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

[Raven18940]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Raven18940

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Raven18940

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]

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]

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

[Flash9-7x]

Originally Posted by benji9k

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]

Originally Posted by Raven18940

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]

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]

Originally Posted by apzer09

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.

"Republican enough"... you made my day! still chuckling at that one!

[raske9k]

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"

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]

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]

Originally Posted by sethsev7n

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]

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

[Slaab4life]

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]

Originally Posted by Slaab4life

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.