GM900 thoughts and pics

Sometimes you’ve just got to re-read things you’ve already come across just to refresh your memory of things.

I was just reading up on the GM900 and the book (an Anders Tunberg work) said that the GM900 was just the fourth all-new car in Saab’s history. The others were:

Saab 92 (1947)
Saab 99 (1967)
Saab 9000 (1984)

So the underpinning ‘platform’ of the Saab 92 carried through from 1947 right until the last Saab 96 in 1980.

I’m not sure whether to be astonished at their ingenuity or at the fact that the company survived and built itself on the same base for so long.


While I’m thinking GM900/OG9-3, it seems appropriate to share another 9-3 owner’s ride with everyone.

This 9-3 was sent in by Olaf in Germany. It’s a 210hp beasty belonging to a friend of his (and it’s for sale!).

Like I’ve mentioned before, the only thing that held the standard early versions of this car back were the wheels. The big threespokes here look just the part and if anyone’s looking to do a quick visual upgrade, the wheels are the place to start.

Great stuff.





You may also like


  1. Argh! Evil VPN knocked me off the internet for a second there. Sorry for the second post.

    I’m surprised to hear that the 92-96 were a common platform, and, really, I rarely think of the 99/900 connection.

    I’ve always thought of long-running cars as ‘refined classics’ — cars that were timeless in appearance and more robust for the tweaks that were worked into the design over years of manufacture.

    Saab, VW, Jaguar, Volvo all have those models in their history.

    I think that it’s a testament to the vision and practicality unique to Saab that those underpinnings were around so long.

  2. How are the GM900 and 9-3 for space? They seem to be smaller inside than the C900. With three kids, I’m beginning to wonder if a 9-5 wagon would be more appropriate.

  3. Andy, I’ve had 4 adults in my Viggen for a comfortable long trip. I’d imagine a 9-3 would fit your kids OK, but they’re not getting any smaller and maybe the extra room in the 9-5 would be a wise investment. It too is a great car. Sportiest wagon around. Just make sure you get a good history with the car and some checks for engine sludging.

  4. Andy, I have a C900 and an OG9-3. The 9-3 is DEFINITELY smaller inside (or at least feels it). If you want to put down the rear seatback to carry cargo in the 9-3 you have to slide the front seats almost all the way forward, making it uncomfortable to drive. I don’t have this problem in my C900.

    I was looking at a 9-5 Combi as well. Very nice. I’d buy one if I could afford it. I’d like to trade the 9-3 in for it but still can’t afford it! 😉

  5. Andy: yeah, that’s a problem with the 9-5 combi. Even a few-years-old CPO one is still pretty pricey. But that’s probably because I would insist on an Aero model if I got one.

    Saaboy: the 9-3 does fold flat, but there’s an annoying rib right in the middle so the floor’s not exactly flat all the way. Also, the C900 hatch opened so that there was no “lip” at the rear to lift things over (the floor level was roughly level with the top of the rear bumper). The load level was roughly at my theigh level. On the 9-3 there’s a “lip” you have to lift things over upon loading and unloading (the bumper). You can kind of see what I’m describing in this picture of a 9-3:

    I don’t know how to describe it better. Does that make sense?

  6. 1985 Gripen,

    Yea that makes sense. I am so grateful to not have that lip on my c900, and that middle rib thing where the seats would be if they were up. The middle rib thing was what I was worried about but I guess that’s a sacrifice i’ll have to make once I find a Viggen i like :).

    I don’t like to consider the middle rib thing as ‘folding flat’…


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *