New cars make me want to Saab (2020)
theoutline.com
theoutline.com
However, I grew up with SAABs. I hated the things. :-)
When I was a kid it was the only thing that made me car-sick, and when I started driving I couldn't stand the horrible front end feel. It felt like driving an old man's boxer shorts.
I love old cars though. Especially old Alfa Romeos. I currently have a homologation special from 1987 (The 75 Evo) and I've owned several 75s and a GTV from 1982. Yeah, old Alfas aren't reliable. And stuff just stops working for no good reason. In fact the dash of my Evo has a reset button. It is worn. Every time I brake hard the warning lights go into 1970s disco mode. You know what? I don't mind. Because it smells like a car, sounds like it means business, looks like a car, handles like a car, and it doesn't have opinions on how it is supposed to be driven. (Well, the Evo tries to kill you with its crazy 80s turbo boost, explosive horsepower delivery and no toys to rein it in, but hey, it makes you feel alive!)
The Saab was pretty cool but they really didn't need to do everything different only to be different. Some things were just plain weird.
I love old brands with models that stood out, and it's a shame that originality in engineering has been mostly replaced by assembling components together plus some minor aesthetic tweaks. I guess the situation is fairly similar to programming, where SICP has been replaced by gluing libraries together in Python. Perhaps it's a sign of maturity, but I miss some stuff from the past.
When automated driving takes over, few will want to own a car. Most will rent from various fleets so they can watch a movie, play with their phone/partner/etc while they get from A to B. As usual, there will be good things about it and bad things.
> Everyone blames it on fuel economy
If you're as obsessed with efficiency as Aptera, you end up with something very different and daring.
So many incredibly iconic and beautiful cars would be flat out illegal to sell today (in the EU at least). I'm not dismissing the lack of innovation (and more accurately risk aversion) as a factor. Regulation does drive a chunk of it though.
Worse, it's more like cowardly "risk aversion". Stay in the lines, don't take design chances. What color? Something conservative, maybe desaturated, maybe metallic....
Is it? Lol, they're about the only new cars selling for under MSRP around here these days.
I was drooling over a beautiful white 1967 Duetto spider the other day though. What a pretty old thing that is, and sounds so nice too.
The real problem isn't reliability but shitty dealer networks. Alfa have a knack for finding dealership networks that think it's great fun to have them in the showroom to pull people in, but aren't terribly interested in selling them or doing a good job servicing them.
My tip is to never use the dealership for servicing your vehicles (of any brand). Find a garage that has competent people, and who have respect for the work, and then pick whatever cars they are competent to work on. You don't want to spend a lot of money on a car only to have a bunch of underpaid teenagers who can only follow a manual work on your car.
Another complaint I've heard of Alfas is ergonomics sacrificed for looks, which is kind of a deal breaker for me.
The ergonomics: guilty as charged. Alfas are built for people who have the anatomy of an orangutan. I am not kidding. You need short legs and freakishly long arms to be comfortable.
But I don't mind :)
I've just read the other day that BMW is recalling 1M+ vehicles on the US market because of engine fire issues. What?
Last weekend we went on a trip and what do you know, smoke coming out of the hood of a burning BMW X3 on the other side of the road, fire brigade etc. When we returned we saw it reduced to a pile of burned down chasis.
A woman from a neighbouring office bought a brand new BMW X6 (the butt ugly ones). She had to take it back to the dealership because the engine would overheat.
The owner of this white '67 wanted $30K, too rich for my blood. But I had fun helping to diagnose a carb leak and rotor phasing issue with it. Old Italian cars are like boats, most fun when playing with somebody else's. Besides, I've got a Porsche 951 that more than keeps me on my toes.
However, the Renault 5 Turbo 2, now that is a thing I desire: https://youtu.be/B2HjCrnr-NE
I got easily carsick as a child but don't see the same effect in my kids. I am wondering if it is partly the result of more conservative uses of vinyl as an interior material. The smell of that in the summer would make my hair stand on end...
Pretty much. They preclude that car from actually being cheap enough that people would buy it over a nicer used car and as the new car market skews higher and higher end the used car market skews likewise making the competition stiffer.
>about all new cars looking completely ridiculous.
The front body work is bounded by pedestrian safety requirements in the EU and aerodynamics. The rooflines and beltlines are bounded by US safety requirements. It's no surprise that the designs all converge.
Airbags, active suspension systems, ABS, backup cameras, etc all increase the cost of cars. Though I dont know how much of that is tied to increasing price of used cars - that seems to have more to do with Cash for Clunkers taking a huge amount of used cars out of the used car market, while it put a bunch of people in new cars, it also skewed the pricing for used cars higher - it took an entire generation of used cars out of the market - which continues to effect pricing today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_stability_control#T...
Yaris worked well in general. I'm not surprised it's popular with college kids. It was pretty bothersome, though, how at the lowest trim level they even disabled things like cruise control. I'm three times older than any college kid and it made my ankle ache on long drives.
I'm not even 100% sure how they work...
At the same time here in New Zealand long journeys are 99% on two lane roads, with lots of corners and hills. Not sure how useful cruise control is for that.
You're probably getting more than 20% in reliability/maintenance.
Deals exist on unwanted vehicles for sure. The iA always sold cheaper than the actual Toyota Yaris in my experience despite being a far superior car.
In Europe we have Dacia which is exactly that.
*will still get a Dacia for necessity, though.
For my needs thats enough. The trick is to never buy a better car, so you don't get used to the more comfortable features. :)
Sadly a lot of the other stuff is less awesome.
Nothing sticks out, they are completely smooth aerodynamically.
(I do think the aero model 3 wheels may be functional but are not attractive)
Inside the car, I think tesla's minimalism has gone too far.
The telsa model 3 without a dashboard in front of the driver is cheap, not minimal. They also reduced the stalks and overloaded the controls.
Then the recent model S/X changes went further to outright dangerous. There are no stalks at all on the steering column, and turn signals, horn and high beams are touch buttons in the middle of steering wheel. When you move, the car guesses which direction you want to go, there is no gearshift stalk. There are gearshift buttons at the bottom of the console, but no dedicated buttons for other critical functions like defrost. sigh.
Edit: my first truck (1986 Toyota) was $6k. Manual everything and didn't even come with a radio. Most of the stuff was fixable at home (if you're handy). Didn't even have EFI. I feel like Honda used to have some of these simpler models - not just cause it was the 70/80s but also because that was a longer lasting/simpler product.
We've replaced longevity with bells/whistles as the key-feature.
Similar features may be available in an SUV or sedan but I've never seen one; would probably be a special order or maybe only available to fleet purchasers.
I haven't bought a brand new car in over 20 years so I don't know if you can still get cars like this. Rear cameras are now mandatory, so all new cars will have a screen. And if they have a screen anyway, adding more features to it is likely to happen.
> Rear cameras are now mandatory, so all new cars will have a screen.
Nah, the cheap ones just put a tiny little screen in the rear view camera. Nice because it requires no other changes to the dash, and is universal across models.
If you want AC and a radio you’re looking at about 12k EUR, which definitely isn’t terrible. It’s a Renault subsidiary and you see a fair amount of them driving around.
So yeah, it’s not like offering an affordable bare-bone car isn’t possible in mature markets, it’s more likely that Americans just don’t have an appetite for them.
The affordable car is definitely being tested though. Renault discontinued the Twingo last year, which was their smallest car. Audi discontinued the A1, claiming there’s just no money to be made in their lowest segment.
It’s looking pretty bleak for the utilitarians among us, as electrification happens and safety features such as lane assist and emergency stop systems become mandatory, base prices will consistently be higher. You can only drive down the price of components so much.
The base model Dacia Duster doesn't come with height adjustment on the driver's seat or with a glovebox light, you need to upgrade to the Comfort package for those. It does interestingly come with a radio these days, back in the day that used to require one of the upgrade packages.
It’s has a manual transmission and an inline 4-cylinder with very low output compared to most vehicles. Paradoxically, that combination makes it fun to drive.
It also holds its value very well. I’ve owned it for twelve of the 23 years of its life so far, and I could sell it today for more than I paid for it. At the same time, it’s extremely cheap to fix, because the design hasn’t changed often over the years and the powertrain is shared between many popular vehicles of its time.
My wife’s vehicle has far more “creature comforts”. She drives a 2015 Kia Sorento that we bought new. We’re considering upgrading hers to a new Kia Telluride in the near future, especially considering recent trends in used car prices.
There’s definitely still a place out there for mechanically simple vehicles. It’s a shame that the new Jeep Wranglers - say, the JK and newer - have gotten so much larger, more complex, and expensive to maintain.
If I had my druthers, I’d be driving something like a modern Kubelwagen, VW Thing, or perhaps something with a bit more cargo space like a Pinzgauer. It’s a shame no one seems interested in making them.
I will not part with my MK6, manual 6 speed, 2L turbo! Notes: There are younger folks now that won't bother with manual. 3G telemetry just expired (yay). It's fun. And decent MPG.
I found a 2012 M/T GTI being sold in Southern California and literally hopped on the next flight once I got confirmation that they’d sell it to me. I bought at asking ($6500, a steal just months later) and drove it back to Sacramento.
I never thought I’d be that kind of person to take a one-way flight to buy a car, but that MK6 GTI has changed me. It’s one of the few “modern” vehicles that is easy to do work on yourself. The chassis was designed to hold the larger 2.5L, 5-cylinder engine in the Golf so the smaller 2.0L Turbo left enough room to get in there and perform repairs/service without taking body panels off (cough cough BMW). Armed with a VCDS and a 10mm, I can diagnose and fix most minor things.
Super fun, easy to self service, manual transmission, not letting this go.
The Fit started selling really well around the time of the 08 crash (and fuel more than doubled in price that decade):
https://www.autoblog.com/2008/06/23/honda-boosting-fit-produ...
> Like most other manufacturers doing business in the U.S., Honda has been caught by surprise by the sudden shift in demand to smaller cars.
Sort of similar to Ford discontinuing the Focus despite it selling fairly well. It was a lot of effort for a narrow profit margin so they shifted into more profitable vehicles. A shame because the Focus and the Fit were both reasonable, affordable choices.
We desperately need sub-20k electric cars and they just don't exist.
I've got a cheap $0 lane assist and emergency stop system called "paying attention and not tailgating" that came stock in my 2003 Ford Ranger. I've been using it consistently for 35 years now on different makes and models of vehicles and it hasn't failed once.
The roads are a highly regulated public space where safe, smooth motion depends on everyone working together, and where one little error can throw it into chaos. Everyone will mess up if they live long enough. You can make some philosophical argument against mandatory safety features if you like, but I hate driving as it is and welcome any feature that reduces the odds or severity of the inevitable results of the limits of human perception and reaction time.
There are plenty of people who absolutely are not skilled at driving. They never will be. But they have to own a car to live in our society - thus, here we are.
People still don't know how to use them.
I don't think "road design" is an issue. People in Europe drive less in general, risk groups (teenagers and elderly) drive significantly less often, there are less people who need a car to get home after a night out, higher BAC levels (0.08% vs 0.05% or less in EU), etc.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
None of this will change the fact that, you, as the driver bear primary responsibility for your own safety, and that of your passengers, when in control of a vehicle. Driver aids are helpful but are not a substitute for attentive and defensive driving.
I have very severe doubts this is what is happening since we're just becoming more distracted and the roads are becoming more lethal.
Lane assist and braking assist just allow you to be more distracted without immediately getting punished by it, normalizing the distracted behavior.
You're the next iteration of the person complaining about anti-lock breaks because you can just learn to drive better on ice.
I do not think it is that simple. I think regulations also restrict how simple a car can be. Top of my head, breaks, lights, light colors, emissions, transmission (go figure), fuel storage, fueling features, and so on. All these add to the cost.
No one wants to drive a car that has no or minimal creature comforts.
That's a shame. I'm driving A1 2020 model, and it really is the perfect little car even in the most basic of trims.
In general, if you want the most basic, low-opex car you can find, just look at what rental car companies are buying (though rental companies have been desperate for anything, so this currently doesn't apply.)
Regulations and fuel economy standards absolutely influence design. The reason most euro cars/SUVs have a sloping hood (compared to the "RAWR I AM AGGRESSIVE" square front on most American SUVs) is to meet pedestrian Euro-NCAP standards. High door sills are to provide better side impact protection, smaller windows are to lower heat/AC load for fuel economy.
"All cars" are not "looking completely ridiculous." He cites some of the most infamously ugly cars (Toyota Camry and Prius) while ignoring, oh, the entire rest of the market. There are loads of conservatively styled cars out there. Toyota intentionally dramatically changes their styling almost every year because underneath those changing body panels and tail/head lights is the stuff that's actually expensive to change. They're intentionally garish because they want the design to look exciting now, and like aged dogshit in 3 years. They also want to push their more conservative buyers into Lexuses.
Lots of decent looking cars out there.
VW's current "narrow line" design language looks like ass, but go back one or two model years and I think they're pretty fantastically well-styled cars.
The Audi A6 hasn't been an ugly looking car in at least ten years. Current model: https://www.topgear.com/sites/default/files/cars-car/image/2...
Want something more "fashion forward"? Volvo's S90 is a work of art inside and out: https://www.media.volvocars.com/image/low/171020/2_2/1
If you want a sporty sedan that looks like sex on wheels and have a big wallet, the Alfa Giulia: https://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/alfa-romeo/giulia/2022/oe...
Want something a bit more conservative but sporty looking? BMW 3 series https://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/bmw/3-series/2021/oem/202...
I don't get what the author is on about with the current F150. It feels like Ford is really in stride; usually they're a shitshow of fugly, awkward curves and proportions, but they seem to be making designs that not only look good in the present, but are holding up longer.
I disagree, and most people living when those cars were new would, I suspect, disagree. I would guess this is either a nostalgia-driven (positive for older designs) or overexposure-driven (negative for newer common designs) aesthetic preference.
One reason I don't see mentioned here is the perverse incentives to manufacturers to make larger cars due to CO2 emissions regulations differing depending on the size of the car. So instead of making more efficient engines to hit the targets (no doubt the intent of the regulations), they just stop making small cars.
However, the intent was to say they (politicians, society) did something about CO2 emissions without actually giving up anything. Which was accomplished.
https://www.mitsubishicars.com/cars-and-suvs/mirage
One problem with this class of cars is that they do not compete favorably with used cars.
In reality someone shopping for a car on a budget is just going to buy a few years used instead of cutting out all the accessories in an attempt to scrimp. So the unfortunate truth is that there is no market and no profitability for a purposefully minimal car.
The closest you will find are rental market and commercial fleet vehicles like basic sedans (Chevy Malibu), pickup trucks, and vans where the automakers know there is such high demand and guaranteed income that they don't need to pad them with extra frills.
So, an automaker can either include neither of those two features (and neither of us will want that car), both of them (which makes it more expensive, and if you adopt the policy of "take the union of all of the bare minimums" then you have a normal car), or just a subset. You lose every way.
It's philosophy pretending to be engineering. Real engineer requires deep analysis, not just assuming that simple is more reliable.
After that happened I drove a Toyota Corolla hybrid with a CVT and it was awesome. High mileage, tranquil, no gaps in acceleration. The only downside was that it is smaller than a Passat (GTE).
I think for a long time CVT's suffered from a poor reputation due to the reliability of those 1970'ies DAF cars.
What would be nice though is a car that doesn't get redesigned every few years. If I know that redesigns will only happen every 10 years, then that means cheap parts will be abundant and maintaining the car will be much cheaper.
I also have been shopping for a new car and the selection out there is miserable what with all the stupid option games, horrible butt-ugly design, and everyone insisting that cars need more microchips than CERN for whatever reason. When I find something interesting I always run into some gotcha that turns me off.
My latest disappointment was Ford's bait and switch manual transmission Bronco (I love driving manuals)- it's only available paired with the anemic turbo I4 instead of the more powerful V6. No one is buying a 5000 pound vehicle with an I4 in it. I read an article which stated that a ford rep explained this is because manuals are unpopular so they didn't pair it with the more powerful engine option - the engine option that people like me who spec manuals want to order. Of course the manual wont sell if its paired with garbage you idiots.
No, it's because people who buy new cars don't want this.
Its redeeming qualities are light weight and responsive handling, to feel like driving a nimble hatchback rather than a lumbering SUV, while having the raised cockpit, visibility, and most of the cargo space of an SUV. Lack of AWD is a feature; I don't do any towing or driving on snow or dirt to need it; FWD is lighter and cheaper and more efficient.
People have preferences that aren't the same as yours, and insulting them isn't necessary. Crossovers are very practical and people buy them for plenty of good reasons.
It won’t help you on the minimal features and replaceable radio though.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Suzuki sell cars in the US?
I hope that cars reach a point where self-driving is real but we aren't there yet, and interfaces that require people to take their eyes off the road to navigate to basic functions are not appropriate for cars.
Don't get me started on touchscreens in planes during turbulence...and yes I am a brown station wagon with a manual kind of person.
What I am talking about is the habit burying all simple functions in menus or on touchscreens. Temperature control, vent direction, volume, fwd, back on music, basic menu navigation. Inevitably these cumulative seconds of searching add up to enhanced risk for pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists.
> Temperature control
These days automatic climate control is usually pretty good. I've been using ACC since my 2000 Honda Accord EX. The only climate control feature I routinely mess with on my cars is to turn on the defroster, which at least for the cars I drive still have physical buttons. Other than that the climate control stays on automatic fan, automatic temp, and I rarely even adjust the temperature. On one of my cars even my heated seats and heated steering wheel come on automatically. Having manual climate controls leads to more distractions for me, as then I'm having to actually change controls.
> vent direction
I definitely agree this is pretty ridiculous. I don't quite get why its better, are cars with this feature automatically repositioning vents at times? I truly don't understand the value and agree with you on this. I shouldn't need a menu to open/close or reposition a vent.
> volume, fwd, back on music
Most cars have these on the steering wheel. The steering wheel controls really should be the driver's primary way of manipulating the stereo instead of taking a hand off the wheel. IMO putting the stereo controls on the touch screen ends up making me less distracted, as it essentially forces me to use the wheel and voice controls instead of messing around with controls away from actually driving the car.
Meanwhile, having the actual app available on the large screen means my passenger can dig through playlists easier, switch between apps easier, etc. It also means as we move towards having a large screen that its easier to glance and get a good idea of the map as opposed to having a smaller map in a navigation system.
For some cars with touch screens (like Tesla) this is an imagined problem that does not exist in reality.
>The death of physical buttons and simple interfaces in car interiors
A lot of people also falsely imagine this issue exists as well, when it doesn't. There are plenty of buttons in cars with touch screens.
For those that don't want to watch the video, the answer is "press the correct spot on the far corner of a touch screen exactly the right number of times, or look at it to see what color it has turned". This is a function that occasionally needs to be done in an urgent situation, potentially also one where the "autopilot" has given up (low visibility).
It's a lot easier to just press the button under your thumb on the steering wheel and say "turn on the defroster."
Or you can say front defroster, rear defroster, etc.
No need to do all that stuff.
So again, it's an imagined problem, not a real one. The button is muscle memory.
AMA
0. http://saabworld.net/wp/1970-saab-sonett-iii-heritage-collec...
What does that mean?
not sure, he only had half of a device in his shop
Furthermore, windshield wipers were not infrequently powered by the power steering system, rather than electrically driven. High torque electric motors in a small enough package and affordable enough didn't exist until the late 60's.
It ran on mineral oil at a nominal pressure of IIRC 3200 psi. Could cleanly slice a finger off if poorly maintained & it sprung a leak in an inopportune corner of the system. All this to ensure that the auto's accessories operated with all the smoothness and silence that befitted a head of state.
I'm Swedish though, and my mom used to work at Saab back in the day when I grew up (as most of the people in that town did then).
Definitely a much-loved model, I get appreciative comments regularly from middle-aged men whose formative years were clearly spent in Saabs. When I went to the Mercedes car dealership last weekend (thinking about upgrading to an electric vehicle), the salesman was in such raptures over my Saab he nearly forgot to try and sell me a new car.
That being said, there are still plenty of cars that are unique looking now, Miata, Supra, GR86, BRZ, CT5-V, CT4-V, Stinger, Taycan, and plenty more!
Then he had the nerve to criticize for buying a Corolla, after teenage me got sick of dealing with auto shit after going through no less than three old, cheap Volvos that seemed to constantly need work of some kind. (Two of which had a habit of stalling at the most inopportune moments, like driving 60+ MPH on the freeway. It took years to feel safe driving again!)
I'll try to answer specifically. For me it is the body shape of the 99/900. It feels organic and part of the road, the mushroomed shape makes me feel like I'm part of a natural outgrowth of entire automotive ecosystem: map + city + road + car + driver + civil engineering. The interior is also minimal and of the school of Bauhaus or Dieter Rams. The late 900's and 9-3 lost this charm and became more conventional.
There's no logic behind it, it is simply shape and form that appeals to certain people. I know people who are nuts over early BMWs, or 1950's VWs, everyone has their thing.
I drove one, it was fine.. (Un-remarkable, but at the time I had a 1989 GTI, that was pretty fun...)
I remember having trouble removing the key from one (Its next to the shifter... And it needed to be in reverse or something.).
To bad the company tanked. They had neat design going: http://www.retrotaksi.fi/en/index.html
They are quirky and aesthetically distinguishing, especially all the orange and green.
Love my '95 Saab 900 SE turbo and will most likely never part with it if I can avoid it.
Most of the V6's of the past were also garbage, so no loss there.
But there are still quite a few 6 cylinders out there, they just aren't necessarily cheap. Mercedes has a 3.0L V6 they love to stick in all their "midrange" AMGs for example (C43, GLC43, etc..), BMW still likes their I6 in for example the M3, Z4, and Toyota Supra. And of course Porsche still loves that flat 6 in the 911. There's also still a V6 for the Camry and a V6 Camaro among a few others.
What did mostly die is the "V6" as a generic "more power" upgrade for things like the Accord or most other midrange, midsize sedans. But the modern turbo I4s are so much better than those were, so it's not really a loss. And there's plenty of affordable V8s that are just fantastic as well.
BMW has a lot of similar design objectives and delights, but it was still missing a couple of characteristics that made SAAB unique. Then I went to Volvo, who hired many of the SAAB engineers and brought over some of SAAB's character, such as the center console mounted ignition (which SAABs had as an homage to their fighter jet history).
Volvo is doing a good job at their mission of safety and style, but they still haven't captured that same feeling that SAAB did (nor do I think they intend to). I feel like BMW is the closest experience I've had to a SAAB. I wish their quality was better, and/or they were priced similar to SAAB, but their engineers seem to want to delight their buyers in the same ways that SAAB did: thoughtful design, nice materials, and fun. FUN! Most people buy cars to get from point A to B -- it's a "tool". That's fine, but it's hard to find "tools" that are also fun; yet, it's magic when you do.
That's SAAB.
I personally grew up with Volvo 240's (1 GL and 2 Turbos) and bought a Saab 9000 for college. I thought Saabs were one of the best used cars at the time because they lost their value so quickly off the lot and that value just continued to plummet every year.
Not sure I'd personally point to Saab when it comes to design so much as cult appeal. I've definitely noticed the old Swedish cars are starting to surge in price as they become nostalia items though.
Maybe urban myth, but keeps popping up when I see them around town.
It's really a shame that the most popular "cars" are trucks and SUVs, it's quite expensive and wasteful.
A manual transmission is _far_ easier to rebuild than a CVT or other automatic. They also tend to be more durable, though I expect that is an advantage that has diminished or even reversed.
> Plus, EVs don’t even have transmissions, at least not ones that need shifting.
Most don’t, but some do. It depends on the voltage range; more precisely, it depends on the RPM range, which is directly correlated to input voltage.
In addition, almost all of the “classic” EV conversions I’ve seen maintain either the original transmission or an upgraded replacement with similar functionality. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOx5uCufB2Q
Performance can be handled by an automated manual, economy by a CVT, and the future is EVs. And apparently fun and 1% of the market is not enough to convince automakers to commit to the extra $$ needed for the extra tooling, supply chain complexity, and emissions certification required to offer them as an option.
The number is like 2 or so innit? Audi and Porsche have a low gear for increased torque. Rimac's Concept One had a two-speed gearbox, but Nevera (formerly C2) dropped it. Formula E cars do have 5 or 6 gears.
That's not true, electric motors make peak torque at low RPM and then it drops steadily with increasing RPM.
But yes, it's acceptable enough to allow for single speed transmissions for most road cars.
On Sunday I happened to park right behind exactly the car I would try to find and buy used if my occasional-use Volvo XC70 had to be replaced: a red VW Golf Alltrack wagon with tan leather and the big sunroof and 6-speed manual. (2020 was the last model year.)
I fantasized a bit about whether I could buy one and keep it long enough for my 9yo to learn to drive stick, but of course that would be a determinedly quirky and antiquarian skill to learn by then, like writing with a quill pen or using a coal furnace. (https://www.npr.org/2019/03/03/699325560/for-the-few-who-hea...) Also the used prices have gone up since I last checked a year ago!
(What will finally put the nail in the coffin of the manual is the electric car. And--yeah, I guess I obsess about this--electric wagons from Volvo and Volkswagen will be coming to the US in the next few years, though for various marketing reasons they both shy away from the word "wagon": https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a39263104/new-volvo-evs-wa... and https://www.reddit.com/user/HDiess/comments/soje69/hi_reddit...)
The first thing I thought after we knew we weren’t injured was, “oh NO I am going to have to buy a new car!”
Used Alltracks with more miles were going for both more than what I paid and more than the insurance payout (also more than I paid).
I have given up ever having a manual again. I managed to get a Honda Accord hybrid, and the only thing I can say about it is the gas mileage is nice right now. But it’s absolutely soulless, I feel unconnected to the road when driving, and it’s just boring and an appliance.
Based on at least the Allroad's numbers shipped since 2020, I think it's uncertain if they last in the US market. Hopefully that improves with time and supply chain issues resolving.
Luckily, hatchback is still somewhat available in the U.S., so that's what I drive, plus manual tranny. But they're now unicorn.
So I'm going to hold onto my baby for a long time.
I love driving my manual ICE, but I know that my next car, which will be EV, won't have a gearbox. It'll have "forward" and "reverse".
What does "neutral" mean when your engine(s) don't "idle"? Why do you have gears if the torque is flat from zero?
EVs are going to kill off gearboxes and all of the associated mechanical linkages, dramatically reducing maintenance and repair.
What is night mode and why did I use it all the time?
What is this CD? a tour of my own car... hosted by a jet fighter pilot and random disembodied female voice?
Where do I put the key? Oh, next to the gear box... like mid thigh. (the cd will tell you this is to avoid injuring your knee in an accident)
Wait, how do I remove the key? Shift to reverse? Well it won't go in reverse... oh pull up on gearbox skirt and THEN shift into reverse.
The windows rolled up and down unnecessarily fast. Faster than you're thinking.
I had little wipers on the headlights (so european!)
Its turbo suddenly died, taking the engine with it... but I would LOVE to own that car again.
Always let it run a minute before you start your trip, especially when cold out.
Never rev the engine until a couple of minutes after water temp stopped increasing. (So the oil is up to working temp.)
Always let the engine run 30 seconds after you pulled in to park. If you ran fast or towed something, let it run a minute or two.
Change oil twice a year or every 6000 miles, which ever comes first.
Always use 5W-40 or 0W-30 fully synthetic high quality oil.
If you do this, the turbo will live many years.
If you start to see white or blue smoke on start, the turbo is shot. You still have time, but not much, to change turbo. It can be as little as a few cold starts left until it burns out. If it completely burns out, the engine will suck in oil, run dry, heat up the catalytic converter etc etc.
But if you replace the turbo when the first smoke appears, you are golden.
You have two options for turbo. New Old Stock is mostly gone. So either order a chinese Garret copy, or order a used one.
Both a used original and a chinese Garret copy cost about the same, $200-300. Both have about the same chance of working for a long time. Some of the old ones have a lot of miles left in them, and the quality of the copies seem to have a high spread.
If you or your mechanic can adapt inlets and outlets, you can put a turbo from another brand of car on your SAAB engine.
The -2003 ("original") 9-3 SAAB, are in my opinion undervalued. They look good, and they drive good.
It's not extremely fast, but I have never felt as "one" with a car as with that model, and it's also extremely forgiving. If you push it to its limits in corners, it will let you know long in advance what it's about to do. It felt completely undramatic to push it to its limits, never felt scary. I have driven both slower and faster cars which have both felt scary when approaching their limits.
For some reason, I also pretty much immediately felt "where the car is" when parking the SAAB. I have driven many cars since then, various models of Mercedes, Volvo, Citroën, VW, and also the next generation SAAB 9-3, but in all of them it's taken me a lot longer to figure exactly "where the car is" when parallel parking and such.
Saab was once a huge source of technological innovation.
That said, I think some modern cars both look cool and unique and offer a lot of great features and properties. The driving dynamics of even the most bare and basic economy cars and SUVs drive today is absurdly good when compared against some of the best cars on the road 20 years ago.
Ultimately, it's my opinion that Saab couldn't find their segment to occupy where their cars were
Many of their cars sat on the market too long without being updated enough to compete, and their semi-luxury not-really-sporty market segment during the GM years made it a brand that I think was hard to recommend over alternatives.
Why buy a Saab for your luxury car if you could buy a BMW, Mercedes, or Audi instead?
Why buy a Saab for your reliable family hauler if you can buy an optioned out Honda Accord instead?
Why buy a Saab for your family SUV when the only one they ever offered was a rebadged Trailblazer?
It's really just my opinion, but I think the last decade of Saab just couldn't find its buyer.
He went to a Saab car dealership (USA). The salesman was so excited to show off the car’s indestructivness, that he opened a car door, stood on top of it, and jumped up and down.
I guess Saab and Volvo at the time marketed themselves as “tanks” on the road in terms of safety.
My father bought a Volvo 144.
I drive my saabs every day. My daily driver is an old 900 turbo hatchback from the 80s. It's a constant work-in-progress as I fix it and it degrades from the beatings and many miles I give it.
I drive my 60's saab on the weekend, rolling around town on a light footprint with a engine that was actually manufactured by Ford for skidsteers, and made its way into Saab because of emissions requirements.
I sometimes drive my convertible, another 900 turbo, though mostly my mother gets the pleasure of using it.
I don't often drive my 9000 Aero, even though it's the most comfortable and modern of my Saabs, it feels like a whale. A fast whale, but I don't drive it often.
I recently acquired a base model 900 from the 90s... It has no turbo, no stick shift, no go-fast-parts. It's such a lovely around-towner I have been driving it any time I don't have to hit the highway.
I love saab. I love 80's saab. I think it's close to my dream car. When I get older, I will spend the time manufacturing upgrades to this vehicle badly needed from the factory. Maybe a better transmission. An improved rear axle would be fantastic. Common failures I have started to meter out with 3D printed parts - and sourcing them from other manufactures.
What you hear about parts is mostly rubbish. Saab made a car, bosch built everything else from the ECU and electrical sensors, to the waterpumps and brake pads. If you get smart you can find and make work crossover bits.
Right now we're trying to locate some VW distributors that have a hall sensor built in for a 4 cylinder. They're fairly close (also Bosch) to the saab 900 (pre 90) distributors, and are still available. If I can make that work on my 900 - we have many more good years on the road.
All in all... ask me anything about saab from the 60's to the 2000s. I've worked on them all and love them dearly.
So do you mostly avoid the graveyards?
When it comes to irreplacable parts that wear, I gave up on finding new ones for exorbitant sums. The ill fated 900 dashboard comes to mind, baking in the sun. You'll find collectors boasting how their is uncracked, but mine is as well - given 30 or so hours of using a plastic welder and a lot of sanding it even looks half decent.
For 3D printed parts, Jordan Pagano and other have been doing it a lot longer than myself, though I have built out some vacuum manifold pieces that are NLA. In the end - I am more focused on replacing that plastic with something long term. In the case of the vacuum manifold - i took a leaf out of my Porsche 944's playbook and tapped in brass fittings, that don't leak and will never wear out! Another example is the key barrel system, which combines a reverse lockout, and starting functions, and the switch is NLA. I'm now getting ready to order a retrofit keyless fob system. The key barrel will be removed and replaced with a knob that requires no key - and since my door key barrels, and my replacement sets are wearing thin - I found a system that can also send a 12v trigger. That'll be my key going forward to lock and unlock the doors. upgrades people, upgrades...
So, it's fun. It's really fun that saab used similar systems. the Jetronic, K-Jet and others are all over volvo, porsche, saab, bmw, of the 70s-80s-and-90s... Hell my 96 even has a Solex carb...
That's not to say I haven't stripped a few 900s down. I must have a half dozen axles in my shop I rescued, cut up body panels and little pieces scattered - and a very good friend and addict who has about 20 of them in his backyard.
Maybe it's just me, but this article seemed to end a bit abruptly. As a die-hard Saab fan, I was left wanting a bit more.
I was 14 or so and he allowed me to park it. I was blown away by the idea of ensuring a safety feature against thieves that was so "easy".
Edit: typo
I do have a preference for cloth seats and more buttons in interiors though. Leather invariably ends up cracking and looking like crap, and buttons provide a much more tactile experience.
I learned to drive in one, before buying my very own 1986 Mitsubishi Sigma.
The Saab 900 weighs 18 bazillion tonnes, and is almost impossible to to roll or skid. The Sigma weighs about 4.2 grams, and will skid sideways if you close the door too hard. Driving on the winding country roads of my youth, some rapid adjustment of driving styles was required!
I don't remember it being all that quirky tho.. I know you couldn't take the keys out of the ignition in any of the "on" positions, and I think the driver's side door could only be locked from the outside, making it hard to lock your keys in the car.
Something similar with the lights, I think, it was very hard to leave any lights on accidentally overnight and run your battery flat
And I think maybe reverse gear was an odd spot compared to other cars.. although it also made it very hard to accidentally (try to) put the car in reverse while shifting..
Given the tech level at the time tho, they were all pretty sensible solutions to issues that people had with other cars, even if they were all "operator error" problems.
I’m worried when the time comes for the next car, I’m not sure what it’ll be…
Golf-cart-style e.v. will probably be the future city-car and beside that, behind the super-expensive hypercar probably only some still expensive and still crappy models probably will exists so... It's an era that for next half a century at least it's simply gone...
Personally, I'd love to see more of this, as it really opens the door for a lot of creativity regarding the body styles of what's available.
I'd love to see more of that in the car market, and I'm curious what prevents it. Safety standards might be a big part of that - of course motorbikes have very little in the way of safety systems or crash test requirements, which probably massively reduces the investment required for small-run vehicles.
Maintainability might also be part of it: there's just more stuff in a car which might have to be located and packaged differently for a different body shape, which affects anybody who has to work on it, requires a bunch of service manuals to be written, might even require spare parts to be stocked for decades, etc.
Fuel consumption maybe better on an engine level, but the resulting total it seems to be more or less the same as 80 years ago:
Europe has strict rules about pedestrian safety - placing requirements on the shape of the front of the car to minimise damage to pedestrians on impact. Between that and the desire for low drag (for efficiency) there aren't really that many solutions. This means that most cars in Europe look fundamentally quite similar in overall shape, particularly bonnet curve at the front.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_14
An unremarkable car in every other aspect, you could not but look to it the first time you saw it.
The Spitfire was an especially weird piece of crap but I inherited that and drove it for a few years and sold it for a pretty penny.
I've already encountered issues with the MG TF regarding the electronics, and the difficulty in fixing things there due to proprietary lock-in (and it's 17 years old). Simply creating a spare key is a nightmare. It makes me wonder what the future of repairability on newer cars with deeply embedded but proprietary software will be like.
I was weary of moving to an electric drive chain and a car I can't maintain myself (my previous Mitsubishi could be serviced with scant more than a 10mm socket and an impact driver) and wasn't sure about losing almost all physical controls -- the only thing that annoys me is there is no easy way to open the glovebox, for everything else the touch screen actually seems easier than my previous physical controls.
https://driverbase.com/vehicle/9330472/1991-saab-900-in-hins...
But really, comparing cars (even across decades of time) is more like comparing trends in suits. Does it have two or three buttons? Single or double breasted? Single or double cuff? I'm amazed that anyone, barring a small minority with serious artistic sensibilities, can muster the energy to find one vastly different from the other -- at the end of the day, it's the same damn thing. A suit is a suit, a mass-market car is a car, and car appearance = 4 wheels, 4 windows, headlights, a color, generally aerodynamic shape. Everything beyond that is (in modern cars) some minor tweak. Even the two trucks the article gives as examples look basically the same to me; I'll grant that the newer model tries to look more "badass", but the metaphor of it going to bomb a village is pretty silly.
I guess it's a function of this being an extremely expensive object that was, for a long time, a status symbol. But I still can't see how people feel passionate about any of it -- again, excluding people like Jony Ive (who designs for a living) or own / desire models of car that are, in fact, vastly different (usually antiques or niche brands).
The exterior appearance is the least consequential, least differentiated and most boring aspect of a car. So it's also not crazy to think that, perhaps, people shouldn't care so much about it. And really, they don't -- from my observation, what people care most about is the brand of the hood ornament, with various post-hoc justifications about appearance after that fact.