Comparing Cargo Area of the 9-3x vs 9-4x

Little follow up to this post, Aj sent me an email yesterday with some photo’s of the two 9-4x that have just arrived in Ice Pearl and Atlantic Blue. These vehicles were part of the test fleet driven by Saab execs in Detroit during the test period and the colors were not made available once production started.

This is my first post, so if things don’t work perfect, I apologize up front. I came across some very useful information from our friends at Just Saab. Aj and the gang have put up on their Facebook page all of the important measurements that you could want to know in comparing a 9-3x to the new 9-4x for cargo area below.


Also below is the load height from the bumper to the ground which shows a minimal difference of 4 inches.

Finally for those of us that are a little taller then the average guy and don’t enjoy bashing our heads on the gate, they also include the open gate height.

Both vehicles have ample space for all of you cargo needs. If I were choosing, I definitely be looking for the 9-4x and if you’re looking, I also read that the guys at Just Saab have 2 9-4x’s in Ice Pearl & Atlantic Blue coming that are not in normal production. Thanks to Aj and his team for taking the time to show us the differences in pictures.



Notify of

What a great inaugural post, Jason! Those specs really tell a story. Whether 9-4x or 9-3X, Saab has our space needs covered.

looking for new car

This is a great post, one of the most helpful I’ve seen in all these months on this site. Would love to see the comparison to the 9-5SC. I looked briefly at the 9-4x and my impression was that there was very little room in the cargo area – not much depth and sloping rear hatch. At least that was my impression compared to my 2003 9-5 wagon. Thank you.

Peter Gilbert

Here at the SOC in New Jersey we have the new 9-4X which I drove yesterday and a NG 9-5 Combi on display. I drove the 9-4 X which was just superb. The 9-4 X headroom is amazing. the 9-5has move leg room and longer trunk. Between the three in the Saab line-up there will be a delighted customer.

I am so glad the US 9-5 has the separate bumper which really will be more practical.


This is a very interesting comparison.

One thing I find particularly surprising is that the 9-3x and 9-4x dimensions are quite close to each other. Once the 9-5 Sports-Combi is available it would be worthwhile compare these with its dimensions as well.

Patrik B

I am also surprised! The only significant difference is that the 9-4x is wider between the rear wheels and that they have taken 2 inches from the trunk and added that to the rear seat instead. Basically all the other measurements are the same. We’ve had a 9-5 SC and now owns a 9-3 SC and we feel that the 9-3 is mush shorter in the back than the og 9-5. And the 9-4x is another 2 inches/10 cm shorter in the back than the 9-3. I really hope that the ng 9-5 SC will provide a great cargo bay.… Read more »


Very helpful information, and a very good first post. Looking forward to more! 🙂


SO useful, thanks for the info.


Welcome Jason.
Great “scientific” write-up. I have both an OG 9-5 SC and a Turbo X SC. To my great surprise I see that the 9-4x is not that much roomier than the 9-3. My 9-5 feels like the BIG hauler compared even to the NG 9-5 SC that seams to have been designed “backwards” outside in and not as Saab always have done inside out. Time lack or orders from GM. Who knows it feels somewhat under-utilized so to speak.

Red J

great post, but I’m missing one or two dimensions.
What is the trunk entry at the top?
And what is the distance from the closed trunk door to the headrest of the seats, as this should be the shortest available depth in the trunk?

But you know, I love small details 😉


Surprised at how close the two are; wonder how the small differences result in total cargo volume though.
Also, those 4 inches (that’s 10cm for us in the metric world) of trunk sill entry height could be significant for some heavier loads, though i suspect 99% of the people will not carry such loads.

Bravada from GMI

This just goes to prove that the perceived “utility” or “space” advantage of an SUV versus a regular wagon is simply nonexistent. And the wagon is usually better-looking and drives better thanks to a lower centre of gravity. Wagons also tend to weigh less and consume less fuel thanks to better aerodynamics.


It’s all about the image one wants to project, I think… SUVs/CUVs has that my-car’s-bigger-than-yours image, and they sell the image of go anywhere, do anything, even when they’re car-based and basically pretty useless in any serious off road use.


If I recall correctly, you’ve been debating the options for your next ride. Having seen the 9-5 combi…wow. Drool…lust…desire…anticipation. We have two large dogs (malinois) who have to jump up and into the back of the 9-7x, the 9-5 has the perfect makings of sexy looks, car lie handling and cargo size for utility. Toss in a Hirsch upgrade for the turbo4 and there you have it.

Stephen Goldberger

Note that the 4 inches load height difference increases to 5 or 6 when comparing to a 9-3 (non-X) SC. That said, the 9-3X does ride more softly while still handling great. For 2011, the 6 speed a/t seems to compensate for the AWD part in fuel economy – of course, the Griffen Edition will have 6 speed a/t across the board. The 9-4X drives well, and I have fallen in love with Gwendolyn, the lady who lives in the GPS. My issue with the 9-4X is, well, it’s too tall. I was fortunate enough to be chosen to perform… Read more »

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.