Trollhattan Saab has changed!
The site you're viewing now is the original Trollhattan Saab weblog, though it's now an archive only and no new material is posted here. As of February 2009, all new material is posted at our new site - Saabs United.
Please join us at Saabs United and get your daily Saab fix from Saab sources all around the world.
Four staffers over at the aptly named cars.com rate the Saab 9-3 TurboX SportCombi alongside the Audi A4 Avant Quattro and the Volvo XC70 T6. Surprise — the Saab loses and I’m thinking that’s probably correct given the circumstances.
To begin with, this comparison isn’t really what you’d call an in-depth report. It’s more of a summary of all three vehicles with some cutesy categories chosen to allow the writers (all four of them) to write witty little comments about each car in each category.
The categories:
- Non-grocery getter (this is the styling competition — one mustn’t look too frumpy driving a wagon!)
- Sporty driving experience
- Gas mileage
- Cabin luxury
- Ride comfort
- Driver comfort
- Back seat roominess
- Cargo utility
- Overall value
- Editor’s choice
The scoring:
Audi A4 Avant Quattro 2.0T wins non-grocery getter, gas mileage, cabin luxury, back seat roominess and overall value with a sticker price US$5,000 less than the Volvo and US$8,000 less than the Saab. As the smallest of the three the Audi loses in the cargo utility category.
Saab 9-3 TurboX SportCombi wins for sporty driving experience and loses (gets ridiculed, really) for the lack of cabin luxury and for the lack of value given the TurboX sticker price. The Saab gets kudos for a strong second in the cargo utilty comparison despite smaller dimensions than the Volvo.
Volvo XC70 T6 wins for driver comfort, ride comfort and for cargo utility.
It handily loses the sporting driving experience category, brings up the rear in the gas mileage comparison and finishes with the editor’s choice award for being exactly what the editors expect in a wagon.
Overall, I think that it’s an OK comparison — at least the three vehicles are similarly equipped, nothing out of the ordinary, etc. It’s simply a line up of comparisons that doesn’t really play to the Saab’s strengths, and I think that we’ve all realized by now that the TurboX package isn’t exactly price competitive (according to the article: “The outdated Saab seemed woefully overpriced.”). This “compliment” for the Volvo in the editor’s choice statement says it all:
When Americans think of wagons, they remember spacious people-haulers. That’s exactly what the XC70 is. With all its family-friendly features and a comfortable ride, it most resembles that classic wagon ideal, modernized for the 21st century.
I, for one, am glad that the 9-3 SportCombi can’t be described this way. In a context where the mundane is valued over the sporting character of the car, I’m glad that the Saab doesn’t win. If I wanted to remember the “spacious people haulers” of the American past, I’d buy a 1976 Buick Estate, for crying out loud!
However (and there has to be a however or there wouldn’t be a post in this), I am disappointed at the way that the 9-3 TurboX SportCombi loses two categories: the cabin luxury comparison and the editor’s choice.
In the cabin luxury comparison, the TurboX wagon is characterized as “A much older design” and judged “not luxurious enough for [US]$40,000-plus”. As if to rub salt in the wound, the editor’s choice segment squashes Saab again:
While it may be the most fun to drive and offers a sizeable cargo area, the 9-3 fails at just about every other step. Throw in the high price tag and we can’t imagine why people would choose it over the competitors here.
Ouch.
We need new product. Warmed over “much older” designs interiors (thanks Kroum!) from Vauxhall and Opel can’t cut it in today’s market. It’s getting downright embarrassing when your flagship product is panned like that.
13 responses so far ↓
1 David Blumberg
// Dec 2, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Haha I’d love a Buick Estate! I would take it and ram the editorial office of cars.com!
2 Markac
// Dec 2, 2008 at 2:38 pm
I misread this at first. I thought it read “Wagoners last stand”. Pity…
3 Kroum
// Dec 2, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Come on, dude – you can’t be seriously posting such an embarrassing statement here on TS.
You’re right. I should have limited my statement to the interior design. EnG
4 Nate
// Dec 2, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I’m quite happy with my Turbo X Sedan. I realize that this a story on the Wagon/Sportcombi/Avant format, but, seriously…I’ve never driven an Audi; am i missing something serious? I actually like the interior. At night it looks great (probably not as great as button dashes of the past but still great).
The seats are great. I love the shifter on the 6spd manual. The GM radio unit is functional but leaves a lot to be desired. Overall, the car has been a thrill to drive. I’ve just installed a set of wheels with Blizzaks and have enjoyed Haldex action in snow (very, very, very impressive).
I’ve also had some other issues…within 500 miles had to take the car into service to check out squeaking from the rear (had something to do with the rear differential). It is now fixed, but was annoying and I think there may be an open recall related to this. Moon roof stopped working and has now been fixed. Currently seems to be leaking antifreeze; calling service tomorrow…
With all these issues, you’d think that I would be disappointed. I’m not. It’s great to drive in the summer and almost more fun in the snow with Blizzaks.
5 BrianL
// Dec 2, 2008 at 3:37 pm
When I first read this article this morning, my first reaction was that it was a ridiculous trio of dissimilar vehicles designed for very different purposes. It would be a much more interesting article if it were written in a pick your poison style that highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of each car rather than picking a winner.
I would imagine the results might be different if the Turbo X had the sale price of $37K on the sticker instead.
6 PT
// Dec 2, 2008 at 4:29 pm
What this review really needed was the new AWD 95 ( non- existant of course) as a large and more traditional wagon. I think they missed the point with the TX.
7 WooDz
// Dec 2, 2008 at 5:57 pm
What this comparison needed was a level playing field.
A whoping great big 280hp V6 against a wollowy CUV and a very well prices bottom of the range Rep. car.
They credit the performance then slate it because it doensn’t ride like a boat?
Are these people actually journalists…???
8 Jörgen Trued
// Dec 2, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Once again yet another test where SAAB scores badly in the interior department. This is an important issue. Let me tell why. SAAB has for 30 years been the no.1 leader in the automotive industry in design of the dashboard with gauges, color of the gauge light at night
The 1972 SAAB 99 was the first step in the “right” direction. Later on the development peaked with the 9-3 2002-2006. From an ergonomic/human Factors standpoint (which by te way is my profession) SAAB still has that aeronautical historical genes. In this respect SAAB has done great.
But journalist writing and grading cars look to other things in the drivers environment such issues as tactile/sensory percieved quality of buttons and stalks, the doorhandels etc.
Unfortunately they are right! SAAB does not have that finish and complete feel to the interior.
Here is a list that SAAB should have taken action on years ago
a. Blinker and washer stalks: – flimsy feel badly connected plastic pieces with a harsh edge, close to be able to cut yourself!
b. Door handles – plastic with a rubbery surface very easily scratced, yes there is a reason why Hirsch offers leather handles
c. Handbrake lever: design allows you to pinch fingers as well a keys. handle should be in leaher from Hirsch
d. Slot opposite the handbrake. comes loose very easily should be better fastened
e. The box between the seats: fells to weak and moves even with little pressure from an arm or when leaning over to passenger door and getting stuff from the backseat
f. Cigarette electrical contact up front: flimsy plastics feels loose even om brand new cars
g. Dashboard: same inferior surface as the door handles 2002-2006, on newer 9-3s there in an completely ridiculous silverpaint surrounding the dashboard. A silver refection in the window absolutely in contradiction with the so called jet-aircraft heritage. Hirsch has a solution for this in leather.
Conclusion: SAAB do not miss out on the small stuff, when You drive the fingers do touch all areas of the driver cabin, I get upset very time i touch the blinker stalks. This is not premium ifen if most of car is but the small issues does bring down the final grade unfortunately!
9 The Fop
// Dec 2, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Wonder how my Aero TTiD wagon would have done in this comparison? Cheaper. Still fun to drive. Averaged 52mpg on my commute to work last week, so guessing would have won the mileage as well…
10 eggsngrits
// Dec 2, 2008 at 10:50 pm
All good comments. As I said, given this scenario, I was OK with the comparisons not going Saab’s way. The cars were different enough and the aim of the comparison was obviously with emphasis on the wagon as a people hauler. Not to Saab’s strengths.
I’m just getting tired of reading about how the cars don’t measure up on the interior and how the TurboX is too expensive when the competition really had no direct equivalent.
11 MarkoA
// Dec 3, 2008 at 12:52 am
When I had 9-3, I really loved the interior despite some of the cheap material. Functionality was perfect. Although I was dropped to reality when I had 9-5 loaner car while our 9-3 was in service. It´s really hard to point all the exact details, but I suggest you to try (if you own new 9-3) and sit in a brand new 9-5. The overall feel is much better what comes to materials.
Back to this comparison; Volvo has one of the most comfortable interiors I´ve seen and driven. Also functionality is on par with Saab if not even better. Just perfect seats for my scandinavian a**.
I´ve driven A4 2.0 diesel for few times. I have to say agree that it´s very good ride for the money. Suspension is good and everything screams luxury. But… the FUNCTIONALITY… I don´t understand how they were able to hide some everyday functions in that ridiculous knob controlled system. Even seat heaters.
But then the price. A car that costs so much more than competition should feel like it too. Like Jörgen Trued listed, there´s several bits that makes you feel uncomfortable.
Also we have here comments from T-X owner. There´s already a list of faults. What the ****. Should not be on a car of this price. Definitely not.
I´m bringing Subaru again to this discussion (obviously, cos I´m driving one! ). It has cheaper feeling materials in the cabin. Dashboard, central console, carpets, etc. are cheaper. No doubt when you touch them. But here´s the trick – Everything you´ll need to touch when you drive the car are solid and of high quality. Indicator/washer stalk, steering wheel (adjustable to perfect position – unlike Saab) handbrake level, gear shifter, audio / AC controls. They make the car FEEL more luxurious than it actually is. And build quality. I´ve not been able to find a single fault on this car so far (5000km driven soon). Not a single list or a detail is misaligned. Everything works exactly as suggested. And this makes it feel more upmarket even though it´s much cheaper than Saab´s alternative.
12 Bernard
// Dec 3, 2008 at 1:12 am
Eggs,
Everyone knows that the 1977 Buick estate is better in every way than the 1976 Buick estate. That’s the one I would go for if I was feeling a wave of nostalgia.
13 Julio
// Dec 3, 2008 at 1:48 am
I agree that the Saab interior just doesn’t cut it for the price. After driving a ‘84 900S for 11 years and leasing a ‘00 9-3 for my wife, I was hoping to return to the Saab fold to replace my ‘01 Volvo V70. These may be small things, but on the SprotCombi there was no bluetooth option, no auto dimming mirror, no homelink, the power seats were extra (and not available in inventory), the rear seats don’t fold completely flat and the leather isn’t as nice as the competition. My wife now drives a A4 sedan, which IMHO offers the best cabin in its class and I was tempted to buy a A$ Avant. However, I decided to try a Subaru Outback 2.5 XT Limited, which blew away the Saab in interior features and value.
Please, Saab — upgrade the interior to a competitive level!