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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.