Totally agreed. Saabs were great for turbocharged torque steer, especially at low speeds. AWD makes that all go away. The new models have what is supposed to be an excellent AWD system, but its obviously too late.

Isn't that because the new models are Saabarus...

GM sold their share of Fuji Heavy industries two years ago so I think that partnership has ended.

Take a look at some of the newer Saab problems (not the WRX model). What a bunch of Turkeys.

A 100,000 mile extended engine warranty is worthless on a car you expect to last 200,000 miles.

Talking with a Saab mechanic, many loyal Saab owners got scared away when GM bought them. A similar situation happened when Ford bought Volvo. They thought the brand would suffer in innovation, quality and service. I think Ford did a good job with Volvo. I don't think the same can be said for GM.

Saab produces less than 100,000 cars annually. I don't think they survive as an independent company. It probably goes away. But this is the beginning - many other brands will disappear. Looking at the car manufacturers that disappeared in the 50's, many had a long history. Poor sales, lack of quality or innovation doomed most of them.

The difference is the car manufactures were all USA owned with little or no foreign competition. They also didn't have the over capacity we have now. It's job loss across the board. When you are looking at a current market of 9 million vehicles or less annually for 2008 and 2009 with car manufacturing capacity of over 16 million, something has got to give. GM has built inventory of 5 months. They could shut down 09 production now and start building 2010 models later in the year.

No, they develped their own AWD system. It first appeared on the limited edition hot rod Aero X, and was then supposed to show up on regular models. Supposedly it was very good, with a RWD feel.

The 92x is indeed a FHI (subaru) car but it was only produced for 2 years. The 93 and 95 are a different platform and AWD system. The 92 was an atempt to get younger buyings into a Saab before they grew into a 3 series BMW or other. The 92 and the grander plan seem to have failed miserably. I really like my car but more because it is Subaru and it was cheaper to buy (used)

To address a previous posters question - who would buy a 93 or 95 over a 3 or 5 series BMW? Not I and I have a Saab.

Real world Saab pricepoints for those models were FAR less than the BMWs...so i don't think those are the same buyers.

Style is subjective, "better" is also subjective.
I've heard Quattros were notoriously unreliable, and WRXs benefit from the latest racing tech. Both were AWD, which Saab didn't have.

Apples and oranges, IMO.

Now, if you want to compare this...

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/j...ypres84fq6.jpg
http://www.rallye-info.com/images/ph...S%20-%20M1.jpg

...to a Saab, it might make for a more plausible argument.

^^^Cept thats not ugly as sin and it goes like sex. A local guy used to have a SAAB and none of the local mechanics could keep the damn thing running.

The 911 is ugly. It's a bulbous funny looking little car - which is part of its great personality. Ferrari and a few others have a patent on sex on wheels, and because of that, seem not as fun to drive aggressively like the 911.

The Saab falls in the same category as the 911 - ugly, lots of personality, reliable, strong, plays hard.

But that's just my opinion. I like ugly cars.

I know local Porsche mechanics that can't keep local Porsches running, so I fail to see your point. Sorry...

That may say more about the local mechanics than about SAAB.

Best,
Tom

Car of my dreams (in the 80's)...
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1235287053.jpg

Car of my dreams in the 80s:

http://www.kellyshipp.com/assets/ima...ds/928_21a.jpg

(Realistically obtainable) Car of my dreams today:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...mysdriveRT.jpg

Some of us are very lucky. :)

BTW, if you Google "Porsche 928"(images) a picture of my engine (bottom row center) comes up on the first page. If you type in "Porsche 928 ad" my engine is in the first row. :)

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...7Stage41RT.jpg

That's a Subaru... or a Saabaru, whatever it is.

EDIT: oops, sorry I see it's been mentioned already.

I like Subaru. I like the flat 4 turbo enough to think it'd be a viable replacement for the over-priced-to-repair flat six some of us may one day face. :eek:

No it's not. That's a 9-3. The Saabaru is the 9-2. You can easily see the Subaru influence.

http://www.motorpoint.com.au/images/Saab-9-2-Aero-1.jpg

I like the 9-2, but think it was a huge mistake from a marketing standpoint. It further dilluted Saab's brand identity, which was suffering since GM took over anyway. Saabs used to be turbocharged hatchbacks, and Saab owners loved that characteristic. Once GM killed off the hatchbacks and introduced a rebadged Subaru and rebadged Trailblazer (9-7), the writing was on the wall.

this is a real saab story...:D

sorry, had to be said

Saabs look too much like a duck's bill.

http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:...7-saab-omh.jpg

=


http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...llard-duck.jpg

I have to chime in here since I am a life long SAAB fan. I've owned 7 different SAABs and all of them have been different experiences. Currently I have a 2001 9-5 Aero wagon as my daily driver and hauler and my 1988 900 SPG. I have to say that I absolutely love my SPG. I have spent a great deal of money on the car to make it much faster than stock. The last dyno was 220 Hp at the wheels. The stock engine was 185 at the crank. It's been a long road as performance parts are hard to get for this car. The turbo behaves very similar to the Porsche 930s. Lag, lag, some boost, some more boost, WHOOOOAAA! It is very fun to drive. On the highway it is very fun. It is always on boost so you don't have to drop down a gear. In addition, I have 240,000 miles on this car and it hasn't needed an engine rebuilt yet! The tranny is another story though. I'm on tranny #4... It wasn't designed to handle that much horsepower!

The 2001 9-5 wagon is an entirely different animal. Much more refined with a smaller turbo that takes away that turbo punch.

For the one person that says oil sludge is a problem, they need to do some more homework. Yes it was a problem 10 years ago and it was GMs "engine design help" that caused the problem. It has been fixed for awhile now. In addition, most of the sludging issues came from owners not doing the proper maitenance on the cars. Cheap non-synthetic oil and extended changing intervals are not good for the 1998-2001 engines. The design problem has been fixed since 2002 for those interested...

It is sad to see SAAB disappear in the sunset, however I have to agree with the statement that SAAB should have disappeared about 15 years ago. They were already running out of money and ready to close shop when GM came in with their first 50% buy out offer. GM definitely kept SAAB alive, but they also didn't really help the brand all that much. The SAABaru 9-2x and Tahoe 9-7x are good examples of this. It is also too bad they couldn't come out with an all-wheel drive car sooner. You just can't put down 280 horsepower to the front wheels and be successful agains Audi, BMW, etc...

I put together a DIY website for SAAB folks. It is http://www.fixmysaab.com

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1235415364.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1235415570.jpg

Nice looking SPG! I had an '88 SPG, mine was black. Liked everything about it except the notchy shifter.

Saabs were best when they offered a 5 door version. Made it easy to carry 4 people OR a ton of stuff. I don't understand why Americans prefer trunks to hatchbacks...