This car wasn't necessarily built to be a 'high performance' car. It was built to be somewhat fast yet still have luxury features. I agree, the Turbo X isn't necessarily a 'quick' car off the line, but overtaking cars or simply merging onto a highway is where it shines. A simply Tune can wake this car up. They can be quick, Saab just never let the 2.8 shine. Stop hating!
My *manual* Turbo X with 19" alloys did 5.5s 0-60 comfortably and 1/4 mile in 14.1. It is running on 99 octane. I know it could go slightly quicker if I was willing to push it harder but I am not going to since it runs beautifully after nearly 5 years. Why are all these tests run with the auto box (which is not slick in the Saab)? The most impressive thing about the TX is the handling in the wet, it is *extremely* good even compared to other 4WD performance cars.
Nah, US car marketing is screwed up like this. Has been from like the late 1940's or something, currently sold models are brandished as being next-year models. While in Europe both laws regulating false advertising and tradition make this a surefire tactic for any market operator attempting it to find themselves in market court at light-speed, and models are represented according to their market introduction date. And just to make things more fun, in some markets the categorization is set by the date of registration into public road use of a particular production model, like in the UK. Even though the car was introduced in 2008 and majority (if not the entirety) of the very limited production was during that year, markets driving on the wrong side of the road didn't finish delivery of allotted models until well on the side of 2009. Hence the "2009 model year" in the previous comments.
I just got one because its on the shared platform as the G6. My old G6 had AMAZING room and comfort, one of the few cars that I could actually extend my legs in and not pinch nerves or anything. Its plenty roomy, plenty classy looking IMHO, very nicely appointed inside, very competent in inclement weather, and yet still very fast and agile. Its all the stuff I want in one car. Impreza was cramped for me.
Looking back, this is really sad. A dead brand car that I loved on a nearly dead test track. I just got done watching a few retro reviews from back when the track looked new. Seeing 3ft tall shrubs growing out of the cracks was painful. I’m glad to see motor week has found a few bucks recently.
@Xaqtly I do argee with what you say and I didnt know youve had two saabs. To me a Saab is about driving a car that makes you feel good and feels right. They certainly are expensive and theyre arent a good value for performance bang for the buck but I feel like people buy Saabs more for the driving experience and prestige than the performance. If I want a fast car I would get say a Subaru, I like Subarus, but you get the point. Its all preference and youre entitled to your opinion
@8motion its not supposed to be a rocket but saab are quite fast on the highway, some saabs are faster than porsches 911 s from 40-70ish highways speed
Damn, only 300 of the superior wagon versions. I definitely would love an optimized one of those. Probably could easily get 300 whp with some minor mods and tuning.
My Saab has a little over 350,000 miles and still going strong and their are many other Saabs that have insane amounts of miles on them, can the same be said for your Subaru?
@Xaqtly Ohhh hmm WOW Subaru IMPREZA WRX STI! OH MY GOSH FASTER THAN SAAB! Yeah well im better off in the SAAB thanks you know, having a FIVE STAR SAFETY RATING and all. Oh and BTW SAAB's Torque is GUT WRENCHING.
STis are just as safe, and are more meant for thrashing. I own a Turbo X, and can tell you that at least as far as I can tell, the STi will handle the road harder. However, the Saab isn't meant for dudebros and will do all you ask it to
I have a 2.3l 9000 Aero too and let me tell you if I could I´d have one of those in my garage... Side to 9000! By the way I´d like to know what 911 was Jeremy talking about...
Actually motorweek's test said the 1997 C70 did 0-60 in 6.2, which is pretty slow, and there are no other times for that car that come anywhere close to 14.1 in the 1/4 mile. The absolute fastest I can find is 14.6, and that was definitely not the norm, or the average. The vast majority of the recorded times for that car are in the 15 second range. And yes, that's for the manual, not the automatic. As far as the S60R, most of the times are in the mid 14s at less than 100 MPH. Not impressive.
It's not an excuse. It's the truth. These cars are quick on highway pulls. I don't know who pissed you off but seriously man why do you feel the need to blow up about these cars? Just move on!
it's not AWD omg why do they keeping saying it's AWD it's still FWD but with eLSD. i've test drive one of those the eLSD only deliver the torque to its rare wheel when cornering which is a big let down in straight line accleration. to be honse this car is over pricing, wait till next year the eLSD will be optional feature in 9-3 aero sedan hopefully in convertible version too.
I don't have to drive one, their 1/4 mile times are easy to find. Yes, saab 9000 aeros are slow. They only do high 14s in the 1/4 mile, they can't even break 90 MPH. What part of slow do you not understand? And the STi is also more than 1 second faster, the STi can hit high 12s in the 1/4 mile while the saabs can't even get past mid 14s.
A saab 9-5 aero is slower than a wrx in the 1/4 mile. So obviously it's not going to be faster from 70 because a wrx gets to 70 faster than a 9-5 does. Do you understand how trap speeds work? Do you understand how the 1/4 mile is measured? Maybe you should look it up.
Oh is your caps lock key broken again? You should really get that fixed. And no, 0-60 in 5 seconds isn't particularly fast either, it's pretty quick but not fast. But it is faster than anything any of the volvos or saabs can do, so they're definitely slow. It's too bad they're so heavy, they might be faster if they didn't all weigh two tons.
You realize you're responding to comments that are 2 years old, right? But to answer your question, the 2006-2009 9-5 Aero was lucky to hit a sub-15 second 1/4 mile time. 14.8, maybe a 14.7 in perfect conditions. In other words, it's slow. And I don't have a WRX.
Not even quattro allows 85% of the power to one wheel.. wrx is not the exception plus they both dont have reaxs active chasis.. xwd is the most advanced awd system in the world there's no other with predictive spining detection .. also fuel consumption is better in 9-3 with 2 more cylinders.. who the fuck would by a wrx it looks like a chinese FAW.. 93 aero is one of the most balanced cars out there.. you must see the mustang racing the saab at 10000ft of height and see what happns
@tzermiass chill out dude. no need for "look here" bizo..it's just a car. the xwd system has been a massive disappointment for me especially in the wet on the road. i don't track my car so i can't comment.
If the mid range punch is so great why can't even the fastest saabs do better than 90 MPH in the 1/4 mile? That's at least 3 gears worth of mid range punch, why can't they go any faster? Let me know when you can answer that.
@zznwea Sure, you can tell yourself that if you want to. Don't let the fact that I've owned two of them bother you. Also, everything I've said so far is true. It has nothing to do with not understanding Saabs, it has to do with the basic facts of the situation. It's great if you like Saabs, but the simple fact is that nobody in their right mind will buy a Turbo X when there are plenty of cheaper, faster and better alternatives available.
Yes, you can get any used car for cheap. And now you're saying you don't hate Subaru drivers after about 50 posts saying how much Subaru sucks? Really? Is that supposed to be a joke? I love my car, but you have no idea what my car is. I haven't driven a WRX for many years. But I have owned 2 of them, and an STi, and a Legacy GT, every single one of which was faster, cheaper, lighter and had better traction than your saabs. Oh and they were all completely reliable, too. I've also owned 2 Saabs.
@Xaqtly yeah right, i dont go to school anymore i've graduated college...i can judge that youre probably somewhere b/w 13-17 years old and haven't got a license. sod off.
Yes, the C70 only made 240 HP, was very heavy and did 0-60 in about 7 seconds, 1/4 mile right around 15. That is not fast. And why do you keep bringing up modded cars? ANY car can be made fast with modifications. ANY CAR. ANY. CAR. It's just harder with saabs because they start out slow so it takes more work to make them fast.
@Suihkis86 Is there something wrong with stating the truth of the situation? Also, "looks good" isn't a fact, it's a completely subjective opinion. Do you know the difference between a fact and an opinion? Also, you should go check out the quality ratings for Subaru if you want a shock to your system. Saab does not equal quality, I've owned two of them. Ask me how I know. Furthermore, one of the Saabs WAS a Subaru. The 9-2X was a rebranded Subaru WRX wagon. How's that for irony?
@hadabenz For somebody who doesn't care, you are spending an awful lot of time on UA-cam arguing with me about it. What does that say about your free time, hmm? Maybe you should be going to school. It's great Saab fans got a special edition car. That's fantastic. It doesn't change the fact that the Turbo X is HORRIBLE value for money. If you want to buy one, go ahead. But don't try to convince me or anybody else it's a good idea. If I want performance, I will not be buying a Turbo X.
Haha, the Legacy can do 0-60 in 5 seconds flat. That's because it has AWD and a turbo, and it's not heavy like a Saab. I've done it myself, it's not hard. Rev to 6000 RPM, drop the clutch BAM you're gone. The problem here is that you're completely ignorant about subarus, and apparently you don't understand the effect weight has on speed. Maybe you should learn some more about that.
@97I30T look here, the saab beats the sti in the wet!!!!! type saab vs m3 and sti in google and the link will come up. then watch the vid. it beats the sti,and a 335i in the wet, and loses only by a mili second to an m3.
@Xaqtly Dude we dont give a shit about the WRX, stop mentioning it. These two cars werent even made for the same reasons. Oh and you say the Saab is terrible value eh? Well no one said it was made to be a bargain. You obviously dont get it, The Saab is made to be a classy, exclusive sedan for Saab enthusiasts while that WRX you wont shut up about is made for little boy racers to show off in. Stop comparing these two cars, theyre in two different leagues in the first place
@GoreForBreakfast Faster, handles better, brakes better, cheaper, pretty much everything. If you're driving a Saab, then you have never experienced "gut wrenching" torque. The WRX does 0-60 in under 5 seconds. Get back to me when you've actually been in a car that accelerates that fast before you talk about "gut wrenching" What is it with Saab fanboys and blatant stupidity? It's not all about Subaru either, a Mustang GT also costs a lot less and is MUCH MUCH faster.
Yeah, your saab aero only does the 1/4 mile in the high 14s, and that's being generous. Nobody's impressed by that. The WRX's 1/4 mile was seriously faster, the WRX traps around 100 MPH which means that the Aero, trapping at only 92 or 93 at most, is nowhere close to being able to pass a WRX at 40 MPH. Do the math.
The WRX and the STi are both faster than the 9-5 aero from a stop past 90 MPH, which is how fast the 9-5 is going when it reaches the end of the 1/4 mile. Why are you having so much trouble understanding this simple concept? Do you not understand how the 1/4 mile works? Do you not understand that the WRX and STi cross the traps BEFORE the aero does? In what conceivable way is the 9-5 faster when it has a slower trap speed and a slower E/T? And you can upgrade ANY car. Saabs are slow.
lol, it takes a turbocharged 2.8 liter V6 to get that kind of performance in that car? Subaru WRX is faster than that with a 2.5 liter 4. 13.7 @ 100+, 4.7 second 0-60. And the WRX costs half as much, and its AWD system is better. I guess the turbo X is cool if you're into exclusivity, but you can get a lot more bang for your buck with other cars. Even the 412 HP Mustang GT costs 10 grand less than this. I hope Saab wasn't counting on this car to save them.
I drove a Legacy GT years ago, not any more. And yes, it was faster than the Saabs. Do you even know anything about the Legacy GT? It doesn't sound like it to me. I'll give you a hint, it's faster than a WRX. You're talking about saabs, and YOU'RE talking about performance? What performance? Saabs are slow.
The "overtaking cars" line is the only excuse the saab fanboys can ever come up with, and it's pretty stupid. The 1/4 mile shows that the saabs are not suddenly some kind of supercar once they get above 30 MPH, so I don't really understand what any of you are talking about. High 14s at 90 MPH is well above 30 MPH, and it's still slow. "a simple tune" can wake ANY car up. I'm still not impressed.
1 second in the 1/4 mile is much, MUCH faster. Not to mention trap speed, the STi his 100 MPH, while the saabs only hit 90. Your english is so bad I can barely even understand what you're saying, but the opint is you didn't answer my question. If the saab midrange punch is so good, then why are they only hitting 90 MPH in the 1/4 mile? And those are the fast ones. The normal saabs are even slower than that. This isn't about 0-40. This is about 1/4 mile trap speed.
Caps lock key broken again? Also, "on the highway" has no relevance to anything. When saabs are fast in the 1/4 mile, that's when you can talk about it. In the 1/4 mile the saabs are not limited, yet they're still slow. That's because they ARE slow.
@Xaqtly I don't care man, you seem to have a lot of time on your hand youtubing. go to school or something. the reason why only 600 turbo X were produced was because saab fans requested a special edition car and this is it. No further comments or question needed. and certainly they dont care about price-value argument, unless it's a poor fella like you with freetime. What a shame.
Don't get this crap. They're trying to be innovative when they don't need to. The Saab 9-5 arc and Aero are great cars because of they're ability to push out high torque at low RPM, so they are amazing on the highway. The AWD, larger engine is useless. Like Jeremy said the Aero will do 40-70MPH faster then a Porsche 911 Turbo. Please people, don't get sucked in by this POS, go for the older ones trust me. Im a proud 2004 Saab 9-5 owner :).
The Legacy was faster than the saabs, and that's really all that matters. Saabs are slow. Do you need me to repeat that again and again? Volvos are slow too. Even the current S60 T6 R only has 325 HP and it weighs almost 2 tons! That's quite a bit slower than the STi, which costs less, is faster and handles better. I don't see saabs or volvos "ruling" anything.
The RS4 is in the high 12s, that's not "ultra" high performance, that's barely better than 13s. "Ultra" high performance is 11s or better. Seriously, who calls a 13 second car "ultra high performance"? Nobody does. The STi runs very low 13s, is that an ultra high performance car too? You should pay less attention to the bullshit magazines tell you.
Yes, and in the 1/4 mile it can only do 90 MPH, at which point there is no torque limiter. It's SLOW. A 10 second 1/4 mile isn't slow, but there are no saabs that can do a 10 second 1/4 mile stock. ANY car can do a 10 second 1/4 mile with enough mods. Am I supposed to be impressed? So yes, all saabs are slow, and any car can be modified to go fast. There is nothing special about saabs, except that they're heavy, slow and expensive.
doesnt performs as well???? What are talking about?? take any car and make it pass as much fuel per minute as the subaru and the engine will increase at least 30hp you just need to remap the ecu which wrx did thats why it isnt a world class car as saab is.. Now this is the top of the line 93 that's why it costs 40 grand.. the top wrx is 37 grand.. twice the price?? you dont even know how to add..
The old STi might have been high 13s, the new ones can do high 12s. The point here though is really just that you're admitting the STi is faster. The Saabs can't even hit 13s at all. Get back to me when you can make a stock saab do faster than mid 14s in the 1/4 mile, then we'll talk about which one is faster. Until then, you just proved that the STi is faster. Thanks for doing my job for me.
Poor Saab, you will be missed such a good car
Saab isnt dead yet, 4 in my driveway and fifth on the way soon
This car wasn't necessarily built to be a 'high performance' car. It was built to be somewhat fast yet still have luxury features. I agree, the Turbo X isn't necessarily a 'quick' car off the line, but overtaking cars or simply merging onto a highway is where it shines. A simply Tune can wake this car up. They can be quick, Saab just never let the 2.8 shine. Stop hating!
People have no idea how the 6 responds to a tune. Stg0 will get you over 300hp and somewhere around 325-340lbft. It's a sleeper somewhat
Like all SAABs it's real World power on the highway. My Viggen walks almost anything on the highway and it's not even tuned yet.
My automatic Saab Turbo X clocked 0-60 in 5.95 seconds. That was using the Sentronic shifts, sport mode, and power braking.
What did you time it with?
My *manual* Turbo X with 19" alloys did 5.5s 0-60 comfortably and 1/4 mile in 14.1. It is running on 99 octane. I know it could go slightly quicker if I was willing to push it harder but I am not going to since it runs beautifully after nearly 5 years.
Why are all these tests run with the auto box (which is not slick in the Saab)?
The most impressive thing about the TX is the handling in the wet, it is *extremely* good even compared to other 4WD performance cars.
Do you reckon it'd get a high 13 second quarter mile?
I've always loved this car.
Saab is swedish pride
Motorweek needs to correct the title, cause it's a 2008 and not a 2009.
Exactly...It was 2008 only, however, I do own a 2009 9-3xwd, but it has the 2.0 turbo.
It could be registered as a 2009 model in the UK, I have one.
Don’t ever disrespect John Davis
Nah, US car marketing is screwed up like this. Has been from like the late 1940's or something, currently sold models are brandished as being next-year models. While in Europe both laws regulating false advertising and tradition make this a surefire tactic for any market operator attempting it to find themselves in market court at light-speed, and models are represented according to their market introduction date. And just to make things more fun, in some markets the categorization is set by the date of registration into public road use of a particular production model, like in the UK. Even though the car was introduced in 2008 and majority (if not the entirety) of the very limited production was during that year, markets driving on the wrong side of the road didn't finish delivery of allotted models until well on the side of 2009. Hence the "2009 model year" in the previous comments.
@@ranjeetbains2577 for some reason most of them are 09 plate and I even saw a 59 plate
love those rims!!!
Now there's a future Classic!
It’s already a classic. They still bring 15k with 100k miles
@@henrydehavilland5620 that's IF you find someone who's willing to part ways with one. Other than that your SOL. Wish I had an 08 X. So rare.
LOVE SAAB
Bring back Saab! This car still looks great!
one of the coolest cars out there - needs a little more boost though
man i got the chance to test drive the 9.3 whit the 2.8 v6 that thing scared the shit out of me !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! crazy torque and power
I just got one because its on the shared platform as the G6. My old G6 had AMAZING room and comfort, one of the few cars that I could actually extend my legs in and not pinch nerves or anything. Its plenty roomy, plenty classy looking IMHO, very nicely appointed inside, very competent in inclement weather, and yet still very fast and agile. Its all the stuff I want in one car. Impreza was cramped for me.
I got to try the nasty 09 93 aero and I thought that was a beast. can't imagine what this thing would do
Looking back, this is really sad. A dead brand car that I loved on a nearly dead test track. I just got done watching a few retro reviews from back when the track looked new. Seeing 3ft tall shrubs growing out of the cracks was painful. I’m glad to see motor week has found a few bucks recently.
@Xaqtly I do argee with what you say and I didnt know youve had two saabs. To me a Saab is about driving a car that makes you feel good and feels right. They certainly are expensive and theyre arent a good value for performance bang for the buck but I feel like people buy Saabs more for the driving experience and prestige than the performance. If I want a fast car I would get say a Subaru, I like Subarus, but you get the point. Its all preference and youre entitled to your opinion
@Xaqtly the wet lap times are in the article
@SitBackAndChillAx our old 9-3 se had a turbo gauge as well
such a good looking car sporty but suddle love it this generation and rhd one before look awsome
@97I30T the wet lap times are in the article
💪
@8motion its not supposed to be a rocket
but saab are quite fast on the highway, some saabs are faster than porsches 911 s from 40-70ish highways speed
SAAB IS SAVED!!!
SAAB should come out with another viggen.
The boost gauge is in all the newer Saabs in Canada.
Damn, only 300 of the superior wagon versions. I definitely would love an optimized one of those. Probably could easily get 300 whp with some minor mods and tuning.
Vermont Tuning offers a simple, zero-mod map for $600 that gets you 324bhp and a MONSTROUS 400 Ft-lbs. I own a turbo x and will be getting one soon.
My Saab has a little over 350,000 miles and still going strong and their are many other Saabs that have insane amounts of miles on them, can the same be said for your Subaru?
My dad's 900 has 310k miles!
Still have it??
Haldex is 100% Swedish, and its a 100% stand-alone company.
@meteora8888 the wet lap times are 9in the article
@Xaqtly dude have you ever even driven a Saab?
@RaguelAngelofBalance 9-7x is a chevy trailblazer and the 9-2x is a subaru wrx
@Xaqtly Ohhh hmm WOW Subaru IMPREZA WRX STI! OH MY GOSH FASTER THAN SAAB! Yeah well im better off in the SAAB thanks you know, having a FIVE STAR SAFETY RATING and all. Oh and BTW SAAB's Torque is GUT WRENCHING.
STis are just as safe, and are more meant for thrashing. I own a Turbo X, and can tell you that at least as far as I can tell, the STi will handle the road harder. However, the Saab isn't meant for dudebros and will do all you ask it to
It's great and all but ill keep my 9-5 arc 3.0t v6
And please stop comparing Saabs to Subarus. Thats just stupid. These are luxury sedans. Just please...stop.
I have a 2.3l 9000 Aero too and let me tell you if I could I´d have one of those in my garage... Side to 9000!
By the way I´d like to know what 911 was Jeremy talking about...
true
What kinds of problems have you had with your turbo x?? anything outrageous??
@Xaqtly Just Wondering
they must be heavy huh? only running a 15.0 not putting the car down sounds awesome looks great just heavy
supercar of the street
15mpg?!?! You're kidding me. That's fuel economy of the CTS-V with the V8 and supercharger of that time.
It’s So Sad That GM Killed Saab. Everything GM Touches turns to shit! I pray this Honda/GM Merger doesn’t ruin Honda too
Actually motorweek's test said the 1997 C70 did 0-60 in 6.2, which is pretty slow, and there are no other times for that car that come anywhere close to 14.1 in the 1/4 mile. The absolute fastest I can find is 14.6, and that was definitely not the norm, or the average. The vast majority of the recorded times for that car are in the 15 second range. And yes, that's for the manual, not the automatic.
As far as the S60R, most of the times are in the mid 14s at less than 100 MPH. Not impressive.
2008. Not 2009.
В России сейчас он стоит 10000$ стоит покупать???
My dad owns that car
It's not an excuse. It's the truth. These cars are quick on highway pulls. I don't know who pissed you off but seriously man why do you feel the need to blow up about these cars? Just move on!
it's not AWD omg why do they keeping saying it's AWD it's still FWD but with eLSD. i've test drive one of those the eLSD only deliver the torque to its rare wheel when cornering which is a big let down in straight line accleration. to be honse this car is over pricing, wait till next year the eLSD will be optional feature in 9-3 aero sedan hopefully in convertible version too.
I don't have to drive one, their 1/4 mile times are easy to find. Yes, saab 9000 aeros are slow. They only do high 14s in the 1/4 mile, they can't even break 90 MPH. What part of slow do you not understand?
And the STi is also more than 1 second faster, the STi can hit high 12s in the 1/4 mile while the saabs can't even get past mid 14s.
what if they had made a saab 9-3 with a turbo 3.6 liter from the traverse,acadia, malibu etc.😨
+Badbitch99 monster.........end of story
Rather stick with the 2.8 the 3.6 has horrible timing chain issues 🤦
needs more boost, 6.5 to 60 is too slow
This is almost retro review by now
We've seen Xs going as low as 5.4 to 100kmh
A saab 9-5 aero is slower than a wrx in the 1/4 mile. So obviously it's not going to be faster from 70 because a wrx gets to 70 faster than a 9-5 does. Do you understand how trap speeds work? Do you understand how the 1/4 mile is measured? Maybe you should look it up.
Oh is your caps lock key broken again? You should really get that fixed. And no, 0-60 in 5 seconds isn't particularly fast either, it's pretty quick but not fast. But it is faster than anything any of the volvos or saabs can do, so they're definitely slow. It's too bad they're so heavy, they might be faster if they didn't all weigh two tons.
You realize you're responding to comments that are 2 years old, right? But to answer your question, the 2006-2009 9-5 Aero was lucky to hit a sub-15 second 1/4 mile time. 14.8, maybe a 14.7 in perfect conditions. In other words, it's slow. And I don't have a WRX.
Not even quattro allows 85% of the power to one wheel.. wrx is not the exception plus they both dont have reaxs active chasis.. xwd is the most advanced awd system in the world there's no other with predictive spining detection .. also fuel consumption is better in 9-3 with 2 more cylinders.. who the fuck would by a wrx it looks like a chinese FAW.. 93 aero is one of the most balanced cars out there.. you must see the mustang racing the saab at 10000ft of height and see what happns
@tzermiass chill out dude. no need for "look here" bizo..it's just a car.
the xwd system has been a massive disappointment for me especially in the wet on the road. i don't track my car so i can't comment.
@RaguelAngelofBalance well yeah. its a GM car.
If the mid range punch is so great why can't even the fastest saabs do better than 90 MPH in the 1/4 mile? That's at least 3 gears worth of mid range punch, why can't they go any faster? Let me know when you can answer that.
15.0 in the 1/4? lmfao VOLVO 850 T5 did that back in 1994
@zznwea Sure, you can tell yourself that if you want to. Don't let the fact that I've owned two of them bother you. Also, everything I've said so far is true. It has nothing to do with not understanding Saabs, it has to do with the basic facts of the situation.
It's great if you like Saabs, but the simple fact is that nobody in their right mind will buy a Turbo X when there are plenty of cheaper, faster and better alternatives available.
koenigsegg
Yes, you can get any used car for cheap. And now you're saying you don't hate Subaru drivers after about 50 posts saying how much Subaru sucks? Really? Is that supposed to be a joke?
I love my car, but you have no idea what my car is. I haven't driven a WRX for many years. But I have owned 2 of them, and an STi, and a Legacy GT, every single one of which was faster, cheaper, lighter and had better traction than your saabs. Oh and they were all completely reliable, too. I've also owned 2 Saabs.
@Xaqtly yeah right, i dont go to school anymore i've graduated college...i can judge that youre probably somewhere b/w 13-17 years old and haven't got a license. sod off.
Yes, the C70 only made 240 HP, was very heavy and did 0-60 in about 7 seconds, 1/4 mile right around 15. That is not fast.
And why do you keep bringing up modded cars? ANY car can be made fast with modifications. ANY CAR. ANY. CAR. It's just harder with saabs because they start out slow so it takes more work to make them fast.
43k you can buy chager 5.7
@Suihkis86 Is there something wrong with stating the truth of the situation? Also, "looks good" isn't a fact, it's a completely subjective opinion. Do you know the difference between a fact and an opinion? Also, you should go check out the quality ratings for Subaru if you want a shock to your system. Saab does not equal quality, I've owned two of them. Ask me how I know. Furthermore, one of the Saabs WAS a Subaru. The 9-2X was a rebranded Subaru WRX wagon. How's that for irony?
slow? So what´s fast?
woah its nice but too pricy. i would rather take an evoX MR
15 sec 1/4 sounds slow for 280/295
@hadabenz For somebody who doesn't care, you are spending an awful lot of time on UA-cam arguing with me about it. What does that say about your free time, hmm? Maybe you should be going to school.
It's great Saab fans got a special edition car. That's fantastic. It doesn't change the fact that the Turbo X is HORRIBLE value for money. If you want to buy one, go ahead. But don't try to convince me or anybody else it's a good idea. If I want performance, I will not be buying a Turbo X.
You're just making excuses for the saab being slow now. That's sad.
This guy speaks weirdo, but good review by the way.
Haha, the Legacy can do 0-60 in 5 seconds flat. That's because it has AWD and a turbo, and it's not heavy like a Saab. I've done it myself, it's not hard. Rev to 6000 RPM, drop the clutch BAM you're gone. The problem here is that you're completely ignorant about subarus, and apparently you don't understand the effect weight has on speed. Maybe you should learn some more about that.
Needs more low
@97I30T look here, the saab beats the sti in the wet!!!!! type saab vs m3 and sti in google and the link will come up. then watch the vid. it beats the sti,and a 335i in the wet, and loses only by a mili second to an m3.
@Xaqtly Dude we dont give a shit about the WRX, stop mentioning it. These two cars werent even made for the same reasons. Oh and you say the Saab is terrible value eh? Well no one said it was made to be a bargain. You obviously dont get it, The Saab is made to be a classy, exclusive sedan for Saab enthusiasts while that WRX you wont shut up about is made for little boy racers to show off in. Stop comparing these two cars, theyre in two different leagues in the first place
im just not a saab person
@GoreForBreakfast Faster, handles better, brakes better, cheaper, pretty much everything. If you're driving a Saab, then you have never experienced "gut wrenching" torque. The WRX does 0-60 in under 5 seconds. Get back to me when you've actually been in a car that accelerates that fast before you talk about "gut wrenching"
What is it with Saab fanboys and blatant stupidity? It's not all about Subaru either, a Mustang GT also costs a lot less and is MUCH MUCH faster.
Yeah, your saab aero only does the 1/4 mile in the high 14s, and that's being generous. Nobody's impressed by that. The WRX's 1/4 mile was seriously faster, the WRX traps around 100 MPH which means that the Aero, trapping at only 92 or 93 at most, is nowhere close to being able to pass a WRX at 40 MPH. Do the math.
@FantomLightning
1. Yes
2. What possible difference could that make
3. the Turbo X is a lot of money for not a lot of performance.
The WRX and the STi are both faster than the 9-5 aero from a stop past 90 MPH, which is how fast the 9-5 is going when it reaches the end of the 1/4 mile. Why are you having so much trouble understanding this simple concept? Do you not understand how the 1/4 mile works? Do you not understand that the WRX and STi cross the traps BEFORE the aero does? In what conceivable way is the 9-5 faster when it has a slower trap speed and a slower E/T?
And you can upgrade ANY car. Saabs are slow.
lol, it takes a turbocharged 2.8 liter V6 to get that kind of performance in that car? Subaru WRX is faster than that with a 2.5 liter 4. 13.7 @ 100+, 4.7 second 0-60. And the WRX costs half as much, and its AWD system is better.
I guess the turbo X is cool if you're into exclusivity, but you can get a lot more bang for your buck with other cars. Even the 412 HP Mustang GT costs 10 grand less than this. I hope Saab wasn't counting on this car to save them.
I drove a Legacy GT years ago, not any more. And yes, it was faster than the Saabs. Do you even know anything about the Legacy GT? It doesn't sound like it to me. I'll give you a hint, it's faster than a WRX.
You're talking about saabs, and YOU'RE talking about performance? What performance? Saabs are slow.
it is slow, the 2006 honda accord has 36 less hp than the saab but basically has the same acceleration, which means its slow.
The "overtaking cars" line is the only excuse the saab fanboys can ever come up with, and it's pretty stupid. The 1/4 mile shows that the saabs are not suddenly some kind of supercar once they get above 30 MPH, so I don't really understand what any of you are talking about. High 14s at 90 MPH is well above 30 MPH, and it's still slow.
"a simple tune" can wake ANY car up. I'm still not impressed.
1 second in the 1/4 mile is much, MUCH faster. Not to mention trap speed, the STi his 100 MPH, while the saabs only hit 90. Your english is so bad I can barely even understand what you're saying, but the opint is you didn't answer my question. If the saab midrange punch is so good, then why are they only hitting 90 MPH in the 1/4 mile? And those are the fast ones. The normal saabs are even slower than that.
This isn't about 0-40. This is about 1/4 mile trap speed.
@flaxplan ....no wonder jk
Caps lock key broken again? Also, "on the highway" has no relevance to anything. When saabs are fast in the 1/4 mile, that's when you can talk about it. In the 1/4 mile the saabs are not limited, yet they're still slow. That's because they ARE slow.
@Xaqtly I don't care man, you seem to have a lot of time on your hand youtubing. go to school or something. the reason why only 600 turbo X were produced was because saab fans requested a special edition car and this is it. No further comments or question needed. and certainly they dont care about price-value argument, unless it's a poor fella like you with freetime. What a shame.
Not impressed in the least. I am even less impressed when you consider the price of the vehicle...
lol
Don't get this crap. They're trying to be innovative when they don't need to. The Saab 9-5 arc and Aero are great cars because of they're ability to push out high torque at low RPM, so they are amazing on the highway. The AWD, larger engine is useless. Like Jeremy said the Aero will do 40-70MPH faster then a Porsche 911 Turbo.
Please people, don't get sucked in by this POS, go for the older ones trust me. Im a proud 2004 Saab 9-5 owner :).
The Legacy was faster than the saabs, and that's really all that matters. Saabs are slow. Do you need me to repeat that again and again? Volvos are slow too. Even the current S60 T6 R only has 325 HP and it weighs almost 2 tons! That's quite a bit slower than the STi, which costs less, is faster and handles better. I don't see saabs or volvos "ruling" anything.
The RS4 is in the high 12s, that's not "ultra" high performance, that's barely better than 13s. "Ultra" high performance is 11s or better. Seriously, who calls a 13 second car "ultra high performance"? Nobody does. The STi runs very low 13s, is that an ultra high performance car too?
You should pay less attention to the bullshit magazines tell you.
Yes, and in the 1/4 mile it can only do 90 MPH, at which point there is no torque limiter. It's SLOW. A 10 second 1/4 mile isn't slow, but there are no saabs that can do a 10 second 1/4 mile stock. ANY car can do a 10 second 1/4 mile with enough mods. Am I supposed to be impressed?
So yes, all saabs are slow, and any car can be modified to go fast. There is nothing special about saabs, except that they're heavy, slow and expensive.
doesnt performs as well???? What are talking about?? take any car and make it pass as much fuel per minute as the subaru and the engine will increase at least 30hp you just need to remap the ecu which wrx did thats why it isnt a world class car as saab is.. Now this is the top of the line 93 that's why it costs 40 grand.. the top wrx is 37 grand.. twice the price?? you dont even know how to add..
The old STi might have been high 13s, the new ones can do high 12s. The point here though is really just that you're admitting the STi is faster. The Saabs can't even hit 13s at all.
Get back to me when you can make a stock saab do faster than mid 14s in the 1/4 mile, then we'll talk about which one is faster. Until then, you just proved that the STi is faster. Thanks for doing my job for me.