In the fall of 1998, there was an ad in the Wall Street Journal for a brand new Saab 9-3 lease, for $289/month, with zero down. The ad was for a 5-door with leather and a sunroof! I remember being so excited that I called up a friend and told him about it, and we both went to the local Saab dealer (VOB Saab in Rockville, MD) and snatched up brand new Saab leases. His was dark blue, mine this Green Silver Pearl Metallic. Never having gotten over my first Saab I was ecstatic about the chance to own such a nice car for not much more than my 1997 Nissan Maxima.
After my 1993 Toyota Corolla lease, I had moved up in the world and leased a 1997 Nissan Maxima base model with a 5-speed. It was fast and comfortable car, and fun to drive. Let me say again, this car was fast! At 190 horsepower, the 3.5 liter V6 was very powerful for the era. Though it was front-wheel drive, it was the closest I ever got to owning a muscle car (well later I had a 1966 Mustang GT with a 289 4V, but this car was more powerful).
But, it had cloth, no sunroof, hubcaps, and numb steering, and after 3 years, the lease was up and I was ready to moving into something new.
And boy did it hit the spot for this Saab lover! Upright seating position, check; stick-shift directly next to my right knee, check; console mounted ignition (but more carefully designed this time), check; high-mounted dashboard, check. And this time, a TURBO!
What a fun car to drive, with 185 horsepower, it was as powerful and fun as the old 900 Turbo SPG, and because GM was in the beginning of trying to turn Saab into Audi (i.e. a quirky and high volume luxury brand), I could drive this car for 36 months for only $10,404 plus tax. It was quite a lot of car for the money!
So how was my first GM owned Saab? It was superior to my 1988 Saab 900 in almost every measurable way, but a few strengths of the previous 900 were lost in the translation to the new Saab. For example it would corner very flat on on-ramps as compared to the significant body roll of the predecessor car, but the 9-3 lacked a certain suppleness in the front suspension of the 900. And on high speed, sweeping corners, there was a lightness in the rear end upon lifting off the throttle that threatened sudden over-steer that was not apparent in the 900.
But by 1999 standards, the car was fast and quite fun to run through the gearbox. In fact, one time my neighbor asked me if she could borrow my Saab to pick her friend up at the airport. I said sure, but I actually need a car that day. She said no problem, you can drive mine! Her’s was a 1989 911 Turbo Look Carrera in Red over Black. I was so excited, as I’d idolized 911’s for years, and this would be the first one I would ever drive! And I did love driving it, but I realized fairly quickly that my garden variety Saab seemed nearly as fast 0-60.
The comfort of rear-facing car seats in a Saab 9-3 (not my ex-wife)
Well time marches on, and my ex-wife and I had our first child, a beautiful son, and when I installed our first rear facing car seat to bring him home from the hospital, I discovered it required us to move our seats forward a bit and it was a tight fit. By the time was had our second child, a daughter, it was time to move on to something bigger.
I did my research for station wagons that I thought I might be able to afford and I test drove both a BMW 525i Wagon and an Audi A6 3.0 Quattro Wagon, and both were disappointing. Then I test drove a 2001 Saab 9-5 wagon and it was fun, even with the smooth shifting and sure footed 4-speed automatic. I ran the numbers at the dealer, and told my ex-wife the Saab 9-5 is the car for us. She said great. I said my only requirements are no red, no automatic transmission. I’ll give you one guess what we got…
2002 9-5 5-Speed Auto
Well we had to order the car, and so we had to order a 2002, and 2002 was the first year of the 5-speed automatic, and it was terrible! Every time you stepped down hard on the gas, the car would cut the throttle while it paused to decide how many gears to downshift. I’m not sure it was a GM deadly sin, but contributed to the end of my love affair with Saab. There were some other features to the car that felt quite cheap and I remember feeling that GM threatening Saab’s future with their focus on volume, new product introductions, and rumors of badge engineering.
But the one feature I wanted them desperately to add was a third-row seat in the wagon, as my ex-wife and I were planning to have a third child. Volvo and Mercedes continued to sell three row station wagons, but Saab never did in the Saab 9-5 era, only in the 95 era.
So that was the end of my Saab years, and I moved on to Ford, but that’s another story!
There were many reasons to complain about GM’s management of Saab but two things they did do were in evidence in your car. One is offering a four combining with a hatchback in an executive sedan. The option was common in Europe, but most years only Saab in USA. Yes, I do remember the 318ti and C180 Kompressor, and those two clearly remember the Gremlin.
The other was in offering rebates so high that they were practicly offering Audis at VW prices. The selling experience and warranty were also at luxury level under GM. Kudos to you for leasing and thereby avoiding trade hassles. Thanks for telling us another story of the interesting cars you had.
“One is offering a four combining with a hatchback in an executive sedan.” Saab made that mistake first with the original 1984 9000.
Alternative choices are a plus not a minus. Saab later offered a 9000CD with a conventional 4 door body and an optional V6. They quickly found that was an answer to a question few asked.
Ah yes, the dumbing down of Saab. Thank you very much General Motors.
I’ve driven a few of them and never saw a problem with a turbo four in a car of this class. And, it seems, neither has the automobile industry. Unfortunately, Saab was a couple of decades ahead of everyone else doing it when it was not fashionable.
I’m not sure that there was any way for Saab to succeed. Keep making unique, niche cars, and there aren’t enough customers to pay for the development. Make cheaper/badged engineered cars, and you lose the things that make the car unique, and there isn’t any reason to pick it over a better-known luxury brand.
In ’04 after my beloved but tired ’93 9000CSE finally bit the bullet at a healthy 365k miles I was thrilled to pick up a 2000 9-SE 5 door off lease with about 45000 miles on the clock. It was black in and out with a 5 speed and the high-output turbo, and was a blast to drive. This was the last year before GM took over full ownership of the brand, and I was pleased to have scored one of the final fully Saab-engineered models. I loved the car, but it did come with some gremlins on board. Many of these I attributed to its status as certified pre-owned, but over time it became apparent that one of the inherent weaknesses of the car was in the front suspension. While it handled amazingly it was plagued by a propensity to chew through suspension bits. I did manage to rack up over 160k on the car before parting with it, it proved far more expensive to own than its predecessor. I recall at least two incidents when the dealer reluctantly have me loaners for a weekend or more to make repairs under the extended warranty, and one painful attempt to get the car to pass state emissions testing a just after the warranty expired that cost me $1200 in new oxygen sensors and various other related bits. In the final analysis I only kept the car for as long as I did in an effort to make up for some of the investments I’d made to keep it going.
We can’t totally blame GM for Saab’s demise.
I’ve always noticed that amongst the Saab faithful, and especially within their most vocal subset, was a tendency to brag about the wonderful deal they’d picked up on a USED Saab (or an off-lease model). Very rarely (in fact, thinking about it a bit more, I can’t remember one example) would I read an account to having negotiated a wonderful settlement on BUYING a NEW Saab.
Which makes me wonder: In their last decade or so, did anybody actually buy a new Saab?
I did twice, a new 2004 9-3 Linear in 05 at 25% off the 31k list, and a new 2011 9-5, at 14% off list. That one burned me when Saab failed. GM used to always say that Saab had the best demographics of anyone being both well off and young. There were just not enough of them.
The crowd that passes around old 900s is a different market, cool people but broke.
I bought the 9-2X Aero at around $6000 off. Seeing as how I was sort of in the market for a WRX and this made it way cheaper, it was something of a no-brainer.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/uncategorized/coal-2005-saab-9-2x-aero-i-prefer-my-sushi-with-a-side-of-lingonberry-sauce/
I did consider a 9-3 at the same time as well. In the end I didn’t scratch that itch for another half-decade…
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-2003-saab-9-3-2-0t-scratching-an-itch/
I was so tempted to buy one during the infamous GM firesale of 2005. It was just too much of a size difference from my Trooper.
I love the way it drove, and it was the prettiest Subaru ever.
History shows that using style cues to upsell a brand on a cheaper platform end in tears. Packardbaker anybody?
I had a red ’99 9-3 that I got rid of just before the company went belly-up. I appreciated the luxury affects that came with it, as well as the thoughtfulness of the design. That little hatchback could swallow a ton of cargo. The turbo made it fleet, but it was not at all in the same league as a 911.
My 9-3’s engine cut out at 80 mph on the way to Santa Cruz. After paying close to a grand for the ignition coil pack, I decided it was time to move on. At the time, Saabs had very low resale values, making it easy to get into a used one…but maintaining one…that’s a whole other can of worms.
I don’t know that I’ve ever spent so long looking at the front passenger seat of a Saab, until just now.
Rear facing car seat and a narrow backseat was one of the killers for our 2007 Outback. Along with reliability issues that I’ve detailed previously. Our Accord had plenty of front seat room with the rear facing seat, and could fit 3 car seats across if needed.
I specifically remember that same deal being offered when we lived in Oakland, CA at the time. It was mighty tempting, but I never really cottoned to that generation of 5-door Saab, something about it looking a bit too tall and narrow. If the same deal was available on the 3-door I would have felt different but it was not. A guy down the street from me did bite and seemed happy with the car. They also had an Outback at the time along with two little kids, pretty much perfectly encapsulating the “new” resident profile of the Lakeshore District…
Cheapness of saab owners — absolutely a huge problem for the brand. They would have convinced me to buy a post 2003 if they kept the hatchback. A lot of people think the 9-3 killed the brand by removing the lower price tiers and making it a all -leather luxury.
Small edit — are you comparing it to a 98 900 or an 88 900?
Saab did a great job concealing the GM cheapness inside. Great engine. Body, well, it was getting old and couldn’t compete. Still a lot of chassis flex.
Very fun car to drive, and I still have my 97. I’m assuming I am the last one-owner 900g left.
Yes I meant 1988 900! I’ll fix it when I can!
Speaking of GM cheapness: the CFO where I worked a few years ago leased a Saab. He would repeatedly get stuck on the patch of ice that forms at traffic lights. The moment he tried to accelerate from the light, the traction control would cut in and the wheels refused to turn. There was no “off” switch for the traction control. He was griping about it at the dealership when another owner of the same model, but a couple years older, offered to show him where the “off” switch was. The other guy’s car had the switch, but in the same spot in his car there was nothing. GM probably saved about $2 by deleting the switch, and created a very irritated customer.
In fairness to GM, I have noticed that all the European brands seem to have deleted the “off” switch in the last few years. At the show in 14, I looked in Mercs, Bimmers, Volvos and VWs and only the old Mk5 based Jetta wagon still had the switch. I have not noticed any hypersensitivity in my Jetta’s traction control. I only noticed the trac control light flashing once, when I was accelerating in loose snow, but the system’s operation did not prevent my accelerating. The VW system’s operation is far more subtle than the violent on/off action in my previous Ford.
My 2014 GM still has an on/off switch for traction control (also controls the stability control system).
My 2014 GM still has an on/off switch for traction control
I noticed the Chevy Cruze also has an “off” switch, which puts it ahead of the Ford Focus. Only the high performance version of the Focus had an “off” switch. The SEL that was on the show floor had a blank in the dash where the hi perf version had the switch.
Ford has them buried in the gauge cluster screen menus, via the steering controls.
Volvo still has an off switch for traction/stability control its controlled through the Sensus system in the dash
Volvo still has an off switch for traction/stability control its controlled through the Sensus system in the dash
I looked at a V60 at the show. No switch that “falls readily to hand” as R&T used to say. If I am trying to pull away from a traffic light, I don’t have time to flip through menus on the in dash video game.
Just to mix threads a bit, I also found that V60 to have horrible sightlines to the rear quarters, which also contributed to it’s being eliminated from my consideration.
Every Cadillac we sell has a traction control off button.
We still have a 2000 9-3 with only 125,000 miles. It is starting to get some rot. In 2003 we bought a used 2002 9-3. It had the 205 hp engine and the 16 inch wheels. We kept it until 2014 when it had 211,000 miles. Replaced it with a Jetta Sportwagon TDI. Up until the last year it was pretty dependable. When Saab got rid of the hatchback in 2003, we lost interest. So far parts have not been an issue. A bigger issue is finding mechanics to work on the car.