Swiss-American socialite Jocelyn Wildenstein continued to have facelifts so she would look more like a cat. The Saab 9-5 continued to have them so it would look like it was still a competitive offering in the premium midsize segment. Who was more misguided, Jocelyn or the team at Saab?
It must have been hard for Saab. The features it had long been known for – no, not the gimmicks like its ignition placement, but rather the FWD drive layout and turbo engines – were becoming increasingly popular with other brands. And although Ford poured money into Volvo, affording it an expansive model range, GM kept the spigot taut with Saab.
1997 9-5
That sounds like it wouldn’t be a problem for Saab, considering the overly long generational cycles of their products. After all, the 99 and its revised 900 replacement were sold for 25 years in total. But as GM took the Saab brand mainstream, they could no longer rely on the quirky Vermont college professor market. Going mainstream was somewhat of a double-edged sword: there were theoretically more buyers but, in turn, greater demands to keep one’s product fresh and desirable to them.
The 9-5 sold well enough initially. In Europe, it managed 30-36,000 units annually, on par with its Swedish rival the Volvo S60. In the US, it sold more than twice as well as its 9000 predecessor. But by 2006, European sales had waned slightly and US sales had flatlined. A mild yet attractive facelift in 2002 had kept the car fresh but for most cars that would have been a mid-cycle enhancement. The 9-5’s Epsilon-based replacement was still three years away, leaving Saab to put the 9-5 under the knife once again.
Before and after
The result was less than convincing and the changes made the car look like a bad Chinese redesign. To use another analogy, it was like wedging an older lady into a 20-year old’s clubbing dress. Originally, the lady looked old, yes, but dignified. Maybe you couldn’t tell exactly how old she was, but you would certainly figure it out from the exposed cellulite and varicose veins after her makeover. The 9-5’s restyled front and rear exposed the age of the design. The redesigned front end, in particular, was overwrought; one internet commenter made me chuckle by referring to the chrome-lined headlights as resembling eyeliner around the eyes of a sleepy prostitute.
No matter how unattractive a car may be, somebody will like the look. What really matters is how the car drives. Sadly, by 2006 the 9-5 was none too impressive. This was a car in one of the most intensely competitive segments in the market; with a starting price of around $34k, the 9-5 was priced directly against the Acura TL, Lexus ES, Infiniti G35, and Volvo S60. But the newly standard (in North America) 2.3 turbocharged four-cylinder engine, although punchy (260 hp, 258 ft-lbs) and fuel-efficient (18/27 mpg), came with old-school turbo lag.
Ride quality was commendable but the cabin was noisier than rivals’, while torque steer and excessive vibration remained issues. In the mid-size segment, these flaws could potentially be excused. Not in the premium mid-size segment.
The 9-5 couldn’t even hang its hat on its sport sedan (or sport wagon) credentials. Steering was vague, while handling was less than compelling. The end result was a car that could do neither luxury nor sport convincingly. The final nail in the coffin was the dated interior, the 2006 facelift doing too little to keep it looking fresh. To Saab’s credit, this was more than a nose job: the suspension was retuned, the less powerful engines axed (in North America) and the price slashed. But it was too little, too late, and to be sold for too long.
The awkward 2006 9-5 was yet more ignominy for the neglected and mistreated Saab brand. After the 9-5 spent ten years on the market – an eternity in that segment – Saab finally introduced its replacement. The new 9-5 still used a GM platform but now deftly blended Saab heritage design cues, both inside and out, with a fresh and up-to-date look. But it arrived right as GM was going through bankruptcy proceedings and trying to offload Saab. Saab eventually found a Chinese buyer after both the Koenigsegg and Spyker purchase attempts fell through but GM refused to let them use the brand new 9-5 and 9-4X models due to intellectual property concerns. This meant the 10-year old 9-5 was succeeded by a new generation that lasted just 2 years.
It didn’t even live long enough to see a bad facelift.
Photographed in Washington Heights, NY in May 2017.
Related Reading:
CC Capsule: 2011 Saab 9-4x 3.0i XWD Premium – The Holy Grail
CC Capsule: 2005 Saab 9-2x – A WRX in Saab’s Clothing
What a great opening reference! I remember “The Bride of Wildenstein” vividly (who wouldn’t), and have always wondered why the hell someone would do that.
Jocelyn was definitely the more misguided one, as its likely a lot of her “modifications” are permanent.
I had sort of stopped paying attention to Saab by the time the facelift made its debut. I guess I wasn’t alone.
I once worked with a guy who had bought one of the pre-facelift versions used for not too much money. It was kind of interesting, but nothing that made me want one. I guess my brief but torrid love affair with a Saab Turbo around 1985 just burned itself out.
I have no problem with the styling. I like it better than some new cars.
Saab’s big problem was they sold for Lexus prices, without Lexus quality or reliability!
How could they not fail?
Happy Motoring, Mark
I think the Cat Lady metaphor works nicely, here, given that the shape of the headlamps / chrome surrounds is very cat-like.
I actually didn’t mind the restyle that much. Sure, adding excess chrome was a little tacky, but that’s something fairly typical for a second and final facelift of a long-in-the-tooth model. What was most disappointing to me was that chassis and handling were simply wasn’t competitive with other premium sport/luxury sedans.
I don’t think it looks all that bad. And it’s still a “proper” station wagon, so lots of marks for that.
Agree with you on the chrome headlight surrounds. The low profile tires, spoilers and side skirts do nothing for me either.
It looks like a Saab, but in the aftermarket rice kit way not the cohesive factory built way.
From some angles, I think it works rather well. From others, not so much, but it’s still a decent effort. The wagon carried it off better, though–the sedan looked kind of stodgy by 2004 or so and was way behind by the end.
The 9-5 in general was kind of forgettable though–not really a performance car, not really a luxury car, too mainstream to be quirky, too quirky to be mainstream. A friend bought one (a ’98, I think) in 2004 to replace his totaled Audi coupe Quattro, in large part because he got a screaming deal on it. I don’t even think he had it for a year before deciding it wasn’t for him, and replaced it with a ’99 540i, much more of a proper driver’s car. Another friend bought the 9-5 and kept it for a number of years, but considering his prior ride was a ’97 Monte Carlo, he found it quite an upgrade.
Still regret selling my 2012 93TTiD. Wonderful cars, even if imperfect.
Thought you still had it :/ what did you replace it with?
A 9-3 Turbo X and (especially) a 9-5 Turbo Aero XWD are still on my dream list, even though I’m a Volvo guy
Told you not ot sell the Last SAAB in Scotland.
“Sleepy Prostitute…”
Awesome. I dunno I did like that redo somewhat in the sedan at least, in dark blue metallic I thought it was OK but really not GRAND. What was GRAND was my bluntnose 9KT….. so pretty.
Anyway funny this story would run today as I went down to PDX to retrieve another face lift SAAB…. this one being the faux Viggen parts bin 2003 9^3 SE.
http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2016/05/kingcast-says-if-saab-had-me-on.html
Cheers.
Poor old Saab. As a former 9000 owner watching GM wreck the brand through abject neglect was both sad and painful. Humour helped though: hereabouts we referred to this godawful mess as the “9-5 Edna Everage Edition” 😀
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dame_Edna_Everage
Dang. Wrong photo above, sorry.
Some black plastidip makes it into one handsome looking car.
Facelifts are always difficult and in retrospect the original remain s the better looking.
I can think of 3 successful facelifts – the 1968 Triumph 2000/2500, the 1979 XJ6 series 3 and the 1983 Vauxhall Carlton.
Off the top of my head, the 1981 GM G-body coupes also qualify. The Monte Carlo benefited especially, and the vast majority of folks (myself included) found the Regal and Grand Prix to be improvements over the ’78-’80 versions. As to the Cutlass Supreme I like the older one a bit more, but the updated version was more modern without a doubt.
Funny, as the sedans (IMO) lost something in the transition.
Those brainless, arrogant, penny pinching asshats at GM killed SAAB. That merger should have been prohibited! SAAB’s had more ingenuity and character in one single car that GM’s entire fleet of hideous, insipid clunkers. I only hope that the Chinese can bring SAAB back.
I had three Saab 9-5 wagons. Why you’d buy the sedan is befuddling. The wagon, against its competitors (of which we owned two, a Volvo V70 and a BMW 325it) was dynamic, cheap, capacious, brilliantly swift, with superb seats, fuel economy and after seven Volvos- and I was a DIEHARD fan, it was vastly more reliable and trouble free. The second was just to get the Aero. Then it was totaled (by a Volvo driver) and I begrudgingly bought the facelifted third one. Like an ugly child, you learn to love it and damn if it wasn’t my favorite. I ditched it as they were about to fold but the Saab 9-5 was a fine automobile treat. We still have a 2002 BMW wagon and it is exceptional, yet I miss so many attributes of the 9-5.