Would you buy a 9-7X? [Archive] - SaabCentral Forums

XAAMOTTOMAAX

07-08-04, 07:15 AM

sethsev7n

07-08-04, 07:33 AM

Honestly, the SUV craze isnt as strong as it used to be. I dont see the saab SUV breaking into anything new in an already overcrowded market.

Lodro

07-08-04, 08:25 AM

What exactly is not being thought through? ...

Oh what a lovely troll. He said troll, hehehhehehe.

XAAMOTTOMAAX

07-08-04, 03:47 PM

Honestly, the SUV craze isnt as strong as it used to be. I dont see the saab SUV breaking into anything new in an already overcrowded market.

You are exactly right...hence the introduction of so many cross over type vehicles, but they are still selling very well. The problem I have is that some people will judge a person based on the fact they drive an SUV as if they are simple or illogical people motivated only by desire for social status or conformity. Please form an opinion on the 9-7x and decide if it is good or bad for Saab in the long run but do not form opinions of people you don't know based on what they drive...especially when what you are driving leaves a lot to be desired. This is simple bigotry and no different than racism or sexism and I would say it is more jealousy than anything.

Troll?? The only Troll I know is the Troll R which by the way drinks more gas than many SUV's. Then again I hear there are lots of trolls up in Co-Op City, CT where I think someone on this forum lives.

sethsev7n

07-08-04, 07:17 PM

well let me just say this then, i owned a jeep grand cherokee before my saab and i loved it, not only for the offroading capabilities but the versatility and the confidence it gives you on the road :wink: .. either way, i dont mind SUVs as long as you are using them for the right purposes.. i just wish people would use regular cars when they can more often over larger vehicles, unless you can afford to own a G-class or H2 or something, then theres a level of respect that overrides the whole bad SUV thing.

Anyways just wanted to rant before this thread ends up getting locked :)

XAAMOTTOMAAX

07-08-04, 07:34 PM

Moving out of debate mode and into SUV discussion mode...

Seth I had to resist getting a Grand Cherokee Overland instead of my 9-5 so I know exactly what you mean. I liken the 9-7x to the Grand Cherokee...seating for 5, lots of V8 power, refinement and luxury. The 9-7x just happens to be a Saab which I am partial to. I would never consider a Trailblazer, Envoy or Ranier even if they are basically all the same trucks. I like the look of the 9-7x and the improvements they made enough to consider it when it is available.

Back into debate mode....

People need to stop trying to compare the 9-7x to past Saabs (or even current Saabs). It is a truck. Enough said. 10 years ago who would have imagined a Saab truck with a V8? If people want to compare it to other SUV's in the same price range, that's great! If people want to compare it to a 1989 SPG and complain that it drinks more gas and lacks "Swedish Ingenuity", they are missing the point entirely.

AnF_Saab

07-08-04, 09:44 PM

If I wanted a trailblazer I'd buy one with the Chevy logo and save myself several thousand big ones. I do like the Saab version the best out of all of the 6 that are out there (Envoy, Oldsmobile *not made now*, Rainer, TB, Izusu) The Rainer's are marked down to 26 with leather and everything. Hard to justify spending 40k on a Saab that's has so many "cousins" when the market is so competive. I'd be more likely to get a Mercedes ML, BMW X5 or Lexus GX470 than I would to get a fancy TB.

For 4 wheel drive, I'm all Jeep 8)

XAAMOTTOMAAX

07-08-04, 10:35 PM

This truck will not sell at sticker price. There will be loads of incentives and discounts just as there are on the other models you mentioned. Maybe not in the first few months but give it a bit and they will be whoring them out. They cost almost nothing to produce...all of the facilities are already in place and working under capacity. Check out a decked out short wheel base Trailblazer and the sticker price is over 40 grand and the I6 is the only engine available. It's not fair to compare the unreleased Saab's 2005 sticker price with actual market value of readily available 2004 Chevy's at the end of a model year. Sticker to sticker they are very similar. The GX470 is my favorite over the bimmer or benz with the Volvo right up there. This is a very very competetive market but while the Bimmer, Benz, Volvo and Lexus are all selling for right around sticker with no incentives, the Saab will be available far below sticker giving people the impression they are getting a great deal while in actuality the other trucks selling around a sticker price close to the 9-7x or Trailblazer for that matter are actually nicer vehicles justifying the higher price. This is the GM and Saab way. Overpriced stickers and tons of discounts.

AnF_Saab

07-08-04, 11:22 PM

I know they'll discount it tons (wahoo for having GMS discout + retiree + others) but still luxury cars shouldn't have to be discounted 10k to move them. Sticker for 2wd Envoy is about 32k, 9-7 with AWD has a sticker of 37. I know BMW and Merecedes offer discounts too, but to me it's just a TB with real wood and a better ride. If I'm spending a decent amount of money why not go for the gold?
One of the reason's I like Saab is because they're unquie... have 7 vechiles that are basically the same doesn't fit the bill.

I also play with my Jeeps, I don't want to imagine even trying this in a 9-7:
http://www.michiganjeepers.com/photopost/data/500/167PA260047-med.JPG

Jezzadee

07-08-04, 11:38 PM

I think that's a part of the issue I have with these things. I don't mind SUV's in principle, but what the hell are some of them trying to be? Looking at most of them I would not be happy taking them anywhere off-road at all - and I do have some experience of driving in difficult terrain :wink: . So what you're left with is a vehicle that will only really be driven on tarmac and takes up too much of the road (certainly on many European roads - round my way I am constantly swerving into hedges to avoid these things), all essentially as an image. And it is an image. People buy into the marketing blag about 'lifestyle' but its all just hype. Sure, if you genuinely like the handling compared to a car, like the ride height or you occasionally need to go over a speed hump, that's your choice, but the vast majority of people will buy one because they lap up the glossy pics of an SUV sitting on a mountain top which has connotations that they aspire to but will never achieve. As for me, if I want an off-roader I'll get one of these. Again. http://www.truckworld.com/Travel-Adventure/99-exceltrophy/mud_hole.jpg

XAAMOTTOMAAX

07-08-04, 11:40 PM

You raise some very valid points. The majority of people are not going to know the 9-7x is based on a Trailblazer so aside from yourself the perception will be that you are driving in something very unique and exclusive. Unfortunately that doesnt matter if you know yourself you are driving a gussied up Chevy clone.

If a well loaded 9-7x V8 can be had in the low 30's after discounts and a 6cyl Bimmer X5 or Benz M class is over $40k after discounts, I think this is a big enough stretch of money to seperate Saab SUV buyers from Bimmer or Benz buyers in the same way it does with the 9-5. My Aero stickered for over $41k but I bought it for just over $30k. For the same money I could have gotten into a base C class Benz or 325. I honestly believe the 9-5 Aero is better than these two cars which is why I bought it. If the real price was around the $41k sticker the Aero would then be competing with the 530 or the E320 and I would not be driving a Saab.

XAAMOTTOMAAX

07-08-04, 11:50 PM

It is a much different situation in Europe. The roads are MUCH smaller and the other cars on the road are mostly very compact vehicles. Here in the US we share our highways with massive Semi's and huge Dump trucks and UPS trucks and white box trucks and cargo vans, not to mention lots of SUVs. Freeways run through our back yards with only a tall sound barrier dividing 70mph traffic and the kids playing on the swing. Honestly I don't feel safe having my family drive around in an economical compact car. I see too many cases of Geo Metro's getting squished on the freeways. Here where I live there are over a million people and some of the worst traffic in the country. There might be a "vision of grandeur" for SUV owners in Europe but here it is almost a matter of survival. Mom's are the fastest growing group of SUV buyers and it is not because they want to drive aggresively or get in people's way. It is because they want to protect the kids in an accident (caused by someone else) and because it is convenient and easy to load/unload baby seats and cargo. We have a minivan for this and it does the trick just fine but if I lived out west where I would need to make trips into the rockies to snowboard or if I ever get a boat, we are going to NEED an SUV. I think the problem is simply that the roads are very different here than in Europe and Europeans don't understand this because they are used to completely different driving conditions.

SUV's are not off road vehicles anymore. They are on road vehicles with light off road capability. The fact that the 9-7x is LOWERED is a perfect indication of this. It is not designed to go where the Defender 90 goes to play.

Jezzadee

08-08-04, 12:19 AM

I appreciate the different circumstances in the US - you definitely have more space on the roads - and I think a lot of people here buy them for imagined reasons of safety too, but I'd be interested to see crash test results for the 9-7X compared to the 9-5, for example. Also worth bearing in mind that Scandinavia has a very high proportion of boat owners, many people have cabins up in the mountains and they have severe winters, and yet most people manage just fine with ordinary cars. As for traffic, British motorways are some of the most congested in the world, with plenty of large trucks. Admittedly there are not too many deserts in Europe, but I think the reasons for SUV popularity in the US, home of big cars, are more from cultural familiarity rather than geographical necessity.

valbowski1980

08-08-04, 12:38 AM

What exactly is not being thought through? SUV sales are going up not down buddy. This is because people are thinking about all of the things they need their vehicle to do (haul 4x8 plywood, pull a boat, drive through deep snow to the mountain ski cabin...all things you CANT do in your car btw). You can't keep feeding the ecoterrorist propaganda that people don't need SUV's or pick up trucks and they only drive them because they feel some sort of deep insecurity. Sounds to me like you are the insecure one threatened by small ladies in big trucks that don't let you merge or make your precious dollar have to go a little further to fill your tank. I drive a 9-5 but I only have a 3 mile commute and 99% of the time I am in my car I am alone. Why should I own such a wasteful car? I should run straight to the Toyota dealership and buy a Prius for the same amount as a 9-5 because it's "the right thing to do". Hog Wash.

Sure... Every time I see an SUV it is always pulling a boat, has a 4X8 sheet of plywood in it. Get real, most of these things don't even have a trailer hitch on them and their owners are too scared to scuff up the interior. I have nothing against SUVs when they are used for what you mention otherwise they are just waste. For Christ sake if I need to pull around 4X8s I can get a roof rack and if I want to go ski my 9000 handles snow well enough. I am not in the least bit jealous nor do I feel inferior to people who own cars which don't handle as well as mine does and don't get the gas mileage that mine does. Furthermore I can't stand the dolts who go around and torch H2s or put bumper stickers on SUVs since they just make the matter worse. All you can do is through around insults like "echo terrorist" or "troll"(very mature by the way) at others who don't like SUVs and have very valid reasons for it. Also, how can you compare my attitude towards SUVs to racism? You don't chose race or ethnicity while you do chose the car you drive. To compare being criticized for the car you drive to the civil rights movement is simply asinine.

What bugs me is that us Americans seem to forget where oil comes from. If we use less we import less. That is my opinion and remember that this is America and mine doesn't have to match yours and yours doesn't have to match mine.

valbowski1980

08-08-04, 12:40 AM

but I'd be interested to see crash test results for the 9-7X compared to the 9-5,

The crash tests of the Trailblazer are less than stelar althought they are a big improvement over the Blazer. We will have to wait and see.

XAAMOTTOMAAX

08-08-04, 01:26 AM

Keep in mind that crash tests judge how well vehicles hold up when they crash into something else (side impact and roll over excluded). In a situation where something is hitting you, all other things being equal, the taller heavier vehicle is the safer vehicle, period. While my 9-5 is safer than most other vehicles, my wife does not feel comfortable in it because it sits so low to the ground. She feels she does not have enough visibility. It is also much more difficult to load kids and cargo. Do you tote around an infant and a 5 year old, a stroller, a diaper bag, a bookbag and often times a dog and a crate as well? There is also the fact that the Aero needs premium unleaded fuel. Why not complain about the Aero's thirst for fuel (the most expensive fuel at that)? Is it really any different to spend the same amount of money on fuel just because one vehicle gets less MPG on 87 octane while another gets more gas mileage with 93? I don't have a long commute and we travel in the van so highway mileage does not come into play for me.

It is true that often times the capabilities of an SUV are not utilized but I believe it is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. This might be a wasteful American attitude but I believe it through and through. Anyone who complains about oil and gas usage or believes that Alaska should not be drilled for environmental reasons but does not drive a hybrid electric vehicle is the pot calling the kettle black IMO. I don't think Alaska should be drilled and I don't complain about fuel. I chose to purchase a high performance vehicle that gets mediocre gas mileage around town and needs premium unleaded and if I choose to purchase an SUV I will not make my decision based on fuel economy or how it affects other people's visibility. I will choose it based on my budget and the needs my family has at that given moment and nothing else will matter.

valbowski1980

08-08-04, 02:15 AM

The old Blazer had a horrible roll over stat. one of the worst in fact. Hopefully they sorted that part out with the TB. The heavier is safer vehicle myth is just that, just look at Saab.

For the record I will be behind the wheel of a hybrid as soon as I can afford one (unless I work close to where I live in which case I will be happy to use my bike), for now my 9000 with it's 26mpg avg. will have to do. My beef with oil and gas is not how much it costs but the fact that we buy it from seedy countries in the middle east. That is all I'm gonna say on the topic of blood-for-oil since it has been done to death already.

What absolutely scares my about most SUV drives is that they have no idea how big their cars are. If a special drivers licence and classes were required it would make those inside safer as well as those outside.

You do sound a bit like my cousin who owns a Mountaneer for the same reasons you state.

XAAMOTTOMAAX

08-08-04, 02:38 AM

Well I do agree there is a major problem with people driving SUV's aggresively as if they handled the same as a smaller car. It is a major hazard to other people on the road. I find myself getting very ticked off at them and also the Semi drivers who drive as if they own the road. You might have heard about the accident yesterday where a Semi pulled onto a freeway slowly...right in front of a large greyhound bus. The bus slammed into the back of the semi and the driver was killed (along with one passenger I believe). So here we do agree there is an issue. This is an issue with people however and not the vehicles. It is also not the majority of SUV drivers who drive this way.

It is fact, yes fact, that a heavier vehicle is safer in a collision. This is simple physics. When a small car and a large vehicle collide, the small vehicle will absorb the majority of the impact. If you take a shotput in one hand and a coke can in the other hand and smash them together, the shotput will not have a scratch and the coke can will be squished. I am not saying a larger vehicle is going to handle more safely when driven aggresively or in an emergency maneuver. They are not designed to be driven aggresively and the emergency manuever is one aspect that makes a car safer than a SUV.

Val if you indeed are planning to purchase a hybrid then I must respect your view because you back it up with actions. I really do like the new 9-7x though and I am excited about the truck and also about the direction Saab is headed. I truley believe GM wants Saab to succeed and will put money where it needs to be in order to make this happen. People just don't like change and unfortunately change has to happen for Saab to survive, especially here in the ultra competetive and diverse US market.

fabric

08-08-04, 03:38 PM

To touch on the safety debate:

Yes, heavier cars are safer. But overall, cars are pretty damn safe. You are only slightly more likely to die in a car crash than a commercial plane crash. Those are pretty low odds. And alcohol is the main factor in well more than half of these. I can understand somewhat wanting to get something big for safety reasons, but that is somewhat to akin to not flying because you're afraid the plane is going to crash. Can't live your life in a bubble.

XAAMOTTOMAAX, your points are all valid about SUVs, but as has been pointed out, virtually nobody uses them that way.
Here in Chicago land, I regularly see people driving around by themselves in large suvs - Expeditions, Escalades, etc. They aren't using them to do anything but commute.

And the fuel economy comes back to valbowski's point. We rely on middle east oil, and that's a whole other thread that we don't need to get into. But that's not just because of SUV's. Overall, we drive pretty fuel inefficient vehicles. People switching from SUV's to carswould make a difference, but we live in a car centric country, were people drive everywhere, and public transportation is not widely used, mainly because it is more inconvenient than a car.

As for Europeans driving small cars: It's doesn't have anything to do with space. Gas there costs 3 times as much as here, and new cars are taxed a lot more heavily than here. People can't afford big cars. That's also why there aren't big trucks. IN the US, it's cheap to use trucks to transport goods, so that's what they are used for. It's less fuel efficient then trains, and it tears up the roads more quickly, more it's quicker, and that's what americans want.

CleveSaab

08-08-04, 04:44 PM

I am not SUV bashing. I don't like them personally, but I don't fault people for buying them.

First off the largest suppliers of American oil are Venzuela, Mexico and Canada, in that order. We get next to nothing from the middle east, as of now, anyway.

Heavier does not mean safer. Heavier just means that vehicle won't be effected as badly. It will only roll 3 times, instead of six...or travel 50 feet off the freeway, instead of 125 feet.
A shotput vs a Coke can is not a decent example of a car vs an SUV.
A better example would be a 2 litre of Coke and a 16 OZ bottle of Coke. Now slam them together at 40 MPH and see the damage done to BOTH.

Fabric is dead on about Euro's and small vehicles. It's not coincidence that Europe and Japan are usually the ones raising the bar in MPG. However smaller roads, more congested cities (overall) are a definite factor.

Americans, on average, commute farther than Europeans. Seems everyone I know that incorrectly states public transportation sucks, are the ones that moved out to the quiet countryside 100 miles from where they work. 5 years later thier quiet country community is a city of 35,000 with a new mega mall opening around the corner.
If anything you would think more gas efficient cars would be EXTEMELY popular for these reasons (as our innder-cities crumble farther into chaos). But no...

The advent of "SUV-Cars" is one solution. The Matrix, the Vibe, the WRX, the 9-2X for people that want gas mileage and be able to fit a kid, a stroller, a dog and its' crate.

As for the SUV driver. I WENT OFF on my buddy last night. I am SO TIRED of going places with him when he drives his SUV.
FORD EXPLORER, LIMITED EDITION (every option).
A) If it's warmers than 70 degrees it's windows up, AC on.
He has dual climate control which is actually pretty cool. My side on 80 his on 70, my window open. But it's lame. I like windows/sunroof open. Don't think I've ever seen him open his roof on his own.
B) He leaves no room between us and the car in front of us. This is what I was *****ing at him last night about. He gets right behind someone than if they brake he has to. It pisses him off when this person in front of him brakes and he starts *****ing. Constantly being thrown forward in the seat because he's braking at 75mph.
"If you'd give these people 100 ft of space, you wouldn't have to brake all the time and you wouldn't get so pissed off, and everyone would be more relaxed..."
I just don't understand the thinking.
The point to this story about my friend? It's his personality. He would drive the same way in a car. It's not JUST because he's in a big *** SUV. He installs carpet and hauls stuff all the time in his SUV, btw.
Which brings me to my final point. I am pretty brand loyal ATM to Saab (have 2 now). My friends are well aware of my love for them. Always trying to get them into one. Up until now, there is no way my buddy would ever even consider a Saab. And now...his lease is up in 4 months and he's promised to go test drive a Saab 9-7X. Saab could possibly get someone to ditch Ford for them...this can't be a bad thing!

Excellent thread going here guys. Way to keep it civil. ;)

Lastly, let me ask, is there any SUV that has seats that actually hold you in place?? I swear I get thrown around all over in my buddies enormous explorer seats...nothing like the snug rump-holding Saab cars I drive.

valbowski1980

08-08-04, 06:38 PM

According to the Energy information Administration we still get more than 1500 barrels per day of crude from the Saudis. It is true that most of our oil doesn't come from the middle east however we are still very dependent on OPEC. Venezuela's leader is less than stable as well.

The shotput example doesn't stick unless you want to crash test cars against locomotives which are traveling at 65 mph. I 100% agree that you can't cheat physics and F does equal M*A. The more mass you have given a constant acceliration the more force there will be. However, the force absorbed via crumple zones while the cage which protects what is important maintains it's shape. New designs negate the need for a car to be heavy in order to be safe, the Civic got 5 stars didn't it? I also firmly believe that the ability to avoid an accident is one of the most important keys to a safe car. A top-heavy SUV cannot match a regular car here.

As for your friend Cleve, you sure he is not from Boston? :wink: Driving the way he drives he can do far more harm in an SUV than he could in a car to himself and others.

valbowski1980

08-08-04, 06:44 PM

I forgot to add. I like the Crossovers a lot. My mom's Forester hauls our boat, dog, a bunch of tackle and us quite well. I think I said this in a previous thread, something based on an Outback rather than a TrailBlazer IMO would have made much more sence.

Lodro

08-08-04, 06:56 PM

I have to admit with some embarrasment that the thing is growing on me. Its odd, but I've always found the TB (excluding the Trailblazer itself) platform to be one of the more attractive -- certainly of the domestics. I think the exterior of the Envoy and Bravada are quite nice -- though of course the interiors are god-awful. I actually wnt to look at one before I bought our WRX, but I didin't even bother talking to a salesperson after taking a glance at the interior. Looks like the Saab will be much better in that regard. I agree with XAAMOTTOMAAX and as I've pointed out before, at high-30s no way, low-30s might be worth it.

Of course I'd lease never purchse, don't want to even think about resale. I've always complained about SUVs but it might be kind of inteeting to see how the other half lives. And its certainly not a true Saab, for all of the reasons I've pointed out before, but perhaps it would have enough Saab characteristics to be an interesting hybrid of detroit truck know-how and Saab reinfement.

But...and its a very big but...there are alot of hurdles to get through to make it a possiblity..

1. Safety. Biggest issue. No whiplash protection system. Horrible crash-scores. I'm not sure throwing in extra airbags is realy going to fix this as there seem to be strucutral issues for front offset collisions. I'd want to see new fed or IIHS scores and I doubt those would be forthcoming, as the Saab will be relativly low-volume. How then will Saab deomnstrate that the 9-7x is safer than the miserable Trailblazer, even that is the case?

2. Handling. All reviews state explicitly that handling of current models in this platform is downright scary. Will limited-slip, better suspension tuning, slightly lowered cg, better rack, etc. really transform a live-axle pig into a decent handling vehicle? Can pigs fly? We'll see.

3. Refinement. Will the Saab come off at all Saab-like in person, or will it be obviously just a few Saab badges on a fundamentally different car, ala the 9-2x? Will it be saddled with all of the cheap feeling GM switch gear? I know it has the GM climate controls with different graphics. They did give it two-stalk column controls whcih is encouraging.

Lodro

08-08-04, 06:58 PM

Lastly, let me ask, is there any SUV that has seats that actually hold you in place?? I swear I get thrown around all over in my buddies enormous explorer seats...nothing like the snug rump-holding Saab cars I drive.

The X3 and Cayenne are both good in this respect. Tourag not bad either.

Alex_Saab

08-08-04, 07:51 PM

I hate the "SUV's are versatile" argument. Honestly, the majority of the people who buy them aren't going to take their 40,000 + Escalade or H2 with 23" Chrome Rims offroad. In terms of saftey, I'd rather have the abilty the avoid an accident along with the saftey standards of car like saab instead of having no manuvering capabiltiy whatsover. Given the alternative to a SUV, I'd defenitley pick one of the "crossover" AWD station wagons that Audi, Subaru and Volvo make. Those make a hell of a lot more sense than driving a truck

<End "I hate SUV's" rant>

XAAMOTTOMAAX

08-08-04, 11:08 PM

I know people have a hard time believing SUV owners do not take into account capabilities for carrying people and cargo, and there are some people who purchase them just for the feeling of power driving a large vehicle can give but the truth is, the vast majority of people who buy SUV's do so because they need the space. The flexibility of towing capacity and 4 wheel drive is alluring even if not used. The only other option for a similar cargo/people hauler is a minivan and we all know how people fear what people might think of them for driving a minivan...especially men. Station wagons are no different although adding sporty things such as AWD and turbo's can help restore some of the masculinity. Hopping in the SUV is not nearly as risky to one's image as hopping in the minivan. The cultural familiarity mentioned before is spot on in this regard. The safety argument is too dependant on circumstances to say which is better so I guess I have to make a concession here. The emergency maneuver is an important part of safety but when you share the road with much larger vehicles, size does matter. :roll: I think a performance sedan is the safest vehicle to drive. It combines a rigid chassis, stable emergency maneuver capabilities, strong braking, acceleration on tap and lots of modern safety features. I don't get the best of gas mileage though and need to run premium fuel. I think there is unfair bias against SUV's and trucks in this regard especially with the recent explosion of sports cars and other high performance vehicles. I think I'm just a gearhead. Give me a 3/4 ton pickup and I'm going to want to tweak the turbo diesel and lift the suspension, even if I never planned to do serious off roading with it...just doing it is a blast to me. Give me an SUV and I'm going to want some big shiny wheels and tv screens in the interior. This is no different than the obsession I have with trying to figure out how to safely squeeze 350hp out of my Aero. Saab had the right idea in trying to get the Cadi SRX platform but Cadi has much clout in GM and was greedy, possibly rightly so. So Saab got stuck with a less desireable platform but knew it had to do SOMETHING to get into the ultra-lucrative SUV market in America. V8 AWD SRX Cadis are pushing 50 grand while emphasizing an on road driving experience with crisp handling and acceleration while seating 7 in luxury. Sounds like what Saab is trying to do without the seating for 7. It really is too bad we couldnt get that platform. It is a much nicer and safer platform than the TB platform.

Lodro

09-08-04, 01:52 AM

...of power driving a large vehicle can give but the truth is, the vast majority of people who buy SUV's do so because they need the space.

I think a lot depends on where you live. Where I am, people legitimitly do use them -- they are hauling boats and trailers around; have the family and the dogs and the groceries in them and they may very well have to drive on heavily rutted dirt roads or through deep snow to get where they are going. But then again plenty of people get by just fine in their Subarus or even beater Saabs and Golfs.

<rant>What used to really annoy the bejesus out of me when I lived in DC was all thep people driving around in Northern Virginia, one dorkus in the car yacking on the cell phone. I swear I sam almost as many SUVs there as I do out here (slight exageration, but only slight.) And then of course, these were always the people with the big ole 'merican flag decal on the back fo their car. No irony there... </rant>

fabric

09-08-04, 04:46 PM

The flexibility of towing capacity and 4 wheel drive is alluring even if not used.

That's exactly the problem. If you are going to use it to tow, that's fine, but I see virtually no SUV's towing anything. Why do you need a true 4wd system? It adds even more weight and complexity than an AWD system, something I also think is unnecessary.

The rest of your post is spot on - people buy SUV's for the image. The number who use them for practical reasons is much lower than you suggest. Maybe being able to have one vehicle for work and leisure is a positive thing economically for the individual, not needing to own 2 vehicles. Although if you are buying one $40K SUV, vs a $20K truck and a $20K car, I suppose the SUV has way more features than either vehicle individually, so I can see that.

However, that's not what most people have SUV's for. SInce their is an impact in driving such fuel inefficient vehicles, I feel there should be something that makes people realize this. Expensive gasoline is about the only thing that will, which economics will force upon as at some point regardless (supply vs deman - the oil deman in China is skyrocketing, world production not able to increase at that rate), and the US will be woefully unprepared to deal with it because we are so reliant on oil - not just from the Middle East, but just dependant.

XAAMOTTOMAAX

09-08-04, 05:44 PM

I think you missed the point about the image thing. People do not buy SUV's because they think SUV's make them look good. People buy SUV's because they need the space (whether for people or cargo) and want to avoid the NEGATIVE image associated with a minivan or station wagon. Many people also foresee the need to drive in snow or tow something as a possibility and if that event ever came to fruition, a minivan or wagon would not be as effective. Minivans and station wagons are seen as "mom-mobiles" and have such a weak and boring persona (yes I believe automobiles have personas) that even many women will refuse to drive them. Like I said before, certain wagons (9-5 Aero, Dodge Magnum, Subbie WRX/9-2x) can compensate for this with the allure of high performance.

I still maintain that there is an unfair bias against trucks and SUV's when it comes to the ethical argument of gas usage and dependance. We are in the middle of the resurrection of the horsepower wars and many people will curse an SUV which actually can serve a functional purpose but will turn around and praise Corvette's or an E55 AMG or M5. These vehicles serve no purpose other than to go super fast (which is unsafe might I remind you) and to portray a certain image while being terribly fuel ineffecient all the while. Have you ever seen a hate post against a sports car? I haven't but I have seen numerous people who have no interest in ever buying or driving an SUV come to the SUV (9-7x) section of this forum just to badmouth SUV's. Why not go to the performance section and badmouth the people there and the wasteful car's they drive and tune with only speed and image as a goal? It's not fair. I don't even drive or own an SUV but the double standard really bothers me.

Alex_Saab

09-08-04, 06:21 PM

I thinks its safe to say that there are far more SUVs than high performance sports cars, making the argument of fuel consumption viable.

valbowski1980

09-08-04, 06:33 PM

I agree with you that it's isn't completely fair to bash SUVs and trucks without doing the same to high power output Euro sedans and tuned cars. However consider this:

-First of all when you talk Euro super sedans you talk a lot of cash, more cash than most people have for a car. Because of this very few are actually sold in comparison to SUVs and trucks.

-When you talk sports cars like Vettes (which get 28mpg highway) Ferraris you have to consider that they are also very low volume items and on top of that very few are used as daily drivers.

I agree with you that the fact that the cars you mention are designed to go super fast makes them unsafe to those inside and out. However unlike SUVs and trucks they are also known for good handling and breaks. If you want high power you need the means to control it and the top-heavy SUVs don't do it very well. Another place SUVs take a hit is aerodynamics. It always kills me when I hear an H2 or a Suburban owner complain about poor fuel ecomony when their cars are shaped like a brick. You are also right about the general attitude towards wagons here, I hope cars like the new Turbo Outbacks will help change that.

valbowski1980

09-08-04, 06:44 PM

SUVs wouldn't bug me so much if I didn't see so many of them. I would also like to see more hybrids since the excuse that they aren't profitable no longer exists because Toyota can't keep their's on the lots.

XAAMOTTOMAAX

09-08-04, 07:14 PM

I agree there are far more SUV's on the road than sports cars or high performance sedans. But one can get a sporty coupe or semi-luxury sedan that looks great and performs very well for the same amount of money. The explaination for this is because the SUV offers utilitarian capabilities that can not be matched by a car or a coupe or even a wagon or minivan. People also feel safer in these vehicles. Sure an argument can be made to whether thay are safe or not and again I believe it depends on the circumstances of the accident but one can not deny the "feeling" of safety and the desire to keep occupants (children especially) safe in a collision. This is a much different motivation than say portraying a lifestyle of rafting class 5 rapids (class 2 plus class 3 does NOT equal class 5) or climbing "The Rock". While some strive to portray this lifestyle of adventure, it is not why people generally buy SUV's. They buy SUV's because they genuinely feel they need something with the capabilities provided by an SUV.

XAAMOTTOMAAX

09-08-04, 07:30 PM

What would you say about this person who uses this huge heavy fuel thirsty tank as a daily driver but obviously beats the hell out of it off roading for recreation.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/xaamottomaax/hum.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/xaamottomaax/hum1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/xaamottomaax/hum2.jpg

valbowski1980

09-08-04, 07:38 PM

The H1 (unlike an H2 which is a Tahoe) is an offroader I fully respect, so much that I don't consider it the typical toy SUV. I say good for him since he utilizes for what it was designed, the guy has mud on the thing so you gotta respect that. I would place the H1 in a category of exotics, not enough of them out there to make a real difference. I also bet he is one of the few who uses one as a daily driver. Lastly an H1 has something I think more SUVs should have, a diesel.

XAAMOTTOMAAX

09-08-04, 08:02 PM

So the real gripe with SUV's is not the gas mileage, it's not the size or visibility, it's not the safety of being able to avoid an accident, it's strictly whether or not they are used for off roading and how capably they perform off road? How often do you think he goes off roading? Do you think he goes off roading more than the mom with a Tahoe has 6 kids and soccer gear to haul around or more than a single guy with an Escalade loads up all the fellas in one vehicle to go out for a night on the town without the girlfriends? What is the difference? It is only being used sparingly for something that an economical car can not accomplish and the rest of the time it is on the highway or freeway doing 70 just like everyone else....just like the mom with the soccer team or the single guy that likes to drive when everyone gets together to go out. The thing only seats 4 people and weighs 6500lbs at least! Diesel or not that is wasteful.

valbowski1980

09-08-04, 08:16 PM

My gripes are still the same as before. An H1 is an exotic with very limited sales and to compare it to typical SUV is like comparing a Ferrari Enzo to a Honda S2000. Like I said before, I don't view an H1 as the typical SUV since it isn't. Finally unless you know something I don't by looks of it the guy takes it off road quite often.

Lodro

09-08-04, 08:24 PM

To get back to the oringinal topic, its looking like the 9-7x will actually be not a very capable offroader at all. IIRC, the TB family doesn't have very good ground-clearance to begin with and lowering the ride-height 1 inch isn't going to help. It will have significantly less ground-clearance than an Outback for instance -- not that this is the only measure. Not knowing much about off-roading, I wonder how it will do overall.

Like, is it a vehicle I would feel comfortable tramping up an old rutted out fire road?

fabric

09-08-04, 08:34 PM

The argument that people buy SUV's because they need the room but don't want the minivan image is specious. Most people don't need that much room. Needing an SUV's space once a year is not a reason to get one - you could rent a van that one day and have way more functionality. Most people buy an SUV just for the image, the practicality is a rational to excuse it.

As for justification for going offroad. The guy with the H1 clearly takes it offroad more than 90% of SUV owners do. Even if he goes only once a month, that's fine. He's putting it to use.

The overwhelming majority do not take their SUV's off road. Period. I'm fairly certain that some of those that do, they're talking about fireroads or non-paved access roads. I've done that in a ford focus.

And how many people are using, on a regular basis, the cargo volume of their SUV's? The arguments for using an SUV are all valid, but look at reality - most people aren't using them for that reason.

Because you *could* use something isn't a valid excuse for getting an SUV. Because you *do* use it is. If 50% of new vehicles sold are SUV's/light trucks, I find it extremely unlikely that the majority are exploiting the uses advocated in this thread.

So we have a vehicle not frequently used as it was designed that increases our dependence on oil, of which a good portion comes from countries with a number of different issues. And the businesses that produce them are exploiting a loophole in the law that allows them to be so inefficient, even though they are just used as basic transportation. That's why I have a problem with them.

There's a simple solution. You use an SUV/truck for business, they give you a tax break. Otherwise, you have a car, and it should be treated like one in all senses. If you really need the utility, then you'll be able to justify the now realistically priced vehicles. This comes back to valbowski's point - these luxury SUV's are essentially even bigger large luxury cars, yet they cost 10's of thousands less than these similarly equipped luxury cars. Again, the loophole that allows these to be produced for less, when they are just transportation, not "utility."

XAAMOTTOMAAX

09-08-04, 09:33 PM

The argument that people buy SUV's because they need the room but don't want the minivan image is specious. Most people don't need that much room.

This is flat out wrong. The vast majority of people who buy SUV's DO need the room or DO need the towing capacity. SUV's ARE NOT designed or purchased to be used for frequent off roading. People that are avid off roaders purchase a different type of vehicle (Rubicon, box Cherokee, H1, Defender 90) that might be classified as an SUV but have a different design than the vast majority of SUV's which are designed to be used on the road or on a light dirt road. You must first stop thinking of SUV's as ORV's. They are not the same thing.

Finally unless you know something I don't by looks of it the guy takes it off road quite often.

I had a conversation with the guy. 5 or so of us came outside of work here to check out the monster. I had to snap some shots of it because it was so fitting to this discussion. He does take if off roading often, every few weeks or so. This happens to be FAR LESS often than the majority of SUV owners haul more people than a car can carry or haul cargo a car can not carry or tow something a car can not pull. This is a double standard and the fact that one can justify a military vehicle being used as an on-road daily driver because it is exotic proves the double standard.

Not knowing much about off-roading, I wonder how it will do overall.

Overall IS NOT off roading. Overall is towing capacity, cargo capacity, on road handling capability, and traction in poor traction conditions such as snow or light mud/dirt. The Saab was not designed as an off road vehicle nor will it be marketed as one.

Even if he goes only once a month, that's fine. He's putting it to use.

Again an example of the double standard. Why do those in this discussion insist a SUV must be used off road to be utilized in a way that a car can not be? This is the LEAST common reason for someone to buy a SUV.

And how many people are using, on a regular basis, the cargo volume of their SUV's?

According to you, a regular basis would be once a month which is about how often people make trips to the wholesale club to load up on groceries that would not fit in a cars trunk or how often the 14 year old has a soccer tournament in the next state over. When I played we used to all fight over who could ride in the coaches Suburban because it was fun to get everyone together for a long ride to a game or tournament.

Maybe things are just different where we all live. I live in total suburbia where everyone has kids and all of the kids play some sort of sport. The mountains are close by and skiing is very popular. The beaches are also close by and with an SUV, the kids can bring friends on a beach trip. I am also right by a river and recreational boating is extremely common where I live.

I think people are getting too wrapped up in political opinion to open their eyes to the truth. The truth is, PEOPLE USE THEIR SUV"S AND NEED THEM TO DO ALL OF THE THINGS THEY WANT TO DO WHETHER FROM A UTILITARIAN VIEW OR FROM A RECREATIONAL VIEW. If you have problems with the government giving certain tax breaks, thats fine. Take it up with your local senator or congressman. People are smart enough to calculate overall costs of operation including gas, insurance, property tax, etc. They are not going to buy a big truck if there is no need for it because it has a tax break.

Alex_Saab

09-08-04, 11:05 PM

Well, you can also argue that while you may be safe in your SUV small cars with a family inside aren't likely to walk away from an accident with that said SUV at highway speeds. The popularity of these trucks coupled with the quality of American drivers isn't doing anything to promote saftey for the other half of drivers who prefer more practical forms of transportation, trust me :D

valbowski1980

09-08-04, 11:15 PM

Lodro

09-08-04, 11:29 PM

This is flat out wrong. The vast majority of people who buy SUV's DO need the room or DO need the towing capacity.

Do you have any data to base the claim that this "flat out wrong" on?

I have positive evidence to the contrary -- just open your eyes. In any suburban area the vast majority of suvs are piloted by one person and their cell phone.

But in any case I would like to get back to the main point which was "would you buy a 9-7x" not would you buy an SUV?

XAAMOTTOMAAX

09-08-04, 11:46 PM

small cars with a family inside aren't likely to walk away from an accident with that said SUV at highway speeds. The popularity of these trucks coupled with the quality of American drivers isn't doing anything to promote saftey for the other half of drivers who prefer more practical forms of transportation, trust me

Good logical points of argument (such as this one) can not be disputed. While SUV's might be safe to those inside, they wreak havoc on the people in smaller cars who are unfortunate enough to collide with one. I will make concessions to valid things such as this. I know personally this is the main reason I would not want to put my family in a smaller car and the point I was trying to make about Geo Metro's getting squished on the freeway. It does create a dubious problem for those who do not choose to drive a larger vehicle however. Unfortunately there is no perfect solution to the problem. I would not put my family in a small car because they would be safer to those around them, especially with the ever increasing number of large vehicles on the road. This is surely selfish but unfortunately necessary especially where I live. I also agree there should be stricter regulations on driving large vehicles, especially commercial vehicles.

XAAMOTTOMAAX

09-08-04, 11:57 PM

Do you have any data to base the claim that this "flat out wrong" on?

While some people might buy things they don't need, the vast majority of people work too hard for this to be the case. Would you not agree? Do you honestly believe MOST, not some, MOST people buy trucks simply because they think they are cool? Sure this happens but it is not the majority. I am not saying a SUV's capabilities are used MORE than not. MOST of the time a SUV's capabilities ARE NOT used in such a way that can not be accomplished with a car but there are PLENTY of times where a car simply will not suffice and this is why MOST average people buy SUV's.

Lodro

10-08-04, 12:31 AM

So, you have no data, just a conjecture -- how can you claim that someone is "flat out wrong" based on just an opinion or even a widely-held belief? I would insert a graituitous politcal reference here, but I don't want things to veer off in another direction. :cheesy:

While some people might buy things they don't need, the vast majority of people work too hard for this to be the case. Would you not agree?

No I would not agree. People buy all kinds of stupid things they don't need. And even if what you say made sense on the face of it; you are simply making an assumption about human behavior without evidence. OTOH, I have direct observation -- and an observation that you can make yourself -- to back up my claim that the vast majority of people in most suburban areas at any given moment in time are not using these vehicles for their "intended" purpose.

XAAMOTTOMAAX

10-08-04, 01:18 AM

I do have evidence I just chose not to get into it. But if you must know I work for a domestic auto dealer and spent time selling vehicles, many of which were SUV's. 99% of people considering a SUV were doing so because of some need which they would express to me. Most of the time it was because they needed space to haul people or cargo and not to go off roading or even to tow as much although towing was very common as well. I chose not to get into it to avoid ignorant desparaging remarks against car salemen which would create a new nastier debate.

the vast majority of people in most suburban areas at any given moment in time are not using these vehicles for their "intended" purpose

I do not dispute this but you are missing my point that it is not about using the capabilites MOST of the time which is why you see people driving SUV's MOST of the time without something stuck to the hitch and if they are off road you are not going to see them on your suburban roads. 99% of SUV's have privacy glass so you can't see inside to the people or cargo they might be carrying either. The point is, people need the capabilities SOME of the time even if it is not MOST of the time. Make sense? It might only be once a week or even less but the times do arise where people need to use the SUV for something a car could not accomplish. It is not cost or time effective to have to rent or borrow a vehicle every time you need to haul cargo, people or tow in such a way that is not suitable for a car.

Lodro

10-08-04, 03:48 AM

So you do have some interesting data points.

99% of people considering a SUV were doing so because of some need which they would express to me.

Then they were lying to you and to themselves. Noone is going to go into a dealership and say, "I'd like a large SUV so that I can intimidate otehr drivers, impress my friends, and feel as though I am well-endowed." But those are much stronger motivators than practicality. Since we're talking about sports cars, that is the prime motivator there as well.

The point is, people need the capabilities SOME of the time even if it is not MOST of the time. It is not cost or time effective to have to rent or borrow a vehicle every time you need to haul cargo, people or tow in such a way that is not suitable for a car.

This is interesting, because people are actually very bad optimizers. I am not disputing that people might make the argument that they need the suv, only that that argument makes any rational sense, and that people are actually primairly motivated by irrational impulses that they cloak in rational language.

Bottom-line, people are not the rationale economic decidion makers traditional economists would want people to believe. From a simple rational econmoic presepctive if I need an SUV 1% of the time, it is far better expected utility to get a cheaper, faster, better-handling -- or all three -- vehicl, and yes rent a truck when I really need it. As someone pointed out in C&D magazine a while back, any rationale for owning a pickup truck for most Americans went away now that Home Depot will rent you one for $20/hour.

raske9k

10-08-04, 06:25 AM

Would I buy one?...No. I find the whole "SUV" thing is way overrated, after all,
the "suv" moniker was coined by the auto makers to make the prospect of buying a truck more attractive to people.
Sport?...hmm, let's see; high center of gravity, mediocre suspension, so..NO.
Utility?..yes if you've got a big family, towing, cargo capacity, so..Yes.
Vehicle?, well of course, so is every wheeled machine on the road!, but it sounds more civilised than Truck, which is what these are; Utility Trucks, or
UTs. Come to think of it...my 9000cse turbo IS an SUV; 150+ mph, tuned suspension, room for 5 and their gear, huge cargo capacity (and the capacity to carry it in a hurry), oh and it's a "vehicle". So there you have it, and if I need to move house, I'll rent a U-Haul..better yet an 18 wheeler, so I can blow the air horn and WAKE UP those annoying 9-7 drivers talking on their phone, they must get very lonely driving alone in their trucks :cheesy:

squishmann

10-08-04, 02:26 PM

i sell cars and people buy SUVs because of the floaty ride. they could care less about the off road capability.

it has a nice feel. there is plenty of room for driver and passengers.

they also buy them because they have families and don't want to be seen in a wagon.

I have never seen an MDX with a spec of dirt on it. Many of the Touaregs we have sold have been used for their intended purpose.(offroading and hauling). VW people usually buy cars for what they where made for.

but it's all about the ride comfort. i like them. the touareg is my favourite because it can play both sides.

with the air suspension you can have that sporty feel. you have decent cargo space. and when it's time to tackle the mountains you can do so as well.

will the saab be a touareg? no. it will be an alternate for the wagon buyers who like the nice floaty ride. i think it will do well because most saab dealerships share showrooms with other brands (WV, Caddy, Land Rover, Jaguar). It will be a great switch vehicle for
1) people looking for a diff suv and do not want to pay an arm and a leg for the other truck in the showroom

2)it will give them new customers and keep existing ones.

imagine if acura never had the MDX, they would be a sinking ship. they are at about the same level as saab in terms of product. before this year they only had about five cars in their line up if you include the CL.

i don't understand why people hate suv buyers. people who tune their cars to get more performance don't do much good for the environment either.

Alex_Saab

10-08-04, 03:27 PM

I personally don't hate SUV buyers, but when they make up close to forty percent of vechiles on the road today (keep in mind I'm almost 100% positive most are used during the 5 day work week commute with only 1 person operating), both the enviorment and saftey of people who choose not to drive them are compromised.

XAAMOTTOMAAX

10-08-04, 04:28 PM

Then they were lying to you and to themselves.

yeah ok sure... :roll:

The bottom line is this...

SUV's are gaining popularity even if not as fast as say 3 years ago

The MAJORITY of people DO NOT MIND sharing the road with SUV's because many of them are driving SUV's themselves and the rest of the people understand there IS a NEED for them in every day life.

SAAB (SAAB IS GM so don't try to differentiate) IS building a SUV to sell soon so there will be MORE SUV's on the road every day, many of them with SAAB badges on the hood

Better hold on tight to your beloved 9000's because they are not produced anymore and every day there are FEWER and FEWER 9000's on the road.

The 9000 might have been the perfect "sport" utility vehicle in some people's eyes but "the perfect SUV" went the way of the Do Do because the vast majority of people DID NOT LIKE THEM. I used to own a 9000 Aero and it was riddled with problems. It was by far the LEAST reliable vehicle I have ever owned and I have owned 2 Ford's and a Chrysler that didnt have nearly the amount of problems the 9000 had.

Better get used to it people. Now, anyone who actually likes the 9-7x, please start a NEW thread so we can talk positives. All the people who DONT like the 9-7x, go back to your respective sections of the forum to discuss all the things you like about your cars. I really doubt any of us that like the 9-7x care enough about your cars to come in there and start bad mouthing the way people come to the 9-7x section just to bad mouth.

This has been beat to death.

fabric

10-08-04, 05:22 PM

Then they were lying to you and to themselves.

yeah ok sure... :roll:

If people are buying SUV's simply for people hauling, then they are buying them for the image. a minivan would do a much better job hauling poeple and stuff, at a lower cost. But they wouldn't look as cool. And you've admitted this yourself.

And probably half of the SUV's out there only seat 4-5 people. No pickup seats more than 4 comfortably, and I'm seeing all sorts of fancy crew cabs.

So, the justifcation for getting a suburban is for the 3 or 4 yearly out of state trips a soccer mom voluntarily makes for her kids team? You could rent a van for that.

Unless you plan to take it off road, or tow something pretty damn big, you buy an SUV for image, period, because other vehicles will provide the same functionality.

Why do you think the car based SUV is so popular? It's basically a minivan that looks like an SUV. GM can't even do that right - hence the aztec and the rendezvous.

I don't fault you for selling the more expensive car to them if that's what they want. But any reasonable analysis would put more than 50% of SUV owners into minivans. They offer more room, better fuel economy, and more cargo carrying flexibility.

It's a small minority that needs the offroadd capability, or the ability to tow 3000+lbs.

McG

10-08-04, 05:28 PM

I think the key point there is "reasonable analysis." I agree, people clearly don't buy SUVs because they get the most functionality....they buy it for adequate functionality with a mix of image.

Minivans are clearly the more functional, and reasonable choice.

Lodro

10-08-04, 05:54 PM

This has been beat to death.

I tried bringing up some questions about the 9-7x but it seems that we all think that bashing or defending SUVs is more fun. :cheesy:

Lodro

10-08-04, 06:05 PM

It's basically a minivan that looks like an SUV. GM can't even do that right - hence the aztec and the rendezvous.

The new GM minivans with the SUV snouts are pretty amusing.

But to be fair, he Chevy Equinox is not a bad car-base ute in the appliance category.

Alex_Saab

10-08-04, 06:26 PM

SUV's are gaining popularity even if not as fast as say 3 years ago

Actually according to consumer reports SUV sales are down considerably due to gas prices.

Alex_Saab

10-08-04, 06:31 PM

Unless you plan to take it off road, or tow something pretty damn big, you buy an SUV for image, period, because other vehicles will provide the same functionality.

It's kind of amusing that the SUV image stemmed mostly from the Escalade favored by rap stars, preteens, and other intellectuals :roll:

sethsev7n

10-08-04, 09:15 PM

All the people who DONT like the 9-7x, go back to your respective sections of the forum to discuss all the things you like about your cars. I really doubt any of us that like the 9-7x care enough about your cars to come in there and start bad mouthing the way people come to the 9-7x section just to bad mouth.

This has been beat to death.

um, first of all you dont own a 9-7x so everyone in here are all from different forums. This forum is not for only people who like the 9-7x, its for everyone, including most of us who DONT like it. So get used to that. If the 9-7 was actually something GOOD to talk about, then the tune might be different in here.

valbowski1980

11-08-04, 12:41 AM

The 9000 hatch was a car which offered versatiliy and function like few others. It does have it's list of problems and it does cost a ton to fix. Because of this there is a very slim chance I will ever own another Saab again since the cars just don't hold a candle to what comes out of Japan. Sadly for some dumb reason Americans just don't like hatchbacks :roll: .

squishmann, Acura wasn't scambling to stay alive like Saab was and still is. It is quite profitable and would have been since they make cars a vast amount of people actually want to own. MDX of no MDX it would have done alright. Also, a floaty ride in ok for grandma's buick but not for a European (at least claims to be) car.

valbowski1980

11-08-04, 12:57 AM

I think people are getting too wrapped up in political opinion to open their eyes to the truth.

It's something I personally can't ignore. Believe me, I don't want a Hybrid because I think it will be fun to drive. I want to live in a secure country where the government doesn't play footsie with cruel despots (who one day turn on us) in order to secure our oil supply. Oil conservation should be a lot higher on American car buyers lists if we ever want to do something that would really matter in the war on terror.

The auto industry has become complacent and one of the byproducts of this is the SUV. Why make something new when you can build a big minivan with a lift kit, promote it as macho and on top of that charge big bucks for it. They call it a truck when it's time to measure what comes out of the tailpipe or how much fuel it uses and they call it a car before the average buyer can ask themselves the question "do I need a truck"? Talk about a double standard XAAMOTTOMAAX. The while the profit margins on SUVs are huge, far bigger than on cars so they continue to milk it. The best way to force change out of the auto industry is not to complain to the government but to vote with our wallets. If we start buying more efficient vehicles and leave the fuel hogs to rust on dealer lots, believe me the next model line ups will look a lot different.

When I see more hybrids on the roads (not just from Honda and Toyota) I will have far less discord for SUVs.

Buddhabman

11-08-04, 09:26 PM

SUV Bashiing is like getting Roasted at Friars Club - Comes with the territory. Like someone else said "Get Over It" Looks like SUV pocket books are winning though. I don't mind the SUV, just the ill prepared drivers. I am kinda like the Gun lobbyist, it's not the gun it's the user. ;-) I do mind the gas milleage, so up to now we haven't purchased one. But I am the cusp of buying one and falling into the $50/barrell oil hole.

The main reason I am looking at an SUV is for size, for a couple kids and a dog and all the junk that goes with it. The second reason is the want for AWD. I am not opposed to Minivans, but the lack of AWD is an issue. I do note the new Sienna has AWD, I wish the MPV had AWD, these two are on the list to be checked out. Towing is also a consideration for the future. Heck the tax benefit if I get a huge road hog is something to consider. These are all considerations of someone buying an SUV, they are buying for the potential capability, ready for everything image.

Vehicles under consideration:

Saab 9-7
Caddy SRX
Subaru - Halifax
Toyota Sienna - AWD
Mazda MPV
Subaru Legacy GT

The 9-7 has an uphill climb to earn peoples respect and cash. I would like to try it out though. If Saab can tune the ride to the sporting image they market it might be interesting. The only problem still is if they come off the line with all the screws tightened, and glue cured. :-??

GM has basically booted this for Saab by not allowing them to have the SRX/Sigma platform. Further complicating this it the new Saab/Subaru colaboration based on the upcoming Subaru 7 passenger vehicle. What the heck is going on over there. The 9-7 is gonna be out for a year and then you come back with an update, or is this going to be a new model named the 9-6? I am confused :wink:

fabric

11-08-04, 09:41 PM

Vehicles under consideration:

Saab 9-7
Caddy SRX
Subaru - Halifax
Toyota Sienna - AWD
Mazda MPV
Subaru Legacy GT

Good list. What kind of towing weight are you looking at? Even the AWD mini's aren't really designed for towing terribly huge loads. Considering the list, I get the impression that you don't need a V8, based on that the SRX would be my pick. Sportier than the mini's, based on RWD so it will two better, and with the v6 good performance with decent economy, and you can get 3 row seating. The SRX is really a tall wagon. To use an analogy, it's to the CTS what the Matrix is to the corolla. I actually really like caddy's styling, and I've seen favorable quality and reliability results.

You're right, I think GM shot themselves in the foot not making a Saab version.

Edit: Hmm, the SRX only tows 1000 lbs? Guess that's the limitation of being based on the Sigma chassis. The Saab should have the best towing capacity.

Buddhabman

11-08-04, 10:38 PM

I have been thinking about getting a Jet Ski to take the kids out on the lake. So I might need towing capacity for a small utility tow cart + 800 pounds. I probably would need about 2000lbs to be safe.

I just thought of another option; a 3/4 or 1 ton full size van 4x4 van conversion but your gas mileage is as bad or worse than a SUV. Kiss the cool factor away, but they look like great alterantives for camper diehards.

XAAMOTTOMAAX

11-08-04, 10:41 PM

Valbowski's new truck! Val you outdid yourself with this one. I really love the low center of gravity high top and the ultra conservative 20" chromes. The only question I have is do you ever drive the thing or are you always kickin it in the back watchin tv? :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/xaamottomaax/85e499ba.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/xaamottomaax/4de3e5bf.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/xaamottomaax/25a82ddb.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/xaamottomaax/c9fe0ad8.jpg

All in fun! Val I do have to say out of all the SUV bashers, you seem to be based most on logic. Good luck with the hybrid. The interiors sure are neat in those things!

Alex_Saab

12-08-04, 01:13 AM

If I was going to get an SUV, there would be only one obvious choice

http://www.hummerh2.net/photos/stretch.jpg

- Can fit a 36 foot sailboat, in the trunk!

- Has enough room for 2 illegal immigrant's extended families

- IMAX Theater installed

Now thats what I would call Utility!

Lodro

12-08-04, 03:32 AM

Vehicles under consideration:

Saab 9-7
Caddy SRX
Subaru - Halifax
Toyota Sienna - AWD
Mazda MPV
Subaru Legacy GT

Don't forget Volvo XC70 and V70R!

Personally as I've said before all I really want is an awd 9-3 or 9-5 wagon/hatch. Very anxious to see how the SportHatch turns out.

raske9k

12-08-04, 03:34 AM

This is the SAAB SUV I'd buy :cheesy: :cheesy:

valbowski1980

12-08-04, 04:33 AM

Valbowski's new truck! Val you outdid yourself with this one.

:) Thanks. What started as a simple lift kit got way out of hand. Next week I am putting in a deep frier and a satelite dish so I can just live in it. Now if only someone would do beer runs for me here and there I'd be all set.

All in fun! Val I do have to say out of all the SUV bashers, you seem to be based most on logic. Good luck with the hybrid. The interiors sure are neat in those things!

I agree, a good argument can be a good time. I am really looking forward to a Hybrid, if I go Civic I can get one with a stick :cheesy: .

valbowski1980

12-08-04, 04:39 AM

A hatchback limo raske9k, I love it.

Buddhabman

12-08-04, 07:13 AM

Vehicles under consideration:

Saab 9-7 ? :o
Caddy SRX +++++ :D
Subaru - Halifax ?
Toyota Sienna - AWD ++++
Mazda MPV +++
Subaru Legacy GT +++

Add the Volvo XC90 ++++

3+ Two small or no AWD
4+ Pretty Darn Nice
5+ Top Choice
? Wait & See But Hopefully Nice

allankuo

01-09-04, 12:37 AM

definitely NOT! :nono;
It's so ugly (from my point of view)

allankuo

01-09-04, 12:41 AM

definitely NOT! :nono;
It's so ugly (from my point of view)

squishmann

02-09-04, 02:47 AM

and you drive a saab? :cheesy:

valbowski1980

02-09-04, 02:56 AM

and you drive a saab? :cheesy:

I drive a Saab and I think that it's rather ugly. Nothing beautiful about a jacked up stationwagon with a phony macho persona.

squishmann

03-09-04, 05:13 AM

On Saab USA there is no longer a mention of the V6 powerplant. seems as though there will only be a V8(good)

on the other side. a strong competitor for this vehicle, the Acura MDX will receive some fresh updates

-Standard XM Satellite Radio
-Acura HandsFreeLink Bluetooth wireless phone interface on all touring models
-OnStar on all models equipped with navigation system
-Larger fuel tank
-6 Disc In-Dash CD player on models equipped with Rear Entertainment System
-Enhanced Vehicle Stability Assist (VSA) system
-Enhanced navigation system
Quicker response time
Additional voice recognition commands
More points of interest
Zagat Guide
-LEV-2 ULEV emissions system
-3 new exterior colors including Desert Rock Metallic, Billet Silver Metallic and Steel Blue Metallic

Buddhabman

03-09-04, 06:57 PM

Is the 9-7X getting a detuned (300Hp & 337Ft Lbs of torque)version of the Chevy LH6 engine. Maybe it is tuned differently for torque at lower RPM's

Here is what the 2005 Ranier V8 option is.

LH6 Vortec 5300 V8 SFI 5.3L Engine
Includes Vortec 5300 SFI V8 5.3L engine with 300 hp @ 5,200 rpm and 360 lb-ft of torque @ 4,000 rpm and GVWR of 6001 lbs.

I noticed a NAV screen in the interior shoots.Oops thats not a NAV screen but the AC function screen?

CleveSaab

03-09-04, 07:43 PM

No official word on the engine yet...

squishmann

04-09-04, 02:58 AM

cleve they have the V8 featured on the website.

valbowski1980

04-09-04, 02:39 PM

Great! So which oil producing nation in next on the "to invade" list?

eric900spg

05-09-04, 06:18 PM

to the original question of would I consider, I would say no. it isnt a nice vehicle. GM does not know how to do anything right. they are even ruining the vette by making it into a shared platform and sharing its engine. stupid. ford is cooler with the new mustang and volvo is getting better an dbetter while staying a volvo. still has the volvo like ways. I just feel gm doesnt understand how to build a nice vehicle that is their own idea. I drive a 95 civic. it is getting time to replace, has a bit of rust starting and has 235k miles. runs great but will rust out. it will be replaced with another civic. they are nice to drive, reliable, and bolted together great. I think saab lost that with GM. my spg is fun, the new ones I dont care for. o well. my $.02

valbowski1980

05-09-04, 06:25 PM

I drive a 95 civic.

Sweet! Another Honda fan :) . I thought I was the only one here.

eric900spg

05-09-04, 06:30 PM

not at all, I will keep buying them. fun little cars that cant be killed. my spg is fun like I said (sadly for sale now that I need a newer honda and cant afford a newer car and a toy) but the honda is what ALWAYS gets me there. the civic hybrid is, imo, the nicest hybrid out there. decent room and doenst look like a space ship. and hondas trannies are the BEST!!! soooo smooth and easy to speed shift :)

dlflyboy

26-09-04, 08:46 PM

Lodro

26-09-04, 10:55 PM

I would. I had a 2002 Olds Bravada (which the 9-7x is built from). I loved it (traded it). I put 32k miles on it had no problems. I have a 2003 9-5 Aero and I love it as well. So, the 9-7x gives me the best of both worlds. :)

Just curious, what did you like about the Bravada -- given the concerns expressed here about handling, quality, mileage and so on?

valbowski1980

27-09-04, 04:44 AM

I put 32k miles on it had no problems.
Have our standards dipped so low that we are happy if a new car goes 32,000 trouble free miles?

CleveSaab

27-09-04, 06:12 AM

I think he was just making a statement there, Valb. You read too much into it. :wink:

eric900spg

27-09-04, 12:54 PM

my civic went 150k miles or so before needing anything outside of maintenance (timing belt @ 90k) just had the rear drums open for the first time other than to inspect them at about 220k miles :) I want saab to be like that again, like they were with te c900. my independent saab guy says he sees more of the newer ones than the c900's. new ones just tried too hard to get more complicated. nice when they are runing but almost too much extra stuff on there to break. that and GM has really stingy bean counters, always trying to make it cheaper it seems :(

valbowski1980

27-09-04, 02:57 PM

I think he was just making a statement there, Valb. You read too much into it. :wink:

I've been known to do that from time-to-time, that's what happens when you work for the DCP for a while. Still, reading into it too much or not 32K without major problems is no big feat, 132K is.

eric900spg

27-09-04, 03:06 PM

squishmann

29-09-04, 03:26 AM

i'm pretty sure i'll by a 2006 9-3SS even if saab doesn't get it right with the features.

but as my second car 1-2 years from then i will most likely buy a Touareg platform vehicle providing Saab hasn't announced a replacement for the 9-7X

Q7
http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/519200315624.jpg
http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/519200315635.jpg
http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/519200315342.jpg

Touareg
http://www.vwvortex.com/gallery/generated//Volkswagen/Touareg/Touareg%20(U.S.)/120__scaled_600.jpg
http://vortex3.rely.net/gallery/generated//Events/Industry/Paris%20Auto%20Show/2004/Volkswagen/W12%20Sport/001__scaled_600.jpg
http://vortex3.rely.net/gallery/generated//Events/Industry/Paris%20Auto%20Show/2004/Volkswagen/W12%20Sport/006__scaled_600.jpg

Cayenne
http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//pictures/VEHICLE/2004/Porsche/100342777/027874-E.jpg
http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//pictures/VEHICLE/2003/Porsche/100215824/022231-E.jpg
http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//pictures/VEHICLE/2004/Porsche/100342777/027867-E.jpg

earthworm

25-10-04, 06:13 PM

Never, the so-called Saab 9-7 is a GM truck 98% and 2% a"Saab". What an absurdity !
At least a Tuareg is 50% VW, 50% Porsche - maybe it is in fact 100% VW.
If GM successfully turns the Saab into another Oldsmobile, it will be around another 5 years, then GONE !! and I really do not know what their intent is - do they ??

GMs intent was to make as much money as possible, and not care who was hurt in the process. But in so doing, now the battle is to lose as little money as possible and stay afloat - hoping for a savior ???

mightgetasaab

31-10-04, 06:39 AM

I think it is a HUGE shame, this car. A truly *******ized Saab. It is bad enough that Saab has to share parts with GM on the 9-3, but I can accpet that. But taking a car that is so heaily GM based and so obviously not even reallyy a Saab makes me sick.

Buddhabman

02-11-04, 12:46 AM

Look Saab got the short stick on this car. GM should have had the balls & wisdom to lend them the SRX platform. Then we wouldn't be complaininig. The SRX won both the Motor Trend SUV and Car & Driver SUV shoot outs. So GM does have the platforms to make a good car.

The 9-7 if it survives should be transitioned to the Saaburu 9-6 or the SRX platform in a hybrid car.

I wait and reserve judgement for the 9-7, we will be in the market for a new one by the time i tcomes out. But it will be hard to beat our first choice of the SRX.

There is some tough competition now, the new Pathfinder, great deals on the Toureag, the Volvo XC90 V8 coming soon. Not to mention all the deals on the really big fullsize SUV's

At least GM doesn't have alot of cost wrapped up in this car.