GM Inside News Forum banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,692 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I expect to see the Saab advertised right alongside the Silverado, and country music playing in the background.

"It'll tow a load of bricks, and your horse trailer, too. Saab, Like a Rock."


The Saab 9-7X will be offered with GM's 4.2-liter inline six-cylinder engine and 5.3-liter V-8. The 9-7X likely will compete against truck-based SUVs such as the Lincoln Aviator and Ford Explorer.
http://autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_co...t_code=00720392

BTW, I don't hate OHV engines. I have one in my Bonneville. I just hate the idea of one in a Saab, when GM has been teasing us with a turbo Inline-5 for years now. <_<

I think the Inline 6, while not a Turbo, is an acceptable engine for Saab. It's modern, techy, and does more with less displacement in the Saab tradition.

But they just had to BADGE ENGINEER it, didn't they? Or suspension and sheet metal engineering, that is.

"But why deny people the option of a V8 when slippin it in there is sooo easy?" The Beancounter asks.

Why not put a Pontiac spoiler and fake hood scoops on Buick LeSabre? It's called brand character, and despite all of GM's high and mighty talk about protecting it, they go for the low-buck solution, instead of upping the horses of the I-6 or putting the turbo I-5 in.

"Wait a few years, maybe they will!"

The damage is done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
685 Posts
Well, crap. Its not over yet, maybe we will be pleasantly suprised by it. They say it will have better performance, I don't see how it could be any faster than the Rainier or the like. 15.5 quarter, tops.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,963 Posts
Ming, I do agree with you on the engine choices I will say this. It is an SUV and not a car. The SUV's the9-7 will go after have V8's in them. Do I think a good old American pushrod should be in there? Its not the best choice, but why not? I think there should be a lot of work done for OHC V8 motors in the future for Buick, Caddy, and Saab. I have no problem with the 5.3 going into the car at all. Its a very capable engine and is one of the best in its class. I would like to see a turbo -6 or 5 in this car, but is that what SUV buyers really want? Yes, its a Saab, but its still an SUV. A turbo I6 would be a great idea but the time and money that would go into developing and producing the engine would need to be displaced over more then one SUV. I personaly dont think saab should see anything bigger then the I6 in the car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43,946 Posts
:angry:
No turbo?? Most likely the SAME engine as the Trailblazer/Envoy/Ranier.

So.. how can the 9-7X have "better performance" without a "better engine?" Change the suspension too??
This isn't a Saab. It's a farce!! But maybe GM will surprise us? At least the 9-2X followed in Saab's heritage of performance!! GM should have been targeting the XC90 not that joke SUV Aviator.
Cadillac should have taken this platform and added it to the Escalade line.

Might as well base the 9-5 on the Bonneville while you're at it!
:angry:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,963 Posts
I still think that the 9-7x could be built of the Sigma chassis. If someone has more info on that, post up but Looking at thoes artists pictures, it fit teh SRX design almost exactly. If thats teh case, I hope it doesnt get the northstar. The 3.6 would be a cool motor, and maybe a turbo I-5 to fit in?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,692 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Originally posted by mgescuro@Dec 23 2003, 05:15 AM
:angry:
No turbo??  Most likely the SAME engine as the Trailblazer/Envoy/Ranier.

So.. how can the 9-7X have "better performance" without a "better engine?"  Change the suspension too??
This isn't a Saab.  It's a farce!!  But maybe GM will surprise us?  At least the 9-2X followed in Saab's heritage of performance!!  GM should have been targeting the XC90 not that joke SUV Aviator.
Cadillac should have taken this platform and added it to the Escalade line.

Might as well base the 9-5 on the Bonneville while you're at it! 
:angry:
Better performance = It's a little lower to the ground, and takes the turns faster. :woot2: <_< <_< <_<

Yep, it's a Beancounter's dream, using the same engine combo as every other Trailblazer clone out there.

Don't give them any ideas about the Bonneville! :rolleyes:

Yes, the Saab 9-2 deserves much credit for getting a hatch and a turbo inline-4 in the Saab tradition. I realize the 9-7 is an SUV, but did GM have to be so blatantly open about its platform/engine sharing? They could have offered the V8 at a later date, only when pressed to do so by the Saab buyer, which I don't think is going to happen. Not at least in the numbers that justify the erosion of brand character.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,279 Posts
To be quite honest I don't respect either the 9-7x (#1 the name cuts into what could have been a full-size sedan) or the 9-2x (should have been the 9-1x.) The 9-2x is horrible because it doesn't feature any SAAB engines (or turbochargers), its interior is horrendous, and the ignition is in the wrong place. The 9-7x is truck based, features two natrually aspirated engines none of which are 4-cylinders (an All american 5.3L V8 does not belong in a sweedish vehicle.) Its just so wrong... :angry:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43,946 Posts
Originally posted by TaHoE@Dec 24 2003, 10:56 AM
To be quite honest I don't respect either the 9-7x (#1 the name cuts into what could have been a full-size sedan) or the 9-2x (should have been the 9-1x.) The 9-2x is horrible because it doesn't feature any SAAB engines (or turbochargers), its interior is horrendous, and the ignition is in the wrong place. The 9-7x is truck based, features two natrually aspirated engines none of which are 4-cylinders (an All american 5.3L V8 does not belong in a sweedish vehicle.) Its just so wrong... :angry:
I respect teh 9-2X much more than I do the 9-7X at this point. At least the 9-2X seems to be following in the same tradition as past Saabs.
So what if it's not a Saab engine? And aren't teh Saab turbochargers sourced from Japanese manufacturers?? I'll have to check the sticker on my 9-5 to be sure... but I'm 80% sure theyr'e sourced from japan.
I dont think the 9-2 interior is "horrendous." Nor do I think it needs work. I don't think it's spectacular either. It is simply good for what it is. I don't mind the ignition placement, though it would have been nice to see it on the center console.

The 9-7X should have been pasted on the Sigma. But someone at Saab said that they couldn't provide enough of a differentiating factor from the SRX. :blink: Oooook. As I've said before... how else could they differentiate from the Envoy or Ranier? Make the 9-7X "lower" and have a "sportier transmission?" OK. Then what is its competiton? Surely not the XC90! I'm sure it' will be a decent SUV in its own way.

Welll.... we've got 4 months before the 9-7X is launched.

I'll wait for the new Bonneville based 9-5. :unsure:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Correct me if i'm wrong, but isnt the 9-7x just a temporary fit until saab finds a platform for the next 9-7x, and since when do you guys complain about a chevy V-8? Saab did their homework equipping the truck with a V-8.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43,946 Posts
Originally posted by GNX238@Dec 25 2003, 11:20 PM
Correct me if i'm wrong, but isnt the 9-7x just a temporary fit until saab finds a platform for the next 9-7x, and since when do you guys complain about a chevy V-8? Saab did their homework equipping the truck with a V-8.
I think I read somewhere that the current platform of the 9-7X may be a "temporary fix," since this iteration of the 9-7X is US-Canada only, hence the high-torque GM V8. Who knows though.
I think I read somewhere that Saab is working on a HOT V8 for the next gen 9-5. Maybe with luck the net gen 9-7X Aero will have this engine too?

Well.. we'll know for sure what the 9-7X will look like in APril when it is launched.
At any rate, at least the 9-2X looks liek a decent competitor. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Posted this in the 'regular' 9-7 forum by acident:

Pushrod's in a modern saab? Please. I have nothing against pushrod engines and think that they have their place, but not in any Saab branded vehicle.

Volvo XC90 is doing just fine with no V8. A non-turbo engine for the base 9-2 and now this . . . no turbo engines avail. in the 9-7. As I have said before, so much for the ad campaign "...where all cars are turbocharged."

I was giving GM the benefit of the doubt that they would get this as saab-like as could be, but they really seem to have just done a rebadge.

Where is GM's engineering might for their premium european brand? Cadillac and Corvette can't get all of the engineering talent. They are doing the same thing with the minivans . . . er, uh sportvans . . . .

At least the HHR looks promising.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
685 Posts
You're not going to bitch about the Boxer configuration? Not Saab either.

This is new territory for Saab. Maybe a break from tradition is what they need. If they make it look like a Saab and not another knock off on the 360 platform, it will find buyers. I think some Saab buyers will appreciate the torque of the v8, after all, they like the torque of the turbo 4's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43,946 Posts
Originally posted by sykboy@Dec 26 2003, 04:27 PM
You're not going to bitch about the Boxer configuration? Not Saab either.

This is new territory for Saab. Maybe a break from tradition is what they need. If they make it look like a Saab and not another knock off on the 360 platform, it will find buyers. I think some Saab buyers will appreciate the torque of the v8, after all, they like the torque of the turbo 4's.
:lol:
Well.. that is really an interesting point you make. A torquey V8 as opposed to a torquey I4.

Only time will tell.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,692 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Originally posted by sykboy@Dec 26 2003, 04:27 PM
I think some Saab buyers will appreciate the torque of the v8, after all, they like the torque of the turbo 4's.
Honda needs to put the GM Series II 3800 V6 engine in its Civic Si in exchange for that VUE Redline engine. I'm sure the Honda fans will appreciate the torque they've been denied all these years. :rolleyes: :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
685 Posts
The reason people like turbo 4's, TORQUE. The STi produces 300lbs at 4500 rpm. That is more than a lot of V8s at twice the size. The SRT produces more than 250lbs from 2400 to 4400. Sorry guys, but TORQUE is what makes a turbo motor, whether it is high, low or throughout the range, depends on tuning, size, etc. The same can be said about big cubes and V8s.

I could see a Saab owner warming up to a V8 that runs on 87 octane and produces more than 300lbs in a fat curve, of course, I could be wrong.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,692 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Originally posted by sykboy@Dec 27 2003, 10:24 AM
I could see a Saab owner warming up to a V8 that runs on 87 octane and produces more than 300lbs in a fat curve, of course, I could be wrong.
I won't disagree that once they are in the driver's seat, they will like GMs OHV torquey V8.

The problem is all of the negative press it will get. Would Mazda put an LS1 in their RX-8 or RX-7 when it is supposed to be a rotary powered sports car? Heck, they'd get more bang for the power buck if they did, but imagine the negative reaction from Nissan fans.

Image aside, it also stinks of badge engineering. Platform sharing is one thing, but having the exact same engine options as Buick, Isuzu, Chevrolet and GMC.... :rolleyes: ....like no one is going to miss this obvious cheapness....

GM could have put in the I-6, and then made a high-po version of the I-6 with more torque and horsepower. Look at the Saab lineup - they even have variations in their turbo power range like this.....

They might as well just give the Saab 9-3 the 3.9L V6 that is going in the Pontiac G6, and ditch all of their turbos. :blink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
I think everyone here needs to understand that GM, Ford and Daimler-Chrysler are positioning themselves to have a limited number of platforms across ALL their brands. Keeps costs down, makes cars more affordable. There will always be clones, trust me. It's a bad idea not to have them.

CloneCars.com

Cheesemonkey
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,519 Posts
You can do platform sharing without butchering Saab. The 9-3, Malibu, and Vectra are appropriate efforts. You'd never know by looking at them they had a common platform.

But if the Saab 9-7 is just like an Envoy, as the Rainier is, then Saab's image is going to take a big hit.. There should be no visual connection between Saab and Detroit iron. The WRX clone is bad enough. If they could do the 9-3 right, why not the 9-2 and 9-7? If it's too much money to do it right, then don't do it. If not doing it prevents the brand from being viable, then let the brand die a dignified death.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Yep, they should have followed Subaru's example. Take their most popular wagon/hatchback, add a decent offroad capable 4WD powertrain and raised suspension. Then their current engines would have plenty of torque to handle it.
That would have been a Saab. Not this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
776 Posts
The WRX clone is bad enough? The WRX is a car that Saab should have invented, and not have had to clone. I feel it is very 'saaby.'

So what if Saab gets the 5.3L pushrod. It's a better engine than anything Saab's got, at the very least for SUV duty.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top