Auto Express has conducted a comparison test involving the Saab 9-3x and the Subaru Outback.
Let's cut to the chase: they award the result to the Subaru and we shouldn't be that surprised. Subaru virtually created this sector of the market. They've been at it for years, their models have been getting bigger and better and this is the latest car in their range to get the update treatment.
The Outback has the full Subaru getup including their new diesel boxer engine combined with their proven AWD system.
AE could compare diesels or they could compare AWD systems - but not both. Saab don't have a diesel/XWD combination on this car and maybe that's what tipped this test. Saab's XWD system is second to none, and combine that with their excellent TTiD engine and you'd have one heck of a way to get around the paddocks. If only.
The Subaru was more expensive but they say, better equipped. It was also more practical due to bigger size, AWD and greater ground clearance.
The Saab was better to drive, had a better and more powerful engine and looked a whole lot better. It is actually cheaper than the Suuby as well (which surprised me).
The bottom line - Saab have done a damn good job to produce a first effort that gives an interesting challenge to a well established player in the marketplace. But they really do need that XWD/diesel combination in order to run with the big boys in Europe.
It was the last thing I read before entering Nodland and it prevented me from having a restful sleep!
I'm becoming increasingly suspect of anything Auto Express pens.
But comparing 9-3x and Outback diesels is not fair, they should have taken two petrol cars with AWD.
However, how desperate would you be to buy that Suby - it's really ugly. For that money I would get a 2 year old Landy Disco - now, that's a seriously good looking and capable motor! I just don't get the Suby thing at all, at any level, WRX and all - any car that looks so mundane/tarty/plain ugly can have all the performance and capability it likes, I wouldn't be seen in one ;)
But as said before: Saab did a damn good job with the 9-3x and if in some categories it beat the Outback it's a pretty good result.
SAAB run the whole XWD program in secrecy, so I think they had only the money to adapt the petrol gearbox.
The two cars have different sizes, prices, equipment levels, on-road and off-road abilities, etc, etc. The winner should be the one that best matches your needs, absent any serious flaws.
The selection here is especially odd given that the average family doesn't go off-roading, or tow a caravan, or have a huge budget.
If the GM years didn't kill Saab we don't have to worry about anything today.
43000€ is 2900€ below the STARTING price of 9-3x XWD in Finland. How´s that?
Outback is ugly. Saab is handsome. Form follows function, right? The practicality of OB is second to none. It´s got 200mm road clearance vs 16,5mm of Saab 9-3x.
Saab - no diesel + XWD -> no market in Europe.
Isn't this what parents normally do with the rebel son??
;-)
Saab makes cars that are quity easy to drive on really rough roads. Other manufacturers had to jump on the AWD bandwagon, because their cars were sliding all over the road where Saabs would gracefully navigate with ease.
So... Did these guys test the cars? I mean _really_ test them? Does the AWD help the OB handle situations the FWD 9-3x can't cope with?
The photo show the cars on a quiet dry road in the middle of automn. No snow. No mud.
Heck, they said it themselves... The 9-3x was nicer to drive... So why then deduct points for not being AWD? (if they even did that)
If I think of how far I got with FWD, even in Swedish forrests where my Nav supposed that there would be a road then I can surely live with FWD.
That said, I'd love to get XWD...
Both the Outback and Legacy wagons are underpowered in their base trim (the 2.5GT is pretty nice though) and the engine strains alot in accelerating. The handling is good, but not as good as the 93 which you can turn on a dime by comparison.
Moreover the cabin is very noisy and the new Outback suffers from a lot of wind noise, significantly more than the 93 (this is always skipped over by these car tests, yet road and wind noise are some of the things that really get to you after a while).
The sole reason I think people love their Subaru's Foresters and the new Outback is because the height of the platform is set up that you can just drop yourself into it, or easily install a babyseat without difficulty, unlike most SUV's or the Saab in which you either have to lower yourself down or raise yourself up to get into it.
Where the Subaru's also score is in backroom, you get more of it than the 93. The dashboard however, in the 2010 outback looks cheap (it has this stupid blue cloud in the middle) and looks like some sort of tonka toy style compared to the 07 outbacks and legacy's (which has a much nicer dashboard and one of the reasons I bought one). The only other advantage it has is that parts and servicing is cheap.
The Subaru's are also quite bouncy and I'm surprised that everyone goes on about how great their suspension is, the 93 is a better vehicle in that regard.
Quite frankly, if you're in the car for 30 mins everyday the Subaru is probably a better fit because of the space. If you're doing longer trips, don't need much 2nd row space, and like driving, then the 93 is the better bet (and if the economy was doing better I'd be in another one despite the high cost).
Now, if you want to talk about fibre-optics...that was done in secrecy.
The Subaru neeeded a diesel engine as the petrol model was dying.It got it, but then they stuffed the styling.
Th Saab missed the boat by years thanks to GM vacillations and then they made it gas guzzler only- sheer marketing madness.
Meantime Volvo stitched it all up with the excellent XC 70 diesels.
Methinks Auto Express missed the point and addded to thedrama...pointlessly...
but I once read an article about SAAB adopting the rear axle of the 9-3 for the XWD, and that it was done without GM knowing about it. So I thought the whole XWD project was initited by SAAB.
It seems I was wrong.
So I must be stupid and drive where no-one else drives? I find AWD usefull in quite manu occasions which I had to avoid getting with 9-3. A lot of snow is a good reason for 20cm clearance. It´s really interesting why quite many people tell me that´s nonsense if THEY don´t need AWD or extra clearance?!
And I've also experienced one situation which might have been solvable with AWD, namely stopping half-way up a slippery snow covered hilltop.
But what concerns me more is safety. Will the OB handle a curve better than the FWD 9-3x? Who lets go of the road first? Being able to stop and start in the middle of a hill isn't a priority for me at least.
I've tried a Chevrolet Blazer and for that car AWD makes all the difference. Switching off AWD is a sure-fire way of ending up in a ditch if the roundabout is a little slippery. But... I could still (safely) go faster in my FWD 9-3 SC of course... (this is an extreme comparison, but hopefully knowing where I come from makes this a bit easier to debate)
My initial question was far from rhetorical. I do want to know how AWD helps.
you live in a region were extra clearance and AWD really makes sense, but not many people live there, do they?
I can't comment on the other factors, as have not driven a Subaru lately.
That said, I have a 9-3 SC and I smile every time I see it (probably the most beautiful wagon on the market today - can hardly wait for the NG 9-5 SC!).
You could pretty much use your logic in all other areas though! XWD was the exception to the rule.
Here's to many GM-Free years to come!
I would like XWD in my diesel Saabs, too. Because I like the way it improves the handling on slippery ground and because in winter I'm often out there before Mr. Plow cleans the road. But I can live with FWD most of the time so my choice is Saab over Subaru. But be sure I'll get XWD as soon as it's available with a TTiD.