Tex's post hits on something I've been thinking about for a while. I'm
interested in buying a used Saab convertible, and was wondering what years
are "good"?

I've owned older Saabs, a 1966 96 2 stroke, a couple of Sonett 3's, and a
couple of mid-80's 900's.

My 900 Turbo was great, so I would even consider an "old type" 900
convertible, but I would also appreciate any input as to how new of a
convertible I could buy before it got too far away from being a "real" Saab.

Thanks in advance!

Mike in Florida

I am in the latter group as well.  Face the facts: platform sharing is
here to stay.  Ever car maker is doing it.  But making the next 9-3 in
Germany with the Vectra is going a bit far.

My own category would just like to see Saab models evolve as modern efficient
cars, with regard to unique style and Scandinavian driving conditions. This
seems less likely under present GM management.

BTW, Visiting my usual Saab dealer, I found that they now have a Mazda
show room. This is an odd combination since Mazda is associated with Ford.
However, had they chosen GM Vauxhall, then I guess their Saabs would stick
out as dressed-up Vauxhalls, whereas Mazda is more complementary to the
Saab range. Walking around there, it will be difficult to choose, since
the Mazdas are good value, whereas Saab have more prestige (still)...

Tex: I think there is a big difference between a Saab engineered NG900
using some GM parts and a Subaru with a Saab tweaked interior... or a
GM truck with a Saab badge.

While all brands seem to be going cross platform, the Saab part is
being removed entirely from Saabs. They are doing that with other
acquisitions too. GM is just building a new generation
of what they did with buick/olds/chevy/pontiac. One car, multiple
trims. They've just realized how stupid that was with the original
GM brands and are shutting down redundant products - but too stupid
to realize that they are doing it again with all the brands they
just bought. Corporate morons, once and forever.

I guess I fall in the middle. I consider all but the 9^2 and 9^7 to be
saabs, even now.

Keep in mind that GM is also trying to reduce the safety of the Saabs as
well. The 9^7 SUV (Trollblazer, TrailBlaab) is anti Saab and less safe
than any other current Saab. Keep in mind that safety is not only how
well it absorbs energy in an accident, but also how nimble and
controllable the vehicle is which allowy the driver to avoid an accident.

The 9^2 is an Subaru with saab refinements. The platform has not been
enhanced for safety like a swedish designed model (at least to date!)
The GM900 was compromised at best. I had one and got rid of it in a
year. The C9^3 (98-02)was , purportedly better, though I have no
experience with that. I have my family in a 9k and will move to a used
9^5 when it is time.

I am not saying that Saab engineering is perfect, look at the T7
engines. Sludge and short life is a problem because of the inherent
design problems AND the GM inspired long oil change interval. They have
still not fixed the PCV issue which is a contributor. All they have done
is extend the engine warranty as a show of goodwill. The soultion is to
move back to a more T5 piston style which they are not doing as the
engine is dead once the current 9^5 plays out. The NG9^5 will have the
(seriously Saab enhanced) global4 and the learnings here may not apply.
I really do not know as I have never taken one apart.

Lutz has said that the bleeding needs to stop and that Saab 'wasted' so
much money on the redevelopment of the new 9^3. In his mind, the
platform was perfect and should have been used 'as is' and Saab just
needed to hang body panels on it and slap a leather interior in it and
be done. Saab engineers, refined the platform for safety (steel supports
where the general uses magnesium or AL for weight). Instead of seeing
this as a positive development that they could incorporate in all other
common platform models, they see it as extra waste. Ditto for the
pendulum engine mount system developed for reduced torque steer in the
face of 200+ hp in a fwd platform! even though the same block and
platform are used in the rest of world and these developments could have
been amortized over the product line for years to come. Ditto for the
CAN system developned for the 9^3. The way I see this one is that it was
to offset the added steel weight by reducing copper weight... You get my
point. GM is still run by the bean counters and will continue to be run
into the ground until it dies. Saab has already been killed. I know Lutz
is a car guy, but he has very little control over that. Trollhattan will
no longer produce any 'saabs' after 2008, wasn't it? The way I see it,
buy a Saab now while you can as they will all dissappear when the 9^3
moves to Russelsheim. I really doubt that the general will allow 2 cars
so dissimilar as the vectra and 9^3 to be made on the same line... My
guess is that they dumb down the 9^3 to make it more like the Vectra
instead of vice versa.

Saab used to have 'tech sessions' here in the US which were available
through the Saab Owner Club. In these sessions, John Moss would cover in
detail different systems or topics. GM has dismantled this. John is
still employed by the General, but this goodwill gesture by Saab is gone.

buy your Saab now and cherish it as what we understand as Saab will be
gone shortly.

KeithG

I can see the USA-isation of Saab simply by the non-offering of a hatchback these
days.

Anyone with knowledge of the European market knows that the hatchback is the single
most popular body style here.

Yet GM wants to produce 'sedans' it seems. Utterly blinkered thinking.

The apparent anticipated demand just for the 'wagon' 9-3 in Europe shows for
example where GM has been losing sales ( even though it's *not* a hatchback) .

Then again, GM as a corporation simply seems to be dumb. Common in modern
corporates where individual radical thinking seems to be suppressed.

Welcome to the demise of Saab.

BTW - I bet GM are so dumb that they don't have a single employee perusing this NG
for ideas !

There's nothing better than dumb ppl than even dumber ppl.

Graham

It's strange because there are others that have few if any problems with
their cars.  However, I sadly admit, I'm in your group on this.  My car had
numerous "little" problems, but as in my other post ("noisy wheel") states,
I've been very fortunate to have diligent dealership support, and today I
can say that the car is generally in new-condition.

Can you give more specifics?

This is true...your dealer should be your first line of attacking the
problems.

Again, you can help things along by being a good detective yourself.  Listen
for clues.  Car problems are almost always distinguished by their noise.
Track down the noise: approx location, be able to accurately describe the
noise (knocking, whistling, buzzing, humming, cracking, grinding, etc), and
the conditions (environmental, road and car) when the noise is apparent.

Be friendly with your dealer, afterall they're your partner in keeping your
vehicle safe and running well.

- tex