Comments

• Baracuda said:
  

  It seems to be the 2.0T from the 9-3?
  Motoreffekt: 209,0!?

  -June 20th, 2008 at 7:35 am
• Ronald said:
  

  YAY!

  we get the 2.0T

  OMG someone at GM has been listening!

  Its time for a party

  P.S.- Not jumping the gun, but it makes sense for us to be getting it if they ARE testing it and all.

  hey, do you think that they will boost it to 260 (the way it shoulda been done in the first place…) like on the Sky and Solstice?

  …And what was the dispacement again on the 9-4x concept? 2.0 right? with the 300hp.

  oh happy days (oh happy daaaayzzz)

  -June 20th, 2008 at 8:00 am
• swade (Author) said:
  

  Don’t want to rain on your parade, Ronald, but I have to reiterate that the info I’ve seen, which is really authoratative stuff, states that there’ll be six cylinders only in the US. Non-turbo in the base model and turbo V6 in the aero.

  I’ll be happy if this was preliminary info only as I believe the 4 should come just like you do, but that’s the info I got and it’s very, very solid.

  -June 20th, 2008 at 8:42 am
• Tim said:
  

  The 209 is in kilowatts, so that means that this baby has 280 hp. The color is white, normal weight is 2180 kg, standard wheels are 18 inch, and it is not stated that this engine has 2 liters… this is not mentioned…

  -June 20th, 2008 at 9:06 am
• MarkoA said:
  

  “Skattevikt, kg: 2180″

  That´s bit on the heavy side, ay? That´s 100kg more than 3 liter petrol X5. No need to ask where it needs all that fuel..

  2.0T version sounds promising. Also 2 liter diesel should be allright. I wonder if those front seats from spyshots are from production version? They look like some aftermarket seats.

  Still I tend to think that this car is too large, considering that it will not offer more room inside than 9-5. But I try to understand that it really needs to be of that size to make it in US market.

  If some of you have ever really compared BM X3 and X5, you know what I mean saying that it doesnt have to be that large. X3 for example has more luggage space than original X5, though it´s quite much smaller car.

  -June 20th, 2008 at 9:07 am
• turbin said:
  

  Friggin heavy, 2180kg!!

  -June 20th, 2008 at 9:08 am
• swade (Author) said:
  

  Thanks Tim. That 280hp would indicate that it’s got the Aero V6 engine in it, though the production version is slated to go at 300hp so this one’s probably just at 9-3 tuning.

  Interesting stuff.

  -June 20th, 2008 at 9:13 am
• MarkoA said:
  

  Those seats seem to be Recaro´s. I wish they´d remain as a option for production model too. But guess not?!

  -June 20th, 2008 at 9:16 am
• Greg Abbott said:
  

  I find it depressing that there are McDonald’s in Sweden. Intellectually I know they are everywhere, but when faced with the reality of globalization I regret the creeping homogeneity.

  -June 20th, 2008 at 9:22 am
• MarkoA said:
  

  I had to watch again all those 9-4x videos from saab.com. I hate to say this, but when I wrote here that I´ll never buy Saab SUV made in Mexico I may have made (likely!) a fool out of myself. It´s almost a rule that I if say never about something, I´ll do it in few years of time. So, maybe my never is just shorter perioid
  What I´m trying to say is that when I´ll see this 9-4x in person it might make a world of difference. If it would have nice functional interior (space) and efficient engine (2.0TiD) I may even like that car. I drive a lot through norhtern Finland in mid-winter time. You bet, I´m waiting to get 4wd car, and more road clearance would be good too. I love Saabs. So…
  Who knows.

  Never say never again

  -June 20th, 2008 at 9:38 am
• WillyD said:
  

  I’m getting more excited about this too. I’m hoping the taillights in the photo above won’t stay. They remind me of the Trailblazer’s rear lights, and those are looking dated.

  So with respect to the diesel… will it be available in the U.S.???

  -June 20th, 2008 at 11:12 am
• Swade said:
  

  Unfortunately not, WillyD. Apparently even the new V6 diesel they’re bringing out isn’t US-compliant as far as we know and will be Euro-focused. Crazy.

  -June 20th, 2008 at 11:28 am
• WillyD said:
  

  Thanks Swade, and it is crazy. IMHO great diesel power/torque + great mileage + new 9-4X & 9-5 models (finally!) = SALES. Just doesn’t make sense.

  -June 20th, 2008 at 11:45 am
• WillyD said:
  

  So we’ll be left with great new models that avg 16 mpg. I just don’t think it will help win over the fence-sitters thinking about a Saab, but who have a whole lot of other options. I’ll stop now!

  -June 20th, 2008 at 11:53 am
• joemama said:
  

  Fence sitters about Saab? With 16MPG they won’t even be on the fence! GM better get smart real soon or this baby will sell even worse than the 9-7x…oh wait…9-5.

  -June 20th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
• Kroum said:
  

  Don’t write off the U.S. version of the 9-4X yet just because it’s gonna carry a six cylinder engine as its base. A four banger makes perfect sense for Europe, yes, but people looking for an SUV with awesome fuel-efficiency combined with utility are not likely to be considering a Saab anyhow.

  Most premium cross-overs I see on the streets of Toronto are V6 or V8s. All those folks driving around in their FX45s or 4.4 litre X5’s seem to dive two damns about fuel prices. Remember, this will compete with the BMW, MB and Audi cute-utes, not the CRV or the RAV4.

  -June 20th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
• cdp88 said:
  

  I wish we had cute utes in Australia. Instead we have compact 4WDs.

  -June 20th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
• NineTwoX said:
  

  Swade - Isn’t the new 2.9L V6 diesel engine destined for the Cadillac CTS? That stills holds promise that we may see this engine in North America. For the expense it would add to the vehicle, it may only end up in the GM’s premium vehicles and hopefully Saab has a shot.

  WillyD the 3.0L V6 in the 9-4X will get better gas mileage than 16mpg. V6s in SUVs aren’t any worse off than a 2.0T (Audi’s Q3, VW Tigaun). Besides, those people who are that concerned about fuel economy will be looking for a hybrid option.

  Anyways, if you look at premium SUV/CUV market, the majority of the vehicles come with a 6cyl. For instance BMW X3, Infiniti EX35, Lexus RX350, and Volvo XC60 all come with a 6 cyl engine and those are Saab’s direct competition.

  I don’t honestly see how GM is botching this up. IMO, all the neigh-sayers seem to not be potential SUV buyers.

  -June 20th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
• Nico said:
  

  Hi Swade,

  Really good to see that you still post, as I enjoy the updates.

  Now back to this spotted “9-4x”. Either the camouflage is really good, or the rear is nothing like the concept. Especially in the picture above, the rear lights don’t resemble the concept. I have pulled those pictures up, and I am loving the concept more and more. In one of my previous comments, I mentioned that I thought this 9-4x feels “large”, and I must say, this picture is not taking away that feeling. Nor the previous drive-thru ones.

  Also back when we first saw the concept, I defended the front line/hood. After seeing the 9-4x and the 9-1x next to eachother, I sincerly hope they incorporate the 9-1x front in all near future Saabs, as I think it looks amazing.

  Thanks,
  Nico

  -June 20th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
• Joel said:
  

  I REALLY hope Saab brings back a similar taillight design as seen on the concept. They looked amazing.

  -June 20th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
• wilfried said:
  

  The rear looks like coming straight from the fat 9-7X. Must be the masking tape and the rear lights that give me this impression.
  I still believe saab has to come with something more adequate as an answer towards rising energy prices. Low weight, high stiffness, I call it the lotus route, a bit like the Lotus APX-prototype.
  I wish next saab combines those features with bioethanol, xwd and all safety virtues.
  Otherwise customers can just choose it from the endless list of suv’s that already exists. Where is the innovation ? Where is the difference ?
  (Though I liked the shape & styling from the 9-4X prototype and most customers decide the purchase upon these factors).

  -June 20th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
• wilfried said:
  

  Swade, I’m afraid just by writing it on your blog, the McSaab is already estabished as a name. From now on it risks to be called liked that.

  -June 20th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
• cd138 said:
  

  I don’t know how will the 9-4x compete with cars like the bmw x3 and audi q5, since those cars are 4,6m long. 9-4x is even bigger than some of the full size SUVs (x5, ml, xc90).

  -June 20th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
• ck1x said:
  

  Why do people keep talking about the aesthetics of the car, it’s just out for testing people! It doesn’t have all the finished Fit & Trim on or in the car for that matter. You don’t need to put the Bells and Whistle on to find out if the drive-train is working properly. On top of that it helps camouflage what’s final in the cars design element. From the concept model, you would be able to spot those tail lamps and headlamps out of any line-up. So why would you put them on a test production run car if that’s not your concerns at the moment in this stage of its development.

  -June 20th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
• ck1x said:
  

  Oh by the way, It is pretty heavy… Why is it so heavy? It is suppose to be a CUV right!

  -June 20th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
• ctm said:
  

  In case of a passenger car, “Skattevikt” means the weight of the car ready do drive. That includes all fluids, spare tyre, spare tools, and the driver. It’s still a bit high, but since it is a test vehicle it is not the same as the final product.

  -June 20th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
• johnk said:
  

  Kroum and NineTwoX, I think the statistics will show that all those buyers of the X5, FX45, RX350 etc made their purchases BEFORE $4.25 per gallon gas. They made them when gas was $2.50 to $3.25 per gallon. My hunch is that considerably less people are many buying them now (I could be wrong).

  In my opinion we have entered a new paradigm with gas heading towards $5/gallon. MPG has become THE performance statistic that buyers will look at. Yes, buyers will still gravitate towards the general type/class of car that they want, but MPG will be a deal maker/breaker. I think the 9-4X had (has?) a real opportunity to win some business with a fuel efficient 4 cyl.

  -June 20th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
• edusaab said:
  

  Taking a look at the measures I am a little confused. This 9-4x is to compete with the GLK, X3, Q5, Tiguan and similar or the ML, X5, Q7 and so.

  The wheight and measures are similar to a ML, X5 instead of the X3 and GLK.

  regards

  -June 21st, 2008 at 12:10 am
• Bernard said:
  

  Anyone else notice how the specs almost exactly match those for the 9-7x?
  This is a 9-7x mule and not a 9-4x.

  -June 21st, 2008 at 12:25 am
• NineTwoX said:
  

  JohnK - SUV & fuel efficiency do not go hand in hand, even if you use a 4cylinder engine with FWD. It’s just the nature of the beast called the SUV.

  Lets take a look at some 4cylinder SUVs on the market:

  Honda CR-V (2.4L FWD) - 20/27mpg
  Toyota Rav-4 (2.4L FWD) - 21/27mpg
  Saturn Vue (2.4L FWD) - 19/26mpg

  Those listed are only entry level SUVs.

  Now, lets take a look at some premium 4cyl options:

  Acura RDX (2.3T AWD) - 17/22mpg
  VW Tiguan (2.0T FWD) - 19/26mpg

  Hardly any better than any of the 6cylinder options I have previously listed.

  The only way the 9-4X could offer something that is appealing to fuel concious buyers is through a hybrid model, a plug-in hybrid model, or a diesel option.

  The people in the market for a premium compact SUV still have expectations. It may not be similiar to our expectations of the 9-4X but Saab does have to sell this SUV at the end of the day. If that means putting a V6 engine in there, so be it.

  Keep in mind that we do not know the specifications of this 3.0L V6. It may have DI(highly likely since it’s going into the CTS/BRX), cylinder de-activation, and a 6spd transmission.

  -June 21st, 2008 at 12:54 am
• johnk said:
  

  NineTwoX, fair enough. We can only guess, but I submit that the difference between 15/21 mpg (2008 BMW X5) and 19/26 mpg (approx numbers on 4 cyl SUV’s) is significant enough to sway some buyers in today’s world.

  Now maybe 19/26 mpg is not achievable on a 4 cyl 9-4x because is it too big. And that’s the screw-up in my view. They should have made it smaller and lighter.

  -June 21st, 2008 at 1:25 am
• Kroum said:
  

  John, I know a few people who bought X5’s and Range Rovers in the past two months. What I was trying to say is that when you spend so much money on a gas guzzler, you really don’t care if you’re also going to spend one or two hundred extra at the pump.

  In our society obsessed with conspicuous consumption, it will probably be considered cool to drive an expensive premium brand SUV when gas prices are so high. And honestly, some of the CUVs mentioned, incl. the 9-4X, will likely get better mileage than many of the premium cars on the market.

  Edusaab - I believe the 9-4X will compete with both CUVs and full-scale SUVs. An X5 for the price of an X3. I think this is in line with Saab’s philosophy of “rightsizing”.

  -June 21st, 2008 at 1:39 am
• johnk said:
  

  This is where we differ. I’m sensing some significant lack of confidence from the American consumer these days. I’m not sensing a desire to be “cool.” And I feel like it will get worse. You can’t even trade in your SUV at dealerships right now. They won’t take ‘em.

  -June 21st, 2008 at 1:54 am
• NineTwoX said:
  

  JohnK - I am glad that Saab didn’t make this 9-4X any smaller because this allows for a 9-3X to exist in Saab’s line-up should they ever make one.

  -June 21st, 2008 at 2:03 am
• edusaab said:
  

  I checked the measures and the Concept is 4776mm long, 2814mm between axles, 2080mm width.

  Long is similar to an ML and little smaller than an X5. For me this 9-4x is more a substitute of an 9-7x.

  But the engine choices as you said is more like to compete with X3, GLK and middle size SUV.

  regards

  -June 21st, 2008 at 5:08 pm

Trackbacks

There are no trackbacks