Click image above for a high-res gallery of the 2008 Saab 9-3
Tougher emissions and fuel economy regulations in Europe and the United States have forced Saab to put the brakes on development of the next-generation 9-3. The current Saab 9-3 is built on GM's Epsilon platform (shared with the Opel Vectra, Chevrolet Malibu, and Pontiac G6). The next-gen model was set to be based on the longer and wider GM Epsilon II platform (used for the 2009 Saab 9-5). However, Saab and parent company General Motors are considering radically downsizing the model to fit GM's upcoming 'Global premium compact' platform - a size rivaling the Audi A3.
GM design sources told Autocar that a smaller chassis would dictate new technologies to maximize interior room. These would include a slim modular roof assembly and slimmer doors with advanced side-impact technology. General Motors has also hinted that the new 9-3 could be manufactured in the United States. Many European automakers are feeling the impact a weak dollar is having on profits and, like BMW, are moving or increasing production in the States.
[Source: Autocar]
Audi A3 TDI Clubsport Quattro concept
Spy Shots: Production Audi TT Clubsport Quattro
Chevy Camaro getting early unveil at Indy in September
James Garner recovering from mild stroke
VIDEO: God's ringtone is a V10-powered Audi R8
First Drive: 2009 Ford Escapes, more of almost everything
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Ford Shelby GT500 Mustang
Future Classic: 1984 Chrysler Minivans
_thumbnail.jpg "Lamborghini Reventon unboxed in Las Vegas")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
f3rg @ May 10th 2008 9:44AM
Cool. I hate the fact that cars continue to grow in size with every generation.
AmericanTruckGuy @ May 10th 2008 9:49AM
The cold reality with the impending squeeze in emissions and mileage requirements is that either we will see the death of many sports/performance cars or the taxes on them will sky rocket putting them out of reach of even more people like you and me, not that many people on here have the money to buy most of the exotics/high end cars featured on here.
Derek @ May 10th 2008 10:51PM
People said this in the 70's too. IMO, the 80's gave birth to some of the most fun sports cars produced in a long time. They may not have had sub 5 second 0-60 times but they also weren't oversized and overweight.
James Sonne @ May 10th 2008 10:12AM
How does this affect the 9-3 Aero XWD model?
Benfolio @ May 10th 2008 10:12AM
Yup, you know your car is too big when you need three washer nozzles to clean the windshield.
Doug @ May 10th 2008 10:21AM
So how might this affect the 9-1 or 9-1x (whatever it might be called), the car that would supposedly be on the Global Delta (Compact) platform? Push it down to the Global Small Vehicle platform (a la Aveo, etc.)?
Also, US mfg. possibility is another strange call, though I suppose it's not that strange with the 9-4x to be built in Mexico.
psarhjinian @ May 10th 2008 3:18PM
While the idea of a turboed-till-its-eyes-bulge subcompact is a good fit for Saab, the Aveo is really a piss-poor platform for such an endeavour. That the Aveo can make the Yaris seem fun to drive is indicative of this.
Now, a dressed up Opel Corsa with a 260hp+ turbo four, that's something else.
nezromatron @ May 10th 2008 10:29AM
Awesome! I've been wanting smaller cars forever and all it took is hyper inflation and skyrocketing fuel costs. Maybe car companies will figure out how to make 250hp engine go 30mpg now instead of wasting time with 500hp ones that get 15.
Benfolio @ May 10th 2008 10:44AM
How small do you want to go??? Nothing wrong with the Fit/Versa/Yaris/Aveo selection currently available.
Well, MAYBE the Aveo.
Can we count the SX4? Sure, why not.
TigerMil @ May 10th 2008 10:58AM
The obvious answer would have been to call the next gen 9-3 the new 9-5!
Of course, I'm in favor of calling an E92 M3 V8 and M5 but WTF. A tii 1 series BMW with a Dinan turbo upgrade to the 335 engine would be sweet.
Bondtastic @ May 10th 2008 11:16AM
That is a bit ridiculous, the 9-3 was going to be the small car on the 9-5's old platform. I know cars have gotten bigger, but man I am just happy this happened so you don't have whale sized "compacts"
Soccer Mom @ May 10th 2008 11:27AM
Does it means that Saab wouldn't be able to reach its annual sale target of 4 cars now?
Esprit bird @ May 10th 2008 2:01PM
I have wanted a Saab for a while, but until they lose a little weight and cleans up its complicated interior, i still search for a replacement for my Aurora.
psarhjinian @ May 10th 2008 3:16PM
The interior was cleaned up for 2007 in both the 9-3 and 9-5; the switchgear is basically a slightly nicer version of standard GM fare and isn't nearly as problematic as the 2003-2006 split-SID.
You've hit on one of my biggest beefs with GM: the unwillingness to let Saab be Saab, especially in terms of design and marketing. The interior, under GM, has gotten fussier and fussier since the GM900/9-3 was introduced. It's better, but gimmicks like the chrome instrument surrounds and metal batwing trim on the steering wheel have no place in a brand that defined itself by sensible, if unconventional, ergonomics.
Worse, still, is how Saab doesn't yet have a hybrid, nor a commercial implementation of BioPower. Saab, more than any other brand, should have gotten a hybrid powertrain--it has the perfect demographics for it. So what does GM do? Puts it in the Escalade, a vehicle only eclipsed in anti-green appeal by the Hummer.
GM flat out does not understand Saab's market (or marketing in general, it seems). Selling the Cadillac BLS in Europe (heck, selling Cadillac in Europe at all) and the 9-7x in America just shows how fundamentally clueless GM is at product planning . For another example, see the colossal failure that is Pontiac's portfolio.
The cars aren't bad--some are excellent--but the management is thoroughly useless.
Derek @ May 10th 2008 11:11PM
Unfortunately, Saab makes the lightest cars in that market segment. BMW, Merc, Audi, etc are all 100+ pounds heavier.
psarhjinian @ May 10th 2008 2:26PM
Hey, the original 99/900 was around for fifteen years, wasn't it? This is typical Saab product lifecycle.
On that note, isn't this the 9-5's tenth year?
Dinger @ May 12th 2008 12:19PM
15? Try 26. The 99 came out in late '67 as a 68 model and then that basic body ran through to the '94 900 convertible. 1968-1994. 26 years. That's getting your money's worth.
James @ May 10th 2008 4:32PM
I would be totally more receptive to an A3-sized Saab, than a 9-5 sized one. Good move. Now, make it looks as good as an A3, and we might be talking.
Derek @ May 10th 2008 11:11PM
As long as they don't make it A3 weight. How Audi makes the 168" A3 weigh as much as a 9-3 or 9-5 (depending on the A3's options) which are 14" and 22" longer is beyond me. I think Audi must make large portions of their frame from lead or depleted uranium.
steve @ May 10th 2008 4:39PM
a3 sized turbo 300 horse 4x4 because audi is too friggin lame to bring it here and instead sends a 3700 pound luxo cruiser with an anemic 6cylinder and low 20s mpg