http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/08/o...-real-this-ti/

9-4X. Not too shabby. Four-cyl turbo. Much like a certain other CUV. Flex fuel. Stated 22.4 mpg combined. 0-60mph in 7.9. The nice RDX standard features (roof, heated seats/mirrors, etc.) will likely be costly extras, though. I imagine that loaded out, this will land near or just under X3 pricing. 21" wheels a bit over the top, but that's the X for you. Will likey ship with 18s if I had to guess. Some sick storage options for skis and such in typical Saab fashion. Kudos to them.

They should've put a turbo-diesel in, imho. Overall, a nice addition to the segment.

Actually the X does not designate concept in this case but all-wheel drive. "Intelligent rear differential" also sounds a bit like the RDX's capabilities.

eh.

my friend eval'd the caddy version. i think i talked about it in a different thread.

looks like the CX-9 and a lincoln...good to know they are already behind in the trail. they are late with this car, trail in specs, and on top of that, its American.

i think 2008-2009 makers are going to completely kill (as in over saturate) this created cross-over segment. As with the infiniti, its a pay thru the nose car with a hatchback, that other than perform just like its G35 counterpart, really dont do anything (as in carry stuff like an RDX) or haul anything as in towing, or carry 4 ppl comfortably. The X3 and the RDX have this segment nailed in, sports car like performance, carrying capacity, truck-like body. Mazda came close but its a shit product. Honda/Acura are on their way to delivering another cross....time will tell how the saab plays in this game, my guess, not gonna be too well.

If it's going to be anything like the 9-2X, then....... no thanks.

The CUV does look fairly good looking... and knowing SAAB's renowned turbo technology (owned saabs before), it will probably be a blast to drive.

But I really caution against buying them, if quality build and reliability are big things in your criteria for a vehicle. Don't forget, underneath the sexy metal sheet, lies GM parts and "renowned mediocre reliability and quality build".

More ethanol hooey from GM.

Still 300 hp and 295 lb-ft is very impressive from 2.0 liters. The direct injection should be a large contribution to that. The car does look nice and doesn't appear to have sacrificed utilty a la the Infinity CUVs.

On the other hand, the Theta platform has only yielded mid-class handling. Splitting the rear drive torque should help.

Now all GM has to do is come up with the 10 gal of water needed to make one gal of E85.

I think I meant 9-7X. Whatever it is, it's ugly as sin.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/cadillac...q-concept.html

I have to say its Twin Brother looks better.

Yet no comparison for RDX

300hp/295lb ft is N54 territory. GM managed with only 2.0L of displacement? Must be crazy high boost pressures.

the way i look at this technology becoming more prominent...the direct injection, higher boost, huge displacement and SMALLER motors = more problems. I think this stuff comes at the cost of reliability and long term use. My prime example is the CX-7, which has encountered tons of problems with its fuel, engine, and intake systems...in part because i think their direct injection/fuel pumps etc are't working in harmony together, something is askew..

this kind of motor coming from GM, i dont know how i feel about that, i will say that the Caddy def has something going with its CTS, maybe its good things to come...i just hope these new crosses come with more to the table than just a body style

Agree, 9-7x is...blah.

Saab has been making turbos off of small-displacement hardware for a few decades at least to my knowledge, so they ought to have it down pat by now. I'm not a fan of the domestics, either, but GM is making pretty decent product these days (have to with 100k powertrain wty); I wouldn't be as quick to dismiss. It WILL be overpriced, though.

I do agree, the styling could be a tad better. Still looks to be a decent effort. I have nothing to add on the handling or lack thereof, but again, Saab is supposed to be decent here. The question is whether GM hamstrung them or not. It probably doesn't matter, though, as you have to figure ~ 4k lbs and non-Acura engineers. Ha.

exactly....this being a somewhat domestic product, as with Ford's integration into Volvo/Mazda etc, u just begin to worry.

saab i really dont question in terms of them building their turbo motors, its just different these days...2 fam members has 9-5's in the early 2000's and they were the worst vehicles to ever enter the family...1 was bought back due to electrical probs and the other was a lease with very similar problems....replaced with a Toyota Avalon and a BMW. so much for the saab lol

Saab -- Born from Trailblazers.

I like it and most domestic motors are pretty reliable, as are most of the cars.

I go with ugly above all

The 9-2x was one of the best car deals of the decade. WRX wagon clone with a nicer interior and sun roof for about $21K when they had the employee pricing deal going on. They were 15% cheaper than a WRX with better kit. They were 100% sourced by FHI, pretty much 100% MIJ.

Man, thats a big pug!!!

Good looking vehicle, but 7.9 in the 0 to 60? Man, that's slow compared to the RDX. I wouldn't buy it for that reason alone. That thing is a tortoise.

300hp O_O

Agreed, that was a hellacious deal. Good friend of mine got in on that and really likes his 9-2x; I don' think he's had any issues with it either, in 2 or so years of ownership. I want to say he ended up with his for <$20k.

I don't think anyone was questioning the 9-2x at all. That poster said he confused it with the 9-7x.

oh gosh who needs this.