It’s no secret to us car-loving enthusiasts that particular cars can invoke particular memories in time, whether they be personal or not. I don’t have any major personal memories of a Saab 900 convertible other than my fourth grade teacher, Ms. Murphy obtaining her self-described “dream car” in the form of a gently used one the year I was in her class. But when seeing one of this color, I can only think of one thing: the 1997 film staring Jack Nicholson, Helen Hunt, and Greg Kinnear, As Good As It Gets.
Appropriately named, “Sky Blue”, I rarely saw this color on 900s even in Saab-rich New England. When this generation 900 was seen more frequently on the roads, the majority of them seemed to be either black, gray, silver, or sage green. But this Sky Blue, complete with very Saab-esque three-spoke alloy wheels is an ultra-rare beauty, identical to the one prominently featured in As Good As It Gets, driven by the obsessive-compulsive, misanthropic lead character played one and only Jack Nicholson, although the car’s actual owner is Cuba Gooding Jr.’s character. And as far as second generation Saab 900s go, this one basically is “as good as it gets”, in the ideal bodystyle, color, wheels, and turbo engine. The only thing left desired is that it is not a 5-speed manual.
Introduced for 1994, the second or “New Generation” 900 (a.k.a. “NG900”) replaced the iconic but aging “Classic” 900, which debuted as a 1978 model, itself based on the vintage-1968 Saab 99 chassis. Unfortunately, for the die hard Saab loyalists and brand purists in general, the fact that the new car now rode on an Opel Vectra chassis, and not a Saab-developed platform was disconcerting, particularly as it produced a ride and driving experience that was not on par with the cars the 900 competed against.
The root of the New Generation 900’s development on a non-Saab platform lay in the small Swedish automaker’s somewhat omnipresent shaky financial situation. Despite its enthusiastic owners and high rate of loyal buyers, Saabs always had a narrow appeal and never sold in very high numbers. With its somewhat more mainstream 9000 failing to achieve its anticipated volume and its tried-and-true 900 becoming glaringly stale, Saab was faced with a serious lack of cash flow and a questionable future by the late-1980s.
In serious need of an investor, in 1989 Saab was forced to pimp itself out to General Motors — for lack of a better term. Naturally, this was much to the dismay of Saab loyalists and neutral parties alike, because let’s be real, GM did not have a very reputable image in the minds of many by this point, even those who couldn’t have less interest in the quirky Swedish brand.
In any event, GM now owned fully 50% of Saab, and would own the entirety of the Swedish automaker by the year 2000. Despite the apparent sale of its soul to the devil, Saab was now blessed with the aid it needed to finally develop a successor to the original 900. The first fruit of this “joint-venture”, the New Generation 900, was developed in less than four years, appearing as a 1994 model in three- and five-door hatches, and the following year in convertible form.
Notwithstanding its Opel relation, there was little visual resemblance to its relative, with the NG900 still looking distinctly Saab. Retaining its predecessor’s long hood, steep windshield, upswept beltline, and large sloping hatch, the second generation 900 was an attractive, contemporary update of the classic design.
Softer angles in the sheetmetal made for a more fluid, organic shape, and styling elements such as headlights, taillights, and door handles complemented this, and made for quite a seductive shape. Versus its predecessor, the new 900 rode on a 3.3-inch longer wheelbase, although length was actually down by 1.8 inches. Width and height were each up by 0.9 inches and 0.4 inches, respectively, and Saab claimed an increase in torsional rigidity by 50% on 3- and 5-door hatches, and 73% on convertibles.
As stated, the NG900 was engineered not on a Saab platform, but on the GM Europe-developed GM2900 platform. Engineered as a platform to serve the mid-size family sedan/hatchback Opel Vectra (Vauxhall Cavalier in the U.K.), the GM2900 was not the ideal basis for an entry-level luxury sports sedan/coupe that competed against cars including the BMW 3-Series.
Furthermore, whereas most competitors and even non-luxury cars of a less sporting nature were featuring four-wheel fully-independent suspensions, Saab stuck to its simpler and less expensive twist-beam rear suspension, with the expected independent MacPherson strut front suspension.
The twist-beam did have its advantages in weight, space, and most importantly, cost savings. Yet, when this was combined with an unforgiving chassis, it produced a driving experience and ride quality that was not up to BMW E36 levels, or even Volvo 850 levels.
Per contemporary reviews, body roll was prevalent in cornering maneuvers, despite generally favorable remarks on the NG900’s precise steering feel. Furthermore, the 900’s short wheelbase and firm suspension produced a choppy ride over non-Autobahn-like roads, an experience made worse by poor sound deadening to prevent wind and road noise at higher speeds.
As for the convertible, which arrived one year later than the closed-tops as a 1995, it was largely a unique body sharing only the front fascia and lower door assemblies with the 900’s 3-door hatch bodystyle. One-touch power-operated after the initial manual unlatching, the NG900’s soft top fully retracted in about 40 seconds from start to finish. A total of six electric motors powered the retractable soft top and hard boot cover.
As with the exterior, the NG900’s interior was a thoughtful update of the classic 900’s distinctive aircraft-inspired motif, retaining a familiar shape and layout with a few modern upgrades. As with its predecessor, gauges and controls were straightforward and concise, placed high on the instrument panel for easy driver reach and legibility. The ignition switch was once again located in its traditional spot between the front seats.
The instrument panel gained a small analogue clock for a touch more character, and dual front airbags were now standard, but among the most interesting new feature was the new Black Panel (later renamed Night Panel). With the press of a button, all interior lighting except for the speedometer was switched off, allowing for minimal driver distraction at night.
The engine lineup for the 1993-1998 Saab 900 was comprised of five different offerings, three naturally aspirated inline-4s, one turbo inline-4, and one V6, the first such application of V6 in any Saab car. Contrary to its predecessor, all NG900 engines were transversely mounted. Four cylinders were all versions of Saab’s in-house H-engine, and included a 2.0L making 128 horsepower, a 2.0L making 131 horsepower, and a 2.3L making 148 horsepower, with only the latter making it Stateside.
The enthusiasts engine was unquestionably the 2.0L turbo. Making 185 horsepower and 194 lb-ft torque, it was capable of propelling the 5-speed manual 900 SE convertible from zero-to-sixty in 6.9 seconds, a quite respectable figure for the day. Technically the top engine in terms of price, the 2.5L V6 was GM Europe’s corporate 54-degree V6 found in cars including the Opel Vectra. Despite its price premium over the turbo, output was substantially lower, at 168 horsepower and 167 lb-ft torque.
The standard transmission in all 900s was Saab’s in-house F35 5-speed manual, with a 4-speed automatic with sport mode available. Not offered in North America but briefly available in Europe was Saab’s Sensonic transmission. An unusual type of semi-automatic transmission, Sensonic implemented a traditional manual gear shifter while eliminating the clutch pedal in favor of an hydraulically-linked, electronically-controlled clutch. Proving unpopular, Sensonic was quickly discontinued.
With the 900 SE turbo convertible stickering for $41,470 in this car’s 1997 model year, the days when Jerry Seinfeld still drove one on NBC’s “Must See TV” Thursday night lineup, the top-spec 900 SE was priced right in line with the BMW 328iC convertible ($41,960). For comparison, the 900’s figure translates to some $62,178 in 2016 dollars.
The NG900 was sold through the 1998 model year, upon which a moderately revised yet visually similar successor arrived, now called the 9-3. As for the verdict on the NG900, it was certainly a car not without faults, but in the end was a successful update of a modern classic. Furthermore, it should be remembered that a substantial amount of its buyers bought the 900 because it was still very much a Saab, and were not interested in how it compared to other European entry-level luxury cars.
Most buyers were willing to overlook any handling deficiencies, the fact that it shared substantial DNA with other GM products, and any other eccentricities because after all, the NG900 still embodied all of the characteristics that made the classic 900 such a loved vehicle. And for the Saab faithful, the NG900 could easily be summed up as “as good as it gets”.
Related Reading:
1991 Saab 900 (3-door)
1993 Saab 900 Turbo (3-door)
1996 Saab 900 (5-door)
Brendan, Nice write up on what has always been for me, a slightly blurry vision of more recent Saabs.
I always loved the two stroke bull dog models that were all the rage for college professors in elbow patched tweed jackets, and later, long haired hippies who told me all about their trip to Woodstock.
Not that I indulge in automotive stereotypes. Not me.
But I lost interest in the newer models that didn’t leave a thin trail of blue smoke or make that unique Johnson Sea Horse sound when coming off high revs.
Why? Because when they went mainstream and four stroke, they also went upscale and they were then way out of my price range.
Thanks for clarifying these later Saabs for me.
PS, In the referenced movie, when the Cuba Gooding character is tying to get the others to make a trip on his behalf he offers them his car. They balk. He waves his keys and says “It’s a convertible”. Sold!
A long while back I was on a GM stockholder conference call where management admitted Saab lost them a lot of money. What was keeping them investing in Saab was the demographics, the PC term for stereotypes. The owners really were young, educated, and well off. Hard buyers to find in the GM universe.
I feel this was the beginning of the end for SAAB. I remember the reactions from more than one person when these came out – nobody was fooled to think it was anything but a tarted-up Vauxhall/Opel, and in this class badge engineering is a sin. Worse yet, from an engineering PoV it was a retrograde step with that cheap suspension and it showed. Pay BMW money for a Vauxhall Vectra? Nope. It might have looked good on paper but in the long run was a bad decision.
My close buddy bought a 1997 900 SE 5-door over the BMW and Mercedes, which were both small and expensive. The way the deals worked out the 900 SE 2.0 Turbo with 185 hp went up against the 318i and the C220. Both quite weak competitors.
Matt, here I don’t think it was that much cheaper than the equivalent BMW, MB or Audi. Also, please bear in mind that in the US most people were not aware of the cheapo Vauxhall/Opel connection like we were in the EU. To us it looked like the Cimarron did to you back in the 80s or the Catera in the 90s.
GM could have made the marque a BMW competitor with the right investment but their cheap cynicism killed it . I see this car all day in local adds for around $900 in good condition. her in the UK. Yes a running 4 seat convertible for the price of a Miata fit for parts only?. Nice one GM…
The biggest dickhead I ever worked for owned one of these, as did one of my closest friends. The dickhead still owns his. My friend moved onto a Cayenne GTS, but I still like her.
Personally, I prefer the previous gen 900 two-door fastback and vert shape more.
I will admit that my Saab-love sort of withered and died after the original 900 went away, so these just never got my attention. Saab had the same problem that Volvo had – neither was traditionally an expensive, high end car. Both, however, were forced into that role. Volvo managed the role a little better than Saab did, but neither did it really well.
When a friend was looking for a lightly used Volvo C70 convertible, he found 10 or 15 Saab convertibles for every C70 he came across. He suspected that GM had some attractive lease deals on these, and perhaps Saab buyers were more the “convertible type” than were Volvo buyers.
These were surprisingly nice cars. First of all, they were fast with a stick shift. Quite fast. In the predecessor model, you had to buy a 900 SPG, which was quite expensive, to get 185 hp. This model was fairly expensive on paper, but if my later experience was any guide, they dropped a price class when it came time to lease based on excellent incentives.
Within 2 years, the 2.0 turbo engine was in the base Saab 9-3, which was an excellent car with fewer faults than Brendan describes in my view.
First, this 900 SE was notable for it’s LACK of bodyroll. Saabs had been known for significant body roll for years, although less in the turbos than in the non-turbos, because of different uses of sway bars. One of the things that made previous Saabs so nice to drive was the long travel, double wishbone suspension in the predecessor. Here, the use of struts, combined with sway bars made for a flat cornering attitude. Harsh bumps did indeed get transmitted to the cabin, however as Brendan stated.
The biggest problem with this design was a problem I can only describe as a squirreliness in rear suspension on high speed sweeping corners. In the predecessor, there was a very stable attitude up to the limit, although if you had to apply brakes in high speed corner, the rear end would come around. But in this model, there was a sudden feeling of looseness and instability that would crop up on highway corners, at say 65 or 70 mph that was both uncomfortable and the most pronounced weakness of the car.
Regarding the body roll, I was basing that claim off of contemporary reviews of the 900 at the time. Most I’ve found mentioned some amount of it, ranging from noticeable to moderate. I’ve never actually driven a 900, only its 9-3 successor which I did notice some in addition to a lot of shakiness over bumps (and I was driving a 4-door). But of course I’m comparing it to much newer cars and especially not previous Saabs. I’ll take your word for it that NG900 was much improved in terms of body roll though 🙂
I associate this generation of 900 with one of my best automotive decisions: Not to buy one.
I loved Saabs, and owned a used 1988 900 Turbo in the mid 1990s. It was a great car — when it wasn’t in the shop. But being young and not really flush with cash at the time, well… that’s not the best time to own an expensive-to-repair European car. I sold it and bought a Mazda.
In about 2000, my older sister offered for me to buy her 1996 900. She had leased it, was about to give it back, and thoughtfully offered it to me first. Believe me, I thought long and hard about it. However — despite being generally nice to drive — it didn’t evoke the kind of interest that the earlier 900s did. To me, it was just an ordinary car with a hatchback and the ignition between the seats.
I declined the offer to buy her car. Good thing too, since reliability wasn’t one of its strong suits. I doubt I would have owned it for very long. While I often think about the Cars I Could Have Bought with regret, in the case of the ’96 900, I’m confident I made the right choice.
Consolation prize for these on the US market was that the 5-door hatch was available for the first time since the very early ’80s, since there was no four-door sedan.
When the thirdgen 900 came out only as a sedan (the SportCombi was a very late arrival iirc and with no inkling it was coming at the sedan’s launch), and with V6s being pushed instead of turbos, I began wondering why they didn’t just put the key alongside the steering column and call it a Buick Skylark.
Yeah the third gen lost the hatchback and lost horsepower, down to 175, and pushed me to a VW GTI 1.8T and then a VW Passat 2.0T instead.
Great write-up. I’m far less upset about the demise of Saab than I am about brands such as Pontiac and Olds, which is saying quite a bit, as I’ve personally never owned either of those domestic nameplates but did own 4 Saabs over the years. The ’86 900S was a fantastic car with stellar build quality, nice smooth low-end torque and amazing space utilization, and even though I acquired it as second car with quite a few miles on it, it got me hooked. My ’93 9000CSE was probably one of my favorite cars ever, and there’s where the love started to turn on me. Smitten with the Scandinavian approach to bells and whistles, I bought a 2000 9-3SE 5 door with high output turbo and 5 speed. It was fast, it was fun, it was pretty and it was a glossy black-on-black image machine that I loved getting into every morning. But it was a nightmare on many levels. During 3 years of ownership (and mind you, I bought it with 40k on it as a “certified” used car) I must have spent at least $6000 to keep it running and in tune. Bitten, but still not shy, I then picked up (after a divorce, a geographical move and a new shorter in-town commute) a ’95 900S convertible with the normally aspirated engine and automatic. That one I unloaded very shortly thereafter, as the top, with all of its motors, sensors and intricate ballet movements decided not to operate any more. Faced with the possibility of a $600-$1000 repair bill to have that addressed, I finally gave up on Saab. Ironically, I miss my Saabs terribly, and would still be tempted by a decent deal on something like our subject car. Some of us never learn. I guess the whole reason I don’t mourn Saab as I do Olds or Pontiac is because I know myself well enough to understand that were it still producing product I might be tempted, and stung again.
Hi MTN, I was reading an old article on saabs when I saw your 2016 comment.
I felt the same way as you when in 2020, I decided after looking at new performance cars here in Oz, that they were all way too expensive and if it was a quite pretty car, it was over $200,000…so I decided I would build my own!
Reply to me through here and I’ll send you some pics of my 1999 Saab 9³ SE Cabriolet, B204L 2lt turbo with 5sp gearbox. Everything is new, motor is blueprinted and upgraded. I doubt if you’ve ever seen a widebody version. This thing keeps it’s elegant lines even though there are many changes, all subtle although the big 17″ custom billet rims and tyres and big wheel arches are a bit ” in your face “.
I was tired of people putting these cars down when in fact the cabriolets were the safest in the world and they had plenty of power on tap.
I hope you reply and I hope you like what I and a few others have managed to build…I just wanted to create excitement in an otherwise quite boring car market down here, all the new cars look the same, even the modded cars are all copying other cars.
One could be forgiven for thinking this is a track car toned down for the street, but it’s actually quite set up for track application…it would only require a rollcage.
I liked your comment because it was exactly how I was feeling whilst”sitting on the fence” deciding what to do,
Cheers from Down Under,
Baz
My brother-in-law and sister had a ’95 four door sedan (Don’s primary ride, Beth had a Volvo 850) for about 5-6 years, offering it to me at trade-in time (I seem to remember Don getting a Subaru Forester next). I was really, really tempted but the knowledge that it was an automatic killed it for me.
Don rather loved the car, all the usual Saab quirks appealed to the engineer in him. It was a nickle and dimer, however. After the first three years it seemed like there was always some minor, non-critical thing that needed fixed on the car. No matter, I like it enough that I still would have taken it, had it not been for the automatic.
I still remember reading an article regarding GM’s takeover of Saab (C&D?), where the head honcho of GM Europe was reported to have said to the assembled press, “I see no real problems integrating Saab into GM. Looking at the current car, we can build something 99% as good right now out of the Opel parts bin.”
Cue massive heartburn on the part of Saab loyalists. I always figured, that was Saab’s death knell, even though I’ll freely admit that the company wouldn’t have survived as long as it did without GM.
Always figured this was the automotive equivalent of AMF Harley-Davidson. And just as appreciated. The difference, of course, is H-D got its freedom back and thrived.
“I always figured, that was Saab’s death knell, even though I’ll freely admit that the company wouldn’t have survived as long as it did without GM.”
I think that is the key point. Saab wasn’t going anywhere without help.
Interestingly, if Saab’s roots were closer to an everyman’s car than a luxury car, getting GM’s adequate European platform fits the car’s character more than some loyalists might want to admit.
At most, I admired Saab’s quirkiness from a distance. The convertibles were interesting and something different, but I had no real dog in GM Saab’s race for success. From that view, I thought GM did an admirable job with this particular car of building a vehicle that was unique and carried on the Saab heritage.
Big picture, GM never should have bought Saab. It likely would have died, eliminating a marginal competitor. Really, who else would have picked it up? GM needed to put the energy it put into building unique Saabs into building more unique product in its existing brands. That, to me, is the real sin of GM and Saab.
As I recall, before GM’s involvement Saab could not afford to develop a new platform. The most modern they had on tap was the 9000, which was developed in the early 1980s in conjunction with Lancia/Fiat/Alfa. I think they had some half-baked plans to cut and section the 9000 to produce a “new” 900.
Believe it or not there was an abortive plan to install a V8 in the 9000! (The engine was developed by their supplier Valmet and installed in at least one car for testing.) GM forced Saab to abandon the idea and install an existing V6 instead.
GM’s involvement with Saab was definitely a mixed bag but there’s not much doubt the company would have gone under a lot sooner otherwise.
We love that movie. As soon as I saw that car, that’s immediately where my brain went to as well. Love that movie so much our dog was named after the Simon character. 🙂
Maybe I’m wrong, but I think things might have turned out differently for Saab if GM had just infused a pile of cash and then stepped back and let the Saab “team” alone.
Instead of just seeing Saab as a good way to tap into a demographic that GM Europe, and America, couldn’t seem to crack, you have to wonder how quickly/slowly Saab would have died. CAR magazine had several features detailing future model plans that you have to believe COULD have made a difference but instead GM restricted Saab to using as many “generic” parts out of it’s European “parts bin”.
There is speculation that GM’s other (former) “S” brand is tethering on a brink….sort of like Saab in the late 80s/early 90s.
I do think these cars are attractive looking, but everyone I know who’s owned a “Post GM” Saab has said they were “nickle and dimer” cars.
Nice write up of a car I just never could connect with. Yes, the last real Saabs for me were the (real) 900 and 9000. I knew GM’s purchase of Saab would not end happily.
One very minor niggle: the Saab 96 used a rigid beam rear axle, not a twist beam. The twist beam is a newer invention, and first used by the VW Golf, IIRC.
Regardless of color I will always associate these with Seinfeld.
Hey! I have one of these sitting in the driveway! She started life as a triple black 97 SE Talladega (no white seats) 2.0T. In about 2004 I started to get bored with the blandness and tired of everybody asking “Is that a Sebring?” and started customizing. What’s more atypical than a SAAB with “lambo doors”? LOL, the sins of a misspent youth…
I also had a 97 Talladega 5 door for a while that was reminiscent of my deceased/ totaled Rover 827 SLi. There was so much potential in these cars that went unexploited from the factory and are fairly easy to wrench on once you “get” the Ikea/Lego theme of convoluted simplicity.
“Sky Blue” is nice, but I’m absolutely rabid about the “Cosmic Blue” in this generation and what is more of an anti-depressant than a “Springtime in Sweden Yellow” SAAB convertible?
To the owner of the subject vehicle: Please, for the love of all that is OCD, please just remove the broken front chrome trim and electrical tape! 2 springs that are probably rusted through and it’s off!
Good article and nice looking Blue Saab, but since my family has owned Saabs since the 1960s I am biased. My grandpa bought a 1997 900 in the early 2000s which was kind of a piece of junk and was replaced by a 1996 9000 when the head gasket failed(?) that he still has eight years later. The 1988 900 that was replaced by the 1997 outlasted its replacement and was finally retired when it could not pass safety inspection due to rust.
I had a ’01 99 5-door. Yes the GM chassis was not sophisticated with its flinty floaty ride, however the body and interior were excellent, and the 2.0T was maybe the smoothest four in its time. Great seats too.
Just took a road trip in my pal’s 9-3. Slightly different but not all that much. I too was disappointed in the early NG 900 fit and finish, having spent much time in my uncle’s pre-GM Saabs, which he kept immaculate (also to add to the stereotype: Boston-based engineer at GE). But twenty years on I must say in was pretty impressed with the solidity of the 9-3, its roadfeel, and excellent convertible sound deadening. As someone who DDs a rattly E30 Cabrio, it was astonishing. Also incredibly roomy for a two door vert!
as always Brendan, another concise, educational review!
to play off that old phrase “he can talk the talk but can he walk the walk?”
if you talk the talk with your clients like you write I can see an long and successful line of returning clients who leave you feeling educated, empowered, entertained and looking forward to their next vehicle purchase!
awesome job!
Great write up Brendan. My garage queen 2004 Aero gets lots of compliments when I take it out….a lot of younger people are unfamiliar with “Sabe(?)”, especially here in Texas where Saab had a small presence to begin with. Still love popping that top though!
I DD a 3 door hatch. Bare bones basic, no turbo, no heated seats 🙁
Of all the 4 cyl cars I’ve driven, this has the most characterful engine. The sound of the motor at freeway speeds is a delight. The seats are wonderful and the structure feels like a vault.
Suspension wise, the rear end feels a bit loose when taking a roundabout at certain speeds, but overall it feels planted.
The heater is industrial grade. I have yet to put it in full hot. Middle setting works a charm for really cold days. One of the surprises is that along the rear demister, it’s got heated mirrors.
And it is a breeze for servicing regular items, althought some others are a PITA.
Looking forward to get a newer 9-3 or 9-5