There was a bit of uncertainty surrounding the US release of the Saab 9-5 SportCombi yesterday.
US press material referred only to ‘a turbo engine’ and Inside Line quoted Saab staffers stating that the new wagon will only come with one engine. Several different publications speculated as to which engine that will be.
After posting some enquiries over to Saab Cars North America, I can now tell you that the one engine in the Saab 9-5 SportCombi will be the four cylinder, 2.0T 220hp engine.
——
It makes sense.
Whilst some will lament the lack of a V6, the 2.0T is the volume seller and the economical choice for Saab’s new wagon. Those looking for a halo model, the usual argument for more power, are generally not looking for that halo vehicle in a wagon body.
If they’re only going to certify one model variation in the US market for the time being, the 2.0T is the right choice. It’s a great engine and priced accordingly, will create a lot of interest.
Good call.
As the large wagon market in the US isnt that big it makes sense to just have the 2.0T. If you want a V6 then the 9-4X is your baby. I suspect the 9-4X will easily outsell the 9-5SC in the US (and Canada) anyway. I agree its a good call.
+1 good call!
I think this may be part of Saab’s strategy to ensure they meet, or come under, the new 2016 CAFE standard of 35.5mpg that was signed in by Obama in mid-2009.
Great powerplant to start the SportCombi in, now will I would like a XWD manual.
I meant I would like one in XWD and manual transmission, but you get the idea. Enter button works faster then the brain sometimes. I can’t wait to see one of these in the flesh.
I am with you on the XWD with a manual. Those who want more power could always spring for the Hirsch upgrade.
Right. Now that Hirsch is coming to the US, that is the route for more power in this case.
I hope they offer an Aero package with the 2.0T for both sedan and SC.
Me too! No aero package means a no go on the wagon for me. I could look to Hirsch for some added power if needed but the Aero trim is a big selling point for me.
I wouldn’t get worked up over the Aero package. I sat in an Aero 9-5 sedan at the LA Auto Show and wasn’t impressed by the quality of the seats. The seats in my 2003 9-5 Aero wagon/sportcombi are MUCH more comfortable. And I have 30hp more! 😉
I have the 2010 Aero 9-5 sdn with the leather ventilated seats, and they are amazing. Better than my 2006 9-5 combi’s (non-Aero) seats by far. I also like the piece of the seat that slides out to give one’s thigh’s better support. Of course, I did not get to see a non-Aero to compare those seats to the Aero, but I can’t see it getting better these days.
To me, the 9-5 Aero seats at the LA Auto Show reminded me of a firm German car seat which are uncomfortable long term to me. I find Saabs ands and Volvos generally have more comfortable seats than BMW, Audio, and Mercedes (with the exception of the S class). When I buy a Saab, I want a Swedish car – not a wannabe German car.
In my opinion, the best seats ever were in the Viggen.
Yes, the Viggen seats are amazing. They really hug your back. My back always feels better after a long drive, I don’t have that with any other car.
Excellent, they followed one third of my advice already. Now just add FWD and manual, make it possible to keep all the costly extras to a minimum and they’ve got a winner.
Your avatar continues to disturb me…. what is it?
My death mask, I like to plan ahead.
This is the only logical choice, to be sure. It would be nice to have a manual option, too, but don’t hold your breath waiting for one.
I agree the 2.0T is the right call for this market. One thing I’m curious about is the sales figures for 9-5 sedans and combi’s back in a “normal” year like 2004 or 2005. My gut feeling is that the combi had a pretty significant percent of the total. Personally, I know 4 people that owned 9-5s including myself and they all owned combi’s.
This was my thoughts earlier.
I think your gasoline prices will increase during the year. Therefor I think the 2,0T engine would be right for Saab and even manual as an option.
I dont know how Americans think when they buying Saabs? Lets say that the 9-4X take the bigger more fuel-thirsty part and the 9-5SC stand for the more “less is more” thing!
Thats what Saab is about and the spirit of the company. Otherwise they could go buying an Bimmer or any other German car.
What do you think? Am I to “Swedish” in my thoughts?
Yikes. And the 9-5SC is already off the list.
Those looking for more power could consider a Hirsch upgrade, no?
Jason Petho
Bummer. The Audi A6 wagen offers a 300 horse V6 last I checked. I was hoping Saab would match that. I would even look to a Hirsch edition if it was made available. I currently drive a Audi S6 wagon (which I know is usual for someone from the US) and was hoping to upgrade to the new 9-5 combi. My other car is a late model 9-5 Aero and I sure want to stay in the Saab family. I hope Saab reconsiders their engine options to the US.
Just out of curiosity. Why do you need so much power in a 5 meter long station wagon?
How much does it cost to certify a car variant in the US? It seems to me that the cost they allready have had developing the car should be higher than the cost to certify it? So, if you allready have had the big cost, why don’t you add the small cost so that you can actually sell the car?
The only thing that makes sense is that both the sedan and the wagon shall have the same engine and transmission options.
If I were a dealer stocking vehicles I’d steer buyers towards the Hirsch upgrades. But I think in the long-term Saab’s engine partnerships will yield a more efficient and impressive (speaking in numbers) replacement for the 2.8T. Wasn’t GM’s contract with Spyker to prevent powertrain changes only through MY2012? That’s why MY2013 sounds like the time more engines – like the BMW 1.6T slated for the new 9-3 – will be phased in across the range.
This is just what we need right now, especially the way gas prices will be heading this year. Other than my first 3-cylinder 96, all-but-one of my Saabs have been 4-Cylinder Turbos which have that renowned performance with economy.
Now the main issue is to find reasonable and competitive leasing arrangements to have the drivers’ seats occupied.
Did you ever have the feeling that the power in thous 4-Cylinder turbos were not enough?
Yes, I have enjoyed the 4-cylinder 2.0T on my 2000 9-3 for almost 11 years now. Plenty of power and torque when I need it, but 30+ MPG on highway driving and 25 MPG on mixed driving in town.
I don’t compromise. I own a Saab. 🙂
4-Cylinder turbo SAABs are definitely located very close to the “sweet spot”.
Will the SportCombi provide optional eLSD ?
Given the fact that only one engine would be an option, they made the right choice. It speaks more to the practicality of a large wagon. It can be bumped up to 260 HP for less than the cost of an AERO. It avoids the “sticker shock” that people complained about regarding the 9-5 AERO in 2010.
Awesome! Count me in if I can get that in a manual with XWD.
Beautiful looking vehicle, and would fit my needs perfectly.
Just read in Car & Driver that the new Ford Explorer (GVW: 4,900lbs) will come with an optional 2.0T Ecotec making 237hp:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q4/2011_ford_explorer_limited_4wd-road_test
“Ford will introduce an optional 2.0-liter, turbocharged four-cylinder in 2011, producing an estimated 237 horsepower and 250 pound-feet,”
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve not heard of lots of Subie owners out there with massive failures of their full-time assymetric AWD components
That’s why I mentioned that I know 4wd and XWD are indeed different… my point was really aimed at the MPG loss for the rare need of the XWD.
sorry if I mixed the two too much…
No, new Subie Outback owners are experiencing a front end shimmy that Subaru can’t seem to repair, last I checked.
@ Saabken… valid points too….
@ Saabken….I wish you were right
Do we know if the 9-5 SC will come to Australia and with what engines?
I would say definitely coming. If limited to one engine it would likely be the 2.0T, if 2 engines then 2.0T Linear and TTiD Aero. Why, because that’s the options for the 9-3SC currently on the SAAB Oz site.
Off Topic, but does anyone know when will Saab Canada update their webpage….it’s almost February. Still no build option, prices, just dealer info…
Hirsch ECU Chip Please!
And I’m not so sure that the 2.0 is that more fuel efficient. I noticed the EPA sticker on the 2011 I saw was 20/28. So only a 1 MPG bump over the 2.8T. And the 2.8T is XWD, the 2.0T was not.
Actually Swade I think it’s a bad call, not a good call..even your unscientific poll clearly shows over 30% want a v6 Saab needs to offer a variety of options not just one.. If the one only engine option goes through they will pay for it in lost sales, just my prediction .
The H-motor family (with the B205 and B235 engines) was part of the package which was sold to BAIC. Theoretical (but not practical) they might be bought from BAIC then, but probably it is better to continue the broaden the deal with BMW and include their new 2.0T motor (180 kW/245 hp, rated torque: 350 Newton meters) – provided that OK with BWM of course. They first plan to include this in their X1’s with an expected consumption of 7.9 l / 100 km.
You might have hit the nail on the head with this, Wulf….
I don’t know, but maybe they’re planning to sell the 9-5 wagon to those OK with the four-pot, and point the V6-lovers to the 9-4x.
Suspecting the same thing.
FWIW ………… just read in Car & Driver that the new Ford Explorer (GVW: 4,900lbs) will come with an optional 2.0T Ecotec making 237hp:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q4/2011_ford_explorer_limited_4wd-road_test
“Ford will introduce an optional 2.0-liter, turbocharged four-cylinder in 2011, producing an estimated 237 horsepower and 250 pound-feet …….”
It would seem almost suicidal for the Explorer to even have the notion of a small 4-banger as a base engine and one of only two engine choices.
Like I said above, the new 2016 CAFE standard calls for 35.5mpg.
Given the apparent “power” sensitivity of the US market, can somebody please explain why Caddy dumped the 2.8T in the SRX citing less than 10% take-up. If fuel economy was not a concern then price? More than 90% are apparently happy with the reportedly very lacklustre non-turbo V6.
On that basis what percent of real buyers would turn down the SC on basis of no V6?
Also I wonder what the historical sales figures were for 2.8T 9-3SC in the U.S. as percentage of overall volume.
Thinking out loud.
I used to have the ballpark figure for 9-3 V6 sales written somewhere. I remember asking about it when they decided to drop the V6 in the US for 2010.
I can’t find it now, but it was something very small. IIRC correctly, it was less than 10% sold in the previous model year being V6s.
You want to slice that up between SportCombi and Sedan sales – the SC would be miniscule.
I think the main reason the V6 in the 9-3 didn’t sell was because the Aero trim was $6-7K more than the base models. For 2009, the lowest priced 9-3 was $30,360. The only V6 was offered in the Aero XWD which was $43,605. If they would have offered a V6 Arc for $32K, numbers could have been different.
Aero sport suspension and American roads are not really a good combination.
Fuel economy really isn’t an issue in the US in a $40K+ vehicle. The difference between an average of 20mpg and 25mpg is about $40 a month at 15K miles a year. A car like this including insurance will cost about $600-700 or more a month. Does $40 difference really matter? Yes, fuel economy is important for the 9-3 but not the 9-5.
The math grades in the US have been dropping dramatically over the last 30 years. I’m pretty certain that a lot of people are not able to follow your simple calculations. Instead they will just look at the MPG numbers on the sticker, especially with the gas prices heading in the direction of $4 per gallon again.
I am sure the MPG number on the window sticker is important for the average car shopper. But aren’t Saab owners smart and educated? 🙂 I think the targeted 9-5 buyer in the US is someone who earns $100K or more. If my net monthly paycheck was $6000 a month, MPG numbers wouldn’t matter. I certainly wouldn’t lay awake at night of spending $40 more on gas every month.
The V6 is rated at 17/27 but I couldn’t find the numbers for the Turbo4.
Numbers for Europe are 9.9 l/100km for the 2.0T and 10.6 l/100km for the 2.8T. This converts to 23.8 and 22.2 mpg. That’s only a difference of 1.6 mpg which is even insignificant for the European market. Why even bother with the 2.0T in the US?
🙂 +1
Will the hirsch update include the 2.0 later?
If I remember correctly only the v6 had a Hirsch update in the 9-5 in the list we saw here at saabsunited a couple of days ago.
Talking about the us market in my previous post.
Sorry for the 2 post…
Bravada, I agree!! 🙂
When will we have a proper discussion on SU on factory warranties. It differs so much between markets. Read an article in DI.se on the swedish market. Saab in the bottom with BMW an ovloV 2 years. Opel 5 years and on the top Mitsubishi with 8 years.
—
Would Saab sales speed up if they offered 5 years. If the products are so fine and high quality then that would be a piece of cake!
Saab US has always have had longer warranties compared to Sweden.
4 years/50K miles for US.
Do you get the free scheduled maintenance for 3 years/36K or is that different too?
Michaelb, You are always so bright and shiny! Always so positive!!
Do you really think that they havent studied the numbers how they have sold before? Do you really think when the rest of carmakers is going towards smaller engines SAAB should do the opposite? Even F1 will have 1.6 liter turbo charged 2013!!
Sorry Henke, I do not understand you. Read again what I have written about the 1.6l engine availability for both the 9-3 and the 9-5 regarding the US.
But for such a big and heavy car as the 9-5 is, a four-cylinder will not be sufficient both in the US or in Europe to be in the margin rich premium segment. An 8-cylinder is not necessary.
sorry for the mistake with respect to the 1.6l, however the fuel efficiency of that 163hp seems to be much better than for the 220hp.
Bollocks !!!
The 163hp XWD engine has exactly the same consumption values as its 210hp XWD counterpart.
If you only want to spread FUD, you are allowed to do it somewhere else.
Tahnk you.
Actually, initially, the Saab 9-5 was V6-only in the US and somehow this “prevented big sales”. Have you driven the 2.0T and 2.8T and compared them side by side? While I find both engines grand, I don’t think the 2.0T is in any way worse in terms of refinement, and in many ways more modern.
Saab will never be a brand that offers “V6 on the cheap”. That’s Buick. That’s the difference between those brands. Which might be why Buick will continue to outsell Saab fewfold in the US. And that’s OK.
+1 about the status.
“Mine is bigger than yours” has already led to too many monster trucks on the road. I’m sorry to say the same is true for sedans, including the new 9-5.
Also just to add fuel to the fire… The Audi A6 in the US is only available in the states with a 300hp V6.
http://models.audiusa.com/a6-avant/engines
The more reason for Saab to be different and take care of he other customer segment.
Not to be harsh; but I sometimes feel that many – especially American – commenter’s here tend to argue that Saab should be compared to Subarus etc. when talking is about price-matters and to Audis etc. when talking are about engines and equipment…..
1+ troels but also they compare design with acuras and buicks . americans have no idea what good design is. 🙂
@ Saab_andee……pfft. 😉 rubbish… we gave the world the Edsel, the Pinto and the Dodge “K” car….. pfft… lets not forget the Gremlin… double pfft.
what did you Europeans give us????? The LeCar.
pfft pfft pfft 🙂
everytime i see the gremlin i think at waynes world 🙂
great cars – 🙂 of course we european love the fiat multipla OG 🙂
sorry 74 i haven´t seen waynes world for a while but the amc pacer is also a wonderful car 🙂
it´s friday and TGI(am european) so i can drink a wonderful sanmichlaus beer (better than a bud light 🙂 )
BLECH! Yet another insult…. suggesting bud light…. pfft
Weihenstephan Krystallweiss… thank you very much… or shall i say, Danke!
whew, nice to have some fun humor in between the doomsday comments,
Btw, we’re not the only ones discussing engines. Most people on the Porsche Boxster forums are horrified by the prospect of getting the Audi TT 4-banger for the 2012 Boxster model.
“According to sources, the engine is a 2.5L and the turbocharged version puts out around 360-hp.”
I wish we were having that discussion too….
Yes, enough power, but it will increase the height of the center of gravity, i.e. handling will suffer. It will also not sound like the good old flat six anymore, but rather like a …..Saab…?
At least Porsche isn’t re-introducing this ……………
http://www.pelicanparts.com/literature/914/914_literature_1.jpg