on the Turbo-X. Yes I’m sure the 335i would have increased the gap and it would be to do with the straightline acceleration more than the cornering.

In the wet the M3 bested the Turbo-X by 0.1 of a second and the 335xi was further down the list. This says something about the 335xi winter driveability. The 335i would have been way off the pace.

The Turbo X sounds like a brilliant all-rounder to me. Will drive one soon enough, let you know.
16 Alex // May 8, 2008 at 11:01 am

I want to see how it does in an independent test that wasn’t set up by Saab. With the right track, tires, and conditions I could probably rig a PR test where my 9-5 beats a GTR.

My point with the 335i versus the 335xi is that it’s all about the intention of the model. The Turbo X is meant to be the sportiest of the 9-3’s, and likewise the 335i is meant to be the sportiest 3-series. Sure one is AWD and one is RWD, but they are both built with the same thing in mind. Now as far as I’m concerned, a fairer match against the 335xi would be the regular Aero XWD.
17 turbin // May 8, 2008 at 11:18 am

Well Alex there will only ever be one way to settle this impasse, The Stig. Would be great if he could do both wet and dry times.
18 MarkS // May 8, 2008 at 11:29 am

I wouldn’t expect a rag like Car & Driver to mention this, but the Saab 9-3’s build quality is far ahead of the BMW’s. You can quibble all you want about how the switches and buttons on the dash feel, but underneath these superficialities the Saab 9-3 is one of the most solid and one of the safest cars ever built. This may not be important to the people at Car & Driver, but it certainly is important to many consumers and deserves to be talked about. My “qualitative” analysis of the two cars would certainly include this factor, and I’d place the Saab far ahead of any BMW as a result.
19 Alex // May 8, 2008 at 11:40 am

Turbin, I am waiting and drooling for the Turbo X stig review, and given Saab’s boasting about it’s in the wet abilities a wet/dry time would be a no-brainer for Top Gear.
20 Beren Erchamion // May 8, 2008 at 12:09 pm

A comparably equipped BMW is about 47-49K. I agree with other people - C&D is paid to make BMW look good. They’re not going to undercut a major advertiser.
21 NJ_Nick // May 8, 2008 at 12:33 pm

You would have a hard time finding any MY2008 335i under 47k here in the US. Want all bells & whistle’s in the car? Bring the big wallet - you are looking at something close to 60 grand….

I am not a big fan of BMW, but I have to say it’s a great car with a very impressive drivetrain that SAAB could take a couple of cues from for the next gen 9-3’s nad 9-5’s (i.e. DI, twin turbo). But then again, it should be for the price….
22 Swade // May 8, 2008 at 1:10 pm

You’re still not making sense, Alex.

Saab are promoting XWD as a safety thing as much as a performance thing. That’s why they demonstrated it mainly on ice as well as a smaller program on a track. We carry on about performance here because we’re a bunch of meat-heads, but it’s every bit a safety and condition-levelling thing as BMW’s system is. But more advanced.

As to the 335xi vs the Aero, what’s the huge difference going to be there? The main difference mechanically between the full XWD Aero and the Turbo X is the removal of torque limitation in lower gears. Is that where you figure the Turbo X turned in a good lap time? When the Aero comes then it’ll just mean Saab had 2 cars capable of pushing BMW’s AWD car equipped with the engine of the year.

I’d happily pit the Turbo X against a 335i in the wet as well as the dry and see who comes out on top on aggregate. It’d be pointless, but interesting nonetheless.

Your distrust of the conditions of the test, when the results were reported independantly, and you stubborn refusal to concede that this could actually be a really freaking good car do your more considered comments a disservice.

I’ve driven both a 335i convertible and a full-XWD equipped Saab and I’d be quite happy to take the Saab home and pocket the leftover A$30-$40K. The 335 is a great car and it really is a superb engine, but I wouldn’t lose a second’s sleep over a choice like that.
23 PT // May 8, 2008 at 5:53 pm

I like SAAB & I like BMW too. The modern BMW image is hard to take but the cars remain pretty good and mostly dirver-focussed. If there are serious comparisons being done between flagship Saabs & flagship BMWs, that alone is a good thing in my view. The cars are being taken seriously. They are an entirely different proposition to each other and will represent this to different dirvers/buyers.

I understand the intricacies of your point Alex, but it really is a situation better taken from a wider point of view. These two are brilliant cars which both come in sedan and wagon form - a nice synergy. Either one would be a pleasure to own but, like Swade, I’ll take the Swedish one if asked.

I wonder if anyone will do a Subaru GT or Audi S4 comparo? Or all four at once?