2005 SAAB 9-3 Convertible from North America - Comments

Slight rattles

A few trim items (fastener covers) have fallen off.

This is my third SAAB 93 Convertible, but my first GM SAAB. This is not the same SAAB as my last ones. The corners cut since GM yook over are obvious. Small things that make a difference to me. In addition, I couldn't find a manual transmission so I settled for a 5-speed auto. I don't notice the higher horsepower.

Don't mean to offend, but all 9-3 Convertibles have been products of Saab under GM. Only the original 900 convertible was a pure Saab.

However, I do agree with you that Saab, under GM, has cut too many corners and lost that special something that made a Saab a Saab.

Unless Saab builds something akin to its latest show car (a Scarab for the 21st century) its future is doomed.

I don't think Saab's managed to retain ANY of its uniqueness since GM's taken over. My aunt drove an older 900, before GM got its hooks into the company, and what a difference 17 years has made (GM bought 50% of Saab in 1989). Saab has become just another dull, lifeless GM brand extension. It's a shame.

GM may have robbed Saab of its individuality when it was an independent, but don't forget that without GM, Saab would have gone under in 1990.

Their management placed way too much emphasis on the US market (which accounted for around 50% of overall sales in the mid 1980s when junk bonds reigned), and the house of cards came tumbling down with Black Monday in 1987.

Excess capacity geared for a market that no longer wanted as many cars, coupled to lack of popularity/acceptance in almost every country apart from Sweden and the UK, set Saab awash with red ink.

If GM had not stepped in when it did, Saab would be a brand relegated to history.

However, that does not let GM off the hook completely, for what they have done after their purchase is entirely criminal - lack of proper investment, a dearth of new models, inconsistent quality, and paying little attention to what made a Saab a Saab, so much so that today's Saabs are nothing more than badge-engineered GM cars.

How many of you that knock Saab for being owned by GM now, actually own a Saab?

I can't speak for the latest model 9-3, but I can say that the previous generation did not stray from what made a Saab a Saab. Well engineered, well put together, comfortable, good power, unique and full of character.

From what I've seen of the new generation 9-3, they look pretty nice to me.

It seems you all get hooked on this shared platform thing, get used to it. It's here to stay - and so is Saab!

To the previous poster, I am sad to admit that I once worked for Saab and was on the inside to the continuous shenanigans that pervaded Saab during the first several years of the GM takeover.

The previous 900/9-3 may have had many Saab cues such as the floor mounted ignition, hatch layout and Black Panel dash (which to me is a gimmick), but these were added on to what is basically an old Vauxhall/Opel platform to give it the air of "Saabness".

The Swedes were very against their corporate saviours and did their best to jinx anything sourced from GM that was going to be associated with the car - the V6 was not given as much engineering resources/attention as the in house turbo unit, while there was not enough time to disguise the electric mirror switch and auto trans selector cribbed directly from the Opel/Vauxhall Vectra parts bin.

As for getting used to the sharing of platforms and underlying vehicle architecture, yes, this may be true of most makes these days, but go tell that to Mercedes, BMW and Ferrari, who still take the time to craft their own unique platforms. The same holds true for some Porsches, too. And that, marks the difference between these makes and Saab, which is fast becoming (or has become) a GM badge rather than a stand alone brand with its own unique identity.

Are you kidding???

Mercedes not sharing platforms???

The Crossfire is completely the previous model SLK under the skin. The 300 borrows heavily from the E-Series. Even the mediocre Pacifica uses shared suspension components with its parent company.

The Porsche 914 was either actually marketed as a Volkswagen in some markets, or at least was considered to be launched under the VW name.

Jaguar shares much with Ford as well. Look at the X series.

Bash Saab all you like, but I love mine.

I own the previous generation 9-3 convertible, and it is a great car. From what I've seen of the current generation, they look very nice to me. Although I do prefer the (sleeker) styling of the last generation a bit more.

I'm surprised that the original reviewer doesn't feel the current Saab is worth $35,000. Especially when you consider that far inferior vehicles such as the Sebring & PT Cruiser convertible can list at well over $30,000, and vehicles in the same class as the 9-3 such as the Audi & BMW convertibles cost at least the same, and can be much more.

By the way, the original MSRP on my 2003 was $42,700.+, so it seems that Saab has more than held the line on prices.

To the commenter of 18 September, I think you have missed the point totally.

New M-Bs do not share platforms with other makes. The Chrylers that you did mention have M-B platforms, but these are the old ones that M-B has discarded and passed on for use within other brands in their empire.

The Crossfire is based on the previous SLK, which is off the previous C Class, while the 300 uses the previous E Class underpinnings; much as the 1994 - 2002 model 900/9-3 used the old Opel/Vauxhall Vectra J2400 platform, while the 9-5 uses the newer Vectra J2900 chassis and the current 9-3 the Epsilon component set that is also to be found under the current Vectra and GM US intermediates.

There's nothing wrong with platform sharing, but it has to be done properly or the resultant mishmash will see a string of clone cars. Unfortunately, Saab has not been able to distance themselves sufficiently from GM's other makes for their offerings to have a clear and distinct identity.

And, before you criticise further, I do NOT drive a Mercedes and nor do I find them all that desirable.

I said that the Crossfire was based on the previous SLK platform.

I didn't miss the point, it's just that some people like taking shots at Saab, while not looking under the skin of the sleds they're driving.

I wish people would quit complaining about how GM killed Saab... If you hate it that much, then don't buy one. I love my Saab! The new 9-3 is amazing.

Obviously an emotive subject, my take is SAAB with GM support would be viable (see Ford/Volvo) but currently the SAAB brand is becoming another GM badge engineered effort like Pontiac/Buick etc etc.

I like the SAAB brand, but at the moment it really is not delivering. Note that I'm not dismissing the current cars, but the 9-3 in particular could be a lot more SAAB like, and sell for money, and still be better.

I am currently looking to buy a Saab 9-3 around 3 years old and came here to look at the owner reviews looking at detailed and considered information relating to reliability, performance, issues, common faults etc etc. What I have seen is an emotive and ill considered sojourn into the prestige attached to owning one vehicle and another.

What would REALLY be helpful is to be made aware of the real issues surrounding owning one of these cars. The reality of it is that we introduce humans into the design, development and build phases of all of these cars, and there will be the inevitable flaws, I think we have to accept that, which is why we have warranties. However when we find issues with the car such as "I can't adjust the steering how I'd like it" or " I don't like the dashboard layout" I suggest not buying that marque.

There was a time when owning a BMW or a Mercedes DID give you a sense of owning something a little special, but when every other car you see on the road happens to be one, I doubt that is still the case. Enjoy your Saab, BMW, Merc, Audi, and peaceful pleasurable motoring to you all.