[rdj92807]

My dealer has an 9-7x on the showroom floor. I did not drive it, so I cannot comment on the handling. I'm sure it's better than the trailblazer.

Overall, I was really, really, really disappointed.

Exterior: I looks better in the photos than in real life, although it is the best looking GM SUV. Taillights are an odd look. Paint was so-so. My dealer put bling-bling wheels on it.....typical American crap. Maybe a pimp will buy it.

Interior: This was my biggest disappointment. Doors sound really tinny and cheap when shut. Leather was not good quality. Center console was already loose and rattling. Cheap looking switches. Just a typical GM SUV really. NOTE TO GM: Saab air vents and the key in the console, do not a real Saab make. There is absolutely NO European feel to the interior, at all.

Overall fit and finish is WAY below the VW SUV, Volvo SUV, BMW SUV, and frankly, the Japanese SUVs like Pathfinder, etc. It's just a skin job on a cheap, dated GM SUV built in Ohio. It looked out of place in the showroom, IMHO, versus the other Saabs. I think the 9-2x made more sense than this, and that's not saying much.

One couple wanted to buy it. They needed more room, and were moving "up" from a Chrysler PT Cruiser. I suggested that she wait for a 9-3ss SportCombi, but she didn't know what that was. The wife's father always liked Saabs, hence their interest. Basically, American's who are used to poor quality SUVs/cars and don't mind 15mpg road hogs will probably go for a few of these. But after looking at the interiors, for example, in the competition from VW, Volvo and BMW......it so far from the true Euro spec SUVs that it's not even funny. I guarantee you that NO ONE cross shopping SUVs between Volvo, Saab, BMW and VW will buy the Saab 9-7x. No one.

So, GM has screwed up another idea. Hope they leave the European part of Saab/Opel alone so they can keep making nice cars.

Robert

 

[squishmann]

if someone wants to save $10,000 they will

 

[apzer09]

I noticed you mentioned the bling wheels. Did you happen to go to Saab of Sherman Oaks? Those wheels were hideous, like they belonged on a Cadillac or something. It looked much better in the Ocean Blue.

I think there will be plenty of people out there to buy it, and the SportCombi just doesn't have enough room for some families. The 9-7x also desperately needs to be a hit so Saab can get their own proper SUV. I don't know how many times I've said that, but I need to stop.:roll:

 

[philosophicaldreamer]

No SAAB SUV please!

I think there will be plenty of people out there to buy it, and the SportCombi just doesn't have enough room for some families. The 9-7x also desperately needs to be a hit so Saab can get their own proper SUV. I don't know how many times I've said that, but I need to stop.:roll:

Great news. I hope that Saab's SUV fails to sell many cars! If we want to have truly European feel then both Saab and Volvo need to stop making SUVs, period. European families have been doing quite well without bloody SUVs. Instead of wasting time on designing and making SUVs, Saab needs to concentrate on making good cars like 9-5 or 9-3 and 9-3 combi.

Ta-ta, janusz

 

[sethsev7n]

My dealer has an 9-7x on the showroom floor. I did not drive it, so I cannot comment on the handling. I'm sure it's better than the trailblazer.

Overall, I was really, really, really disappointed.

Exterior: I looks better in the photos than in real life, although it is the best looking GM SUV. Taillights are an odd look. Paint was so-so. My dealer put bling-bling wheels on it.....typical American crap. Maybe a pimp will buy it.

Interior: This was my biggest disappointment. Doors sound really tinny and cheap when shut. Leather was not good quality. Center console was already loose and rattling. Cheap looking switches. Just a typical GM SUV really. NOTE TO GM: Saab air vents and the key in the console, do not a real Saab make. There is absolutely NO European feel to the interior, at all.

Overall fit and finish is WAY below the VW SUV, Volvo SUV, BMW SUV, and frankly, the Japanese SUVs like Pathfinder, etc. It's just a skin job on a cheap, dated GM SUV built in Ohio. It looked out of place in the showroom, IMHO, versus the other Saabs. I think the 9-2x made more sense than this, and that's not saying much.

One couple wanted to buy it. They needed more room, and were moving "up" from a Chrysler PT Cruiser. I suggested that she wait for a 9-3ss SportCombi, but she didn't know what that was. The wife's father always liked Saabs, hence their interest. Basically, American's who are used to poor quality SUVs/cars and don't mind 15mpg road hogs will probably go for a few of these. But after looking at the interiors, for example, in the competition from VW, Volvo and BMW......it so far from the true Euro spec SUVs that it's not even funny. I guarantee you that NO ONE cross shopping SUVs between Volvo, Saab, BMW and VW will buy the Saab 9-7x. No one.

So, GM has screwed up another idea. Hope they leave the European part of Saab/Opel alone so they can keep making nice cars.

Robert

what a freakin suprise. The worst thing about the whole thing is that X5, xc-90, and 9-7x are never really going to be mentioned in the same sentence. In my opinion, SAAB had alot of prestige to its name going in the late 90s early 00s, and the 9-2x and 9-7x are really taking good attempts to hurt that.. not to mention the quality of the earlier 9-3SS models.

 

[Rob in Atlanta]

I saw one in the dealership this weekend. I was rather pleasantly surprised. The fit and finish seemed to be on par with other SAAB's. The overall look and feel of the materials was similar to other SAAB's. There are some obvious divergences from other SAAB's, but nothing to get too worked up about. I'm not a fan of the rear tail lights however.

 

[SaabKen]

Yeah, reminds me of the Suzui XL-7

 

[apzer09]

I'm not too fond of the lights, but at least they're different from the rest. I wish more attention had been paid to the rear, since it looks like all of the siblings have the same exact tailgate and pretty much the same lights, minus the Saab's clear parts.

 

[CosmicSaab]

I saw one in the dealership this weekend. I was rather pleasantly surprised. The fit and finish seemed to be on par with other SAAB's. The overall look and feel of the materials was similar to other SAAB's. There are some obvious divergences from other SAAB's, but nothing to get too worked up about. I'm not a fan of the rear tail lights however.

I agree, the interior seems similar in material and fit/finish to the other current Saabs. I was supprised at how good it was. It's no Lexus by far, but for the asking prices, it should do okay. The paint I was a bit concerned about though, looked okay at best. Overall though, its a decent SUV, it should do fairly well.

 

[SAABISTI]

One couple wanted to buy it. They needed more room, and were moving "up" from a Chrysler PT Cruiser. I suggested that she wait for a 9-3ss SportCombi, but she didn't know what that was.

Well, that says it all. There's clearly something wrong with a "Saab" that attracts Clownmobile drivers who know nothing about Saabs of past, present, and future.

That said, the rear-end looks exactly like that of any dated, generic GM SUV. The same goes for the side profile. Overall, very awful and a big embarassment for Saab.

 

[SaabKen]

While I agree that 9-7X is attracting 1st time customers who otherwise don't remotely know/care what SAAB is all about, it's providing cashflow and model development monies so that SAAB can give us more real Saabs in the future.

How many Cayenne/X5/Toureg/XC90/All Road/LR3/Range Rover customers out there do you think know or care about the rich histories and uniqueness of their brands ? You're in Vancouver so you know exactly what I mean ...... next time look at those drivers and see if they look like gearheads like us ?? The same rationale applies to 9-7X. Saab doesn't want it as a core product (obviously) but it needs it in the interim so it can move forward and hopefully reclaim its roots and heritage and give us what we really want.

Current 9-7X was designed as an interim measure only. 2nd-gen model will be much more Saab-like.

This debate is stale at best and should be put to rest once and for all. Fact is, right this moment there are more and more happy 9-7X owners out there, and many more potential new ones in the months ahead, and that can only be good news for SAAB's financial bottom line.

Well, that says it all. There's clearly something wrong with a "Saab" that attracts Clownmobile drivers who know nothing about Saabs of past, present, and future.

That said, the rear-end looks exactly like that of any dated, generic GM SUV. The same goes for the side profile. Overall, very awful and a big embarassment for Saab.

 

[SAABISTI]

The 9-7X may be an interim measure, but you can't really compare it to all the other European SUVs out there. Unlike the Saab, the SUVs from Volvo, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, Land Rover, and VW pretty much pack the same qualities that make their respective brands distinctive. They are not questionable, half-assed attempts at generating some cash.

I agree with you that most new Range Rover, Discovery, and LR3 drivers may have never driven a Series Rover in their life, but they know what Land Rover stands for and that's what they want. The Land Rover "image" was what kept the company alive in the era of the terribly ageing Range Rover and the antiquated and unreliable Discovery. An XC90 buyer is most likely a past/present Volvo owner or at least a European car fan, but I doubt he/she would be trading up their PT Cruiser. As a premium brand, you shouldn't want just any customer, b/c image is a big part of a premium car purchase. That may sound elitist, but a company like Saab ought to pick its target market carefully. Trying to appeal to everyone and anyone is a disastrous move.

The problem with Saab's new direction is that it has resulted in alienating traditional Saab fans at the expense of attracting new buyers who know nothing about the brand and even hated Saabs of past. They are only attracted to the ridiculous incentives and GM/Saab's desperate attempts to unload the cars, and are not likely to be long-term devoted customers. Look at the reasons people give for choosing a 9-7X: "way cheaper than competition" and GM incentives/discounts are the biggies - that's just wrong.

I've yet to hear a new BMW driver express their disdain for the 2002, or a Range Rover driver say they hate the Defender. I've also yet to hear they picked their ride b/c they received huge employee discounts or couldn't resist the incentives. I think you know where I'm coming from with this. Sometimes you have to look at the big picture and the long-term consequences of a move, and I don't think that's what Saab/GM are doing.

 

[AggieSaaber]

Funny thing about all of the Saab people who "truly appreciated its history" and whatnot. If they bought enough vehicles, GM wouldn't have had to buy it.

Face it, here is the current status of Saab:

9.2x - A GM brainfart by any standard, really. GM did it just so they could have something else when people came to trade in their 9.3 or 9.5. It's a stopgapper. They had to do something quick. Also, even if people don't buy them, they still see them and it changes their perception of Saab (it's not just the 9.3 and 9.5 anymore) and entices them to come back to see what else Saab has come out with (consumer perception).

9.3/9.5 - This body style is in severe need of a makeover. They're throwing a new V6 in the 9.3 this September that is going to blow people away (not literally, no gunmounts). The Sportcombi will be another Saabophile vehicle that should do really well with previous Saab owners (here in Texas, people don't tend to favor the hatchback, but I think it will do fine, even here).

9.7x - But where does someone go when they've bought 2 or 3 9.3s or 9.5s already? It's the same problem with the Tahoe and Yukon, they're fine to get twice if you have to, but no one wants the same vehicle 3 times in a row. Hence, that line is struggling now. This was designed for people who need some more space, and, face it, it was designed to get a new audience interested in Saab. It drives incredibly well, and will compete with the other "performance" SUVs. This will get GM some cash that it needs so it can increase its brand strength in Saab (and they are investing heavily in Saab, its future is bright with GM). Saab needs new customers in a bad way.


Be prepared though. If you're trying to build a profitable segment, you're going to need new customers. Old customers getting new vehicles is not enough. So, as much as many of you might be sad that the "uneducated" will be buying Saabs, that's the way it is going to be. And, from every indication I've received (I work at a Saab dealer, none of this necessarily reflects their opinion, just mine), there's going to be plenty of new people driving Saabs in the not too distant future.

 

[CleveSaab]

The problem with Saab's new direction is that it has resulted in alienating traditional Saab fans at the expense of attracting new buyers who know nothing about the brand and even hated Saabs of past.

This attitude is what I am tired of.

This is exactly what all the "Classic" :roll: 900 owners said in 1994 when the "NG" 900 came out. A few years later Saab hit thier best sales numbers ever.
I knew nothing about Saab when I bought my very first Saab ( a 1998 900S Convertible), except they had some relation to airplanes.
Thought the C900 was an absolutely HIDEOUS car.

Now... can anyone argue at how much of a Saab enthusiast I've become?
I lead this forum in posts (no I am not proud of that), became a moderator here because I spend SO much time here and try to contribute, am now on my 3rd and 4th "GM Saabs", organized a mini-meet, went to Hershey for the convention, have lots of Saab knick knacks, and even talked 2 people (pushing a 3rd) into buying new Saabs.
ONLY AFTER I bought my second Saab did I come to really appreciate, yes I'll admit, even like the C900. (Gotta' be the coupe, though.)


This is exactly what the "purists" said when the 9-3SS came out. That intro model shattered every Saab sales record.

This is exactly what Porsche enthusiasts said when thier SUV came out.
Porsche is in the black.

Enough, please.

If you don't like it, must you make those that are looking for some serious discord leave the Central and look elsewhere? Must you bring the overall feel of this forum down to slagging off on SUV's and the 9-7X?
Yes it's the net and everyone is entitled to thier opinion, and we certainly don't delete negative posts, but come on.
Those of you that can't stop the bashing, not only hurt Saabcentral....but Saab, as well.

I only hope time will stop this BS. Like the 9-2X forum (and in fact like the SS forum was 'in the beginning'). It was the same thing over there. But lately it's actually been taken over by people who like the cars, and I don't think there's one "slam the 9-2X" on that front page anymore.

 

[Rob in Atlanta]

I don't see what the Reactionaries are getting so upset about. If you don't like the 9-7X or the 9-2X, don't buy it. If you like the 9-3 or the 9-5, buy it. I don't see how it "alienates" the Reactionaries if SAAB still makes a car that the Reactionaries like.

Just imagine 40 years ago when SAAB went from 2-stroke "lawnmower" engines to 4-stroke engines. You know the Reactionaries of that time wailed and moaned over the loss of SAAB-ness. "What..... It isn't a REAL SAAB unless you have to dump a can of oil in the gas at every fill up." How many 2-stroke cars do you see today? Who was right?

 

[SaabKen]

Because 9-7X is an interim measure, that's why it does not offer all the uniqueness that is Saab. GM admitted it, but GM/Saab is working hard to strategize the long-term needs and opportunities of Saab and developing the right portfolio to exploit those opportunities. We live in a society where everything has to be "right now" ..... no patience for waiting. I think most folks here would agree they would have executed the design/engineering of 9-7X differently, but given the circumstances GM/Saab did a decent job. I don't think comparisons with Volvo is fair because they had the XC70 before the Ford PAG takeover and was already planning to launch into the larger crossover SUV segment so they already had XC90 concepts in incubation. Without GM, Saab would have stubbornly stuck with a two-model lineup wondering why the rest of the world hardly notice them anymore. As for comparing the SUVs of BMW, Mercedes, Porsche and VW, they are their own companies with sufficient R&D resources and didn't have to rely on parent companies for quick stopgap solutions. How many LR/RR drivers use their vehicles for off-roading ? Even if they all did, would they do so without all the electronic nannies that are built into their vehicles (like the "traditional Series") just to keep the vehicles operating safely ?

By the late 80s Saab's predicament was due to its own doing (hence buyout from GM). So without GM, Saab wouldn't have even been around to produce the new 9-5 and 9-3 lines (which are more and more being accepted and perceived as "traditional" Saabs as time goes by), let alone future models that will return to Saab's heritage. I sure like to be around when the Sonett IV or the reincarnation of the C900 is launched !

What really annoys me is the myopic, frozen-in-time notion some folks have on the definition of a traditional Saab. What will the Saabers define as Saab tradition in 2015 ? In 2030 ? And how much do we really enjoy our traditional, classic Saabs of the first 30 years from 1960s -> '90s (other than some design and engineering innovations) when we find ourselves stranded unexpectedly because the cars suddently don't start one morning, or burst a head gasket, or fries a DI cassette, or another heater core leak, or another B-motor water pump goes south, or the shifter coupling breaks, or the tranny disintegrates, or the clutch master cylinder leaks (again), yada, yada, yada ? If tradition is so important, why aren't all of us driving two-stroker 95/96s that require a can of oil every few thousand miles ? The 9-2X/9-7X and 9-6X are very non-Saab like because their owners will be spending way less time getting things fixed at the service shop (or side of road) and a LOT more time driving their vehicles. I think that is the big picture GM/Saab is looking at and I applaud them for it.

Appreciating prestige and carefully picking target market is one thing in the olde world, but in a global economy where every player offers a wide range of products and choices, Saab has better do its own outreach or else it will simply shrivel and die a quiet death.

The world has changed, my friend, and so must Saab and its drivers.

The 9-7X may be an interim measure, but you can't really compare it to all the other European SUVs out there. Unlike the Saab, the SUVs from Volvo, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, Land Rover, and VW pretty much pack the same qualities that make their respective brands distinctive. They are not questionable, half-assed attempts at generating some cash.

I agree with you that most new Range Rover, Discovery, and LR3 drivers may have never driven a Series Rover in their life, but they know what Land Rover stands for and that's what they want. The Land Rover "image" was what kept the company alive in the era of the terribly ageing Range Rover and the antiquated and unreliable Discovery. An XC90 buyer is most likely a past/present Volvo owner or at least a European car fan, but I doubt he/she would be trading up their PT Cruiser. As a premium brand, you shouldn't want just any customer, b/c image is a big part of a premium car purchase. That may sound elitist, but a company like Saab ought to pick its target market carefully. Trying to appeal to everyone and anyone is a disastrous move.

The problem with Saab's new direction is that it has resulted in alienating traditional Saab fans at the expense of attracting new buyers who know nothing about the brand and even hated Saabs of past. They are only attracted to the ridiculous incentives and GM/Saab's desperate attempts to unload the cars, and are not likely to be long-term devoted customers. Look at the reasons people give for choosing a 9-7X: "way cheaper than competition" and GM incentives/discounts are the biggies - that's just wrong.

I've yet to hear a new BMW driver express their disdain for the 2002, or a Range Rover driver say they hate the Defender. I've also yet to hear they picked their ride b/c they received huge employee discounts or couldn't resist the incentives. I think you know where I'm coming from with this. Sometimes you have to look at the big picture and the long-term consequences of a move, and I don't think that's what Saab/GM are doing.

 

[SAABISTI]

OK, once again I think I need to clarify my position. I'm not looking to bring down the mood of these forums, nor am I against a Saab SUV. Saab should come up with whatever bodystyle they think will make them more competitive in the market. I am NOT suggesting they stick to 2 "pure-bred" models until they go totally belly-up. Also, I did not say a Saab is not a Saab unless it leaves you stranded on the side of the road at least twice a year.

Nevertheless, the only things the 9-7X has going for it is GM incentives and employee discounts. Other than that, it is by no means competitive against the likes of the X5, the XC90, the LR3, and the M-class. That's all I'm saying. It's a badge-engineered job that will bring Saab downmarket, cheapen the brand's image, and whether it will be a commercial success is anybody's guess.

Clearly, some of you think it's a stellar idea. I don't. So, lets just agree to disagree on this one before someone accuses me of contaminating the forums again.

 

[rdj92807]

Traditional Saab Isn't My Issue

OK, now I have to add some additional comments re the 9-7x. I've only owned the 9-3ss, so I have no roots in "traditional" Saabs per se. So the earlier comments re this do not apply to me whatsoever. What I do know is the difference between a more European vehicle and a traditional GM USA designed vehicle. That's my issue with the 9-7x. GM needs to keep Saab's orientation ONLY as a European style car/truck company. PERIOD. People who shop at Audi, BMW, VW, Saab and Volvo......generally....are NOT looking for a Chevrolet Monte Carlo or a Suburban SUV. Obviously. Different driving styles, lifestyles, and certainly image.

The 9-2 Aero, with it's turbo 4-cylinder and decent driving experience, is not all that far from a Saab/Euro vehicle...except for the interior. In my opinion, a much upgraded interior would make it viable at a reasonable price. GM lately seems to over price it's cars, and then give them away with huge discounts. The recent Pontiac G6 is another classic example of this.

Anyway, the 9-7x is just not a Euro type vehicle, especially when stupid bling-bling chrome wheels are put on it. The one I saw at my dealer was an embarrassment. If you want a puffed up, low-class ride go get a Cadillac Escalade with rotating rims on it. It certainly doesn't belong in a European car dealer. That's my issue.

 

[CleveSaab]

Clearly, some of you think it's a stellar idea. I don't.

But see... here is where you are wrong.

I DO NOT LIKE SUV'S AT ALL and would NEVER consider buying one....
Did you know that? Could you tell from how I post?
No.
I simply root for Saab, I want more and more people to "get into them", and I know there is a market for this vehicle, which will generate profits, which will lead to a new Saab, that I might enjoy.

I don't care what kind of cars the company makes, as long as they have some I DO like.

I used to drive Firebirds, and I didn't think less of Pontiac when they came out with the Cavalier clone, the SUNFIRE.


The newest Saab you have is an '89 Saabisti?!?
Some one is out of touch. :cheesy: <---joke

 

[SaabKen]

I have no proof, but I can imagine there's a percentage of Porsche/BMW/Audi/Volvo/MB owners who despise SUVs/crossovers and who feel their brands sold out because they offer products not in line with the companies original philosophies. Especially Porsche & Audi fans whose respective companies were headed towards financial insolvency in the 80s.

Heck, forget SUV/crossovers, many Porsche hardcores would argue a real Porsche comes with an aircooled rear-mounted boxer ... period. If so, where does that leave all the mid-engined and front-engined models like the 914/924/944/928/Boxster and the Cayenne in its own history books ?

Car companies exist to make money and report to their shareholders (which may include some of us), not to satisfy our personal ethos. If their philosophies happen to strike a cord with certain segments of the population, so be it and voila, they got a loyal following. But the world changes and so must these companies. Saab is no different under GM or on its own.

I echo Cleve's points, as long as all the things GM/Saab is doing will keep Saab around and provide us with some products that we WANT

But see... here is where you are wrong.

I DO NOT LIKE SUV'S AT ALL and would NEVER consider buying one....
Did you know that? Could you tell from how I post?
No.
I simply root for Saab, I want more and more people to "get into them", and I know there is a market for this vehicle, which will generate profits, which will lead to a new Saab, that I might enjoy.

I don't care what kind of cars the company makes, as long as they have some I DO like.

I used to drive Firebirds, and I didn't think less of Pontiac when they came out with the Cavalier clone, the SUNFIRE.


The newest Saab you have is an '89 Saabisti?!?
Some one is out of touch. :cheesy: <---joke