dom

Kewl, I get you, thats why my previous post was entirely aimed at stating we have to look at the big picture. That one study means very little. but 10 of thsoe studies put together means alot. That's all I'm saying and that's all I ever said. Within the next few years Saab and Acura could be trading places for all we know with Kia ahead of em both??

And yes Honda has been slipping and I almost entirely blame it on the 01 and onwards Civic, its a peice of junk. Not to mention the TL and CL rattle and tranny problems.

93Kewl

Yes, I am reminded of this every time I keep my sunroof shade open with the roof closed! Rattle, Rattle! :'(

soopa

93... thats the ONE rattle that CAN be fixed. heh

larchmont

Let's see:

"It's all OK by me -- just don't be looking for us to say stuff that nobody should expect we'd have any reason to think of saying."

At first, and, as best I remember it, everybody agreed Saabs are real good cars, then the Saab enthusiasts got annoyed when some of us did get a bit protective of TSX and weren't being more effusive about Saab, and we even pointed out some things about Saab that count against it, in our book.

What I meant up there was, how could they have expected anything more effusive about Saab from us? This is a TSX board, which means many of us value things in a different way than Saab enthusiasts do, or else we'd be on a Saab board.

93Kewl

Clutch,

I was re-reading the thread and must have skipped your posting. Thanks for your kind words. Regardless whether or not I agree with you guys or not on the merits and weakness of the various cars discussed here, I always try to keep a even-keel look at things and try not to make statements based on conjecture or try to pass opinions as fact or fall into the trap of make broad generalizations based on things I haven't looked into or know anything about.

Cheers!

DISRUPTV

theres nothing wrong w/93kewl

I think since everyone here is an enthusiast, we tend to live and breathe cars, and thus this is why the arguments become so passionate lol

I mean a few years from now, we'll have a few die-hard members trading their cars for otheir cars and then preaching abt those cars lol...trust me, its happening aALOT over at a-cl.com nowadays

wishiwere

I know I'm a noob, and thus probably won't be taken seriously, but I'd like to make a couple observations about some comments made in this long and rapidly growing thread...(note, I do not own a tsx or a 9-3, and have no loyalty to either, but I do like both cars).

First, a lot has been made of the (projected) reliability of these two cars. A lot of people have thrown around various statistics from various magazines, and based on those have declared one car or another to be (obviously) more reliable than another. However, these magazines (ex. CR) have no data for either the tsx or the current gen. 9-3, and so I think it is kind of ridiculous to really put so much faith into these ratings. Very often there is as much variability between two different models of a given manufacturer as there are between two cars from different manufacturers. I'm not saying that the tsx won't be extremely reliable, or that the 9-3 won't have its problems, but I don't think much weight at all should be placed on these data.

Second, a lot of the comparisons that have been made have not been fair. Specifically, people seem to be comparing the price of a tsx with the price of a fully loaded vector, and basing the value of the tsx on that comparison. However, if you actually look at the two vehicles, there are quite a few differences, and I would venture to say the 93 is a much better value than people are realizing. First, the fully loaded vector contains many things that are not available on the tsx (let's just compare the non-navi tsx to it, since the navi is not available yet on a 93....), like a trip computer, memory seats, power passenger seat, bi-xenon lights, parking assist, and a couple other things. Now, the value an individual would place on these is debatable, but the fact that they are worth something is not, and thus this needs to be taken into account when comparing the prices. Further, the vector contains things that the tsx does not come with standard, but could be added as dealer options for added cost. In particular, the vector comes with a full body kit, and fog lights. The installed price for these on the tsx is pretty substantial (I don't know the exact values, but I'm guessing it's probably in the ballpark of $2000 or so). Now, add in the 3 years included maintenance that comes with the 93, and the fact that with incentives you can get a fully loaded vector for about 32k, and all of a sudden the tsx is not a runaway value winner between the two, in my opinion (and, this all is ignoring the engines, where the vector has 10 more hp and a LOT more torque).
As I said, I don't own either car, and although it might look like I have a bias towards the 93, I actually don't. I personally really like both cars and am looking into both for my next car. I just wanted to point out some of the discrepancies (some of which are glaring imho) in the comparisons being made on this site. As a final note, you can actually get a fully loaded 93 linear, for about 1k more than a tsx (non-nav), and it includes 3 years included maintenance - something to think about.

Hmm...that got pretty long. I doubt anyone actaully read the whole thing, but to anyone that did, thanks!

DISRUPTV

wish,


very good points...those little features are exactly what i was talking abt...and the vaue placed on them is debateable, but they do hold value nonetheless

larchmont

(Did read the whole thing!)

Of course you're right about reliability being unknown on a first-year car.
I think that all of us appreciate that. But those of us who are still putting emphasis on reliability in this case are figuring that "track record" counts for something. You have one company here with an almost invariable superb record, and another company with an extremely spotty record in recent years, at least according to most statistics and despite some good personal testimonials on its behalf.

That's persuasive enough for me -- not to the point of feeling I know for sure, but still. If you don't find that persuasive, though, I can sure understand it.

swami

You know what they say about opinions...There like assholes, everybody has one. When I decided to go back to a car from a truck I did alot of research and test drives. The first time I saw a TSX in person I was in love and after I drove one, that solidified my initial opinion. I wanted a G35 Coupe but it wasn't in the budget. During my lengthy wait for a TSX I started driving everything and looking at everything. I just kept coming back to the TSX. I've been selling Honda motorcycles and ATV's for 17 yrs. and I admit since they started building alot of them here in the US I've seen numerous recalls, ya never saw that when they were made in Japan exclusively. Knowing the TSX was built in Japan had an impact on my decision as much as I hate to say that. In closing here's my asshole, I mean opinion. How can anyone say the 9-3 is a better looking car than the TSX.

wishiwere

Larch,
Unfortunately, I think that is a bit too general of a statement. For instance, Saab only has 2 models - the 93 and the 95. The 93 is all an all new design, so there is no data on it. That leaves only the 95, which, as many people have pointed out, has been an extremely reliable vehicle. Additionally, Acura's most recent sedan offering (prior to the tsx), the TL, has had well documented problems with transmission failures. It seems to me that based on your logic, we could extrapolate that a) the 93 will be extremely reliable, based on the 95's track record and b) the tsx will have frightening transmission failures. I for one would not bet much on either of these two scenarios, but I think it demonstrates how making about new models of cars based on the past performance of previous models from a given company should be taken with a grain of salt, and in my opinion should not weigh too heavily on the decision to buy one car over the other (now, if the cars had been out for a while and specific reliability data was available about these specific models, then that would be a different story...).

larchmont

Good stuff -- but, IMO, another interesting example of how like-minded people can be looking at exactly the same kind of information, and come out with completely different opinions.

Main thing is, I disagree with you about what the facts are; maybe we're interested in different facts. Despite the stuff about TL's transmissions, the fact is (as far as anything I've ever come across) that its overall reliability ratings have been superb.

And about the 9-5, I wonder what data you (and the others who say the same thing) are looking at. From what I've seen, its evaluations have been mediocre except for the past year or so -- and one year's worth may or may not be significant.

As I said before, the way I see it is we have one company with a uniformly superb reliability record, and another one with a spotty record at best. I'm comfortable making the working assumption that the first company's new model is very reliable. All I can feel about the other is that it's questionable.

Keep in mind also that the TSX isn't really "new"; not only is the Euro Accord a very close forerunner, but also essentially the same car had been out in Japan for a few months -- both with good notices. That helps too.

As a total side issue, I had almost lost sight of this, but -- I agree with Swami about the looks of the 9-3. I've always hated it (truly), and at some level it must be making me feel negative toward the car.

93Kewl

C'mon Larch the links have been given:

AIS rankings:
9-5 (1999): http://autos.msn.com/vip/usedrelsing...d=3256&src=vip

9-3 (1999): http://autos.msn.com/vip/usedrelsing...d=3257&src=vip

Not too bad huh? Yeah I know about CR and such, but like many of you know the 9-5 was given it's "Recommended" stamp. Now, what does this have to do with a new 9-3. Well, I consider that the 9-3 is made in the same place as the 9-5's. Not in the USA, not in Spain, only in Sweden. I think that should say something.

One of the things that you failed to address that Soopa brought up is the fact that Honda/Acura has been slipping and no longer holds the "aire of invincibility" when it comes to reliability. No one will deny that Honda made cars are some of the most reliable out there, but it definately has been slipping.

On the other hand, some of the myths of Saab unreliability have been eased by it's fine showings in the JD Powers, AIS ratings (above) and some of the fine testaments from owners that have 200,000+ miles on an original engine!

I think the fact that it did so well (well above average and highest of all euro cars except for Porsche - no shame there shocked some people. Not too bad for a company that supposedly has a "spotty" history. One thing you can take from this, is at least Saab has made the effort to improve it's ratings, what has Honda done to prevent it's slipping?

hobbestec

Not for long. Once the 04's come out - i'm betting the the 04 TL's will be much more expensive so that the TSX's price won't seem as strange anymore when compared to other cars in the Acura lineup. 04 TSX, 04 TL, and then the 05 RL? will round out the sedan pricing structure.

larchmont

Great, Kewi. Maybe you're right about the Saabs -- but I have no way to evaluate whether or not you are.

I looked at those links. I just don't know how to interpret those, because while those scores are great, I don't see comparisons to other cars, and also I wonder why you gave us just one year's worth. When someone has years' worth of awareness pointing in a different direction, it doesn't get overturned by a couple of isolated pages. Please don't misinterpret -- I'm not saying I don't believe it, just that it goes against what I've seen, there isn't that much there, and I don't know how to interpret that info. We've had extensive threads about this kind of thing. I've seen how some systems that I do understand are so easily misinterpreted by others -- in fact by almost everybody, and we're talking smart people -- because they weren't familiar with the systems.

About Honda's reliability, you are now doing the equivalent of what you accused some of us of doing a few pages back -- you are severely stretching the facts to support a certain point of view. Yes, some of Honda's ratings have been lower in the very recent past than previously (not Acura's, though, which is more the point, but never mind); but, show me any Honda model at all that has scored less than an excellent, clearly-above-average reliability rating in a major source. IMO "slipping" is not correct as a way to put it. But never mind about that either.

What we're talking about is relative reliability of two makes. Honda's ratings are still terrific, and have been consistently and uniformly terrific for a long time. Going by major sources I've known and been familiar with over the years -- including recently -- that's not true for Saab. (If it were, I might well have one.) My impression is that Saab enthusiasts (like BMW types also) just tend to care less about reliability than Acura types. You can argue easily for the Saab on things besides reliability, but you've got a steep uphill battle arguing against Honda or Acura on that.

93Kewl

Care to quote some of them? I would be real interest in seeing these. I have seen JD Powers, now the AIS ratings, etc.

I don't think that I am here to argue the point that a Honda/Acura are more "dependable" than any given Saab. But, I will contest, that the "spotty record" you paint for Saab is just not as bad as you say - especially in light of Saab's performance in 3-4 year range.

Aw, baloney..you forget - I am an Acura type! (even a Honda type) If I thought I was going a buy a real "unreliable" car, I would stay away from it like the plague. The way I look at it, Saabs are most certainly better then Audi (with real publicized problems), better than BMW (which has been said to be dropping like a brick - but is still better than average), better than MB (which apparently has already dropped like a ton of bricks).

wishiwere

Just to add feul to the flame, I just noticed that in the latest auto spies newsletter (just came out today), there is an article about Saab's reliability score in the 2003 JD Power's CSI Study, in which they state "Beating all of its European competitors, and scoring well above the industry average, Saab scores its highest ever CSI ranking in 2003, a 17-point improvement over the previous study." http://www.imakenews.com/autospies/e...e000171661.cfm Of course, it still lags behind Acura, but I don't think the argument that Saab has a "spotty" reliability record, especially of late really has much of a leg to stand on.
On a side note, they also have a link to the 2004 TL spy shots (from this site!), and they call them gorgeous.

larchmont

Sure -- I'll get my stuff together and post it ASAP. I rely mainly on Consumer Reports' ratings, for several reasons, the main one being that their concept of "reliability" coincides with mine; I would bet that it coincides pretty well with yours, too -- and that the JD Power stuff does not. The JDP without a doubt is very misleading at the least, and IMO it has little to do with what most of us regard as "reliability." (Most people simply misunderstand it, and are very surprised to find that it measures just "number of complaints," the most common of which are things like "wind noise." A secondary JDP set of ratings appeared today -- in USA Today, I think -- it was posted on a couple of threads on this board -- and the closer we examined it, the more weird the definitions and criteria were revealed to be. Before you mock this, please take a good look at it.)

Other reasons for placing CR's ratings on a higher plane: they show you exactly what they take into account, they present specific results in numerous categories, all in a way that is transparent, and easily compared from one car to another; they do the same thing consistently, year after year, so you get a good longer-term perspective rather than relying on just one year; and they are free of outside influence.

It's great that we have people like you who like both Acura and Saab. But I must say that it seems you're being a bit disingenuous (good word) in saying this, because it seems pretty clear you have a stronger allegiance to Saab; at least in this debate you're cutting Saab a lot of slack. For example, you were making out like Saab has a very good reliability record and were mad at us for doubting it; now you're saying that Saab's record is "not as bad as I say." Great, we're getting closer.

Aside from trying to get together the references, I'm going to try to stay out of this debate from here on. I think we've all made our points; certainly I've made mine. We agree on much and disagree on much. I think the disagreements arise because we have different priorities and emphases as well as different subjective attitudes about the cars. I'm not sure we could take it any further.

TSXautoXer

As long as this thread is, I just wanna make it longer. Probably no one will read this...

I used to be a european junkie...a majority of the car that I drove before is european. When it's time for me to pay for my own car, I bought a Mitsu, which turns out to be the worst decision ever. So when I was shopping for my next car, I looked only at europeans. However, after months of test driving, I still stumble on Acura, which in fact I just accompanied one of my friend for a test drive.

I push my car hard, and really like driving, so I select cars base on how fun is it to drive. I test drove Saab 9-3 vector ($34K) but here's a list of things that makes me think it's not that fun to drive:
1. overboosted power steering
2. notchy shift linkage.
3. roll stiffness (maybe not, but the car feels unsettling when pushed hard, like it had it's own mind)
4. Straight line tracking challenged (the steering don't have a firm on-center feel)

Don't mistake me of hating Saabs, I drove a 900SE and 9000CD for a long time and I loved them. But this 9-3 don't feel that much like a Saab for me though.

I also considered BMW 325 and Merc C230 Kompressor, I have to say I really like 325, but with all the feature I want, the car cost $36K, too much for me now, and Merc, has a numb steering, notchy shift linkage, and is pricy too. Despite the RWD advantage, I decided to go with TSX. (I would probably buy a Lotus Elise in the future for RWD fun). It just have most of the right thing. It has a nicely weighted steering feel (although not as much feedback comparing to Audi A4 and BMW 3's), excellent gear shift lever, and great pricing (for me).

Anyways, maybe that's just me. For people who don't push the car that hard might not notice the difference at all between all these cars.

93Kewl

Wishi,

Great article and just goes to show you that choosing a Saab is not all "doom and gloom" as many perceive them to be. Whatever thier history with regards to reliability may be, it is undeniable that the company has taken strides to improve itself and seems be the leader in the euro category. Now Saab can add this to their "track record" and hopefully continue to do well in the future.

It's funny I equate the whole reliability to Baseball where Honda/Acura is like the NY Yankees - top tier of teams, great tradition, always consistant and always in the running for a world championship. Saab is more like the Boston Red Sox, tagged as perennial losers, also have a rich history, but to those that follow them, know that they consistently field a good team capable at any time of "turning the corner" and acheiving greatness.

For Saab the track record of the 9-5 and with the beginning of the new 9-3 (which is attracting all type of people - including those that would have never even considered a Saab before) is a step in the right direction.

BTW - not ashamed to say it - I am a Mets fan.

Santacruz

Not to make a long thread longer by re-hashing subjects but I think this point is interesting.

I agree with larch's impression. He's not saying all people that buy Saabs don't look at reliability. I think his sentiment is more that most Saab owners care more about prestige, certainly not "all" but most. I believe 93Kewl when he said he looked at reliabilty (though I wonder if he's leasing or buying) but is reliability the number one reason for buying a Saab? If Saab owners were asked to place the following car attributes in order of importance; reliability, value, prestige, performance. My impression is that the majority would answer:

1) Prestige
2) Performance
3) Reliability
4) Value (Saabs have a track record of not holding their value)

For Acura owners I feel it's more:

1) Reliability
2) Performance
3) Value
4) Prestige

just my $0.02

1SICKLEX

I've seen 1 so far. It was an old lady.

dom

This entire thread has not even touched upon things like Resale Value (briefly by Santacruz) and Service/Parts Costs. If your leasing and plan to return the car after three or four years then this is a non issue, but if one's buying the car it can be a very important factor. I'm guessing a European car made in Europe will also have European type repair bills??

93Kewl

Santa,

Let me correct you by stating the real rankings in the mind of a potential Saab owner:
1. European luxo-class driving experience for less-than-european
luxo prices.
2. Performance
3. Reliability
4. Prestige (along with this comes little "perks" like free 3 year scheduled maintenace).
5. Resale value - I place this last because my main priority is driving and enjoy the car while I own it. Heck, if I get 10K (which is being rediculously low) for the car after 5 years and 50,000 - I rarely put more than 10k a year on a car - it's ok by me.

Yep, tell that to the CL/TL owners who were in danger of having their transmissions "drop out" on them in the middle of the road. I think prestige play more a part in the Acura buyers decision than you state. I know that many on the CL boards felt more "prestige" toward their cars than the Accord EX'ers.

Domn,

Good points dude. I looked into this too and did some research. I tried to ask as many owners on-line and my Uncle who owns a Saab. The consensus for things like wearable items (ie. brakes, belts, etc.) the cost of repairs for Saab are nowhere in the league of MB and BMW (maybe even Audi). I would say they might be be a "little" more expensive than an upscale Japanese car. If this is truly the case, I wouldn't mind this so much. Even my Cousin, who is a Volvo Sales manger told me to stay away from MB and BMW because of the rediculous service/maintenance charges. His remarks toward Saab was "they're not that bad". Good enough for me.

soopa

i cant believe this is still going.

im not sure if some of you have been mislead or are just extremely naive?

either way...... let.... it.... goooo

Santacruz

good morning 93

Let's clearify that those are "your" reasons for buying the 9-3. The point is more to the masses that buy the 9-3. BTW are you leasing or buying?

Maintenance perks has less to do with prestige and more to do with luxury. When I speak of prestige I mean it in the sense of how you want society to view you.

As to Acura prestige, I never said it didn't exist as part of the buying process for Acura owners, I only said it was lower on the list of priorities.

I'm not sure I understand your last point, are you arguing Saab v. Acura resale value?

dom

Soopa, sorry dude but all we've done in defense of our Cars is state facts. Granted we've given JD reports that by themselves mean nothing but as a hole mean quite a bit.

Again, I don't think the Saab is a bad car at all I actually like it and think it will be reliable and good buy. But not one of the Saab defenders in this thread has provided hard evidence (See Facts) that would lead anyone to believe that a Saab is a reliable car. So is'nt it you here who's being naive and being mislead by the 4 people who told you Saab's are reliable and cost nothing to fix? We've provided evidence and can provide much more if need be to back our claims while I think Saab owners will have a very difficult time getting anything that shows a Saab is more reliable than a Honda/Acura.

***** Having said all this, again I like the Saab it could prove to be more reliable than the TSX, who knows. Its a good buy, a good value and looks nice as well. Lets deal in facts here people not hearsay like you are doing Soopa******

Santacruz

you saab wanna be...you'd like to forget that you started all of this, wouldn't you.?

93Kewl

Yes, good morn Santa.

Did you get a census poll to come to your conclusions or are you just "lumping" all euro car buyers into the same category? I have spent extensive time in the Saab forums and not once do people play the "prestige car". As a matter of fact, among the euro community, Saab is probably looked at as the "step-child" of euro cars. Unless you have experienced the community, stop making generalizations. I have spent time with the Acura community having owned one. Have you owned a Saab? Spend some time over at the SaabCentral forum an you will see you are very mistaken in your assumptions.

Come on Domn, give me a brake. What facts do you need? What hard facts do you have that your TSX will be a reliable car? The same "facts" that you come with are the same that say that from 1999 on Saabs have been much improved, reliable cars. I have presented JD powers (which surveys owners), AIS ratings, owner opinions, etc. But you know what? It's ok, you chose an Acura and feel comfortable with it. I am choosing to not go with another Acura and feel comfortable with my decision.

dom

Kewl I'm wondering if you even read my post??

- I've said several times in this thread that the 9-3 could prove to be more reliable than the TSX. But I've also stated and am stating again that going by Track records that's unlikely. NOT IMPOSSIBLE but simply unlikely.
- Hard facts would be even one report that shows Saabs are more reliable than Hondas/Acuras. Don't bother looking you wont't find one. And that's okay. Heresay from Sister's and freinds are not facts, nor studies.
- Your right, Saab's are much improved and are more relaible than the average car, no argument there.
- Your right again, I'm comfortable with my decision and you with yours. I would have also been comfortable in a Saab for the record.
- I think I'm trying to prove that Honda/Acura are more reliable and your simply trying to prove that Saab's especially the new ones are reliable, in fact almost as reliable as Honda's. In that sense we're both right.

BTW - Saw one last night, and I had to give t a second look as it does'nt look like the Saab of old, its definently more mainstream and pleasing to the eye.

Soopa please don't BAN me

dom

Kewl I'm wondering if you even read my post??

- I've said several times in thsi thread that the 9-3 could prove to be more reliable than the TSX. But I've also stated and stating again that going by Track records that's unlikely. NOT IMPOSSIBLE but simply unlikely.
- Hard facts would be even one report that shows Saabs are more reliable than Hondas/Acuras. Don't bother looking you wont't find one. And that's okay
- Your right, Saab's are much improved and are more relaible than the average car, no argument there.
- Your right again, I'm comfortable with my decision and you with yours. I would have also been comfortable in a Saab for the record.
- I think I'm trying to prove that Honda/Acura are more reliable and your simply trying to prove that Saab's especially the new ones are reliable, in fact almost as reliable as Honda's. In that sense we're both right.

BTW - Saw one last night, and I had to give it a second look as it does'nt look like the Saab of old, its definently more mainstream and pleasing to the eye.

93Kewl

Ok Domn!

We went from this:
to this:


Yep, NOW we are definately communicating!

dom

I've been misquoted.!!!!

I have stated several times at least 4 in this thread that Hondas/Acuras are simply more relaible than Saab's. I never said (although it seems as though I did in your quotes) that Saab's are unreliable cars. Show me where I specifically said Saab's are not reliable, like alot of others have said. My point was to provide facts that Hondas are MORE reliable. I've been defending you this hole time and thats the treatment I get My true feeling lie in your second quote, the first was me typing fast

Santacruz

...see folks, this is a perfect example of what happens when you sleep with the enemy! jk

CleveSaab

Sorry, Domn, didn't mean to flame you there, bud.
Your post I was refering to basically said "Everyone knows they are the most reliable cars. Pick up an issue of blablabla".
They post these stats in every issue? Could you be more specific? Which issues? Maybe a link to your stats? Something? Not just conjecture? I freely admit, I know little to nothing of Acura's and that's how you should approach this discussiion. Show me stats, not conjecture.

As for my "I thought we were talking about Acura" that was simply because when I quote Saab reliability stats, I do not mention, nor look at GM's stats. As you should not give me Honda stats, but Accura ones.

Good god this forum really hops!!!

CleveSaab

We're enthusiats...of course we read the whole thing. Good points, too, particularly on the reliability issue.

Look at Chrysler/Mercedes.
Chrysler was supposed to take cues from Mercedes to make more reliable cars. In fact, according to the latest NHTSA stats, the opposite has happened. Mercedes quality has actually dropped. This is mostly due to one specific model (can't remember which), but I find it amusing nonetheless.
My point?
Accura's in general may be more reliable than Saab, but we may as well nix this whole conversation because, as you said, there is no data on either model, and probably won't be for a few years.
In fact, the latest Saab data I could find stops at MY 1999.

Sorry if I got a bit annoyed there, but I'm just tired of people bashing Saab for reliability, and yeah I may have taken it wrong because noone really said "Saabs reliability is crap".

As I said, all I've ever heard is Saabs ARE reliable and safe which is why I bought one in the first place. Sometimes you hear horror stories about a Saab, but I think that's true of just about ANY car.

The Saab 9-3 is a nice car. The TSX is a nice car.
We can all agree on that, yes???

dom

No prob, as you can see we're still at it and probly will be for awhile. If you've gone over all the posts in this thread you'll see that I have provided stats and not conjecture. Here they are again. Two links to 2 sperate JD reviews that have been posted on this forum recently.

Link 1

Link 2

I know its hard to trust me but please take my word for it, I have not seen a report that rates Saab ahead of Acura or Honda ever, in the 4 or 5 years I've been seeing these, so I'm not going to posts links to 20 reports. The Saab defenders have unfortunately only brought forth conjecture and heresay for familt members and not a shread of evidence that shows Saab being rated above Honda or Acura. Again my argument here is NOT to prove that Saab's are unreliable cars, but only that they are not as reliable as a Honda/Acura.

As for me grouping Acura with Honda. Lets be real here the TSX is a Honda Accord and is marketed as one everwhere in the world but North America. The Saab product is mainly designed and manufactured in Sweden and does not share as much in common with Saturn for example as the TSX does with a Honda. And in most cases the Acura brand will be further ahead of Saab in reliability stats than Honda would be.

Happy motoring, and arguing.

JRock

If only it wasn't a Saab. It's pretty hot lookin and has potential but I don't think I could ever bring myself to own a Saab.

wishiwere

JRock,
Care to explain? I've never been aware of a Saab stigma until reading this thread. I've never owned a Saab, and I only know one person that does, but of everyone I know, I think everybody thinks of Saabs as fine cars (maybe it's location? I live right by Chicago and went to school in the Bay Area...never seen a backlash against Saab in either of those places...). I'm just curiuos why you'd make this statement....

soopa

JRock is an idiot. don't listen to him.