I believe – though I’d have to go back and check – that no Saab has ever lost a Showdown. And that’s not going to change today, because both cars we’re going to look at are Saabs. One is a V4-powered oddball from way back in the day, and the other is a turbocharged hatchback from the GM years.
Yesterday was all about Cadillac, and it will surprise no one that the big Eldorado took an easy win. And I was thinking about it earlier today – it’s actually a pretty good deal. I mean, it’s only about 83 cents a pound!
That DeVille is a pretty nice car, but I think I’d look for one a couple years older with the 4.9 liter HT engine. I had a 1989 DeVille with the 4.5 and I liked it quite a lot; I sold it because I was commuting and 15 MPG just wasn’t cutting it. Between these two, though, the Eldorado is an easy choice.
Who doesn’t love Saab? Well, lots of potential buyers, or else the company would still be around. Enthusiasts all seem to at least love the idea of Saab, with its oddball and often brilliant designs and its spicy turbocharged engines. But it seems like most non-car-people didn’t quite know what to make of the Swedish airplane company’s strange front-wheel-drive cars. They got less and less weird as time went on, to the point that one of its final models was literally just a Chevy Trailblazer. It still didn’t help. But long before those days, there were these two. Let’s take a look.
1971 Saab 96 – $2,100
Engine/drivetrain: 1.5-liter OHV V4, four-speed manual, FWD
Location: Kyle, TX
Odometer reading: 80,000 miles
Operational status: Was running a year ago
This rusty little jellybean represents the first step in Saab’s de-weirding. Originally, Saabs were powered by three-cylinder two-stroke engines, but in 1967 they switched to a four-stroke engine like everyone else, albeit an unusual one: a V4 from Ford of Europe.
The V4 powers the front wheels through a four-speed manual transmission with a column-mounted shifter. This one isn’t currently roadworthy; it was running a year ago, but old gas has gummed up the works. It will start on starter fluid, but won’t stay running.
Inside, it’s dirty, but it’s actually not in terrible shape. A good cleaning and some seat covers would help a lot. Most of the little bits of trim are still there, which is important, because you’d have a hell of a time tracking down anything that’s missing.
The paint is pretty much gone, but it looks like it only has surface rust. Repainting it would still be a lot of work, but at least there’s no welding involved. It’s complete except for, unfortunately, the center of the grille. I’m sure some Saab enthusiast has a stack of them in the loft in their garage, and will happily sell you one for way too much money.
1999 Saab 9-3 – $2,200
Engine/drivetrain: Turbocharged 2.0-liter DOHC inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Austin, TX
Odometer reading: 115,000 miles
Operational status: Runs well, but needs brake and suspension work
The great-(great?)-grandchild of the 96 is this car, the first-generation 9-3. It looks just like the 900 that preceded it, but under the skin are a bunch of changes to improve safety. Luckily, GM’s interference in Saab was minimal at this point, and the car still has the character and weirdness that Saab fans love, including the ignition switch in the center console.
Saab embraced turbocharging way back in the ’70s, and never stopped. This 9-3 has a turbocharged 2.0 liter four-cylinder powering the front wheels through a five-speed manual. Several versions of this engine with different power levels were available; I think this is the middle version, making 182 horsepower. The engine runs great, but the car’s brakes and front end need work before it’s roadworthy. The seller says the brake pedal starts out OK then goes soft, which sounds to me like a bad master cylinder. It also has a vibration in the steering wheel at certain speeds, which could be a lot of things. The bad brakes mean you should probably tow it home.
The interior is in decent shape; there’s some wear on the driver’s seat and the steering wheel rim, but not bad. All the power features work, as does the air conditioning, which just had the compressor replaced. It also has a removable refrigerated drinks cooler that was apparently a factory option, but it doesn’t work right now. I assume the hula girl on the dash is included, if you ask nicely.
The outside looks really good in photos. The seller says it has some dings and scrapes, but they must not be bad at all. The paint is nice and shiny, and it has factory alloy wheels – sadly not the trademark Saab three-spokes, but sharp-looking nonetheless.
It’s a crying shame what happened to Saab. We need more weird cars around. Luckily, the brand has a loyal following dedicated to keeping the cars on the road. I’m sure you could find plenty of help fixing up either one of these. Which one would you rather put back into service: the rusty old V4, or the sleek black modern turbo?
I owned both of these models of Saab at the same time a few years ago. There’s enough GM in that 9-3 to add “bad weird” to the “good weird.” But it’s fun to drive. The 96 has unfortunately become really hard to find parts for, and not just model-specific trim bits.
(If any Autopians buy that 96 IRL, I’ll mail you a grill to make the front end whole.)
I would be all over that 96 if I was looking for a project. Or if I wasn’t married.
Buy it and you won’t be
Correct!
I owned this car in 3-door 900 form (a ’96) and I would sort of know what I’m getting into for Saab Ownership 2: Electric Boogaloo (I’m probably overusing this at this point, but I don’t care). Electric Boogaloo may in fact be a pretty apt name for this car, if it’s anything like my first one.
The air conditioning working is a huge bonus over my last one as well.
Two-cylinder two-strokes at first for the 92. The three-cylinder followed for the 93, 94, 95, 96, and 97, with the latter three subsequently receiving the V4.
I keep them in my shed. The loft is already full.
And the attendant free-wheel transmission, because you cannot engine-brake a 2-stroke
My 67 V-4 had that, there was a lever on the floor that you pulled if you wanted engine braking. Once pulled, the transmission operated like any other car until you reset it.
Hmmm… non running project car, or driveable modern safety?
This is not a tough choice. Also, BY DEFINITION of how the Showdown works, one of these will have to lose, so your statement is categorically untrue.
Crap, you’re right.
You say that “no Saab has ever lost a Showdown. And that’s not going to change today, because both cars we’re going to look at are Saabs”
Doesn’t that actually guarantee that a Saab will lose, ending the tradition? It’ll at least still be true that, when presented, a Saab has always won.
I’m taking the 9-3, since I’m in no position to take on a long term project
Schrödinger’s SAAB?
“ I think this is the middle version, making 182 horsepower. “
Actually the emblem on the side indicates it’s an SE… which means it’s the higher out version (200hp).
And the 9-3 is an easy pick for me. It just need some relatively straightforward things to be a daily driver or an interesting 2nd car.
It’s a way beter deal than that 96… which looks like it needs a bit of everything and thus is still overpriced at $2100. That 96 looks like a $1000 parts car to me. Even if you restore it, it still won’t be worth all that much.
I’m sure there are SAAB die hards that will love and appreciate the 96, perhaps willing to go to extraordinary measures to restore one like this, but I’m not one of them. As it stands, the 9-3 is a good looking car that is ready to be a well performing car again, with some readily doable work. Boring as it might be, that’s enough for me.
9-3 would have won if it was the 3 door or ‘vert, but the 5 door just looks ungainly to me. Plus, I would love to talk all about my v4 and have uninformed idiots try to call me out on it. That would be a good time.
I forgot when they quit making a three door 9-3.
I never liked the little plastic filler piece on the side window. Some of the older models always had black door handles instead of color keyed, which you don’t notice on a black car.
Last year of the non-Viggen 9-3 three-door was 2001, sold only as a base-spec car.
I always wanted a Viggen. We talked our son into a 9-3 convertible when he turned sixteen. Still has it eleven years later. I cross shopped a 9-3 Aero stick sedan but ended up with a first gen CTS-V. Husband says now that if I had picked the SAAB, we would still have it.
Before that, I was deciding between a 1988 BMW 325i convertible and the first gen 1988 SAAB convertible. I wanted a four seater convertible to replace my MGB. I liked the simplicity and trunk space of the manual top, and I liked the short throw shifter and handling (and looks) of the BMW. I thought the SAAB seats were too tall; I sat down too far in the car and the back where the top stows was pretty high up. It was a pretty long throw shifter. I was also snobby about 6 vs. 4 cylinders. That was when the SAABs were at the Cadillac dealership. Still love those cars. I test drove a lot of SAABS.
We have had a lot of repairs but nothing much with the engine or transmission other than recently replacing the fuel injectors and nothing much that would strand you somewhere. It’s usually a pump or something battery related. Battery is next to the turbo; it gets hot and it doesn’t last as long as it should.
Viggens were cool back then, but the size/form factor didn’t work for me. I needed a larger car, and ultimately ended up buying a new 9-5 Aero, after cross-shopping Audi A6es and the Lincoln LS V8. I still have that 9-5 Aero, which is now a three-season/fun car, in the interest of slowing down the tin worm.
The second-gen 9-3s, in spite of feeling cheaper, have worn well in my experience. There’s three of them (one of each body style) at home these days.
He has a 2006 9-3 which still has the SAAB looking dash with tons of buttons and the fun cup holder.
Agreed that the three doors are nicer looking than the 5 doors. 🙂
I am probably not capable of a FULL restoration on the 96, but I think I could make it run and drive and have some fun in the process then send it on down the line.
The 96 would make an amazing project for the right person. I am definitely not that person. The 9-3 is something I could fix up though.
Definitely OG9-3 if you need a car rather than an art project. I sold a 2001 SE for about the same money but mine had ~230K on it and ugly bumpers from years of Jersey City street parking.
If this is really a 1999 “SE” model then it should have the 200-hp B204R engine. The engine on these is really the best part and it’s a blast on the freeway. It’s too bad the GM chassis is a wet noodle.
I experienced pretty decent reliability–synthetic oil and aggressive throttle usage is important because of the poor crankcase ventilation on these–but there were a lot of small fixes along the way. One of the front side marker lights fell out one day. The motorized antenna kept failing. The fuel pump replacement was pricy. The ABS module will also fail at some point, taking out half the instrumentation with it. If you’re good with a soldering kit you can fix that at home. And then you can fix the dead pixels on the dash the same way.
Both?
Both.
Yes.
Yes.
Driver seat and steering wheel look REALLY worn for 115,000 miles. Hot Texas sun?
9-3. I like the 96, but have no desire to own one. Conversely, I have always really liked the first gen 9-3 and wouldn’t mind owning one at some point, though my preference would be a Viggen.
That 96 is a perfect candidate for a clearcoat-over-patina situation if one were willing to go that route.
That’s 100% the route I’d go.
It’s also a perfect candidate for being converted into an outdoor planter in a few years.
If I were going to put in the time to fix up a 55-year old car with no parts availability, it wouldn’t end up anywhere close to original. It would probably get a slightly more modern engine and drivetrain underneath.
But I don’t need another project.
“clearcoat-over-patina situation”
That’s a situation I’ve grown to hate. The ‘patina’ look is way overdone and I think it’s a lousy excuse used by restorers to get out of giving a given vehicle a proper paint job.
For the extra 100 I will take the newer one.
Side note a farm stand near me has on of the original SAABs in running condition and looks great
Bad bets, both. But I’ll take the nearly-running 9-3 to the 55-year old chunk of scrap metal, and just hope that parts availability and indie shop willingness can last long enough to keep it on the road for several more years and make the investment worth it.
This is going to be an interesting dividing line in the commentariat, between those who prefer a modern car that nearly works and those who look at that disgusting spent hulk and say “it’s actually not in bad shape”.
I have a coworker who is 6-12 months away from retirement that spends all his free time exercising and is in fantastic shape for his age. Daily he comes to my office to talk about how “age is just a number, what you are and what you do is what defines you”. A few weeks ago he pulled something in his neck and his comment to me was “You know, age is just a number….and I wish mine was a lot lower” followed by a remorseful laugh. I feel like anyone seriously shopping that 96 will be reflecting my coworker’s sentiment as they dig into restoring the thing.
I went 93 because it’d be a lot easier to care for long term.
Also, bad brakes on a Swedish car? Time to drop in some Pump the Brakes by Refused. https://youtu.be/GHdj2Fzcy4g?si=2B437PGex2qSrDcb
The 9-3 runs and has a manual. Didn’t even read the descriptions. I have no time/money/skill/interest in that level of restoration.
I’m one of the weirdos who chose the 96. It’s a great EV conversion candidate, or you can keep the current drivetrain and gleefully induce eyebrow raises when you tell people that your car has a V4.
As a twice-relapsed 9-5 owner, it’s hard to recommend a 9-3 or a 9-5. They accumulate little issues that’ll have you getting monthly deliveries from FCP Euro, and the driving experience doesn’t have enough special Saabness to justify over other luxury-adjacent cars on the used market. I’ll admit their style has aged beautifully though!
I’d have to save that 96. And give it the full restoration that it deserves.
I had a 2000 93 out of college. Still remember doing antisocial things with it. Like turning off the traction control and laying a single stripe of rubber through every intersection on the way to work in the morning.
Perfect vehicle in a lot of ways car-camped at ski resorts and festivals. Got decent gas mileage. But I don’t think I want to try wrenching on this generation anymore.
I tried to keep a 2004 95 alive during the pandemic and hit my breaking point when after rebuilding the transmission output bearing and seal, the window switch unit went out and replacements were $1100 and then nla by the next month. I soldered wear pads on the switch contacts and passed it on to my local Saab mechanic.
Atleast with the old 96 the parts count is low and it’s smaller and lighter to push around the yard.
Today would be a Both day if it were an option. DD the 9-2 while getting the older one back in running order.
There’s enough 9-3s and 9-5s in my area thanks to the fact the people here who sold them were (and still are) also one of the area’s biggest Chevrolet dealers. I can’t remember if I’ve ever seen a 96 in person. Preserve the patina, I say. I want the old one.