(first posted 3/15/2018) It’s almost hard to imagine a time before there was a Saab hatchback, as that body style became so deeply enmeshed with that brand for so long. But prior to 1974, the Saab 99 was just a trunked sedan. And the new hatchback was a big deal, as in a big cargo area. They were right to call it a “wagonback”, as the Saab’s deep floor and tall body made a cavernous space.
My sister had one just like this, in Anchorage, Alaska, and she used to rave about it, especially coming from an air-cooled VW Beetle. It was her first nice new car, and it suited her, her big dog, and her environs perfectly. just how reliable it was may well be another story.
The test car suffered numerous quality issues, from loose trim to ugly sounds from the front suspension. But other than that, R&T was quite impressed.
It’s interesting that they never built a full wagon of the 99/900 series, which it would’ve been well suited for. Apparently one was drawn up but it was a two-door which would’ve required further expense to convert to a four-door once demand for two-door wagons dried up after the ’70s.
safari
The practicality of this car reminds me more of the 80s, than the early to mid 70s. Those interior pics could have been taken in 1984, not 1974.
I don’t know 1974 car prices very well, but I do know that $5200-5500 in 1974 was a lot of money for a car. Probably the MSRP of a base Cadillac De Ville that year.
I didn’t realize the wheelbase was only 97.5″. That’s about the same as a MkII Golf (the Mk1 Rabbit, and Pinto/Mustang II were both 94″). This Saab is less than 3″ longer than a Vega, yet was a roomy car.
More usable passenger room than a Colonnade 2-dr, for the size of a Vega, and the price of a Cadillac.
A new Holden Kingswood six with trimatic was $4,400 NZ pesos in 74.
Excluding the steep price, and based on their general specs, this car looks like it would have been fully competitive with the Topaz/Cavalier/Shadow well into the 1990s. Almost twenty years later.
$5200 in 1974 is $27,784.40 today.
If I could find a new car of that quality, engineering and fun to drive, I would jump on it. Most are more today and boring to boot, IMO.
Just find yourself another C900T. I did for $2,250 and I’m pleased as a peach!
The cheapest BMW 2002 was $5000. Cheapest SAAB 99 was 4500. Sedan DeVille was $8100 with more equipment.
Cheapest Volvo was $4750.
I paid $4200 for a new (leftover) SAAB 99L in February of ’74. I would have bought a Wagonback if the small town MD dealer had one. Their inventory was 3 99s like mine in green, red and blue, and 2 96s in blue and green. My best friend liked mine so much he bought the red 99 one. I kept mine 2 years, he kept his for 20, the last 10 in dead storage) and finally parted with it only at the behest of SWMBO.
The caption of the pix of the cargo area crack me up. Makes it sound like magic when the cargo area “appears”. Where was R&T when the Simca 1204 showed up years earlier?
Everyone suddenly discovered hatchbacks over about a two year period in the early 70s. Ford took a Sawzall to the back of the Pinto, Chevy did the same to the Nova, AMC opened up the back of the Hornet.
Around 06 a coworker leased a Saab. Of course he was geeked on Saabs and pushing me to get one. I pointed out that Saab no longer sold hatchbacks in the US. He said they had hatchbacks in the owner’s manual, so I showed him the Saab web site: no hatchbacks.
The Simca 1100 and 1204 was not suited for American roads. I had a 1970 1100 and the hydrophilic clutch screwed up a lot and I had to adjust the valves every 3k miles. It could not climb up a steep hill in 4th gear, it was under powered.
That said, it was fun to drive and almost always started in winter. It preformed well on snow covered roads and having a radiator, it actually had nice heat. The overall layout was very functional and with the rear seat folded down, it could carry a lot of stuff.
It should have killed off the VW Bug, but Chrysler just didn’t market it correctly.
As smaller cars became mainstream items in the US, the enormous and mostly useless trunk became less common. A family of four could get around just fine in a smaller car, but you couldn’t easily carry a big item. There was a size anxiety for those occasional uses, like the current anxiety about being able to take an occasional long trip in an electric car. The hatchback relieved that anxiety.
Always loved the versatility and quirkiness of these cars, but the quality and ergonomic issues are surprising. You’d think a company with an aviation background would sweat the details a little more. Granted, with a small manufacturer you expect some issues, and I still miss SAAB.
I miss Saab, but only the real Saabs like this one. By the end, GM had stripped all the uniqueness out of Saabs – they thought if you take a basic GM sedan, incorporate a few traditional design cues like the grille and taillamp shape, and put the ignition switch on the floor, you got a Saab. But those things were just incidental to their appeal. Given how ordinary the last 9-3s or the 9-4x’s (the SRX-based crossover that about 800 people bought) were, I wasn’t sorry to see them go.
I carpooled to school in a Saab 99 (2 door, not a Wagonback) for a year and found it roomy and comfortable with few ergonomic glitches. Unlike R&T, I found the buckle-less shoulder belts clever and easy to use – just loop the webbing over a hook, no need to hunt around for the latch and insert it. The one flaw I remember was wipers that seemed oriented for a RHD car, leaving a large section on the left of the windshield in front of the driver upwiped. They fixed that on the 900.
Agree real SAABs were the pre- ’93/94 C-900s, we’ve had 5 of those, but we’ve also had 5 post-GM (1999 to 2007) models (3 x 9-3s and 2 x 9-5s) in our family over the last 20 years and they drove very well. SAAB engineers made MANY changes to the GM chassis and specs. Of course they had their quirks: dodgy Euro-electric (electricentricites?) issues with age along with crappy quality GM pieces, but they were actually excellent drivers and overall very durable drivetrains and chassis, with minor exceptions, mainly suspension (bearings etc on the 9-5s). Yes they had their faults, but criticism tends to come from those that haven’t owned them. They were a cut above the GM cars that they were derived from, all credit to Trollhattan.
I had forgotten that these went back this far. Perhaps it was moving from smaller Fort Wayne to Indianapolis in the early 80s but I saw Saabs out and about in the 80s while I am not sure I can recall seeing even one in the 70s.
I sometimes still wonder what life might have been like had I succumbed to the case of Saab Turbo Fever I had around 1984-85.
I had the same fever at the same time. Interesting how that must have spread on the air currents. Mine went into remission but never fully went away, came back like a herpes sore every year or so, right about when the new model year started.
R&T were even more impressed with its successor, which I uploaded here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/vintage-reviews/vintage-review-saab-900-turbo/
Interestingly the engines on the early 99s were sourced from Triumph. Quality and reliability were, to be kind, not the greatest. Production was brought in-house in 1972 and over time most of the ‘British Car Syndrome’ problems were engineered out of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_slant-four_engine
I knew 3 Saab 900 owners in the 1980s. The (Triumph-derived) engine was fine but…
Transmissions were different.
My first, a college pal from an affluent family, had a 900 Turbo. He enjoyed lighting up the tires on occasion. He needed a new manual trans at 2yrs/ 30k miles. I chalked it up to abuse.
Second was our admin person. She also had a 900 Turbo, orig owner. She had trans issues (but by the late 80s car was 6-7 yrs old, and had close to 100k miles–90k or 110k).
Third was a co-worker. He bought a used 900 4-dr automatic. He had trans issues too.
Yes, the transmission in the original 900 is quite fragile. The trans was actually designed for the 99 which was lighter and had less power. Adding a 5th gear didn’t make it any stronger either. (I’ve read that Saab racing enthusiasts prefer the 4-speed due to its being stronger.) The automatic was a front-drive version of the old Borg-Warner 3-speed slushbox.
Those old 900s are great cars, but transmission rebuilds are practically scheduled maintenance with them especially if you have a turbo and use it.
Triumph made pretty good engines. OK – the Stag V8 had its problems but all 4 and 6 cilinders were mostly trouble free.
Saab made good use of suppliers of your “British Car Syndrome” country. Lucas, Girling, SU, Stromberg etc were suppliers to many car makes in Sweden and Italy for many, many years. Yes, quality varied especially in the 70s. Even “quality” Saab got its share as mentioned in this R&T test.
It’s pretty amazing to me how much this 1974 99 Wagonback and my 1988 900 base model hatchback have in common. I believe the nose was lengthened for safety when the model became the 900, and of course there was a 5-speed and a facelift including “aero” headlights, but otherwise, just some basic updates like seats, seatbelts and gauges!
I don’t recall the spare being perched upright on the left of the cargo area like this one. Did they move it under the floor on later models? And what was under the floor on the early-70s 99s?
I think my spare was under the floor, and was probably a mini-spare…
Yeah, Triumph engine design was garbage. I once replaced a water pump and it took two or three tries before we had a non leaker. Dumb engineering run rampant.
I never owned one, but always liked them after the 99 came out. Too bad the dollar crash made them so expensive. In New England, before Subaru took over the slot Saab left, this was a favorite winter car.
My parents divorced in 1994. Mother moved to a small apartment in Bend, Oregon to start. She had no sofa.
My sister and her 900, meanwhile, were in Portland. And at Christmas, we managed to jam a spare sofa into the back of that car. The hatch wouldn’t quite close, but we taped it up with some plastic sheeting. And we drove over Hood Pass in nasty weather.
I’ll always remember that car for its role in that humanitarian mission.
Ugly sounds from the front suspension? Must be a Swede thing as my 245 Volvo did the same despite said suspension being fully rebuilt. But with it’s IPD sway bars and Koni struts, who cared. That box handled like a slot car.
Design aged very well.
At a relative’s repair shop in an affluent NY suburb through the 1980s, getting quite a few of these in. We didn’t like them: hard to work on. Their owners were loyal to the marque though, but they were expensive to maintain.
1975 was peak Saab. They still had D-Jetronic fuel injection in 1974. When they switched to K-Jetronic, there was only a five-horsepower difference in claimed output, but the 99 went from being fairly slow to being about the quickest four-cylinder car on the US market.
I’m a big hatchback fan but never got around to one of these….though my brother-in-law, who has easily owned 10x the number of cars I have, had one way back when, he told me it was very easy to replace the clutch.
We lived in Vermont in the 60’s and Saabs were very common, but I think they were a bit more pricey than my Dad wanted to spend on a 2nd car, such that he never had one either. His 2nd car started out as a used ’59 Beetle, but when that got totalled, he bought a new ’68 Renault R10. By the time we’d moved back to Vermont in ’75, he ended up getting a new ’76 Subaru DL, which back then were FWD rather than AWD (I think they offered a 4wd wagon). Dad didn’t need the hatchback since our “first” car was a large domestic wagon in those days. At some point Subarus became more popular up there than Saab (maybe because of the cost, and also Subaru made AWD standard?). We’ve not lived up there since ’82 (though my Niece now does).
Wish they still offered these, I’d likely try one. I don’t really want to abandon hatchbacks but they are mostly no longer offered as new cars…and I don’t need or want a CUV/SUV.