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.
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.
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.
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.
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.