View Full Version : 9-5 Aero to 9-7 Aero
dxbdavie
24-05-08, 08:04 AM
Hi folks,
I'm still a Saab Central novice so apologies first.
I've been given an early release option on my '07 9-5 Aero if I take an '08 9-7 Aero, so I'm giving it some serious thought.
Does anyone on the forum drive a 9-7 in the desert? Is it more a 'soft'-roader than an 'off'-roader?
Also, has anyone made the transition from the 9-5 to the 9-7 recently? I'd like to get some feedback from Saab drivers, not the blurb from Saab Salesmen.
Many Thanks,
Davie
It is body on frame and based on the Trailblazer. The Trailblazer is definitely not a soft roader. However, the Saab is lowered and has AWD instead of 4WD (and no 4WD low). I wouldn't exactly put it in the soft roading category, but it's also not the best choice for serious off roading. Saab traded some of the off road capability for a bit more on-road capability.
Tim
timmehhhhhh
01-06-08, 02:58 PM
The 9-7x is definitely not a soft roader. Like timg mentioned, it's lowered and is stiffer for the street, not off-road excursions. I've tried going off-road...and it wasn't good.
K03 sport
19-06-08, 01:41 AM
I've been given an early release option on my '07 9-5 Aero if I take an '08 9-7 Aero, so I'm giving it some serious thought.
so, why is your dealer giving you early release on the 9-5 Aero? Is it a "questionable" car or have you expressed interest in a 9-7 Aero and couldn't make the move until the lease in the 9-5 was up?
Do you need the extra space or are you just allured by the AWD an the V8?
y8tiger
25-06-08, 07:18 AM
keep the 9-5. there is nothing the think about. the 9-5 is a swedish beauty and the 9-7 is american garbage
You are talking straight garbage. Obviously, you have no experience with the 9-7X. There are numerous advantages over the 9-5, however it comes down to personal choice in the end.
I got a chance to actualy sit in a trailblazer and a 9-7x side by side, and there is completely different build quality. The trailblazer was cheap through and through, bumpers brand new uneven, gross dashboard, everything is cheap.
The 9-7x had beautiful leather, the dash is clean, and elegant, everything is 10 times better, theres no comparisons.
It was like die another day when james bond was gross becuase he just got out of that torture place, but then showered and shaved and looked like the handsome devil hes supposed to be :lol: ... Both are the same guy, ones just showered and wearing a tuxedo.
SaabScott
25-06-08, 04:37 PM
I got a chance to actualy sit in a trailblazer and a 9-7x side by side, and there is completely different build quality. The trailblazer was cheap through and through, bumpers brand new uneven, gross dashboard, everything is cheap.
The 9-7x had beautiful leather, the dash is clean, and elegant, everything is 10 times better, theres no comparisons.
It was like die another day when james bond was gross becuase he just got out of that torture place, but then showered and shaved and looked like the handsome devil hes supposed to be :lol: ... Both are the same guy, ones just showered and wearing a tuxedo.
That is a very interesting way of looking at it ... great analogy!
I've driven both and have to agree that I could be happy in either (although I am NOT an SUV guy).
Take your time to decide ... they are very different vehicles.
mikeucr
25-06-08, 11:18 PM
I saw one at the dealer...12 MPG? Premium?
You guys must be very successful to be able to drive a car that costs that much to fill and returns such bad mileage...Not a judgement call or moral statement, I don't care either way...But wife and I pull in over 6 figs and would still feel wierd about 500 bucks a month for gas for one car...
I saw one at the dealer...12 MPG? Premium?
You guys must be very successful to be able to drive a car that costs that much to fill and returns such bad mileage...Not a judgement call or moral statement, I don't care either way...But wife and I pull in over 6 figs and would still feel wierd about 500 bucks a month for gas for one car...
Our 9.7x certainly does not get good gas milege, but it isn't that bad. 15-16 in town and 20-21 on the highway (sadly, I was excited by this). And it does not need premium fuel.
mikeucr
26-06-08, 01:44 AM
Our 9.7x certainly does not get good gas milege, but it isn't that bad. 15-16 in town and 20-21 on the highway (sadly, I was excited by this). And it does not need premium fuel.
SOrry, I was talking about the aero with the ls2...it said something like 12 city 14 hwy or something...my god.
Bbmin7(b5)
26-06-08, 05:21 AM
cant beat the 4-cylinder 9-5 in my opinion. but im a poor boy too.
dxbdavie
19-07-08, 02:16 PM
Terrible, Terrible News,
The 9-7 Aero will not be brought to the Middle East market:cry: , so I'm still driving the 9-5 (not a complaint).
The offer was made because I'd seen a 5.3 in the showroom and quite liked what I saw, unfortunately there are no new 9-7s expected for another 6 months, so that's that stuffed.
Because of the way people drive over here I still want an SUV, so looking at the GMC and Chevy versions of the 9-7.
As we say in Scotland "Whit's furr ye, 'll no go by ye"
D.
wiSpeel
04-10-08, 03:16 AM
Im sorry but I cannot make sense out of that..
Whats for yeh ll go buy for yeh?
Because of the way people drive over here I still want an SUV, so looking at the GMC and Chevy versions of the 9-7.
D.
You will be safer in the 9-5. The platform the trailblazer / 9-7x is based on gets relatively poor crash test results.
Bbmin7(b5)
06-10-08, 05:34 AM
You will be safer in the 9-5. The platform the trailblazer / 9-7x is based on gets relatively poor crash test results.
3 star front crash rating:nono;
the 9-5 however has a 5 star rating
Butters
06-10-08, 08:45 AM
You will be safer in the 9-5. The platform the trailblazer / 9-7x is based on gets relatively poor crash test results.
Remember that these tests are based on the assumtion that you crash with a vehicle of same size and weight (or a concrete wall). The 9-7x is about 30% heavier than the 9-5. So in a real life accident you may actually be as safe or even safer in the 9-7x.
See this test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QWUyLVDLrA
But the 9-5 is off course a very safe car. For a very long time it was in its native Sweden considered THE safest car, based on real accidents.
Remember that these tests are based on the assumtion that you crash with a vehicle of same size and weight (or a concrete wall). The 9-7x is about 30% heavier than the 9-5. So in a real life accident you may actually be as safe or even safer in the 9-7x.
See this test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QWUyLVDLrA
But the 9-5 is off course a very safe car. For a very long time it was in its native Sweden considered THE safest car, based on real accidents.
Unless when you are in the 9-7x you hit a solid object or something larger than he 9-7x.. the 9-5 makes better use of crumple zones and has better side impact protection. You are likely to get physically crushed in a 9-7x during an accident.
The link you provided demonstrates two vehicles that essentially do not have crumple zones. All saab 9-5's are very safe. 9-7x also has marginal side impact ratings despite being higher up than a car and having side curtain airbags.
In any crash, i'd rather be in the 9-5
Butters
07-10-08, 11:17 PM
Unless when you are in the 9-7x you hit a solid object or something larger than he 9-7x.. the 9-5 makes better use of crumple zones and has better side impact protection. You are likely to get physically crushed in a 9-7x during an accident.
The link you provided demonstrates two vehicles that essentially do not have crumple zones. All saab 9-5's are very safe. 9-7x also has marginal side impact ratings despite being higher up than a car and having side curtain airbags.
In any crash, i'd rather be in the 9-5
Absolutely. The 9-5 is, as I said, very safe. The 9-7x hasn't even been tested by neither NHTSA nor IIHS. Its ratings are only assumed to be the same as for the Trailblazer. However, the TB's back seat is actually considered safer than the 9-5's according to NHTSA (5 star vs 4 star side impact rating).
The video I linked to was only to show the difference weight makes to the distribution of impact force. This next one shows that you may actually survive a head-on crash with a Dodge Ram, in a Honda Accord. Crumple zones... But your car still goes flying backwards, whereas the Dodge just slows down to a stop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySaxOdAl624
ha the rams airbag didnt even inflate, looked as if he hit the steering wheel.
Mattlach
15-10-08, 02:35 AM
I read a book a while back called "High and Mighty" that attempted to debunk some of the myths of SUVs (among others that they are safer than cars).
They took the example of a guy in a shiny new Hummer H2 who was rear ended by a guy in a Mercedes E Class Sedan.
The E-class was totaled.
The H3 only had a scratch on the bumper.
The E-class driver walked away, only slightly shaken (but not stirred :p )
The driver of the H3 wound up with chronic whiplash.
The problem with full size body on frame SUV's is that they are too stiff. None (or rather little) of that energy is absorbed by crumple zones, so all of it is transferred to the occupants. In a unibody vehicle - however - the crumple zones act as big pillows softening the impact, making the impact a lot better for the human cargo :)
Personally, I wouldn't drive any body on frame vehicle under any circumstances. Their road characteristics suffer as well as their safety, regardless of size :p