All Saab’s US mileages now below 30mpg – there goes five seconds of ad filler

Thanks to Tedjs for sending this in.

It’s been known for some time that the US governement was changing its fuel calculation methods for 2008. The comprehensive guide to this new system came out late last week and it’s got some bad news for everyone. How about a Prius that gets 12mpg less than it used to? Ouch!

Saab had previously touted in advertisements and speeches that they had a range that counted (I think) seven vehicles rated at 30mpg or more. Like many manufacturers, those claims are now invalid for Saab. The new regulations are designed to better reflect actual driving conditions and thereby give people a good idea as to what they might realistically attain.

Saab’s new figures for 2008 are as reproduced below. The table features the transmission, engine size and cylinders, mileage city/highway and the estimated fuel cost. All vehicles aside from the 9-7x have turbochargers and it’s recomended they run premium gasoline.

——

SAAB
9-3 Convertible ………………………….. M-6 ….. 2.0/4 ….18/27 …$2,048
…………………………………………….. M-6 ….. 2.8/6 ….16/26 …$2,367
…………………………………………….. A-S6 …. 2.8/6 ….15/24 …$2,502

9-3 Sport Sedan ………………………… M-6 ….. 2.0/4 ….19/29 …$1,958
…………………………………………….. M-6 ….. 2.8/6 ….16/26 …$2,367
…………………………………………….. A-S6 … 2.8/6 ….15/24 …$2,502

9-3 SportCombi …………………………. M-6 ….. 2.0/4 ….19/29 …$1,958
…………………………………………….. M-6 ….. 2.8/6 ….16/26 …$2,367
…………………………………………….. A-S6 …. 2.8/6 ….15/24 …$2,502

9-5 Sedan ……………………………….. M-5 ….. 2.3/4 ….18/28 …$2,142
…………………………………………….. A-S5 … 2.3/4 ….17/26 …$2,250

9-5 SportCombi …………………………. M-5 ….. 2.3/4 ….18/28 …$2,142 …P T
…………………………………………….. A-S5 …. 2.3/4 ….17/26 …$2,250 …P T

9-7X AWD ……………………………….. A-4 ….. 4.2/6 ….14/20 …$2,625
…………………………………………….. A-4 ….. 5.3/8 ….13/19 …$2,625
…………………………………………….. A-4 ….. 6.0/8 ….12/16 …$3,460

You may also like

17 Comments

  1. GM claims to have the most models with 30 MPG or better on their main US site – including all five models of 9-3 and 9-5 (click on the model details and it brings up the 2007 specs).

    At least the EPA rated the 2008 9-3 2.0T manual transmission as a “Smart Way” car – the 2007 model was one point short.

  2. My old 03 9-3 US Linear with a manual generated some pretty good numbers. I averaged 25 MPG with mixed highway and city driving. I took a trip from Dallas to New Orleans and got 32.4 MPG average for the trip, and all on regular gas. Now my new 07 9-3 convertible with auto is only getting 23 as an average, though I have not taken it out on a long road trip yet. I noticed that when the US started adding 10% ethanol, I had been averaging 27 MPG in daily driving and then it went down to 25 MPG. I want to say I heard that, while better to the environment than the additive it replaced, 10% Ethanol blended gas would generate a little lower MPG.

  3. I think these reductions are bogus. I mostly drive conservatively with short bursts of flooring it (for fun, which is occassionally necessary). I return on average 25-27 mpg city and 33-35 mpg hwy (at 75 mph).

    I have a 5 speed manual with the 2.0t (175 hp). I do not know where they get these numbers. Much of my city driving is on hills, so back home, on the coast, I actually get almost 30 mpg in the CITY!!!

  4. Agree with Logan, bogus reductions. I have an 04 Arc 2.0T (210 HP) and use 93 octane (USA) BP gasoline and routinely get 27.5 mpg mixed highway and city on my daily commute. I get 33-36 mpg on the highway. And that includes a good number of full throttle accelerations. Funny thing though, any brand other than BP drops my mpg to 26.5.

  5. For the first 3000 miles, my 2007 9-3 2.0T has averaged almost exactly 27 MPG in mixed (bot predominantly highway) driving…so in my limited experience I’d say the reduction is probably more accurate than the origianl numbers.

  6. Well its widely known now that the new EPA numbers are easily beat. With my 04 9-3 Aero (2.0T engine and 6 speed manaul), I can easily get 32mpg on the highway going about 75. If I actually go the speed limit I have gotten 33 on occasion.

  7. I am not buying the numbers either. The worst mileage I get on my 2003 9-5 Aero with an auto is 26 mpg and that is only when I have plenty of city driving with lots of AC use mixed into my normal suburban driving. I average 27-28. I haven’t had it on a long highway trip yet but my Viggen never got below 30 mpg. I rarely did the speed limit with the Viggen either, I have a couple of speeding tickets to prove it! I can’t imagine the new models being that much worse.

  8. There’s definitely something wrong with those figures.

    In a recent driving holiday I achieved 38mpg in my 9-5 aero running 98RON petrol. That trip included luggage, full blast aircon and full use of the stereo. I was driving at about 110km/h, did some over taking but mostly used cruise control. Admittedly, city driving is not that great perhaps as low as 20 mpg depending on how stop/start it is.

  9. I am not buying these numbers either. I drove my 2004 9-5 Arc down to TN and back and I got 500 miles on a tank of gas (16 gallons). So 500/16 = 31.25mpg. My wife just bought a new 2007 9-3 2.0T, so we’ll figure out on our next trip, but I am willing to wager we get 30+ mpg from that car as well.

  10. I think a lot of you missed the part where they say: “Your milage may vary.” Its a standardized test for comparison purposes. An Audi, BMW or Volvo are subjected to the same test.

    If you think your car is sadly represented you can enter your observed fuel economy at https://www.fueleconomy.gov and that would assist people considering a SAAB that may consult that website.

  11. This discussion makes me miss the 2.0t in the US. Perfect combination of gas efficiency and balanced power (enough to feel in control, not so much that I keep getting speeding tickets).

  12. 25mpg was decent mileage on C900s…25 years ago. Now its kinda lame. One of the reasons I wanted a diesel back in 03 was to see how the “weakest” motor in the arsenal stacked-up. Quite well, thanx. The 2.2TiD has now been replaced by a 1.9 and there are 1.7TTiDs out there knocking. Point being the 2L petrols need to follow. They are too fast. Smaller displacement, another piston, more boost…something. And V6s are still not needed for these cars.

Leave a Reply

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