When you KNOW you better be wary of a review

This isn’t actually a review. It’s more of a “hey, this car exists” piece.

But you know you’ve gotta be wary when it starts like this:

WHEN the Saab 9-3 was launched, it looked so like the old 900 I thought it was just a quick warm over and was gobsmacked to find it was a completely new model.

And yes, this is the 9-3 that he’s talking about….

Saab9-3silv.jpg

That looks “so like the old 900”????

And here I am stuck in a job I don’t enjoy and there’s people like this employed to write about cars.

I dunno.

You may also like

8 Comments

  1. I think when the review says that the new 9-3 looks like the old 900, they are talking about the change in ’98 between the NG900 and the 9-3 hatchback, which do look very similar. The review also talks about the older models being cheaper and shows prices for pre-9-3 Sport Sedan models under its “fast facts”:

    FAST FACTS

    Saab 9-3 2.0t

    Price: Pay £2,200 for a ’98 R-reg 185bhp 2.0T SE 5dr, £3,000 for an ’00 X-reg S, £8,200 for an ’03 03-reg 2.0t 175bhp Linear, or £12,300 for an ’04 54-reg 2.0t Vector.

  2. I dunno, Chris. The reference to a “completely new model” and the photo present a pretty compelling case.

    Actually, on a second look, I can see where you’re coming from. He makes more of the 900-to-93 transition than he does of the hatch-to-sedan transition, which is still quite a worry.

  3. It’s definitely not a good article by any means – even if the writer is talking about the ’98 9-3 he fails to even mention the ’03 changes. I’m just trying to give the writer the benefit of the doubt 🙂

  4. I think he pulled most of the review from a buyers guide. Still Swade, to be fair he did give it 8/10…

    I think when you are over with SAAB you should offer to do an article for their magazine on running this blog. I think we get it twice a year in the UK.

    They might even pay you…

  5. how about this bit

    “Engines are all four cylinder units, with balancer shafts to reduce vibration, and are two and 2.3-litre petrol or 1.9 and 2.2-litre turbo diesel.”

    2.3 in 9-3SS?? I’m pretty sure NOT! I can’t say anything about the 2.2TiD, but I thought it was just a 1.9TiD?

  6. It is pretty obvious that the test is of Saab 9-3 98-02, if they would have changed the picture the only fault would have been the comment about the 1.9 diesel.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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