Pardon the Vectra references and this quick review from the UK is good in every way.
At motorway speeds there is a fair amount of buffeting – not many open-top cars can keep the hair in place at 70mph – but along those aforementioned A roads, the Saab simply makes you feel good. It’s one of those rare cars that’s worth more than the sum of its parts. It’s not the latest drop-top, it’s not particularly fast (economy is good though at over 36mpg combined) and it’s not the best convertible to drive. But it’s also not brash like a BMW and not as expensive as a Mercedes. Instead the 9-3 Convertible is elegant and classy. Visit one in a showroom if you care – just be prepared to fend off the hordes of middle-aged dreamers.
It’s a nice reminder of the virtues of open top driving and why the Saab 9-3 Irresistivertible is so good at it. And doesn’t it look awesome in Cerulean Blue?
Click here to read the full review.
Thanks Per!
No related posts.
That Opel blurb...
{ 5 comments }
A blue 9-3 vert was the car I was having wet dreams about before the Turbo X came out. Most certainly would have bought one if I happened to live in a part of the world where snowstrorms in the winters and stupidly humid hot summers are not an issue. The 9-3 vert – and specially the facelifted model – is by far the classiest looking convertible on the market, just oozing with appeal and pedigree.
Yes. the 9-3 vert is a really great car.
If you put up the wind screen there’s no buffeting under 100 mph. Also its got safety equal to the best Germans at a much lower price.
Its also got a far superior back seat (space and comfort) to those vehicles. Isn’t it odd that you never hear that mentioned in convert road tests?
Lastly the trunk is extremely well designed and carries far more than you think it can.
Swade: May I propose that you arrange for a vote about the current Saab 9-3 conv tail lights. In my opinion the tail lights are terrible, way too big. Now when they are all white it is even worse.
I would like to reduce the height with at least 50%. The best would be the tail lights from the Aero X.
In my opinion, the ugly tail lights are a big part of the reason for the sales figures are quite low for this generation of 9-3 convertible. I belive the previous generation had a higher annual volume.
The taste is as the batch – splitted. In my eyes the Saab 9-3 convertible is the most beautiful and most appropriate 4-site convertible. I have a Saab 900 V6 Convertible -97. I have driven from Malmö in Sweden to Alicante in Spain and reverse about 10 times. It is about 2 x 2800 km and the car has never made me disappointed. The fuel consumption has been about 70-75 liter per 100 km. Now I have ordered a new Saab 9-3 Aero Convertible. The only thing I miss in 9-3 is the wood-trim I have in my 900. I hope that Saab will still be there so I can get the new one. Here you can find pictures in different angels of the 9-3:
http://www.peterssonsoft.se/SaabAeroCab.html
The facelift on the current 9-3 convertible looks great and a massive improvement on the pre 2006 version, but it can’t hide the fact that it is based on the GM Astra convertible and not the Vectra.
The rear flanks give the game away. I saw a 2004 Astra convertible next to the current 9-3 convertible. You can see the similarity. The Asta has a hard top and is cheaper. Wonder why the sales figures are down?
I much prefer the pre 2003 9-3 convertible despite the fact the current one has superior handling and safety etc, so much so that I bought my wife one (last of the 9-3 SE Turbos – fully loaded). Just love that torque steer!
Convertibles are more about looks than anything else, the pre 2003 9-3 got that bang on. Ask any woman about which convertible they prefer.
Comments on this entry are closed.