AudiDude

Curious to hear if anyone else has opinions on / test driven the new Saab 9-3 Arc. Also, former Saab owners, how does the car's build hold-up over time, is it as solid as MB?

My issues with the Arc:

1) It's a GM
2) High pressure turbo impact on long-term reliability
3) Still a little turbo lag, but better than my friend's 9-5
4) Interior is a bit 'different'

On the pro side:

1) Great standard equipment - killer stereo, etc
2) 4 wheel steering, drives tight and surprinsingly fun for FWD
3) Safety / traction systems on par with MB (seemingly)
4) $5500 in dealer / consumer incentives - out the door for 3k under invoice, easy

M-B-Michael

I thought of one...

In fact, a pal of mine was "sedan" shopping the same time I was. He bought that Saab, I bought the 230K Sport Sedan.

They are both fine enough cars, but now, when he stops in my driveway, HE says "you know, in 4 years you will still have a Mercedes, and all I will have an OLD used Saab."

You may be able to tell, he is kicking himself. He got one of those killer buys on his too. He ended up going that way because of: A. the deal. And: B. We have some friends that told him stories of their Saabs going 200-300K miles.

The problem is... Who wants one for 200-300K miles?

Anyhow, I have 6 pals with Saabs. One guy had a late 900S, I drove it 1600 miles. Neat, but it had repair after repair, then the hatch rusted THROUGH, then he could not sell it to save his life.

Mercedes for me thank you.

.elijah.

Saabs are GM? Produced and designed by? Considered American or what? Please elaborate! Thanks...

young

does anyone else get tired of comments like, "saabs are gm" or "jaguars are fords"? can these cars never again stand on their own merit b/c they are owned by a big american company?
-

the saab 9-3 seems ok to me. i think the newer ones are much better quality. here's Autoweek's article on 9-3 arc and vector . i think they have some great leasing values.

i like the newly designed 9-3's exterior but the interior looks relatively the same. and i didn't like that. sort of a vertical flat design. i didn't test drive it though. (i like the location of the ignition)

if it came down to those 2 choices, i'd get the 230k sedan.

Nola

Of course, you seldom hear "Dodges are Benzes"

tommy

It's kind of an unfair comparison. The Arc is better equipped, has more hp, and is more costly than a 230.
The only real apples to apples that I can see would be a 320 vs. a vector.

My brother-in-law's looking at them right now, so I've been to the Saab dealer a couple of times. I like the car, though wish they had kept the hatch design. I used to have an '83 900S, and totally loved it, though it did keep breaking down. The body hardware was great.

AFAIK, it uses a GM platform, but its engine and all switches (note to Jaguar ) are Saab, as is the most important part, the location of the ignition.

They're still quirky, though more mainstream now. The seats have always been top notch on them. Torque steer, from all reports, has finally been dealt with meaningfully.

I'll give the usual response: take them both on long test drives, and judge for yourself.

young

oops... i actually looked at a 9-3 linear and was thinking about that car when i posted above.

i'd agree that a 320 vs an arc or vector would make more sense.

Kal Rubinson

First, that's the best advice: Take long and serious test drives.

Also, how long are you planning to keep the car and what is your use for it (aside from getting from Point A to Point B)? We do 3year leases on our cars which, as a result, are never out of warranty. We've had 2 Saabs before the current C320 and been extremely happy with them, especially their stowing/hauling capacity.

In fact, it is due, in great part, to the elimination of the hatchback Saab that lead us elsewhere, to the C320 Wagon. I found the older 9-3 (1999) was more inducive to sporty driving than the C320, at least initially, but that the long term comfort, driving and riding, in the C320 was superior. But not by that much.

No quality problems with any of these cars in my experience.

AudiDude

"does anyone else get tired of comments like, "saabs are gm" or "jaguars are fords"? can these cars never again stand on their own merit b/c they are owned by a big american company?"

9-3s now use GM's new "Epsilon" vehicle architecture, same as will be used on Grand Ams, Impalas, Malibus, Monte Carlos and others. The engine is based on the corporate Ecotec engine block.

To me, such heavy cross-brand application of components validates my GM comment.


It's kind of an unfair comparison. The Arc is better equipped, has more hp, and is more costly than a 230.

Arc is going for 27-28k, all options but sport pkg, plus tax and tags of course.


you know, in 4 years you will still have a Mercedes, and all I will have an OLD used Saab. You may be able to tell, he is kicking himself. He got one of those killer buys on his too

lmao, that sounds familiar. my father has a 9-5, from one of those killer buys. why do you think they have to discount them so much?


First, that's the best advice: Take long and serious test drives.

Very sound advice, the 20 minute spin around the block isn't cutting it here. I'm going to own this next car for at least 5 years.

czachari

Engine, handling, room and build quality seemed good. The interior was worse than a checy cavalier though. The cheapest plastics everywhere. I think even kias and Hyundais have better plastics than that these days. If I am going to spend 1+ hour a day in my car I need to see and touch nice materials. The saab was nowhere near the C230 level of refinement.
I test drove the following:

9-3 Linear CHEAP
G35 Auto LOUD engine (not in a good way ) and not as fast as the engine suggests. Not as refined as MBZ&Audi

Audi A4 1.8T Close 2nd to the MBZ, the brand name of MBZ tilted the balance. The A4 was going to be 1K cheaper even though it had quattro. Without Quattro it would have been 2.5K cheaper. BEST INTERIOR of all these cars.

C230K Sedan GREAT, bit pricey

Volvo S60 NO HID! That killed the deal. Very good otherwise

BMW, I 've driven too many of them I wanted something different.



CZ

Tai230K

One of my friends just got the 9-3 linear... with the linear package (10 spoke wheels, in dash cd, sunroof and a power seat only on the driver side.. etc) and auto tranny.... also the stock xenons had a green hue... pretty nice

the inside is ok... it's green everywhere... what i found neat was its boost gauge... although kinda useless for the everyday driver haha... there was also a neat computer display set up on the dash... when i sat in the passenger side and the rear seat i noticed it was a bit plasticy.... but nothing really noticeable... i think he paid a little under 30k for his linear.. not bad considering, free service and its a sedan.... the exterior looks pretty nice, nice stock body kit and all...... nice little car but it's still a saab....

sure_mac

I too have been considering both of those cars. The 230K sedan was the first car I test drove and I recently test drove a 9-3 Linear (they didn't have any Arcs ready yet).

Must admit even the 175hp of the Linear seemed to move it pretty well, the 210hp of the Arc/Vector should be even nicer.

Interior wise the Linear was no comparison to the 230K but I plan to check out an Arc when available to see if its better. Overall the Saab seemed like a capable car but it was no Mercedes.

young

ok. so it's a gm. is that bad? i know impalas... cops use impalas... the saab 9-3 is no impala. (sorry, best i could do...)

anyway, my point is that just b/c they share even significant parts, it doesn't mean that b/c an impala is a crappy car, that a saab 9-3 is a crappy car. look at a c240 vs a c32... it shares a ton of parts. i'd have a difficult time saying that a c32 is only a typical c-class sedan. what do you think?

ps i'm not saying a c240 is a crappy car.

AudiDude

lol, I understand what you mean. I guess my point is that I like the idea of driving a more unique car... one made of the core components that best served its reason to exist - not just the parts that were most cost efficient and then wrapped-up in different packages to appeal to dramatically different market segments.

A little wishy-washy, I guess... but one that caters more to German engineering principles than Madison Avenue.

The chassis has actually received great reviews. The engine sounds a little too much like a souped-up Saturn though.

Sure_mac, I think you'll be pleased to see the interior improvements in the Arc. A lot is subjective and I think it is still a little cheapy, but much better than the Linear. It feels significantly faster than the Linear when accelerating at hwy speeds.

Mike T.

Ever since the days of the Saab 96, they've been compromised by the use of others' engines and components. In the case of the 96, I refer of course to the use of the Ford V-4 engine in that car. The definitive 96 and 92 before it were the three cylinder 850 cc two strokes - the version that was supreme in rallying in the early 1960s in the hands of Erik Carlsson... ring-di-ding-ding

Then there's the first of the 99s. That's the car that later mutated into the 99 Turbo and then the 900 and all its variations. Did you know that this model shared the 2 L OHC engine with the Triumph TR7 and Austin Princess? Yep, good old British Leyland engineering Fortunately, considerable development work was done on that engine by Saab in later years to the point where it became nearly unrecognisable...and a fair bit more reliable.

Then came the 9000 - it shared a platform with the Fiat Croma, Alfa Romeo 164 and Lancia Thema. And it had the BL-derived engine. Too bad it didn't get the Alfa V-6 too (the best engine of this type in the world, hands-down).

Now the new ones are based on the floorpan of the Opel Vectra. Maybe that's where they get the silly Arc Vector name from Should have called it Blitz Vectra... (in-joke, take a look at an Opel logo).

In any event it is not exaggeration to write that the GM heritage of the current Saab models is strong. I am making no comment on its quality or engineering, as Opels are pretty decent cheapish cars. The bottom line is that Saab's a low volume producer (in fact GM brass are upset with them for their lack of ambition) and command a loyal but very small following. They are a depreciation disaster, so be warned. Rather like a big Peugeot (607) or Renault (Vel Satis). That's not helped by the huge incentives that are being offered.

Drive both and decide for yourself. But unless you're planning to keep the car for the long haul (10+ years), give the Saab a pass.

steve s

9-3 linear = fwd, epsilon platform (which opel and alfa romeo uses, if u'd like something other than the not-so-good u.s. models) which now makes the 9-3 equipped with fully independent rear suspension, unlike the older models with the solid rear axle. torque steer probably still there no mattar how hard they said they tried. saab is in serious red ink still...after all these years after gm bought them out. something to think about... but it's something not as common as the c230... it's got their own loyal following too...kinda semi-cult like. it's a swede...

c230...well, rwd, but uses one of the least powerful engine in mb's u.s. lineup. see it very often on the streets...expensive dealer charges if u don't know someone...


they've been late. it's gonna be on the s60r and v70r models.

czachari

There are way more E and S Class around than C-Class. I see more E class and 3-series BMWs than most other cars ( I exclude suvs because they outnumber everything else ).

CZ

AudiDude

Very informative replies tonight, thank you.


Steve, what do you mean by:
expensive dealer charges if u don't know someone...
for the MB?

Thanks