I took a test drive in the Saab 9-5 (non Aero) and must say that it's a very nice car. Don't get me wrong, the A6 is also really nice but I find it difficult to decide between the two.

I'd like to hear from people who have evaluated both cars.

Thank you in advance.

Vincent

I drove the Aero only. I liked it but had hoped it would be less $$. I mean no disrespect to the Saab folks, but felt if it was going to be as much as an Audi, I might as well buy the Audi.... I felt it was a little "small." I don't take the actual numbers into account, as much as how it felt. I felt much more "shoulder to shoulder" with the passenger. I also wanted more power. My left knee kept hitting the steering wheel during shifting, but felt the auto lacked punch. All in all, a fine car, just not the same feeling I got when driving the Audi. Take the $$ comment with a grain of salt: I ended up moving past the 2.7 price, and bought a 4.2. Go figure.... Good luck.

Both are excellent, but very different cars. In my case, I have a '99.5 A6 2.8 and a 9-5 V6 wagon. Clearly, the V6 is a peppier car than the Audi. The Saab also has a firmer ride. That being said, the Audi feels much more stable to me in the corners and is a slightly more comfortable ride cruising on the freeway. I find the Audi seats (non-sport) to be more supportive than the Saab seats (very poor lateral support). The Audi interior is also much "ritzier" looking than the Saab interior, but to be fair the Saab is nice and the Audi is "ritzier" than almost every other car out there besides Jags.

Now, as far as price goes, Saab suffers from even poorer marketing than Audi, so although the 9-5 is an excellent car, Saab sales drop as soon as Saab removes finance and lease incentives from the car. This means that Saabs can be a bargain compared to an A6 (depending on the A6 variant in question).

Any more questions? Feel free to drop me an e-mail

Mitch

The big difference is in the handling, imho. Especially prevelent in the Saab is a good amount of torque steer vs. our 4.2. It's a knock down drag out fight sometimes to right the ship especially if you're in Sport mode with the Saab. Understeer is an understatement, but it's a nice car nonetheless. The wife drove an Aero wagon during the recall day and she reported the handling was much more responsive than our 200hp V6.

I don't know much about the 9-5. I owned a 9000turbo back 7 years or so. It was an absolute lemon, nothing but constant problems. I wonder if this was isolated, or has saab had reliability problems? If so, have they corrected them?
Doc

When I was in the market I didn't consider Saab for a second. First, to me, it is an ugly car. Second, according to the reports, it has a ton of torque steer. Lastly, some years ago I drove a new Turbo, and it was a bucket of bolts. Those types of impressions do linger- right or wrong.

If you don't mind the torque steer, interesting handling characteristics of SAABs, and can get a good deal, go for the 9-5 Aero..

Watch out for Turbo models, they get unreliable as the years wear on, and can be very costly to fix.. Look out for weak automatic transmissions.. Almost all turbo models in the past equipped with an auto box have problems down the road.. A defect that I hope SAAB has fixed in the 9-5..

A low sales price may seem to make the car a bargain, but if the depreciation falls off a cliff (as apparently it does with Saabs), the actual cost of ownership could be quite high.

As all the car mags say, they are quirky cars intentionally not for everyone. Which is both good and bad, as GM relearns each sales quarter.

My dad has a 99 9-5 wagon and we have an 01 A6 Avant. The Saab has much lower visability, but it's faster than the Avant. My dad loves the ventilated seats, and the Saab does have a refrigerated glove box, which I now see Volvo has too but in the back seat arm rest.

But the Avant is more beautiful inside and out, and that Saab key placement is very strange. Plus Saab doesn't offer all wheel drive. I don't think the two really compete because the Saab isn't for winter driving. Saab also doesn't offer xenon lights.<p>rj

Where I live we have snow 9 months of the year.
From my experience FWD Saab's are some of the best winter cars you can get.

I quote, "They're FWD, and no one ever gave a $h!t about a Saab."

Of course, an Omni on Hak-10's is unstoppable in the snow.

FWD Audis are also very good in winter, but nothing on God's white Earth can touch AWD. Quattro being the best of that bunch. I'm not saying that you should drive 100mph in 4" of snow on all-season tires, but that is a level of capability that few others can attain. FWD works, but drive a quattro one winter and you will never go back.<p>Todd W

My friends, friends father owned sabbs and then got an audi .. he said he would never get another sabb ever again and loves his audi to death.. he had tons of problems with the saab.. when i told one of my friends i was thinking about the 9-3 aero edition (the faster one) he asked me why and said they are pieces of ****.. he knows a lot of people with them and has driven his friends on various acastions.. hope this helps and good luck<p>Johnny A.

I have no opinion on SAAB, but a while ago
I test drove a 9-5 Aero. There was minimal
torque steer. The engine electronics are
very modern and the car is able to maintain
maximum Hp up to 10000ft of altitude.
(It is the only turbo engine who can do this
stock)

While stock they have 230Hp, 240Hp as 5spd.
there are nice kits available.
from Hirsch a 272Hp kit for the 5spd
and from Nordic a 300Hp kit for the 5spd.
Maximum output for the engine is around 750Hp..
if modified accordingly.

One should also note that their 4 cyl Turbo
is the toughest out there and holds the record
for 100000Km at a speed in excess of 220Km/h
average speed.

It is not uncommon for a 170000 mile SAAB to
run like new...

Many people don't like em mainly because
they can be expenisve to maintain, however
the newer 9-5s score better then Audi's in
reliability according to consumer reports.

Obviously its only a FWD car, but probably
one of the best FWD cars available right now.

As to space inside, there is plenty of space
and the steering wheel can be moved up and forward
like in all newer cars.

And last, a Saab 9-3 Viggen won Pikes Peak this
year.

Of course some Audi drivers will bash SAABs
as they can be tough cookies on a freeway...

Resale value depends on the market, in Europe
they have very good resale values better then
Audi's, but this might be due to the Euro oversuply of 2nd hand Audi's.

Oh well, buy the car you like most, Audi or
whatever.

Bought the 9-5 SE (V6, auto) purely on personal preference. 6K miles so far and no problems at all.

Not a car for the REALLY tight twisties but then again, neither is the stock A6 (unfavorable weight distribution, softer springs, lower rate anti-roll bars). Like the A6, it understeers heavily. The 9-5 Aero is a different proposition: Greater grip and balance. As has the A6 2.7T (so I've heard).

Torque steer: Nil with the autobox. An issue whose seriousness is overexaggerated by the "Its FWD-so-it-must-suck" crowd. In fact, I preferred the SAAB's overall steering feel over the AWD Audi.

I liked the neat little user-friendly features in the A6 (auto-close key control of windows, sunroof; homelink transmitter) but not as much as I like the ventilated seats on the Saab. Its been bloody hot this summer in Oregon and they really do work brilliantly.

Lastly, I wasnt chuffed over the only Audi dealer in the area. Saab Credit, Service and the dealer all seemed more eager to please.

Still, at the end of the day, its going to come down to what YOU like better. You'll know after you drive both of them. Can't go terribly wrong either way.

Last year, I seriously considered both cars. I test drove both extensively, as well as a whole slieu of other cars. In other words, I did some serious benchmarking before deciding on the 9-5 SE V6. Admittedly, the 9-5 and A6 were the two finalists and both are very strong for same and different reasons. Depending on what type of person you are, one might be better for you then another but both are outstanding cars. Anyone who claims elsewise has seriously compromised opinions.

In the end, the choice came down to purely subjective reasons and personal preferences. I liked the shape of the Saab more and I liked knowing that the Saab was a little more rare (read exclusive), as well as being a little better value for the buck. But all in all, I know from driving both quite extensively that from an objective standpoint, they are both great cars, hands down. My best friend purchased an A6 at the same time. I think he made a good choice for him and, so far, we both love our cars.

But to clear things up, I am NOT a Saab enthusiast. I have always liked Saabs but I am not smitten with them like some people. The truth is, a few years ago when Saab still used the old platform (which, unfortunately, is still used on the 9-3), the cars had some reliablility issues. This lead to the massive depreciation values. At the same time, though, rumors of Audi problems also circulated not too long ago. If you did not hear about the horrendous take-off-while-idling fiasco in the early 90's you must have been a cave-dwelling recluse. In recent years, both companies have experienced relative success and their new designs are considerably improved (the result of both more research & development spending and general industry-wide technological advancements). Heck, all cars are better than they were a few short years ago (except for maybe Fords, just kidding).

But I felt the need to also clear some air in relation to some of the previous posters. First off, anybody who talks about torque steer in the 9-5 has either a) never driven one, and/or b) confused the 9-5 with reviews they read of the Viggen/Aero. The fact is, the 9-5 does not have a torque steer problem. Period. End of story. The Viggen and Aero...that is another question (they have a minor torque steer "problem" if you want to call it that--some people even like the feel). However, to drive this point in one more time, there is no such issue with the base 9-5 and 9-5 SE V6.

Second, anyone who says that Quattro-supplied Audis are far superior to Saabs in the winter has been duped. The car I drove for 5 years before the Saab was a full-time AWD car. Yes, it was a great winter car. But the fact of the matter is that FWD cars are just as good in bad weather. For those Americans reading this posting, a good example of this is in Vail, CO where a few years ago, they decided what vehicles to buy for their police force. This is a swanky ski resort town and their budget was not a limiting factor. Which car did they choose? The Saab. Another, more recent example. Who won the Open category of this year's Pike's Peak Rally event last week? Saab, with the second fastest time overall. Do you think traction was an issue? Bottom line: Quattros might be better bad weather cars than FWD cars with traction control but if they are, it is only marginally so; if you own both a Saab and an Audi and the weather is so bad your Saab can't make it out of the driveway--you shouldn't be driving anyway.

Third, anyone who quotes Saab's depreciation record as a reason not to buy a Saab is missing something. Saabs depreciate a great deal in their first year and half compared to similarly priced cars. That is true, no contest. But what does that mean? I think it means that if you buy a Saab new and keep it for only a year than you probably made a poor decision. But if you buy a Saab a year or two old, you are getting one of the best deals on the planet. Right now, you can buy a 1999 9-5 for less than some 1999 A4s--that is a WHOLE lot more car for the money. After that, they depreciate at a normal, if not slower, rate.

Lastly, the guy who said "Watch out for Turbo models, they get unreliable as the years wear on.." is a good example of people giving misleading advice. The fact of the matter is, Saab was one of the first real turbo-players in the industry. That being the case, when the technology was still new there were a lot of bugs to work out and yes, some older Saabs had reliability issues like burnout, etc. But turbo-charging is not new anymore and lots of companies, including Audi, have turbo charged models. And now, every car Saab makes is turbo-charged because it is the most economical and ecologically efficient way to extract power from an engine. And, so far, the reliability records for the Saab 9-5 have been better than for the A6.

I did not intend this posting to be offensive (or defensive) and if it came off that way, I sincerely apologize. What I was trying to do was shed a more objective light on this discussion. It seems to me, more often than not, people who post on these boards are die-hard enthusiasts of one particular company--they spout off poorly researched car-dealer-rhetoric that only propagates biased "facts" and opinions. Realistically, the only factors that should govern which car you buy, a 9-5 or an A6, should be which did you enjoy driving more and which do you think looks better. Because, objectively, they are both great cars that have already proven to be very reliable and sturdy, as well as sporty.