[mgescuro]

: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:

 

[mgescuro]

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.

 

[mgescuro]

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.

 

[mgescuro]

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.