Autocar - First for car news and reviews

What is it?

This is the long-awaited, all-new Saab 9-5, a car which almost scrapped as Saab came within days of being wound up in December last year. It replaces the 13-year-old first-generation 9-5 which, in automotive terms, was at least two generations old.

It would also be tremendously unfair to call this car a Vauxhall. The parts that make up the 9-5 were either conceived and created in Sweden itself or under under the direct guidance of Swedish engineering chiefs worki...Read the full article

I like it - I think it looks good inside and out. We need cars that aren't "sporty", I wish SAAB and Volvo weren't going down this route (though no-one wants a wallowy old 940...). 1950kg sounds incredibly heavy, I take it that's the 4wd and V6 for part of it? I suppose a 1.8 Insignia is about 1500kg and there's another 10cm of chassis in this thing.. Still, strikes me as excessive wait.

surely anything over 1700kgs is not aimed for British customers, i think Autocar should ban reporting on cars over a certain weight threshold.

i declare the limit should be 1680kgs, the highest i can approve of for 2010 onwards, being the weight of the GTR V-spec.

 

 

 

Just checked - an Audi A8 4.2FSI quattro weighs 1800kg and it's a big car! Confirms that this must be about 200kg overweight. Imagine the performance/economy changes if you could wipe 200kg off the kerb weight. I know the Audi uses aluminium, but a BMW 7 is about the same (without the AWD weight penalty) .

 old 9-5     0-60mph 6.5s(manual)     31mpg      213g/km  1525kgs   £245tax

new 9-5    0-62mph  6.9s                 25mpg      269g/km  1945kgs   £435tax +£950  !!!!

 

mmm progress.

 

While I'm with you on some of this - remember that the 9-5 has grown considerably (it's 25cm longer than the old model, that's a lot of car) and with most "updates" has gained some weight - I just think the weight is excessive. The two cars you're comparing are not completely even either - the new one has 4wd, the V6 powerplant is far less highly strung than the old 4 cylinder with less turbo lag (this is an assumption based on greater displacement, lower specific output, a twin scroll turbocharger etc - a safe assumption given the old 2.3HOT driving characteristics). I suppose we can't really compare until a diesel comes along. I'm with you on the whole "cars should be lighter than the ones they replace". Anyway, still sounds like a decent effort from SAAB and I like the styling, so not going to pooh-pooh them too much.

1680 being in fact the weight of the gen2 Lexus LS400...or a 100 Kg more than the last Jag XJ.

This new 9-5 NEEDED very badly to be bigger. I'm not sure how may  people have actually sat in it but there was very little space at all.

At one point I considered a Saab 9-5 and within 10 seconds of sitting in the car I had got out and left the showroom. The leg room for the driver was appauling and in fact worse than many cars smaller than it. At 6' 2", I'm tall but not huge, but I could not at all get comfortable with the drivers seat all the way back, I struggled to get my leg under the stearing wheel.

So whilst you might moan about weight, If it means people can fit in it, then surely its worth it.

I think on the outside it looks great, although, whilst i like the whole cockpit theme, Im not sure about that slab of black plastic.......

I think this is the best looking new car for ages. Taut body work, subtly flared arches and very clean lines. The curves and pillar angles are very Saab. Makes the new Merc look over styled and fussy. Shame about the weight.

 very tall people can get comfortable in city cars weighing under 1000kgs, so it has nothing to do with size. it often comes down to poor seat/steering wheel/dash positioning of the car.

i find steering wheels dont get close enough to the body, but i guess a part of that is airbag safety. on my last car i got a motorsport steering wheel and a 50mm aluminium spacer to bring the wheel 5cm closer to my chest. so much easier to drive and far more control.

 

 

 

I've got the press pack in front of me and it says the 9-5's kerb weight runs from '1725-1945kg depending on specification.' There is one advantage to the 9-5 being this length. It won't have to be stretched for the increasingly important Chinese market. It's amazing how many cars are being elongated at considerable cost.

Saab should have scrapped this project and put all their focus and efforts into a 9-1 or a new 9-3. A big fuss over a car that is likely sell less than 200 units in the UK in a year, its hardly going to save Saab is it?