New Saab 9-5 getting poor reviews vs 520d

BrianD3

I had high hopes for the new 9-5 but if the UK magazines are to believed it is a relatively poor car in several areas. Ride comfort, refinement, seats, build quality, performance. Boot space also relatively small given the size of the car.

What Car gives it a bad review in a group test and here is an Autocar review
http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/RoadTestsHistory/Saab-9-5-2.0-TiD-Vector-SE/252413/

I am thinking of a car in this class and was hoping the 9-5 would offer a better riding, conventional tyred alternative to the new 520d. But it appears that the 520d rides better and is also better in pretty much every area. The only downside that I can see is the standard RFTs and nowhere to put a spare wheel.

Stevie Dakota

A pity for those who would like to see SAAB do well, doesn't look like that will happen with this car. With the Superb at one end and the 5 series at the other, it's a tough time try and make any kind of inroads into this sector.

And that altimeter style speedo is really laughable. For SAAB to still be referencing it's aerospace days is just sad, time to move on.

unkel

The reviews I read weren't great either unfortunately. But maybe the 9-5 has enough going for it? Great (and different!) looks, decent underpinnings. Did they get the level of comfort right?

Not really fair to compare it to a 5-series BMW. Saabs never had to compete with BMWs in the past and don't need to now either.

R.O.R

unkel wrote: »

The reviews I read weren't great either unfortunately. But maybe the 9-5 has enough going for it? Great (and different!) looks, decent underpinnings. Did they get the level of comfort right?

Not really fair to compare it to a 5-series BMW. Saabs never had to compete with BMWs in the past and don't need to now either.

In the past, they were always in a different price bracket to the 5 Series, spec for spec anyway.

Now the 5 Series is reasonably priced and fairly highly specced, the bar has been raised.

€42,300 for a 2.0Tid (160bhp) 9-5 Vector Auto : €43,964 for a 520d SE Auto

Comparable Spec on both (Bluetooth, Leather). Saab costs €630 a year to tax, BMW costs €156

Fuel consumption on the 5 Series will be less, resale will be much better on the 5 series so it's a much better overall prospect than the 9-5 from a cost basis.

The likes of Saab and Volvo really need to take a good look at the competition and the market if they want to compete.

Saab Ed

unkel wrote: »

Not really fair to compare it to a 5-series BMW. Saabs never had to compete with BMWs in the past and don't need to now either.

Well atleast they shouldn't be seen in the same light but everybody wants to lump everything in to a set category these days hence the comparison.

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

For me the test is the next A6 next year. Skoda comparisons aint on either. Its still Skoda or a modern day Granada without the fun handling. Lots of car but zero qudos :P

BrianD3

unkel wrote: »

The reviews I read weren't great either unfortunately. But maybe the 9-5 has enough going for it? Great (and different!) looks, decent underpinnings. Did they get the level of comfort right?

Not really fair to compare it to a 5-series BMW. Saabs never had to compete with BMWs in the past and don't need to now either.

Not sure of the pricing of the 9-5, it can't be too much less than the 520d? Historically Saab may have had a strong enough image to avoid having to compete with BMW but I don't think that's the case now. Also consumers are more cynical/demanding now. So I think the car will have to be judged on its merits. And if the reviews are to be believed it is not even competitive with the much cheaper Skoda Superb or near obsolete Audi A6, let alone with the new 5 series.

As regards comfort, What Car made a point of saying the seats were poor, the ride was poor and the refinement was poor. Unforgivable flaws in this car in my view.

Then again, these magazines are sometimes full of bullcrap.

cadaliac

Saab Ed wrote: »

Well atleast they shouldn't be seen in the same light but everybody wants to lump everything in to a set category these days hence the comparison.

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

For me the test is the next A6 next year. Skoda comparisons aint on either. Its still Skoda or a modern day Granada without the fun handling. Lots of car but zero qudos :P

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)

PADRAIC.M

yeah not a great comparison really but getting a drive in the new 9-5 either this week or next when it lands here in the dealer i work in...

R.O.R

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)

It's using the GM 2.0CDTi 160bhp unit, which seems to have overcome initial teething problems and isn't giving trouble in the Insignia now.

I haven't been near a new 9-5, but I was in a new S60 yesterday. It's nice, but it's overpriced for the size of the car. It's nowhere near the size of the 5 Series and is competing in the 3 series bracket, but is priced towards the 5 Series / E-Class.

bazz26

If fairness the new 9-5 was probably 95% developed under GM ownership, given their track record with Saab the 9-5 was never going to really be a 5 Series challenger except maybe on price. FWD on basic models probably didn't stack in it's favour either. To be honest traditionally Saab like Volvo and perhaps Alfa Romeo never competed directly with the big 3 German marques, always seen them as like a lower league to them.

Apparently the next 9-3 was well under developement by GM too before the sale so I'd say it is going to take some time for Spyker to start pumping their dna into Saab models.

helimachoptor

Stevie Dakota wrote: »

And that altimeter style speedo is really laughable. For SAAB to still be referencing it's aerospace days is just sad, time to move on.

What! Thats fcuking deadly!!

Vertakill

I know it's not built for speed but is it just me or is it alarmingly slow?

bazz26

R.O.R wrote: »

It's using the GM 2.0CDTi 160bhp unit, which seems to have overcome initial teething problems and isn't giving trouble in the Insignia now.

It's actually based on the old 1.9 litre Fiat Multi-Jet engine.

unkel

BrianD3 wrote: »

As regards comfort, What Car made a point of saying the seats were poor, the ride was poor and the refinement was poor. Unforgivable flaws in this car in my view.

Agreed. The seats need to be about the best in the business, like they were for previous Saabs. Apparantly there is an optional electronic suspension on the new 9-5. I haven't seen it reviewed yet. Anyone?

galwaytt

bazz26 wrote: »

It's actually based on the old 1.9 litre Fiat Multi-Jet engine.

....are you sure of that ?....I've never heard of the M-Jet engine being described as noisy/rough/lethargic, which had me wondering if Saab had strayed away from it for this car.........and the M-Jet bing 1908cc is usually badged as a 1.9, which makes me wonder, too.........

maddness

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

Have you driven a current model Superb?

bazz26

galwaytt wrote: »

....are you sure of that ?....I've never heard of the M-Jet engine being described as noisy/rough/lethargic, which had me wondering if Saab had strayed away from it for this car.........and the M-Jet bing 1908cc is usually badged as a 1.9, which makes me wonder, too.........

From here, about half way down the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JTD_engine

Matt Simis

Vertakill wrote: »

I know it's not built for speed but is it just me or is it alarmingly slow?

Good god:

But when viewed next to any level of competition – a 138bhp Ford Mondeo 2.0 TDCi managed 10.0sec to 60mph in our road test – it becomes evident that the Saab is barely average.
The 9-5’s biggest problem, though, is that to extract even this performance requires holding what feels like an unnaturally low gear for real-world driving. Our in-gear figures show how significant this is. The Saab manages 20-40mph in third gear in 6.1sec, whereas a Skoda Superb with 20bhp and 19lb ft less manages it in 5.1sec. A more relevant real-world in-gear time is 30-50mph in fourth gear, which the Skoda manages in 6.0sec, a full two seconds quicker than the Saab.

Bear in mind the Skoda is hardly a performance orientated model. The BMW must obliterate it. 10 year old diesels are doing better than that, let alone a brand new 2010/11 model
And man is it ugly.

bazz26 wrote: »

From here, about half way down the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JTD_engine

Well regardless, the Fiat/Alfa JTD engines are not crappy in their own models. Definately better performance wise than VAG units, which the Saab clearly isnt.

bazz26

Matt Simis wrote: »

Well regardless, the Fiat/Alfa JTD engines are not crappy in their own models. Definately better performance wise than VAG units, which the Saab clearly isnt.

I agree totally, just making the point that the 2.0 litre unit is a Fiat engine rather than a GM unit.

cadaliac

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

Well, I have and they are crap. Woeful handeling and plauged by nose diving when braking.
The lesser engines are boomy at 120kph and ...........


They have lots of space.

mumblin deaf ro

From reviews I have read, a lot seems to depend on the spec of 9-5 - the diesels are a bit noisy and some though not all reviewers say it is sluggish (shame because most sold here will be diesels) but the 2.0T petrol and the V6 are supposed to be great, esp with the HiPerStrut suspension.

Here is Honest john's review (generally find him good)

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/saab/9-5-2010/?

Saab is not going to knock BMW off their perch - Saab has been doing about one new car a decade, compared to BMW which seems to have something new out every week. The 9-5 is pitched at the A6 rather than the 5 series.

SAAB dealers need to offer some really good discounts to tempt buyers in (or back). SAAB has aggressively entered the company car market in sweden with the 9-5 offering guaranteed residuals after three years.

I reckon a 9-5 facelift in a couple of years will inject a bit of Saab/Spyker edge to the car and improve it a lot.

Vertakill

mumblin deaf ro wrote: »

I reckon a 9-5 facelift in a couple of years will inject a bit of Saab/Spyker edge to the car and improve it a lot.

Lets hope, by then, Spyker introduce some thoughts about speed/power coz they seem to be lacking in that department.

10.3s to 60mph? 25 seconds to 100mph? No thanks.

As I said before, I know it's not built for speed, but either is the 520D and it manages an extra 20 odd bhp and 2 seconds off the 0-60 time in the same category.

Matt Simis

Vertakill wrote: »

Lets hope, by then, Spyker introduce some thoughts about speed/power coz they seem to be lacking in that department.

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

unkel

Agreed the 160BHP diesel drags down the 9-5. The 220BHP turbo petrol would be much more like it, what are the emissions (motor tax) on that one? This car is huge. The base version is both longer and heavier than the base version of the previous generation BMW 7-series. And we're comparing 1.6l petrol 4 pot manual for the Saab vs 2.8l 6 pot automatic for the BMW here!!!

The 160BHP diesel doesn't even seem to be available in most countries. Another Irish famine spec special?

mumblin deaf ro wrote: »

SAAB dealers need to offer some really good discounts to tempt buyers in (or back).

I thought I read somewhere that big dealer discounts are a no no

mumblin deaf ro

I haven't heard anything about discounts in Ireland. I think Saab will need to price the 9-5 below the A6 - I can't see Saab just saying 'hey guys - we're back' and then expect everyone to leap out of their German exec saloons. At the very least they will need to offer a good trade-in on existing Saabs á la the loyalty bonus being offered in the US.

Matt Simis

unkel wrote: »

Agreed the 160BHP diesel drags down the 9-5. The 220BHP turbo petrol would be much more like it, what are the emissions (motor tax) on that one? This car is huge. The base version is both longer and heavier than the base version of the previous generation BMW 7-series. And we're comparing 1.6l petrol 4 pot manual for the Saab vs 2.8l 6 pot automatic for the BMW here!!!

If thats true then the 220bhp petrol would still have inferior bhp/ton than the weener base version of the very old 7 series. I assume you are talking about the e38, afaik the base version of the late model e38's and e60s was the 235-270bhp 730i anyhow, so still a lot better than Saabs petrol effort.

Looks like they should have died gracefully instead of the buyout.

mumblin deaf ro

The 220BHP turbo petrol has CO2 of 198 g/KM - €1050 motor tax, i.e. forgeddaboutit.

unkel

Matt Simis wrote: »

Looks like they should have died gracefully instead of the buyout.

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

patrickc

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

yeh it will hopefully like new models of most cars teething problems will happen with the 1st year of it, hopefully when I've the cash and can buy it, it'll be well sorted:)

unkel

Ficus wrote: »

The saab group still make a lot of military aircraft and aircraft defense systems.
They also make sub-frame structures for airbus and Boeing so i wouldn't see anything sad about showing a little of that off in its cars.

There's no such thing as the Saab group when it comes to cars in recent decades. Saab cars were unfortunately in the hands of crap American car makers General Motors for many years which nearly killed everything Saab ever stood for.

Sikie

2.0litre 160hp and poor CO2 says everything.

The engine technology evolution to be class leading should be pushing close to 200hp for a 2.0 diesel and getting band B CO2 emmissions.

Saab are simply cobbling bits and pieces together and calling it a "new car"

Mycroft H

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

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

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

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

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

The poor CO2 is almost forgivable when you see this:



Way bigger than it needs to be IMO

Saab Ed

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

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

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

I dont care , I just want one of these

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

Tragedy

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

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

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

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

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

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.

BrianD3

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

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

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.