Saab - Why do you like them?

Saab - Why do you like them?

Author
Discussion

jamieduff1981

Original Poster:

8,022 posts

139 months

Thursday 18th July 2013
quotequote all
I've only ever driven two Saabs, both mid-90s 93s and thought they were fairly forgettable experiences to be honest.

They seem to crop up often on PH threads on wishlists or what car threads. Someone even mentioned a 95 aero as the weekend car on a thread last night.

I'm convinced I must be missing something as they seem pretty mediocre to drive and aren't very quick either. I'd be interested to read from past or present owners what the special appeal is. I won't be rushing out to buy one but I'd like to understand why some do smile

jmorgan

36,010 posts

283 months

Thursday 18th July 2013
quotequote all
Dunno. I needed a mile muncher so was looking for an oil burner. Ended up with a 9-5 2.3t (not 2.3T) petrol auto. Looked for cars that depreciated a lot in their first few years and SAAB were there and at the time it was the best option for my money, the few other makes I had looked at were a tad sorry for the asking price. Lots of fleet cars at the time I understand (as this was), this was before the went out of business, so this one became my lounge for getting to work.

Really is comfortable. Tried a 9-3 and felt a bit restricted, not enough leg room as well. Autobox is superb, plenty of power for what I need on the motorway, press S and off it goes at an impressive rate. Hopeless in the twisty bits but then its a saloon so what do you expect, my usual drive is motorway almost door to door for 150 miles. I have something else for the fun bits. I also understand there is some galvanising or serious anti rust on the floor pans and doors, though I may be wrong there.

So for me, its an arm chair to get to work. I am not looking for performance or rally potential. And it has a massive boot, big plus for me. So I probably fail here for not having an AERO or upgrading it or racing it or rallying it. It really is bog standard. Excellent cup holder though, that really is superb.

aeropilot

34,299 posts

226 months

Thursday 18th July 2013
quotequote all
jamieduff1981 said:
I've only ever driven two Saabs, both mid-90s 93s and thought they were fairly forgettable experiences to be honest.
95% of all mid-90's 9-3's were to be honest laugh

Go drive a 'proper' Saab wink

jamieduff1981 said:
I'm convinced I must be missing something as they seem pretty mediocre to drive and aren't very quick either.
You've only driven two, and clearly they weren't full fat turbo versions as you wouldn't be saying they arn't quick. In their day a 900T16S, 9000 Aero etc were not slow cars. A modded 9000 Aero/9-5 Aero still isn't today. The B234 engines in the 9000 were way over-engineered, and the internals can handle 500hp power levels without a problem, not many 4 cyl turbo production engines were capable of that, which made them very 'budget mod' friendly, once used values dropped significantly.

jamieduff1981 said:
I'd be interested to read from past or present owners what the special appeal is.
For many people, it's the fact that it's not a BMW/Merc/Audi etc.
Like Volvo, Saab did have a 'left field' safety oreintated reputation built up from the 1970's.

jamieduff1981

Original Poster:

8,022 posts

139 months

Thursday 18th July 2013
quotequote all
Ok, what's a proper Saab then for the benefit of the likes of me? As far as I am aware, there were never models you could call quick. I understand the desire to avoid German tedium and have strived to myself. Using them as the benchmark though, even what must be the 'full fat' Saabs fall a long way short of the German halo models in terms of performance and the FWD must have been caused a lack of credibility as a 'quick' car? Noone evrr tosses up a Saab against an M3 in what car threads.

It would appear that at best, the quick Saabs were more like competitors for things like the Accord Type R or 620Ti/800 Vitesse?

drivin_me_nuts

17,949 posts

210 months

Thursday 18th July 2013
quotequote all
indeed, go drive a properly sorted original 900. lovely in T16 turbo form with a little tweak or two along the way.

deanogtv

743 posts

219 months

Thursday 18th July 2013
quotequote all
I remeber watching a top gear segment on Saab a couple of years ago. It came across that they were different, and wanted to stay that way even what under GM. I recall them being given the underpinnings of the Vectra and told to just weak it a little, appantley they totally ignored GM, used the floor plan and re-worked eventhing else.

The orginal 900 turbo is way up there on my cool wall


I will dip my toe in one day, very soon I hope!!

jamieduff1981

Original Poster:

8,022 posts

139 months

Thursday 18th July 2013
quotequote all
drivin_me_nuts said:
indeed, go drive a properly sorted original 900. lovely in T16 turbo form with a little tweak or two along the way.
So what should it be compared to? I've driven quite a wide spread of cars, some worse than a Saab and some better.

If it's lovely compared to a Cavalier or Escort then fair enough. It's probably not going to feel lovely next to a V8 Jag though. I guess I'm struggling to place it other than by value when new or a few years old. I understand the first reply completely - good used value following heavy depreciation. That makes good economic sense yet that can't be everything because of replies such as your own.

A T16 900 would go for similar money to pretty much any older car you fancy so the 3-year old value aspect is gone yet it's still supposed to be lovely which can be stiff competition smile

aeropilot

34,299 posts

226 months

Thursday 18th July 2013
quotequote all
jamieduff1981 said:
Ok, what's a proper Saab then for the benefit of the likes of me? As far as I am aware, there were never models you could call quick.
Depends what you call quick.

Saab's were never about 0-60 times, Saab designed for in-gear overtaking performance, realising the limitations of fwd from a standing start.

Back in 1993, a 9000 Aero still cracked 0-60 in high 6 sec figures which was hardly slow 20 years ago, and had in-gear acceleration to match 911's of the period, which very few other 4/5 door 'executive' barges could match, and with unrivalled safety for the era.

jamieduff1981 said:
Noone evrr tosses up a Saab against an M3 in what car threads.
Hardly surprising given you would be stupid to even suggest it given people that gravitate to a M3 are likely interested in the fact that it's rwd, and Saab's are .......err fwd. Compare Saab to equivilent fwd barges from other makes and they compare very favourably.
I owned fast Saab's for well over 10 years and loved them for what they were, I now own a BMW because I wanted to go back to rwd (and Saab don't exist anymore) but I wouldn't even attempt to compare the two....chalk and cheese.

drivin_me_nuts

17,949 posts

210 months

Thursday 18th July 2013
quotequote all
jamieduff1981 said:
So what should it be compared to? I've driven quite a wide spread of cars, some worse than a Saab and some better.

If it's lovely compared to a Cavalier or Escort then fair enough. It's probably not going to feel lovely next to a V8 Jag though. I guess I'm struggling to place it other than by value when new or a few years old. I understand the first reply completely - good used value following heavy depreciation. That makes good economic sense yet that can't be everything because of replies such as your own.

A T16 900 would go for similar money to pretty much any older car you fancy so the 3-year old value aspect is gone yet it's still supposed to be lovely which can be stiff competition smile
Comparing it to a 3 series of the time, it was better built and far more solid. The ergonomics were excellent, the seats very supportive, the heater could do a full roast on its hottest settings and the security and comfort it gave was high. The engine mounted low down gave a low Centre of gravity and the view over the bonnet distinctive.

It could handle corners extremely well, the turbo lag made driving it both fun and a challenge. It could very easily be made to produce 280-300 bhp and it could handle the extra with minimal changes.

mine was only scrapped last year at 200k after sitting 4 years on my drive unused. it was a T16s convertible. I miss it on days like today. roof down, it was a car that regularly got heads turning. Indeed, as wobbly as a jelly, had 200+ bhp, made a lovely exhaust noise and was by some margin my favourite car. I'd love to own a fully restored one, in fact I'd more than happily pay over the odds to have another sitting on my driveway again.

hairykrishna

13,159 posts

202 months

Thursday 18th July 2013
quotequote all
It's quite hard to define. My 9000 Aero just felt 'proper'. Basically everything about it felt like someone had thought about the best way of doing something for that type of car (i.e. a large 5 door luxury car) then had implemented it. The solutions weren't always perfect but at least it felt as if someone had tried, if you know what I mean.

It was very, very comfortable to drive. The seats in particular were masterworks of combining comfort with holding you in if you got a bit 'enthusiastic'. Mine was remapped but it was genuinely fast where it actually mattered rather than chasing the bottom line figures. The remapping itself; Saabs boost control is fully accessible from the ECU without having to add anything. It was incredibly light on fuel for something so big with 300hp. It handled much better than you could have any right to expect from a FWD barge. I loved it.

parabolica

6,703 posts

183 months

Thursday 18th July 2013
quotequote all
jamieduff1981 said:
Using them as the benchmark though, even what must be the 'full fat' Saabs fall a long way short of the German halo models in terms of performance and the FWD must have been caused a lack of credibility as a 'quick' car? Noone evrr tosses up a Saab against an M3 in what car threads.

It would appear that at best, the quick Saabs were more like competitors for things like the Accord Type R or 620Ti/800 Vitesse?
Even Saab admits that it wasn't a direct competitor for the likes of M/// and AMG models; Much like Lexus/Mazda/Honda their limited range focused on their core market of family/fleet cars with a mix of decent amount of punch and kit levels whilst remaining somewhat restrained styling wise. I had a 05 9-3 Aero and whilst it wasn't blisteringly quick, it was more than capable of briskly getting you around on a daily basis and was a great motorway cruiser. Awesome seats as well FWIW; comfiest I've ever had.

Edited by parabolica on Thursday 18th July 08:59

Eski1991

1,113 posts

132 months

Thursday 18th July 2013
quotequote all
At the moment I'm driving a 9-5 Aero estate, MY06 so heavy GM influence. And whilst it drives well and is very comfortable, gets 27-30mpg constantly and looks reasonably attractive, I'm kind of disappointed with it. Couldn't explain why though.

NiceCupOfTea

25,280 posts

250 months

Thursday 18th July 2013
quotequote all
A proper Saab is anything before the GM takeover. I have nothing against the later cars but they're not quite the same IMHO. What I like about Saab is that they were never afraid to go their own way. They're terrifically engineered and the hot versions are brutal in overtaking mode. I still find it hard to believe that my 9000 only has 200bhp. Older Saabs are pure class - love my T16S and in this weather wish I had a c900 convertible to go with it!

kwak

210 posts

151 months

Thursday 18th July 2013
quotequote all
To me, it's all of the above, plus the old 900 just being a very cool car for some reason. Fun to drive, looks like nothing else, very practical with the huge boot, and a unique and great sound. A minor point is that, for me, a saab is the antithesis to the keeping up with the joneses spirit that comes attached with most other 'nice' cars.
And somehow, a lot of people that aren't interested in cars even a little bit say 'nice car' when they see it.

Edited by kwak on Thursday 18th July 09:31

mart73

56 posts

140 months

Thursday 18th July 2013
quotequote all
hairykrishna said:
It's quite hard to define. My 9000 Aero just felt 'proper'. Basically everything about it felt like someone had thought about the best way of doing something for that type of car (i.e. a large 5 door luxury car) then had implemented it.
Nicely summed up. I had 2 9000 turbos, a 2.3t auto & an Aero manual. The Aero just gave me a feeling that no car since has got near.
6.2 for 0-60, it could waft along effortlessly on a motorway & it had the most amazing seats I've ever known. I utterly loved mine!

On numerous occasions, I drove from Plymouth to Durham non-stop (400 miles!) without a sign of fatigue. It was just brilliant.

nickbee

423 posts

236 months

Thursday 18th July 2013
quotequote all
I have a 9-3 Aero, the later 'SS' shape, not the mid-90's one. It's not a driver's car; it's FWD, there's little in the way of feedback and the engine is barely audible (the whoosh from the turbo is actually louder). However on the other it's quick enough for real-life driving (210bhp and 220lb/ft over a very wide powerband), it's very grippy, comfortable and has been 100% reliable for the five years that I've owned it. Plus, it'sall in the eye of the beholder but I think the Aeros were the best looking saloon there was until the 159 came out. I don't think it's something you'd aspire to own but it's a decent enough choice for a family car.

Timbola

1,956 posts

139 months

Thursday 18th July 2013
quotequote all
jamieduff1981 said:
I've only ever driven two Saabs, both mid-90s 93s and thought they were fairly forgettable experiences to be honest.
The 93 was among the first turds spewed from Saab after GM took them over.

The 93 was a Vauxhall Vectra with a different shell. It's no surprise you found it a forgettable experience.

As others above have intoned, you need to go back to the pre-GM days of Saab, when they made some real gems.

I had the pleasure of running an old 900i convertible for a year, much like the one below.



It was built like a house, equally as heavy, and had a 0-60 time of around 3 weeks. It had more character and quirks than anything I owned before or since. Fabulously smooth to waft along in. It had that really cool factor. Never failed to raise a smile.


Edited by Timbola on Thursday 18th July 10:03

mywifeshusband

594 posts

197 months

Thursday 18th July 2013
quotequote all
I'm on Saab no.6 ranging from a C900 Carlsson to a NG900. A Saab is slightly different from the mainstream of cars and this works in their favour but ultimately worked against them.
They are very comfy to drive - I've done over 600 miles in a day with no aches and pains. As said above the turbos are not about 0-60 times but about the punch they deliver where it really matters.
The OP says he drove a mid 90's 9-3 but that would have been a NG900, the 9-3 came out in 1998. The two cars are quite different as well as looking the same. Also you need to have a Saab for a few weeks before you really understand it. My first was a 9000 and I felt quite disappointed for the first week.
Next year I'll be changing one of my cars and the choice is which Saab - 9000 Aero if I can find a good one or a 9-5 Aero.

Mr E

21,583 posts

258 months

Thursday 18th July 2013
quotequote all
jamieduff1981 said:
As far as I am aware, there were never models you could call quick
I've run modified Japanese turbo wagons, cooking Alfa V6s and currently have a Lotus as a toy.
The bargain basement 9-5 Aero family wagon in 3rd gear on overboost is rapid.
The handling is such that it is the only car I've nailed wide open and thought "this doesn't need any more power".

Mark Benson

7,498 posts

268 months

Thursday 18th July 2013
quotequote all
Eski1991 said:
At the moment I'm driving a 9-5 Aero estate, MY06 so heavy GM influence. And whilst it drives well and is very comfortable, gets 27-30mpg constantly and looks reasonably attractive, I'm kind of disappointed with it. Couldn't explain why though.
I currently have a 2007 9-5 diesel (it was cheap, I needed an big estate in a hurry) and I know what you mean.

Compared to the 9000 I had it just doesn't feel as well made. In fact, even compared to my wife's Accord of the same year, the controls feel flimsy and insubstantial. The 9000 we had quickly became a firm favourite - it went on forever and whatever we threw at it, it just carried on working. As someone said, it felt like someone had thought about the car and they way it was laid out, and the people that made it had wanted it to be a quality product.

The 9-5 has definitely lost that feeling.

What it hasn't lost, however is the ability to cover huge mileages in complete comfort - Saab seats are superb and for a mile-muncher, there are few cars in the class as good as the Saab. It's just a shame they couldn't remain as they were pre-GM, but making quality, quirky cars was not a good business model it would appear.