Cons: Some boost lag and torque steer, expensive for a four-cylinder, rapid depreciation
The Bottom Line: An excellent all-around sedan. Roomy, yet more fun to drive than most competitors. But best bought as a used car because of rapid depreciation.
What is a Saab? Once upon a time Saabs were wonderfully idiosyncractic cars, designed by engineers clearly paying little attention to what everyone else was doing. Since GM became involved with the company in the early 1990s, its cars have made use of an increasing number of bits from the GM corporate bin. Soon we’ll actually have Saabs based heavily on the Subaru WRX wagon (to be called the 9-2) and Chevrolet TrailBlazer (9-7). It’s especially hard to see how the latter, a softly suspended body-on-frame truck, will be made into a Saab. But, what is a Saab, anyway?
Even before the 9-2 and 9-7 were announced, journalists were questioning the Saabness of the new 9-3. Like the old 9-3 it was based on the Opel Vectra, but more thoroughly this time around. For one thing, Saab’s own engine was tossed in favor of GM’s Ecotec. Also, many pointed out, the hatch was gone, signaling a move to the mainstream. However, back in the 1980s, before GM ever got involved, nearly all (all?) four-door 900s sold in the U.S. had trunks, not hatches. And no one disputed their Saabness.
I personally had other issues with the 9-3. I remembered the old 1980s 900, the last 100 percent Saab. I recalled a high, open driving position and roomy rear seat. The current 9-3 has neither. When I voiced my disappointment, the salesman recommended I check out the 9-5 in high-performance Aero trim. Is the older, larger Saab still the better Saab?
Styling
The 9-5 succeeded the 9000 back in the spring of 1998 as an early 1999 model. The 9000 first appeared in 1986, the product of a joint venture with Fiat. It initially had little Saabness, or style for that matter. Over the next decade, though, the car was periodically restyled and updated, ultimately looking and feeling like a proper Saab. The 9-5 took up where the 9000 left off. I personally find it the better looking of the two Saabs, with a streamlined front end, sporty rake to its beltline, and none of the 9-3’s plumpness. Unlike many past Saabs, the 9-5 is well-proportioned, without excessive overhangs or odd curves. Yet it’s still distinctive. A rare combination.
I drove the sedan because it was in stock with a manual, but personally would be more interested in the wagon. If anything the wagon is more attractive than the sedan. The sweeping C and D pillars are executed especially well. Next to this wagon the Volvo continues to look like a box and the Audi like an overweight blob.
In past years the 9-5 Aero’s wheels were an odd three-spoke design. The ten-spoke wheels fitted to the car recently are much more attractive, if less distinctive. Usually I do not care for wheels with so many spokes, but these wheels on this car look good.
Inside the 9-5 retains Saab’s traditional cockpit styling. The top of the instrument panel, center stack, and center console form a continuous curve around the driver. Not a bad concept, but the execution is off. The shapes of the semicircular instrument cluster and rectangular control assemblies bear no relation to this continuous curve. Their shape, especially that of the control assemblies, does not fit the overall theme and their placement appears haphazard. It’s like, “Well, there’s space for a cupholder here, and the stability control/OnStar buttons here...” Not only do these various controls not relate in any logical manner with the overall theme, but they also do not line up in any logical fashion with one another. For example, the vent above the main control assembly does not line up with it. I am reminded of a kit car. Did the stylists just establish the overall theme, then go home?
Another odd detail: the 160-MPH speedometer was clearly designed by engineers. To both have numbers up to 160 and have those up to 90 far enough apart that people can actually read the thing at a glance, the numbers below 90 are in a larger font and more widely spaced. Also, the numbers form nearly a complete circle. Functional, but not attractive.
Functional, but not especially attractive sums up much of the interior. This is better than the 9-3, which while perhaps a bit more attractive inside is much less functional. For instance, the 9-5 lacks the 9-3’s separate locations for the controls and their LCD readouts. This separation is present in an increasing number of cars, and I hate it. It makes adjusting the controls much more difficult, and you must keep glancing between two different locations.
Maybe the 9-5’s interior designers got tired of arguing with the engineers over the instrument panel and decided to concentrate their efforts on the door panels. These caught my eye in a good way, with artfully curved door pulls integrated well into the various curves of the door panel design. Nice.
The quality of materials is solid, but not luxurious. They’re not quite up to those in a Volvo, but close. Lexus and Audi have nothing to fear here.
Accommodations
I was not satisfied with many aspects of the 9-3’s seating. The 9-5 did not suffer from the same shortcomings. To begin with, the driving position is much better. The instrument panel is much lower relative to the driver’s seat, affording a much more expansive view forward. The driver’s seat itself is much better bolstered, larger, and plusher. It provides decidedly superior comfort and lateral support.
The 9-5’s rear seat is much roomier than the 9-3’s, especially for knees. It’s also higher off the floor, provided better thigh support. One weakness: toe room under the front seats is in shorter supply than in the 9-3.
Saabs have traditionally provided abundant cargo room, and the 9-5’s does not disappoint. To further enlarge the cargo area, the rear seat folds in two sections. Unlike in the 9-3, the seat cushion must be tipped forward before folding the seatback. This is less convenient, but enables a flat load floor in conjunction with the higher rear seat position.
The wagon’s cargo area is very expansive. Unfortunately, given my needs, a third-row seat is not available. For this feature in a wagon you’ll have to buy an Audi, Volvo, Mercedes, or Ford.
On the Road
The 9-5’s greatest weakness is likely its possession of only four cylinders. Nowhere else can you spend so much on a four-cylinder sedan. Last year the Arc was powered by a six, but for 2004 all 9-5s have a turbocharged 2.3-liter four. At least it’s a good four, much smoother, quieter, and more refined than most. I hit the rev limiter (at 6000 RPM very low for a 16-valve four) a couple of times because the engine remains smooth and fairly quiet all the way up—there is little auditory hint that the redline approacheth.
Still, I’d rather have a six. Even a good four like this one still possesses the gruff, agricultural “song” of a four. This gruffness does not befit a luxury sedan.
The difference between the three 9-5 engines is the amount of boost produced by the turbo, yielding 185 horsepower in the Linear (wagon only this year), 220 in the Arc, and 250 in the Aero I drove, in each case at a fairly low 5300 RPM. In each engine a wide, flat torque curve peaks before 2000 RPM.
Boost lag is present at moderate RPM as the turbo spins up and pressurizes the intake, but less than in the average turbo. At highway speeds such lag is nearly absent. I found both the 9-3 and 9-5 turbo fours more driveable than Volvo's turbo fives. In the Aero once the turbo spins up the speedo needle moves quickly. The generous amount of midrange torque yields a pleasant push in the lower back.
With 258 foot-pounds of torque being channeled through the front wheels, I expected a generous amount of torque steer. Thankfully, I did not find it. Instead, torque steer is present, but moderate.
Not everything traditionally Saab is good. For one thing, the 9-5 continues the Saab tradition of notchy yet vague shifters. It is not easy to shift this car smoothly. The manual remains a five-speed. For a six-speed in a Saab you’ll have to go with the 9-3. In fifth the engine spins a bit over 2000 RPM at 60, good for noise and fuel economy. (The EPA ratings of 21/29 are quite good for a roomy, 250-horsepower sedan.)
The 9-5 leans more than the average midsize sport sedan in hard turns, but I found it easy and enjoyable to drive quickly. The steering is responsive, feels natural, and provides good feedback. The 225/45-17 tires are not especially wide, but grip well enough.
With the Aero’s performance suspension and low-profile tires, I expected a harsh ride. Instead, I found the ride to be composed even over pockmarked roads. You’ll feel the road surface a bit, but it never approached being harsh in my experience. To the extent that road imperfections made it through to the seat of my pants I felt this enhanced the sporty character of the car and my ability to judge what was going on at the tires’ contact patches. Judging from this acceptable ride quality and the amount of lean in turns, even in the Aero the suspension tuning is not ultra-firm. I suspect more people will wish for firmer tuning than softer tuning.
In general, the 9-5 feels more luxurious than the 9-3, as it should. Wind noise is moderately low in both cars, but road noise in significantly lower in the 9-5.
Overall, the 9-5 performed better than I expected, and better than the market has given it credit for. For maximum velocity along a twisty back road you’ll probably want something more compact and more stiffly sprung, but if you’re seeking a good balance of passenger room, driving enjoyment, and ride quality the 9-5 should be at or near the top of your list.
Safety
Saab has not made as much of a name for itself as Volvo in terms of safety, but it has long put a great deal of effort into this area. The 9-5 has a nearly full array of safety features: ABS, stability control, active head restraints, and four airbags among them. Notably absent are curtain airbags and brake assist. I suspect these are being held for the next 9-5, due in a couple of years. Even without these features, Saab tends to design its body structures to be very safe, and I would expect the 9-5 to fare very well in this area.
Pricing
With the $500 “Sport Tech” package and $500 metallic paint the 9-5 Aero sedan lists for $41,160, a lot for a four-cylinder car. (Add about $700 for the wagon.) Edmunds suggests that the typical dealer discount reduces this to about $39,400. Usually Saab has heavy incentives on this car, but currently these appear limited to 1.9-percent financing. My advice: if you're interested in the 9-5, wait until later in the model year.
Saab is currently advertising that its cars are priced less than comparable Volvo models. Well, there is no comparable Volvo model to the manual 9-5 Aero, as the S80 is only available with an automatic. More comparable cars are available from Audi and BMW. Next spring the revised 2005 Cadillac CTS might also be worth a look (until then the manual is only available with the old 3.2-liter engine and the interior remains a bit short on luxury).
An Audi A6 2.7T with heated leather sport seats lists for $46,040, before the metallic paint for which I could not find a price. Even after a hefty dealer discount the Audi runs about $43,600. So it’s about $4,600 more than the Saab. The Audi has a nicer interior and smoother, better-sounding engine, but does not handle as well as the Saab. I personally also have more faith in the reliability of the Saab based on Consumer Reports and J.D. Power data.
Even skipping the $3,300 sport package and $1,800 premium sound, a BMW 530i is pricey, with a list of $48,270 (again without the price of metallic paint, about $500). Dealers are not discounting these much; Edmunds suggests a typical price of about $47,600. So about $8,600 more than the Saab even without comparable features. Add in the sport package and premium sound, the the gap widens to about $13,500.
There are no Japanese sedans directly comparable to the 9-5 I drove. One class down the Infiniti G35 and Acura TL are contenders. Their prices are in the low 30s.
Overall, the price of the 9-5 seems high to me, until I consider the alternatives. For a roomy, sporty luxury sedan it’s just about the least expensive alternative. If only the engine had a couple more cylinders it would be much more competitive. A bit too much Saabness…
A final issue: The 9-5 tends to depreciate rapidly. A 2002 Aero sedan can be bought used for about $24,000. That seems a much better deal than a new 2004 for $39,000.
Final Words
In the 9-5 I found much more of what I consider a Saab to be than in the 9-3. The driving position is open, the rear seat is roomy and comfortable, and the general feel is very sporty. Less expected was a good if not class-leading level of refinement. Overall this car deserves more consideration than it has received. I strongly suspect that the number of cylinders has held it back. While I hope that the car’s strengths are retained when it is redesigned for 2006, it might be time to find a good six for this car. A turbocharged version of the 3.6 in the CTS would be very nice… With the amount of power such an engine would produce, all-wheel-drive might also be a good idea.
Recommended:
Yes
Amount Paid (US$): 41,160
Model and Options: Aero sedan
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.