Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Saab 9-3 SportCombi

135

Comments

  • jjce1bjjce1b Member Posts: 6
    After searching high and low at the car show last week, I found the Saab display buried in the corner next to the Jaguars. I'm just glad they showed up. Volvo skipped it!

    They only had one 93 SC on display. It was a base model with the 16" wheels, grey on grey. I was very impressed with the car. I felt the size of the vehicle was perfect. Not too big, yet not too small. A good compromise. Maybe they sacrificed some backseat room for more storage space. Fine with me. The prices quoted to me by the Saab guy (no dealers present) were very attractive compared to equal cars from other builders (bmw, audi, vw, volvo).

    I understand buying a Saab now is a gamble, with mother GM is strangling the company. Will they be around in a year? Is Saab still able to service the dealers. so they can service me? I feel these are really good cars, and just don't get the respect they deserve.

    I have followed this board from the start, but haven't heard any driving impressions of the cars. Specifically the Aero package. I know it has the corporate V6 and it's a hot rod, but what other GM cars have this engine in it? How harsh is the Aero ride?

    I am new to Saab, but am impressed with their products (okay, maybe not the 92x and 97x). Any general reliability issues with the 93 cars?

    Any comments would be greatly appreciated.....off to the dealer to go check one out!

    One more thing....anyone use B&B Saab? Good? Bad? Okay?

    Thanks!
  • jchan2jchan2 Member Posts: 4,956
    is also in the base Cadillac CTS.

    CR has 9-3's reliability pegged at Really Bad, but I personally would be willing to take a gamble.

    I like Saabs too. Too bad GM doesn't respect them, and neither do Consumers, who prefer Lexus, BMW, Mercedes, and Audi.

    I bet if GM gave Saab some cash and a few years the engineers could turn around the company.

    It should be around. GM has said they have big plans, but we don't know how "big" those plans are.
  • jjce1bjjce1b Member Posts: 6
    I got my hands on a 93 Aero SC with the 6-speed stick. What a ride! Oh how I love turbos...

    Likes: Perfect size, great seats and dash, engine, tranny, quiet, feels solid, price

    Dislikes: Steering wheel (old Onstar buttons that do nothing), Nav (definitely not worth that kind of money)

    I don't know if I would call it turbo lag, I think all turbo engines have "lag", but you want to be in the right gear to get the right rpm to really make this car fly. I think it's just getting used to the engine and gearbox.

    This car had no roof fails, nav, or cold weather package and was stickered at 35$.

    Definitely an attractive package.....
  • jjce1bjjce1b Member Posts: 6
    Funny thing reliability. At the market they had the Consumer Reports Car Buying Guide right next to the Consumer Guide Car Buying Guide. Check this out: CR says poor reliability and not recommended, while saying the opposite for the 95. CG says 93 reliability is good and recommends the 93, while saying the opposite for the 95.

    As far as I am concerned, they are both full of it, and will depend more on these boards and magazines for accurate reliability reports.
  • saablcpsaablcp Member Posts: 195
    Safe to presume that reliability is a projection of future performance based on a vehicles past reliability record.That being said,take a look at the used car reliability records listed in the back of the issue.This is where they take and breakdown the vehicles reliability into 14 different categories.Try and figure out how those past records could lead to the projections CR makes for future reliability.There are WAY too many discrepancies between the ratings posted for previous years and the projections for future years.
  • dhanleydhanley Member Posts: 1,531
    IMO, for any car it's a crapshoot. Yes, a camry will probably be more reliable than a 9-3 for example, but there is a respectable area of statistical crossover. Personally, i'd buy whatever i like, a long warranty, and not worry.

    dave
  • dino001dino001 Member Posts: 6,162
    is also in the base Cadillac CTS.

    Not really. Cadillac's is non-turbo. The turbo was in European top trip of Opel Vectra.

    2018 430i Gran Coupe

  • jchan2jchan2 Member Posts: 4,956
    Forgot to add that the CTS version has no turbocharger.
  • jerseyturnpikejerseyturnpike Member Posts: 1
    I have 3K miles on my new 93 SC 2.0T, with all the options except NAV. I have to say, I love it and pretty much agree with the Edmunds review. Let's hope SAAB can get back some independance from GM and continue a positive momentum with their Car lineup. The 95 needs an overhaul!
  • cliffdwellercliffdweller Member Posts: 1
    I love the 9-3 sport-combi. I am a 6'6" tall, broad-shouldered guy who can't fit into many cars. Spent 20 years driving Jeeps, only to be forced out because of redesigns with lack of headroom and legroom. I spent today test sitting in about 40 cars, including VWs, Audis, Hondas, Toyotas, etc. I need a wagon or SUV for my 2 100lb dogs and me. I can't fit in the 9-7 or the 9-5, but I do fit in the 9-3! Its a lot bigger for me than say the Toureg, which has no headroom. I like the control panel in the upper center of the dash and find that I don't have too many blind spots while driving--unlike the Trailblazer that I am giving up.
    I understand that customers here are complaining about the lower body style of the aero because drivers keep ripping off the panels when the crunch into snowbanks, etc. Keep this in mind, my dealer says its a big problem that Saab will have to fix in the next model.
  • stillflat4stillflat4 Member Posts: 2
    Hey Jersey, don't know if you're still around... I'm in NY and heading to the dealer tomorrow morning. He thinks he can get my desired 2.0TSC with the options I want. Do you still love the car? How is the reliability for the first few months?

    THanks!
  • vvadymvvadym Member Posts: 2
    Hi! It looks like I almost your size. Did you try Subaru Outback wagon? What's your impression about the leg/shoulder room in Sub compared to 93?
  • cdnawacscdnawacs Member Posts: 2
    Hello all! I, too, am interested in hearing how owners of the new 9-3 Sportcombi Aero are making out. My wife and I are in the market for a new car, and have narrowed it down to:

    Mazda 6 Wagon GT-V6
    Saab 9-3 Sportcombi Aero
    BMW 325xi Touring
    Audi A4 Avant 2.0T

    We tried the "regular" 9-3 Sportcombi with the 2.0T, but after driving the Aero version, we simply can't look at its weaker version again. Wow, what acceleration!

    In any case, we are rather scared off by the poor rep that Saabs seem to have, as well as warnings about low resale values. Here in Canada, Saab is NOT offering free maintenance, which makes the BMW's warranty look that much better.

    My wife still raves about our testdrive of the Aero, but I'm the one who's concerned about what happens after the "new car" thrill wears off. I sure could use some feedback on this! :confuse:
  • pointatobpointatob Member Posts: 30
    Hi,

    i've been looking at the 93 sportcombi 2.0T and mazda6 wagon also. the bmw and audi are out of my proce range, so i can't comment on those. mazda6 wagon, while i really enjoyed test-driving it, gets pretty poor gas mileage (i think 20 / 27) with a marginally powerful v6. i thought the sportcombi had superior driving dynamics, and i only drove the 2.0T. i won't drive the aero because then i might want one:)
  • cdnawacscdnawacs Member Posts: 2
    i won't drive the aero because then i might want one:)

    Oh, trust me, you're 100% right! After test-driving the Aero, there's no way we could consider buying a 2.0T. The difference is simply night and day. That 2.8 turbo has a butt-load of torque all the way through the speed range. Be prepared to be pushed back into that supercomfy Saab leather seat... Seriously folks, even as BMW-with-sports-seats owner, I can honestly say that I have never sat in a more comfortable seat.

    I'm glad to read that I'm not the only person totally unimpressed with the Mazda 6's engine. It was fine on city streets, but it was totally gutless on the highway. Forget passing in 4th gear at 100 kmh (that's about 60 mph for my US friends), you've got to go down to 3rd in order to get any amount of "smash" going.

    What with all the bad poop we're hearing about the run-flat tires on all new BMW's, I think we're about to become a Saab family. Damn the bad press, I think we may just buy the extended warranty and get us the 9-3 Sportcombi Aero.
  • wilkichwilkich Member Posts: 52
    I would put all of those except the Mazda in the same category. Actually, I rented a 4 cyl. Mazda 6 five door one weekend and I actually liked it over the 6 cyl. The 6 cyl I test drove one weekend felt blah. I think the wagons only come with the V-6 though.

    Personally, I would take the Mazda off the list and replace it with the Subaru Outback GT. Nice package, AWD, fast as hell, great reliability but a little overpriced and the turbo lag is a little eeiry. Also, I know you have the A4 on your list but the A3 with DSG is about the most fun I've had in a car in awhile.

    I drove a 9-3 SC yesterday and I came away impressed. I recall driving the restyled 9-3 when it first came out. I was underwhelmed by the whole package then. Now that the higher output turbo is standard, it feels like a different car. So I get back to my computer, check Edmunds and it spits back $30k for a base model with everything but NAV. That feels like a lot of $$$ especially considering the poor resale value of Saabs generally.

    All that said and assuming you are prepared to spend $35k, my first choice would be the 325. It's relatively expensive but the free maintenance, long warranty, high resale and pure driving satisfaction of the BMW would make it up to me. Yea, the other cars are "faster" but the pure driver confidence bimmers provide is unique. The Audi is close second but I would have a hard time spending $35k when I could have spent 5 grand less on the more fun A3.
  • floppymoosefloppymoose Member Posts: 1
    Part of the reliability issue is when in the lifetime of the model do you buy the car?

    When the 9-3 debuted in 1999, it had some problems. But by the time I bought a late '01 (May '01), most of the problems had been fixed. The only one that bit me was an ignition system failure, which happened under warrantee.

    Same for my '95 Jetta GLX. The VR6 was solid by then and I never had some of the problems the "early adopters" did.

    Unless there is an issue with strapping a turbo on the V6, the SC Aero I'm considering now should have the benefit of a couple of years for Saab to fix any problems they've been seeing since this generation of 9-3s were introduced.
  • jedirockerjedirocker Member Posts: 1
    This is a tough decision for us as well. We are unloading our extremely reliable MDX, and just test drove the Saab SportCombi 2.0T. Compared to our other potential buys, this was the most fun to drive. We were deadset on it until I logged onto consumerreports.org and saw the reliability for the 9-3 as having the worst reliability rating possible. We had just ruled out the VW Passat 2.0T Wagon (and Audi A4) for the same reason: poor reliability.

    We're stumped. Wish I could get an honest assessment from the service dept at our local Saab dealership.
  • pointatobpointatob Member Posts: 30
    i just recently read the april / may? consumer reports comparison of entry level luxury sport sedans (saab 9-3, bmw 3 series, a4, g35, etc) and i saw that they hammered on the 9-3 as well. in my opinion, you have to take consumer reports' predictions as just that; their predictions.

    i've also been considering the 2.0t sportcombi and think it's an amazing drive as well. since it's a low volume vehicle, the lack of true reliability data does make me nervous but i wouldn't rule out your favorites (a4, vw passat wagon, or 9-3 sportcombi) just because of what CR says.

    one thing that annoyed me about that CR sport sedan review is that they loaded up a 2.0t with seemingly everything so that it would list at around $31-32 ish to make it look close to the bimmer's $36 ish. i mean, the saab sedan is really a NEAR entry that you can pick up for $26 ish or even $28 with sunroof / premium package. it's also the only fwd sedan they compared. maybe this group of sedans most closely represents the 9-3's competition but CR should have still at least highlighted that the car is offered at a sub-price point to many of the others they compared...

    just my cent.
  • pointatobpointatob Member Posts: 30
    on CR review: as to loading up the 2.0t, i might be wrong about that. maybe they used an aero trim instead. i don't remember as i read a couple weeks ago at a friend's. in any case my point is that the 9-3 can be purchased at a price point much lower than the others in the comparison. CR should have been more clear about this, i think.
  • esfoadesfoad Member Posts: 210
    Regardless of the price point, I believe the 9-3 is a worthy competitor of the other brands. We are on our second Saab and could have bought any of the competitors. But we chose the Saab because of the reliability (yes, reliability) we have experienced, the ride, the uniqueness and the value. Saabs are underrated based on ancient history. Today and for the last 5 years at least, they are fine automobiles.
  • dhanleydhanley Member Posts: 1,531
    Based on the comparator saab's website, the 9-3 is 5K cheaper than a 3-series and about 3K cheaper than an a4. Honestly, i think if you drive the cars back to back, you will see where the money went ( quietness, more supple ride, nicer interior, etc ). And, you will probably get that mony back when/if you sell/trade the car in 3-4 years.

    I think saab needs to emphasize their unique characteristics, not being cheaper.

    dave
  • bouttemanboutteman Member Posts: 1
    Like with most things, a car's reliability can be unique to one's experience and totally different for someone else (unless of course we are talking about an obvious and general defect with a product). I am saying this b/c for every car manufacturer there is, I know someone that has had a bad experience with one of their vehicles.
    I am in the market for a new sport-wagon, and I narrowed my search down to:
    Audi A4 - 3.2 Avant quattro w/ Triptronic
    BMW 3 Series - 325xi
    Saab 9.3 - Aero
    2007 VW Passat Wagon - 3.6L 4Motion
    From my own personnel experience, I have had complications with a Passat Sedan before, I know two people that have had trouble with their Audi A4's, I've lost count of how many people I know that always have something going on with their BMW's, and I have only known two people to own Saab's and they never complained. I'm sure if I knew more, it would eventually raise my percentage of hearing bad cases, so that's why so much of the "reliability issue" is up for debate.
    Over the past three days, I have test drove each of these cars more than once, and if I had to make a decision on the general winner, I would have to go with the Saab.
    Although the VW had more hp (280), the Aero had a better torque pull throughout the entire acceleration range. The BMW was the slowest and you had to get the Audi up to a high rpm range before you could feel the good effects of the engine. Another thing that made the Aero feel quicker is that it is easily 600 pounds lighter than it's nearest competitor!
    The VW had the best Passenger/Cargo volume, then Saab and Audi, with BMW being the smallest. Although (with my height being 6'4") the front leg room was noticeably the best in the Saab!
    Because I have a newborn on the way, safety is one of my most important factors. All these models are above average in that category, but Saab is the only one that won "best awards" from the IIHS.
    As for the interiors (all models had leather), I found the VW to be the worst. Audi's seating seemed to be too lose for my comfort. BMW and Saab's seats were both great, with the BMW's dashboard and paneling being my favorite. I guess the Swede's will always have a simplistic view for their front paneling design...
    I think it would be hard for anyone to argue against Saab having the best exterior design of this lot. Plus, it has the best drag value of all four of them.
    And the biggest issue to most people... pricing; with all four models being priced with comparable options, the Audi was the highest (near $40,000), the BMW and VW was around $38,000 and the Saab was about $36,000.
    If you plan on leasing, then you really don't have to worry about the whole resale value debate, plus car manufacturer's always have pretty good deals for returning-leasing customers.
    Added information: my wife is a former BMW and VW owner, and see expressed her interest in wanting an Audi before we even started looking for a new car. After she went with me for the second round of test drives, in which she test drove all of them, she absolutely feel in love with the Saab and wanted us to purchase it that day. But, I decided to wait b/c I heard through the grapevine that there might be some better summertime incentives once the months of June/July come around.
    Unless something unforeseen happens, we will be the new owners of a Saab 9-3 SC Aero before August of this year.
    For those of you that are trying to decide, remember that it is your opinion and judgment that matters. If the seats of the Audi are more to your liking, then you might not like the BMW's or Saabs. Never take anyone else's opinion about something until you get out there yourself and feel/see the difference with all the models you are researching!
    :)
  • hillflahillfla Member Posts: 90
    Just wanted to say hi and introduce myself as a new Saab owner. Fell in love with the SC at the St Louis auto show in January. Now 5 months later - I own one! Went to the dealer lot last week just for a test drive - wouldn't you know they had a 2.0 polar white with parchment interior and all the goodies that I wanted on it? I took it home for the night and was hooked! I've only owned it for 5 days but so far I can tell you I love the turbo power, the seats are super comfortable, and the size of the vehicle is just right for cruising around town without having to worry about squeezing into parking spots! I am an engineer so I love all the buttons and SID display, although I could see how some folks might like dials and simplicity better. Had one quirk initially with saving the custom climate control settings - a quick call to my salesman got me staightened out and I am a happy camper now.
  • tebeloneytebeloney Member Posts: 4
    Hello,
    I really like the 9-3 SC because of styling, engine, gearbox, etc. Of course this is al based on web research as I am living abroad until August.
    I'd like to hear from anyone who has kids and this car. I have a 6 and 3 year old, and am wondering if the rear legroom and cargo area space of the 9-3 SC will be too tight.

    Thanks for any feedback,
    Tim
  • maxxindmaxxind Member Posts: 22
    One thing to keep in mind about Consumer Reports' reliability tables is that they are based on reader surveys. This means two things: 1. Consumer Reports readers are not necessarily a representative sample of all owners of a particular make and model. 2. A low-volume model like the Saab 9-3 will have a small sample size.

    I think Consumer Reports provides some valuable information. But, in my opinion, their auto reliability tables are taken as Gospel when they really should not be. They are one source of information, definitely worthy of some consideration, but they are not the final word on whether a car is any good or not.

    I would (and may) buy a 9-3 at some point, and the CR reliability tables would not slow me down at all. As stated in an above post, I've owned many cars and trucks over the years that they've bashed in their reviews and reliability tables and had nothing but good luck with them.
  • pointatobpointatob Member Posts: 30
    Hi Tim,

    i too am considering the 9-3 sportcombi and have a 5 and 2 yr old. the rear seat accomodations are a concern, but i think workable for most families of four. if you look at any of the compact to midsize wagons that are on the cusp of EPA midsize wagon category (130 cu ft), you'll find the 93 to be competitive with others. even though it is considered a compact, at 125.6 cu ft, it's only about 5 to 7 cu ft shy of the mazda6 wagon, subaru legacy, or even the new passat wagon. in passenger volume, the difference is only about half of this, with the rest going to a larger cargo volume.

    it won't feel as spacious as the 101 cu ft passenger volume in the 2007 camry or the 106 cu ft in the malibu maxx, but if you can drive with the wheel telescoped forward thereby keeping your seat closer to the front, there is plenty of room for two car seats and two kids. don't try adding a third though! :surprise:
  • rsorganizersorganize Member Posts: 131
    Thinking about moving from a very nice 2005 MDX to SC Aero. Just want to get smaller - to reduce gas costs and feel a bit more environmentally responsible.

    Test drove twice. Very nice...very interested. Also thinking BMX 325 xi and Volvo XC.

    So: (1) What should I pay for Aero that lits at $37k? (2) Thoughts on quality/reliability - mixed messages/review; spent way too much on '99 Volvo XC and feeling abit anxious about these kinds of vehicles; (3) Have gnerally been driving AWD for a lot of winter driving in New England - good winter tires with ESP good enough? (4) Thoughts on SC vs. BMW and XC?

    Thanks!
  • 54model54model Member Posts: 1
    I own my second 9-3, a 2001, and LOVE it. I was very disappointed when they eliminated the hatchback so the sport combi model is a great alternative for me.

    I will be tracking the comments here to help me make my decision for my next car. My Saab is doing great but I am always gathering data so I am ready when the urge for a new car hits :)

    A few things to keep in mind (in my opinion).
    1) The Saab has had two recalls in 2003 which is why the reliability ratings are so poor.
    2) The dealer can make all the difference in the experience of owning a Saab.

    I am lucky to live in a city that has a Saab dealer that puts all other dealers to shame. I get a free loaner whenever I get service and feel that the owner of the dealership is brilliant in his execution of CUSTOMER SERVICE. That factors into considerations for buying other makes.
  • chris47chris47 Member Posts: 25
    I can say that my wife’s 2.0T SportCombi is the best front-wheel drive winter car I have ever driven. We live in northeast NJ and have family in MA. I drove the car in several storms last winter with the standard all-season tires and was very impressed. It was much better than my Maxima which has exactly the same tires.

    I would not hesitate to drive the Aero in the winter. It should be fine with dedicated snow tires - maybe add steel wheels down one size of you are really serious.

    Reliability has been fine so far at 14k miles. The dealer had to replace a fried computer board early on but I don’t consider that a mechanical failure. We are getting 26-27 mpg with the 2.0T.

    We drove the 325xi and were not that impressed. It is a heavier car so it does not feel as nimble as the SportCombi. The Aero will outrun it easily.
  • chris47chris47 Member Posts: 25
    Price - use Edmunds calculator. If you or any relatives can get the GM supplier discount it is worth it. We got the best price that way.
  • rsorganizersorganize Member Posts: 131
    Thanks. Still thinking/shopping. Thought I had a dealer who was ready to deal straight; unfortunately, could never nail the numbers down. Was ready to buy, but when their 'hestitation' carried past the 0%, I decided to wait.
  • zoomlenszoomlens Member Posts: 2
    Brand New 2006 Saab 9.3 sport combi. Fusion Blue (metallic paint). Auto Transmission. Moon Roof, Premium Pkg, Cold Weather Pkg, roof rails

    Sticker price $33, 415.
    Edmunds invoice $31,425
    Edmunds TMV $31,993
    Price to me $30,688

    I think I can also get another $500 loyalty discount (this is my third Saab)

    Did I do good? It seemed too easy.
  • carquerycarquery Member Posts: 35
    Hi there,
    I'm looking for a comfortable car that will have enough space for my 5 and 1-year old's gear (stroller, box with change of clothes, diaper kit, etc), offer enough space in the back seat and get decent mileage around town and on the highway. I'm wondering if people feel there's enough room in the backseat and trunk with kids. Also, I've seen differing reports on the grade of gas you have to use. I've seen regular and premium listed. I thought turbos always needed 91+ octane. Finally, Consumers doesn't give Saab's great reliability ratings...can anyone speak to how accurate that rating is? Any insights would be appreciated. Thanks!
  • svosvo Member Posts: 2
    A) The 9-3 is certainly sufficient until the rear seat passengers exceed about 5'6".
    B) The cargo area holds more than it first appears to- plenty big for that.
    C) Buying a near-luxury car and worried about which grade of fuel you have to use? That is penny-wise and pound-foolish.
    D) While others have mentioned potential holes in Consumer Reports methodology, as well as the fact that recalls trash those ratings but pose less of a threat/inconvenience, bigger things to consider are the quality and proximity of your dealer and the fact that ALL cars are substantially more reliable than they were 10 or 20 years ago. Personally, I would not hesitate to buy the car I wanted just because it held the potential to send me to a local dealer that treats me well a couple of extra times over a 4-year period, and that is literally the difference between poor and good ratings. Looked at another way, there is NO highly reliable wagon that is also tops in safety. The A4 is probably the most reliable, and it is only OK. Those quality Asian cars have simply set a very tough grading curve and raised the bar for everyone. Too bad the Asian carmakers don't focus as much on safety and don't build family wagons. :mad:
  • starbirdstarbird Member Posts: 38
    The 2.0T recommendation by Saab is 90 octane fuel. It does say you can use regular but the engine perfers 90 or higher.

    The SportCombi we have is a lot more reliable than the 2003 9-3 it replaces. We've had it for two months with no problems whats so ever (3000 miles).

    The 9 3 safety ratings are currently higher than the Audi.

    I have no hesitation in recommending it.
  • pnassmacpnassmac Member Posts: 37
    SVO,

    In regards to the following statements:

    "...there is NO highly reliable wagon that is also tops in safety...Too bad the Asian carmakers don't focus as much on safety and don't build family wagons."

    You are sadly mistaken. The vehicle that meets both requiremnts is the subaru legacy. It has one of the highest reliability ratings among all domestic and asian (forget the europeans) brands and as far as safety is concerned, iihs gave it a gold rating for it's front and side crash test (and we all now how much more stringent they are vs. NHTSA). Also, iihs gave the volkswagen jetta/passat and Audio A4/3 only silver ratings.

    Granted, the 93 got an iihs gold as well, but when you count in the legacy's AWD system verus two-wheel stability/traction control on a low-center-of-gravity passenger vehicle, I consider that a wash. Throw in reliability, and the legacy wins.

    pnassmac
  • clarksavageclarksavage Member Posts: 3
    Yep, the Legacy is certainly tops in its class on the crash test results. Unfortunately, it only has traction control (VDC) on the highest-end models, so it may not be any better than average at actually avoiding those crashes.

    All-in-all though, a great car--especially the reliability.
    But the seats in the 9-3 are waaay more comfortable.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Hi. I see Saab now offers the sport wagon in a 2.0 T config, which makes a lot more sense for me in that the Aero is sports car overkill and too much money. The 2.0 T engine also has a surprizingly low torque peak, more like a V6 than the usual peaky turbo 4.

    Unfortunately, there are very, very few Saab dealers in my area (fewer, even, than Audi), and none have weekend service hours.

    Questions:

    1. Traction control; is it a true wheel braking system or the cheapo engine-power-cut approach?

    2. What is the ride and handling of the 2.0 T like (anyone driven these)?

    3. Is Saab any better than the rest of GM in handling customer complaints? Or, like usual, is it entirely up to the dealer to "make things right"?
  • dhanleydhanley Member Posts: 1,531
    1) It does brake the wheels to right the car's direction, but it also cuts engine power. In other words, it's stability control.

    2) IMO, the ride and handling are a pretty poor compromise. So-so handling, and a choppy ride.

    3) Not in my experience, but YMMV.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    I drove a 6-Speed Audi A3 2.0T and a 5-Speed Saab Sport Combi 2.0T back to back nearly a year ago and my impressions are as follows:

    The Saab was very comfortable and roomy with its extra size allowing it to be rather more practical than the Audi. That said, I like the looks of the Audi, inside and out, much more than the Saab. I'm thinking that the above two sets of impressions effectively work out to a draw.

    The above having been said, once under way there really is no comparison. The Audi engine feels significantly smoother and even though the Audi weighs in at nearly 100 pounds more and has a few less ponies, it feels significantly faster as well. Why? Probably the earlier torque peak and the longer stroke in the engine being combined with an extra cog in the gearbox.

    Then there is the handling aspect. During my test drives I managed to find two good freeway ramps that were about equidistant from the two dealerships. At identical speeds the Saab felt quite unsettled when compared to the A3 Sport, and when pushed, the Audi was capable of much higher ramp speeds. Of course this handling doesn't come without a tradeoff, namely ride compliance. Speaking strictly for myself, I like a firm ride so the Audi wins by default, however, for folks who don't want/need a canyon carver, the Saab would most likely prove the better choice.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Thnx for info. Guess Saab hasn't figured out suspensions like BMW and Audi have. Sounds like a dud, especially as their pitifully few local Saab dealers got so so ratings (closest one got a D) from the BBB.
  • dhanleydhanley Member Posts: 1,531
    shipo:

    I agree the audi feels faster. I think it's a combination of the lower torque peak and the almost nonexistant turbo lag. The 9-3's lag makes itself known in any sort of aggressive driving. Audi's 2.0T's lag is much more subtle.

    Maybe our test drives were different--mine was on potholed chicago roads, and i thought the audi covered that sort of imprefection better. But i wouldn't place money on it, i didn't do the drives back to back on the exact same roads.

    However, i did drive my bmw on the same roads as the 9-3 and i thought the 9-3 was definiely harsher.

    Yes, i do think BMW and audi have their suspensions sorted out better than saab does. Bear in mind saab has taken a FWD platform shared with economy cars, while the 3-series, for example, was designed from the first chassis drawings to be an RWD performance car.

    The reason to get a car like the 9-3 is because it offers a lot for the $ and there's nothing wrong with that. There's 0% financing for 60 months on the aero SportCombi right now, and you can easily get it for the invoice of $32,725. Lot of car for $550 a month.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    what's interesting about the 9-3 is how much it shares with the Chevy Malibu and the Saturn Aura; all of 'em have epsilon bodies and somewhat similar suspensions.

    The Saabs come with the option of 16" or 17" wheels. One review elsewhere suggested 16's made the car more liveable on bad roads with only a small loss in handling. Anyone here have real life experience with this?
  • pnassmacpnassmac Member Posts: 37
    Okay,ya' got me. As far as the seats are concerned - agreed. Luxurioussssssss..... :P

    And I can't argue against IIHS's assertion that stability control could prevent thousands of crashes each year. Give Subaru a year or two, and I'd bet they'll have stability control in their lower-end models. That's a hedge though.
  • rsorganizersorganize Member Posts: 131
    Unexpectedly back in the market for a wagon that will last a long time (30,000+ miles/year), be fun/comfortable to drive and makes me feel/be safe in winter New England driving. Last 3 vehicles: 99 Volvo XC70 (great drive, huge repair bills), 2005 Subaru Outback VDC (fun/great vehicle, felt a little small-ish as the miles piled up) and Acura MDX (nice ride, lots of toys, pleasant/comfortable but kind of dull - and, oh yes: what was I thinking on mpg??!!).

    Looking to get smaller/better mpg, but have expectations - again: fun,comfort, safety and some of the 'toys'.

    Hope to act soon. Right now, looking at leftover 2006 Volvo 70R (reliability/repairs??)...2007 Subaru Outback XT (lots of fun to drive, now has VDC and a few tech upgrades new since 2005)...VW Passat (reliability?)...9-5 Sportcombi (what-no side curtain airbags??)...and, 9-3 Sportcombi (biggest concern is lack of AWD - even with stability control, will it match the other awd models in the huge amount of winter driving I do?).

    All thoughts and experiences will be much appreciated.
  • robr2robr2 Member Posts: 8,805
    I'd check out the Honda CRV and Acura RDX - both are designed as crossovers and have carlike handling.
  • rsorganizersorganize Member Posts: 131
    Thanks, Rob. Drove the RDX. Liked the overall package (I admit I am spoiled!), but thought the ride was harsh. Will probably try again. CRV is less than what I am looking for.

    Peace.
  • dhanleydhanley Member Posts: 1,531
    I don't know what conditions you are driving though, but i manage perfectly fine in snow country with RWD and snow tires. And AWD doesn't help you turn and stop.

    Since you drive so many miles, MPG ought to be a consideration, and the saab is pretty good there, with 23/34. The rdx gets 11mpg worse on the highway, which i assume you do a lot of, putting on 30K miles a year...
  • rsorganizersorganize Member Posts: 131
    MPG is, indeed, a concern, with the RDX.

    Peace.
This discussion has been closed.