9-7X, who else doesn't get it? [Archive]

View Full Version : 9-7X, who else doesn't get it?

Raven18940

17-02-05, 10:27 PM

apzer09

17-02-05, 11:08 PM

OK, let me address some of your points.

Yes, the 9-7x is built in Ohio, was designed purely by GM of the USA. The 9000 was partly designed by Italians, does that make it Italian?

Better than front wheel drive, it has all wheel drive.

Just because it has a manual does not make it sporty. What matters is ride and handling. We'll have to drive it to see if the suspension changes made a big difference.

Ok, the gas mileage is bad.

Even if it has a 3 star rating, the Saab has standard side curtain airbags and a claimed rollover protection system.

Both the I6 and V8 are Low Emissions Vehicles.

Even if they don't know why the key is in the center, it's a good thing they put it there. They just don't know why.

Here's proof the 9-7x fits in a little better than most people initially think. Now someone needs to drive it.

Raven18940

17-02-05, 11:41 PM

apzer09

18-02-05, 12:50 AM

It fills the hole in the lineup for the people who either think they need a larger vehicle than the 9-5 wagon, need to tow a lot, or are Republican enough that they need to drive an SUV. I would much rather have the 9-5, or new 9-3 SportCombi, but for the people Saab has lost because they want an SUV, this is the solution.

Raven18940

18-02-05, 02:28 AM

I know you're right there, but saab has never been a company that pandered to crazes like SUV's. I don't think this is a good sign.

benji9k

18-02-05, 04:06 AM

I know this has been brought up a lot, but who else just doesn't get this thing? So I've decided to outline what makes a saab a saab and see how it fits in.

1. Swedish - The 9-7 is american
2. Front wheel drive - uhhhhhh no
3. Sporty - They don't even offer a manual, how sporty can it be
4. Fast - even with the 300 hp v8, the 9-7 will weigh well over 2 tons negating it's power
5. Decent fuel economy - 15/20, not happening
6. Safe - the Trailblazer has a 3 star safety rating
7. Environmently friendly - HAHAHAHAA
8. Not a BMW or Merc - ok, I'll give it that.
9. Key in the center console - Yeah, but I don't think they know why it's there.

So if it's not sporty, fast, safe, efficient, or swedish then why are they making it as a saab. People buy X5's to have a big BMW, people don't buy saabs to have saabs. There just isn't the same brand recognition there. And I can understand why you'd buy a Trailblazer over a Impala, it's has more cargo space. But saab already has the 9-5 wagon, so what's the point? Why would you buy a 9-7X with a v8 over a 9-5 aero wagon? So can someone who's getting one of these explain it to me? I really don't understand.:confused:

1. As previously stated, it's as Swedish as any other Saab.

2. With rally roots, I often wonder why Saab hasn't had a AWD model before, oh yeah, the lack of money thing.

3. The CL65 AMG doesn't come in a manual. The most popular varient of the 996 is a Cabrio with an autobox, by a margin of about 4 to 1.

4. My 9000 is about 3200lbs, and I have about 200HP, that's 16lbs for every horse. The spec weight of a 9-7X is a bit over 4600lbs for the V8, with 300HP that comes out to about 15lbs per horsepower. What's the difference?

5. Ok, you can have that one, I wish they offered it in a diesel.

6. I can't argue with the Trailblazer's ratings, and I can't find any crash data on the 9-7X, but I will say Saab is a leader in safety, and I'd venture a guess that the 9-7X is safer than the other varients of that platform.

7. How about offering a 9-7X like that Flex Fuel 9-5 (http://www.autointell-news.com/News-2004/December-2004/Dec-2004-2/Dec-08-04-p6.htm).

8. Yep, still not a Merc or Bimmer.

9. My 9000 doesn't have it's key in the center console. Additionally perhaps with the advent of plastic keys that don't even resemble the metal blades of before, knee and hand injuries are less of an issue. But, I agree, it is a unique Saab feature and a heritage thing.

Not to try and debunk everything you said... I'm not a fan of SUV's myself, but there's a market and I'm all for Saab having a part of it. People will buy this because it's not a BMW or a Merc. They will buy it because it's a GM product. They will buy it because they are in the right place at the right time. I don't know the exact rational, but I'm not the one buying it. (Although it might be cool to get one and turn it into a rock-crawling beast) .. People want them so let Saab make some money so they can build better cars for us. And after the SUV market dwindles, let Saab make the money in crossovers like the 9-6.

benji9k

18-02-05, 04:09 AM

I know you're right there, but saab has never been a company that pandered to crazes like SUV's. I don't think this is a good sign.

Neither was BMW...And Porche...And Volvo...And VW... It seems they're all doing fine now...

Raven18940

18-02-05, 04:28 AM

2. I thought it was cause saab took a stand that AWD simply wasn't necessary in a road car.

3. I still think they need to offer a manual, saab is one of the few companies that still really does. And again, truck based SUV's have poor handling characteristics

4. *Shrugs*, they just don't feel like my aero

6. Safer for the occupants, but what about the people they run into?

7. You fell for the flex fuel gimick, that's just to make it look like auto makers care. Have you ever seen E85 for sale? Did you know that every flex fuel vehicle is reported as having superb gas mileage in federal fuel economy standards, regardless of the fuel economy it gets. So in the federal governments eyes that 15/20 is reported as something like 45/50. This way they can make lots of gas guzzling suvs and not get fined to high heaven for poor fuel economy. Nice try, but no.

8. My point here was it wasn't like all the other european luxury cars.

I dont' want saab or any one making suvs because of the serious risks they pose to cars in accidents. People buy suvs because they are big and look scary, that's it, that's the rational. They try to say "oh it's pratical" and "I can see" better but it's really just cause they look powerful. Is that look worth some ones life, no.

Brewman013

18-02-05, 01:41 PM

I think the 40% manual transmission is way off. Less and less people are wanting to shift especially in a $40k + vehicle.

Flash9-7x

18-02-05, 01:53 PM

People want them so let Saab make some money so they can build better cars for us. And after the SUV market dwindles, let Saab make the money in crossovers like the 9-6.

Simple marketing 101. Have a product for your potential buyer or someone else will get their money.

benji9k

18-02-05, 02:31 PM

7. You fell for the flex fuel gimick, that's just to make it look like auto makers care. Have you ever seen E85 for sale? Did you know that every flex fuel vehicle is reported as having superb gas mileage in federal fuel economy standards, regardless of the fuel economy it gets. So in the federal governments eyes that 15/20 is reported as something like 45/50. This way they can make lots of gas guzzling suvs and not get fined to high heaven for poor fuel economy. Nice try, but no.

I'm aware of the scam that Chevy and Ford and whoever else did a few years back. They made the trucks, but never actually sold any. But still made federal standards. But where would you buy FlexFuel in the US then? From what I understand it is available somewhat easily in Europe. There's somewhat of a chicken and egg debacle with alterna-fuels. Car first or infrastructure first? Both would cost a lot to put your heart into.
Perhaps others want to view it as an easy scam and PR trick, but don't you think a little higher of Saab than that?

Raven18940

18-02-05, 03:16 PM

Saab, yes. GM, no. Actually a lot of ford explorers and other mid size suvs on the road are flex fuel right now, but the owners for the most part have no idea. That's why it's just a loop hole to raise their fleet fuel economy ratings, at least in the US anyway.

db93a

18-02-05, 05:06 PM

raske9k

20-02-05, 01:19 AM

I agree with Benji 100%... let Saab cater to the SUV crazies before they wake up and see the light, like MB, BMW, Audi et al have done lately, heck even Porsche!, so why shouldn't Saab join in the scam.. oops I mean the "trend" ;)

apzer09

20-02-05, 01:41 AM

The only reason Porsche made the Cayenne was because they knew they could capitalize on the market and make a profit, then devote more money to making sports cars.

I think Saab is just trying to stay afloat in the market by taking this easy yet profitable way out.

sethsev7n

20-02-05, 05:36 AM

agh, you guys are missing the point. So far Audi (Q7 is still a ways off) has been making cars and cars only, and they are still doing well. You don't have to build an SUV just to stay alive. Saab would have been doing better if they focused on building a great lineup of cars, moved their production facilities around alittle (not just high priced sweden), and kept to their soul. Instead they sold it to GM and now the brand is getting slapped around on GM made automobiles. I knew the 9-2x would flop, and I think the 9-7x will fair better but still will not be as much as a success as they hope it will. I think the sportcombi will be a much higher success however.

Lodro

20-02-05, 02:16 PM

I think the sportcombi will be a much higher success however.

Agree -- I think Saab will be floored by how strong the initial demand is for SportCombi. 3years of pent up demand.

paddy187

21-02-05, 08:52 PM

Hopefully the rebranded saabs the 92 X, the scooby one, and the 97 X the suv caddy one will be kept to american shores. Don't get me wrong porsche had sold shed loads of the cayanne, mainly in the US, and have made a lot of money but boy is it ugly!!! Hopeful GM in europe will use the saab expertise to better the common floor plan like they did with the epislon floor plan vectra/new 93 and do the same with a 95 replacement.

On another point SUV aren't safer for occupents as you are more likely to have an accident due to poorer handling and most have truck chasis, well they need it if they are to do anything proper offroad, transfering the crash energy into the passenger compartment blending your insides:nono;

Slaab4life

21-02-05, 11:51 PM

Better than front wheel drive, it has all wheel drive.

I've recently heard that all wheel drive isn't all that grand, because all the wheels aren't actually being powered all the time. The only time the rear wheels are engaged with power is when the system senses the front wheels slipping, so the power is then transferred to the back. Can anyone confirm this? If this is the case, your pretty much screwed anyways despite the rear wheels finally engaging.

Raven18940

22-02-05, 01:16 AM

I've recently heard that all wheel drive isn't all that grand, because all the wheels aren't actually being powered all the time. The only time the rear wheels are engaged with power is when the system senses the front wheels slipping, so the power is then transferred to the back. Can anyone confirm this? If this is the case, your pretty much screwed anyways despite the rear wheels finally engaging.

Yes and no. Not all AWD is created equally. There are systems with fixed torque split and electronically controlled torque split. Fixed systems have the torque split fixed at a certain ratio, like 50/50 or 30/70. Things like audi quattro and subaru AWD. Electronically controlled systems do what you've described, have the torque fixed at a certain ratio, like 100/0 or 70/30, until slippage occurs and it goes to 50/50. The G35X has a really good trick AWD system that they lifted from the old Skyline GT-R. It would vary the torque from 0/100 to 50/50. It was so good and seamless at doing it that many believed only the car was fast and not the driver.

Lodro

22-02-05, 02:03 AM

Yes and no. Not all AWD is created equally. There are systems with fixed torque split and electronically controlled torque split. Fixed systems have the torque split fixed at a certain ratio, like 50/50 or 30/70. Things like audi quattro and subaru AWD. Electronically controlled systems do what you've described, have the torque fixed at a certain ratio, like 100/0 or 70/30, until slippage occurs and it goes to 50/50. The G35X has a really good trick AWD system that they lifted from the old Skyline GT-R. It would vary the torque from 0/100 to 50/50. It was so good and seamless at doing it that many believed only the car was fast and not the driver.

And yes, btw, it does make a huge difference. The Haldex systems like they have on the Volvo have 100% fwd bias until things get spinnning, and you'll find that kind of thing on almost every crossover ute out there. XDrive and the G35X have a rearward bias and fulltime slip. As Raven sez only Subaru and Audi have fixed ratios. THe payoff for fwd 100% bias is better fuel economy but the 'feel' in driving is not nearly as nice (usually you end up with major push and you can't really 'play' the car at all). Subies and Audis and the rear biased vehciles are generally much more fun to toss around and safer dynamically as they are more predicatable and you do not have unexpected transitions. One of the reasons I decided to go w/ my new Outback XT.

therealturbofan

09-03-05, 04:32 PM

First off, the subaru system isn't a fixed ratio, but it does always have 4 wheels engaged. the jan or feb issue of car and driver explain this very well by comparing the awd systems on the Evo MR and the STi.

for you who said "you're screwed, at least until the rear wheels kick in" it's not like it lets your front tires spin a bunch then the back tires kick in. it's a very smooth, seamless, and effective system that gives you the traction you need when you need it, while still allowing you to get good gas mileage on the highway where awd isn't needed.

so many of you guys say saab should just stick to cars, they shouldn't do thist just to make money. why not?!?! they HAVE to do something! don't you realized that if the Saab brand doesn't make GM some money, then GM will drop it on its face? look what happened to Oldsmobile! so if you want to keep your saabs, let GM do what they will to make more money. the Saabness of the 9-7x may be debatable, but it's a beautiful SUV that is VERY nice and is about the same amount of money as a Buick Rainier... why not go saab? i think they'll sell quite a few of them! if the price is over $50,000 they won't stand a chance though. maybe the price is that high... i spend most of my time on the c900 forums!! anyway, the 9-7x seems like a really nice vehicle.

one last thing: to that guy who said "the only point of an SUV is to look powerful." man you're all wet. you have no idea what you're talking about. while that MAY be many people's reason for buying an SUV, SUV's really are very versatile and useful. you have a big engine so you can tow things, you have a lot of cargo space so your can haul things, and you have a lot of seating area so you can haul people. now, with modern suspension and steering technology, they're not too bad to drive either. still nothing like a nice car, but definitely a big improvement over 10 years ago. as far as blocking the raodways goes, just keep a decent following distance and you can see around them just fine. if you can't see around them, you're following too close. I prefer a car, but SUV's make a lot of sense for a lot of people. MORE than enough said.:o

boomerbman

09-03-05, 10:51 PM

Alright, let me try and counter some of your points

my car is italian???? NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

AWD>FWD is a very debatable topic, while the extra traction is nice, you pay dearly at the pump for it and don't really use it very often. Also Saabs have been FWD since 1949, it's just a design trait that makes a saab a saab.

A manual is a requirement for me for a sporty car, it just isn't anywhere near as fun without it. And did you know something like 40% of saab owners opt for a manual. As for the suspension, I suppose we'll hafta wait and see what happens. However, considering it's based on a truck underbody and not designed from the ground up like a Cayenne/Toureg I have serious doubts about what they'll be able to accomplish.

yay, point for me

Ok, I'm glad they've made it safer.

Low emissions or not, they still emit a lot more CO2 cause of the poor fuel economy

Yeah, the key's in the center, but the window buttons are on the door, that's just wrong!

Where's this proof? I'm not convinced. What hole in the line-up does this vehicle fill, the gas-guzzler hole? Why would you get one of these over a 9-5 wagon?
----------------------------------------------------------

Good points raven18940 but let's not forget Saab wouldn't be around if not for GM's cash. Unfortunately, GM it isn't sure what to do with the brand they purchased. I'm on my 3rd Saab--a 900, 93 viggen and my current 95 wagon. I personally find SUVs too clumsy for my spirited driving and too thirsty (I'll take a tricked Aero wagon any day). Still, people should be free to drive what they want without being judged.

I understand the SUV from GM's standpoint. Porsche makes a ton of cash from its Cayenne and they cook up better cars as a result. If GM, in dire need to turn around Saab, tries the SUV thing, fine.

The problem: Saabers are loyal, but they won't pay a premium price for a dressed-up Trailblazer (isn't that the Envoy?). The GMT360 platform is fine for what it is, but don't simply stick a griffin on the front and with a straight face say that it's a Saab (even if you move the ignition key). The Epsilon platform under the 93 is very well differentiated from the Pontiac Gram Am/Chevy Malibu. Also, The upcoming 93 wagon is no Saturn Wagon, so rebadges can work if done correctly.

Hopefully, the 97x will bring in new Saab owners, so the Swedes, with a better bottom line, won't be micromanaged as much from overseas (like they are now) and can cook up better cars. There should be enough SUV wanters out there to do that.

Take the 92x - they should've spent the cash to move the ignition key and change the body more. They could have easily recouped the cost in the price had they given it more Saab traits--hockey stick C-pillar and all. With GM's beancounters at the helm, seeing Saabs move away from what makes a Saab a Saab is what saddens me most. Years of pedigree are stripped away with every rebadge that they try to pass on as a "new" model.

I saw the 97x at the Chicago Auto Show and wasn't impressed. They moved the key, but no hockey sticks and the back end/profile = GMC Envoy. It's too easy for Saabers to be cynical, but Saab does need to add more vehicles to its lineup to survive (2 cars won't cut it). I just wish that GM would understand that rebadges can work (the 93), and not let the beancounters have ALL the say with Saab's "new" vehicles. By cutting corners and not differentiating using Saab traits, you lose the Saab pedigree and are left with another rebadged appliance. Bland re-badges with premium pricing will be the end of Saab, because the luxury/sport market is too competitive. No one will choose a Saab over its Japanese or German competitors in this class especially if the Saab is nothing but a half-hearted rebadge attempt.

SaabKen

10-03-05, 01:05 AM

----------------------------------------------------------
The problem: Saabers are loyal, but they won't pay a premium price for a dressed-up Trailblazer (isn't that the Envoy?). The GMT360 platform is fine for what it is, but don't simply stick a griffin on the front and with a straight face say that it's a Saab (even if you move the ignition key) ....[snip]........ I saw the 97x at the Chicago Auto Show and wasn't impressed. They moved the key, but no hockey sticks and the back end/profile = GMC Envoy. It's too easy for Saabers to be cynical, but Saab does need to add more vehicles to its lineup to survive (2 cars won't cut it).

I agree that the 9-7X is nowhere near a true Saab, at least not for us Saabistis. But it will be a Saab to those who don't know nor care (and will likely walk into Saab showrooms to buy them) about the true heritage of Saab and what it stands for. I'll use the argument of BMW. It has the X3 and X5 (or Porsche Cayenne ... I lied, I add another analogy) that must have been faced with ghastly reactions from their respective true fans. BMW the pioneer of the modern sports sedan. Porsche the definitive mass market premier sports car company. What the hell were they thinking venturing into the SUV market ?!? These SUVs must inevitably sink their reputations and business. Well fast forward a few years and now the Cayenne is the sales leader model in the Porsche lineup (thus providing revenue for Porsche to continue production of its core products 911, Boxster etc). I don't know how X3/X5 sales compare with other models but around here I see more of them than the sedans. And lemme tell ya, I'll bet my 9000CSET that 95% of those X3/X5 drivers I see have absolutely no idea about BMW, its rich history, its innovations nor its unique place in automotive history. But they keep BMW alive and growing. Blasphemy ? Perhaps. BMW sells almost as many 3-series in the US alone per year as Saab sells cars worldwide. Think about that. So a small, exclusive manufacturer like Saab needs the 9-6X (Saabaru #2) and 9-7X in the global market to simply survive, even if we as the core Saab fans absolutely despite how and where they're made. GM wants Saab to be able to stand on its two feet so it can go on developing its own unique products and to maintain and grow as a prestige brand for GM Europe.

My $0.25 :confused:

Raven18940

10-03-05, 01:12 AM

I was hoping this thread has died.

apzer09

10-03-05, 06:02 AM

There are a bunch more threads like this in this forum. It's a topic that will never die, as much as I wish.

inertia93

22-03-05, 03:01 AM

You forgot turbocharging... The saabaru makes a little sense, given the two brands attract similar buyers, but the suv, um.. Maybe Saab will get a version of Subie's B9?

I know this has been brought up a lot, but who else just doesn't get this thing? So I've decided to outline what makes a saab a saab and see how it fits in.

1. Swedish - The 9-7 is american
2. Front wheel drive - uhhhhhh no
3. Sporty - They don't even offer a manual, how sporty can it be
4. Fast - even with the 300 hp v8, the 9-7 will weigh well over 2 tons negating it's power
5. Decent fuel economy - 15/20, not happening
6. Safe - the Trailblazer has a 3 star safety rating
7. Environmently friendly - HAHAHAHAA
8. Not a BMW or Merc - ok, I'll give it that.
9. Key in the center console - Yeah, but I don't think they know why it's there.

So if it's not sporty, fast, safe, efficient, or swedish then why are they making it as a saab. People buy X5's to have a big BMW, people don't buy saabs to have saabs. There just isn't the same brand recognition there. And I can understand why you'd buy a Trailblazer over a Impala, it's has more cargo space. But saab already has the 9-5 wagon, so what's the point? Why would you buy a 9-7X with a v8 over a 9-5 aero wagon? So can someone who's getting one of these explain it to me? I really don't understand.:confused:

therealturbofan

22-03-05, 03:30 AM

for one thing, it's really good looking, at least from the front. i won't get one... but i do think it looks good. now let's see... this seems familiar... GM building a novelty truck with a 300 hp 5.3 liter v8 and offering it only with an automatic, then charging too much money. oh yeah, it is familiar... look at the Chevrolet SSR. the original truck was offered only in an automatic with a 300 hp 5.3 liter v8. it was neat, but it was too expensive and much too slow. now they've added a 390 hp LS2 corvette engine and a 6-speed manual to the mix with the SSR, and they're finally moving them from showrooms. maybe they'll do the same thing with the 9-7x... but i doubt it.

SaabKen

06-04-05, 07:08 AM

OK, I just came back from the Vancouver Int'l Auto Show. Saw 9-7X first hand. OK it ain't no X5 BUT it sure the hell is superior looking than any other GMT360 sold by Chevy/GMC/Buick/Isuzu. The truck has presence ! The monochromatic color scheme really does work well to create a svelte and sleek look. Only thing I don't like is the transparent ricey tailights. Unfortunately the Saab staff wouldn't let people inside the truck(!), but we're allowed to at least look inside. Interior is way better than any pictures I've seen, I guess it's always better to see it up close and personal. I must admit any shortcomings I expected to see weren't there. And the Saab staff told me the reason they don't let people sit inside is because they are still able to tweak some details before final sale date sometime towards end of May or early June. Apparently the two local dealers here have already taken customer orders for the first batch coming !

The sad news he told me was it appears likely that the Canadian market won't get the SportCombi until Jan '06 !

Buddhabman

07-04-05, 12:47 AM

The only hope for the sucess of this car really depends on GM/Saab enginners ability to transform the chassis into a drivers suv. I know GM has the capability of great suspension tuning. I just hope they put the time and money into tuning it. I think they did but we will have to wait and see.

SaabKen

07-04-05, 02:07 AM

Bob Lutz was previously quoted (not the one below) as saying they tuned the suspension of the 9-7X to such an extent that it blows away the X5. We'll see :confused:

http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2005/02/just_how_saabli_1.html

inertia93

08-04-05, 02:52 AM

I'm driving home today and find myself behind a Volvo XC90 suv. Now I'm not much for SUV's, but this really looks like a Volvo in design. So i try to imagine if Ford, rather than GM had bought Saab, would we get something more saab-like? FOrd, in its wisdom, used Volvo to influence it's own brands (note the new 500/montego). GM seems inclined to bring it's mediocrity to sweden, rather than vice versa. The 9-7x is a terrible idea. WOuld people pay 40K for an XC-90 is it were a rebadged explorer? I doubt it. A B9 rebadge would have made more sense...

therealturbofan

08-04-05, 02:58 AM

which is exactly why rumor has it that they ARE going to rebadge a b9. duh.:roll:

Nimisys

08-04-05, 03:06 AM

just a note on the AWD system. it is 40/60 split through a planetary differential, that can be varied upto 100% to either front or rear axel by the viscous coupling. unllike many systems using a viscouc coupling, the viscous coupling in this setup is not torque transfering. all the torque is sent through differential, the viscous couplin is splined to both the front and rear outputs and the differential so it can vary how much transfer of torque takes place in the diffeerential. it is the same setup used in the Denali, Escalade, STS and SRX.

heres a picture of its setup: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v288/Nimisys/escaladetcase.jpg

SaabKen

08-04-05, 03:21 AM

We don't know that because Ford/Volvo didn't come up with one. But enough people DO buy Lincoln Navigators so it's really speculative in hindsight.

I agree there's real need for a Saab crossover, rather than a real SUV.

However, as I said in an earlier post where I just came back from our local auto show, the Saab sales staff told me they've got customer orders for 9-7X already before the dang thing has even hit the showroom floor. In context of our gas price selling at Cdn$1.05 per liter (or roughly US$3.26/US gallon), you gotta wonder who these folks are and whether they really care what a SAAB is, how much gasoline costs, environmental impacts, yada yada yada ....... :confused:

The 9-7x is a terrible idea. WOuld people pay 40K for an XC-90 is it were a rebadged explorer? I doubt it. A B9 rebadge would have made more sense...

pznuttz

27-04-05, 02:36 PM

I personally think that SAAB stopped making REAL SAAB's in 1993 then thereafter the automobile lost its character however the 9000 continued on until being replaced with the 9/5 in 1999. As for the 9/7 I just dont think It is even worthy of bearing the badge !!! I truly believe that they could have took some serious effort and built a more original vehicle than this!!! I bet you nothing that in 10yrs. GM will probably do away with the nameplate altogether at this rate!!!!! By the way what the hell were they thinking making a rebadged WRX Subaru What the F*** if I wanted one that bad I'd buy one for about 10k cheaper!!! I am really disappointed in SAAB that is why as an European Auto Technician I choose VW, AUDI and Porsche training for the future.:cry:

GRIPEN

16-05-05, 07:42 AM

Who doesn't get it? I don't. I don't get it why you guys making a big fuzz about it. The only mistake that GM did is that they didn't they didn't introduced 9-7X earlier when the sales on SUVs are booming. It's a real world out there and what happened to GM and even Ford motors is serious. Let's hoped that it would bring up some sales on Saab/GM, let's give it some time to get used to it. Even though it's just a rebadged SUV, there still will be a market for it. People with deep pockets still will buy SUVs whatever the fuel cost is. Don't forget when Honda rebadge an Isuzu SUV into a Passport. Saabaru 9-2X, people still buys them, and it even helped their sales a bit. It's better than nothing. So, Cheer up people. I know nothing about saab, I'm new to saab, and I owned a saab and I'm proud of it. For you people thing of getting another saab, what are you waiting for? Go get one! If there is a Saab logo on it, I would say it's a Saab!!

Jezzadee

16-05-05, 04:00 PM

The only mistake that GM did is that they didn't they didn't introduced 9-7X earlier when the sales on SUVs are booming.

Agreed - it looks like they might have been a bit late getting off the mark which could backfire quite badly as the US starts to move away from SUVs again. But that remains to be seen. If I were an auto maker in trouble, which GM are, I would be looking at how I could best sell a small, hybrid fuel hot hatch to the Europeans, a budget minibus-type thing to the Chinese, a small, cheap and rugged family saloon for India and a gas-guzzling, aspirational SUV to the Americans. But in a sense that's last year's view, and for the US market I'd be more tempted to look at a Prius-like hybrid due to the current fashion for one. Saab has always been slightly leftfield, idiosyncratic, catering to the minority. But they are in real trouble, and a minority market won't save them. Don't forget that the rest of the world has not been introduced to the 9-7, and with good reason - no-one in Europe would want it. It's all very well to bemoan the demands of the market, but it's not really for car manufacturers to dictate what people ought to want, but to supply what they do. Because that's how they stay in business.

Lodro

16-05-05, 04:34 PM

Sorry just noticed this post.

First off, the subaru system isn't a fixed ratio, but it does always have 4 wheels engaged. the jan or feb issue of car and driver explain this very well by comparing the awd systems on the Evo MR and the STi.

You're confusing the STi system for the standard system..?

for you who said "you're screwed, at least until the rear wheels kick in" it's not like it lets your front tires spin a bunch then the back tires kick in. it's a very smooth, seamless, and effective system that gives you the traction you need when you need it, while still allowing you to get good gas mileage on the highway where awd isn't needed.

I think you're missing my point. For snow tracton no, you don't give up much. For dirving dynamics/balance you absolutly do. So a haldex style system is fine for a daily driver, but not as nice for a performance car.

therealturbofan

20-05-05, 02:31 PM

then why does the evo always score better on objective (not necessarily subjective) handling tests? every mag i have read likes the handling characteristics of the Evo better.

as far as confusing the regular WRX and the STi all wheel drive systems... i don't know much about the WRX system but i read about the STi and i figured they were similar. i'm sure the WRX varies the power distribution, just like the STi does.