Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Saab 9-3 Sedan



  • dhanleydhanley Posts: 1,531
    "I don't think any four-door sport sedan out there can outperformed or outhandled a Saab."

    *rolls eyes*
  • saablcpsaablcp Posts: 195
    You post a link to Car and Drivers comparison test.How can that test have any credibility?They post a 198ft.stopping distance for the Aero and just blithely state maybe there was a "malfunction". They then struggle to even get the BMW started and try to perform a 70-to 0 stop which results in an alm0st 360 degree spinout due to faulty ABS.How do they address this glaring flaw?They simply use braking data for a different model from a previous test! Totally bogus and also totally indicative of the BMW bias that their magazine has fostered for decades!
  • dhanleydhanley Posts: 1,531
    I don't see how that is bias. They know the car can stop in that distance because the exact same one did so in a previous test. Someone could say they are biased FOR the saab by 'blithely' saying that the 198 foot braking distance must be due to a malfunction. I think people generally claim bias when there's data they want to ignore. "Oh, well, that would ruin my point.. Oh, i know, the source is biased!"

    In any case, i was responding to the claim that the 9-3 will blow away any 4-door car in performance... While i think as a package saabs are pretty good values, the idea they're going to torch any other 4-door car is weird.
  • autoeduautoedu Posts: 47
    For those who've never experienced the glory of Saab high performance turbo...
    According to Top Gear BBC's reivew of Saab.
    "Don't mind BMW or Mercedes, Saab Aero does 40-70mph faster than Porsche 911 Turbo."

    Everyday driving condition is not how fast you can accelerate from 0-60mph. The heart, glory and joy of Saab is power and performance in everyday driving 40-70mph, 50-75mph etc. This is where Saab does it better than any cars, even better than Porsche 911 Turbo (that means BMW and Mercedes stand no chance against Saab in highway passing situation)

    For the car enthusiasts the sheer overtaking power of Saab is truely special.

    Why Saab a BBC's Review
    Watch the last minute of the video!
  • dhanleydhanley Posts: 1,531
    Hehe, you don't want them to watch the whole video? Why not? Don't want to have them hear clarkson trash the car for seven minutes? :) Or where it gets beaten around the track by the honda civic and almost every other car tested? That is in the video too, ya know. How does having almost the worst track time tested fit into your "performance" argument?

    Here's the top gear power board with the 9-5 test:

    note that many of these tests were on a wet track, some even "very wet" or icy. But the 9-5 was o na bone-dry track.

    You've also got your sole fact for the car wrong. It's not faster than a 911 turbo 40-70, it's faster when doing the pull *in second gear* . A 911turbo ( as well as a 3 series ) need a 2-3 shift ~60mph, so you can't even do a 40-70 test in second. But in an automatic or if you shift, that won't be the result.

    But lest you think i'm just trashing, saab is on my "next car" list. I think it's comfy, safe, has some nice features, and is priced well.
  • autoeduautoedu Posts: 47
    Yes, watch the whole video again.
    Most of the video is about Saab is a car and jet is a jet. A car can never outperforms a jet...well that's a surprise. He is not trashing the car by making Saab vs Jet comparisons. No matter how you explain/twist it, Saab does 40-70mph faster than Porsche 911 Turbo period. If Saab can do this kind of pull in second gear, look like a Porsche or Corvette has a lot of catch up to do once a Saab is shifted into its 3rd or 4th gear :)

    The most impressive fact? Saab gives you this kind of performance with a 4 cylinder engine, front-wheel drive in a sedan form.

    As for the Power Laps tests they clearly state their results as...
    "These lap times do not offer entirely reliable comparisons between the cars - the conditions are far from controlled."

    Again the heart and soul of Saab is not 0-60mph tests or racetrack time. This is not practical real-life driving performance or situation.

    Cars are driven by people not racetrack driver. Hop on the freeway, and if the situation is truely necessary, Saab can overtake any cars, even Porsche or BMW, surely and safely.
  • getty813getty813 Posts: 7
    My husband and I are looking at a 2003 9-3 Linear with upgrades of 17inch wheels, 6 cd changer, power moonroof, power driver seat and electrochromatic rear view with 36,000 miles on it for $14,900. If we get it we will get the 4 year 60,000 mile warranty for another $2500. It is a lease turned in EARLY. After doing my research I was really looking for a 2004, because of all the electrical issues with the 2003's. But this car looks and drives fab, however I have done the research so while my heart is saying buy, my mind is saying no way. Thoughts??
  • dhanleydhanley Posts: 1,531
    I'm not clear on the extended warranty--they usually operate from the point the car was originally purchased, and there's already a 4 year 50K mile warranty on the car. If the car is "certified" by saab, it will extend the warranty to 6 years or 100K miles, and that ought to be less than $2,500

    Just make sure it's the genuine gm/saab warranty in any case.
  • getty813getty813 Posts: 7
    the car was bought on may 30, 2003 so the original warranty is up may 30, 2007- if we buy now, the car is still covered under the originial warrany so we would extend the current warranty (which i assume is gm/saab) another 4years or 60,000 miles which would cover everything but battery, brakes and the radio. just not sure we want to invest in a 2003 9-3 given all the discussions here about electrical problems...
  • ogr81ogr81 Posts: 3
    I have a 2003 9-3 Linear and have had no electrical problems to-date. In fact, the only thing I had to have replaced under warranty was the driver's side window tract. My car was produced late in the model year, and it sounds like the one you're considering purchasing was as well. I venture to say they had many of the bugs worked out by late '03...just my $>.02.
  • getty813getty813 Posts: 7
    thanks for your message!
  • dhanleydhanley Posts: 1,531
    I'm sure the current warranty is GM/SAAB but i'd make sure the extened warranty is. The issue is, if it's a third-party warranty, they have much more latitude to deny your claim, or try to shortchange the work, so some repair shops won't deal with them. If it's the GM warranty, it's their car, and they want to keep their customer happy.

    I wonder, because your numbers sound weird. Another 4 years and 60K miles would make it a 8 year 110K mile warranty total, and i don't think GM has a plan like that.

    Somewhere else on these forums, i saw a link for dealer who sells GM extended warranties very cheaply. Ask around. Make sure to ask about the deductable, too.
  • getty813getty813 Posts: 7
    I don't think it's a third party (will ask tomorrow). Because the car is still under the original warranty until Thursday, we have the option to extend that warranty 4 years, 60,000 miles with a $200 deductible for $2573.

    just not sure we should do the 2003- perhaps wait for a 2004 9-3 or 9-5 with low miles to come down the road...with all the electrical discussions not sure if it is a good money choice...
  • dhanleydhanley Posts: 1,531
    My general thought is that if you're at all nervous it's good to wait. Few things are worse than thinking "Arrgh, i knew it!!" And, i'm always leery of buying an early-model-run car, no matter what it is, especially if it's been traded in with somewhat low miles. :/

    Also, i think the 9-5 isn't a bad idea. Aside from handling, i think it's a preferable to the 9-3, and it's well sorted out by this point.
  • saablcpsaablcp Posts: 195
    If the car is being offered as a Saab Certified used car your total coverage is 6 years or 100,000 miles from date of original warranty coverage. If that date was in fact May 30th,2003 your coverage would run until May 30th of 2009 or 100,000 miles whichever comes first.Pricing of the car seems very fair,however the dealer is marking up the certified warranty by more than double his cost.The warranty is more fairly priced at $1,500 to $1,700....cost to him is $1,199.00.
  • getty813getty813 Posts: 7
    huh, good feedback. we will bring this up to them tomorrow...i was wondering where they got that 2500 figure seemed a bit off to us.
  • philpvillephilpville Posts: 5
    Hi, I have an '03 Linear with 53,000 miles on it. At about 10,000 miles or so, I did have some wierd issues that were covered by warranty and repaired. Specifically, the fan and air conditioning would just stop functioning completely. It (I think the fan motor?) was replaced three times and finally they got it right. Also, like one other person in this string, my driver's side window stopped functioning at 52,000 miles -- out of warranty, but the dealer covered this as a courtesy.

    Good car overall, you'll like it.
  • getty813getty813 Posts: 7
    thanks for the feedback...we were on the phone with the dealer most of the day yesterday- he dropped the warranty to $1900 from $2500 and really wanted to sell us the car (he said to get off the lot,etc). We also had a copy of the service record, most everything was under warranty. But we decided to hold off for a 2004 CPO'd- so we shall see what comes in!
  • getty813getty813 Posts: 7
    Ok, we passed on the 2003 9-3, just seemed to be too much negative energy about it and no CPO'd option. Now we have the option of the following:
    2004 9-3 Arc, 34,600 titan grey, $18,900 with CPO
    2004 9-3 Linear, 32,000, white, no sunroof, $15,900 with CPO

    Everyone's comments last time around were really helpful...thoughts? Both are priced a couple thousand less thant Edmund's TMV.
  • saablcpsaablcp Posts: 195
    An '04 Arc in Titan Grey? That color wasn't offered until 2007.
Sign In or Register to comment.