Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=118909
Rocky
Or.. 12.5 full years of work..
Not sure I'd want to drive a raggedy old car for an extra $1.50/hr..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
You could always drive one million miles at an average of 80 miles per hour, which would be 12,500 hours of work.
Or you could look at it this way- you would have to put at least 50,000 miles per year on your car for 20 years, or 100,000 miles per year for 10 years, which is an aweful lot of driving.
Not to say there is anything bad about being given a new car... I'm just saying that there are easier ways..
Besides... with my luck, I'd get it totaled with 999K miles..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
M
No that would be more like my luck. Wouldn't that just stink.
Rocky
http://www2.saabusa.com/anniversary/
Seems like a pretty good deal.
That said, allow me to disagree with many shallow opinions.
"the small 6 cylinder turbocharged engines simply don't impress me nor should they to anyone."
News flash: Saab's purpose is not to impress you. Saab is in the unenviable position to compete with Volvo and German hardware while pleasing GM's shareholders. Luckily Saab's engines are the least of its problems -- they are reliable, smooth, & quiet, if not groundbreaking.
While the interior quality is exceptional it brings nothing different to the table.
News flash: Saab specifies very good quality interior materials and builds to tight tolerances. If you don't like Saab's classic styling, then buy a Civic DX. Saab is not trying to keep up with the latest SEMA show styling trends.
The only way a small turbo charged v6 could be efficient would be to lighten the car up significantly to produce any kind of effect from having a smaller engine.
Engines become more efficent through improved design. Vehicle efficiency improves by reduction of mass, improved aerodynamics, and hundreds of other factors. For the record, Saab engines are tuned with mild boost for excellent driveability, reliability, and fuel economy -- not to win races. If you want a hot turbo, buy a Subaru WRX.
Even with their new Aero X while an impressive design and high end engineering it’s like creating a statue of Gandhi out of cheese, Incredible, but why?
Why does every major automaker in the world create concept cars? Probably because it is the best method of gauging customer reaction to new ideas. First you criticize Saab for not making a move, then you ask why it develops exciting new concepts for automotive enthusiasts to discuss???
The only thing that Saab has is –Saab, a name.
Yes, Saab is a name. Just like Ferrari, Lamborghini, Lexus, Infiniti, Porsche, Maybach, Rolls Royce, Bentley, Acura, Bugatti, BMW, Audi, Mercedes, Maserati, Lotus .... Each one of these manufacturers has strong and weak cars in the lineup, and all are overpriced. All out of your price range, I'm afraid.
Regardless of how much power this engine is producing for its size it’s a small heart in a large body.
Different strokes for different folks. You want a high displacement engine in a vehicle with exciting styling? Plenty to choose from, but Saab has NEVER been a big-bore engine manufacturer, and we hope, never will be. Next, please.
I think you forgot Cadillac and Lincoln
or SAAB 9-2X Aero.
I do not think that WRX is hot turbo. STI and Evolution are.
Krzys
M
With both of my classic SAABs, neither engine has had the head removed, or any other major mechanical work since purchase. The oil change interval is 3K or 3 months, and neither car uses any oil between changes. The SAAB Inline 4, either naturally aspirated or turbo, is one well-designed, tough engine, and very smooth as well. I'll take a current low-pressure turbo SAAB Inline 4 any day over the V6.
M
I agree completely about the turbo 4s, and I fear that when it is time to replace my 2006 9-5 (high-output turbo) the only option will be a V-6
On the other hand even SAAB mechanics say the new V-6s are OK. It was the older ones that were very problematical.
What I keep in mind on this board is that you and I, and posters like Muser above actually own and drive SAABs, whereas most who post here drive Japanese appliances and use this board to talk about their dream cars
So the Saab 4-cylinder is the last thing that is geniune Saab left huh?
M
All variants feature either a 1.8 L or 2.0 L straight-4 petrol engine derived from General Motors' Ecotec family, or a turbocharged 2.8 L High-Feature V6 (starting in 2006). There are two different versions of the turbo I4, with the amount of turbo boost determining the power output.
http://wiki.saabo.com/index.php?title=Saab_9-3&redirect=no
:confuse:
And Merc mentioned the V6 being a GM unit as well. The 2.5l is listed as a "High Feature" V6 which is also a GM unit so I think he may be correct.
But, yeah, Saab is toast. Even a buddy of mine here at work has said his 99' is his last (Bought a Jeep). I think abandoning the signature hatchback was the final nail in the Saab legacy's coffin. Although the 9-3 vert. is quite the looker. :shades:
> impress me nor should they to anyone."
> News flash: Saab's purpose is not to impress you.
I don't know where you're coming from, but saab's purpose *is* to impress me, and other buyers. Turboing can be impressive. However, when you put the turbo v6 next to the sixes available from the competition, it doesn't seem so impressive anymore.
The thing is, someone who can pony up for a saab can afford a lot of other cars as well. I can see the hypothetical saab buyer hearing the turbo v6 spiel, then saying, "Well, ok, then why does the bigger TL have more HP, get better MPG, and hit sixty quicker? Why does saab boast about their vast turbo heritage but the new turbo BMW roasts it ( 0-60 in 4.8) , and gets 20/29 mpg?.
Now, i'm not saying that saab sucks, or anything like that, just that i don't see the v6 moving a lot of metal despite all the attempted hoopla.
No, and yet, yes - bear with me on this one! The basic SAAB Inline 4 design began it's life as a Triumph-designed and manufactured 1.7 Liter SOHC unit from the Triumph Dolomite sedan. Later in 1971, displacement was enlarged to 1.85 Liters, but the engine was still made by Triumph in England. This was, of course, in the SAAB 99.
Due to Triumph's quality control problems, and some inherent unique design idiosyncrasies, SAAB moved design and production of the engine to Sweden. This occurred in 1972 when SAAB bought Scania - a Swedish truck manufacturer. This new engine was called the B Engine, and was completely built by SAAB-Scania. Displacement increased from 1.85 to 2.0 Liters. The B Engine shared much from the original Triumph design, but was significantly redesigned and improved by SAAB-Scania. Plus, materials and quality control were substantially better than that provided by Triumph.
In 1981, SAAB introduced the H Engine with the advent of the SAAB 900. However, it was also used in the SAAB 99 and SAAB 90. It is a slanted Inline 4. Originally still a SOHC 8-valve design, a DOHC 16-valve head was added in late 1984. All later variants and displacements of the SAAB-designed Inline 4 were/are based on the H Engine design.
However, that being said, the current 9-5 is the sole user of SAAB's H Engine design and Swedish manufacturing. In 2003, the Epsilon 9-3 switched to the GM Ecotec engine. According to my SAAB sources and Wikipedia, the H Engine will most likely end its production run in 2008 when the current 9-5 is replaced. The end of an era!
Wikipedia has an excellent synopsis of all SAAB engines, including the SAAB SVC (SAAB Variable Compression) engine which won design awards in 2000 and 2001, but GM killed the design and project.
Oh man I remember reading about the SVC motor and thinking that was about the coolest thing ever on an engine at the time. I had wondered what happened to it a few times but never looked into it.
Doesn't surprise me that GM killed it though. I can imagine the conversation now...
SAAB: We have developed this incredible Variable compression engine for use in our new small vehicles. This could revolutionize the IC world as more alternative/bio fuels become avaliable.
GM: Why doesn't it have pushrods and how can we put that in an SUV??? :surprise: :sick:
a 2.8 "High Feature" V6 which will be expanded into more model line-ups so i read in this months issue of Motor Trend.
Rocky
-Cj
Instead of trying to imply that i don't know what i'm talking about, why don't you respond to my actual points concerning the engine? You know, like the power and mpg?
Rocky
As an alternative, consider the pricing on a used BMW. Every 30 something self respecting yuppie has to have one and the resale is sky high. Not so with SAAB.
The 2.3T old school design is not an ecotech but the 2.0T is, albeit with extensive Saab-exclusive features. The 2.0T has a much smoother idle, especially when cold than the 2.3T and revs higher than the 2.3T but I've found the 2.3T to have a more muscular sound and much better torque across the rpm range and less turbo lag.
Anyone who thinks a Saab motor is too small simply needs to drive one-unless you want really major power, there is more than enough in any recent Saab.
The engine doesn't feel good with a manual[deal breaker for me] you have to get the automatic to feel somewhat less thrashy.
Then, the steering is horrible. Excessive torque steer, and it's to thin and cheap feeling.
M
SAAB pioneered the idea of the winter car. Then Volvo moved upscale and blew by them with an AWD system they buy off the shelf form Haldex. SAAB naturally can't find Haldex' phone number on their rolodex (hint: look under "Lipe Clutch") and so is stuck (pardon the pun) with FWD vehicles in a market segment that is moving to AWD.
Think about the showroom traffic dealers would have if they could offer a twin turbo six cylinder AWD 9-5 wagon or sedan.
Why GM's Bob Lutz, supposedly a real car guy, can't figure this out is amazing. I think he landed his jet fighter too many times with the wheels up.
Rocky
I have no idea what Saab's you have been driving. All Saab's sold in the US (aside from 9-2x and 9-7x rebadge jobs) since circa 1998 are turbo-charged cars with peak torque below 2000rpm, compared to typical 4000rpm torque peak for normally aspirited engines. That's what make Saab's great cars to drive in cities and normal highway driving.
Don't know what you've been smoking but none of that is true recently in the least. Yes, the power is non-linear in the 2.0T but not the 2.3T which has a stellar torque curve.
9-1 as a aveo twin with a saab designed interior,
9-3 SAAB designed off the g-6/aura/malibu platform
9-5 built off the Impala's platform
9-7x being a Saab designed equinox with saabs engines
9-9x being a lambda
All odd numbers and a great lineup of vehicles! The aveo with a 2.0T engine = 0-60 in 5secs because of the lightweight!
-Cj
That's the 9-3, about which I know very little. The 2.3 HOT in the 9-5 is not a GM design, but the last of the SAAB fours derived from Triumph.
9-2 (using the Saturn Astra platform)
9-3 (using the second generation Epsilon platform)
9-4 (using the next generation Theta platform, or possibly a shortened version of Lambda)
9-5 (using the second generation Epsilon platform)
Sonnett (using the Kappa platform)
I also think that Saturn and Saab could possibly work together, benefiting both companies. Saab's base models (like the 9-2)could be built in Spring Hill, avoiding higher labor costs at Trollhattan (and therefore creating a cheaper Saab). Niche models like the Sky/Sonnett could be built in Trollhattan, where better quality can be ensured. (maybe)
Does anybody else think so?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I remember hearing something about Trollhattan being an underutilized plant a while back, and I think it might make sense to build an Opel or two there, although if Saab added new models I wouldn't be surprised if GM decided to build them at Trollhattan.