Part of me thinks Saab is overrated...

"not for canada - australian in disguise" (for-canada)
05/20/2016 at 00:10 • Filed to: None

But part of me thinks their later cars aged really,

really,

well.

Saab could literally come back with the exact lineup they died with, and their cars would still look completely in date. Some people say GM ruined Saab, but I personally believe their cars actually got better with GM. Granted, some of the decisions GM made were a bit, well, shaky, but without GM the glorious late model 9-5 wouldn’t exist, and a world without the late model 9-5 is a world I don’t wanna live in.

DISCUSSION (15)

415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) > not for canada - australian in disguise
05/20/2016 at 00:16

You know I looked at a wagon when I was checking out my CRV, that I bought. The Saab seemed like after just a few years a lot of things were wearing out and the controls etc.were loose. Just sitting in it felt like it was not going to do well. This was maybe a 2006 car.

not for canada - australian in disguise > 415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°)
05/20/2016 at 00:17

Damn, that sucks hard.

Birddog > not for canada - australian in disguise
05/20/2016 at 00:20

All of me thinks Saab was overrated.

It should have died in the 80s.

TeamClearCoat > not for canada - australian in disguise
05/20/2016 at 00:25

The last 9-5 still looks striking and modern. Such a shame.

Here’s my TurboX:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

And here’s how I got it: http://teamclearcoat.kinja.com/how-i-ended-up…

InFierority Complex > not for canada - australian in disguise
05/20/2016 at 00:42

They probably are, but I still want one. Going to test drive a 9-3 Aero wagon tomorrow.

Hoccy > not for canada - australian in disguise
05/20/2016 at 01:30

The 9-3 face-lift has aged really well. It was early on the market with well integrated LED headlights, which everyone has now. The clear, frosted rear lights still look good as well.

Sam > not for canada - australian in disguise
05/20/2016 at 01:40

My friend (who is not a car guy at all, though I have been training him) absolutely loves his mom’s ‘08 9-3 Turbo. He always talks about how great it is to hit boost (he just described it as being faster at higher RPMs). It's a nice car, though. Part of that is because it only has ~20k miles, because his grandma never drove it.

Berang > not for canada - australian in disguise
05/20/2016 at 07:09

GM ruined Saab in the way that they miss-managed the brand. The cars are ok (if relatively boring compared to earlier cars). Most of Saabs products aged well because they didn’t really follow the styling fads other companies copied off eachother.

TFSIVTEC drivesavolvo > Birddog
05/20/2016 at 07:10

All depends on the price, my $400 9-3 convertible had been a deal! The close to $40,000 spent on it in 2001, total crack pipe deal

Slant6 > not for canada - australian in disguise
05/20/2016 at 08:53

I had a 2000 9-5, built a few months before the complete GM take over. I have to say that too much GM is a bad thing. With my 2000 Saab used a GM platform but took care of almost everything else. Near the end of Saab GM started backing off and letting them have more control. But from 2001-2007 build quality was lacking, interior design was stagnant and they did nothing to advance the brand.

Ferdinand Adlersflügel > 415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°)
05/20/2016 at 14:39

The early years of the NG 9-3 (2003-2006) saw different interior updates each year and the material quality was lacking. 2007 brought the new interior to the old body style and some say they are the most sought after. 2008-2011/12 was the new exterior and interior.

Combis (wagons) were introduced in 2006 and that is the year to avoid, in my opinion.

The new Saabs (NG 9-5, 9-4X) had very nice materials and only minimal fit and finish issues.

CB > TeamClearCoat
05/20/2016 at 19:14

Such a great looking car. And the rims are fantastic looking.

TeamClearCoat > CB
05/20/2016 at 19:47

Thanks! Europe got those same style rims in 19"s. We only got the 18s.

godwinaustin > not for canada - australian in disguise
05/21/2016 at 09:06

I disagree. The earlier cars were icons , have you owned one ? They were both ahead of their time, had a ton of character, are amazing drivers cars, and were built to last.

GM did ruin Saab , because the cars were cheapened, through cost-cutting, through platform sharing and the use of parts bin parts, and because at that point what was a very distinctive automobile became a rebadged GM product with a turbo. And that more than anything killed Saab, and it's a sad story.

Amoore100 > Ferdinand Adlersflügel
07/11/2016 at 03:02

It’s because with the early NG 9-3s they were likely working out all the niggles that were associated with completely stripping down a Vectra and then replacing it with all sorts of interesting Swedish bits. I won’t say GM killed Saab, but to be fair, when you’re purchasing a company as anal-retentive as Saab, you have to be aware of this sort of thing. It wasn’t new either, Saab had the same issues when it tried to share the Type Four platforms with the Italians which went well until crash testing began. The 9000 ended up being a very heavy and strong car, while the Italians weren’t.