Normally when there’s a new Saab review out there, I might get one or two emails about it. Over the weekend I think I had close to ten about this one (thanks to everyone). Such is the drawing power of the New York Times and the writing of Ezra Dyer.
Dyer is the hot new property in Automotive writing and rightly so. He’s darn good. And apparently, he owns an old Saab!
This isn’t his finest piece of work. It’s far less emotive than other stuff I’ve seen. But it’s interest for us isn’t in his expression, it’s in his subject – the Saab 9-3 Turbo X. Dyer was at the same event that Eggs n Grits attended in Boston back in May.
Let’s start where we always do – at the finish:
The Saabs of the ’80s and early ’90s became cult hits not because they were offbeat, though they were, but because they had BMW-beating performance to back up the swagger promised by their spoilers and turbo-boost gauges.
The 9000 was good looking and had seats you could spend all day in. It had top-of-the-curve performance delivered in Swedish style, and, 17 years later, I’m glad to say the Turbo X makes that description relevant again.
Yes. This review does a few things to remind us about why we were excited before the Turbo X arrived, and why we were even more excited once it came.
It’s a very good car.
There may be a few automotive jerkalists that still like to bow at the Teutonic altar, but the Turbo X is a genuine step forward for Saab and boasts some serious credentials that are rightly recognised.
I won’t reproduce much more of the article here is it’s not a long one (though it was a long time in the making – a May drive finally put to print in August??) but here’s a couple of favourite parts:
….the fact that I can mention a Saab and an M3 in the same sentence, without that sentence being, “The Saab is drastically inferior to the M3,” constitutes a significant reordering of the European luxury-car pecking order…..
….This car has balance, a poised approach to aggressive cornering that you wouldn’t expect from a Saab, and I say it’s high time for that.
The Turbo X isn’t perfect, but it’s very, very good. I’m really pleased that someone with the profile of Ezra Dyer is writing it up that way. Go hit the link before it gets archived and hard to find.
-
Wait -didn’t the Viggen (also) spank the M3?
Happy Bank Holiday and Picnic Day, Swade! I wish we
had that many holidays here in the USA!
It was in fact an overall positive review.I was disappointed in the lack of “hands-on” driving points made in the writeup.I came away with the distinct impression that this was not a review based on having the car to drive for any extended period of time.The typical Times review is after the writer has had the car for at least a couple of days to drive and live with.This review could have been phoned in.Bottom line though will be that Hundreds of thousands of Times readers now at least know that the car exists! Something at which Saab has failed miserably in accomplishing!
I like the comparison between the 80′s-90′s performance and today’s Turbo X. And it brought to mind something we’ve talked about before and something I’ve had a change of mind about. Back in the 80′s it was okay to have a four cylinder turbo because it could honestly compete with other cars at the time. But now that four cylinders are seemingly maxing out power-wise and mileage-wise, something else had to be added to the line-up. The six cylinder turbo is very nice. And it’s time we admit that a V6 is okay in a SAAB.
Compare SAAB’s engine line-up with Volvo’s in the past few years. In the early 2000′s, Volvos mostly used a 5 cylinder engine. The best they ever did with that was a 300 hp 5 cylinder — the S60 R. Recently they’ve added an I-6 that can get 285 hp and a V8 that gets 311 hp. I’ve never heard a Volvo customer complain about the performance of these engines. They like them better than the smaller ones … except when it comes to fuel economy.
My point is this: If we are going to complain about not being competitive with the BMW 3 series, we’ve got to allow for some non-traditional engines.
I have to disagree, I4 is not maxed out, witness the I4 turbos in various Mitsu Evos.
Granted those are extreme cases with short service intervals, but you can ask many of the I4 Turbo Saab drivers that tuned their car. 300bHP is not a problem for these engines.
If Saab makes a newer version of the B204/234 series, with the aim of new technology like twin scroll turbo/ biturbo setup, and Direct Injection etc, I’, confident they can make a daily use 300bHP+ from 2.3 with longivity.
Saab needs to start working in performance versions of their cars. If they are to be a serious contender to BMW and Audi, then they seriously need to have the top-of-the-line sport models.
Both the new 9-3 and 9-5 should have twin-turbocharged V6s that go north of 400 hp / 500 Nm. Maybe even a twin-turbocharged V8 for the 9-5? Call them svart editions or something.
And before I get schooled about fuel economy and Saab heritage, let me say that having such range-toppers does not prohibit either model from having high performance four cylinder turbos. They would be just that – range toppers to run with the big boys.
I don’t think GM would let SAAB put engines in their cars that would whip GM’s golden boy (i.e. Cadillac). Remember who is supposed to be the BMW-killer under GM’s umbrella. But speaking about that I would not mind have e.g. a supercharged bigger engine in a halo-SAAB. Something that would appeal to the really picky enthusiast driver.
Personally I would rather see the halo Saab models do more with less and still run with the big boys. Rather than a ~400hp turbo or NA V8 in the next-gen 9-5, I’d like to see some sort of twin-turbo DI V6 making that same number.
The same thing goes for the Turbo X and all future top-model 9-3′s, instead of a “meh” low-pressure turbo V6 that manages to combine the turbo lag of a high-pressure engine with the nonexistent top end power of most LPT engines, let’s see Saab go back to pushing the 4-cylinder envelope with a 300hp+ engine. If Mitsubishi and Subaru can sell 300hp 2.0 liter turbo 4′s in their $30k cars, then surely Saab could sell a 320hp 2.3 liter engine in a $45k car. Whether GM would ever let them do something that edgy and attention-worthy is a different story.
Philosophically, I’m with Alex, as I prefer Saab’s traditional efficiency for large displacement engines. That’s one reason I bought a 9-5 Aero. But the Mitsubishi Evo and Subaru WRX STi are different beasts, in a market segment that doesn’t demand as much luxury and refinement as Saab’s. Those, and the conceptually similar Honda Civic Si, are pure performance machines, and a luxury marque couldn’t release an engine with such high NVH. (Believe me, I’d be ready to sign up for a Civic Si otherwise.) So, pending significant development on the four cylinder front, Saab will probably need to offer V6 models for range-topping, high-performance 9-3 and 9-5 variants.
That development is already taking place, as evidenced by Mercedes’s future S-class that was described in AutoWeek a short time ago. Its four cylinder combines elements of gas and diesel, and produces enormous power, torque, and efficiency from modest displacement. It might have an electric motor too. If Mercedes believes such a powerplant could go into an S-class, surely four cylinders can be tamed for any luxury/performance sedan.
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080730/VIDCAST/84840660
I would like to see Saab lead the way in this field.
I used to think a turbo charged V8 would be amazing in a Saab, but after seeing the work done on the Nissan GT-R and it’s turbo’d 6. I now have no doubt in my mind that even the range topping models could be twin-turbo’d 6s.
Talonderiel,
Agree. Recent articles in Motor Trend and Car & Driver indicated Detroit (and some Euro makers) are curbing their V8 production altogether (GM, Ford) for passenger cars, and others who continue with V8s will all be focusing future performance and marketing efforts on highly-efficient, high-output 4- and 6-cylinders. Thank God for this global energy “crisis” if it helps to put the highlight on SAAB’s ethos and their “I-told-you-so” philosophy for the past 40 years.
Ned, I have to disagree on the viability of a Saab 4-cylinder for their range-topping 9-3. Sure, it won’t have the low NVH levels of it’s German and Japanese competition, but Saab really has never been able to compete with those brands on that front since, well ever really. As the latest crop of Saab-branded GM’s have proven, the brand is still unable to compete with the Germans and Japanese at their own game, which means that Saab needs to do it’s own thing a bit more.
Now, by saying that Saab should “do it’s own thing”, I am in no way condoning releasing needlessly sloppy and under-performing halo cars while hiding behind the lame excuse of “responsible performance”. To the contrary, I think that Saab should seek to try and fully compete with the performance of the German and Japanese brands while making a statement about Saab’s rougher-edged rally heritage and most importantly, Saab’s history of doing things differently. That’s where the 4-cylinder “halo” 9-3 comes in.
Rather than following the Germans and Japanese in their “bigger, heavier, more cylinders” war (one that GM will never let Saab truly compete in anyways), the halo model of the downsized next-gen 9-3 should take inspiration from today’s rally-inspired performance cars. Colin Chapman’s “simplify and add lightness” philosophy should be the driving force, and instead of being a bloated, 4000 lb, V8 monster like the current M3, the next-gen 9-3 Turbo X/Viggen/SPG/whatever should be a light and tossable, ~3300 lb car propelled by the most powerful and advanced 4-cylinder engine on the market, the way Saab used to do things. The car should combine the kind of blistering rally-inspired 4-cylinder performance that you’d get in an STI or EVO, and the extra $10-15k premium would get you a more refined ride and the practical but not ostentatious luxury and style that we expect from a Saab.
I bought my 9-5 Aero because of that philosophy, back in 2000 when it was new (and I was in middle school), the 9-5 Aero was the most powerful and most expensive 4-cylinder car on the market, and guess what? They actually sold a good number of them around here, because a certain niche of the market found that combo to be appealing. Sure it wasn’t as refined as an A6 4.2, GS430, or 540i, and the H-engine was far louder and buzzier than the V8 mills in those cars, but the 9-5 Aero was a good 500 lbs lighter than them and could still eat their lunch on the highways. Especially with today’s fuel prices, I think that the market would be especially receptive to a car with so “different” of a design philosophy.
And thanks to things like direct injection, variable valve timing, variable valve lift, variable intakes, and twin-scroll turbos that we have today, that 300-340hp turbo 4 could also be a far, far more livable engine than the rough old B235R.
So there you have my rant about what a performance 9-3 should be, and I can almost guarantee that a car like what I described would be a hit with the press (and more importantly with buyers) in this era of $4-5 a gallon gas.
Alex, I think we completely agree about what Saab should do, i.e., take full advantage of available technology to maximize the efficient four cylinder format, and regain leadership in that field. That’s certainly what I want from Saab, and I’d rather buy a high performance four than a V6. I have no interest in a bloated V8 monster like the M3 or latter-day Audi S4. (The Turbo X actually reminds me of the original twin-turbo V6 S4, which was a classic. But I digress.)
But, having driven the 9-3 Aero and Turbo X, I appreciate why, for now at least, the V6 is a good engine for the lineup. It’s fantastic, and allows the car to compete more effectively with the Acura TL and Infiniti G35, which I’ve also driven. Its massive torque and turbo rush are unmistakably Saab-like, and clearly distinguish the Aero from the Japanese cars. And yet it’s smoother and quieter than the Infiniti engine. Saab did an excellent job with this engine, which has smaller displacement than most competitive V6′s. (The Infiniti is now up to 3.7 litres, and I think the Acura is too.)
Maybe Saab actually had it right in the early days of the 9-5, with the V6 Arc for luxury minded customers, and the turbo four Aero for performance. Mercedes has a similar approach with the new C-class; the “Sport” is almost a separate model, not just an upgrade from a base model.
I do agree that a much lighter rally-inspired version of a 9-3/9-2 with a highly tuned I4 could be a good idea if it would cost around 33k. It could potentially draw a younger generation of enthusiast drivers to SAAB. However, I doubt that this car ever would be the answer to 5$/gallon gas though. Look at the gas mileage of the STi and EVO. Their engines may be a study in efficiency in terms of weight reduction, but definitely not when it comes to gas mileage.