What is a better car, Saab 9000 or Rover 75
Discussion
Following on from a brief-spat on the Jaguar thread I felt there was a bit of a score to settle regards this topic.
I'm not a Saab 9000 enthauaist so not blinkered, I have owned one and worked on it. Rover 75, I have not owned one but been in and driven loads and worked on them as well. When it comes to the question of whether or not it is a better car than the Rover 75... like I said before, the 9000 kacks all over it.
What is a Saab 9000: Saabs first executive saloon, designed by Giorgetto Giugiaro who also designed cars such as the Delorean, Maserati 4200GT, Lotus Esprit and a load of horrible cars as well... but not a bad start. The 9000 was available with automatic climate control and memory electric seats from 1988 onwards. At the time these features were only found in the best high-end cars such as Jaguars, Mercs and BMWs - if you paid. 503,087 Saab 9000s were built and there were two generations. The Saab 9000 was noted for an exceptional level of safety with several cars noteably involed in extreme incidents where the drivers simply opened the door and walked away unharmed. The top spec Saab 9000 was the 2.3 Aero. It came with wing-back Recaro heated electric memory seats, automatic climate control, 225hp, bodykit, cruise control, car computer, sports suspension, etc, etc... The rear doors had ventilation fans to clear the rear passenger windows and heat the rear end of the car.
Apart from the luxuary, safety and performance the Saab 9000 is also incredibly reliable. "The Long Run" was an effort which took place over 20 days at Talladega circuit, Alabama. This was an effort to prove Saab reliablity for the American market. See video below. The average speed was over 130mph for 100,000 KMs non-stop setting 21 international speed records.
Excluding the v8 which was really a Mustang engine dropped into a Rover 75 chassis there is no Rover 75 which makes more power than the Saab 9000. Even 256hp vs 225hp isn't an amazing difference and the 0-60 time of the Rover 75 v8 is higher. Saab 6.7 vs Rover V8 7.0 or Saab 149mph vs Rover V8 151mph. In the real world Wikipedia quotes in-gear acceleration of the 9000 Aero as follows: "The Aero's in-gear acceleration was strongly emphasized; the Aero was capable of accelerating from 50 miles per hour (80 km/h) to 75 miles per hour (121 km/h) faster than a Porsche Carrera 4 or a Ferrari Testarossa"
Here are the photos and videos.
The Long Run: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov8m8gJNeGA
Promotional video for Maptun Saab Tuners: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7R2g3QAxwg
Modified 9000 v.s. Modified Audi S4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfMHePqJO4M
340hp 575nm - not that uncommon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVy5EtSU8xk
Pictures:
Does not look uncomfortable. This was the interior of my car:
Promo shots:
Interior: (in context, car released in 1985)
So who will make the case for the Rover 75?
I'm not a Saab 9000 enthauaist so not blinkered, I have owned one and worked on it. Rover 75, I have not owned one but been in and driven loads and worked on them as well. When it comes to the question of whether or not it is a better car than the Rover 75... like I said before, the 9000 kacks all over it.
What is a Saab 9000: Saabs first executive saloon, designed by Giorgetto Giugiaro who also designed cars such as the Delorean, Maserati 4200GT, Lotus Esprit and a load of horrible cars as well... but not a bad start. The 9000 was available with automatic climate control and memory electric seats from 1988 onwards. At the time these features were only found in the best high-end cars such as Jaguars, Mercs and BMWs - if you paid. 503,087 Saab 9000s were built and there were two generations. The Saab 9000 was noted for an exceptional level of safety with several cars noteably involed in extreme incidents where the drivers simply opened the door and walked away unharmed. The top spec Saab 9000 was the 2.3 Aero. It came with wing-back Recaro heated electric memory seats, automatic climate control, 225hp, bodykit, cruise control, car computer, sports suspension, etc, etc... The rear doors had ventilation fans to clear the rear passenger windows and heat the rear end of the car.
Apart from the luxuary, safety and performance the Saab 9000 is also incredibly reliable. "The Long Run" was an effort which took place over 20 days at Talladega circuit, Alabama. This was an effort to prove Saab reliablity for the American market. See video below. The average speed was over 130mph for 100,000 KMs non-stop setting 21 international speed records.
Excluding the v8 which was really a Mustang engine dropped into a Rover 75 chassis there is no Rover 75 which makes more power than the Saab 9000. Even 256hp vs 225hp isn't an amazing difference and the 0-60 time of the Rover 75 v8 is higher. Saab 6.7 vs Rover V8 7.0 or Saab 149mph vs Rover V8 151mph. In the real world Wikipedia quotes in-gear acceleration of the 9000 Aero as follows: "The Aero's in-gear acceleration was strongly emphasized; the Aero was capable of accelerating from 50 miles per hour (80 km/h) to 75 miles per hour (121 km/h) faster than a Porsche Carrera 4 or a Ferrari Testarossa"
Here are the photos and videos.
The Long Run: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov8m8gJNeGA
Promotional video for Maptun Saab Tuners: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7R2g3QAxwg
Modified 9000 v.s. Modified Audi S4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfMHePqJO4M
340hp 575nm - not that uncommon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVy5EtSU8xk
Pictures:
Does not look uncomfortable. This was the interior of my car:
Promo shots:
Interior: (in context, car released in 1985)
So who will make the case for the Rover 75?
Edited by ejenner on Friday 21st October 10:32
In it's favour, the 75 benefits from over a decade of technological improvement. Chassis stiffness is miles ahead of the slightly creaky Saab, as is ride quality. Neither are exactly the keen drivers weapon of choice though, let's be honest. The KV6 in the 75 is a really lovely engine though.
As for build quality - the early 75s were very well screwed together indeed, although the later cars were mercilessly stripped of cost. Plenty of design flaws and similar issues seem to be making them expensive to run as they age whereas the 9000 appears to be fairly indestructible.
As for build quality - the early 75s were very well screwed together indeed, although the later cars were mercilessly stripped of cost. Plenty of design flaws and similar issues seem to be making them expensive to run as they age whereas the 9000 appears to be fairly indestructible.
Rover for me, too...can seat 5 (by the look of the Saab it is a strict 4 seater only), the Rover is also available as an estate. Also Rover 75 (and MG ZT) were built and partly designed under the influence of BMW...
I should add: I've never owned either, but I did drive a 9000 turbo (although not an Aero) that belonged to a good friend...It felt heavy, slow (handling wise) and unresponsive...build qaulity wasn't bad tho...
I should add: I've never owned either, but I did drive a 9000 turbo (although not an Aero) that belonged to a good friend...It felt heavy, slow (handling wise) and unresponsive...build qaulity wasn't bad tho...
Edited by fushion julz on Friday 21st October 10:40
ejenner said:
5lab said:
get the 75 with the right engine (the v8) and its quicker, better handling, and more awesome than the saab.
Put both in 4 pot mode, and I'd go for the saab
Read the figures above. The 75 v8 is not quicker than the Saab 9000. Put both in 4 pot mode, and I'd go for the saab
Surely a wind up thread, non?
The 75 isn't really comparable other tha coming in a similar number of doors.
The 9000 was ridiculously over engineered, faster, bigger inside and not a last gasp model.
I was in the motor trade at the time of the 75's launch and had people with week old models asking to p/x them. The only other car that I ever experienced that much hate with was the 307.
Aside from that the 75 is just a nasty looking car. Not saying the 9000 is beautiful, it ain't, but the 75 is horrible!
The 75 isn't really comparable other tha coming in a similar number of doors.
The 9000 was ridiculously over engineered, faster, bigger inside and not a last gasp model.
I was in the motor trade at the time of the 75's launch and had people with week old models asking to p/x them. The only other car that I ever experienced that much hate with was the 307.
Aside from that the 75 is just a nasty looking car. Not saying the 9000 is beautiful, it ain't, but the 75 is horrible!
Erm ok, not read all of this. But I see a few inaccuracies which need pointing out.
Nothing like a level unbiased debate then.
And for the record I think you'll find is was a far more comprehensive product and development.
Oh and BTW - was the original Saab turbo just a Triumph engine dropped into a Saab chassis. Better really then exclude all Saabs from the debate using this logic.
Either that or it truly is just 100% fictional nonsense.
ejenner said:
What is a Saab 9000: Saabs first executive saloon, designed by Giorgetto Giugiaro
No I don't think that's right. The Giorgetto Giugiaro studio (i.e. a company) might well have penned the shape. But that's about it, they certainly didn't design the entire car. And even the penning part would have been done with consultation with SAAB engineers. It would also be a team effort, not a single person.ejenner said:
who also designed cars such as the Delorean, Maserati 4200GT, Lotus Esprit and a load of horrible cars as well... but not a bad start.
As above, none of these were "designed" by Giugiaro.ejenner said:
Excluding the v8 which was really a Mustang engine dropped into a Rover 75 chassis there is no Rover 75 which makes more power than the Saab 9000.
Ok, so you want to simply exclude a variant because it betters the car you are championing.Nothing like a level unbiased debate then.
And for the record I think you'll find is was a far more comprehensive product and development.
Oh and BTW - was the original Saab turbo just a Triumph engine dropped into a Saab chassis. Better really then exclude all Saabs from the debate using this logic.
ejenner said:
Even 256hp vs 225hp isn't an amazing difference and the 0-60 time of the Rover 75 v8 is higher. Saab 6.7 vs Rover V8 7.0 or Saab 149mph vs Rover V8 151mph.
You need to check your stats, as they are wrong.ejenner said:
In the real world Wikipedia quotes in-gear acceleration of the 9000 Aero as follows: "The Aero's in-gear acceleration was strongly emphasized; the Aero was capable of accelerating from 50 miles per hour (80 km/h) to 75 miles per hour (121 km/h) faster than a Porsche Carrera 4 or a Ferrari Testarossa"
Wikipedia or not, those figures are utter and total rubbish. I suspect they are referring to certain "in-gear" tests, where we'll have one car in the wrong gear to make it slow, while we have the other car in an optimum gear to falsify the results.Either that or it truly is just 100% fictional nonsense.
Saab 9000 Trionic 5.5 Engine Management:
In 1994 when it was released this was ground breaking technology and even today manufactures are still playing catch-up.
The essence of it boils down to 'ion-sensing' technology. The 9000 had the ability to sense various information about the state of combustion inside each individual cylinder. With this information the ECU could tune individual cylinders to get very high level of performance without any risk to reliabilty. Each cylinder could be pushed to the limit of it's operation for given boost level. The ion-sensing could detect knock on a per-cylinder basis amongst other things.
The trionic technology is so good people don't change it when modifying. For free using online software you can tune the original hardware up to 300hp on the Saab 9000. You can't say that about the Rover 75 - just isn't possible. If you took it to a man who charges you a fortune he might be able to tune one of the turbo ones up a little bit but I bet you couldn't get 300hp out of it with standard hardware.
In 1994 when it was released this was ground breaking technology and even today manufactures are still playing catch-up.
The essence of it boils down to 'ion-sensing' technology. The 9000 had the ability to sense various information about the state of combustion inside each individual cylinder. With this information the ECU could tune individual cylinders to get very high level of performance without any risk to reliabilty. Each cylinder could be pushed to the limit of it's operation for given boost level. The ion-sensing could detect knock on a per-cylinder basis amongst other things.
The trionic technology is so good people don't change it when modifying. For free using online software you can tune the original hardware up to 300hp on the Saab 9000. You can't say that about the Rover 75 - just isn't possible. If you took it to a man who charges you a fortune he might be able to tune one of the turbo ones up a little bit but I bet you couldn't get 300hp out of it with standard hardware.
ejenner said:
Rover Tourer: 1222 litres with seats down.
Saab 9000: 1597 litres with seats down.
The 9000 has more luggage space than the 75 when the seats are up as well.
But a less usable shape and isn't it bigger on the outside, which really means it's quite a pointless comparison or piece of information.Saab 9000: 1597 litres with seats down.
The 9000 has more luggage space than the 75 when the seats are up as well.
Hang on, your shot is of a later 9000. This was the original:
The 9000 was one of 4 cars all designed round a common theme - the Alfa 164, the Lancia Thema and the Fiat Croma so wheover designed them, they were compromised the common part in the middle.
Of those, the Alfa was the best-looking and with a 3.0 V6 the most desirable.
I am guessing your photos are from the top end models so by that token the Alfa 164 QV and Lamncia Thema 8:32 with the Ferrari engine whould be up for consideration.
If the MG Rover comes into it, it is in MG ZT260 V8 form with RWD, great handling and a touch of rarity. It's not a great looker but then neither is the Saab.
Wasn't the 166 also a development of the 164. if so, that would be my choice or the ZT260. the saab drops out on looks.
The 9000 was one of 4 cars all designed round a common theme - the Alfa 164, the Lancia Thema and the Fiat Croma so wheover designed them, they were compromised the common part in the middle.
Of those, the Alfa was the best-looking and with a 3.0 V6 the most desirable.
I am guessing your photos are from the top end models so by that token the Alfa 164 QV and Lamncia Thema 8:32 with the Ferrari engine whould be up for consideration.
If the MG Rover comes into it, it is in MG ZT260 V8 form with RWD, great handling and a touch of rarity. It's not a great looker but then neither is the Saab.
Wasn't the 166 also a development of the 164. if so, that would be my choice or the ZT260. the saab drops out on looks.
ejenner said:
5lab said:
get the 75 with the right engine (the v8) and its quicker, better handling, and more awesome than the saab.
Put both in 4 pot mode, and I'd go for the saab
Read the figures above. The 75 v8 is not quicker than the Saab 9000. Put both in 4 pot mode, and I'd go for the saab
Classic Grad 98 said:
By what measure? The Rover is faster, by 2mph. It's also slower by three tenths of a second.
ejenner said:
In the real world Wikipedia quotes in-gear acceleration of the 9000 Aero as follows: "The Aero's in-gear acceleration was strongly emphasized; the Aero was capable of accelerating from 50 miles per hour (80 km/h) to 75 miles per hour (121 km/h) faster than a Porsche Carrera 4 or a Ferrari Testarossa"
If I could choose which car to pick for a drag race I would choose the Saab. I know in the real world it would beat the Rover. Also bear in mind the 9000 Aero is freely available, the 75 v8 is a rare beast and you're not going to get very many chances to compare like with like. In most cases the 9000 will be up against a more run-of-the-mill Rover. It would beat them all though, so who cares which one it is. Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff