There’s been an interesting discussion taking place in the BBTH Halloween entry for the last few days about the place of the 9-3 Sport Sedan in Saab’s history book. I think some of the criticism is accurate and some of it’s a bit rough. So let’s talk about it….
The main point of criticism with the car is that it’s not “Saaby” enough to some. It doesn’t have a hatch and has a comparatively generic GM-based engine. A few described it as being a future candidate for the label as “the worst Saab ever” with the disclaimer that the 9-7x and 9-2x don’t count as they weren’t ground-up Saab designed vehicles.
So what’s the story?
Well, from my point of view, I think the 9-3 is compromised somewhat but I don’t hold the car, nor the designers at fault for that.
The Saab 9-3 has been described as missing that certain panache that made Saab’s so distinct in earlier years and I can certainly see whare that comment comes from. Saab’s iconic designs are the hatches of the late 20th century. The sporting looks, combined with the comfort, space and versatility offered by the hatch layout were an outstanding success for Saab and they built a very loyal following on the back of it.
The decision to release the 9-3 with only a sedan version and bring the Combi version much later wasn’t great a great one, especially as Swedes love their wagons so much. I’m sure the home market suffered much lower sales than it could have if the wagon had emerged at the same time as the sedan instead of coming some two-and-a-bit years later.
But let’s be certain of one thing: the fault there lay with Saab, and Saab alone.
I’ve spoken to people who were working there at the time and they assure me that when the 9-3 model range was conceived, it was a full range. This included the sedan, combi, convertible, as well as either a coupe or a hatch version of the car.
If you’re fairly new to Saab, you may not know that Saabs expenditure got way out of control around this time. The corporate owner, GM, had laid off Saab to a large extent but when they finally noticed the degree to which their Swedish subsidiary was bleeding money, they went hands-on in a big way. An added complication was the fact that Saab engineered the 9-3 in such a way that the car couldn’t be built anywhere other than Saab’s factory in Trollhattan, an much of technology that Saab employed in this car could only be used in the 9-3 (the fibre-optic system, for example).
As a consequence, GM called a halt to model development and suspended all variations of the Saab 9-3 other than the existing sedan and convertible and soon-tom-come SportCombi version.
It’s not the outcome we would have liked, but it’s how it played out. Saab’s head honcho in Sweden at the time, Peter Augustsson, resigned his position as a result and weve Jan-Ake Jonsson in charge ever since. Saab have reduced their costs by around 33% since 2005 and it’s only because of this that they’ll continue to have a presence in vehicle manufacturing into the future.
So if you like the prospects of a Saab being built in Sweden in years to come, you’ve got the restraint of the 9-3 program to thank for it.
——
In objective terms, some could make the argument for the current Saab 9-3 being described as the best Saab ever.
* It’s definitely the safest Saab ever, having earned multiple top safety awards all around the world. The 9-3 range employ more passive and active safety features than any Saab that’s come before it.
* It’ll probably prove to be one of the most reliable Saabs ever. Whilst there were early problems with interior parts and electronics, these were ironed out eventually and I think that once the data plays out, it’ll show 2004 or 2005-onwards model years were pretty solid.
* It’s got the most dynamic chassis ever in a Saab. 9-5 owners might want to disagree here, but I’ve spoken to several engineers and test drivers about this over the last few years. The 9-5 is a great driver’s car, but the 9-3 has a significantly higher potential for development. In many ways, the 9-3 has been held back by the 9-5′s need to be the top of the tree, a position which only changed in 2008 when the Turbo X topped the 9-5 for horsepower.
* It’s got the best interior in a Saab. Ok, it hasn’t.
——
And that leads us to those subjective things, which are probably the building blocks for any arguments against the 9-3.
The lack of Saabiness – This is an argument based mostly around the body style. As explained above, the restriction of body styles is a problem that Saab largely brought upon themselves. The sedan was the hot sector of the market at the time the car was being developed, so it was a no-brainer to bring that first. The fact that it wasn’t accompanied straight away by cars that purists might consider more Saaby is something we’ll have to live with in the hope that it’ll be remedied in future models.
This certainly doesn’t render the 9-3 as unSaaby, however. The car is still a great looking machine and I think future Saab museum-like timelines will show the design fits very well in historical context. The 2008 iteration of the car is suffering not from a lack of design ethos, quality or appeal (it’s subjective, I know) but more from a lack of support in terms of pricing and marketing structures.
This is a great car. I’d love one.
The lack of Swedishness – I think GM are still finding their feet with Saab. Where Saab used to design cars for the Swedish market and then find niches and success elsewhere in the world, the 9-3 was largely built with the US and Western European markets in mind. I think this will still be GM’s future mindset when it comes to Saab development, but I think they’ve learned a lesson from the 9-3 that they won’t soon forget.
The 9-3 sedan is certainly the most generic of the ground-up Saabs, but it’s still a very sophisticated car that doesn’t show it’s full colors until you drive one for a while. It still has the Saab-ish virtues of driver comfort, safety, ergonomics and power-when-you-need-it, it’s just that these virtues aren’t wrapped in as much of a distinctive package as some earlier cars.
The other thing to note about Swedishness is that Saabs are going to be designed and built in places other than Sweden from now on. That’s just a fact. The input of Swedish-trained and inspired people is going to be somewhat limited as time goes on. Engines will no longer be designed and built exclusively in Sweden. This is also a fact. There will still be input from Saab-trained designers and engineers, but it’s a fact of business today that Saab is part of a global company and will receive input from various sources around the world.
We, the people, have to press GM on the fact that Saab are a unique brand with a unique identity and hold them to that in the best interests of keeping the Saab identity alive. We, the market, will keep GM accountable for that and Saab, the brand, will suffer if the corporates don’t recognise this.
The interior – If I’ve got one major bugaboo with this car, it’s the interior. A car’s interior is really important to me as it’s where you spend the most time. The 2008 Saab 9-3 interior is vastly improved in NVH terms, but still lacks some of the ‘feel’ of a Saab interior.
The seats are still magnificent. The controls are still in the right places (with the exception of the power window switches, which should be centered instead of on the doors). The visibility is still good and the road feel is still fantastic.
But there’s still something missing. Maybe it’s the dark/light room theming? Maybe it’s the lack of luxurious materials in the dashboard area?
I think a certain amount of it has to do with the dashboard layout: the button dash vs the more generic 2007-onwards dash. The button dash lended a degree of visual richness and sophistaction that’s been lost since it was cast aside at the end of 2006.
——
Conclusion
I think we’re all looking for better things to come from Saab in the future. There’s no doubt that Saab has suffered from a lack of a clear identity in the last few years. Slow model development might have been OK prior to the rise of the internet, but nowadays people expect things to move faster than that. GM have let Saab get caught napping to a large extent.
But don’t let that derail your thinking, especially when it comes to the quality of the Saab 9-3. The design polarises people to some degree, as great designs should. It has great powerplants, great dynamics and great owner amenity.
Are Saab positioning and pricing it correctly? Maybe, but I suspect the current positioning has more to do with next year’s new 9-5.
But make no mistake: this is a great car to drive and I’m sure owners will suggest that it’s a great car to live with.
-
Stand back and look at a 9-3SS from a three quarter angle from the rear….its stunningly beautiful! Its the way the bodywork flares out ever so slightly over the rear wheels. I have had mine (a 2004 Arc) for 2-1/2 months now and whenever I get out of the car I cant help but look back at her – I say her as its a feminine design, IMO but my partner thinks otherwise – and think how beautiful the car really is. The interior is pure Saab and I think Saab made a boo-boo changing it for that simplified design in 07. Yes it has a ton of buttons, yes those buttons peel but it all works very well once you spend a bit of time in the car (anyone know how to get the fan to stop blowing hurricane force winds as me when I start her up?). The seats are comfy as hell and my sore back appreciates the heaters too. The ride around Vancouvers pot holed streets is far from perfect but it smooths out beautifully on the highway or any decent road surface. Its Jeckyl-and-Hyde engine is amazing with its high-output turbo but even more amazing is the 40mpg I get on a long run on the highway. NOTE TO SAAB HQ, NEVER, EVER, EVER GET RID OF THE TURBO….ITS SO SAAB!!! Lastly, with the 17″ Vector wheels the car handles like a dream, I zip round a highway offramp at between 60-70kph (40-45mph) when I am not stuck behind some doofus doing half that speed. The steering could do with a bit more feel but it most certainly does not affect the handling. It may not be as iconic as a 1987 900 T16S (SPG to us North Americans) but it deserves its place in Saab history as one heckuva beauty!!!!!
I completely concur. I have loved Saabs since I was a kid and after comparison shopping the market for a car this year, I chose the 2008 9-3. The first Saab I had the pleasure to drive was a friend’s old 900 Turbo and the experiences I had driving that car still define Saab driving for me. Not being a mechanic, I definitely wanted a new car rather than a used project car, so I went with the 2008 iteration.
Do I have misgivings about the 2008 iteration when it comes to “Saabiness?” Sure. The interior doesn’t feel the same. I really liked the old Saabs for their reassuringly stiff leathers and somewhat cramped quarters. And I seriously wish that the current sedan models would have a bloody hatchback.
But what do I like about the current 9-3 and why did I ultimately pick one up? It’s a great-driving car, it’s a wonderful long-distance touring car, it’s fuel efficient. The handling is a thing of beauty. It’s a very safe car. It’s not a stinking beemer; it’s understated. And when I get the old urge, I can burn past the rice-burners with their absurd mufflers and bad spoilers.
One of the things I found most fascinating about Saabs in the 80s and 90s is that they were wolves in sheep’s clothing. The 9-3 is still a wolf in sheep’s clothing as far as I’m concerned. And while it might be one of the more generic-looking of the Saab line (the 9-7 and that horrid crossover they’re about to introduce fit that bill IMO), I find it to be a beautiful, striking, well-designed machine. Its lines are distinctly Saab. And certainly more attention was paid to aesthetics on the 9-3 than was paid on other sedans on the roads in the US. I really appreciate the lack of silly pinstriping / slices / oddly incongruent angles / molding details / rubber strips that so mar and cheapen the appearance of sedans these days.
If onlt the current 9-3 sedans had hatches, I think they’d be recognized as future classics.
The worst Saab ever? Definatley not. Just to add to that list up there, it’s the best handling Saab, and now with the Turbo-X out, the fastest as well. I agree about the interior. The design is amazing, the quality is crap.
When the 9-3 SS first came out, I remember it being reviewed as a serious threat to BMW, Audi and Merc. Since then, their cars have moved on and the Saab is still basically the same. Despite that, the 9-3 SS was a huge step in the right direction for Saab, GM just didn’t have the guts or cash to back it up.
-Rogan
There’s only one real iconic Saab, and that’s the 900 classic. All the other Saabs sit in its shadow, including the 9-3. Yes, even the Ursaab. That doesn’t make the 9-3 any less a Saab then everything else that has come from Saab/GM. And for the record, while the SS might be bland (but with a well balanced design), the SC is pretty close to what an iconic Saab should be.
Calling the 9-3 SS the worst Saab in history is a bit harsh, but I think it could possibly qualify as being the blandest? Einar Hareide’s design is soft and inoffesive and many would say, lacking character. The extensive facelift it received for the MY2008 model comes from a differing design philosophy and doesn’t quite work, although it is a much better effort than the heavy handed and somewhat sad facelift the 9-5 received. But anyway, it’s only really a stop gap isn’t it?
For many of us Saab affcionados, the 9-3SS is a car we might recommend to someone but personally prefer not to own. It’s kind of like a 9000CD or a C900 4 door Sedan, alright for some but not for us. If think if a hatch model had happened, my thoughts may have been different. Even a coupe would’ve made me look at it more favourably, but like many its a model generation I’d prefer to skip. To me the 9-3SS lacks something that the 9-5 had and I hope Saab finds it again for future models.
I know Saab is somewhat responsible for the lack of variants in the 9-3 range, but GM’s draconian response has stifled Saab and that is something it is yet to recover from, if it ever does? I know it’s something of a Catch 22 situation, but GM has to let Saab be Saab or I think Saab can’t be anything at all. Only time will tell, but in future I think we will look back on the 9-3SS and imagine what might have been…
There is one scary thing with that car – the 9-3 SS MY08-. It’s the only Saab I have ever mistaken to be a car from another brand. I have done several times on parking lots when I have only seen a part of the car. The door handles are usually to blame for this.
Slow model development & long life circles are typical for iconic cars.
Look at VW (original) Beetle, (original) Mini, 2CV, Renault R4, who all changed very slowly. Or look at lotus & caterham 7, lotus esprit & elise, citroën ID & DS, citroën CX, saab 96, 99 & 900 and even dinosaurs like a Jeep or a Land Rover or a silly little Renault Twingo. Timeless masterpieces, all with their own virtues, qualities and restrictions.
Ok that doesn’t count in nowadays flashy fast changing world. But change for sake of the change only without improvement ? No thanks, certainly when it is restricted to pure style & looks (i.e. what to think about the nonsense mercedes tries to sell with their ‘new’ CLC).
How much i would like to see new saab developments, I’m quite happy with a 1st gen 9-3 or 3th gen 9-5.
And yes – if saab can manage to enlongate the life circle of the current 9-3 & considering the positive saabiness aspects like safety, reliabiility, dynamics & even interior – it might get a certain status comparable with earlier saabs. IF THEY ONLY COULD ADD A COUPE & A HATCH …
ctm is right, bring back the saab door handle.
A couple of comments:
“The decision to release the 9-3 with only a sedan version … wasn’t great a great one”.
This is a common refrain from long time Saab fans, but the fact is this is the biggest selling model in Saab’s history. While some may mourn the passing of the hatch, the buying public clearly do not. I think it was a brave decision of Saab to make the change, and I am sure was not done lightly. The fact that it worked is, I am sure, a source of quiet satisfaction to the folks in Sweden.
Second – the window switches! Why in the centre? The main reason they get put there is to save money – it makes for a cheaper wiring loom (less wiring having to go through a flexible connection into the doors). Ergonomically I think switches should be next to the thing they control – so a window switch on the door next to the window seems the very epitome of sensible Scandinavian design. A switch in the centre away from the windows (and down low where you can’t see it) makes no sense at all.
Oh – and the new heating controls are much simpler to use, and in my opinion therefore better. I think Saab’s should be user friendly, and not favour form over function.
Then again, I used to drive an Alfa so what do I know?
The window switches should be in the centre. The less electric things you have in the door, the better to me. Also, it makes more sense to me. I use my right hand to control stuff in the centre, not at least the gear shift. To operate a window switch in the door, I then have to change hand on the wheel to do it (the other controls to the left of the steering wheel are very seldom used). Also, if the controls are in the centre, all adult passengers can easily reach them to control any window if needed.
ctm is right about this one too.
About coordinated-hand-wheel-gearshift-windowswitch-control, that is.
Centrally mounted window switches are fine, I never look at them, I can find & operate them blindfolded.
But not only the central position is good, also the tilted shape & feel of the buttons are important, as the distances between the buttons. Very functional. Always the exact window is being operated, unlike in a LR Disco 2, where they are centrally mounted but every time I use them, I’m opening when I want to close or vice versa.
Several people have said that the 9-3SS has outsold the NG900/OG 9-3 but I’ve never seen any sales figures to back this up. Show me worlwide figures for the NG900/OG9-3 from 1993 to 2002 and 9-3SS from 2003 till present day and I might accept that.
For now I can only go by past figures. The Saab 9000 hatch always managed to outsell the 9000 CD sedan by a considerable margin. I’m sure if the 9-3SS had also been produced in hatchback form, the results would’ve been similar. More importantly total sales for the car would’ve been much greater.
The worst Saab in the History is the 9-5 3.0TID v6. The diesel engine developed by Isuzu/Saab its the worst engine ever made by Saab in terms of reliability. Here in Spain were are a lot of them, Saab knows the big flaws(aluminium block+steel liners, bad combination) of the engine and over its life the engine should be replaced, and other common failures in diesels. Saab only offered the engine during 2-3 years, after stopping the production during months due 1st year problems. Than car when it works well it performs really well, but……
I have 3 Saabs now, MY2003 9-3ss 2.0t Nordic stage2, 9000 V6 CSE 1995, 900 2.0T convertible 1992. And my father had a ’99 9-5 2.3t auto during 260000km and 9 years.
The most reliable of those……the 9-3ss, only minor electronic glitches, ICM changed due problems with radio, campaign of the key, changed the gas cap(here in europe it wasn’t recall), door rattle(solutionated by the dealer thanks a TSB) and some minor glitches.
The 9000 V6 CSE auto, with over 210000km, the best in comfort, very smooth engine, not fast, but perfect as a cruiser, best seats, high quality leather, some electric glitches, typical failure of the auxiliar belt but very strong engine.
9-5 2.3t SE ’99 auto. Typical glitches of the ’99 units, Trionic/throttle body failure, front suspension gasket, SID/ACC screen pixels, crankshaft position sensor, crankcase ventilation hoses and some other glitches. In terms of reliability it was the worst of three cars, but in general there wasn’t anything important. We always take care of the cars at home, oil changes every 10000 miles, always clean, etc etc… In this unit, no oil sludge, never pushed hard. It was a company car, few weeks ago I saw the car at the dealer, asking what is doing there the car, the mechanic said to me that it seems the is some failure in one of the cylinders. I. was astonished, in six months they were able to blown one cylinder. The mechanic its a good friend and know us very well said that the new owner it has no care of the car.
The 900, I bought it the last year from a good friend….
As a Saab fan, i know very well this cars, I love them. I am very identified with the brand philosophy and for me the 9-3ss its the best Saab I own. The car performs incredibly well, it mantains all the comfort and roadquality(with Aero suspension) and give the perfect fun to drive experience with its 235 bhp Nordic kit. the perfect fit for me a TurboX or the new 9-3ss v6t xwd Aero hirsch version. Its true the new 9-3 lost some saabness, like the new interior design, the flaw of the MY2003-06 interior problems(the design its really good). But every person that enters to the cars says the same as when they enter in the 9000, “OOOOOAAAAAOOOO, this is like an aircraft!!!, OOOOOO what a seats!!”" If you take a look at the side view of the 9-3ss sedan, the rear looks very similar to the 9-5 and remembers me the 99 with that low end. Its true Saab. One of the biggest flaws are the leather seats, not as good as in terms of quality as the ELMO 9000 seats, but finally they use a Premium leather in the 9-3MY2008. About the engine, its just perfect, no problems the 175bhp its smooth and really fast, faster than it seems, very reliable.
If you should decide the worst Saab ever made in terms of swedishness/saabness, could be the worst, but for few points. Isn’t easy to decide, all Saabs were really good cars, but for me the worst should be the 900GM. Saab recognized a lot of problems during the first years and also that was developed too fast and wich not many resources available. I have an article from autonews.com from the 90′s that explain that and the big improvement through the years in terms of quality and productivity.
As you said, another example of lack of saabness……..the window switch in the center console, it was one of the first things I blame in the 9-3ss, the door handles of the new 9-3ss another one.
regards
Actually, I find the whole notion of naming a Saab as ‘the worst’ to be really uncomfortable. I think you could only do it based on a really bad engine, as EduSaab has – and he’s probably nailed it correctly, too.
I think the “which is the worst Saab ever” poll is one that we’ll not have here.
Ctm:
Corrrect. The window controls should of course be placed in the center on all Saab’s.
You know exact where they are, and you don’t have to actually see and look for them.
They can be operated even in blind. Like most other things in a Saab. e.g. ignition switch.
That’s logic and clever design.
and Saab -how dare you change the doorhandles to Opel stock items, -Shame on you.
Markac, maybe this could bring some info, from the “arch – nemesis” site
http://www.saabhistory.com/2008/10/02/saab-automobiles-global-sales-volume-1947-2007/
When comparing I would take into consideration that global car sales had increased in 2002-2007.
The door handles suck. Didn’t someone at Saab say something about using generic GM parts under the skin and only where they wouldn’t be directly visible? Seems that was quickly forgotten. Every time I see a newer 9-3 I think of a Holden Commodore. I truly hope better judgement prevails with the new 9-5? At least the 9-3 ‘vert still has proper door handles.
Razvan: For some reason I get this message when I try to look at the Saab History site “You are unauthorized to access this website”. Anyone else having this problem?
Amazing. It seems Ryan’s ass-hattery is bigger than even I dared to dream. He has referred to me as his Arch Nemesis (really, he has) and I therefore issue an Arch Nemesis sized apology to anyone from here who might be adversely affected by my status.
Missing coupé in 9-3 range, sign of the times ?
Next too long time coupé builders like alfa, peugeot, bmw & mercedes, audi made a succesful re-entry and Renault is planning to join this part of the market with its laguna-coupe-gt … .
some extracted info from there:
Saab global sales in:
1986 – 126.401
1987 – 134.112
1988 – 120.562
1999 – 124.867
2000 – N/A
2001 – 122.263
2002 – 120.080
2003 – 131.706
2004 – N/A
2005 – N/A
2006 – 133.167
2007 – 124.438
“It’s definitely the safest Saab ever“, “It’s got the most dynamic chassis ever in a Saab” : Logical, it is the most modern saab. It would be abnormal if it was otherwise.
“It’ll probably prove to be one of the most reliable Saabs ever” : normal, contrary to what many people think, recent cars are far more reliable than older models (in absolute terms, not simply because they are younger).
So the pro’s for the 9-3 ss, all come from the fact that the 9-3 ss is – unfortunately
– the “newest” saab model.
The problem is that 9-3 ss isn’t a one of a kind car or an exceptional car, it is (as we say in dutch) “a thirteen in a dozen” (= very common, mediocre) kind of a car. There is no specific reason why one would like to buy the 9-3ss because it lacks that special saabish thing.
There were 908,810 units of the Saab 900 produced from 1978 to 1993. If you want to break it into body styles, the biggest was the 3-door, of which there were 357,899 produced.
There were only slightly less of the 99 2-door produced, at 357,038.
The biggest body style was actually the Saab 96. One body style and 547,221 produced, but it was over 20 years.
These were, by far, the largest numbers of individual body styles prior to the 9-3SS.
As some one already mentionned, you can’t just compare sales figures over different time area’s as the sale figures of cars are (even) nowadays much higher then e.g. in the 80′s.
Selling 100.000 cars in the 70′s was far more difficult then selling 100.000 cars nowadays.
There is something to thing about. Saab is facing the same problems as all the Automotive Industry, the madurity of the sector and with that, the need of reducing costs, more sales and short change cycles and so. In the 80′s and before Saab was able to introduce big improvements and quirckness to its car as a way to be diferent and innovative, to be in front of its competitors in many issues. Now a days there is a lot of standarization, more difficulties to be beyond the conventional and there is less gap between premium brands and generic brands.
That’s another reason why Saab lost is Saabness, because the automotive industry changed and the cars of the 80′s-90′s aren’t the same as nowadays and the market is totally different. In the same way the next 10-20 years let’s see what happen with powerful cars and how it will be in general the automotive industry.
Aeropilot; that’s it!!! functionality! that’s something I always loved in the Saabs, everytime i drive another car and then return to the Saab its a relief, everything in place, and then its when you take care about the big quaility of these cars.
regards
If you want to give a Saab “The Worst Saab” title then that would have to go to the NG900. The classic 9-3 was the car that the NG900 should have been from the word go. But again thats relative. Its not saying the NG900 is a bad car.
Back on topic I think we should remember that Saab would probably not be here if it was not for the 9-3 SS. Its still a great car but like people say the competition has moved on.
Also lets not forget the job 9-5 has done. Nobody could ever ask from anymore from that car
As a child I had braces and fell in love with the saab 900 cabrio of my dentist (cliché, cliché). Once I had the money to buy myself a saab (OG 9-3 2.0lpt), I loved it because it was fast and powerful (always fun to annoy a 18 year old in car with spoilers at a red light), comfortable (those (heated) seats !!!) and very practical (it fitted 5 persons and the football gear of the team would go in the trunk).
It also had a sporty, classy look without the arrogance of a beamer, merc or audi.
9-3 ss however only fits 4, the trunk isn’t big enough for all the football gear and the looks (especially the pre FL) are, well, very common.
I’m sure it drives very well but I could not convince myself to buy one to replace the OG 9-3.
“Back on topic I think we should remember that Saab would probably not be here if it was not for the 9-3 SS. Its still a great car but like people say the competition has moved on.”
But imagine where saab could be if they made a “real” saab instead of the 9-3 ss …
look its the new 9-5 interior!!!!! http://www.automotorsport.se/bigpix/2008/Saab95Insignia_inredn.jpg
The problem is…….It could be done a better one?? no, like the NG900. Saab always had the same problem with its limited resources since the 90′s. Without the help of its investors(Investor and GM), internal fights between the Management(Saab and GM) and all of that stuff, be should give thanks to the 9-5, that revive the brand once and the 9-3ss to continue, but………let’s see what happens in the next 5 years.
The next 9-5 it could be the key again.
regards
I reckon the worst Saab is the 900S V6, closely followed by the 9-5 Griffin with half a litre more of the same crap. Try working on one! Sheesh……
Drew B
van god los, sorry, but I have to disagree.
I’ve owned a Viggen and carrying 2 in the back on a 2-hour trip wasn’t comfortable. The rear of the 9-3SS isn’t huge, but I’m sure it’s about the same as the OG model. Certainly not much smaller (if any) and not enough to make a song and dance about.
We don’t even like to carry three in the back of our 9000CS.
That’s just plain short-sighted. I fear you’re never going to like a new Saab again as the SS was about as far from a generic GM vehicle as any modern Saab is likely to get. And it’s by no means a poor car. By no means at all.
Swade has Saab History blocked everyone form Oz. I can’t even access the site on a different computer with a different browser and a different IP. Talk about pig headed!
I believe he has, Mark.
Drew B is getting the same message here in Hobart. I first noticed it yesterday, but i don’t know how long it’s been in effect.
It’s absolutely rediculous.
“van god los, sorry, but I have to disagree.
it fitted 5 persons and the football gear of the team would go in the trunk
I’ve owned a Viggen and carrying 2 in the back on a 2-hour trip wasn’t comfortable. The rear of the 9-3SS isn’t huge, but I’m sure it’s about the same as the OG model. Certainly not much smaller (if any) and not enough to make a song and dance about.
We don’t even like to carry three in the back of our 9000CS.
But imagine where saab could be if they made a “real” saab instead of the 9-3 ss …
That’s just plain short-sighted. I fear you’re never going to like a new Saab again as the SS was most ofabout as far from a generic GM vehicle as any modern Saab is likely to get. And it’s by no means a poor car. By no means at all.”
Ok, Ok, it’s probably like with old girlfriends. After a while you sometimes forget why you split up with them untill you meet them again and talk for a couple of minutes. Time has probably faded most of my complaints with regard to the OG 9-3 (the understeer !!!).
And if you would test the OG 9-3 against the NG 9-3, the NG 9-3 will probably beat the OG on every aspect (except for the trunk, I don’t have the exact figures but, as I remember it, one could get last in the trunk of the OG 9-3), which is also normal because the NG 9-3 is a more recent model.
But the thing is that when I was looking around for new car to replace my OG 9-3, I ,as a saabfan, couldn’t convince myself to buy the NG 9-3 because the NG 9-3 (pre FL) didn’t appeal to me at all. And even the saab badge couldn’t make up for that.
The body style and looks of the pre FL NG 9-3, were plane and boring AND the car became much more unpractical.
Unlike others here, I do not have a (big) problem with the fact that engines, platforms, airco’s, buttons, door handles, … are shared with other brands and models. I think that’s a shame but I realise that that is just how the current automotive industrie works.
But I do believe that every brand should protect it’s own identity.
So, if Saab would now take a 1.6 or 2.0 GM DI turbo unit, put it on the delta II-platform (if possible with independant rear suspension) and put on top the body of the 9-x (air) concept and make sure that the car would be practical (e.g. rear seats that you can move so that you can choose between
more leg room or more trunk), I would buy that car. Even with the window switches in the doors
I only demand that the key still goes between the front seats, that always will be a conditio sine qua non
The only failure of the V6 in the 900 and 9000 was the auxiliar timing belt, it was its weak point. From the rest its an incredible strong engine. Due a failure of the dealer, they didn’t correctly the change of the timing belt or it was defective. Well, I was driving the car and then, pluff!! no steering assistance, light of the battery came on and so. I stopped the car, checked the engine and I didn’t see anything strange. Stupid of me, I thought it could be something electrical and decided to do the 30km to the dealer in that situation. At 100 meters of the dealer, the radiatior blown and a big white smoke came off of the engine.
They only need to change the radiator, the engine temperature sensor and nothing else. They checked the engine and was fine….after that, no problems, no oil consumption or water consumption. When I checked the engine, the timing belt it was in place, but i didn’t see it was broken.
regards
The ultimate SAAB is, of course, the original 99 2-door. This is the clean, simple, distinctive, roomy, sporty Sixten Sason design. Everything after that is a bastardization of the original clean design. The 900 CombiCoupe 3-door has none of the design integrity of the 99 2-door coupe (although the 900 dash is better, the rest of the interior is oddly inexpensive). So that is the standard by which to judge the 9-3SS. (You could claim that the standard is the 96 or 92, but that was another post war, desperate, dirt roads car like the Beetle, 2CV, etc. Who today wants a tiny interior, underpowered car with an incredibly tough heavy body and superb aerodynamics).
Compared to the the 99 Coupe, the 9-3SS looks more SAAB like. It just lacks the big inside, small outside ethos and the commanding view of the road. The ergonomics and handling are good, like the 99, but obtained in a less purist way. Looking back to 1967 2-doors were king. Almost every car was available with 2-doors and only some with 4. Now tastes have reversed, but Sixten Sason’s 99 sedan has almost all the gracefulness of the coupe. The 9-3SS is also a very graceful, well-proportioned design.
Someone else had it right, that the 9-3SS seems less distinctive. I have to say though that once you step outside, the 9-5, while graceful and elegant, it is not too distinctive either. The 2005 Aero looks great but is almost common looking. Sixten Sason’s lines, on the other hand, are very distinctive, yet the car is elegant, comfortable and practical. That is the essence of Swedishness. GM’s designers are great (I love the Solstice and G6 styles), but there is something different about Scandinavian design that these southern European designers don’t quite capture.
In a market replete with convergence, as others have noted, I think the 9-3 SS has preserved the essence of Saab reasonably well. It has retained the iconic combination of all-weather performance, practicality, and efficiency that I have always associated with Saab. And from behind the wheel, it feels like a Saab due to the excellent seats, dash shape, and distinctive “greenhouse” visibility that few marques seem to offer these days. I have a 2001 9-5 Aero, and I feel instantly at home in the 9-3 SS. For a front driver, it is dynamically superb. I cannot fathom why the pre-2009 Acura TL and TSX were so much more revered by the automotive press, because the 9-3 Aero is vastly superior to both as a driver’s car.
The model has been a letdown in three major areas: reliability; interior quality; and NVH (before the “quiet package” in 2008). Maybe the recent model years will be better, but overall the reliability ratings are horrendous. The interior probably receives too much criticism, but the dash materials should be better, and the cheap-feeling control stalks are inexcusable. My 9-5 has the latter problem, and slick, solid-feeling stalks would greatly enhance the perception of quality. Those in my 2006 Mazda5 minivan are infinitely superior, as were those in my 1983 Accord. I always thought the 9-3 had too much road and wind noise, but thankfully that was addressed for 2008.
So, in the future, I think it will be viewed as a legitimate Saab, as it should be. But let’s hope it’s viewed as a “transition” between two classic eras, with the next beginning with the new 9-5.
So after reading the posts of those who favor the idea that the current itteration of the Saab 9-3 SS is the “worst ever” it would seem that general consensus attributes this abysmal rating to their purely subjective opinion regarding the aesthetics of the car,the design of the door handles and the placement of the window controls. Lol! Are you freakin’ kidding me!I sell Saabs,I’ve had an ’86 9000,’89 9000CDE,’95 900SE Turbo convertible,’99 9-3 SE Convertible,2002 9-3 Viggen Convertible,2004 9-3 Aero Convertible,’06 9-5 sedan and currently an ’08 9-3 Aero SS. The earlier Saabs were funkier,quirkier and more outside the”mainstream”………….and those are the only ways in which they were superior to the current models. That being said,thats just my OPINION not a provable fact.I think some of us need to get some perspective on what the specific gravity of an opinion is.
The Essence of SAAB
That’s the standard for the 9-3SS. Hatches and reliability are not the Essence as they have often been absent. I think the Essence is the drive: the feel, the ergonomics, and the sense of lightness and ease. In my SAABs, it feels like the car can do anything effortlessly and yet I always feel like I am in control. I have supreme control, yet driving is tireless. As Ned says, the 9-3SS has that as much or more than the 9-5, 900, 99, 96, etc.
Get in a BMW, yes it is fantastic, but it is heavy. Every movement feels like work. You know when the car is being pushed. Mercedes is the same but numb. Toyota, Honda, and Audi are even more numb. This must be why, on this blog, Alfas are the only other cars mentioned with genuine affection.
The reason we fear the death or dilution of SAAB is that even though it appears to be just another boring sedan, once you are inside the 9-3 first or second generation, everything seems possible and everything seems easy. We go from hum-drum to superheroes, behind the wheel and no-one else has to know.
True, but for me, the essence of saab is also practicallity and a distinctive appearance. 2 things the Pre FL 9-3 ss lacks.
The FL saab 9-3 combi is – in my opinion – more “saaby”.
Whats this Pre FL stand for?
sorry, Pre FL = pre face lift
Here’s my opinion on this whole thing after reading most of the posts.
I own a 2002 9-3 SE and my brother owns a 2004 9-3 2.0t both in turns of appearences are great in their own right:
2002: Very distinct Hatch style that grows on me everyday, the interior is above average with it’s wood accents and such.
2004: Very classy (black) sleek style that from the front looks very very similar to my 2002. The car is more relieable than my 2002 which has had several mechanical problems. The interior is slightly less attractive with its all black plastic. however it does have that awesome HUD display on the dash.
Power wise I know my car should feel faster and was rated at 205hp, while the 2004 was rated at 175 or 185hp (not sure which) however the 2004 feels lighter and the engine seems to responded just as fast with MUCH better feul economy. the 2004 has very similar cargo space as well compared to the hatch. The only real difference is the hatch has the dome window where you can fit more.
Both are great cars and the 9-3 SS is NOT deserving of a worst every based solely on lack of a hatch which, to a owner, appears to be the only main difference.
“It’ll probably prove to be one of the most reliable Saabs ever.”
As far as I’m concerned, three factors will influence this.
1- Will the engine last? The cast-iron block in the OG 9-3 can go 400,000+ km easily, with regular maintenance. The jury is still out on the new aluminum block.
2- Will it rust? Again, the OG 9-3 is great, and I’ve yet to see a rusted-out one even in Eastern Canada where the white stuff on the roads is just as likely to be salt as snow.
3- Will parts be available? That’s one area where Saab has been outstanding (better than Ford or Toyota, that’s for sure). Let’s hope that’s still the case in 10 years.
Off topic a bit, but still in defence of Saab… I just drove 190 km in my Saab and have some thoughts.
1) I met two Audi A5 (I guess) with there LED lights on. They look really stupid.
2) I saw my first BMW X6 – a “white” one (or what was supposed to be white – it’s autumn in Sweden). It must be on the Top 25 list of the ugliest cars ever produced.
3) The trip I made take about 2h20m. When I got out of my Saab, I felt just as relaxed as when I started the drive. GM: Don’t screw up the seats in future Saabs, y’hear?
the audi LED’s are cool to look at but just look like cheap additions and dont fit with the overall appearence of the car imo. I do like the LEDs on the sport car they make (cant think of the name atm).
Until now, my alfa affection is pure platonic and certainly all has to do with style & styling.
What makes me not turn into an alfisti is the fact I supsect every italian to fall apart after two rather mild west-european winters, I might be wrong and the 1,9 engine proves to be reliable till now (my experience Italian Coffee machines make me think otherwise). Keep in mind that is because the Trolls handled it with care while unshipping & before putting it under the bonnet.
After all, the saabishness is all in the mind.
It is a meltpot with very different ingredients why I love (my) saabs, saab in general or why I prefer certain saabs above the current 9-3.
One ingredient is the styling and the looks. No matter the engineeers & marketeers did their job properly, the styling is in many cases a determinant factor.
I can imagine falling in love with a subaru, but it is more the story of the ugly duck with massive qualities but just got unlucky when being sculpted at the outside.
The underdog-theory must be both the key to our dedicated saab affection and the 9-3-neglection, the 9-3 sedan is just that little bit to much mainstream.
Certainly much saabist didn’t appreciate the first impression of the 9-3 sedan, but in retrospective not a bad car at all. Talking about (lack of) quirkyness: Imagine the 9-3 having even less character like the former citroën C5 generation : pure characterless anonymity, even the hyrdopneumation wouldn’t help. Of course, they lost their mojo long before that.
It is about time to give the current 9-3 a decent place in the overal-ultimate-saab-history-line-up, and yes if saab would ad a coupé/hatch at the fall/winter(?) of its career …
While I find the Saab History website a valuable resource to the Saab community, this kind of childish non-sense declaring someone their “arch-nemesis” and blocking an entire continent from viewing the site because of a disagreement with Swade is unacceptable.
As a result I will not be visiting the Saab History site, essentially boycotting it in solidarity with all of our fellow Australian Saabers. I encourage the rest of you to do so as well.
I also do not welcome e-mails from that website soliciting donations. While I have occasionally enjoyed features of that site in the past I do not feel any “duty” to support it financially. It’s a nice site, but if it were gone tomorrow I really can’t say I’d miss it. It’s a good Saab data resource, but it lacks the “soul” of a place like TrollhattanSaab, Saab Central, or The Saab Link.
I have met Ryan, Saab History’s owner, personally on several occasions and get along with him just fine. His internet persona is much different than his real-life persona.
Until this stupid childish feud is resolved and the block on Australian visitors to Saab History is lifted I will be boycotting the Saab History website, and I would suggest supporters of that site re-evaluate whether that’s something they wish to support financially or otherwise.
Audi-LED: indeed the most silly car styling item from the last year. My clear vision about that is Da Silva dropped the modern Bauhaus ethos in favor of getting as much attention as possible to be a serious Bangle-competitor. Latin frovilities from Ingolstadt as a slick weapon in their enduring car wars.
Much has been said about the 9-3 & 9-5 restylings. In my opinion more tastefully done than audi did.
I even liked the initial A6 styling, which still was under influence from the magnificent Luthe-designed nsu RO 80, before the singleframe radiator deformed the well balanced proprotions for ever.
I wouldn’t be so tough with the last years models, they’re just struggling to survive out there. Don’t think that maintaining a design that’s radically different is worth the price of running out of business completely. Finally what do we fancy more: a Saab with less identity (although I don’t agree with this) or no Saab at all?
Yes, it so happens that my first Saab is a 2008 one. It’s also the first car I actually bought, and I have to admit that the aspect was also important. I’ve considered several cars before it, an A4, an Accord and the new (at the time) Mondeo. It wasn’t the fact that it’s very economical, nor the incredibly comfortable seats or the fact that is swedish that convinced me. No, it was the sexy back of the SC with it’s “icy” taillights. And the nose (the 2007 model was displayed). And the dealer, one of the most helpful persons I’ve ever met. And, of course, the TT diesel engine.
Would I buy an old Saab today? Definitely. Would I’ve bought a old Saab one year ago? Not really.
So there’s no point in moaning about how the new models have no identity or they are not saabish enough or not swedish enough (it still doesn’t have an ashtray). The thing is that current models help Saab go on. And they’re pretty good (looking).
We need to see each model from a historical perspective. Each model, for me, represents a constraint in the marque’s timeline; hence, there is no such thing as a “worst” Saab.
A good read is Tunberg’s book on the GM 900 since that book outlines the design, development, and the plan to make the marque appealing or an attempt to make the marque cater to a wider audience under the parent company. Please get the Tunberg and the Lance Cole books since each one does a darn good job about model development.
On a related item, I am compelled to bring this point – the GM 900 V6 engine got a bad rep due to how the timing belt maintenance is handled. The belt is good and strong but the timing gears had issues since that is outsourced as opposed to an in-house manufacturing. Plus, the service bulletins that I know emphasized the timing belt changes while the timing gear changes were “downplayed” due to cost. If properly maintained, the engine will last a very long time. In fact, a friend who got me to driving a Saab had a ’94 GM 900 with the V6 engine, a replacement for his ’87 9k. The V6 car was going strong with more than 250k miles.
ctm, I guess its a matter of taste but the X6 is smokin’ hot, IMHO, especially in metallic red.
I have to say Audi’s are beginning to look a little too generic and I dont like the fact that BMW is backing away from its “Bangle-isation” as it made the cars distinctive. I am hoping the new 9-5 will be very distinctive to draw some much needed attention to the brand. Saab is actually the northern European equivalent of Alfa Romeo, which itself is way too under-rated.
Im still gonna say the Saab 9-3SS is the best looking compact sedan on the market today.
BTW, who did I see turning left off Smithe Street onto Howe Street in Vancouver in a Turbo X on Thursday at about 440pm? Lucky b*stard!
Swade: I went via a US proxy and logged into Saab History and sent Ryan a message about barring Australians from viewing his website. It was polite and I hope he gets the point.
Oh yes, the Saab History website…I had forgotten about that virtual Saab mausoleum. It’s not worth the time it takes to type the URL. Interesting discussion on the 9-3SS. The 9-3SS is an excellent driver’s car and is on par with anything from BMW, Audi, and Mercedes. I’m sick to death of BMW and others receiving far more praise from automotive “experts” than they deserve. The Saab 9-3 is SUPERIOR to the BMW 3-series because it competes as a driver’s car very well, has better interior ergonomics and design, far better seats, and is light years ahead in terms of crash-worthiness. I do agree that some of the interior materials (mainly dash components and switches) could have a slightly better quality look and feel, but the overall impression of the interior is of good quality and competes well. If Car & Driver reviewers want to continue soiling themselves at every BMW road test that’s fine – I stopped picking that rag off the news stand long ago. Saab’s only issue is getting people’s backsides into the cars for test drives. One test drive in a Saab will negate any pre-conceived notions. My only regret about the current 9-3 is that a hatch variant was never offered, and I’m still HOPING we’ll see a future Saab with great road feel and the utility and good looks of Saabs from the 900 SPG and Viggen era.