The 9-2x Aero – Mine was the same colour, minus the hood scoop and different rims
After my Bonneville had sold much more quickly than I was expecting, I found myself in a situation where I needed a car – fast.
I’d been checking out local car ads for a few weeks before putting the Bonneville up for sale. I didn’t want something typical, so the North American compacts (i.e. Ford Focus, Chevy Cobalt/Pontiac G5, Dodge Caliber) which were coming off lease and into my price range were out. I also didn’t really want a Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla as they’re just too common in my hometown.
I took a Saturn Ion Redline quad coupe out for a test. While it was certainly quick, the low-rent interior and uncomfortable seats really made me question whether or not I’d like it long term. As well, it had the CVT which most online forums said was not quite ready for ‘prime time’ in that car. So I passed.
But then I saw something suitably unique, within my price range and something I’d often thought of as an interesting ride: a 2006 Saab 9-2x.
This rather peculiar model was only sold for two years and was really just a mildly done over Subaru Impreza RS. The extent of Saab differences between the two vehicles always seemed to me to be styling related; the front and rear were both different, the seats had different fabric and headrests and the dash was a bit more solidly constructed.
I never drove an Impreza RS to see if there were any tangible differences in ride or handling (as some early reviews had said there were) but regardless, I found the acceleration and handling both to be quite acceptable. However, other aspects of the car were mildly annoying. The off-white and black cloth interior got dirty really easily, and the rear hatch latch stuck closed several times. Finally my mechanic removed the entire latch, dunked it in grease and re-installed it. I never had that problem again.
Interior dirties easily should have been a warning sign on the dashboard of this car
The car also couldn’t disguise its origins as an economy-grade wagon all the time; the doors were light and closed with a tinny clang and the cargo area – even with the back seat totally folded – was none too roomy given the size of the vehicle. I also thought the fuel consumption was pretty high, a number of people I know who had gotten their first AWD vehicle had said that disappointing fuel economy with such vehicles is a well-known phenomenon.
This picture is how the cargo area looked. A push mower barely fit!
I had the car for about two years. In that time, which was after the Saab brand was spun off from GM. The marque then went through a bankruptcy before finally dying completely. A couple of situations during my ownership made me feel less comfortable having this car as my only ride.
Situation 1 – Christmas 2011. My brother-in-law backed his Jeep Grand Cherokee into the drivers side front and rear door. It took almost a month for the body shop I used to find acceptable door panels to fix my car, and even then they were off a wrecked 9-2x. He warned me to never get into another accident because any of the unique 9-2x hardware was almost impossible to find, and as a two-year-only model there is virtually no back supply of any of these things. Gulp.
My car after the new door panels were installed
Situation 2 – The oil sensor failed and my regular mechanic wasn’t able to get another one that wouldn’t make my ‘check engine’ light go on and limit my revs to 4200rpm. I eventually ordered one through a Subaru dealer in Kingston but it got me to thinking what would happen if I had a bigger or more complex part fail.
So, the bloom was off the rose for me and the 9-2x. Also, I’d recently gotten a once-in-a-lifetime deal on a 1995 Mazda Miata to use in summer, so I was also looking for something less expensive to insure as an everyday ride.
After listing it for a while, I sold the 9-2x to a middle-aged woman who needed AWD to get up her steep driveway in winter. Here’s the best part: I bought the 9-2x for $8,499 in June of 2011, and sold it in November of 2013 for $7,700. The only things I’d done to it besides regular maintenance was a new set of brakes (plus the oil sensor and hatch latch issues). So it cost me next to nothing depreciation-wise to drive for more than two years. To this day I think it is my most ‘sensible’ car buy and usage.
Was the 9-2x a good car? Sure, it was mostly reliable, comfortable and fun to drive. But after having it for a while, it just felt pretty ordinary. It didn’t stir any passion and didn’t look unusual enough to draw any solicitous glances. When it came down to it, it was just…a car.
Well, for my next daily drivers I went for something a bit different. Stay tuned.
Frameless windows are extraordinarily pointless. I have a Subaru with them and, to me, they offer no aesthetic advantage and they make the doors harder to close. You also can’t push them closed by the glass as you would with framed windows because it all feels like it’s going to break. And it also means the doors don’t close with an exceptionally solid thunk (although my Subaru otherwise feels well-made).
I feel the same about my Subaru. It’s extremely competent and has only a couple of niggling issues (piss-poor radio reception, a rattling tailgate). It handles decently, has decent power, a decent interior etc etc. But it doesn’t stir my soul. Still, it was a very practical purchase and it has served me well. Every couple of months I think about selling it and buying something more exciting but I realise how foolish that would be. I also have a wagon which will come in handy when next I have to transport a lot of stuff.
I like the 9-2X’s two-tone interior. It definitely helps break up the black, whereas my Subaru’s interior is rather funereal.
I have known a few people with base model Impreza sedans of this generation (post-facelift) and they have such a bizarre, almost industrial look to them. The wagon/hatch is still distinctive but a little more harmonious and the 9-2X treatment smooths it out further. Those people I knew with Imprezas had the base 2.0 with an automatic–very slow!
While frameless windows in a 4-door make less sense, I love having them in my coupe, even if it does have a B-pillar. I’ve never been one to close a car door by putting my hand on the window anyway, to avoid hand/finger prints, so that aspect isn’t an issue for me. Plus it’s kind of cool how the front windows retract slightly when opening the door and go back up when fully closed. And somewhat oddly enough, wind noise is far better than in my Acura, which had framed windows.
I once read that Subaru opted for frameless windows because window-framing contributes ZERO toward strength/crash resistance… FHI engineers chose to put that weight into the roof-rails/roof-framing instead for safety reasons and hence, legendary Subaru stoutness… makes one tolerate the wobbly glass once you know the method to their madness 😉
During hurricane Sandy a big tree fell on top off and covered our 2002 Forester. I thought it was a goner. When the tree was removed the only damage was a few scratches and a tiny dent on the roof.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-2005-honda-accord-and-2002-subaru-forester-the-game-changers/
In the 15 years we had our 2000 Forester, it was Stephanie’s car, unless we used it for a road trip or such. She always closed the door by pushing on the frameless glass, despite my exhortations and worries about it getting damaged eventually. It never did; the glass was a solid in its tracks as new. And the doors in our car always closed easily enough, if maybe not quite as well as with framed doors.
Warning! COAL #4 hint! It can now be said it’s a good choice 🙂
Haha a pretty big hint too! I’ll probably write about it next year after I sell it.
That way you avoid doing what happened with the Calais (writing good things about it but having a bittersweet ownership in the end)
“Those people I knew with Imprezas had the base 2.0 with an automatic–very slow!” But in the U.S., the base motor for that entire generation of Imprezas (2002-2007) was the 2.5-liter, 165-hp, same as in the Legacy.
(Cannot edit the above for some reason)
I believe the slowness of those Imprezas (whether 2.0 or 2.5) was a result of Subaru’s unsatisfactory 4-speed automatic. Subaru abandoned further development of conventional automatics in favor of CVTs around 10 years ago, as I recall; today all Subaru automatics (in the U.S., anyway) are CVTs.
Ah, but I was (and am) in Australia.
We tend to get smaller base engines here, although generally not to the same extent as in Europe. For example, a family member has an ’11 Sonata with a 2.0 naturally-aspirated four-cylinder whereas in the US, there were only 2.0 turbo or 2.4 NA fours.
I think Teslas have frameless windows. Because they are really slick, and lack of frames eliminates one more visual detail, adding a cool factor (which Subarus in terms of design never seem to take advantage of). Of course they were first a thing with the “hardtop” body style, with no center post which we can’t do without these days. Besides, most people have the windows rolled up all the time with modern HVAC systems.
Back then frameless windows did have a chromey (probably stainless steel) frame on the window. My 1962 Lincoln Continental (it was around 40 years old when I had it) had windows like that, but it had a center post anyway. I can’t explain it, but those windows were one of the many awesome things about it. There’s something inexplicably great about opening that big chunky door (and the suicide back ones) with nothing sticking up above it. Or with a beautiful chromey framed curved window leaning in above it.
OK, no Subaru or Saabaru has offered that kind of rush.
For you older car nerds (which CC seems to be all about, and as one of you I understand all the historical and cultural and folkloric dimensions) you may notice that the pictured above 1961 Lincoln has wide whitewalls but has 1964 or later wheel covers. Before I owned one I saw Lincolns like that and always wondered what f was going on. The 1961-63 wheel covers looked right. The 1964 ones sucked.
Here’s the reason: tires (not wheels) were taller then. The 1961 – 63’s were on 13 inch rims, as all American cars were starting in 1957. The 1964’s (along with a terrible but practical facelift including flat windows and a far bigger trunk and 3″ more wheelbase) went to 14 inch rims.
The biggest and tallest profile modern radial tire for a 14″ rim (probably for Cadillacs and maybe Town Cars from ten or twenty years ago) has almost exactly the same circumference as the 13″ tires that came on a ’61-63 Lincoln.
When I went to radial tires on my 1962 Lincoln I bought 14″ rims and got some Lincoln wheel covers (for those of you who aren’t historians of the olde days, that means hub caps that covered the whole thing, like some base models have today only they are plastic and designed to mimic alloy wheels) from the 70’s that were similar to the 1962 ones. They had a black plastic panel behind the Lincoln symbol that could be removed to make them look a lot like the original 13″ wheel covers.
Just a little consumer info for anyone with a totally awesome ’61-63 Lincoln.
This might be obvious already but if I was a Jay Leno income level guy, yes, my daily driver would be a 1961 Lincoln Continental with a modern (Lincoln Town Car/Crown Vic) drive train. Maybe one convertible and one sedan.
I have only owned cars I really liked, but nothing is at the level of that Lincoln. OK, fuel consumption, heat/defrost tending to work on the left or right side arbitrarily, etc. were drawbacks.
I think the HVAC was redone with the 1964 makeover, but the heater/AC systems in the ’61-’63 Lincolns and I assume the also awesome Thunderbirds from that era were bizarrely complicated for no obvious reason.
1961-1963 Lincolns did not have 13″ wheels; they had 14″ wheels. In 1966, they went to 15″ wheels. Never did they use 13″ wheels.
Oh, a Saab I never knew about. Well, sort-of Saab anyway. I spotted the Impreza in the middle straight away. No doubt someone thought using a nearly white cloth interior was a really cool idea.
Remember when Subaru had enough excess production capacity that they thought they needed to do things like this? 😛
I was looking at that interior, GM didn’t even bother to get Subaru to put the ignition between the seats instead of on the steering column!
I suspect that these (and the Saablazer) had more to do with making Saab a viable standalone dealer franchise.in America than Subaru’s excess capacity. Look at GM’s struggles with the Cadillac dealer network trying to bring them up to something like the standards set by Lexus, and imagine that Saab was drifting into being a “new-car shingle” that primarily used-car-focused dealers could leverage to offer better financing on those used cars. Not a great place for a prestige brand to be in, alongside the likes of Suzuki and Mitsubishi.
Yeah but can you imagine someone trying to see if Subaru was willing to rebadge something today? Subaru is basically selling all it can build.
Yeah, Saab was either sold through those 1970s “Manny’s Import” places with mansard roofs and old Alfa Romeo signs, but also dealt with Mazda/Volvo/whatever they could get. Or Saab was added to the local Chevrolet/GMC/Pontiac/Oldsmobile GM megastore and there might have been one or two parked behind the pickup trucks. In theory Saab was to be an Acura/Audi type brand, in practice they never had the retail footprint.
And yes, Suburu is now production-constrained and would never agree to something like ths.
Thanks for writing up this COAL, SAABARU!
I suppose lots of car enthusiasts, in particular those with a Euro bend, played with the thought of owning a Saab. I certainly did. But on second thought it never made sense. I am glad that this one worked out o.k. for you, cents-wise. I usually come to the conclusion that a regular car, the ones you brushed aside, are much more satisfying in every way except for the expression of a distinct taste. “In the end (the SAAB 9-2x) was just a car”: it over-promised and under-delivered. Buying “just a car” has a better chance of being under-promised and getting over-delivered.
A thought about the buyer who probably paid too much: should I feel sorry for people who have to buy AWD because their driveway is too steep?
I agree with your assessment of buying “just a car” vs something more stylish and especially European. Typically the cars I am most drawn to emotionally/aesthetically are too expensive to buy when new and too expensive to fix when used. So I’ve trained myself to derive satisfaction from the practicality of my own cars and leave the aesthetic indulgences to models and car shows – much easier to enjoy a car’s style when you don’t have to pay to keep it running!
The steep driveway thing reminded me of a story I heard about Wayne Gretzky, who when first looking at homes in LA after joining the Kings was shown one with a steep driveway and instinctively thought, “man, I’ll never get up there in winter!”
These are extremely rare in the US, especially if you live outside of Saab’s traditional stronghold of New England. You’re more likely to see a Lamborghini on the road than one of these on most days, so it would be interesting to own one for that reason alone.
Buying a car because you are in dire need of a car usually doesn’t end well. My best and favorite cars were those found by accident or during a leisurely search. But it certainly could have gone worse for you than it did.
Fear of body parts shortages was why I avoided quirky old station wagons back when my tastes ran to quirky old stuff for daily use. There might have been a few quarter panels and trim pieces here or there for an oddball sedan, but thw wagon stuff was a whole other thing.
It is interesting how something that is part Saab and part Subaru can give you all of the disadvantages of each in a single car.
Back in the 1980s-’90s, Saabs were a default Yuppiemobile (along with the Audis) for all the young Nashville lawyers and music-business “suits” who couldn’t quite swing a Mercedes or BMW. I don’t know how it was anywhere else, but they were high-status popular for so long that nobody I knew could understand how they could possibly be in trouble … though Nashville sort of has its own car climate (that BMW 318ti, the stubby-ass hatchback that was a dud everywhere else, was taken unto the bosom of every Yuppoid who had been lusting after but couldn’t afford a 325i, and became immediately ubiquitous). We left for SoCal before the “Saabaru” appeared; I see one now and then, its very Subaru rear glass profile and pure Saab nose as odd and distinctive as ever.
Subarus, especially those over ten years old, have some real faults, especially in the fuel-mileage department; our 2001 Forester’s least admirable trait is its 16-17 mpg thirst in town driving, not helped by the crude but touchy 4-speed autobox. We do however have an excellent Subaru-only shop that maintains a solid history of every long-term customer’s cars. It is delightful to drive hard, though – it’s as competent on twisty asphalt as my Alfa Milano, though while the Alfa constantly urges the driver to push it harder the Subaru is more like a good sport, going along with the game.
Wow, a surprise to see another COAL with one of these in it. Nice that it’s the non-turbo, mine was the turbo.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/uncategorized/coal-2005-saab-9-2x-aero-i-prefer-my-sushi-with-a-side-of-lingonberry-sauce/
I drove a few of these though and came away thinking the larger 2.5 NA engine was very nice to drive, it felt nice and torquey around town and not as peaky as the 2.0 turbo which you really had to push.
I’ve thought about picking up another now and then, currently the problem is they are all afflicted with the Takata airbag recall.
What a cool write-up about a car that is often forgotten, that was only around for the blink of an eye. I took one of these in trade several years ago and guess what? The 2-tone seats were filthy. In fact, the reconditioners couldn’t even get them to look decent so the car ended up being wholesaled! In its defense, the car had over 100k miles on it and the owner had two small children. I distinctly remember why they traded it – for the same reason you did, Saabaru – fear of parts availability as it aged.
It is interesting to note that you mentioned that the gas mileage wasn’t all that great in your 9-2x. I know several folks that own different model Subies and they all seem to feel that the gas mileage is not what they expected. It is decent, but nothing outstanding. They are AWD vehicles after all, and all AWD vehicles will suffer from reduced fuel economy.
You definitely did well with the resale value of your car. It’s always a great feeling when you can get out of a vehicle and not lose your shirt trying to do so.
Did you try dying the white part of the seats to match the rest of the seat ?
Mar-hyde makes a cloth, leather, and vinyl dye that works well.
I am probably one of the few people that thought SAAB and Subaru made a good coupling. Their fundamental mission statement is (was) the same to me: Cold weather/bad road civilian rally car. I thought that Subaru could handle the lower end of the model range with AWD ruggedness while SAAB could be the luxury brand ala Range Rover with the two brands in a sort of Nissan/Infiniti fashion. I was hoping for Japanese practicality with Swedish design.
Obviously history has proved that, as usual, I was guilty of faulty thinking.
I really wonder how the 9-6X would have been received. This was to be a mildly restyled Saab version of the Subaru Tribeca. Some of the styling tweaks they made ended up being used on the facelifted Tribeca instead.
Considering the Tribeca sold slowly, I’d venture to say the 9.6X would have flopped.
Yes. That model of Impreza was definitely styled by someone other than the usual Subaru designers. It didn’t look like any Subaru model before or since. If it had come out as a Saab in the first place no one would have thought anything about it. Well, except for the opposed four. Did Subaru contract that one out to Guiguaro or someone?
The weird thing about the Saaburu is that the interior seems to be completely different from the Impreza, but if anything it looks LESS like a Saab than the Impreza interior does. Why did GM spend a bunch of money on a different interior for no apparent reason?
Check out this one.
I kinda thought the same thing, even though I really wanted Saab to design more of its own cars. I thought the aesthetic marriage was pretty good too. The 9-2 and 9-5 were convincing siblings, especially in their C-pillar resemblance.
All of my Subarus (I’ve owned 5) got mileage that, while disappointing, was affordable and an acceptable compromise for their reliability and non-rattletrap nature. Would I get an Imprezza today considering their head gasket failure reputation and still unstellar mileage? No. I compared the 2015 Imprezza vs my 2015 Versa Note at Fuelly.com. The average reported mileage for an Imprezza was 28.7. My Note has reports of 33.6. I’ve averaged 37.82 with mine over 26,000 miles.
That’s the thing. I appreciate the balanced handling but I really don’t need all-wheel-drive living in a place where it literally doesn’t snow. A friend of mine has a Hyundai i30 (Elantra GT) and that car is considered to have only average fuel economy for its class. He’s getting 6.8 l/100km, I’m on 9.8 and that’s with a fair bit of highway driving as of late. My Holden Calais generally sat around 10.4 or so and it was bigger and heavier. That being said, it didn’t feel that much more powerful than my Subie despite the figures on paper…
I agree with William, completely. I have had AWD (Subaru 2.5GT) , FWD (Ford Taurus, Honda Prelude) and RWD (Dodge Dart, MGB) cars. None of them got stuck in the snow. I’m not an emergency room doctor or a firefighter. If the driving is real bad, I don’t go.
My neighbors 9-2x bers SAABARU license plates.
Your body shop guy and “regular mechanic ” were feeding you a bunch of crap regarding the parts. Any component (save the front and rear fascia and Saab emblems) interchanges with an Imprezza of the same generation, doors included.
How can you conclude otherwise, both cars came of the same assembly line.
“He warned me to never get into another accident because any of the unique 9-2x hardware was almost impossible to find, and as a two-year-only model there is virtually no back supply of any of these things. Gulp.”
This was also just a topic in another group I am a member of, regarding whether or not to save a car just because it is rare. The topic came up regarding parts availability. Rare can sometimes be good when you are looking for higher resale in 20+ years… but in the meantime, if that rare car isn’t a top performance model (those tend to always have repair parts, even if they are aftermarket), the chances of parts becoming unobtanium are very high.
Nick is right though, almost everything should be interchangable with the Subaru of the same generation. Only the unique parts should be hard to come by. The doors are direct replacements between the Saab and Subaru. The only thing unique may be the color of the interior door panels, which also look to be the same shape and contours as the Subaru.
I have the same thought regarding my rare Magnum SRT8. But I’ve rationalized it down to just a few unique parts that may ultimately be unobtainium. The Magnum was only sold for 3.5 years, but there were a lot of them. So major body panels will be available, and doors are direct swap over with the 300 sedan. The SRT8 drivetrain was also made for 5 years, shared with the 300, Charger, and Challenger. The only parts that scare me are the front and rear bumpers that are Magnum SRT8 unique. It would be even worse if I had a 2008 Magnum. That entire front end (fenders, hood, headlights, bumper) was only available for about 6 months. Talk about unobtanium.
I always thought the SAAB fascia transplant did good things for the looks of these cars. Someone who worked in an adjacent building to where I worked in 2010 or so had one and it often caught my eye as I walked past. And it made a better SAAB than did the 9-7x, which was pretty much a travesty.