THAT is why I keep asking you what SAABS have you owned in the past - ? You never answer this part of the question
Because I am not sure why it matters in light of the conversation we were having. In any event, growing up, my Dad had three Sonnets.
I used to love the way the doors shut and the way the turbo sounded. UGH now that opel engine with a turbo bolted on yuck!
The Sonnets doors were kind of tinny, actually.
We have to part company of the new Saab engines. At least the 2.0 and 2.8. The turbos are fully integrated, and they deliver a very decent amount of boost throughout the rpm chain.
Also, the new 9-3 has minimal torque steer, something many fwd cars cannot claim.
More to the underlying point of this conversation, I think in some ways you are blaming the fact the industry in general has changed on GM acquiring Saab. The new 3 Series do not drive like the old 2002.
The new SAAB 9000 in 1985 was the first SAAB to share platforms with other marques. It was my understanding that the 9000 platform was shared with Lancia.
Here's a snippet of copy from the book "The SAAB-Scania Story" published in 1987 - a book every SAAB lover should own:
"Although all new models to date had been produced by SAAB's own designers, the development costs had reached such a level following the 900 (ed. the original 900) that the Company decided to seek a partner for joint ventures. The choice fell on Lancia, the Italian company which was developing a similar car model and which needed to cut its costs in a similar manner.
As described by Sten Wennlo, Vice-President of SAAB-Scania and head of its Car Division, 'negotiations' with Fiat/Lancia's Giovanni Agnelli proceeded more or less as follows: "The three of us - Sten Gustafsson, (Marcus) Wallenberg, and myself - went to Geneva to meet Agnelli. After 15 minutes of discussion, everybody stood up and Agnelli said: 'Okay, Marcus, I think we'll give it a try'. 'Agreed,' was Wallenberg's reply - and an absorbing five years of collaboration commenced with a handshake".
Of course, Fiat is now the parent company of Alfa Romeo, so it's entirely possible the 9000 platform was also shared with Alfa and Fiat models, but it was initially only Lancia.
The integration of the Opel V6 in later 9000 models was due to market pressure of consumers demanding a V6 in this class of car. NOTE: The certified SAAB mechanics, who are also my friends, told me this engine was in no way as sturdy and long-lived as the SAAB-designed Inline 4's.
I've owned SAAB's since 1968, but my newest - and, I must say unfortunately my last - SAAB's I still drive on a daily basis is a 1985 900 4-door sedan, and a 1987 900S 3-door hatch. Both "Classic" SAAB's, and each have provided very good service since each was purchased new.
why don't you buy a SAAB if you think they are so good ?
Again, our debate has been about Europeaness, not quality. I mentioned on several occasions that Saab reliability lags both GM NA and GM Opel. Not sure why, as it appears the turbo engines are not the source of reliability complaints.
In any event, my current home being in downtown Manhattan, owning any car, no matter its quality, is out of the question. A slot on top of a 4 car parking elevator (takes about 15 minutes to get your car) costs hundreds a month. Add in insurance, gas, city license fees - not worth the hassle.
If I ever moved to the 'burbs, I would look seriously at the 9-3 SportCombi. I think it is a real nice little wagon.
"The new 3 Series do not drive like the old 2002."
LOGIC!! I owned the new 3 series for 2.5 years a 2003 ARC Saab Sport Sedan and the steering was numb and fuzzy. THIS IS THE NEW MODEL!!
anyway ok so your dad had some antique SAABS which are totally different from the 900s through the 80's and early 90s
anyway I know the new SAAB product and I have driven the new 9-5 ( a decade old design) and I just don't see where you really have the ownership experience to comment. I can see you have read many reviews and technical info but I am sorry if you haven't owned one I don't think people reading this should pay a lot of attention.
TRUST me future buyers you will regret buying the new SAABS
LOGIC!! I owned the new 3 series for 2.5 years a 2003 ARC Saab Sport Sedan and the steering was numb and fuzzy. THIS IS THE NEW MODEL!!
I am having trouble following your post. Do you mean the new 3 Series has numb and fuzzy steering compared to older 3 series? Or are you comparing 3 series steering with the Saab's?
RWD, rear engine vehicles when done right will always have better steering than FWD. No matter how good the engineering or components, FWD are front heavy and have to accomodate steering and power on the same axles.
I personally would always recommend RWD over FWD if the only consideration is driving pleasure. Most people need to compromise, and I think the SportCombi is a good choice for the money. The NY Times agress with me as well, I note.
GM sort of expect that traditional Saab buyers (of which there weren't many, and they were dwindling fast) would disappear like the wind once the new GM-ized models started to appear? If they didn't they should have.
I thought the plan was to attract new buyers, a whole different demographic (besides aging college professors) to the brand. The real problem lies not in the loss of what traditional Saab buyers perceived to be the brand's core qualities, but rather the lack of new product good enough to attract buyers to the brand.
And of course, the lament is that there isn't really such a thing as Saab any more, as all the separate design and engineering is in the process of going away or is already gone, and it is nothing more than a name on a shiny bit of chrome now. A name which is sourcing vehicles from wherever GM finds excess supply in its empire, or rebadging products from other car companies deemed worthy enough by the General to keep their own R&D facilities alive.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
LOGIC I was talking about SAABs 3 series as in 9-"3" sorry if I confused you ( I know most people think of BMW when you say 3 series so sorry about that)- I thought you were talking about SAABS 2002s vs the new models post 2003-
anyway I think most people know that about rear wheel drive I was replying to you praising the low torque steer in the SAAB 9-3 - (by the way my A3 has hardly any as well)
I hope you do get your sport combi for the money and options maybe it is a good deal -
CAVEAT EMPTOR: as you will see years down the road when you trade the car that had you spent the same money or maybe just a little more you could have had a much nicer AUDI A4 Avant and when you trade it that AUDI would be worth MUCH more than the CHEVY MALIBU-MAXX oops I mean "SPORT COMBI" I think maybe then you are the buyer GM wants. Maybe you think Caddy are a little to Ghetto bling and the SAAB has more sophisticated looks.
anyway I was like you once - I couldn't wait for the new SPORT SEDAN 9-3 to come out I thought wow GM finally got it right and that SAAB was back and a contender. I was really disappointed with it.
Most here seem to assume GM bought Saab primarily with the US market in mind. If so, then what you are saying makes a lot of sense. The problem, of course, is that in NA, the majority of the luxury market wants RWD or AWD, not FWD. That puts Saab's whole cachet at a disadvantage even Acura has had its share of difficulties overcoming.
I always thought GM was looking more for an upscale brand to complete its European family of cars, as GM does not have a European luxury or even entry luxury brand.
As for engineering, while it was probably never completely the case, the whole idea of Saab originally was to give the military hardware engineers something to do in their downtime because Sweeden does not take kindly to temporary lay offs. When Saab sold its auto division, there was no way it was going to let all of its engineers go. They had other duties at Saab.
LOGIC I was talking about SAABs 3 series as in 9-"3" sorry if I confused you ( I know most people think of BMW when you say 3 series so sorry about that)- I thought you were talking about SAABS 2002s vs the new models post 2003-
OK. I was confused. I was talking the old BMW 2002 and 3 Series.
I hope you do get your sport combi for the money and options maybe it is a good deal -
Well, probably won't be buying any car anytime soon. I like my job and apartment in Manhattan (unless you know something my boss isn't telling me :confuse: )
In a typical GM beancounter circle-jerk, henceforth both Saturn and SAAB are going to be mere rebadged Opels.
This means that Saturn will get a vehicle that arguably will have better driving dynamics than previously, and probably better interiors (hard to imagine interiors worse than what they have now). But, being an Opel (and therefore GM) the products will still be inferior to those developed by "real" European manufacturers.
And as we all know, when it comes to quality, GM is "reliably" third-rate (just look at Consumer Reports on the 9-3).
For its part, SAAB is no longer a manufacturer at all, just an assembler, as future products will be developed by Opel. In typical GM fashion, they're taking a low to mid-market product, dress it up a bit, and peddle it under a more upscale nameplate (can you say "Cimarron"?).
In other words GM is, as usual, doing it on the cheap and hoping that consumers won't notice (after 30 years of declining market share you'd think they'd get a clue).
Wouldn't be surprised to see them consolidate Saturn and SAAB franchises - the beancounters would just love the "savings" from consolidating signage - they could call the franchise "SAAbTURN."
Wow more activity here over the past 24 hours than the last few weeks! If this type of furry would happen in a Saab showroom we wouldn't be having this conversation!
But, being an Opel (and therefore GM) the products will still be inferior to those developed by "real" European manufacturers.
As opposed to what? Daimler Chrysler that has US, European and Asian design and engineering? Renault/Nissan, which has European, Asian and US design and Engineering? VW/Audi that has a very large engineering center in Brasil?
Opel is one of the oldest European auto companies. GM's Opel engineering center in Russelheim is among the largest auto engineering centers in Europe.
Auto is a global industry. It is nonsense to claim a Opel is less European than others.
And as we all know, when it comes to quality, GM is "reliably" third-rate (just look at Consumer Reports on the 9-3).
Saabs always had reliability issues. On the other hand, Opel, Buick, Cadillac are all GM brands that have reliability ratings on par with the best from Japan (and way above Daimler and especially VW/Audi)
I think the point people are trying to get across is that of the European car manufacturers it is Saab/OPEL that lost it's Savoir Faire....
Yes it's an old Euro company but it's parent GM has infused too much of it's cheapness we will never forget the Cadillac Cimmaron (Chevy Cavalier with nice seats)
If you get in a Ford 500 today an American car which took advantage of VOLVO - it's a nice car with a nice interior
A Chrysler 300 is the same thing with an E class Mercedes Chasis. An example of taking good things from Mercedes and making a car people like.
Take a Pontiac g6 or a Chevy Malibu based on the SAAB 9-3 platform and you can see that it just feels cheap compared to the Ford and Chrysler products.
The point is GM hasn't taken advantage of the Euro brands it owns - rather than taking what was good about these companies it simply cheapened them up.
This is why people aren't happy with GM - you don't hear people saying FORD ruined Volvo or Jaguar both cars are better than ever while keeping styling and overall the feeling of driving satisfaction of the original cars.
You don't hear people saying a Mercedes is more like a Chrysler rather people like that the Chryslers are more like Mercedes now (Crossfire window sticker says "85% german parts").
GM cars are not more like SAAB rather SAABS are more like GM cars and so that is where it loses it's Savoir Faire of being European. This is the complaint with GM.
I hope this helps you understand why people don't think of these companies are still being European, semantics can be argued as to company histories and where engineering departments are but you are totally missing why people do not feel SAAB or OPEL are still Euro companies. The products just don't have that mojo anylonger.
The argument isn't about where SAAB has engineering or where Audi has engineering.. It's about what is coming out of those engineering departments that feels more Cherolet than SAAB. An Audi engineered car in Latin America stills feels German b/c of the Standards the company has set. That is where those companies executed correctly vs GM's total failure. There is rumored talk of GM getting rid of SAAB all the time. You don't hear Ford talking about dumping Volvo or Jauguar or Range Rover- b/c people like what Ford has done with these cars.
I hope this helps you understand - we aren't arguing semantics - we are arguing about the end products which are not what we think of as Euro cars.
Complete opinion, supported with examples that have no logical connection to your conclusion. My comments to some points as follow:
I think the point people are trying to get across is that of the European car manufacturers it is Saab/OPEL that lost it's Savoir Faire....
Opel's market share is growing in Europe. Vehicles such as the Astra, Corsa and Vectra are frequently found to be better cars than their competitors at VW, Ford Europe, and Renault in the European auto press.
Yes it's an old Euro company but it's parent GM has infused too much of it's cheapness we will never forget the Cadillac Cimmaron (Chevy Cavalier with nice seats)
30 year old example, involving two GM NA only brands. This says anything about GM Europe in 2006.
If you get in a Ford 500 today an American car which took advantage of VOLVO - it's a nice car with a nice interior
Ford 500 is a critical and sales failure, its interior and exterior design panned as bland and sub-par.
A Chrysler 300 is the same thing with an E class Mercedes Chasis. An example of taking good things from Mercedes and making a car people like.
300 uses some last generation E Series parts. The car has had quality problems, if some modest sales success (falling off of late, or hadn't you noticed that Chrysler recently lost its 3rd place in the US market to Toyota?)
What's more, the features that have made the 300 popular, its styling and Hemi V8, are old school US. Heck, the DOD feature on the V8 was first brought to market by GM about 20 years back.
Take a Pontiac g6 or a Chevy Malibu based on the SAAB 9-3 platform and you can see that it just feels cheap compared to the Ford and Chrysler products.
The G6, Malibu and 9-3 all share a similar platform, true. The Malibu and G6 are far better sellers and tend to be rated higher than their Ford competition: Taurus and Fusion, and their Chrylse competition: Sebring and Stratus.
(Crossfire window sticker says "85% german parts").
The Crossfire that never sold in Europe or North America? Those 85% of German parts really helped.
GM cars are not more like SAAB rather SAABS are more like GM cars and so that is where it loses it's Savoir Faire of being European. This is the complaint with GM
Saab in its best years pre-GM sold less than 100k cars. It basically sold one car, a front wheel drive hatch with a 4 cylinder turbo charged engine. GM sells 6 million plus vehicles, including trucks, rear wheel drive, hatch, sedans wagons.
Volvo was a major company in Europe, with a full line up of cars. Daimler is Europe's largest auto company, with significant commerical applications. There is no rational comparison to the synergies available to Ford Volvo, Daimler Chrylser and GM Saab.
An Audi engineered car in Latin America stills feels German b/c of the Standards the company has set.
That's funny, because many recently dissapointed Audi buyers will blame the drop in quality on the push into South America.
You don't hear Ford talking about dumping Volvo or Jauguar or Range Rover- b/c people like what Ford has done with these cars.
Volvo yse. You are wrong about Jaguar and Range Rover. In fact, if Ford could ever find someone to pay anything near what they overpaid for these big time money losing brands, they would sell them in a heart beat.
In fact, if you had an open mind, you would see how close the Ford Jaguar Rover experience is to the GM Saab experience. Jaguar, Saab, and Rover are all niche brands whose identities center on niche qualities that do not translate well to modern manufacturing demands. This is not quite the problem with Jaguar and Rover given their more tony market as it is for Saab.
However, Ford has spent billions on Jaguar and Rover and not made any profit at all. The design and engineering of Jaguar and Rover do not translate at all to mass-market cars.
The same is true with Saab. Saab uses unique turbo engineering and sport front wheel drive suspension components not found on any mass market fwd car from any company. Not just GM.
It's about what is coming out of those engineering departments that feels more Cherolet than SAAB.
The engineering from Opel to Saab now has two Saab engines on Ward's top ten list (when did Saab earn such honors in the past?), and a car with almost no torque steer (a huge complaint on Saab in the past.) Reliability still lags the rest of GM. But Saabs were never reliable.
Yes SAAB's had reliability issues in the past. But as the 9-3 shows, GM's stewardship has wrought no improvement.
The problem is that GM's entire corporate culture - which it has imposed on the European divisions - is beancounter-led corner-cutting.
For example, Car and Driver, in reviewing the Cadillac CTS (which shares interiors with the SRX) compared the look and feel of the interior to the plastics found in disposable cameras. In the case of the SRX, this in a vehicle costing 40-50k!
Sit in an STS - a 60k car - and revel in the hard, cheap-looking plastics.
GM approved those vehicles for production that way, therefore it was intentional.
With the possilbe exception of the Corvette (and this only because of it's lower price point compared to the Euros) there is NOT ONE GM vehicle that is class leading. This from the largest manufacturer in the world?
Drive a SAAB-developed 9-3 vs. the current 9-3. That lack of solidity and cheap interior materials of the latter (as compared to the former) are incredible.
GM brings it's rental car mentality to everything it touches. It is a third-rate manufacturer ... hasn't been competitive since the 1960's.
For example, Car and Driver, in reviewing the Cadillac CTS (which shares interiors with the SRX) compared the look and feel of the interior to the plastics found in disposable cameras. In the case of the SRX, this in a vehicle costing 40-50k!
Car and Driver has also ranked the SRX as the top luxury SUV every year that it has been available, over the likes of the X5 and the Lexus R.
With the possilbe exception of the Corvette (and this only because of it's lower price point compared to the Euros) there is NOT ONE GM vehicle that is class leading.
The fact the Vette is faster than most of the competition, corners, brakes, and slaloms better has nothing to do with it?
Logic you seem to easily dimiss everything anyone says. You come across as a know it all and that is exactly the person not to listen to. Remember how you were trying to be funny by noting I didn't spell German with a capital G? Somehow that makes you a smarter car authoirity? This from a guy who doesn't even own a car? I don't think so.
You have never owned a SAAB pre GM or otherwise- you simply site statistics and magazine articles that suit your argument, while there are many other articles and chat boards of real owners who aren't coming back to SAAB to buy again (remember I had 5 SAABS so that makes me an expert on ownership experience and I have owned Lexus, Acura, VW and AUDI as well all of which I would buy again EXCEPT SAAB - now why is that? You seriously have to wonder if you can remove your emotion and see what I am telling you). GM had great sales in part b/c of pricing incentives and cash back(I know you will say everyone else did too so save your breath).
You keep saying everything is my opinion - well right back at you- I am not only speaking in my opinion I am speaking from real life experience which I think counts much more than your opinion
You CAN'T say that you have any experience other than your DAD's old 2 Cycle engine SAABS (a 30 year old example).
Why do you think I owned 5 SAABS? Only to come here and bash you and them? No silly that is your "opinion" and you are totally being ridiculous. I owned them b/c I loved SAABS.
Fine OPEL is a wonderful old Euro company according to you and a few reports here and there- you win but they are not SAAB and no one is fooled.
I own an Audi and quality as well has reliability has greatly improved no matter what you say and People come back to AUDI they don't come back to GM SAAB once burned as you will see. Unlike my 2003 SAAB I don't regret buying the AUDI. See that's the difference. I still enjoy the car and will miss it when the day comes to get rid of it. I don't even think twice about the SAAB I traded.
I think a lot of people buy cars on opinions and emotions as well as facts. I think you have some pretty strong opinions for a guy who doesn't even own a car. How could you possible know or have any perspective of the actual ownership experience? You have simply romanticized SAAB as being a different quirky little fun car. I think that is some huge emotion with ZERO life experience in driving or owning one. You really should drive many other cars to see what's out there now and stop going by old reports about quality.
Yes the Cimmaron is a 25 year old example I used which is exactly why everyone is upset with GM for trying to pull this crap Again some 25 yrs later with SAAB. They thought we would forget but their MO hasn't changed and they didn't learn from their lessons in the past.
The way you shoot down every counter argument here you make it sound like SAAB is the best company in the world and it's putting out the best product- you site every little bad thing you can find about any other car, aquisition and little report you can find. But no matter how you slice it SAAB is NOT any better than any of these cars and all things being equal is isn't up to par with similarly priced competitors (yes my opinion).
We are trying to save you some grief- but since you already know it all .....
This is a debate forum, not a religious belief forum. I disagreed with your arguments. I made points to back up my beliefs.
Yes the Cimmaron is a 25 year old example I used which is exactly why everyone is upset with GM for trying to pull this crap Again some 25 yrs later with SAAB. They thought we would forget but their MO hasn't changed and they didn't learn from their lessons in the past.
It does not take a know it all to counter this argument. The Cimarron was the same as its Olds and Chevrolet counterpart, except for slightly different upholestery and some changed sheet metal outside.
The Saab 9-3 shares a base platform with some Opels (Much as pre-GM it shared base platforms with Opels, Fiats, Lancias, etc. For more than 20 years Saab was not in a position where it could make its own platform from the gound up)
The 9-3, however, has different engines, different suspension, different drive shaft, different steering wheel, different internal sturcture and upholstery, etc. from any of the other GM platform mates. There is no rational basis to compare the 9-3 to the Cimarron.
The way you shoot down every counter argument here you make it sound like SAAB is the best company in the world and it's putting out the best product- you site every little bad thing you can find about any other car, aquisition and little report you can find. But no matter how you slice it SAAB is NOT any better than any of these cars and all things being equal is isn't up to par with similarly priced competitors (yes my opinion)
You cannot be reading my posts if you think this is what I am saying. I said that Saab has reliability problems (though I also correctly pointed out that VW and Audi are at the same depth as Saab).
I also said that I think it is very difficult dollar to dollar to pay for a Saab when you can get a RWD vehicle for the same price. I would never buy an Audi, but certainly a BMW or C Class Benz if priced close to the Saab would be far more attractive.
Saab has the SportCombi - well reviewed to date. As a base model, one can be had for around $26k. The only real competitior for a sporty fwd wagon at that price is the Volvo V50. From tests I have seen, the Combi out performs the V50, has more interior room, and in my opinion, looks better. Now the Aero SportCombi starts getting close to the BMW wagon and some other nice cars. Not sure I would ever recommend the Aero SportCombi.
If saying the base SportCombi sounds like a good deal makes me a know it all, guilty as charged. Your coming back with the Cimarron comparison does not strike me as being all that convincing.
simply you need to own these cars and drive them vs just reading reports about them
1. I said yesterday that I have driven the 9-3, the BMW 3 Series, several Volvos (both the S80 and V70) and the Audi A4.
2. This is not the owner's forum. This is the News and Views forum. I am not relating my ownership experiences. I am saying that my understanding of what makes Saab a bad deal for GM is far different from your understanding.
I'm fascinated why you can't understand why several people consider these cars more Chevrolet than anything European it just baffles me- there have been several posters here who say that and you jump in to say they are wrong all the time it's just really amazing.
Because in my mind a 9-3 using different engines, different suspension components, different interior components than a Chevrolet does not a Chevrolet make.
You guys want to make the claim, back it up with facts.
The Opel comparison makes more logical sense, although again, Saab modifies the Opel engines and uses different suspension set up as well.
And, as I have said over and over again, Saab DID NOT for many years, make its own platform or base engine. Rather, Saab had been buying and modifying platforms and engines from other companies for many years.
The only thing different, as best I can tell, is now that GM owns Saab, it is more apparent to US audiences what Saab is doing. Lack of understanding of pre-GM Saab policies does not make idle claims correct. Sorry.
again had you ever owned any of these cars that SAAB built before GM EVER owned any part you would have known that even if SAAB used GM platforms which I still don't believe you-on that one-they simply bought 1 part or two from GM the rest of the car was 99% SAAB and that is what made them unique and fun to drive. But how could you know this fun to drive feeling of pre-GM vs post GM SAABS They took the fun out of the cars.
It is your lack of REAL TIME experience with these cars that makes it hard to read your postings. The FACTS you want are simply we owned and drove these cars. WE talk to other owners. We don't feel they are the EURO FEELING cars they used to be. It's all about how the car feels and it's not a progression like it should have been. Instead it's just GM REBADGING a totally different car and calling it a SAAB.
they simply bought 1 part or two from GM the rest of the car was 99% SAAB and that is what made them unique and fun to drive. But how could you know this fun to drive feeling of pre-GM vs post GM SAABS They took the fun out of the cars.
You have links above showing since the advent of the 900 line, the base platforms and engines were NOT Saab.
Saab then, as now, took other companies platforms and engines, modded them, and put Saab sheet metal around it.
Given Saab competes far a market that will not pay much more than 35K or so, it has no choice. Modern manufacturing costs are such that you cannot engineer a wholly unique platform at low enough costs and profitably sell a car in the small numbers Saab ever sold.
But how could you know this fun to drive feeling of pre-GM vs post GM SAABS They took the fun out of the cars.
The primary difference between Saabs now and then is significantly less torque steer and turbo lag. When I drive a BMW 3 Series, I do not notice any torque steer or turbo lag. If your argument is that torque steer and turbo lag make a car European fun to drive, or you also arguing the BMW does not have a European fun feel to it?
again you are missing the point you didn't live with or drive these cars
you are twising words now - are you now saying that SAAB is more like BMW than ever before since it no longer has torque steer and turbo lag? I don't think so
you are twising words now - are you now saying that SAAB is more like BMW than ever before since it no longer has torque steer and turbo lag? I don't think so
I am twisting words?
Nowhere have I said that a FWD car drives like a RWD car.
Indeed, the FWD RWD difference is what I see as the essential connundrum for GM with Saab.
Before the advent of computer driven stability systems, RWD had a serious flaw in the mind of many drivers: if you did not know what you were doing, it was easy to lose the back end on slippery or snow covered roads.
Saab offered a reasonable entry level luxe FWD alternative.
Over the past ten years, two things have happened to make the Saab format virtually untenable. First, as mentioned, the rise of the stability systems making RWD cars truly accessible to everyone with the money to pay, not just the people who know how to drive.
(n.b.: AWD has been enjoying a mild run in popularity among entry level luxe as well. I think the high cost of gas will kill this diversion quickly.)
Second, and more critically, the overall quality of mass market FWD cars has risen to the point where there is little Saab can do to distinguish itself from the mass market FWD cars, be they made by Toyota, Honda, GM, Mazda, or anyone else.
GM bought Saab right before both these tendencies took root. So GM was left with few options. It could have gone straight luxe, a la the Lexus ES330s. Or, it could, as it has tried, go with making Saab as sporty as an FWD can be.
GM has been somewhat successful, as I say, in that it has pretty much eliminated torque steer and turbo lag on the new Saabs. But any other improvements would push the price of the Saab well into Cadillac CTS and BMW territory.
And therein, as far as I am concerned, lies the rub. Most people given the choice, will just as soon buy the rwd CTS or BMW 3 Series for the money than the Saab. The rwd cars are superior sports machines. With stablitrack, they are just as competent in the snow and slop as the Saab.
These technology changes have left GM with few options or incentive to expand on the Saab line up. Taking Saab production out of the Trollhatten factory and moving it to Germany should improve quality and reliability. I am not sure if that alone will be enough. Arguably, a closer Saab/Opel tie in through out Europe, with Saabs being the fancier FWD offerings at the posher side of the dealership may be the key.
I don't see any reason to keep Saabs in the US once the Opels start flowing through Saturn.
ok sounds a little better - if Opel were here it would be a truer representaion vs a rebadging of the OPELS, SUBARUS and GMC Envoys with SAAB badges. Opel is what it is but a SAAB it is not - whatever you want to criticize about past SAABS GM did not take that same car and improve on it. They merely and very lazily took the OPEL and rebadged it adding a turbo perhaps.
Interior look and feel is super cheap and more suited to the OPEL brand than SAAB..
Well, while I kind of like where Saab is heading with the '07 interiors, I don't really disagree with your statement.
Still, I think reducing torque steer and turbo lags are positives.
The biggest difference will be getting production out of the reliability plagued Trollhatten factory to the high quality Russelheim and Belgium factories.
Even if GM nails both, you still have a front wheel drive car selling at prices BMW and Cadillac are selling rear wheel drive. I can not see where GM hopes to go with the brand.
Here is what I am getting at with the problems making a go with Saab:
Someone mentioned the SRX earlier. While Car & Driver did not like the original version's interior, they liked its ride and handling that it has been C&D's top luxury UTE the past three years. The big complaint was the interior.
The new CTS interior will take its cues from that as well.
The CTS sells for close to what a loaded 9-3 sells. The CTS has a far more dynamic rwd platform. Its mpgs are close to Saab. Unless you want a wagon, (the Sport Combi again ), why buy a Saab over the Cadillac?
I'll bet many people make the same decision in Europe. Only there, as no Cadillac is available, they opt for a BMW or Benz.
One can't tell how the 2007 CTS / SRX interior will be from photos.
Judgment must be reserved until one has had the opportunity to actually sit in them and see how they look and feel in the flesh.
That said, GM is notorious for its cheap interiors ... often they are compared to plastic products from Fisher Price and Rubbermaid.
Given that GM hasn't seen fit to put decent interiors in its cars for thirty-plus years now, I wouldn't expect much from the 2007 CTS.
Like all GM products, it will be an improvement over its predecessor, but not up to par with it's current competition.
That's part of GM's problem, it engineers and designers compete with their own past products, rather than the competition's products.
Further, when GM cuts corners on glaringly obvious things like interiors, which the driver looks at constantly, one shudders to think of the corner-cutting they're doing on the stuff the customer doesn't see.
Perhaps GM's current offerings are better than the Vegas and X-cars of thirty years ago ... but GM has consistently lagged the competition the entire time, and still does.
GM is a (proverbial) "rental car company" - in management, engineering, assembly. It's entire corporate culture is oriented around building rental car-like vehicles).
>>For example, Car and Driver, in reviewing the Cadillac CTS (which shares interiors with the SRX) compared the look and feel of the interior to the plastics found in disposable cameras. In the case of the SRX, this in a vehicle costing 40-50k!
>>Car and Driver has also ranked the SRX as the top luxury SUV every year that it has been available, over the likes of the X5 and the Lexus R.
Yeah, and Car & Driver had an SRX for a long term test. One multiple occasions it died and left their tester stranded, one time necessitating buying a plane ticket to get him home.
And they pointed out that by the time they turned it in (1 year / 40,000 miles if memory serves)the vehicle had developed numerous squeeks and rattles.
Sounds like GM business as usual (as it's been at least since the 1970s): with LUCK you MIGHT make it through the warrantly period; but in any case you should expect the vehicle to start falling apart soon after the warranty period expires.
Found a review of the C70 and 9-3 convertibles on CNN. Seems the author agrees with some of the other comments within this discussion topic.
"The 9-3 accelerates quickly, has sharp, responsive steering and handles well enough to make you seek out the closest twisty road. The car's interior, unfortunately, is a major let-down. I thought the same hard plastic material was just fine in a Chevrolet Trailblazer, but seeing it in a European luxury car is just terribly wrong. (Saab is a GM brand while Volvo is owned by Ford, but the relationship to the parent is much more obvious in the Saab, I'm afraid.)"
I have had my '01 9-5 for 5 years, and previously had a an '87 900 many years ago. I can honestly say that the 9-5 is a better car in every which way. The engine is much smoother and quieter, the tranny is smoother, the ride is much more balanced, and the interior finish is much more luxurious and less cramped. I just don't understand what the nostalgia of old Saabs is about, and why the need to put down new ones.
Saab has been using major components of other manufacturers for decades before the GM buy-out: the Saab engine (both 2.0L and 2.3L) had its root in the Triumph design; turbo was sourced from either UTX or Mitsubishi, 9000 platform was from Fiat. The only thing really homegrown was the 900 body design, which was very good for its time but has been surpassed by today's designs; that, and the seat warmers, which is still there, in three different heating levels!
You are WAY!!!!!!! out of date with your turbo concerns.Saab turbos have been water cooled since the late '80's.Our service department replaces app.1 or 2 blown turbos A YEAR!!The cool down period after driving goes back to the days of oil cooled turbos.
Do any of the posters so exorcised by Saab's Patform sharing understand how little the platform the car is based on influences the final product???They apparently could see the obvious similarities between the Toyota Camry sedan and the Lexus RX-330 X-Over AWD.Right?
in 2001 a 9-5 was a damn nice car compared to what was available then -
The problem is GM still makes the 2001 9-5 and just sells it 6 and 7 years later.
That's all - I liked the 9-5 - I think a better job was done with it than the 9-3
I have been turned onto Audi's and I like the new A4 - personally I would choose that over a 9-5 - they seem about the same size (close enough for me anyway)
Audi offers 2.0T or a six cyl and optional quattro.
Interior is really nice and always gets rave reviews -
9-5 is nice just today it seems a little dated compared to what's out there for the same or less money.
I also like the Passat or Jetta (the new ones) and were I in the market for a 9-5 I would find it hard to justify when I can get a loaded passat for under 30K and it's the new body so the car will look fresh for a few years vs the SAAB 9-5 long long overdue for a makeover
Let me get this straight: 20+year old designs are better than current ones because the current 7-yr old design is getting too old?? Where is logic?
A4 is not even close to 9-5 in size, by any stretch of imagination. A4 is a compact, whereas 9-5 is a midsize. The closest thing in Audi's lineup to 9-5 in terms of size is A6, both offering about 57" shoulder room in the front and 56" in the back; A4 is a whole size smaller at 55"/53.5". In fact, 9-5 wagon is roomier inside than even the A6 wagon, and much more spritely in driving dynamics (500lb weight savings makes a huge difference).
Comments
Because I am not sure why it matters in light of the conversation we were having. In any event, growing up, my Dad had three Sonnets.
I used to love the way the doors shut and the way the turbo sounded. UGH now that opel engine with a turbo bolted on yuck!
The Sonnets doors were kind of tinny, actually.
We have to part company of the new Saab engines. At least the 2.0 and 2.8. The turbos are fully integrated, and they deliver a very decent amount of boost throughout the rpm chain.
Also, the new 9-3 has minimal torque steer, something many fwd cars cannot claim.
More to the underlying point of this conversation, I think in some ways you are blaming the fact the industry in general has changed on GM acquiring Saab. The new 3 Series do not drive like the old 2002.
Here's a snippet of copy from the book "The SAAB-Scania Story" published in 1987 - a book every SAAB lover should own:
"Although all new models to date had been produced by SAAB's own designers, the development costs had reached such a level following the 900 (ed. the original 900) that the Company decided to seek a partner for joint ventures. The choice fell on Lancia, the Italian company which was developing a similar car model and which needed to cut its costs in a similar manner.
As described by Sten Wennlo, Vice-President of SAAB-Scania and head of its Car Division, 'negotiations' with Fiat/Lancia's Giovanni Agnelli proceeded more or less as follows: "The three of us - Sten Gustafsson, (Marcus) Wallenberg, and myself - went to Geneva to meet Agnelli. After 15 minutes of discussion, everybody stood up and Agnelli said: 'Okay, Marcus, I think we'll give it a try'. 'Agreed,' was Wallenberg's reply - and an absorbing five years of collaboration commenced with a handshake".
Of course, Fiat is now the parent company of Alfa Romeo, so it's entirely possible the 9000 platform was also shared with Alfa and Fiat models, but it was initially only Lancia.
The integration of the Opel V6 in later 9000 models was due to market pressure of consumers demanding a V6 in this class of car. NOTE: The certified SAAB mechanics, who are also my friends, told me this engine was in no way as sturdy and long-lived as the SAAB-designed Inline 4's.
I've owned SAAB's since 1968, but my newest - and, I must say unfortunately my last - SAAB's I still drive on a daily basis is a 1985 900 4-door sedan, and a 1987 900S 3-door hatch. Both "Classic" SAAB's, and each have provided very good service since each was purchased new.
Maybe GM is in the wrong line of business.
Again, our debate has been about Europeaness, not quality. I mentioned on several occasions that Saab reliability lags both GM NA and GM Opel. Not sure why, as it appears the turbo engines are not the source of reliability complaints.
In any event, my current home being in downtown Manhattan, owning any car, no matter its quality, is out of the question. A slot on top of a 4 car parking elevator (takes about 15 minutes to get your car) costs hundreds a month. Add in insurance, gas, city license fees - not worth the hassle.
If I ever moved to the 'burbs, I would look seriously at the 9-3 SportCombi. I think it is a real nice little wagon.
"The new 3 Series do not drive like the old 2002."
LOGIC!! I owned the new 3 series for 2.5 years a 2003 ARC Saab Sport Sedan and the steering was numb and fuzzy. THIS IS THE NEW MODEL!!
anyway ok so your dad had some antique SAABS which are totally different from the 900s through the 80's and early 90s
anyway I know the new SAAB product and I have driven the new 9-5 ( a decade old design) and I just don't see where you really have the ownership experience to comment. I can see you have read many reviews and technical info but I am sorry if you haven't owned one I don't think people reading this should pay a lot of attention.
TRUST me future buyers you will regret buying the new SAABS
it is not money well spent
I am having trouble following your post. Do you mean the new 3 Series has numb and fuzzy steering compared to older 3 series? Or are you comparing 3 series steering with the Saab's?
RWD, rear engine vehicles when done right will always have better steering than FWD. No matter how good the engineering or components, FWD are front heavy and have to accomodate steering and power on the same axles.
I personally would always recommend RWD over FWD if the only consideration is driving pleasure. Most people need to compromise, and I think the SportCombi is a good choice for the money. The NY Times agress with me as well, I note.
I thought the plan was to attract new buyers, a whole different demographic (besides aging college professors) to the brand. The real problem lies not in the loss of what traditional Saab buyers perceived to be the brand's core qualities, but rather the lack of new product good enough to attract buyers to the brand.
And of course, the lament is that there isn't really such a thing as Saab any more, as all the separate design and engineering is in the process of going away or is already gone, and it is nothing more than a name on a shiny bit of chrome now. A name which is sourcing vehicles from wherever GM finds excess supply in its empire, or rebadging products from other car companies deemed worthy enough by the General to keep their own R&D facilities alive.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
anyway I think most people know that about rear wheel drive I was replying to you praising the low torque steer in the SAAB 9-3 - (by the way my A3 has hardly any as well)
I hope you do get your sport combi for the money and options maybe it is a good deal -
CAVEAT EMPTOR: as you will see years down the road when you trade the car that had you spent the same money or maybe just a little more you could have had a much nicer AUDI A4 Avant and when you trade it that AUDI would be worth MUCH more than the CHEVY MALIBU-MAXX oops I mean "SPORT COMBI" I think maybe then you are the buyer GM wants. Maybe you think Caddy are a little to Ghetto bling and the SAAB has more sophisticated looks.
anyway I was like you once - I couldn't wait for the new SPORT SEDAN 9-3 to come out I thought wow GM finally got it right and that SAAB was back and a contender. I was really disappointed with it.
anyway good luck enjoy it!!
Most here seem to assume GM bought Saab primarily with the US market in mind. If so, then what you are saying makes a lot of sense. The problem, of course, is that in NA, the majority of the luxury market wants RWD or AWD, not FWD. That puts Saab's whole cachet at a disadvantage even Acura has had its share of difficulties overcoming.
I always thought GM was looking more for an upscale brand to complete its European family of cars, as GM does not have a European luxury or even entry luxury brand.
As for engineering, while it was probably never completely the case, the whole idea of Saab originally was to give the military hardware engineers something to do in their downtime because Sweeden does not take kindly to temporary lay offs. When Saab sold its auto division, there was no way it was going to let all of its engineers go. They had other duties at Saab.
OK. I was confused. I was talking the old BMW 2002 and 3 Series.
I hope you do get your sport combi for the money and options maybe it is a good deal -
Well, probably won't be buying any car anytime soon. I like my job and apartment in Manhattan (unless you know something my boss isn't telling me :confuse: )
This means that Saturn will get a vehicle that arguably will have better driving dynamics than previously, and probably better interiors (hard to imagine interiors worse than what they have now). But, being an Opel (and therefore GM) the products will still be inferior to those developed by "real" European manufacturers.
And as we all know, when it comes to quality, GM is "reliably" third-rate (just look at Consumer Reports on the 9-3).
For its part, SAAB is no longer a manufacturer at all, just an assembler, as future products will be developed by Opel. In typical GM fashion, they're taking a low to mid-market product, dress it up a bit, and peddle it under a more upscale nameplate (can you say "Cimarron"?).
In other words GM is, as usual, doing it on the cheap and hoping that consumers won't notice (after 30 years of declining market share you'd think they'd get a clue).
Wouldn't be surprised to see them consolidate Saturn and SAAB franchises - the beancounters would just love the "savings" from consolidating signage - they could call the franchise "SAAbTURN."
M
As opposed to what? Daimler Chrysler that has US, European and Asian design and engineering? Renault/Nissan, which has European, Asian and US design and Engineering? VW/Audi that has a very large engineering center in Brasil?
Opel is one of the oldest European auto companies. GM's Opel engineering center in Russelheim is among the largest auto engineering centers in Europe.
Auto is a global industry. It is nonsense to claim a Opel is less European than others.
And as we all know, when it comes to quality, GM is "reliably" third-rate (just look at Consumer Reports on the 9-3).
Saabs always had reliability issues. On the other hand, Opel, Buick, Cadillac are all GM brands that have reliability ratings on par with the best from Japan (and way above Daimler and especially VW/Audi)
Yes it's an old Euro company but it's parent GM has infused too much of it's cheapness we will never forget the Cadillac Cimmaron (Chevy Cavalier with nice seats)
If you get in a Ford 500 today an American car which took advantage of VOLVO - it's a nice car with a nice interior
A Chrysler 300 is the same thing with an E class Mercedes Chasis. An example of taking good things from Mercedes and making a car people like.
Take a Pontiac g6 or a Chevy Malibu based on the SAAB 9-3 platform and you can see that it just feels cheap compared to the Ford and Chrysler products.
The point is GM hasn't taken advantage of the Euro brands it owns - rather than taking what was good about these companies it simply cheapened them up.
This is why people aren't happy with GM - you don't hear people saying FORD ruined Volvo or Jaguar both cars are better than ever while keeping styling and overall the feeling of driving satisfaction of the original cars.
You don't hear people saying a Mercedes is more like a Chrysler rather people like that the Chryslers are more like Mercedes now (Crossfire window sticker says "85% german parts").
GM cars are not more like SAAB rather SAABS are more like GM cars and so that is where it loses it's Savoir Faire of being European. This is the complaint with GM.
I hope this helps you understand why people don't think of these companies are still being European, semantics can be argued as to company histories and where engineering departments are but you are totally missing why people do not feel SAAB or OPEL are still Euro companies. The products just don't have that mojo anylonger.
The argument isn't about where SAAB has engineering or where Audi has engineering.. It's about what is coming out of those engineering departments that feels more Cherolet than SAAB. An Audi engineered car in Latin America stills feels German b/c of the Standards the company has set. That is where those companies executed correctly vs GM's total failure. There is rumored talk of GM getting rid of SAAB all the time. You don't hear Ford talking about dumping Volvo or Jauguar or Range Rover- b/c people like what Ford has done with these cars.
I hope this helps you understand - we aren't arguing semantics - we are arguing about the end products which are not what we think of as Euro cars.
I think the point people are trying to get across is that of the European car manufacturers it is Saab/OPEL that lost it's Savoir Faire....
Opel's market share is growing in Europe. Vehicles such as the Astra, Corsa and Vectra are frequently found to be better cars than their competitors at VW, Ford Europe, and Renault in the European auto press.
Yes it's an old Euro company but it's parent GM has infused too much of it's cheapness we will never forget the Cadillac Cimmaron (Chevy Cavalier with nice seats)
30 year old example, involving two GM NA only brands. This says anything about GM Europe in 2006.
If you get in a Ford 500 today an American car which took advantage of VOLVO - it's a nice car with a nice interior
Ford 500 is a critical and sales failure, its interior and exterior design panned as bland and sub-par.
A Chrysler 300 is the same thing with an E class Mercedes Chasis. An example of taking good things from Mercedes and making a car people like.
300 uses some last generation E Series parts. The car has had quality problems, if some modest sales success (falling off of late, or hadn't you noticed that Chrysler recently lost its 3rd place in the US market to Toyota?)
What's more, the features that have made the 300 popular, its styling and Hemi V8, are old school US. Heck, the DOD feature on the V8 was first brought to market by GM about 20 years back.
Take a Pontiac g6 or a Chevy Malibu based on the SAAB 9-3 platform and you can see that it just feels cheap compared to the Ford and Chrysler products.
The G6, Malibu and 9-3 all share a similar platform, true. The Malibu and G6 are far better sellers and tend to be rated higher than their Ford competition: Taurus and Fusion, and their Chrylse competition: Sebring and Stratus.
(Crossfire window sticker says "85% german parts").
The Crossfire that never sold in Europe or North America? Those 85% of German parts really helped.
GM cars are not more like SAAB rather SAABS are more like GM cars and so that is where it loses it's Savoir Faire of being European. This is the complaint with GM
Saab in its best years pre-GM sold less than 100k cars. It basically sold one car, a front wheel drive hatch with a 4 cylinder turbo charged engine. GM sells 6 million plus vehicles, including trucks, rear wheel drive, hatch, sedans wagons.
Volvo was a major company in Europe, with a full line up of cars. Daimler is Europe's largest auto company, with significant commerical applications. There is no rational comparison to the synergies available to Ford Volvo, Daimler Chrylser and GM Saab.
An Audi engineered car in Latin America stills feels German b/c of the Standards the company has set.
That's funny, because many recently dissapointed Audi buyers will blame the drop in quality on the push into South America.
You don't hear Ford talking about dumping Volvo or Jauguar or Range Rover- b/c people like what Ford has done with these cars.
Volvo yse. You are wrong about Jaguar and Range Rover. In fact, if Ford could ever find someone to pay anything near what they overpaid for these big time money losing brands, they would sell them in a heart beat.
In fact, if you had an open mind, you would see how close the Ford Jaguar Rover experience is to the GM Saab experience. Jaguar, Saab, and Rover are all niche brands whose identities center on niche qualities that do not translate well to modern manufacturing demands. This is not quite the problem with Jaguar and Rover given their more tony market as it is for Saab.
However, Ford has spent billions on Jaguar and Rover and not made any profit at all. The design and engineering of Jaguar and Rover do not translate at all to mass-market cars.
The same is true with Saab. Saab uses unique turbo engineering and sport front wheel drive suspension components not found on any mass market fwd car from any company. Not just GM.
It's about what is coming out of those engineering departments that feels more Cherolet than SAAB.
The engineering from Opel to Saab now has two Saab engines on Ward's top ten list (when did Saab earn such honors in the past?), and a car with almost no torque steer (a huge complaint on Saab in the past.) Reliability still lags the rest of GM. But Saabs were never reliable.
The problem is that GM's entire corporate culture - which it has imposed on the European divisions - is beancounter-led corner-cutting.
For example, Car and Driver, in reviewing the Cadillac CTS (which shares interiors with the SRX) compared the look and feel of the interior to the plastics found in disposable cameras. In the case of the SRX, this in a vehicle costing 40-50k!
Sit in an STS - a 60k car - and revel in the hard, cheap-looking plastics.
GM approved those vehicles for production that way, therefore it was intentional.
With the possilbe exception of the Corvette (and this only because of it's lower price point compared to the Euros) there is NOT ONE GM vehicle that is class leading. This from the largest manufacturer in the world?
Drive a SAAB-developed 9-3 vs. the current 9-3. That lack of solidity and cheap interior materials of the latter (as compared to the former) are incredible.
GM brings it's rental car mentality to everything it touches. It is a third-rate manufacturer ... hasn't been competitive since the 1960's.
Car and Driver has also ranked the SRX as the top luxury SUV every year that it has been available, over the likes of the X5 and the Lexus R.
With the possilbe exception of the Corvette (and this only because of it's lower price point compared to the Euros) there is NOT ONE GM vehicle that is class leading.
The fact the Vette is faster than most of the competition, corners, brakes, and slaloms better has nothing to do with it?
You have never owned a SAAB pre GM or otherwise- you simply site statistics and magazine articles that suit your argument, while there are many other articles and chat boards of real owners who aren't coming back to SAAB to buy again (remember I had 5 SAABS so that makes me an expert on ownership experience and I have owned Lexus, Acura, VW and AUDI as well all of which I would buy again EXCEPT SAAB - now why is that? You seriously have to wonder if you can remove your emotion and see what I am telling you). GM had great sales in part b/c of pricing incentives and cash back(I know you will say everyone else did too so save your breath).
You keep saying everything is my opinion - well right back at you- I am not only speaking in my opinion I am speaking from real life experience which I think counts much more than your opinion
You CAN'T say that you have any experience other than your DAD's old 2 Cycle engine SAABS (a 30 year old example).
Why do you think I owned 5 SAABS? Only to come here and bash you and them? No silly that is your "opinion" and you are totally being ridiculous. I owned them b/c I loved SAABS.
Fine OPEL is a wonderful old Euro company according to you and a few reports here and there- you win but they are not SAAB and no one is fooled.
I own an Audi and quality as well has reliability has greatly improved no matter what you say and People come back to AUDI they don't come back to GM SAAB once burned as you will see. Unlike my 2003 SAAB I don't regret buying the AUDI. See that's the difference. I still enjoy the car and will miss it when the day comes to get rid of it. I don't even think twice about the SAAB I traded.
I think a lot of people buy cars on opinions and emotions as well as facts. I think you have some pretty strong opinions for a guy who doesn't even own a car. How could you possible know or have any perspective of the actual ownership experience? You have simply romanticized SAAB as being a different quirky little fun car. I think that is some huge emotion with ZERO life experience in driving or owning one. You really should drive many other cars to see what's out there now and stop going by old reports about quality.
Yes the Cimmaron is a 25 year old example I used which is exactly why everyone is upset with GM for trying to pull this crap Again some 25 yrs later with SAAB. They thought we would forget but their MO hasn't changed and they didn't learn from their lessons in the past.
The way you shoot down every counter argument here you make it sound like SAAB is the best company in the world and it's putting out the best product- you site every little bad thing you can find about any other car, aquisition and little report you can find. But no matter how you slice it SAAB is NOT any better than any of these cars and all things being equal is isn't up to par with similarly priced competitors (yes my opinion).
We are trying to save you some grief- but since you already know it all .....
Yes the Cimmaron is a 25 year old example I used which is exactly why everyone is upset with GM for trying to pull this crap Again some 25 yrs later with SAAB. They thought we would forget but their MO hasn't changed and they didn't learn from their lessons in the past.
It does not take a know it all to counter this argument. The Cimarron was the same as its Olds and Chevrolet counterpart, except for slightly different upholestery and some changed sheet metal outside.
The Saab 9-3 shares a base platform with some Opels (Much as pre-GM it shared base platforms with Opels, Fiats, Lancias, etc. For more than 20 years Saab was not in a position where it could make its own platform from the gound up)
The 9-3, however, has different engines, different suspension, different drive shaft, different steering wheel, different internal sturcture and upholstery, etc. from any of the other GM platform mates. There is no rational basis to compare the 9-3 to the Cimarron.
The way you shoot down every counter argument here you make it sound like SAAB is the best company in the world and it's putting out the best product- you site every little bad thing you can find about any other car, aquisition and little report you can find. But no matter how you slice it SAAB is NOT any better than any of these cars and all things being equal is isn't up to par with similarly priced competitors (yes my opinion)
You cannot be reading my posts if you think this is what I am saying. I said that Saab has reliability problems (though I also correctly pointed out that VW and Audi are at the same depth as Saab).
I also said that I think it is very difficult dollar to dollar to pay for a Saab when you can get a RWD vehicle for the same price. I would never buy an Audi, but certainly a BMW or C Class Benz if priced close to the Saab would be far more attractive.
Saab has the SportCombi - well reviewed to date. As a base model, one can be had for around $26k. The only real competitior for a sporty fwd wagon at that price is the Volvo V50. From tests I have seen, the Combi out performs the V50, has more interior room, and in my opinion, looks better. Now the Aero SportCombi starts getting close to the BMW wagon and some other nice cars. Not sure I would ever recommend the Aero SportCombi.
If saying the base SportCombi sounds like a good deal makes me a know it all, guilty as charged. Your coming back with the Cimarron comparison does not strike me as being all that convincing.
1. I said yesterday that I have driven the 9-3, the BMW 3 Series, several Volvos (both the S80 and V70) and the Audi A4.
2. This is not the owner's forum. This is the News and Views forum. I am not relating my ownership experiences. I am saying that my understanding of what makes Saab a bad deal for GM is far different from your understanding.
You guys want to make the claim, back it up with facts.
The Opel comparison makes more logical sense, although again, Saab modifies the Opel engines and uses different suspension set up as well.
And, as I have said over and over again, Saab DID NOT for many years, make its own platform or base engine. Rather, Saab had been buying and modifying platforms and engines from other companies for many years.
The only thing different, as best I can tell, is now that GM owns Saab, it is more apparent to US audiences what Saab is doing. Lack of understanding of pre-GM Saab policies does not make idle claims correct. Sorry.
It is your lack of REAL TIME experience with these cars that makes it hard to read your postings. The FACTS you want are simply we owned and drove these cars. WE talk to other owners. We don't feel they are the EURO FEELING cars they used to be. It's all about how the car feels and it's not a progression like it should have been. Instead it's just GM REBADGING a totally different car and calling it a SAAB.
You have links above showing since the advent of the 900 line, the base platforms and engines were NOT Saab.
Saab then, as now, took other companies platforms and engines, modded them, and put Saab sheet metal around it.
Given Saab competes far a market that will not pay much more than 35K or so, it has no choice. Modern manufacturing costs are such that you cannot engineer a wholly unique platform at low enough costs and profitably sell a car in the small numbers Saab ever sold.
But how could you know this fun to drive feeling of pre-GM vs post GM SAABS They took the fun out of the cars.
The primary difference between Saabs now and then is significantly less torque steer and turbo lag. When I drive a BMW 3 Series, I do not notice any torque steer or turbo lag. If your argument is that torque steer and turbo lag make a car European fun to drive, or you also arguing the BMW does not have a European fun feel to it?
you are twising words now - are you now saying that SAAB is more like BMW than ever before since it no longer has torque steer and turbo lag? I don't think so
keep doing your test drives ha ha
I am twisting words?
Nowhere have I said that a FWD car drives like a RWD car.
Indeed, the FWD RWD difference is what I see as the essential connundrum for GM with Saab.
Before the advent of computer driven stability systems, RWD had a serious flaw in the mind of many drivers: if you did not know what you were doing, it was easy to lose the back end on slippery or snow covered roads.
Saab offered a reasonable entry level luxe FWD alternative.
Over the past ten years, two things have happened to make the Saab format virtually untenable. First, as mentioned, the rise of the stability systems making RWD cars truly accessible to everyone with the money to pay, not just the people who know how to drive.
(n.b.: AWD has been enjoying a mild run in popularity among entry level luxe as well. I think the high cost of gas will kill this diversion quickly.)
Second, and more critically, the overall quality of mass market FWD cars has risen to the point where there is little Saab can do to distinguish itself from the mass market FWD cars, be they made by Toyota, Honda, GM, Mazda, or anyone else.
GM bought Saab right before both these tendencies took root. So GM was left with few options. It could have gone straight luxe, a la the Lexus ES330s. Or, it could, as it has tried, go with making Saab as sporty as an FWD can be.
GM has been somewhat successful, as I say, in that it has pretty much eliminated torque steer and turbo lag on the new Saabs. But any other improvements would push the price of the Saab well into Cadillac CTS and BMW territory.
And therein, as far as I am concerned, lies the rub. Most people given the choice, will just as soon buy the rwd CTS or BMW 3 Series for the money than the Saab. The rwd cars are superior sports machines. With stablitrack, they are just as competent in the snow and slop as the Saab.
These technology changes have left GM with few options or incentive to expand on the Saab line up. Taking Saab production out of the Trollhatten factory and moving it to Germany should improve quality and reliability. I am not sure if that alone will be enough. Arguably, a closer Saab/Opel tie in through out Europe, with Saabs being the fancier FWD offerings at the posher side of the dealership may be the key.
I don't see any reason to keep Saabs in the US once the Opels start flowing through Saturn.
Interior look and feel is super cheap and more suited to the OPEL brand than SAAB..
Still, I think reducing torque steer and turbo lags are positives.
The biggest difference will be getting production out of the reliability plagued Trollhatten factory to the high quality Russelheim and Belgium factories.
Even if GM nails both, you still have a front wheel drive car selling at prices BMW and Cadillac are selling rear wheel drive. I can not see where GM hopes to go with the brand.
Someone mentioned the SRX earlier. While Car & Driver did not like the original version's interior, they liked its ride and handling that it has been C&D's top luxury UTE the past three years. The big complaint was the interior.
Well here is the '07 interior:
http://www.leftlanenews.com/wp-content/plugins/iimage-gallery.php?idpost=3357&id- g=1&idi=13
The new CTS interior will take its cues from that as well.
The CTS sells for close to what a loaded 9-3 sells. The CTS has a far more dynamic rwd platform. Its mpgs are close to Saab. Unless you want a wagon, (the Sport Combi again
I'll bet many people make the same decision in Europe. Only there, as no Cadillac is available, they opt for a BMW or Benz.
Current UK reviews of the CTS give it about a B+ for effort, C for execution.
Judgment must be reserved until one has had the opportunity to actually sit in them and see how they look and feel in the flesh.
That said, GM is notorious for its cheap interiors ... often they are compared to plastic products from Fisher Price and Rubbermaid.
Given that GM hasn't seen fit to put decent interiors in its cars for thirty-plus years now, I wouldn't expect much from the 2007 CTS.
Like all GM products, it will be an improvement over its predecessor, but not up to par with it's current competition.
That's part of GM's problem, it engineers and designers compete with their own past products, rather than the competition's products.
Further, when GM cuts corners on glaringly obvious things like interiors, which the driver looks at constantly, one shudders to think of the corner-cutting they're doing on the stuff the customer doesn't see.
Perhaps GM's current offerings are better than the Vegas and X-cars of thirty years ago ... but GM has consistently lagged the competition the entire time, and still does.
GM is a (proverbial) "rental car company" - in management, engineering, assembly. It's entire corporate culture is oriented around building rental car-like vehicles).
M
we could call it
"ONE SAAB STORY".
"How Sweedish SAAB became America's rental car company".
heh heh-
>>Car and Driver has also ranked the SRX as the top luxury SUV every year that it has been available, over the likes of the X5 and the Lexus R.
Yeah, and Car & Driver had an SRX for a long term test. One multiple occasions it died and left their tester stranded, one time necessitating buying a plane ticket to get him home.
And they pointed out that by the time they turned it in (1 year / 40,000 miles if memory serves)the vehicle had developed numerous squeeks and rattles.
Sounds like GM business as usual (as it's been at least since the 1970s): with LUCK you MIGHT make it through the warrantly period; but in any case you should expect the vehicle to start falling apart soon after the warranty period expires.
Rocky
I must say, i thought this at the chicago auto show. I thought the jetta had a much nicer interior than the STS.
"The 9-3 accelerates quickly, has sharp, responsive steering and handles well enough to make you seek out the closest twisty road. The car's interior, unfortunately, is a major let-down. I thought the same hard plastic material was just fine in a Chevrolet Trailblazer, but seeing it in a European luxury car is just terribly wrong. (Saab is a GM brand while Volvo is owned by Ford, but the relationship to the parent is much more obvious in the Saab, I'm afraid.)"
Saab has been using major components of other manufacturers for decades before the GM buy-out: the Saab engine (both 2.0L and 2.3L) had its root in the Triumph design; turbo was sourced from either UTX or Mitsubishi, 9000 platform was from Fiat. The only thing really homegrown was the 900 body design, which was very good for its time but has been surpassed by today's designs; that, and the seat warmers, which is still there, in three different heating levels!
Krzys
Lexus RX330 - Camry platform, jacked up wagon. You have all this ground clearance to travel on paved roads.
Krzys
The problem is GM still makes the 2001 9-5 and just sells it 6 and 7 years later.
That's all - I liked the 9-5 - I think a better job was done with it than the 9-3
I have been turned onto Audi's and I like the new A4 - personally I would choose that over a 9-5 - they seem about the same size (close enough for me anyway)
Audi offers 2.0T or a six cyl and optional quattro.
Interior is really nice and always gets rave reviews -
9-5 is nice just today it seems a little dated compared to what's out there for the same or less money.
I also like the Passat or Jetta (the new ones) and were I in the market for a 9-5 I would find it hard to justify when I can get a loaded passat for under 30K and it's the new body so the car will look fresh for a few years vs the SAAB 9-5 long long overdue for a makeover
A4 is not even close to 9-5 in size, by any stretch of imagination. A4 is a compact, whereas 9-5 is a midsize. The closest thing in Audi's lineup to 9-5 in terms of size is A6, both offering about 57" shoulder room in the front and 56" in the back; A4 is a whole size smaller at 55"/53.5". In fact, 9-5 wagon is roomier inside than even the A6 wagon, and much more spritely in driving dynamics (500lb weight savings makes a huge difference).