0 responses so far ↓

• 1 1985 Gripen // Dec 23, 2008 at 1:34 pm

  Sorry to get negative, but I think Saab is going to find it hard in 2009 to sell XWD (sans eLSD) in the 2.0T for a $6K premium, especially since all models have had their price increased across the board compared to 2008.

  I seriously believe that GM is trying to starve Saab to death. Nothing else makes sense.

  This post also reminds me of the argument I made against Saab going to a sedan-only (dropping both the hatchback and coupe body styles) lineup in 2003. The rationalization was that Americans just don’t like hatchbacks (or, more appropriately “combi-coupes”) and want sedans. But we can see from Saab’s sales numbers since 2003 the dilution of Saab’s distinctiveness in an effort to appeal to the lowest common denominator whilst selling its soul didn’t have the intended consequences.

  The drive behind making the 9-3 more “aggressive” with the 2008 9-3 refresh and going away from Saab’s traditional understated styling was intended to increase sales. It failed miserably.

  For crying out loud, GM: let Saab just be Saab. That’s how it got to where it is, not by chasing trends.

• 2 Saabrep // Dec 23, 2008 at 2:02 pm

  Three things from the midwest usa (Michiagn market).

  1. Saab bought business over the last 4 pevious years by having way too low lease programs. It got too many people into the brand beacuse of the price not the car. With no leases, the bottom feeders (cheapo’s) will not pony up the money to purchase a $32k car.

  2. In 2005 a 9-3 with an automatic, moonroof and heated seats was right around $29k. Fast forward to 2008 and that same car is just a touch under $32k. A $3k increase and the car is going up again. A Front-wheel-drive 9-3 in 2008 is almost as much as a 2008 Audi A4 Quattro.

  3. At the current price point the 9-3 is still under equipped. The 2008 lacks too many features in that class and price of car. The 2007 60th anv car was the right car. It had the look and the content you would expect.

  As for the design of the 2008, the only thing I feel has to go is the black trim around the rear tail lamps. It looks bad on any color other than Black.

• 3 Brian Griffin // Dec 23, 2008 at 2:18 pm

  The financial situation actually has been almost all year– if you listened to market analysts in the spring (and a lot of potential saab buyers– as gm’s wealthiest customers–probably were), the global real estate market was expected to keep declining until late 09, dragging the economy with it. A lot of people were already being advised to avoid major purchases–like cars–until the picture cleared up in 09, and they did. The derivatives market effects aren’t even fully hitting us yet now, but things were looking pretty bad for late 08 and for 09 in most industries here in the US all year.

  Cost increases compound the problem.

  Plus, I can’t imagine sales have been helped any by the constant drumbeat in the press that even if gm survives, saab and pontiac will be the first things killed off.

  The big 3 have always abandoned their customers style-wise, by constantly dropping products instead of refining them, making brand/model loyalty very difficult to maintain. The corvette and some pickups were the lone American exceptions, and their sales have been fairly strong.

  Now the recent prophesies of saab’s demise allow us to see how that same strategy would’ve affected it as well. not pretty.

  I love the look of the new sportcombi, especially in that photo. (for me the sedan now looks odd– there’s something about the aggressive front paired with the rounded back that looks mismatched to me from some angles. tho to be perfectly honest, I don’t understand the appeal of a small sedan)

  I just don’t think the market is speaking to anyone right now.

• 4 Swade // Dec 23, 2008 at 2:28 pm

  Great feedback, Saabrep.

  On the equipment issue, I always wonder why heated seats are part of an options pack on a Scandinavian car, especially when they were available back in 1972.

  I’ve met the Saab product guy in the US and he’s a nice bloke, but I don’t agree with his decisions. Like Gripen said, it’s like they’re trying to starve them out.

• 5 Markac // Dec 23, 2008 at 2:28 pm

  The 9-3 facelift was altogeher rather better than the quite sad one the 9-5 got, but it still didn’t work at all levels. The 9-3SS was (let’s face it) quite bland. As one designer once said, “you can only enchance character not add it”. It think that is what Saab tried and it wasn’t a complete success.

  I can remember being dissapointed when the NG900 became the OG9-3. I think the OG9-3 deserved a more extensive facelift. A clamshell bonnet like the 9-5 would have been nice. Since then, Saab seem to have gone the opposite way on most facelifts. Often they are just a little too heavy handed.

• 6 zippy // Dec 23, 2008 at 2:37 pm

  The 9-5 facelift wasnt sad, it was pathetic.

  I dont think the 9-3 is a failure, the market out there just stinks!!!

• 7 BrianL // Dec 23, 2008 at 3:18 pm

  I agree with Zippy about the market.

  I don’t think they should be raising the prices at all considering the aging product line. Price would be the only way to stay competitive when you’re selling day old bread. It might still be good bread, but I’d rather have the fresh bread if it’s going to cost the same.

  The facelift was great and was definately needed. Unfortunately, they didn’t do the same on the rear. I think they really missed out on making a real statement in back, incorporating more LED light bars and Aero X cues. The back is where most people really see your car, waiting in traffic behind you staring at brake lights.

• 8 Rogan // Dec 23, 2008 at 3:23 pm

  I think the GM dash is also having a negative effect on sales…

  The older models were a lot classier both inside and out.

  -Rogan

• 9 Tedjs // Dec 23, 2008 at 3:42 pm

  I have to agree with Gripen – the price increase on the 2009 is rather extreme. Just for fun I priced out a 2009 SportCombi Aero and with similar equipment to my 2007 and it was around $48,000 – or about $10,000 more on the window sticker than my ’07. That might be bit over the top for a 9-3 in my opinion. Especially since the 2009 is ineligible for GMS pricing etc.

  However – I do like the 2008 exterior update, and I agree some colors do look better than others. My dealer has (or had) a Titan Grey Aero SportCombi and it looked simply awesome in that color. I was not crazy about the ’07 in that shade of grey, but the refresh did it justice.

  As for the 2008 exterior revision sinking sales, I am not sure about that one and agree it is more of a reflection of the “financial situation” we are currently in possibly (probably) combined with the jump in sticker prices. One just needs to look at the vehicle sales charts in Automotive News to see how badly every make is off this year. People just are not buying cars – and 2009 does not look any better – at least here in the United States.

  Additionally, with gas prices being unbelievably low right now I really have to doubt anyone would choose the SportCombi over a larger crossover type vehicle. The 9-3 is good size for me and my wife, but throw a few kids with there crap in (not in my car though – please!) and space would be an issue. It is a small car, but that is what makes it fun.

  Again – it is too bad GM does ‘get’ Saab more and know what to do with them. Watching them try to sort themselves out the past few weeks has been interesting in a tragic sort of way. There mismanagement of Saturn and Saab will be debating for some time to come. But not to worry GM is dumping a new Buick LaCrosse in our laps. Just what we needed…

• 10 Alex // Dec 23, 2008 at 3:52 pm

  I think that the big issue is price, and the looks didn’t help it either. The pre-facelift 9-3SS may not have been the flashiest looking car, but it also looked a whole lot more upscale than the current 9-3SS. The wraparound effect that the front fascia had (especially in Aero trim) has to be one of the classiest looking front ends in it’s segment of the past 10 years, barring maybe the pre-bangle E46’s. The restrained taillights, unique looking door handles and the classy, european-looking rub stripping just made it into a very visually appealing package.

  The new car just doesn’t have that panache to it, and worse yet, what it DOES have feels very cheaply executed to me. Take the taillights, it’s one thing to go for the clear look with high-quality, well-designed taillights the day some of the Japanese brands do. You know, like the LED jobs on the current Prius, they aren’t my thing but at least they’re well executed. The new taillights are just re-colored versions of the old ones with nary an LED to be found. They have no place on a premium car. The same goes with the door handles and the front grilles, they just reek of a kind of GM cheapness that doesn’t belong on a Saab. The new GM interior is just the icing on the cheap cake, and it makes for an overall package that really can’t compare to the 03-06 cars.

  And when that unappealing package MSRP’s for only a couple grand less than a similarly-equipped A4 or 3-series then it should be no surprise whatsoever that nobody’s lining up to buy the stupid things.

• 11 Dave // Dec 23, 2008 at 4:13 pm

  While I agree with many of the points raised by some of the previous post with regards to some of the shortcomings in both GM’s running of the brand and of the content and pricing of the current 9-3(heated seats as an option on any level of a Saab is just wrong), I feel that mess we find ourselves in financially around the world has a greater impact on these dramatic losses we are seeing on just about every car maker.

  The US market had new vehicles sales that were around 17 million for 2005.

  This year the projection is looking to be around 10 million.

  This type of massive loss has Toyota looking like they will be taking their first lost in 70 years according to the Wall Street Journal:

  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122992788012825897.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo

  I don’t see how we can really judge the true merits of the 9-3’s value in the greater market with this kind of downturn for everyone.

  But I’ll sure be looking out for great deals on used ones over the next few months. Ebay has had low mileage Turbo X’s under $30,000 US in the last couple of weeks.

• 12 Bruce // Dec 23, 2008 at 6:30 pm

  Have to disagree with you Zippy–The pre 07 9-5 was bland and so was the pre 08 9-3, front to rear. When the “Dame Edna” 9-5 appeared I voted with my pocketbook. I rather like the new Aero 9-3 front but those 3 horizontal bars on the other models are not a Saab design element. I once commented here also that the new 9-3 front is a mild work-over of the 9-2 front. Saab needs a strong design statement and distinctive family look. The recent concept cars have it, and the only current model that has it at the front end is the Dame Edna. I’m sure the new Saab front end will be three separate elements: wide swept framed headlights and a scooped (D aimed down) central grille.

  Next step, swoopy sides (Dame Edna does NOT have that in loads) and a spot-it-from-a-mile tail–current models miss entirely.

  B

• 13 albert // Dec 23, 2008 at 6:51 pm

  Well,….. I am not so sure on the facelift.
  I like the front, but as time passes by, I get more and more the feeling that the rest of the car doesn’t belong to it.
  Take the estate. The front is sharp and agressive (nice) the rest is smooth and rounded. Also nice, but two different expressions.
  What I definitely do not like on the facelifted sedan and especially on the convertible are the taillights. I would ask my dealer if he could fit the old ones. Glad I own an estate.
  On the sales: I get the impression that ,in my country, sales were influenced by three things:
  - increase in the price of the car itself
  - increase in taxes (this bites the common company car user twice) Saab is staying behind in the fuel economy race. The manuals are average, the autos are in the category +10%, where the competition (Audi, VW and BMW in particular) has their cars in the -10%. This gives a higher tax, but it means also that the user has to pay more income taxes (and his wife doesn’t like that).
  - the effects of the credit crunch and the down stock market do have the most effect on the category of people who buy cars like Saab.

• 14 MARK_BELFAST // Dec 23, 2008 at 7:36 pm

  Reasons for undersales –
  1. worldwide economy
  2. new face great, old rear too ’soft’
  3. dash/fascia cheap and dull
  4. dealer prices too high for service etc
  5. 9-3 is an old car now

• 15 Nick X // Dec 23, 2008 at 7:42 pm

  I loved the 9-3 facelift. the car is defenitly more impressive. I wouldn’t have bought my SC without it, because the old model looked just a bit too boring to me.

• 16 PT // Dec 23, 2008 at 8:09 pm

  its a good looking car, has been since the sedan was launched. A coupe & hatch is a big vacuum but the look of the car can’t be faulted in my view. The MY06 dash on the linear spec is pretty cheap but the car overall stacks up to me.

  Expensive in comparision to non-traditional rivals like Subaru & VW though.

• 17 tom // Dec 23, 2008 at 8:50 pm

  Have to agree we Bruce and Nick X, but also with Swade to an extent. To my mind the new front end was exactly what the 9-3 needed. The previous design was bland, bland, bland. Saab is meant to be quirky, sporty and quality; the new design i think deals with the first two. The interiors are simply not good enough in a car that pretends to be a BMW/Audi competitor. In the markets eyes, it isn’t. We need to make sure that the quality matches the price point!!

  As for the rest of the design, i like the SC but there’s something not quite right about its backside. Anyone else think its got a fat arse?

• 18 Ken H // Dec 23, 2008 at 9:49 pm

  My initial comments about the 9-3 facelift were that the edgy front did not match the softer rest of the car. I notice that there is now an agreement about this.

  What they should have done was to put the money into the quality of the car, not the looks. The pre-facelift 9-3 is a design which is aging very well, just some minor tweaks would have been enough.

• 19 Kaz // Dec 23, 2008 at 10:11 pm

  The biggest problem for Saab now is Vauxhall/Opel.

  I drove an Insignia the other day, it is, to all intents and purposes, light years ahead of the 9-3

  Everything from material quality, refinement, handling, it has the 9-3 licked in all areas.

  It’s hard for me to say, I LOVE the 9-3, but the new Epsilon II platform is so far ahead of what the 9-3 is using that it makes the 9-3 redundant to the point of just looking expensive and old. I drove a 2.0 turbo with xwd (yes, the turbo x version) and the way it gripped, the way it changed direction (this was in the wet) was phenomenal, and it did it with a composure and confidence that the 9-3 didn’t have a hope in hell of mathcing.

  I also had a brief go in the 160bhp diesel variant, and even in front wheel guise, it is light years ahead in terms of handling, ride and refinement.

  Saab has been starved of these developments, and that is a very sad thing indeed. If the 9-3 came with the platform and the material quality of the Insignia, BMW and Audi would most certainly be seeing the dust of Saab in the UK sales charts.

  Saab also looks doomed to exile from GM, as they have now taken all Saabs off the lists available to order for GM employees here in the UK. This is such a shame, as the new product was sooooo close! Let’s hope GM see sense and the value that Saab can still bring them.

  I really do not want to be driving a Cadillac, but if Saab go, then Cadillac will be the only premium brand they have left. And that means it will be the only premium brand I will have access to on the scheme.

  I may very well go and buy a Viggen to satisfy my Saab itch if that does happen.

• 20 Ronan // Dec 23, 2008 at 10:29 pm

  I think the front of the 9-3 is great, the back nondescript and the flanks just plain boring and bland.

• 21 Jacob // Dec 23, 2008 at 11:03 pm

  Saab’s pricing in the USA isn’t too high – it might well be just right, actually.

  The Saab strategy in the USA isn’t one of moving as much vehicles as possible, but making as much profit as possible. In the USA, Saab makes a profit on each car they sell. Volvo hasn’t risen its prices in the US, and makes a severe loss on each vehicle they sell (!) due to the weak dollar. Probably the same case for some Mercs, BMWs and Audis too.

  I know it isn’t a happy story for Saab dealerships, but I think it’s healthy to focus on making money instead of just moving as much cars as possible. It has more benefits – it lowers the dependence on the US-market and easens the way to profitability. And, in the EU Saab isn’t that expensive at all, compared to equally equipped BMW’s or Audi’s it’s rather cheap actually!

• 22 Kaz // Dec 23, 2008 at 11:23 pm

  It may be cheaper than BMW or Audi, but it certainly is not cheaper than an Insignia, which is a much better car than the 9-3.

  In fact, I’d go as far to say that the Insignia is a better car than the 3 series and the A4.

• 23 CWilson // Dec 24, 2008 at 12:10 am

  Ken said: “What they should have done was to put the money into the quality of the car, not the looks. The pre-facelift 9-3 is a design which is aging very well, just some minor tweaks would have been enough.”

  I couldn’t agree more. I love the pre ‘08 styling and think it’s still one of the best looking 4-door cars that real money can buy. The ‘08+ just has the appearance of ‘trying too hard’ or ’simply changing for the sake of change’. On the whole it just doesn’t work.

  My thoughts (many are a repeat of what has already been noted):
  - the front is mis-matched with the rest of the car
  - the rear tail-lights are horrifying and look as though they were bought from a cheap after-market catalog
  - the slab sides are way too boring especially with the aggressive front end
  - the deletion of the rear trunk spoiler on the Aero was a mistake
  - wheel stying has gotten worse over the years and the ’08’s are some of the worst offerings.
  - the exterior door handles are simply too big for the car

  Instead of making massive cosmetic changes, I feel that the quality of materials used as well as some basic features (such as integrated Bluetooth, iPod adapters, upgraded stereos, etc) should have been offered long ago. Put the money in things that buyers can see and touch – I don’t think anyone has ever complained about too much quality.

• 24 Stephen // Dec 24, 2008 at 1:02 am

  Swade:

  Having heated seats as an option in the US is integral to a “Southern Strategy”.

  As background, remember that ever since air-conditioning became universal in homes, shops, and cars, population in the US has been moving south, and taking prosperity with them. Any company whose product sales are limited to the north is facing diminishing prospects.

  Now, any true Southerner (and that includes many Northern-born) still harbors a grudge*, and they will not, absolutely will not, purchase a vehicle with standard equipment heated seats. “Why should I pay extra for something that’s only for Yankees?” (expletive deleted) is the mantra.

  *(as was transparently clear when the Senators from the Southeast as a block essentially told GM and Chrysler to “go tell it to a President from Illinois.”

• 25 Rogan // Dec 24, 2008 at 1:13 am

  I think the problem is evident. Here we are, six years after the introduction of the 9-3, past both an interior and exterior redo. The fact that we’re even having a debate on whether or not the car is better is an issue. It looks like the 9-3 has esentially taken a step sideways… not really forward.

  -Rogan

• 26 Karen // Dec 24, 2008 at 2:02 am

  Based on this photo, it seems the designers spent too much time watching the animated “Cars”. I read an article on aerodymanics in NYT Sunday Auto section, and Saab did not get a mention. This photo reveals why – yet it does not match my visual impression of Saabs on the lot.

  Heated seats are now an OPTION for US? this is insane. Originally a key safety feature.

  The 9-3 undercarriage is still too close to the ground. I drove two miles yesterday, after the plowing, yet I had to clear my wheel wells before going back into the garage.

  If Saab has a lifetime user design input panel, please let me know…

  Today’s NYT article on Toyota says there is global capacity for 90 million vehicles in a 66 million sales year. Forgive me, but how many tens of millions of car drivers live in snow belts where heated seats and a higher body are essential, not to mention all the other winter weather safety features that make Saab unique?

• 27 jchan2 // Dec 24, 2008 at 2:36 am

  I think the declining sales are partly because it’s aging- people who leased ones in previous years just don’t see the point in picking up another one, especially given the price increases and the demise of leasing at GM.
  I like the new look, but I’m disappointed the 9-3X and XWD on 2.0T models didn’t come out right at the gate- this gradual improvement thing doesn’t work. Saab would have made more of a splash if they just launched it all at once.
  The severe incentives and price drops over the years (XWD ‘08 Aeros are listed all over Cars.com for around $30K, with less than 1,000 miles) really makes the rising MSRP irrelevant- GM will simply pile on more cash to move the metal later on.
  And.. why on earth is a 6 disc CD Changer still optional equipment on a car of this caliber? For crying out loud, a CD Changer is standard on many Accords, Altimas, and Camrys!

• 28 joemama // Dec 24, 2008 at 3:47 am

  I disagree about the new dash – I bought a 2007 because imo it was much easier to use and looks cleaner.

  The new front end is not very appealing. Add that to the 2.0 XWD not coming with eLSD and I’ll be looking elsewhere for my next car purchase to replace the ‘ol subaru.

• 29 MarkS // Dec 24, 2008 at 7:27 am

  I’ve been saying this for a while now, but I just don’t think the 9-3 re-style works at all (IMHO). From the side, the car looks more generic than ever with its Toyota-like door handles. NOT a good time to make your cars even LESS noticeable!! The black surrounds on the tail lamps serve no purpose and make the car look like it’s been taped up for a re-spray. Head on it’s not so bad, but stretching the nose out in that way seems LESS confident a design move to me. Saabs of the past stood out for their purposeful and confident shapes. The classic 900 was understated and yet unmistakable from any angle, and its curvatures served a purpose. Take a look at cars from the ’80’s which were once deemed futuristic, like the Ford Taurus from 1986. It’s amorphous shapes seem absurd today, but the classic 900 is…well, a CLASSIC!! The newest 9-3 is (even for me…an avid Saab nut) difficult to spot at times and even worse, quite unremarkable once recognized.

  

• 30 Troll96 // Dec 24, 2008 at 7:47 am

  It’s as though GM has consciously decided to stick it to major portions of the Saab market. Life-long customer? Sorry, but there’s nothing new on offer for the time being. Are you a lease customer? Too bad! Want to use GMS? Sorry again! Impressed with XWD? Fine, but you’ll have to buy an Aero to get the full system. Newbie potential buyer who’s a bit price sensitive? Tough luck! We’re raising prices. Of course, we’ll be glad to offer BIG discounts later, but by then you’ll probably have moved on, won’t you?

  Hard to believe that any of this is designed to be good for Saab.

• 31 ck1x // Dec 24, 2008 at 4:18 pm

  I actually like the new face lift but was hoping for a little more when it came out. We were promised Aero-X cues in which it does have a more aggressive look but I figured Saab would go the route that Audi did when they did their refresh on the A4. It got a whole new grille and rear end to boot. Which ended up making the car look more current until the new model actually came to market. So I just feel that it was a to little to late scenario for Saab on this one.

• 32 Francoism // Dec 25, 2008 at 5:55 am

  I bought the Turbo X because I liked the overall look of the car. I do enjoy flying under the radar. My favourite design elements are the rounded hood, the headlights and the lip on the trunk. Scandinavian design can be understanted, for sure. Is that bad? I don’t think so.

• 33 blgaarder // Dec 29, 2008 at 2:07 am

  For what it’s worth, the price increase didn’t seem too bad.

  I had a 5-speed base 1982 900 3-door.

  Replaced it with a 5-speed base 1994 900-S 5-door. Paid about 50% more for a car with much more standard equipment (16 valve, AC , ABS, heated seats, and airbags to name a few) and paid about 50% more.

  Replaced the 1994 with an automatic 2008 2.0T SC, added the winter package, backup alert, and a set of winter wheels. I paid about 50% more and got more standard equipment (turbo, ESP, TCS, TPMS, remote locking, Onstar, XM radio if I wanted to use it, and more). Would have preferred a 5-door, but that’s life.

  A 50% increase in price after 12 and 14 years seems reasonable to me, considering the upgrades.

• 34 Wood // Jun 9, 2009 at 3:05 am

  Saab..9-3 Convertible at 38K the vehicle should come with a minimum of HID Xenon Headlights
  and LED tail lights, leather and a fuel requirement that is MID grade NOT 91 octane!!

  The base engine 2.0T requires Premium fuel? Are you kidding me this ups the operating cost of the vehicle by 1500 per year min. Take a clue from Cadillac.. get your engines to run on regular & drop the price otherwise the competition will eat you up. Don’t care if the Chinese buy this company now.. they will have to make some “changes” to make this plan work
  Regular fuel is the new norm and this car models even the Aero is overpriced!