13 responses so far ↓

• 1 Razvan // Dec 30, 2008 at 11:30 pm

  I don;t know about the smarter thing, but surley not tired enough to rememeber you have a link toa conversion site in your Automotive links section

  5.2 liters per 100 km equals:
  45.2 US mpg
  54.3 UK mpg

  It is an impressive number, given my 2.0 LPT from 2001 take in best 7.0 liters per 100 outside town and 13-14 in town .
  That 5.2 seams better then BMW 320d and Mercedes 220 CDI, if I remember well from an AutoBuild comparisson (between those BMW and Merc models) test which I read about a mounth ago.

• 2 Paul Maric // Dec 30, 2008 at 11:42 pm

  That figure was with a pretty decent diagonal wind on the car! The fuel economy has been the most impressive aspect of the car thus far.

  I drove an automatic earlier in the year and the fuel economy was dismal in comparison.

  I’ll also be sure to clean all the bird poop off before the mountain run, they had a field day on the poor thing!

• 3 fuzzi // Dec 31, 2008 at 1:21 am

  I have a question : how is the situation in Australia with Diesel cars ? percentage of Diesel and Gas cars and the price difference ?

• 4 van god los // Dec 31, 2008 at 1:21 am

  The problematic with the automatic gearbox is that is a rather outdated type of gearbox. It’s a sixspeed but that’s the only modern thing about it.

  In reviews you often read that the 1.9ttid has a turbo lag but the lag is also and exclusively due to the automatic gearbox. The automatic gearbox needs some time to translate the command of the driver into movement of the car.

  I would advise everybody to take the manual gearbox. The automatic gearbox isn’t in par with the fantastic 1.9 ttid engine.

  I’m considering (in 2010) a 9-3 1.9ttid convertible. How’s the noise of the 1.9 ttid ?

• 5 Jesse // Dec 31, 2008 at 2:19 am

  “Another annoyance is the lack of auto headlights. They are operated via a switch on the dashboard with no option for an automatic setting.”

  Aren’t the 9-3’s like older Saabs where you can just leave the headlight switch in the ‘on’ position, and they’ll shut off with the car?

• 6 Steven // Dec 31, 2008 at 2:46 am

  Which version of the 1.9 TTid is this? The Global Saab site lists 3 versions from 120HP to 180 HP and the Aussie Site shows 2 versions. I’d love to see this engine in the US, but I think this is still a Euro-4 engine. A LONG way away from what is allowed as a 50-state legal (or even 45 state legal) oil burner in the US. Typically this will mean the fuel consumption increases more than expected as more emission controls are added… as VW sorta found out the hard way.

  @Jesse: Newer US 9-3s have three headlight settings, all of which end up with lights on when it gets dark and various lower light levels in the daytime or when the ignition off. This may just be a local remnant of the DRL craze that sweep the US over the last 10 years.

• 7 ctm // Dec 31, 2008 at 2:47 am

  Long term test, as in a test lasting longer than Saab expected remaining lifetime inside GM?

• 8 van god los // Dec 31, 2008 at 4:13 am

  There are 2 1.9 tid engines (120 and 150hp) and one 1.9ttid (with double tt from twin turbo) with 180hp.

  All of these engines are EURO4 but apparently Saab is working for getting these engines to comply with EURO5.

  But if I’m not mistaken, only EURO6 are 50 state legal diesels.

• 9 2-don // Dec 31, 2008 at 6:24 am

  On a good day I get 32 MPG (US) from my 9-3 so 45.2 is Awesome! Way to go, I guess GM advertising that would be a no go right? Idiots…..

• 10 Bernard // Dec 31, 2008 at 8:26 am

  5.2 is awesome mileage. My 1980’s Jetta turbo diesel averaged around 6, with less than half the power and much lower weight.
  Mind you, I get 7 on long trips with my 2002 9-3 2.0, so there is a law of diminishing returns at work. I don’t think that I would want to put-up with the diesel downsides for a couple of bucks every hundred kilometers.

• 11 Lance Cole (Author) // Dec 31, 2008 at 3:30 pm

  When Saab lent us an auto TTid, an auto Tid and a 9-3 TX , Drew B and I really liked the auto box in combination with the TTid engine application- and I said so here a month or two ago.

  Its a personal thing V G Los, but i found teh auto box and TTid turbine smooth with good kick down launch.

  Have you driven a good one?

• 12 MarkoA // Dec 31, 2008 at 6:01 pm

  I had SC TTiD and Auto transmission some time ago that I drove 20000km. To me the autobox was perfect match to TTiD. No need to shift so much as you would have to do with short-revving diesel. Okay, it´s not the best (and the most economic) automatic, but it´s still very good.

  Fuel consumption figure, shown on SID was ALWAYS at least 0.8 liter too low. I averaged 7.3l/100km (calculated) totall on our TTiD A SC. Which, IMO is really good connsidering the performance.

  Only donwside to TTiD I can think of is the noise. It´s quite loud, especially to outside. TTiD and Convertible are not on the top of my “perfect combination” list.

• 13 Rune (the other one) // Jan 6, 2009 at 1:04 am

  Windshields up or down?

  I watched Myth Busters yesterday, and they were trying to figure out if AC was more fuel efficient than driving with the windows down.

  Turns out… The onboard computer said the AC was more efficient… But doing a proper test with a set amount of fuel, showed that the computer was merely displaying an estimate based on some very qualified guessing. It measures the amount of air sucked into the engine, and not much more.

  I do not know how the 9-3 calculates MPG, but now I would like to know!

  I can tell you this: When DTE drops below 35 km on my 9-3, the tank contains at least ten liters of E85. DTE should have shown me 100 km. If the MPG calculation is related to DTE, then it is NOT accurate. Not by a longshot!