The Saab 9-5 is now an outdated ugly car.

[Raghavan]

When is an all new version supposed to come out?

[cozmik]

Last I heard, 2009. I don't know if that's intro date, or model year though.

[Champ]

I miss the old days of Saab, the 9000 Aero (9-5) has had this engine for over 10 years.  At that point in the early 90's that car was insane.  They just kind of plateu'd though.

ifcar, it is also generally cheaper and gets better MPG which are the trade-off's.

And you guys just wait until 2008/2009 when all Saab models will be available as FWD or AWD, including a possible RWD/AWD roadster.

The 9-5 will be entirely new at this time.

[ifcar]

It's never been inexpensive, but it's not been expensive compared to things like the 5 series, etc, which is what it's sized like.

The 3.6 would be pointless. The 2.8 turbo Saab uses makes 250 hp in it's current form, which is similar to the current tune of the 3.6, and will easily generate a lot more than that. They aren't using much boost. It would be very easy to bring the 2.8 up the 270 hp and have no issues at all with it. With the BSR software upgrade in the 9-3, the 2.8 make 285 hp and 330 lb/ft torque. And it's still said to be reliable. IIRC, the 2.8T can also handle a larger turbo than what it has now, and produce well over 300 HP.

The 3.6 probably weighs more too, which we don't need in an already nose heavy FWD car.

In the interests of making the circa-1998 Saab 9-5 seem less inferior to the circa-2003 less-expensive 9-3, I'd think an engine with significantly better specs would be helpful if they could prevent it from interfering with the rest of the car.

BTW, do you consider the TL, ES350, or CTS to be 5-Series competitors? They're the same size or bigger than the 9-5.

[cozmik]

In the interests of making the circa-1998 Saab 9-5 seem less inferior to the circa-2003 less-expensive 9-3, I'd think an engine with significantly better specs would be helpful if they could prevent it from interfering with the rest of the car.

BTW, do you consider the TL, ES350, or CTS to be 5-Series competitors? They're the same size or bigger than the 9-5.

The CTS I do not, simple because they have nothing smaller. With TL, ES350, S80, and also the 9-5 are in an odd position in the market, somewhere in between a 3 and 5 series competitor. If you are looking at size, they compete with the 5, if you are looking at price, they generally compete with higher end 3 series models. The G35 is sized similarly as well.

[cozmik]

Oh, and as for the significantly better specs, the 9-5, and really just about any FWD car, can't really handle that. 270-280hp is probably as far as you'd want to go with FWD. For the current 9-5, 275 I'd say would be enough to give it more power than the 9-3, perform better, but still keep it from getting really nasty when you hit the gas.

[93JC]

The 3.6 probably weighs more too

[the Teuton]

So it's a luxury car equivalent of the Chevy Cavalier.  At least it still looks good and GM doesn't call it all new like Jag does with the S-Type.

[cozmik]

It doesn't? I don't know anything about how much it weighs, and where they are getting the extra displacement from.

[nickdrinkwater]

Do they still make the 9² and 9⁷ Xs?

Also, in the interest of comparison, how does the price of a 9⁵ match up to a Cadillac CTS?

[93JC]

It doesn't? I don't know anything about how much it weighs, and where they are getting the extra displacement from.

Well, I mean, think about it: the 2.8 and 3.6 are based on the same block. The 3.6 has a 5 mm slice of metal taken out of the diameter of each cylinder, and uses a crankshaft and connecting rods that have a throw of about 1 cm more than the 2.8.

The 2.8 has a turbocharger and all the associated piping attached to it.

If anything, I'd be willing to bet the 3.6 is lighter.

[ro51092]

When is an all new version supposed to come out?

Should've been out 4 years ago.

[ifcar]

Do they still make the 9² and 9⁷ Xs?

Also, in the interest of comparison, how does the price of a 9⁵ match up to a Cadillac CTS?

They've dropped the 9-2X, but the 9-7X is still around.

CTS starts about $5k lower than the 9-5.

[Raghavan]

Should've been out 4 years ago.

Why didn't it come out then?

[cozmik]

They've dropped the 9-2X, but the 9-7X is still around.

CTS starts about $5k lower than the 9-5.

That's also for a baseline CTS. 1 CD player, no sunroof, no heated seats, nothing. Things like that are standard on the 9-5.

[Catman]

Why would anyone want this car?   

[ifcar]

That's also for a baseline CTS. 1 CD player, no sunroof, no heated seats, nothing. Things like that are standard on the 9-5.

They've significantly bumped up the standard features since the last time I ran their prices. Run the options together, adding the sunroof and whatnot to the CTS and OnStar to the 9-5, the difference seems to be more in the $1,500 range.

Of course, the CTS is hardly high-value itself.

[mazda6er]

Why would anyone want this car?   

Because it has charm and harkens back to a time when cars were purer? 

[ifcar]

Because it has charm and harkens back to a time when cars were purer? 

1998?

[mazda6er]

1998?

Shut up.  :P

[nickdrinkwater]

They've significantly bumped up the standard features since the last time I ran their prices. Run the options together, adding the sunroof and whatnot to the CTS and OnStar to the 9-5, the difference seems to be more in the $1,500 range.

Of course, the CTS is hardly high-value itself.

The reason I asked, other than them both being GM, is that they're both kinda entry luxury models.  So was interested to see how they compare.

[cozmik]

Why would anyone want this car?   

If you want something that's pretty big, don't have the money for an E-Class, and don't like things like the Avalon.

Loaded up, a 9-5 is similar in price to an Avalon when discounted. Yeah, I would definitely chose a 9-5 over an Avalon. The 9-5 has done pretty well reliability wise as well, and should do better with this update as the electronics has been simplified a lot. And pictures still aren't the same as driving one. it really isn't that bad in person, it feels richer inside than it looks in pictures. And it's still better than the current S80.

[ro51092]

If you want something that's pretty big, don't have the money for an E-Class, and don't like things like the Avalon.

Loaded up, a 9-5 is similar in price to an Avalon when discounted. Yeah, I would definitely chose a 9-5 over an Avalon. The 9-5 has done pretty well reliability wise as well, and should do better with this update as the electronics has been simplified a lot. And pictures still aren't the same as driving one. it really isn't that bad in person, it feels richer inside than it looks in pictures. And it's still better than the current S80.

[Raghavan]

The S80 looks better inside and out, is safer, and is probably better overall than the 9-5.

[Catman]

He's really scraping the bottom here isn't he? :P  9-5 = Car nobody wants.

[cozmik]

Dynamically, the 9-5 is a superior car to the S80. And looks are a matter of preference.

As for Safety, the 9-5 gets some pretty high crash test ratings.

[ro51092]

No offense, Cosmic, but I seriously doubt that the 9-5 has anything on the S80 except price.

[cozmik]

No offense, Cosmic, but I seriously doubt that the 9-5 has anything on the S80 except price.

None taken. I've had extensive experience with the S80 as the dealer group I used to work at sold Volvo. And I've had a 9-5 as a loaner during service on several locations. The S80 is inferior to the 9-5 in most categories. The 9-5 is a more engaging car to drive, handles better, doesn't ride any worse than, and has better power delivery as well. As I already said, looks are subjective, and totally the opinion of the individual. I think the 9-5 has a better interior layout than the S80, however, the S80 does have better materials inside, save the actual leather.

[TBR]

Keep in mind he is talking about the current 9-5, not the 2008 model. And, I've always like the 9-5, but I don't like this update.

[saxonyron]

Yikes!  That front end looks like Joan Rivers after her 11th facelift.  Everything was pulled so tight, every time she blinked she farted.  This is not a design triumph.  Maybe it'll look better in person, but I'm not betting my lunch money on it!