New Saab 9-5 getting poor reviews vs 520d

Mycroft H · 26-08-2010 1:04am

Why are they testing a 9-5 with only a 2 liter diesel ?

the 95 is a bloody huge car, would have been much better suited to a 2.5 diesel.

Theres been loads of Saabs through are family through out the years from 900s, 9000s and 9-5s. I want to see them do well and become the quirky car of the eighties again.

The styling is individual enough and the interior too. I have to say I do like it.

Comparing it to the 5 series is like comparing apples and oranges. Saab aren't aiming to that sector.

Comparing it to a Volvo or a top model passet would be much fairer

Vertakill · 26-08-2010 3:29am

Matt Simis wrote: »

Saab, not Spyker! Spyker already solved that on their own models... they cut the crap and just go straight to top end Audi engines.

I meant this particular car lacks in that department, not Spyker!
The underperforming engine and poorly setup gearing that's been reported doesn't sound very 'Spyker' to me, which is why I'm so surprised.

I've no idea what Saab/Spyker have planned for the future but I hope it's a lot more Spyker and a lot less Saab.

itarumaa · 26-08-2010 8:25am

Quite interesting that there is a comparison between Saab and BMW, since I have never seen those cars in the same league or even a car that would have similar owner. For instance in Finland, a person who would buy a Volvo or Saab would not even consider a BMW.

For instance a Volvo s80 would be much better comparison.

R.O.R · 26-08-2010 9:00am

itarumaa wrote: »

Quite interesting that there is a comparison between Saab and BMW, since I have never seen those cars in the same league or even a car that would have similar owner. For instance in Finland, a person who would buy a Volvo or Saab would not even consider a BMW.

For instance a Volvo s80 would be much better comparison.

The reason behind the comparison's with the 5 Series, is that the pricing is now so similar whereas it used to be leagues apart.

A new S80 D3 SE Geartronic has a retail cost of €43,695 - less than €300 under that of a similar specification BMW 520d SE Auto. Volvo is less powerful and costs more to tax per annum.

If Audi do the sensible thing with the New A6 and pitch it under the 5 Series / E-Class (where it's Historically been), then it's going to leave the S80 & 9-5 way overpriced compared to the competition.

kmick · 26-08-2010 9:19am

I was talking to a saab dealer in cork recently near the train station and he was saying saab contacted him recently to tell him they have set up a line of finance with one of the main banks where you can borrow 500k to buy some saabs for your showroom. The guy said when he finsihed laughing he told them to send two of the new models FOC and he could see if he can shift them.

My family has been driving saabs for decades but the end is nigh. Also would not blame Spyker for this one. They have only just taken over and this model is in development for a number of years.

All in all I think it looks well though. The new 520d which is definitely what I would be comparing it to is a little bit bland for me compared to the last model. I do prefer the saab in black.

EPM · 26-08-2010 9:30am

The poor CO2 is almost forgivable when you see this:

Way bigger than it needs to be IMO

Saab Ed · 26-08-2010 10:07am

maddness wrote: »

Skoda comparisons aint on either. Its still Skoda or a modern day Granada without the fun handling. Lots of car but zero qudos :P

Have you driven a current model Superb?[/QUOTE]

Yup , sure did. Not much wrong with it but putting it in with a 5 Series and the like is laughable.

Why! ...well its just a big ordinary car not a middle size luxury car. Now if you just want to make comparisons on size then you could say that a VW Caravelle is better than them all but thats not how it works.

The Skodas looks are ...well how would you say ...eh .. compromised , its engines dont match up to BMW and the like either , the ride comfort ( both my opinion and common in mag road tests ) aint great and the handling is middle of the road. Its a strecthed Octavia -itself not a bad thing but its just a big car , nothing special , just a big ( cheap for its size ) car.

When I've driven the new 9-5 then I can make an honest call on what its like for myself.

TomMc · 26-08-2010 10:49am

I'd say it will be popular with traditional buyers of 9-5's. Dentists, solicitors and other professional types, diplomats who like something more individual (less ubiquitous) than what appeals to or is driven by the average businessman.

Where as the classic 900 and a BMW would appeal to a similar type of motorist (drivers), in Ireland Saab 9-5's would be more in competition with Audi. Perception of quality and design (looks/image) rather than dynamic prowess.

Tea 1000 · 26-08-2010 11:13am

The fact remains that Mercedes and BMW are the market leaders in the mid-size executive saloons. Audi are hanging in there, but they are a distinct third. Lexus barely make 4th because of lack of engine choice mainly.
In the compact exec (3-series etc) it's a bit closer alright.
The task for a company like Volvo and Saab is to decide what they want from their car. The new S60 seems to be aimed at the 3-series/A4/C-Class segment price-wise, but offering a bit more space, a bit more of a hint of mid-size for the same price.
Saab on the other hand seem to have wanted their car to be an alternative to the 5-series and E-class. That we can tell from their pricing. If they price a car at a level that's almost the same as the best in the class, then it damn well needs to be a better performer than either of those too. It needs to have either more comfort, better engines or better handling. What they seem to have come up with is a bit of a mish-mash effort that does nothing well in the end, neither the comfort of the E-Class nor the handling of the 5-series, nor the refinement of the A6... so why isn't it €5 grand cheaper?
I hope it survives, just because I want Saab to survive long enough to produce what they're really capable of.

Saab Ed · 26-08-2010 11:27am

I dont care , I just want one of these

26-08-2010 12:25pm

What's that ? The lovechild of a late 80s Accord hatch and a BMW Mini on creatine ??

Tragedy · 26-08-2010 5:42pm

Who said the 9-5 diesel was €600 a year to tax? It's 139g/km, 53mpg, tax band B and €156 motor tax a year.

The 1.9TTiD will be €447 however.

PS: I think the picture of the black 9-5 in England earlier in the thread is stunning, far far nicer than the new 5 series, e class or what I've seen of the A6.

BrianD3 · 26-08-2010 6:42pm

The 9-5 manual 160 bhp is 139 g/km but the auto is 179 g/km. So that's where the 600 quid tax figure comes from. The 520d is around 130 g/km in both manual and auto

mumblin deaf ro · 26-08-2010 9:51pm

I have always wondered whether Saab really gets diesel - they didn't do a diesel car until about 1998. Nobody will say anything good about the 2.2l diesel engine they had and the current 1.9L is a respected Fiat engine, but that's no thanks to Saab. Now we're hearing that the new diesels are a bit noisy and sluggish.

Whatever about Ireland, the Uk has always been one of the main markets for Saab and if it wants to get the 9-5 out there as a company car they will need to improve the performance and efficiency of the engines, especially the diesels. they have some exciting options with cargine but they seem remote production possibilities and biopower just isn't popular.

If the 9-5 doesn't take off, I can see Saab doing some discounting and getting some design tweaks made. Apparently under the new regime, decisions that used to take months under GM are now being made with just a meeting between Jan Ake Jonssonn and Victor Muller.

Matt Simis · 26-08-2010 9:59pm

unkel wrote: »

It's clear you don't like Saab, but we do

I really hope the new 9-5 (that we feel looks great but you feel looks crap) will work out

I dont have any real interest or hatred for Saab.
But looks great!?... Picture the word "Daewoo", then consider this an image of a new, disposable and forgettable cheapy Korean Euro clone, do you really think this looks great?

The profile is no better, it looks like the back (or front given the absurd length of it) of a different car jammed on there:

I would love to talk to the designer(s) to get some insight into that they see in their mindseye vs what I see in this Homer of a car.

The photochops/concepts of the 9-5 made up by fans prior to the official "unveiling" looked way way nicer than whatever Saab/Buick or whoever cobbled together. I think more people want to like Saab the underdog company than actually like Saab, the underperforming cars.

mumblin deaf ro · 26-08-2010 9:59pm

Here is a lengthy bit of navel-gazing from the main Saab blogger about the reaction of the Uk press to the car - it confirms what i suspected about the 2.0T petrol (or V6 if you can afford it) being the one to go for.

http://www.saabsunited.com/2010/08/saab-9-5-reviews.html

On a more positive note, check out this family of Saab owners - 96s, 900s and a sonett.

http://www.saabsunited.com/2010/08/a-saab-family-affair.html

BrianD3 · 26-08-2010 10:19pm

mumblin deaf ro wrote: »

Here is a lengthy bit of navel-gazing from the main Saab blogger about the reaction of the Uk press to the car - it confirms what i suspected about the 2.0T petrol (or V6 if you can afford it) being the one to go for.

http://www.saabsunited.com/2010/08/saab-9-5-reviews.html

There are some fair comments on that page. In general the British motoring press seem to be biased toward Ford, Jaguar and BMW while anything else is liable to get slammed. When I see Autocar waxing lyrical about Fords and their "ultra dynamic handling allied to superb ride comfort" I generally laugh.

26-08-2010 10:31pm

BrianD3 wrote: »

............. lyrical about Fords and their "ultra dynamic handling allied to superb ride comfort" I generally laugh.

Having had a 2005 Mondeo for a year back in 2005/2006 and having had a good few Focus and Mondeo as rentals over the last 5 years or so I have to agree. Completely overrated in the real world.

shogunpower · 26-08-2010 11:15pm

so the bmw is more powerful more economical and puts out less emissions

than every 2.0td that i can think of.

hardly a hard choice.

R.O.R · 27-08-2010 8:11am

mumblin deaf ro wrote: »

Here is a lengthy bit of navel-gazing from the main Saab blogger about the reaction of the Uk press to the car - it confirms what i suspected about the 2.0T petrol (or V6 if you can afford it) being the one to go for.

Based on the indicitive pricing and specification sheet I received, the full engine line up for Ireland is:

2.0TiD - 160bhp Manual - 139g CO2 (Linear & Vector)
2.0TiD - 160bhp Auto - 179g CO2 (Linear & Vector)
2.0TTiD - 190bhp Manual - 159g CO2 (Linear, Vector & Aero)

Another manufacturer defects to a Diesel only line up, because they know the Petrols won't sell.

27-08-2010 9:08am

shogunpower wrote: »

so the bmw is more powerful more economical and puts out less emissions

than every 2.0td that i can think of.

hardly a hard choice.

If you want one, many folks don't like / want a Bavarian Granada

Tea 1000 · 27-08-2010 11:26am

Matt Simis wrote: »

The photochops/concepts of the 9-5 made up by fans prior to the official "unveiling" looked way way nicer than whatever Saab/Buick or whoever cobbled together. I think more people want to like Saab the underdog company than actually like Saab, the underperforming cars.

I'd have to agree. I want Saab to go back to the original 900 days, not the GM 900 that followed and turned into the 9-3. They haven't been great in 20 years.
I could never figure out why anyone in the last 4 years would choose a Saab 9-3 1.9 diesel over the Alfa 159 with the same diesel for around the same price.

VolvoMan · 27-08-2010 11:26pm

Saab Ed wrote: »

Car magazine put it up against the new S60 last month and it did well. Its never going to touch a 5 series on dynamics but they reckoned its very comfy so the Volvo comparison was more in keeping with how it should be classed. Huge car too and the interior is just sublime. Added to the fact its a Saab so its cool by default :D

That wasn't a comparison, just merely a visit to Sweden to write about two new cars from two Swedish companies who's launches coincided with each other; two companies who were both in the process of being sold at the time as well. To compare the S60 to the 9-5 would be like comparing a 3 Series to a Merc E-Class.

I reckon Autocar were more than harsh in their review of the new 9-5. The fact that they went to the hassle of pointing out that it was based on the Insignia in the first paragraph tells that they were out to pick holes in the car. They had no acknowledgment of how many people's lives and futures were depending on this car, not to mention the blood, sweat and tears put into it, and just slated it like every car they review that isn't from Ford/BMW/Jaguar.

unkel · 28-08-2010 12:39am

VolvoMan wrote: »

They had no acknowledgment of how many people's lives and futures were depending on this car, not to mention the blood, sweat and tears put into it, and just slated it like every car they review that isn't from Ford/BMW/Jaguar.

In fairness, would you like to see a car review based on the car itself, or on a tear jerking story about the blood sweat and tears put into it?

Mr.BBunny · 30-08-2010 12:05pm

I just got to drive the new 9-5 in my dealer the other day so thought I would give a few of my observations. I was worried about the 160bhp engine as the car is very big, I was surprised though at the performance, whilst not as quick as the 520, I think it is a fair way more reponsive than the A6 136bhp. I would think of looking at the TTiD, but after driving the TiD I think I would stick with that and, as the dealer said, look at Hirsch as an option if more umph is needed.

Styling wise, I love it. If you like Saab design you will like this car. If you don't, you won't. Very much like the Saab face in the front, and quite like the XF at the back. I also really liked the rolling speedo, very easy to read. I have to say, it took me a little while to get used to the design. I wasn't certain I liked it when I first saw it, but then it very much grew on me. As I was leaving, I saw someone else head out on a test drive, and thouht the car looked brilliant as rolled by. I love the rear lights, they look great.

Drive wise, the car I was driving was the Auto - seemingly it is the only car they have in the country at the moment - and I would be more manual in preference. I found it a nice drive, with a good driving position and nice wheel. I thought the car itself was quiet, with little road noise. I thought the ride was very comfy and although I didn't throw it into the corners, it seemed to behave very well. You heard that it was diesel when you started up, but after that, I thought it was quite quiet.

Seats were very comfy.

Overall I have to say I was very impressed with the car - sorry for contradicting some of the reviews, but I did like it a lot. I am looking at the A6 and have test driven the 520. I am not a BMW fan, nice car, but not for me, so not fair for me to compare. Compared to the A6, I thought the 9-5 was much more modern and good value for money with regard the pricing and the spec. I haven't made up my mind yet, as i would like to drive the manual, but at the moment, the Saab is definitely in the lead.

Vertakill · 30-08-2010 12:39pm

VolvoMan wrote: »

They had no acknowledgment of how many people's lives and futures were depending on this car, not to mention the blood, sweat and tears put into it, and just slated it like every car they review that isn't from Ford/BMW/Jaguar.

So, you want a completely unbiased review of the car, but you also want the critics to take a moment to think of the blood, sweat and tears that went into it?

Which is it?

Taking this car completely on it's merits, and disregarding the manufacturer... it's still sounds pretty disappointing.

And for all the people saying it shouldn't be compared to this or that... it's priced itself into the category of a 520D so naturally it's going to be compared to that.

And by saying; "Oh well Saab aren't aiming for the top marques like BMW so it shouldn't be compared to that" does not make them exempt from these comparisons, it's just reinforcing some of the opinions.

unkel · 30-08-2010 7:28pm

Mr.BBunny wrote: »

Overall I have to say I was very impressed with the car - sorry for contradicting some of the reviews, but I did like it a lot.

All it needs is people like yourself for the 9-5 to sell. You know the car isn't as "good" as the competition according to the reviews but you like it and you might even buy it.

R.O.R · 30-08-2010 8:36pm

My Saab supplier has the car on Thursday (probably the one Mr. Bunny drove) so I'm going to try to get out and have a drive. Not expecting much except an Insignia in a different body - and the Insignia isn't a bad car to be based on.

pburns · 30-08-2010 9:15pm

Saw the new 9-5 last week in the shopping district of Liverpool where the local dealer was promoting it heavily.

I read the Autocar report and was gobsmacked. Never saw such an unexpectedly negative review. Really felt like they were putting the boot in. Maybe a publicity stunt to cause controversy? They can come out in a few months and say they tried a subtley revised model and it's much better (they did similar with the Alfa Mito). And Saab aren't exactly big advertisers are they? Maybe I'm being cynical. It will be interesting to see what CAR make of it in a proper test.

thlint · 31-08-2010 2:00am

cadaliac wrote: »

I agree with Saab Ed here. However I was shocked to see that the Saab 95 is only €1664 cheaper than a 5 series with similar spec and much better CO2 figures.
I wonder will the Saab break down as much as the BMW though.....? (being Diesel and all)

I was under impression that new SAAB 95 is in region of 36,000 and the road tax is 156 per year at least that is what the SAAB garage in sandyford indicated 2 months ago

New Saab 9-5 getting poor reviews vs 520d

Comments