It’s interesting to read this review of a Saab 99, from a time before it morphed into the more mature 900. The 99 had a lot of positives: a roomy yet compact body, comfortable seats with heating even, something that was highly unusual at the time, and safety features well ahead of the times. One of the more unusual things is that it already had 5 mph bumpers, in advance of the regulations that started in 1973. R&T doesn’t state the model year, but this magazine is from February 1972, and there was some lead time, so presumably Saab decided to get a head start.
That added some 200lbs, so the new larger 1.85L version of the Triumph-designed engine was a good call. With fuel injection, it ran well, but it was certainly not a fast car, with a 12.7 second 0-60 time. And there were a few other shortcomings, such as quite heavy steering (something that power assist soon mitigated).
note: images are of a European Saab 99
I wasn’t aware that seatbelt use once recommended the shoulder portion be worn loose, that seems antithetical to the whole point, interesting.
Also interesting the the Euro version pictured (the beige one) seems to have the US bumpers. Or perhaps the bumpers were the same but the mounting hardware is what was different (?)
In any case, a good read, I can’t recall how I would do the key thing when driving older Saabs, I *think* I would tend to put it in reverse BEFORE shutting the engine off instead of after. It wasn’t ever as smooth as selecting first gear though, partly due to the shift collar thing. But it’s (sadly) been a while since those experiences for me.
Here’s a slightly later model 99 from the junkyard with different bumpers again and of course a hatchback… https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/junkyard/junkyard-classic-1977-saab-99gl-combi-coupe-in-its-element/
Other auto makers advised wearing the shoulder belts loose. When GM had fixed (non inertia-reel ) shoulder belts, they advised about 2 or 3 inches slack, enough to slide your fist between your chest and the belt.
If you’ve ever tried a fixed shoulder harness snugly with no or minimal slack you’ll understand why, the reduced upper body mobility impairs your driving even if it makes the belts more effective.
Ah yes, I was picturing the inertia reels, I know exactly what you mean now for cars without such, thanks!
A Triumph designed engine is probably never a good idea.
There were a lot of quality problems with the Triumph-sourced engines used in the early Saab 99s. Saab later took the engine in-house and engineered most of the British Car Syndrome problems out of it, and it ultimately went on to power the 900, 1st-gen 9-3, 9000, and 9-5.
Did Saab ever design an engine from scratch? Seems they went from the DKW-clone two-stroke, to the Euro-Ford V4 to this Triumph design to the PRV V6 to GM engines.
I don’t think they actually ever did. They also didn’t use the PRV.
Saab actually developed atleast one engine, a beast. What about a DOHC 242 cu inch V8? Made in 5 prototypes by Saab Valmet in Finland, tested in a fwd Saab 9000. One functional driveanle cars exist.
Google ‘Saab V8’ and you will find some interesting pages and films about the engine.
SAAB tried to use the alloy Lancia V4, would be VR4 in VW-Speak. German Ford V4 engine had used SAABs as test mules for this engine, for use in the aborted-for-USA Cardinal. This car released in Germany as Taunus 12M.
Surprise! The Lancia engine was too expensive. Lighter weight would have been nice.
I’m pretty sure SAAB tried out the related Triumph Stag V8 in the 99, before deciding that turbocharging was the way forward. Would’ve been a memorable machine, though likely not for good reasons – a really unreliable engine installed backwards above gearbox against the firewall!
BL in their infinite wisdom let Triumph essentially weld two of them together into a 4 litre V-8. It was installed in the rather cool (but odd) looking Stag and it was a disaster from day one. It leaked from every orifice and always ran hot because of a poorly designed cooling system.
Even more absurd was making this expensive, low volume engine in the first place because the superb Rover V-8 was the go-to power motor of the era. Being US designed, it didn’t overheat, made lots of torque and was lighter.
It’s shocking how fast the British car industry crashed, and rightly so, since their cars were largely rubbish compared to German, American and even Japanese cars of the era.
Pardon – Trying to contain control of Self. You are Quite Droll. You should be awarded a lounge chair + beverages to observe the next removal of SAAB/TR7/Stag head(s). Bring a good quantity of beverages.
Strangest thing about the 99 to me is that the four-door was so late to the party. You’d think with the two-door 96 continuing in production indefinitely, if they had only the budget for one body style at launch it would’ve been the four-door.
A test price of $3900 sans A/C in mid 1972 seems a bit high. However, it does have fuel injection which was still rare for the times.
In 1972 a base Monte Carlo was $3389 with freight, although I doubt any went out the door for less than $5000 since they were wildly popular.
A common or garden Chevelle, nicely equipped, was around $4000, but dropping the a/c made it $3600.
https://www.winvoices.com/samples-chevy.php
So yes, these were not cheap cars. No Swedish car has ever been cheap. Their volumes were always minuscule so they cost a lot. In 1972 North America, most folks would go with the nicely done Chevelle Coupe. It has a 350, THM350 and buckets and even a/c, which was not even a dream in a 1972 Saab. I’d take the Chevelle with the 350 4bbl in a heartbeat. By this point, GM was making some good driving cars. Saab? What’s that?
When I was a kid in Quebec there were always a few of these around and Volvos, too but the cost kept most away from the unwashed masses.
Any Chevrolet Chevelles around?
Any Saab 99s around?
A slight digression, but what are the heated and cooled door panels of the Mercedes350SL they refer to here, some early airscarf-type thing? I’ve never heard of it before.
Still the best-looking Saab body style. The back seat folded down, making it almost hatchback-like (I waited out a blizzard in Kansas in ’82? by sleeping there, longitudinally).
My ’73 was carbureted, and not the least bit reliable. But I loved that car.
In all these classic reviews of smaller cars I’ve become fascinated by the gearing…in this case yielding 3,450rpm at 60mph. How can that have possibly been pleasant…particularly at 70 or 80mph…or efficient, or good for reliability and longevity.
Is there an engineering obstacle that explains why it took so long for the industry to develop 5 and 6 speed manuals? It seems like these cars, their engineers, and their owners, must have been begging for them.
It wasn’t pleasant a bit, nor was it good for the engines. I recall my 1971 Fiat 850 Coupe running at redline on the California freeway, mile after mile after mile. Absolutely screaming, don’t recall road speed, but certainly not much over 70-75 MPH. Engine was exhausted by 30,000 miles, needed overhaul by 32,000, toast by 55,000 miles. [The rest of the car was in an advanced state of decay, too, but that’s another story.] European cars of that vintage were mostly not well designed for American road conditions. Even some of the big names struggled, with cooling systems inadequate for our climate, bulky air conditioners with pitifully inadequate output, primitive automatic transmissions, and pricy audio systems from storied names that could charitably be described as listening to a bee in a tin can. And Saab? A fairly roomy car, weird and endearing, but a beast to drive in the city and not very reliable.
70-80 MPH was not as common then as it is now. However, my 1974 Chevy pickup with an Inline 6 and a 3 speed manual does nearly the same RPM at 70 MPH as my 2005 Honda Element AWD 5 speed did.
A Triumph engine with a transaxle in the oil-pan. What’s not to like!
The in-block shaft-driven water-pump added to the disasters for a friend of mine that owned one of these in the ’80s.
He took it to an alleged Saab mechanic, who installed the wrong pump, breaking the drive-gear inside the engine. A 12 volt electric boat pump was his only economical solution to allow the car to run long enough to sell it. The weekend the ad ran in the paper, the engine’s CIS-FI system caught fire!
it took us a year to get it sorted with used FI parts, in addition to dealing with a failed fuel pump and starter.
I’d take one of the old funky two-stroke or V4 Saabs over a 99 any day.
This Saab gave me a new appreciation for Fiats!
Happy Motoring, Mark
There were two different intermediate shafts and water pump drive gears. Early 2.0s had 8 teeth and the later had 12. Water pumps, distributor drive gears and intermediate shafts all had to match . If not one got your friend’s result. There was a special tool the rotated the water pump shaft backwards as it was installed to prevent damage to the shaft. Once the water pump drive shaft was installed then the impeller was pressed onto the shaft with a left-hand thread nut. It’s no wonder that the “H” engine was considered a better engine. It was introduced in MY 1981. The 16V head ( for production) was placed on the block. The “H’ engine continued in production until 2010. As far as I know, it’s still being produced by BIAC in China.
Fun to read this article. December 2020, I purchased a ‘72 99E. It came from the original owner’s family and is a well preserved example. It is not the fastest car, but it handles well on its new Vredestein tires and is a unique ride. Most of the Triumph- engined 99s are gone in the US at least (ok, most 99s are gone too!) but having previously owned 4 99s (and 3 900s) with the Swedish built 2.0 B engine that was introduced for the ‘73s and comparing to this, the power is not that much less and parts don’t seem to be an issue with so many TR7s sold here and plentiful suppliers. it shifts smoothly and is fun to drive.
Nice find! Hope you’re still enjoying it!
Absolutely!
Kurt,
Is this the one that was on Bring-A-Trailer a few months back? It’s amazing how few of the 99s made it to today — especially given how many were made compared to the Sonett IIIs.
Michael
Yes and agreed. They were pretty much off the roads here by the mid to late 1980s. Certainly, the early Triumph engine 99s were. I think many Sonetts were used as 3rd cars and put away/saved. The 99s were workhorses/family cars, supplanted by the 900 and largely forgotten.