http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale ... ex=5&Log=0
As a refresher, the second generation 9-3 starts in 2003 and is basically still running. The platform was switched to GM Epsilon, shared with the 2004-2012 Malibu amongst others, which I believe was a pretty substantial improvement (new platforms usually are). As far as engines, the B235R is gone. But the car in the link above has the LP9 2.8L V6 turbo. Specs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_High_Fe ... #LP9_Turbo
Looks like 250hp and 260lb-ft. As you can see from the wiki link, the highest output form of this engine (and therefore the most interesting) was put in the euro-market Opel/Vauxhall Insignia at 321 hp and 321 lb-ft (GM Epsilon II). The highest US market form of the engine looks like the 2010-2012 9-5 where it made 300 hp and 300 lb-ft. The platform switched to Epsilon II to get this engine, as you may imagine the old platform really was never built for that kind of power. As a side note, the 9-5 ran the old GM2900 platform until 2009 (2010 for the wagon), though perhaps the 9-5 included more mods to enable it to have a longer lifecycle than it did under the 98-02 9-3.
I can't quite figure out other interesting statistics such as what was the most powerful 9-3 on FWD. Epsilon II, by the way, has really turned into quite a nice platform. Epsilon II also underpins such well-reviewed cars as the 2010+ Buick Lacrosse, 2013+ Malibu, 2014+ Impala and even the 2013+ Cadillac XTS.
So what about fuel economy on that LP9?
Fueleconomy.gov paints an interesting picture. I would have assumed this new V6 would not get anywhere near the fuel economy of the old B235R. I will have to check fuelly for real world data. But in the mean time, the fuel economy rating of the 2006 9-3 Aero SportCombi is 18/28 on the old system and 16/26 on the new system. For reference, a 2002 9-3 Viggen was rated at 19/28 on the old system and 17/26 on the new system. On paper, they should be very similar. I have a funny feeling the 2.8 will get more than 1mpg poorer fuel economy in the real world, however.
I did a little wiki digging and this 2.8L was actually brand new for 2005. In naturally aspirated form it was called the LP1, and was only put in one car. It was the new base engine for the 2005-2007 Cadillac CTS (I didn't know this - I had assumed the 3.6L was standard). It made 210 hp @ 6500rpm. So my first impression was that the LP9 was more of a mid-pressure type application, but the wiki considers it high pressure.
Also perhaps of interest is the Epsilon cars seem to not be as dirt cheap as the GM2900 platform cars (98-02 9-3). Not sure if that's just age or something else. I would be curious to drive one.
Saab stuff
Re: Saab stuff
TTAC review of a 2006 (I believe the pictures may be of a 2007):
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2006/0 ... portcombi/
The back seat is still cramped. It had its flaws (both the car and the review itself) but they seemed to enjoy it overall. They tested the automatic also. In other good news, the torque steer has been thoroughly tamed.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2006/0 ... portcombi/
The back seat is still cramped. It had its flaws (both the car and the review itself) but they seemed to enjoy it overall. They tested the automatic also. In other good news, the torque steer has been thoroughly tamed.
Re: Saab stuff
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/200 ... -road-test
Oy, 3648 lbs. So more luxury and less sporty, though it seems the steering is quite good. And with a 97mph trap, the power to weight is certainly respectable.
Oy, 3648 lbs. So more luxury and less sporty, though it seems the steering is quite good. And with a 97mph trap, the power to weight is certainly respectable.
Re: Saab stuff
How about some discussion on Saab in general?
You read these articles and you see a trend: everyone references the Saab heyday of the 80s, with the 900 turbo being the highest echelon. One premise is that GM "ruined" the brand. Ok, but there's no content in that statement to have an intellectual discussion. So let me offer my own premise: GM systematically removed some of the Saab-unique characteristics, and replaced that with characteristics that were meant to have more broad appeal. But there is one assumption that some folks make: that if GM was to keep the Saab-ness and perhaps enhanced it, that Saab would have enjoyed continued success. That claim fundamentally requires a big enough base of buyers that are, basically, Saab enthusiasts. And I'm wondering if those folks were too small a group. But by "generifying" the car each successive generation to reach a wider audience, Saab/GM failed to bring in new buyers, while alienating the old niche. In a nutshell, I think that describes what happened.
Let me also paint a slightly different perspective. The Saab 900 turbo in the 80s was special. Aside from whatever specific things it did well, more importantly, it elevated itself when comparing to the other cars of the 80s. In short, some of the specialness of that car was borne from (no, not jets) being a decent/interesting car in an era of terrible or, at best, boring cars. In the 90s and into the 2000s, that relative advantage was lost, for whatever reason. By the 2000s, it's not so much that the cars themselves were bad (they had their benefits and flaws like any other car), but perhaps more that there was nothing special about them. There was no compelling reason to select a Saab over ALL of the other competition. I believe Volvo, though in a delayed fashion, has fallen victim to the same exact trend, if you read a review of the single most interesting car they make: the S60 R-Design. That doesn't say much about their less interesting cars.
You can see it in the reviews of the 9-3 Aero SportCombi. It's a decent enough car with some performance, but so what? The auto industry is an immensely competitive field. A decent, but not exceptional, car with some, but not exceptional, performance and a high price tag isn't going to sell in huge numbers, is it?
At the end of the day, we're really talking about used cars. And whether or not GM/Saab failed at some mission is almost entirely irrelevant. Why is it not completely irrelevant? Because that failure often translates to used car value.
You read these articles and you see a trend: everyone references the Saab heyday of the 80s, with the 900 turbo being the highest echelon. One premise is that GM "ruined" the brand. Ok, but there's no content in that statement to have an intellectual discussion. So let me offer my own premise: GM systematically removed some of the Saab-unique characteristics, and replaced that with characteristics that were meant to have more broad appeal. But there is one assumption that some folks make: that if GM was to keep the Saab-ness and perhaps enhanced it, that Saab would have enjoyed continued success. That claim fundamentally requires a big enough base of buyers that are, basically, Saab enthusiasts. And I'm wondering if those folks were too small a group. But by "generifying" the car each successive generation to reach a wider audience, Saab/GM failed to bring in new buyers, while alienating the old niche. In a nutshell, I think that describes what happened.
Let me also paint a slightly different perspective. The Saab 900 turbo in the 80s was special. Aside from whatever specific things it did well, more importantly, it elevated itself when comparing to the other cars of the 80s. In short, some of the specialness of that car was borne from (no, not jets) being a decent/interesting car in an era of terrible or, at best, boring cars. In the 90s and into the 2000s, that relative advantage was lost, for whatever reason. By the 2000s, it's not so much that the cars themselves were bad (they had their benefits and flaws like any other car), but perhaps more that there was nothing special about them. There was no compelling reason to select a Saab over ALL of the other competition. I believe Volvo, though in a delayed fashion, has fallen victim to the same exact trend, if you read a review of the single most interesting car they make: the S60 R-Design. That doesn't say much about their less interesting cars.
You can see it in the reviews of the 9-3 Aero SportCombi. It's a decent enough car with some performance, but so what? The auto industry is an immensely competitive field. A decent, but not exceptional, car with some, but not exceptional, performance and a high price tag isn't going to sell in huge numbers, is it?
At the end of the day, we're really talking about used cars. And whether or not GM/Saab failed at some mission is almost entirely irrelevant. Why is it not completely irrelevant? Because that failure often translates to used car value.
Re: Saab stuff
Looking at fuelly, I have some data. But fuelly sucks at sorting out individual trim levels of cars, so this doesn't really represent Viggen vs Aero. But it's some data.
98-02 9-3 mileage averages range from 23-28 mpg for all available 4 cylinder engines.
The 03+ 9-3 with the V6 (all of them, not just the Aero) ranges from 18-22.5 mpg. I think that's more the difference I would have expected. But also keep in mind automatics are lumped in here. The auto Aero was only 1mpg worse in the city rating than the manual Aero, but again, real world may reflect a larger advantage for the manual. Or it may not.
Now looking at 4 cylinder 03+ 9-3s I see average ranges from 23-31 mpg.
Take this with a huge grain of salt though, as a Viggen vs Aero comparison I think is really what is needed. Why would anyone not buy the top engine if they got one of these cars? There's no point.
98-02 9-3 mileage averages range from 23-28 mpg for all available 4 cylinder engines.
The 03+ 9-3 with the V6 (all of them, not just the Aero) ranges from 18-22.5 mpg. I think that's more the difference I would have expected. But also keep in mind automatics are lumped in here. The auto Aero was only 1mpg worse in the city rating than the manual Aero, but again, real world may reflect a larger advantage for the manual. Or it may not.
Now looking at 4 cylinder 03+ 9-3s I see average ranges from 23-31 mpg.
Take this with a huge grain of salt though, as a Viggen vs Aero comparison I think is really what is needed. Why would anyone not buy the top engine if they got one of these cars? There's no point.
Re: Saab stuff
Other interesting Saab-related facts: the successor to the LP9 was the LAU. The LAU put out similar power (300hp and 295lb-ft). What's interesting is that engine was available in the 2010 Cadillac SRX (and only that year). The linkage to Saab is that the LAU was also used in the 2011 Saab 9-4X, which shared its platform with the Cadillac SRX (so-called Theta premium, which is to say a regular Theta, as in Chevy Equinox, with some premium chassis elements from the Epsilon II).
They only made 457 of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_9-4X
Kind of sad because a premium Saab crossover could have done well, had it not come during all the GM unpleasantness. I should note that the 2nd gen SRX is a good, but not stellar, seller (a consistent 51,000 to 56,000 per year, about double the US sales of the BMW X3).
Had that situation been different, I think it's possible GM may have eventually figured out what to do with Saab (besides divest it). My evidence is the fact that as the years progressed, the platforms and powertrains clearly became more and more integrated with GM. That was bolstered by the fact that those powertrains and platforms were, year by year, improving. At least that would ensure the basic cars were decent. But that whole Saab-ness issue is harder to solve. Good seats and the ignition switch on the console is not enough. Perhaps, like Cadillac, GM would have had to invest in reinventing Saab.
They only made 457 of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_9-4X
Kind of sad because a premium Saab crossover could have done well, had it not come during all the GM unpleasantness. I should note that the 2nd gen SRX is a good, but not stellar, seller (a consistent 51,000 to 56,000 per year, about double the US sales of the BMW X3).
Had that situation been different, I think it's possible GM may have eventually figured out what to do with Saab (besides divest it). My evidence is the fact that as the years progressed, the platforms and powertrains clearly became more and more integrated with GM. That was bolstered by the fact that those powertrains and platforms were, year by year, improving. At least that would ensure the basic cars were decent. But that whole Saab-ness issue is harder to solve. Good seats and the ignition switch on the console is not enough. Perhaps, like Cadillac, GM would have had to invest in reinventing Saab.
Re: Saab stuff
Bob says none of the above issues sound terribly bad and that this was the only review so far out of about 25 that even mentioned some kind of failure.I drive the 2007 9-3 Aero, have 48K miles on it and purchased it new. I took advantage of the huge GM incentives at the time and paid $29K for a $35K listed car. I opted out of Navigation and Touring package but as a Northeasterner I picked up the winter package which includes swapping my wheels/tire twice per year. Great move for areas with snow. Even with just FWD, the smaller diamater wheel with snow tires blazes inclement with ease. This is my 9th car as I've owned VW, Audi and BMW's previously. Without question the Saab falls short to BMW and Audi for overall interior appointments but for the money, I can argue the car hangs tough in performance and most especially safety/smart design. I've only had 3 headaches with the car. 1. Battery failure with 25K miles. (dealership claims the sophiscated computer systems wear hard on the batteries) 2. Coolant overflow bladder failed twice. (Recall on the item and cared for easily) 3. Coolant hose failed and forced tow to the dealership. (Not a big deal, was fixed easliy) One other issue I had was the car sputtering/almost stalling at idle. This was my fault entirely as I was running 87 octane. The salesman at the time suggested this would be okay given the $4/gallon prices. WRONG. Run nothing less than 93 octane in this vehicle and use a trusted brand only like Citgo, Sunoco, Exxon/Mobil, etc. This engine is turbo charged and will react very negatively to low grade fuel. The last point I wish to make is the time I put the car on the rivet. I pushed the to an excess of 70MPH on back very windy road. On one riser the car caught air and landed perfectly on it's trajectory. Even my BMW's didn't handle that well. It's suspension takes a beating and comes back for me. Great power to weight balance for stable performance. Overall great value if you're looking for a fun driving car and you don't car about interior luxury.
So, discussion: were the GM Epsilon Saabs better than the GM2900 platform 9-3's?
One guy at work has an 08 with 66k and has no horror stories to report.
Re: Saab stuff
I know a guy with a 1st generation 9-3. His ownership has been ... problematic.kevm14 wrote:So, discussion: were the GM Epsilon Saabs better than the GM2900 platform 9-3's?