From the website of New Zealand Autocar Magazine's April 2003 issue
There is a new Saab in the pipeline and it's gunning at Europe's top sports saloons.

The 9-3 Aero will be powered by a 3.5-litre twin turbo V6. The engine will be supplied by Holden and turbo charged by Saab in Sweden.

Insiders think 300 bhp is not out of the ball park and, in typical Saab fashion, boosting torque will be high on the agenda. Hopefully the chassis will be up to the task, as it remains front driven![/b]I came across this completely by accident. Is it old news or just a red herring?
Just sounds a bit too http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/fawlty.gif to be true!

Hi,

a little odd that Holden, an Aussie Brand, would supply an engine to Saab. They (=Holden) used to have Nissan engines in their Calais and VL turbos ...

and 300 bhp would be very little for such an engine. BMW manages to get 343 hp out of their 3.6 litre R6 without any turbocharging

Yours,

Philip

Originally posted by philip hs:
a little odd that Holden, an Aussie Brand, would supply an engine to Saab.[/b]Maybe not, as they share the same abusive/neglectful father, General Motors. In some ways it's less "out there" than a partnership with, say, Subaru.
In Australia you can get a Holden Astra coupe - turbocharged version apparently being tweaked by Saab from what I've read here.

Having just driven a colleagues brand new BMW M3 (and been driven in it at brown trouser inducing speeds) I fear any manufacturer on this planet will struggle to get close to an M3. Audi has tried and failed.

What staggered me was that the M3 bears no relation to the 330Ci other than a vague sharing of some body panels. Accleration, poise, roadholding, handling - let alone build quality - perfection. Sadly, I fear Saab couldn't get close.

We all like to knock BMW but let me tell you - £40,000? Worth every penny.

Well maybe it never rains in Cambridge, of course. I'd have an STi Imprezza (or better still a 5 door WRX with the PPP) to whip an M3 on any A or B road up here on a wet drizzly day.
Actually now that I think, that's almost every day here, as it's the climate that keeps us so congenial

Give me a Audi S4/RS4 or Merc C32AMG. The BMW is too 'in yer face' regardless of it's abilities.

I'd have an STi Imprezza (or better still a 5 door WRX with the PPP) *[/b]I'd be a bit too embarrassed to drive a car from a manufacturer that puts pink decals on the bumpers and has models with gold wheels Anyway I think an Evo VIII may be quicker.

Is it not 'design quality' of Saab one main element that attracts us?

As for the Audi and Merc - as 'a complete package' (and I'm including everything from the experience of ownership to cost of depreciation), the BMW hasn't won 'What Car?'s" performance car title for three years running for nothing.

Quote. "Sporting legend is the best performance saloon on earth, providing supercar pace at half the cost"

Having spent a day in the M3 I now understand - (I didn't before).

And as for in your face -

I haven't been in a car that turned so many heads since I accidently ran over a Fiat Uno many years ago.

If Saab could put a package together like the M3, in its current financial mess......

The other problem with the Imprezza/Evo is that they are the armed robbers car of choice. My brother knows two people who have been assaulted in their own homes by burglars after their keys. Plus, you need to be 120 years old, live in Antarctica (with a garage) and have a tracker to get a quote below £2000 for a years insurance.

I mean, we all have to pay something for insurance, but 2k just for the privilege seems a bit much. As do the "Look at me" spoliers and the 5,000 mile major-service intervals...

Plus, you need to be 120 years old, live in Antarctica (with a garage) and have a tracker to get a quote below £2000 for a years insurance.[/b]M3 - Full business use, man mid 30s + spouse, home counties - a mere £700
with all the usual insurance add-ons

Originally posted by J i m s t e r:
and the 5,000 mile major-service intervals... [/b]... and the 20,000-50,000 rebuild intervals, depending on level of tuning http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/eek.gif http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/eek.gif .

Originally posted by captain aero:
[quote]

As for the Audi and Merc - as 'a complete package' (and I'm including everything from the experience of ownership to cost of depreciation), the BMW hasn't won 'What Car?'s" performance car title for three years running for nothing.

Quote. "Sporting legend is the best performance saloon on earth, providing supercar pace at half the cost"

Having spent a day in the M3 I now understand - (I didn't before).

And as for in your face -

I haven't been in a car that turned so many heads since I accidently ran over a Fiat Uno many years ago.

When I said 'in yer face' I was referring to my perception of the car, which I can't shift. Also on my way to work I see 3 M3's, 2 coupes and one convertible. Audi's and Merc's? One every now & then if I'm lucky.

I'm not dissing M3's, I just can't get enthusiastic about them, I don't like them. I'll look at a smart (old) Mini before an M3 if they're parked next to each other!

http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Well as luck would have it I am only 117 years old, but I guess I still get a fairly good premium for these categories of cars.
Big wings, pink decals, you're just not in touch with your feminine side. http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/eek.gif Anyway that's why the 5 door Scooby would be my weapon of choice. I'm also certain the engineering in a Scoob is at least as clever as a Saab, but not the cabin design or egronomics.
Having said all that I wouldn't have one, nor an M3 and certainly never an Evo Vlll as even up here in the wilds of the frozen North you can rarely if ever get the chance to drive these cars properly on the road.
Yes, I know about track days, but track and road
require very different abilities in both car and driver.
So I'll stick with my comfy, sad old blokes family runabout and enjoy burning up the odd 330i now and then.

Let us not forget the new 9-2 will be powered by the Impreza WRX drive train.
While the STI dose have the big wing and pink STI stickers, these things can be removed. But 300bhp and 300lbs of Torque from a 2.5 with DCCD and a 6MT will put a or 2 on your face.

But the boy racer looks, just have nothing on the M3, or the 9-5 or 9-3 for that matter.

Originally posted by LiquidCalm:
Let us not forget the new 9-2 will be powered by the Impreza WRX drive train.[/b]That's a pity, really, because the Saab engine is rather more robust and tunable, and I really don't like the sound the boxer engine makes. A Saab engine mated with the Subaru drivetrain would leave me a lot more comfortable. Having had some Saabs on a dyno with an STi there the same day, the STi's torque peaked very late in the RPM range, while the Saab 9000s were producing vast amounts of torque across most of their (smaller) RPM range.

Also, it seems from listening to Scooby owners that they cost a fortune to maintain, with very short service intervals. Tuning them also costs enormous amounts of money. I hope Saab will do something about the service intervals at least, but that might mean doing more re-engineering than they're allowed to.

It's OK having an enthusiast's sports car like the Scooby needing lots of costly maintenance, but if Saab try to quickly repackage a Scooby as a competitor for Audi and the like, to be sold to company car drivers, they might end up wishing they hadn't bothered...

Just seen a three-way test on Carfile (Men and Motors) Evo Viii, STi and M3

and that's the way they were rated in descending order.

But then the M3 was £13 to £15K more to purchase http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Still, it's a bit like comparing Top Man, Burton and Armani

If I had the money and desired a dual purpose car that combined commute and track day use the M3 would be had to beat, even though I loath the image of BMW or Mercedes-Benz for that matter. For the same money though I'd rather have a 9-5 Aero (with a few added http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/fawlty.gif perhaps) and spend the change on a tow bar for the Aero for a trailer with accompanied Caterham 7 for track day entertainment.......

Yes indeed. Gets my vote. But for the track car I might be tempted with one those new VX whatsits that Clarkson was banging on about on TG last weekend. It MUST be good if Jezza was impressed with a Vauxhall. http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Originally posted by Mark E:
*QUOTE
Originally posted by J i m s t e r:
and the 5,000 mile major-service intervals... [/b]... and the 20,000-50,000 rebuild intervals, depending on level of tuning http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/eek.gif http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/eek.gif . [/b][/quote]One of the guys in my group at Le Mans turned up in a hired Pug 206 cc. This was because his Impreza WRX STi melted number 3 piston on a trackday, apparently this is a common problem. http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/eek.gif

I must admit, I've heard a few horror stories about them lately, I'll certainly never own one now. I just hope GM do get their act together and give us a decent AWD Saab to play with.

Originally posted by aeropilot:
I loath the image of BMW or Mercedes-Benz for that matter.[/b]As do I, although I do like the M-B cars up to the early '90s when they were less fashionable and people bought them to keep rather than to pose around in for a year before changing them.

Then again, I suppose Saabs have gone the same way (and probably went that way sooner).

Perhaps an XKR-R then?

The 180 mile range of an evo would bore me too, I have known someone (who works for Mitsubishi) drain a tank in 90 miles http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/fawlty.gif .
I've had a good look over a new M3 and the plastics inside feel pretty naff, the whole experience was pretty uninvolving for £40k.

Forget the Jap stuff too, if you want a smile on your face buy a left hook 355 (£40k should cover it)and you won't regret it. They eat Track days, I saw a bloke do 90 laps of Donnington at a dealership day, (he bought the car purely for trackdays) and it never missed a beat, all he does is change the oil and pads a bit regularly.

It won't depreciate like a beemer, it won't wear out like a Jap car (or get nicked) and it will make you smile even when you're stuck on the M25 in the rain, 'cos they're so nice inside, the whole thing just feels special.

My two cents Maybe if I really had £40k to blow on a car I'd think differently.....

i think i mentioned this b4
the saab will be using some form of the aussie built hfv6 engine.hopefully in 3 litre form with twin turbo,but it might be a pipe dream?
the general can change his mind like i change my pants.about once a week,and thats if they are soiled

I've had a good look over a new M3 and the plastics inside feel pretty naff, the whole experience was pretty uninvolving for £40k.[/b]I think you're kind of missing the point.

The same plastics are used in the 316i... so is the interior naff for a 21K car? I don't think so.. so whats the extra 19K for?

Nearly every body panel is different on the M3. The chassis is completely different. The engine is a completely handbuilt with an over 100horsepower/litre NORMALLY ASPIRATED straight six.. and over nearly every kind of road and track is as quick as many so called super cars costing twice its price.

If you've ever seen an M3 driven by someone who knows what they're doing.. then yould realise that beyond its 'flash cash city boy image' lies a truely great drivers car... and a car that Saab or General Motors could only dream to compete with.

Also don't talk to me about Ferraris.. yesterday a Ferrari 360 Modena killed it's both occupants at the Nurburgring after going out of control on a straight after it hit a mid straight hump.

Unless it was a result of mechanical failure, it's hardly fair to blame the Ferrari is it, surely the fault lies with the driver.......

what? you mean Audi didn't have to do all those recalls on the TT to fit ESP, suspension geometry changes and a spoiler and pay out off court settlements on the mass tort suit to drivers who suffered loss, due to what you alledge as the drivers fault?

Or Ford/Firestone with all the Explorers that kept rolling over?

Some cars have truely evil on the limit handling.. and the Ferrari 360's is well documented.

To be honest..
Given the choice of a 300bhp 9-3 aero, and an M3...
I'd take the M3, as no doubt going by saabs current strategy it would be about the same price http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Originally posted by RA:
From the website of New Zealand Autocar Magazine's April 2003 issue *QUOTE
There is a new Saab in the pipeline and it's gunning at Europe's top sports saloons.

The 9-3 Aero will be powered by a 3.5-litre twin turbo V6. The engine will be supplied by Holden and turbo charged by Saab in Sweden.

Insiders think 300 bhp is not out of the ball park and, in typical Saab fashion, boosting torque will be high on the agenda. Hopefully the chassis will be up to the task, as it remains front driven![/b]I came across this completely by accident. Is it old news or just a red herring?
Just sounds a bit too http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/fawlty.gif to be true! [/b][/quote]3.5L turbo Holden engine with 300hp...GM is killing saab. 3.5L turbo should have at least 400hp. Why not use the SVC engine or the SCC engine on 93x. They'll be much better than any GM stuff...
Also, 300hp can do nothing to m3, especially when the new M3 might get a V8.

Welcome to Saabscene invitai

Originally posted by MarkA:
*QUOTE
I've had a good look over a new M3 and the plastics inside feel pretty naff, the whole experience was pretty uninvolving for £40k.[/b]I think you're kind of missing the point.

If you've ever seen an M3 driven by someone who knows what they're doing.. then yould realise that beyond its 'flash cash city boy image' lies a truely great drivers car... and a car that Saab or General Motors could only dream to compete with.

Also don't talk to me about Ferraris.. yesterday a Ferrari 360 Modena killed it's both occupants at the Nurburgring after going out of control on a straight after it hit a mid straight hump. [/b][/quote]Maybe I am missing the point, I don't disagree the car is an outstanding peice of engineering, I was just surprised the quality wasn't carried through the car in the Trim.

And I wasn't talking about all Ferraris, I was merely suggesting the 355 (a car which I understand to handle fantastically, and more safely than the 360) as an alternative to a new BMW for http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/fawlty.gif per £.

The point I obviously didn't stress is that it always amazes me how people throw away money in depreciation on brand new cars, when if they looked around, they could have all sorts of alternatives. The alternatives may not float everyones boat, I was just trying to express an opinion!

I bought an old Ferrari instead of an E36 M3, and had an absolute http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/fawlty.gif even though a to b the M3 was a quicker car, and four years on (although I no longer own it) the Ferrari is still worth what I paid for it, the M3 has halved in value. Insurance was cheaper on the Ferrari too.

It would be nice to think I will one day be rich enough to throw away £15k a year in depreciation, but until then, I'm watching the pennies!

Originally posted by Paco:
I bought an old Ferrari instead of an E36 M3, and had an absolute * *:fawlty: * even though a to b the M3 was a quicker car, and four years on (although I no longer own it) the Ferrari is still worth what I paid for it, the M3 has halved in value. *Insurance was cheaper on the Ferrari too.
[/b]Good point...
But could you do 30k miles a year in a ferrari?
The answer is no.... the running cost (servicing etc) would be horrendous http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/eek.gif
Whereas the M3 and its ilk, well you can do miles in those with reasonable running costs.

Nope, you've still not convinced me. I'm still drawn inexorably to the 9-5 aero wagon with tow bar, trailer, and 2nd hand lotus elise. http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
I'm also not at all convinced that the M3 is a supercar on the cheap. What about an RS2 for real exclusivity complete with all weather drivability and the punch to beat a McLaren F1 off the line?

Originally posted by Leon (9-5 stg2):
*QUOTE
Originally posted by Paco:

I bought an old Ferrari instead of an E36 M3, and had an absolute * * http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/fawlty.gif * *even though a to b the M3 was a quicker car, and four years on (although I no longer own it) the Ferrari is still worth what I paid for it, the M3 has halved in value. *Insurance was cheaper on the Ferrari too.
[/b]Good point...
But could you do 30k miles a year in a ferrari?
The answer is no.... the running cost (servicing etc) would be horrendous http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/eek.gif
Whereas the M3 and its ilk, well you can do miles in those with reasonable running costs. [/b][/quote]I don't know about the new ones but I did 26k miles in my 308 in 14 months, and it thrived on it. Only age-related problems were the things that stopped me using it, and I know M3's aren't immune from trips to the dealer. Don't forget they're pretty agricultural mechanically (the older cars). There seem to be enough high mileage ones for sale on the continent to suggest they hold together ok.

I certainly didn't pay main agent servicing charges, but then I don't think Ferrari charge much more than B-M? The 355 I saw on track had a load of miles (kms!) on it, like 90k plus.

I think I'd always rather pay servicing than Depreciation, the depreciation on a new M3 over 2-3 years would easily fund a 355's servicing.

I suspect that the body work and fittings will deteriorate quicker in a Ferrari, the Fiat electrics aren't exactly perfect yet, and rumour has it rust has been spotted on the odd older 355 http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

I certainly like the RS2 idea, but I believe the servicing on those is horrific, a Kim Collins tweaked 300+bhp S2 might be a better bet?

As I am now a family man and have 6 points slowing me down as well, comfort has become more of an issue.....I spotted an A8 Quattro tip with LPG conversion for £4950 the other day.... http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/fawlty.gif

Forget yer M3s, 308's and other 'exotica'...gimme a V8 Minor with Nitrous for some explosive performance....yeah with the 1000cc badge on the boot-lid. http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/eek.gif I was reading about one in an old copy of Autocar the other day (sad, I know!) which hit 60mph in 3.1 secs. Then there was the old J series 'Rat' Allard with 650 bhp which could hit 100mph in 5.6 secs!! Those sorts of things make me
Cheers
Al

Another hot rodder/street rodder on the board I see.....

Hmmnnn...memories of Nick Mann's Rover V8 powered Minor that had twin turbo's and nitros, and I seem to remember held a few hillclimb/sprint track records, so you can't say it could'nt go around corners either....

I seem to recall an edition of top gear magazine from the mid '90's that compared the M3, Audi S2 (Coupe) and the Porsche 968.....just checked, it was Nov'93.
OK, not exactly current (but I believe the BMW was considered THE car to have then as well) but they said they'd take the Audi as it seemed less jittery when pushed to the limit.

I could just about afford that Audi now!

Skiddins

How in the world did they rate the M3 and the S2 above a 968?? Especially in Club Sport form, it's just about the perfect handling car, altho maybe a little on the heavy side..

Just for kicks after reading the topic, I decided to go check out the E46 M3 myself. Altho I haven't tried out the competition, the front-engine/rear-drive format suddenly makes a lot of sense - the steering wheels are just so much a part of the driver! If packaging and space wasn't a constraint, it must be the simplest and most effective chassis layout. The interior seems well-built enough.. certainly putting the 93ss to shame (for that matter ditto all Porsches), but looking not very different from a 318ci for example but it feels.. special (for a lack of a better description) in the way that the 95 does but the 93ss doesn't.

I came to the conclusion that BMWs are driven by two very distinct groups of people - those who drive it for the image, and those who manage to ignore it to get to the driving experience. Maybe we Saabists are too concerned with our image of apparent nonchalance..

Having owned 3 BMWs (5's), 2 95's, and 1 93ss (briefly!) I can vouch for the superior handling of the BMW in the dry!

Add water = trouble. The 5 with full power down twitches, and can catch you if you're not paying attention. That's why BMW pack them full of 'driver aids' = keep you from killing yourself.

I've never been caught out by a Saab, and although the suspension has never matched a 5 Series, the ride on a 95 is highly competent. I hated my 93ss, because it was poorly built and the ride with Sports suspension was shocking (Aero drivers are in for some back ache!), so now I'm back in a 95. Not as 'chuckable' as a 5 or even the 93ss, but a smooth operator never the less.

As for build quality, well my 95s have pasted the BMW's for reliability. The German's reputation is a great PR campaign, but not really true!

The key question however, is a BMW worth the premium over a Saab? In my view no. I'd rather keep the £10K for other things!

Give this one a thought!!!!!!

Sack off spending stupid money on 360's and M3's and get a ZX9R like mine for less than £4000 with less than 6000 miles on the clock and then you can wipe all the smiles of their ****ing faces everytime.

Christ.... even JKay has taken to riding bikes now.

I don't like motorbikes. But it wouldn't do if we were all the same.

Totally agree with Wolf about the 968, though http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/fawlty.gif

James

If you're after a car that you can use every day for commuting and will not break down or break the bank, why not just get a Nissan Skyline GTR V-spec.

It's a Nissan so it won't break down.

It's a 2.6 flat six twin turbo which, although it comes off the line with it's ECU capped to 276 bhp is actually designed to work at 400 bhp and is very easy to remap up to this number without changing the chip or any components.

For track days you can turn off all the electro-gubbins and have a blast but for everyday driving all that widgetry linked to 4WD with side to side and front to back LSD's means that it's actually quite hard to crash even if you try.

You can even get the kids and a week's shopping in the back all for 30k for the last model they made (it's no longer in production).

During it's production time it was the fastest production car around the nurburgring (including ferarri's, lambo's and the like) and the Japanese touring car championship changed it's rules specifically to exclude this car after it won the cup four years in a row.

If, that is, you can get over the fact that it's japanse.....

M3'S ARE NICE IN THE DRY, WHY ARE ALL DECENT REAR WHEEL DRIVE MOTORS REAR ENGINED? SO THEY DON'T SPIN SPIN SPIN LIKE BEEMERS MERCS AND LEXUS'S
I KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE IF YOU LIKE DRIVING ON A DEATH WISH AND HAVING TO SLOW DOWN FOR EVRY CORNER BECAUSE THE BACK END MAY COME OUT WHATS THE POINT!!!

GIVE ME MY SAAB ANY DAY. http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/fawlty.gif

Kang,

Too Loud...

It makes it hard to read.

Andrew

M3's are even better in the damp...serious tail out fun.......

BM's, Merc's and Lexus only spin because nearly all of them are driven by muppets that don't know how to drive them, usually because they drive them like the front wheel drive hatches they learnt on........

Hmmnnnn....rear wheel drive and rear engine equals good...not in the case of the 911....one of the most treacherous handing devices ever (in the hands of the inexperienced... http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/eek.gif ) but a hoot if you know what you're doing and even better, are on a circuit...

Surpringly, the M3 is not as tail happy as the 330ci in either the wet or dry.

The set ups are very different.

And it's worth refering to the track test on Top Gear where an M3 was quicker round the circuit than a fwd Audi RS4.

As for all M3 drivers being muppets I couldn't comment as I don't know them all.

Audi RS4 fwd? Front wheel drive? RS4 is 4-wheel drive Quattro (This is the twin turbo V6).

The new Audi S4 Quattro (4.2 V8 NA) was quicker round Top Gear's track recently than the M3 when driven by the Stig. However in a straight line race the M3 came out top (1/4 mile?).

Hello Mr aeropilot I am not a muppet, and when a Lexus spins on the M4 at 70 because you slam on the breaks and you are stuck in the fast lane facing the wrong way lets see how much fun you have then. This happened to me and it ain't fun!!
I have driven lots of rear wheel drive cars and prefer front wheel drive and four wheel drive because rear wheel is very unpredictable!!!
If you live where I live and beemers are common as ***** who wants one!!!
Every one to their own?

As I suspected........ http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Audi RS4 fwd? Front wheel drive? RS4 is 4-wheel drive Quattro (This is the twin turbo V6).
The new Audi S4 Quattro (4.2 V8 NA) was quicker round Top Gear's track recently than the M3 when driven by the Stig. However in a straight line race the M3 came out top (1/4 mile?). *[/b]Hey! That's exactly what I meant to say Aero, - it must have been the heat http://www.saabscene.com/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif