9-5 Diesel under 120 g/km CO2 (?)

Magnus Hansson seems to like to keep people interested in Saab by spreading rumours about new Saab cars.

On march 2010 he spoke about the 9-3 emitting less than 120 g/km CO2. A couple of months later those cars were on sale.

Well it seems like Mr. Hansson is spreading some rumours once again. In an interview about Saab hunting for Volvo and Audi in the company car market in Sweden he indicates that Saab has still some card to put on the table.

Original text:

Dragloket i dag är den mindre 9-3:an, som också har kämpat sig under den magiska miljöbilsgränsen på 120 gram koldioxid per kilometer, något som är viktigt inte minst för företagsförsäljningen. Frågan är om det kan vara något som även 9-5:an kommer under?

– Det får vi se, säger Magnus Hansson och ler.


Main engine is now less of 9-3: an, who also has struggled over the magic green car limit of 120 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre, which is important, especially for corporate sales.The question is whether there might be something that even 9-5 is over?

– We’ll see, “said Magnus Hansson and smiles.

So, will we see a 9-5 emitting less than 120 g/km CO2?

I say yes. And although I have no Djup Strupe to back up my affirmation, I see different hints out there that point in that direction.

2011 will be a very interesting Year for Saab !!!!!

Thanks to Gaijp and TurboLover for the hint.


BMW will present in March its 320d Efficient dynamics Touring with 161hp and 114 g/km CO2.

This is in my eyes the only competitor for the Saab, because BMW is also trying to combine good performance with low CO2 values.

108 thoughts on “9-5 Diesel under 120 g/km CO2 (?)”

  1. This is like the perfect book: drama, humour, tension. And unlike books it’ll never end! (hopefully 😉 )

  2. Wow that would be great for swedish sales.

    I generally find that the swedish system with 120g or E85 fuel is very ok.
    In Austria we have only a bad compromise without steering effekt to green tec. (but the german car industry is happy with this)

  3. I’m sure they will get below 120 really soon. I’m actually a bit surprised to see how fast Saab has gotten below 120, but only surprised when comparing to other brands. Try to compare the new Focus with 95bhp with the 9-3 180bhp. That’s a lot of bhp difference for not that much CO2.

  4. I think so that they should stop speading those rumours. Release when available for sales immeaditely. There is 2 sides, one is that when there is those rumours some one could skip some other brand and select saab and wait. Other side is that Saab buyers waits and waits rumoured model or CO2 or something, it hurts sales. It is nowadays CO2 race at least in Europe, so it is clear to everybody that CO2 figures will drop every now and then. Anyway it is nice to hear that 9-5 will drop under 120, I will wait that also…

    • As you say, telling people the future plans has two sides like a coin. But Saab has to take that risk, imho.
      Maybe some that was willing to buy a Saab now will wait a little bit longer, but I think many that didn’t see a Saab as an alternative and have decided to buy something different will now wait a little bit longer.
      Anyhow, Mr. Hansson is now responsible for the sales figures in Scandinavia, and I think he knows what he is doing. 😉

      • It’s all about how long it takes to bring the car to market. Spreading a rumour too early is bad but if the car is there withing let’s say two or three months it’s not bad at all.

  5. Haha, that Swedish Professor in Denmark has to rethink his doomsday thesis I guess… Saab uses their knowhow and not enormous amounts of money to become successfull…

    Really hope this turns out to be a fact with the 9-5. Having both the 9-3 and the 9-5 as eco vehicles will mean alot for the economy.

    And do not forget that a 320d from BMW is about the same price as the much larger 9-5…

    Saab is STRONG!

    Griffin UP!

  6. Personaly I couldn’t care less what my car’s CO2 emission is !
    (environmentally irrelevant anyway, but we won’t discuss that here..)
    Greenies better buy a boring Prius or similar.

    • either way, this is the rules of the game, the future of the company is depending on it. Luckily Saab has the skills to do it, and keep decent preformance, this will hekp sales a great deal. Most companies only let tou order <119gram cars, you can choose from Volvo 115 hp, VW/ Audi 140 something, BMW 163 and Saab 180 hp!

    • Frank, CO2 equals fuel consumption. If you drive more than 30k miles a year and don’t have A LOT of cash to burn it becomes mighty important. Diesel cost $7/gallon (US) around here and it’s ‘cheaper’ than gas, so infact emission figure are extremely important for Saab.
      180hp and 50 MPG is a huge deal in the 9-3. If we get the same from the 9-5, well you see the picture.

    • If you lived in a country where the car’s motor tax is based on CO2 level, you’d soon care. Here in Ireland, if your car emits more than 225g/km of CO2, you pay €2100 just to tax your car:

      Saab 9-5 2.8 Aero with 244 g/km = €2100 p.a.
      Saab 9-5 TiD with 139 g/km = €156 p.a.

      €1,944. Every year. To the government. That’s a rather large difference to pay, before the car has even turned a wheel. There are many markets where this is the case, and thankfully Saab isn’t ignoring them. Whether it’s right or wrong, it is the case.

  7. I agree Frank; glad to have a big V8 in my mighty 9-7 ‘Trollblazer’ ..
    although a maptuned V6 Turbo sounds even better..

  8. If they are serious about that, I believe the weight of the car needs to be trimmed down considerably. I don’t think you can go that low with gearing, engine management and aerodynamics alone.

    That said, Saab’s product management goes around saying that in the future Saab will build cars “only under 1400 kg”, so this might be it. Apparently you can trim down GM’s “heavyweight engineering”, as the 119g diesel makeover demonstrated.

    • No, I don’t see any significant weight reduction as likely to achieve this goal.

      Getting the 9-5 below 120 g/km would require a reduction of 14%, or 20 g/km.

      Stop start is probably worth about 4%, or 6 g/km. Add a more efficient alternator and this will increase to 8 g/km. Use intelligent alternator control and you have almost half the saving required only with those small changes.

      • Edis,
        I thought they already had an intelligent alternator control. At least the battery is only charged when needed and not constantly as in my OG 9-5 for instance.

        • Yes, they probably have some intelligent alternator control functions in the 9-5, already the 9-3 had some of these like the ability to turn the alternator on and off, alternator diagnosis and torque compensation for alternator load. It wouldn’t surprise me if the 9-5 also can regulate the charging voltage depending on temperature, battery state of charge and similar. But I don’t think the system in the 9-5 offers regenerative braking with it’s system which was that I had in mind here. Regenerative braking is rather hard on the battery (regular batteries have been shown to wear out in as little as just a few weeks with these systems), so it is always used in combination with an absorbed glass mat battery.

          • Edis,
            I don’t know how fast, or if, Saab can introduce those techs into current cars, but nevertheless they have already achieved a lot without those technologies.
            And I’m a believer. 🙂

          • This kind of technology is mostly off the shelf components from the large suppliers like Bosch, Denso and Valeo and should be farily easy to introduce. There are also many other similar technologies which offer a small fuel saving at a small cost without big changes.

            A significant weight reduction is on the other hand very expensive and time consuming to introduce. Even with an expensive aluminum chassis, which would require redesigning the whole car, the weight saving is probably just around 150 kg or so.

  9. Under 1400 kg? Does that mean using aluminum, or just ‘smaller cars’ ?
    Aluminum would be nice; another aviation-link.
    Audi had some aluminum cars (spaceframe??).

    • Frank,
      Saab already uses some aluminium in the 9-5. I think the 9-5 uses as much aluminium as the A6 (nextgen) or the 5-series.
      The Aluminium spaceframe of the A8 is a bit to expensive, IMHO.

    • There’s definitely a trend towards more aluminium but i don’t think we should expect an all-aluminium Saab in the near future. Audi’s aluminium factory was quite well subsidised from what i’ve heard, otherwise they would also have stuck to steel, due to lower production costs.

      • Aluminum can be cost effective for the production of low volume, more expensive cars like the A8. Usually the up front costs are smaller as extrusions and castings can make a significant portion of the car structure, but the costs per produced car are higher since the production process is more labor intensive. That’s partly why it is popular for low volume productions like certain Audis, Corvettes, Ferraris, and Lotuses use this technology.

        For a low volume producer like Saab, aluminum space frames can probably be worth a look for the longer term.

    • Aluminium is not the only way to go. E.g. Fiat is using high-strength steel to supplant a few parts with one (this is also a good cust-cutting measure), essentially redesigning platforms that accrued girth through the years of reinforcing and such. OTOH Mazda also achieves significant weight losses without resorting to space-age materials – they simply take out as much garbage as they can out of the cars.

      • Forgive me for this, but you made me laugh with the Mazda example, because I started thinking that Mazda missed some garbage.. I mean.. the car is still there… 😀 😀
        (Ok, NO intention of making people angry, just my lousy sense of humor right now..)

        • Well, you can say what you want of Mazda, I’ve had a massive soft spot for them in the 1990s when they were totally off the grid with cool ideas such as the 323F with a 2.0 V6, the Miller Cycle, the whole Eunos/Efini/Autozam range (AZ-1 FTW!!!) – and I think they can still be counted as the manufacturer that thinks “outside of the box”.

          For one, take a look at the (quite light!) Mazda6 wagon, with its seats flat-folding at the pull of a small lever close to the boot. This is something a Saab should have. BTW, I wonder what happened with actually FLAT-folding seats, in the 1990s an increasing number of cars offered that very practical future, today in many cars you can fold the seatbacks but what you get is a poor excuse for cargo space extension.

          If Saab could deliver that alone, it would make a lot of a difference for people who trade up to a premium car, but are not filthy rich enough to treat it as a caprice. The car has to work for its keep. I guess this has been Saab’s traditional customer base.

          On an slightly unrelated note, Mazda is now a free agent again to a large extent. Out of all the “mass” automobile producers, I could name Mazda as one that I could see Saab cooperating with closer. Perhaps BMW-Mazda-Saab? Mmmm…

          • Count me in a the pro-Mazda crowd, too. One of the only Asian makers I’d give a sniff too, actually. Have some very fond memories of early RX cars when I was a youngster. But, back on topic…..

      • The problem with higher strength steel is that it does nothing for the stiffness of the chassis. They are mostly useful for safety related components, and Saab already use high strength steels extensively. In the 9-3 about 60% of the body weight consist of high strength- and ultra high strength steels.

        SSAB’s range of high strength steels have often been used by Saab

        • I would say that using (ultra) high strength steels for chassis would definitely add to the stiffness. However, the reason for not using (ultra) high strength steels in the entire car has to do with the exponentially increasing difficulty to plastically deform such steels into complex geometries.

          • A higher strength steel still have the same stiffness (youngs module is about 210 GPa for all steels), so it does not add to the stiffness of the car. Infact, if you compensate the higher strength with for instance reduced thickness the stiffness will actually go down. Higher strengt grades also have poor formability, so making compex shapes which could improve the stiffness is more limited.

    • I think Saab is still able to shave off some of the thickness of the 9-5 panels. I remember something like that mentioned last year.

  10. “Personaly I couldn’t care less”

    It’s about car tax, majority of people care about how much it costs to buy and own a car.

    • Well, the significant part is that 120mg is not a question of personal opinion.

      About half of the cars sold in Sweden are sold to companies for mainly private use, as a benefit, and the employee usually takes some income reduction for this, and is taxed for the benefit. The net result of being below 120mg is twofold. One is that the compined cost, which the employee have to pay drops more than about $100/month + fuel (repairs do not affect the employee), which is a big deal when your disposable income after tax is in the few $100/month, which holds true for a lot of swedes. The other is that a growing number of companies have policies that effectively forbid cars above 120mg as company cars (and several more punish them), which means that the underpowered Volvo V70 is THE competion as it’s the biggest estate on the market that is available for these employees. I would say getting below 120mg improves the sales base by at least 10%.

      Another thing is that some companies also have an environmental policy that says that all car rentals should be environmentally friendly, which means that the underpowered V70 or an Ethanol car has to be available at all major rental services.

      If Ethanol is dropped from the environmental friendly tag, the consequences are easy to grasp.

      The impact of the 120mg limit can not be underestimated, and any personal opinion of fuel efficiency or enviroment impact is just not a part of the equation in Sweden. You can argue against the rules anyway you like, it doesn’t affect sales one single bit.

  11. If this falls into place…..it would bee absolutly magnificent. My reverence for these ingineers just increase. I´m proud to be Swedish.

    Think what those guys have accomplished lately.

  12. Btw. I looked that current 9-5 diesel has the level of 139 g/km in EU-norm. If you got 400 million euros from EIB to make more efficient cars, then it’s just matter of time.

  13. I dunno if it was mentioned before, but Maptun already tunes 119g up to 210hp 450Nm
    Hirsch under “coming soon” with 200hp upgrade. So engine is actually 200hp with all official warranties.

    Installing modern gearbox should low down CO2 and improving dynamic even comparing to classic MT. So SAAB still got way to go under 120g even with heavy 9-5 wagon.

    • There is no problem to get to 120g CO2. The problem is to get down to 120g AND fulfill emissions requirements.

  14. Something that EU needs to be working on is a common CO2-level for cars, as the system is now..every country has its own CO2-rule .

  15. The size and weight of the 9-5 will make this VERY hard to achive. I do not know how to interpret Magnus Hanson’s smile. The BMW 320 ED is in the 9-3 size AND has less power.
    It would be absolutely fantastic if Saab could do this!

    This is not very important for mer personally either, but it would help Saab sales quite a bit and that is good for the company, i.e. good for a hardcore Saab fan like me! 🙂

    • I always keep thinking like this: right now the “limit” is 120 g/Km, but that will also get lower and lower, so if Saab is able to create 180 hp and 119 g/Km, then why not challange your self by setting the goal to 100 g/Km.. then we really have a challange for the engineers at Saab.. 😉

      • Carl-Henrik,
        from what I’ve heard the current challenge for the Saab engineers is 50 g/km CO2. Not with the current cars, but with the next gen. 🙂

        • I have heard this number to! I have a hope and dream that the electric 4WD will do the trick for this sake. SAAB for the win! =)

      • Maybe that happens when Saab is able to use for example start/stop. We have to keep in mind that Saab keeps up with BMW’s Efficient Dynamics without some technology they use.

  16. This very issue was brought up in comments yesterday by myself, turbolover and others. Unfortunately Swade (rightly so) closed the thread due to an unfortunate and completely irrelevant comment.
    It looks like some of our wishes will actually happen! Our beloved Saab company seems to have extremely long sleeves to pull out aces from since separating from GM!
    Looks like we are in for quite a ride this year to!
    Saab UP!

  17. “The size and weight of the 9-5 will make this VERY hard to achive.”

    On the contrary, it means that there’s a room to reduce the weight. If 9-5 would already be ultra light, then it would be hopeless target without plug-in hybrid tech.

    What comes to aluminum, my understanding is that latest steel materials are overall better in many places, plus plastics technology is evolving also.

    • Changing a lot of the basic structure of the car is expensive and complicated. If we belive sub120 might come in the 2012 model of 9-5, the changes will be more like the ones made on the 9-3.

    • remember that the “saab-tuning” of the 9-5 has a shorter way to go than the 9-3 ttid had, it went from 154 g co2 (?) to 119, the 9-5 is already at 139 grams. The same treatment, start/stop etc should do it.

  18. Lets not be too harsh on Frank. Here in North America CO2 emissions just dont get mentioned when it comes to cars and our governments dont put punative taxes on cars like they do in Europe (except tor the $1000 gas guzzler tax in the US which is a one off deal when you buy, well, a gas guzzler). Its a great thing that we may have a sub-120g/km 9-5 but that isnt gonna sell cars in North America. I pay about $1.34 Canadian per litre for the 92 octane I put in my 2.0T and am entirely comfortable with gas at said price. Even when it went up to $1.65 about
    two and a half years ago I wasnt overly concerned as it was still cheaper than what they charge in Europe.

    We here in North America will only be concerned once our gas prices are taxed at the ridiculous levels they are in Europe and I cant see that happening any time in the near future.

    • Exactly that is the problem for the American manufacturer. They are living in a bubbel that going to blow them to pieces some day if they dont react soon. But that´s there problem.

      Europe has come much further in this I´m afraid, but maybe thats good for Saab even if I hope for every car makers success.

      • Companies today are international. This has more to do with what the American public want to buy. Just look at the Chevy Volt

  19. Getting the ng 9-5 SportCombi below 120g CO2/km seems like a very ambitious goal. I guess that it can considered a “stretch goal” and if it is achieved it will probably be thanks to intensive cycle beating. As someone else pointed out, it is all due to the law of physics and it is no coincidence that no other manufacturer have their big family cars below 120 g CO2/km.

    But if they were to do it the ng 9-5 would sure become a best seller! 🙂

    • “and it is no coincidence that no other manufacturer have their big family cars below 120 g CO2/km.”

      Ovlov has V70 119g/km and it’s not bending space-time.

      • The V70 does not bend space-time, but it is also not available at the moment. 😉

        Not many Driv e cars available at the moment. 😉

  20. I’d like to see them work their magic on the petrol engines. I think they should be able to get the 1.6T and 2.0T down a little.

    • 1.6T ???? Do you mean the BMW sourced one ???

      They already got the 2.0T down a little, but the auto tranny remains the same 😉

        • I did indeed.

          Volvo S80 T4 (1.6t) Manual = 159 g/km (Powershift auto = 175)
          Saab 9-5 1.6t Manual = 179 g/km

          So, some room for improvement.

          • Sorry I got you wrong.
            But yes, If Saab was able to reduce the weight of the 9-3 by 100 Kg, they should at least do the same with the 9-5.
            The 9-5 turb4 180 is 150 kg heavier than a S80 T4 🙁
            OTOH, the Turbo4 220 is also 150 kg heavier than the T5 and it only produces 4 grams more CO2. 🙂

          • J Fan,
            regenerative braking and start/stop technology in the Volovo also help reducing the CO2 footprint. 😉

            Phoenix, I take the information from the Swedish Volovocars site.

          • Well, it was the 1.6T vs. 2.0T (Turbo4 220) CO2 level comparison that got me thinking, i.e., are their respective emissions not too close given their different engine size and outputs?

            Yeah, figured the S80 would be lighter. However, the S80 is about 70 kg heavier than the S60, yet it only +7g/km on the same 1.6T.

            Anyway, I’m just saying I think the CO2 levels can be decreased for the petrol 95’s, perhaps losing weight as you’ve mentioned, or altering ratios or whatever.

    • Remember 9-X Air/BH from 2008. They had a 1,4L Turbo with alot of “good stuff” with 200hp/280Nm in a BioPower version. 105g/km Co in Biopower drive and 117g for the ordinary fuel. 6,5 l/100km Biofuel or 5,0 l/100km in ord.fuel.

      I am sure many of you guys remember this data, where is that tecnology. does it belong to GM or is it in pipeline? Or is it to soon and expensive.

      Anyway, I miss it, would want it and hope for it.

  21. Don’t know where you’re located but S80 1.6 180hp = 153g/km both man. and auto. 9-5 1.6 179g/km with man. But if you look att S80 AWD, auto with 304hp you got 244g/kmj. Same as the 9-5 V6.
    Of course you could cut some grams and Saab will but 119g in the 9-5 is probably not possible in the near future if you don’t want to go with a 110hp diesel. And again, most companies had a couple of years now to deal with this Saab doesn’t. Give them some time. The most important right now is to get the 9-3SC ready below 119. Then start with the fun stuff that we really care about.

  22. What needs to be done?
    – 16 inch wheels
    – tires no wider then 205
    – extremely flatsided wheels
    – lightweight brakes
    – carbon fiber panels underneath
    – totally manual seats w/o any motors
    – only manual gearboxes “smart shift up”
    – lightweight stereo few speakers
    – no spare wheel
    – start stop function
    – economy meter assistance to help driver
    – lightweight soundproofing
    – lightweight corrosion spray
    – lightweight material in some components

    What more should be added to the list?

      • I think they have something “new” and not so conventionell to fix this problem. Otherwise I don´t think they will make it. The 9-3SC stopped at 122gCo for awhile, to get the 9-5 under 120g is way much more difficult. Therefor I think they have to come up with something very special. I hope they will, maybe new gearbox and hybrid technology of some kind. I don´t think they want an 110hp thing, that´s not Saab. They have higher goals than that.

        PS. Hopefully this is a rumor that comes true in near future and not something that comes in 2012,it´s to far away DS.

    • I think it’s common to use low friction lubricants somewhere – in transmission?
      And something with the servo steering, hydraulic vs. electronic something…
      Ovlov Drive front grilles are flatter/more closed to reduce air resistance which also affects cooling in a negative way.
      C30 Drive has a low rear diffuser.
      Think Bimmer reuses braking power to recharge the (larger than usual) battery – less use of generator.
      Low friction tires.
      Further software optimizations?

      • See one of TopGear’s old episodes where they test the traction of awfully badly-handling cars, which include a Perodua, a Smart and a Prius:


        I’d rather Saab actually thought out of the box to build a car that used little fuel, but still stayed on the road. What I like most about driving a Saab is the extra room it leaves for quick maneouvers thanks to excellent road grip (where tyres do play a major part).

    • Jörgen, are trying to make the 9-5 into a rally car? 😉
      A crappy sound system/soundproofing, only manually adjusted seats, 16″ wheels and so on. With versions like that the residual value would go down the drain in a few years.
      If you want to go under 120g CO2 with the SC, Saab should make one 140 hp (300 NM) version, but not destroy the rest of the car. I personally want a premium 9-5 (200 hp+) with all the amenities.

    • improve aerodyamics by:

      -smoothening the front. Several of the black holes on the front look like air brakes.
      -providing shutters in the grille for higher speeds
      -lowering the bonnet, make it pop-up to meet pedestrian safety regulations (there is a connector for the sensor already, as software analysis on the Insignia has shown)
      -actually using those openings behind the front wheels to redirect air stream

  23. Hi guys!

    Their are quite many big/full-size cars under 120 g/km.

    Besides the V70, you also have the Passat and Suburb in under 120 g/km and more will come all the time. I see the new Passat as a big competition for us with Company-cars in Sweden….

  24. Friend at work told me about a swedish new concept of integrating batteries in the chassis frame. Using the strength charactetistics of the elements of the battery to make the chassis.
    Sounds like a very smart idea.

  25. What SAAB needs to do to get below 120g of CO2/km is:
    – Reduce power consumption (reduces required torque to drive the generator).
    – Regenerative braking (charging battery only when braking)
    – Start stop (engine stops at stand still)
    – Lower idle speed
    – Reduction of drag coefficient through flat underside, reduce airflow to engine (can’t tow heavy loads). Low drag alloy wheels.
    – Low friction oil…. etc.

    There are a number of other technologies as well, many of them are used in Shell Eco marathon cars (super-efficient cars built by university students).

  26. It needs to be said that reducing the fuel consumption by more than 16 percent isn’t what I would call an easy task! To achieve such a goal considerable investments in new technologies needs to be made and all this takes a lot of time and effort (to say the least). SAAB didn’t launch the 9-3SC as a sub 120g/km car at the same time as the 9-3SS, why? Because it was too difficult to achieve such a goal with the given budget, time plan or technology…

  27. To be honest all those 120 stuff is dog shit. I personally hope for nice news about V8 biturbo with 800hp, crazy 10 speed triple clutch gearboxes, interior and option upgrade for MY12. Hope SAAB will never be economical, practical, cheap and nice gay friendly car.

    • Doctor Donk,
      Saab never used a V8 in their cars, and maybe never will. If you are looking for an American muscle car, there are plenty of them, even good ones, but they have a different badge.

      • There was 9000 with v8.

        All modern American cars made badly, not even close to euro quality, but I have to admit I like them.

        Most modern merces and bimmers use v8 in their fast cars. Probably for a good reason. SAAB did not have XWD for a long time, but now they got it. But v6 330hp is just not enough for XWD car to compete vs german trio.

        • The Germans are backing off 😉
          Mercedes even sells a S-Class with an I4 engine.

          BTW, I didn’t know about that twin four prototype by Valmet, thanks for the hint.

          • Yes, but mercedes does not forget about S600, S63, E63 etc. I am sure people who make world safest cars can also make world fastest cars… Take 2x B235R tuned to 350, get v8 biturbo with 700hp, update it to modern standard, install fast gearbox, tune it for 0-100 and 402m times, using rally experience with those crazy 9-3 which did 0-100 in 2.2s. RS6, M5, E63AMG Killer is alive. Or i am sure SAAB engineers got better ideas than me about making fast 9-5. But they prolly limited in budget or in management.

  28. Doctor Donk, I think you could have made the point without going so crude with the above comments. Really it was not needed and yet again you’ll probably be edited.

    Plus, American cars have come a long way in build quality. It does not take a lot of searching through Saab / BMW / Mercedes/Lexus archives to see where people complain about Sludge, cheap plastics, ill fitting dash, poor radios, lack of satnav, rattles..ect… It would appear unless it’s a hand crafted , serial numbered 1 of 1 , $200,000+ car, some people will simply not be happy 100% of the time.

  29. I have calculated a bit on gasoline prices Swe/US.

    If you American had our taxes, your price would be $7,6/gallon.
    If my calculations are correct would you think that fuel consumtion doesn´t matter?

    I am not quite sure about all the figure but this the number I used.

    1 gallon-3,142$ (read it somewhere, figures from 14/1-2011)
    1 Liter-13,40Kr
    1 gallon=3,79 Liter
    1 Dollar=6,67 Kr (and that means that our valuta is strong at the moment, 7 kr is normal)

    Hopefully I have not mix it all up (it´s time for bed actually) but it is something to think about anyway.

    PS. V8 is not an option, right and the” I don´t care mentality” is over for us in Europe.

    • I grew up on GM’s big V8 cars and to be honest, I’m kinda tired of them. This SC Aero showed me that a turbo V6 is plenty powerful. Even if its “only” 250 hp, its more than enough to put and keep a smile on my face and still knock down 30 mpg on the highway.

      I could be wrong, but I think my 2.8 is / (was?) capable of so much more power, but at a MPG cost Id probably not want.

      I am sure Saab is working day and night, within a tight budget, to turn out new cars, new ideas.

  30. If SAAB can certify such a big car at or below 120g/Km, then… Wow! I just hope the gearing doesn’t make driving the car impossible to enjoy…

    • Remember that you can always shift one gear down! 😉 In the old days we had 4 speed manual gearboxes… For me, the 5th should be for above 80 km/h and the 6th for above 110-120 km/h.

      I am confident they can make it, the 9-5 sedan is probably more aerodynamically shaped than the 9-3SC.

      • Yeah, but if one has to overwork both gearbox and engine too much, those fuel economy gains might disappear real quick…

        Reducing weight should be THE priority. Mazda has been doing a good job in weight reduction; GM not so much. And this is a GM platform. In any case, I think SAAB engineers can be quite creative; let’s see what they can come up with. The already discussed electric rear axle assist, maybe? 😀

  31. Following this discussion: I think that different markets need different solutions. Saab is focussing on the Diesel for the European markets where engines under 115g CO2 are very well received (I do think that the 119g/km limit will soon be adjusted downwards, some countries already use the 116g/km norm). Almost all corporate cars in Europe are sold with diesels and local governments are using car drivers to milk out by raising absurd taxes on mainly CO2.
    For the US market a V6 is needed. Fuel consumption still seems less important in these markets, while CO2 is some chemical thing instead of something you can put taxes on. A V6 or even worse a V8 is considered to be a polluting engine and I know from experience you even get unpleasant remarks about it.
    So, yes, if the diesel can come under 120g/km and eventually can get under 115g/km, Saab has great cards! And honestly, a <120g/km CO2 Ovlov V70, VW Passat or Skoda Suburb with just around 100bhp can't be a serious alternativ for driving this class, can it? You really don't need to have any hurry while driving these cars (and also no hurry TO drive this car, these cars are so popular that delivery takes up to a year now).
    The one that does have a great offer is BMW, with their 163hp 3 series. But with the same delivery issues, I was told.

    • ‘A V6 or even worse a V8 is considered to be a polluting engine and I know from experience you even get unpleasant remarks about it.’ = In the Netherlands

  32. Now there’s another reason to get the CO2 figures down.

    My company (in the UK) has announced that they are giving us another incentive – apart from the Company Car Tax – to choose cars with low CO2. If we choose one below 140g/km they’ll give us an extra GBP20 per month to spend on the lease – above 160g/km meanwhile they take GBP20 away from the money we can spend.

    I heard they’re planning to lower those CO2 figures at some stage. Emissions are only going to get more important for those company car drivers.

  33. I love my 2009 SAAB 9.3 XWD…but the gas mileage sucks. 22mpg overall. Oil is projected to keep going up in cost.

    • I have noticed that automatic transmissions draws very much more fuel than manual. That´s a Saab problem I think (high differens compared to other brand). Your combination is the worst unfortunately.
      To this day a manual transmission is significantly better in milage and of course FWD but your next Saab 9-3 2012 will have a far better and lower fuel consumption even in XWD (The American Axle partnership).

      Another thing:
      You have to translate yourself.

Comments are closed.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.