Ah, it was nice to get sentimental over the weekend, wasn’t it.
News came out a few days ago that General Motors had lodged a design patent on the defunct Saab 9-6x, which was to be a Saab SUV built on the same architecture as the Subaru Tribeca. It didn’t happen, of course, because GM sold their interest in Subaru, they probably knew that XWD was in the pipeline, and maybe the flak from the 9-2x was too much to handle.
So, which would you have preferred?
The 9-7x has been met with a mix of criticism and praise. On one hand, it’s the best of the GM360 vehicles and very much appreciated by all the people who have actually bought one. It’s been Saab’s second best selling model in the US, has given them a quick, inexpensive presence in a market segment they were absent in and the Aero model sounds like the running of the bulls and goes like stink! On the other hand, it’s about as Saaby as a labrador retriever.
The 9-6x could have seen a lot more Saab input than the 9-7x and had the potential to use a much more modern AWD system and a more contemprary look.
But before you get all 9-6x-ish on us, though, remember that whilst the 9-2x was a reliable and fun car, it was roundly panned for being way too much Subaru and way too little Saab. The photos we saw of the 9-6x in prototype form showed that it was potentially heading that way, too.
So if you were king, which would you have made?
The voting lines are open…..
n
–
I have not great love for either of them. It’s a pity that the 9-7x ever had to exist and perhaps it’s even more a pity that we have to have a replacement for it. If the 9-3 crossover had been released when Saab originally planned, there wouldn’t have been any Saabarus and there wouldn’t have been a 9-7x or a 9-4x to replace it.
The 9-7x at least looks like a Saab. Heck, it would be easier to mistake a face-lifted 9-3 for something else than the 9-7x…
The 9-6x looks like what it is: a generic Asian car without a personality whatsoever.
In my eyes the current Cadillac SRX has more Saab DNA than both the 9-6X and the 9-7X.
It would have been nice to see what this car could have been with a decent engine (a blown V6 DI)
Given that the vehicle was aimed at keeping Saab dealers engaged and profitable, they made the right choice.
If the vehicle debuted now, the answer may be different.
I’m surprised GM have not slapped a Saab label on a GM Acadia/Buick Enclave/Saturn Outlook/Chevy whatamacallit). There is your 9-6X … they actually have a similar profile to the image above.
I just can’t vote for either one. The last thing Saab ever needed was a conventional SUV! Both were a total waste of resources for Saab, IMHO.
I hate both of them
One thing that the Subaru has going for it is that it retails for around $10,000 less than the 9-7x (or at least it did before the market collapsed). It also gets slightly better mileage and can be had with a third row of seats.
The big problems that the Tribeca faced at first was the fact that it was ugly, had a poorly laid-out interior and was a little too expensive for a Subaru. The Saab version would have looked better, would have an improved interior, and would have been priced closer to what people expect from Saab. I think it could have been a reasonable sales success.
It also would have had the sporty, car-like handling and NVH that a Saab SUV needed to actually compete in the luxury SUV/CUV market. Presuming that it would have had a saab-like interior, it could have been a mild sales success for the brand, definitely moreso than the 9-7x has been.
Hard choice, granted the 9-7x probsbly cost less overall and contributed more to the much needed new 9-5 funds; but the 9-6x had the greater longevity and would not have required the 9-4x to be developed.
Overall in the longer term with funds already sunk in 9-6x, this would have been more cost effective than 9-7x plus 9-4x and had a similar shelf life. Also, for those of us who accept Saabs should be practical and ‘of-their time’ not museum pieces stuck in a time warp, an SUV is a modern interpretation of the original Saab ethos of space, safety and value. the 9-6x gets my vote and more so because it has 3 rows of seats in the same footprint as the heavier 9-7x.
Roll on the 9-4x, never thought 2 years ago when I took a 24-mnth lease on a 9-3 that I’d still be waiting
If Saab can’t get some new metal in the showrooms in 12 mnths, I’m probably gone for good
Loving my 12-month lease on the Chrysler 300c by the way, great space, comfort and in Northern Ireland at least, very rare and eye-catching
I would suggest that both of these trucks are crap.
Let’s face it, the 900 Turbo (hatchback) was the ultimate sport-utility-vehicle!
Your next poll should be who would be the better management team for GM going forward. Wagoner & Co or Bozo & Co ? I know that based upon past results it would a landslide for Bozo……
I voted for the 9-6x but in reality both vehicles have serious issues.
The 9-7x does a pretty good job in capturing a Saab look and although some see the ignition in the centre console as a gimmick, I was happy to see GM made the effort. However; on the other hand to not offer a single turbo charged option a complete let down.
I have it on good authority that the prototypes of the 9-6x did not convey a very good Saab design. It would be easier to assume that the vehicle would have almost been a Tribeca rebadge; a worse senario than the 9-2x. As far as engineering and driving dynamics are concerned though, I think people would have been a lot happier. Turbo charged boxer engines, a world leading AWD system and a diesel variant. Saab could have even had the vehicle built RHD too unlike the 9-7x.
Neither can/would compete with the 9-4x, I just feel gutted for us as enthusiasts and the dealers out there that really needed an SUV 2 years ago.
9-6X is more favorable, in my opinion.
With some imagination – I guess many of you will disagree strongly about that comparision – the proportions can be traced back towards the ugly duck in the Saab family, the quirky 95.