dom

Maybe this so-called backlash agaist Saab has something to do with its past quirkyness. I think we all can agree that Saab's have always been quirky. The new 9-3 has definently changed that perception in my mind at least.

Maybe repair costs for Saabs have always been quite high which leads to upset customers. I really have no idea, but I have also been aware of the Saab stigma for quite some time and am not entirely sure where it came from. I will tell you that old Saab's have always been hella ugly IMO, and that's no stigma they were ugly.

93Kewl

JROCk,

Yeah I used to feel that way about alot of cars. Funny, how things change when as you get older!

You are right before the 2003 9-3, I would never consider a Saab becuase I absolutely despised the hatch-back, weird styling.

Domm, do me a favor, please post the quote where someone mentions that Saab's are MORE reliable than Honda's. I know this is not the case (when you talk generally) BUT when you consider the big picture and reliability is in the mix, choosing a Saab is not a unwise decision (as I think you have eluded to on several posts). I'll tell you what, I (and many others, obviously) feel more confident choosing a Saab than BMW, Audi, and even the once vaunted MB! I really like the C Class sedans but MB is on a down trend which is never a good thing. From what I have read in articles and various reliability rankings, Saab is on the upswing which is good to see.

All I know is thank goodness my CL did not experience the well-known tranny problem. That is a major issue and potentially dangerous one at that! So I am sure that you understand regardless of how well some cars are ranked as far as reliability, dangerous/annoying/whatever problems can rear their ugly heads in any car.

dom

Kewl,

- There is no post of someone saying Saab's are more reliable. Damn You ....Except Soopa saying his sister and aunt or whomever have had no problem with their Saab's and he's experienced problems with Acura's
- No, choosing a Saab is not an unwise decision, but not everyone (Not including me) feels this way for some reason or another ?? Why TBD??
- You are completely justified in choosing a Saab over a BMW, MB, Acura or Audi. In fact anyone buying anything should be.
- Saab appears to be on the upswing of the reliability rating while Honda is suffering somewhat. Although in one of those links I provided regarding actual repairs, that does'nt seem to be the case. (1 report only)

Very well said and absolutely the truth.

Lycos

soopa, You're the man, and you certainly know how to generate traffic! How in the hell do you find the time to do this. I say thanks for your hard work.

I like an admin that isn't afraid to drop the "F" bomb! ...Fuck, ......there, I did it too. Feels good

Saab: I never even considered this brand until I was shopping for a car last fall. I absolutely loved the 9-5 (and still do), but it was a bit out of my price range. And at the time the new 9-3 wasn't out yet. I now see plenty of these cars in Seattle and they are beautiful--when it comes to looks, this is the best entry level lux sedan out there in my opinion. But the linear (base model) doesn't look great--you need the vector or the arc.

Lycos

....and you guys are too sensitive about your TSX. I think it is a great car, but my god, by reading these posts you'd think the TSX was some grand deity, a flawless gem, which should be exempt from any criticism!

I for one, was happy when I found out soopa doesn't own a TSX, but a CL-S. Can't he be a fan of Acura and Saab at the same time? Please give him permission.

Hell, I own a TL-S, which has been the "whipping boy" on a lot of these sites lately. The car does have its faults, and is not perfect. Would I rather have a 9-5, or a 330? Goddamn right I would, but I bought the Honda.....I mean Acura for its great value, and almost 2k off sticker, which I couldn't resist. In fact I think I will hang on to this car for a while longer (although that new TL is going to be tempting).

Saab is on a comeback tour, and so is GM for that matter.

Lycos

Yes, rice! I'm noticing a lot of TLs riced. And I'm sure when the new one comes out, there will be some ass-ugly 02-03 ricey TL's out there! Yuck.

Lycos

Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla,bla, bla, bla, bla, I'm naive, bla, bla, bla, bla, I'm naive,bla, bla, bla, bla,bla, bla, bla, bla, I really am.

I'm really late to this discussion and will just keep it going,.....by myself.

**soopa is a master promoter!!!

dom

Stop kissing the Saab lovers ass

Should'nt you be out taking pics of an 05 RL, 06 NSX and 06 TSX TypeR?? WTF get busy

Santacruz

JESUS CHRIST...I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!! change the name now soopa! may I suggest tsx-n-saab2.com Maybe a better idea would be to just shut down the TSX site because apparently everyone that owns a TSX really would rather have a Saab...geez!

God forbid TSX owners join a "TSX forum" and shout praise for and feel compelled to defend their choice. Maybe, just maybe, some of us here actually feel the TSX is worth the $28,000 and feel it is a better choice than the Saab. Maybe some of us even considered the Saab and "preferred" (read as: didn't settle) the TSX. Maybe I'm just crazy and I've been approaching this the wrong way. Maybe what I'm supposed to do is wander on over to the Saab forum or the BMW forum and tell them how wonderful the TSX is.

I don't think I've once heard anyone here say that the TSX was a perfect car. I have heard people say it's the perfect car for them, but that's why they came to a forum called acura-tsx.com. Why is it that people here, that don't own a TSX, say the owners are being sensative when they feel compelled to mention that, in there opinion, the TSX has better chance at higher reliabilty or better resale???

I love reading stuff like "I own a TL" or "I use to have a CL". Like that somehow makes it okay to write the Saab is a better car than the TSX

Lycos

Hey, watch it domn! You wanna take this outside!

I was just suggesting that soopa was generating hits to his site in a subtle and artful way! And he certainly has done the job.

And, yeah watch out Brenda Priddy, there's a new spy in town.

gogozy

i think, we came from "there" because we want to have our opinion heard, treat fairely..... that why we think of (or miss??) beingIS300 and Galbo from time to time!!!

i did not find Saab attractive but i can understand if someone does, just like everyone have their favorite position..differences does not make disrespect, just a preferences. the fact our ADMIN admire other car mean we are the best forum, we don't hide ourself in sweetcoated lie about ourself

what am i saying??:confused, but i felt sad :'( :'( because some of the post here.

CleveSaab

I will agree that Honda is more reliable than Saab.
My only point is Saabs aren't UNRELIABLE. They are damn fine well-built cars that, if taken care of, can run for 100's of 1,000's of miles.
People you hear with "Saab stories" are the ones that never take care of thier cars...than they wonder "why am I always sinking money into this POS!!!". Granted, occasionally someone gets a brand new one that is a lemon. But isn't that true of all cars?? Sometimes a crappy one gets through!
Speaking of which, yes Saabs are a LITTLE BIT more expensive than say a Honda Accord to repair. However, they are signifigantly cheaper then MB or BMW.
Saab resale value being 'poor' is another myth. Saab resale value is on par with most european cars. Compare how much a 2000 Viggen is going for today compared to a 2000 MB CLK. You'll see the %loss of resale value is pretty much the same.

Where do these crappy myths about Saab get started???



Let me also add, although the new 9-3 is IMO insanely fun to drive, I am not ecstatic about how she looks. I will miss the 'old' style 9-3's.

But the 04 9-3SS convertible is simply magnificent, IMO. I think if they made a 2 door hardtop version of the 9-3SS I'd like it much more.

larchmont

Hello again! I must say I've enjoyed staying out of this since yesterday.
The thread got a lot better after I left. (That's what you call "coincidence.")

While getting ready to post the stuff that Kewi asked/dared me to do (I know everybody is waiting with bated breath, hardly thinking of anything else), I started wondering what y'all mean when you say "quirky" about Saab. I know the car has this reputation -- I've read it in a few places.

But what exactly is it that's "quirky" about Saab?

93Kewl

Dude, take it easy, your blood pressure must be going sky high! We wouldn't want any member of any board getting sick now would we? If this shit really gets to you there's plenty of other TSX rah-rah threads here that will satisfy your need for TSX-Lovefest.

Well, I gotta say this is the most fun (internet posting wise) that I have experienced in a long time (almost as good as the 9-3 vs. G-35 that we had over at SaabCentral). I think it's a hoot that the two most popular threads are concerning two major players from the euro market. To the TSX's credit, be thankful that it can "hang" with the big boys! It says something for the TSX and also for the new 9-3 which that are getting recognition from the internet faithful (such as you and yours truly) and the rest of the buying public.

Hey Larch,

Does quirky count the Saab's trademark "ignition on the floor"? I think that's great and got a kick out of my test drives when I kept looking for the ignition on the steering column!

Yep, thanks Cleve! Good post about the re-sale value too!

Jason

Saabs are for quirky nerds. Finally someone said it. When is the last time you saw a cool guy driving a Saab?

1killercls

Jason

Actually, I'm still waiting for you or anyone else to name a sedan that lists for under $30,000 and offers a navigation system and manual transmission. THERE IS ONLY ONE!

wishiwere

Um, you can get an accord ex 4-cyl manual with leather, nav, etc. for 23k on carsdirect (sticker of 25,360)...

93Kewl

Real men don't need Navi!

Navi?, we dont need no stinkin' Navi!

Jason

My bad, you're correct. Then there's only TWO cars avail!

35kcdn

I test drove the 9-3 and I'm wondering what you guys (soopa and kewl) found within the car that made it superior to the TSX? I thought it was: as many peope have mentioned, including myself, to be "quirky", but it didn't add up to be a winner vs the TSX in my books. They're close, but look at the other arguments with these cars:

BMW: Inline 6, RWD, leader in its class
A4: Quattro AWD, Turbo four and 6 banger, fit and finish
IS300: Inline 6, RWD, the Japanese 3 Series
C230: Turbo 4, RWD, MB kinda says it all

Now the Saab: Turbo 4, FWD, ???, ??? , owned by GM

The way I see it: The 9-3 is THE way overpriced POS (but happens to look good) It doesn't have one claim to fame worth mentioning in order to beat out this heftly competition including the TSX.

larchmont

Uh-oh!!!!!!!!!

(Now where did I hear something like that before.....)

TurboBanana93

Quote by Soopa..
and you guys need to get off this whole "your the admin" shit...

just because im an admin does not mean i can have an opinion.


shit... ive been the admin of CL/TL websites for over 4 years and i think both cars are built like shit


what you get with me is an admin who PARTICIPATES in his community.


my ability to make a website work has nothing to do with my personal opinions.



now if i said.... "the TSX is a complete piece of shit i dont know how anyone could want one" that might be different. but i didnt.

i said the TSX isnt worth the 28,9 asking price with nav. which it aint


I totally agree !!
I started to like this site hehehe..

sdog 959

Soopa, I dont see how you think that the tsx is a rip off, when all of its competitors 2-3k higher. And black handles on a 32k car????? do you run a SAAB site too???? SAABS suck, whats the residual value on a SAAB? oh it is 45% on 36 months and the TSX is 62%. So what it the better value. Lets see you could spend less on the TSX and more on the SAAB and in 3 years the TSX will be worth a LOT more than the SAAB.

BlackTSXer

i understand what soopa is trying to say and all.. he does have his own say and none of us can change that.. but how in the world is the TSX not worth the 28,900 price tag?! if thats the case than the bmw's..g35s....saab's... are wayy ridiculously overpriced... like we have been talking about here for the past months, the TSX is a great value.. GREAT VALUE.. what you get for 28,900 is UNBEATABLE IMO... but you have your own opinion.. I would just like to hear WHY you think it is a ripoff? is it because it doesnt have enough hp? torque? because thats the only thing i could think of and that should not even be the case since it can hang with most of its competitors...

TurboBanana93

I think TSX should have same price as Honda Accord v6..
I think near 30K is too much for 4 cyl Honda( Acura )..

lshenretty

In addition to the TSX I ordered, the sales guy is looking for a couple other color combinations to cut the wait time. He called last week and had found a demo with 1300 miles on it. He wouldn't (or couldn't - dunno what the other dealer was saying) come down from the price for the one I ordered. Until the minor frenzy dies down, that may be more the norm than the exception.

For what it's worth, in case this thread hasn't atrophied yet, I love Saabs. I've owned 4 of them, going back to a '75 99. I do like the new 9 3. But I like the TSX more. I'll pay $4K less for a car I want more. Seems like a no-brainer.

larchmont

Don't worry -- I'm still out of this debate (which is a good thing for all of us) -- but I did want to follow through on this.

Let me say, first of all, it's true -- Saab "isn't as bad" as I said. So I gotta say, you were right. And it has been on the upswing.

Here are Consumer Reports' reliability ratings of the 9-3 for the last few years
("Years" don't mean model year, but just the year that the rating came out):

2003: None (new model) (9-5: Better than average)
2002: Better than average (nice going!) (BTW 9-5: Better than average)
2001: Average (9-5: Average)
2000: Average (9-5: Highest)
1999: Better than average (9-5: no rating -- new)
1998 (900 model): Worst (9000 model: Average)

OK, you might say, that's just one source. And I agree -- never mind that it happens to be the best source, for reasons given before. Anyway I agree. Unfortunately I don't remember exactly what were the other sources where I saw Saab's reliability to be less-than-great. So, I googled it, and I found 2 (only 2) things:

(1) The MSN stuff that you posted, which does give good grades to Saab, but, as I said, that's hard to evaluate because we (or at least I, and most of us) don't know the methodology or what kinds of grades other cars get.

The other reference -- the only other that I found, was:

(2) An organization called "Auto On Info." Never heard of it before.

Saab 9-3 gets grades that are utterly atrocious.

Here's a chart for several years' worth of the 9-3 ('92 through '97). Granted, that goes back a few years, but a big part of what we're looking at is "track record," so:

http://www.autooninfo.net/RelGrHiStandardsSaab.htm

Here's another page from the same organization that puts the same data on a chart with several other makes, so you can see how Saab "stands out" from the rest:

http://www.autooninfo.net/Reliabilit...caleLuxury.htm


And here's a graph showing how Saab is several notches below Honda, and quite close to Chevy:

http://www.autooninfo.info/RelPerSaabCharts.htm

Wait, there's a punch line. If I wanted to just argue my point, I'd leave it at that. But I looked further, to see what their methods were -- and there's a couple of problems. First of all, what this organization does is take Consumer Reports' data, and crunch it -- that's all. So this doesn't add anything to what we would already have if we just looked at some older CR ratings, it just puts them in a different form. But wait, it gets worse: They decided not to count certain things, like MT problems and brake problems (for reasons that they explain but which I think are absurd). So overall, I don't think this organization's data means squat.

So why did I cite it? Well, first of all, how could I resist? But secondly, it really shows how tricky data and charts can be. You have to look closely at what's behind it, and what the numbers really mean, etc. etc. I personally think that the closer you look at JD Power's results and methods, the more irrelevant they are revealed to be, but that's just my opinion. I could cite the Consumer Guide ratings which show TSX as superior to not only the 9-3 but even the 9-5, but I'm sure you would find reasons for doubting the validity.

The bottom line is -- yes, not as bad as I said. But, it was fair for me to call the record "spotty." Certainly it's not great. I'd even say that the record in the last few years is good, but it's not outstanding, and, in view of the prior record, not nearly good enough that we can have great confidence in a new model. If you say it's good enough for you, I think that demonstrates what I said before -- that you don't care as much as I do about reliability; you don't need as much to go on before saying it's good enough for you. And that's fine.

Where does that leave us? Wherever each of us wants, really.

But I've got to say, you were right -- Saab isn't as bad as I said.

And remember, that was just about "reliability." I never said it wasn't a real good car.

TurboBanana93

Hey ~ sdog 959,




SAABS suck
Why? What so important about residual value..when You buy the car to keep for over 10 years...
I know..Most SAAB owners keeps their car clean as well as keep it for long time

And according to your info..
If the residual value is damn so important, Then why not buy BMW or Lexus..They hold more value than the TSX.

sdog 959

Well, you are incorrect saying the Lexus and BMW have better residual values. I am no trying to get in some heated debate on this matter. I just pointing that out, because of some earlier posts saying the saab is a better value.

wishiwere

First of all, the Saab is the only one that has a refridgerated glove compartment, so it does have a claim to fame

But, seriously, before you call the 93 an overpriced POS, please check my post from a couple pages ago (a pretty lengthy one about some observations), and explain how the 93 is a horrible value. In my opinion, if you consider the tsx a great value (which apparently you do, and which I would probably also agree), I don't see how you can say the 93 is really a worse value. It seems that a lot of people here put a lot of value on the standard features that come with the tsx, and base their reasoning for considering its competition on the fact that when the other cars have these features added on, the price come out to be quite a bit higher. But, to do that, and not to count the features that these other cars come with that the tsx doesn't (or that come as pricey dealer options, such as fog lights and body kit), is not really fair. To say that an "equivalently" equipped bmw 325 is $8k more than a tsx is not really fair, because they will never really be equivalently equipped. Granted, the 325 is not exactly a value purchase, but if you fully load it, you will have things such as power passenger seat, memory seats, bi-xenons, real wood, trip computer, etc., that you must remember are not available on the tsx. I personally think that the 93 and the tsx are on about the same value level (taken with their current out of pocket costs...ie, when the 93 is purchased with the current incentives and the tsx purchases pretty close to sticker), and I challenge you (or anyone else) to actually point out how the tsx really is a much better value than the 93.

sdog 959

isnt this a TSX forum by the way???? I guess the navi systems in the saabs directed you to the wrong forum. I cant believe I have to defend the TSX on ACURA-TSX.com

wishiwere

Larch,
From these posts, you portray the idea that reliability is the absolute most important thing when buying a car. My main question then, is why would you buy a first model year car? I mean, you basically say from above that you agree that Saabs are actually better reliability than you had realized, and you see that they pretty consistently have been above insdustry average. However, you then say that this is not good enough, that you need the car to be demonstrably way above industry average, because that's how important reliability is to you. But, this is pretty inconsistent with buying a first model year car with no real reliability data on it, doesn't it?

sdog 959

I actually like the way the SAAB looks and it does come with quite a bit of accesories. I am pointing out the dollar out of pocket and future resale value, as my basis on overall value.

TurboBanana93

I like the Look of the 93ss too.
And I just want to say..
If you love your car and have faith on them.. You shouldn't bothered by the future resale value..
That's my opinion.. Thanks.

larchmont

(Let's see, how can I do this without getting back into the debate.....) You ask a very good question, and I do have an answer.

I had a very hard time on my last couple of car decisions. When I looked in early 2002, I wasn't happy with anything. I wound up getting an '03 TL-S, which was by far the closest to what I wanted, but not a car I really liked. Saab wasn't particularly in the running because, despite those actual figures (which I was aware of at the time, but just didn't remember exactly), the reliability record wasn't good enough. When I got the TL-S, I knew I would be looking for some other car to come along.

So then TSX comes out. It was pretty close to exactly what I was looking for. By this time, you have to understand, I was desperate for a smaller, sportier, firmer car. Yes, I was concerned about reliability of a new model.

So what do I do? Remember, Saab's reliability record just wasn't good enough for me to really consider it. (Plus, as I've said, I don't love the car anyway -- but it's OK enough that if reliability were higher, I would have gotten it.) Ultimately I thought TSX had enough in its favor that I'd be willing to take a chance:

(1) Most importantly, the track record of Honda/Acura. I don't think you could point to a single model (maybe ever??) that hasn't had superior reliability.
(2) The TSX wasn't really totally "new." It's real close to the Euro Accord which has been around quite a while, plus in Japan there had been a model virtually identical to the TSX for several months. Both of those cars had done well.
(3) I was absolutely desperate to get something.

So, at this point, in my book TSX just had no competition. I only had to convince myself that there was enough to go on to feel TSX had a good chance to have superior reliability. I felt that even with the question mark of being a (sort of) new model, it was a much better bet than a Saab. I didn't think there was much of an argument at all in favor of a Saab having great reliability, but a quite good argument for TSX. Plus I really do just like the TSX better than any Saab; if prices were identical and reliability were identical, I'd still take TSX. (Really.)

But, real good question. Ordinarily I wouldn't have gotten a new model.

provench

1killercls ... pass me some

ySL

93Kewl...why don't you glorify all you want out of the Saab when you actually come around to own one? then tell us of your experiences and why it's so important to point out why you like the 9-3 so much to a bunch of TSX owners...I'm sure we'll also care then...

larchmont

Hey, he's all right.

P.S. Short enuf for ya, Prov??

ySL

It seems like he's wasting his time arguing so passionately for the 9-3...let's say after reading all of his posts, current TSX owners were given the chance of starting over and choosing between the Saab and the TSX...did he then do anything at all in this thread to change our minds???