2006 Saab 9-3 Aero

[BMWDave]

Link

2006 Saab 9-3 Aero


By Matthew Phenix
 
     
Trollhהttan, Sweden It's 4000 miles from Detroit to Trollhהttan, but after GM's recent rash of bright ideas for Saab, you'd think it was 4 million. Subaru-Saabs, body-on-frame Saab trucks, and now, what, an Australian-made V-6 for the brand whose devotees live for high-strung fours? Well, yes. And it turns out to be one very smooth move. Turbocharged, all-aluminum, and debuting this fall in the top-dog 2006 9-3 Aero, this new V-6 may just be the best thing to happen to Saab since rally legend Erik Carlsson.

Part of a new GM engine family that includes the excellent VVT sixes in the Cadillac CTS and SRX, Saab's version displaces 2.8 liters and features a clever twin-scroll turbocharger fed by two exhaust ducts (one from each cylinder bank) to improve boost smoothness and efficiency. Matched to manual or manu-matic six-speeds, the engine is good for 247 hp and 258 lb-ft of torque, topping the current four-cylinder Aero by a big 37 hp and 37 lb-ft. Complementing this newfound muscle are stiffer front and rear antiroll bars, quicker steering, bigger brakes, Z-rated Pirelli P Zero tires on eighteen-inch wheels, and a pair of fat-and very vocal-tailpipes.

Saab's performance claims for the Aero V-6 sedan-0 to 62 mph in 6.9 seconds and a top speed in excess of 155 mph-seem conservative to us. The car is as quick, composed, and agile as anything that's ever worn the crowned-griffin emblem. Peak torque arrives at a very low 2000 rpm, and although the steering wheel has its headstrong moments, full-throttle acceleration never becomes a wrestling match, as it has in Saab turbos of yore. The company wisely has decided to pare down the 9-3 range for 2006, ditching the base, 175-hp engine and the ever-puzzling Linear and Arc designations. What's left is a standard 9-3 with the 210-hp turbo four and the Aero V-6. The six-cylinder sedan hits showrooms in late September, with a sticker price about $1500 above the current four-cylinder Aero's $33,570; Aero V-6 versions of the convertible and the new SportCombi hatchback will follow in December.

[TBR]

I don't know why SAAB is being so conservative, the 0-60 times will probably be closer to 6.0 seconds than 6.9 seconds.

[BMWDave]

I don't know why SAAB is being so conservative, the 0-60 times will probably be closer to 6.0 seconds than 6.9 seconds.

Automakers always tend to be conservative in their estimates.

[TBR]

I don't know why SAAB is being so conservative, the 0-60 times will probably be closer to 6.0 seconds than 6.9 seconds.

Automakers always tend to be conservative in their estimates.

Not that conservative. (though I guess we really don't know just how conservative it is yet)

[BMWDave]

I don't know why SAAB is being so conservative, the 0-60 times will probably be closer to 6.0 seconds than 6.9 seconds.

Automakers always tend to be conservative in their estimates.

Not that conservative. (though I guess we really don't know just how conservative it is yet)

Good point :)

[cozmik]

One of the reviews I had read said that the 2.8T wasn't that much quicker than the 2.0T and that the 2.0T felt more egar. It is possible Saab is being truthful with it. The 3.6 in the CTS is a dog, being part of the same family, I wouldn't be supprised if the 2.8T is similar.

[TBR]

One of the reviews I had read said that the 2.8T wasn't that much quicker than the 2.0T and that the 2.0T felt more egar. It is possible Saab is being truthful with it. The 3.6 in the CTS is a dog, being part of the same family, I wouldn't be supprised if the 2.8T is similar.

I thought the 3.6l was supposed to be really good?  

[cozmik]

One of the reviews I had read said that the 2.8T wasn't that much quicker than the 2.0T and that the 2.0T felt more egar. It is possible Saab is being truthful with it. The 3.6 in the CTS is a dog, being part of the same family, I wouldn't be supprised if the 2.8T is similar.

I thought the 3.6l was supposed to be really good?

It was smooth and quiet and that was it. It's power sucked donkey dick. We tested it in the Caddy CTS, and even my mother said it was slow, she said she thought my 9-3 was faster.

[Run Away]

I always smile when I read "Trollhattan" :)

[Colonel Cadillac]

One of the reviews I had read said that the 2.8T wasn't that much quicker than the 2.0T and that the 2.0T felt more egar. It is possible Saab is being truthful with it. The 3.6 in the CTS is a dog, being part of the same family, I wouldn't be supprised if the 2.8T is similar.

I thought the 3.6l was supposed to be really good?

It has been said to be, I am not sure that CosmicSaab is right. The only problem people have had with it is the way it sounds at redline.  

[cozmik]

One of the reviews I had read said that the 2.8T wasn't that much quicker than the 2.0T and that the 2.0T felt more egar. It is possible Saab is being truthful with it. The 3.6 in the CTS is a dog, being part of the same family, I wouldn't be supprised if the 2.8T is similar.

I thought the 3.6l was supposed to be really good?

It has been said to be, I am not sure that CosmicSaab is right. The only problem people have had with it is the way it sounds at redline.

Hey dude, I am telling you my personal experience from actually DRIVING the car, not some magazine that also claimed the old 184 hp 3400+ lb 325 could do 0-60 is 7 seconds.    And it sucked. It is a very refined engine that couldn't get the CTS out of its own way. Okay so that might be a bit of an exageration, but still, not as fast as you would expect. And my 9-3 would have blown it out of the water. Either the CTS I drove was really sick or I have an unusually healthy 9-3. But really I just think the HF engines have a bit of VQ syndrom.