Yesterday we ran a poll both here on Inside Saab and on our Saab Cars Facebook page. The poll asked your thoughts about the naming of the future replacement for the Saab 9-3, after a possible name change was hinted at in the US press.
The poll results are in and as of right now, the winner by a sizeable margin in the six-horse race was to retain the current 9-? naming convention.
The results from Facebook were quite similar, with nearly 50% voting for the 9-? naming convention. Second place at FB was using the 900 name, with around 280 votes.
There is a similar poll still underway at Saabs United if people are interested in contributing.
It was great to hear some varying opinions and other reasonings in comments to the poll. Personally speaking, I think the poll produced the right outcome. The 9-? naming convention respects the company’s heritage whilst allowing for different size vehicles, as well.
There is (rightly) some confusion over the ‘x’ attachment, however I think that perhaps we need to start pushing the idea that it’s a type of vehicle (crossover type variant) rather than a designation for the vehicle having XWD. Clearly, some ‘x’ vehicles dont actually have XWD.
Of course, how to designate trim levels with a model range is the next question that some answered in comments. The historical use of Linear, Arc, Vector and Aero is mentioned, some people like it and some people don’t. Some markets understand it and some markets don’t, which is why I think it’s used in some places and not in others (where ‘Premium’ is used between ‘Aero’ and …. nothing).
Overall, though, I think the naming convention is good. It’s unique to Saab, it makes it pretty clear as to what playground a model is sitting in, and it doesn’t confuse people with a mishmash of letters that mean nothing to those who are unfamiliar.
Thanks to all for participating in the poll and for sharing your opinions. I’m sure there were a few curious eyes in the marketing team looking over this one 🙂