Forbes' Least Reliable Luxury Vehicles 2006

[Pink_the_Floyd]

Saab luxurious?

Heel yea!

We had a Saab 900 SE cab last year.

185 HP out of a 2.0L and Jees it drove niiiice 👍

 

[1X83Z]

Why? I'm not buying an M5. I'm buying that Saab 9-3 you like so much, remember?

Be more gay Chris. Seriously - be more gay.

 

[Wolfe]

Since when did Volkswagen start classing their cars as luxurious?

In the usa, VW has been considered a luxury brand for years.

 

[Tornado]

Since the Golf III, possibly?

 

[YSSMAN]

MKIII Jetta GLX was the first "luxury" Vee-Dub, often compared to the 3-series of the era...

---

Hate me all you want M5Power, but I'm not looking for you to "approve" my liking of the 9-5. I doubt I'd ever buy one new, but as a used car, it is a viable option. They look good, perform decently well, and drive nicely, what more do you want? As long as the owner likes it, is that not the only thing that matters?

I'll admit that I have a thing for boring European sedans, cars like the Saab 9-5 and Volvo S80 being to of the best, IMO. They don't need to be particularly exciting, but can be fun to drive to the average consumer, and carry a bit of status with the car as well. Is that a huge problem for you?

 

[1X83Z]

MKIII Jetta GLX was the first "luxury" Vee-Dub, often compared to the 3-series of the era...

Until they actually drove it. 2002 was Volkswagen's first preium year, for me - they had both a new, luxurious Passat, and a decent lineup of Jettas by then.

They look good, perform decently well, and drive nicely, what more do you want?

How about one of the thirty other vehicles that are better in every way? Or did my post not convey the message that the vehiche was ****?

Is that a huge problem for you?

No. People settling for mediocrity is a huge problem for me.

 

[YSSMAN]

How about one of the thirty other vehicles that are better in every way? Or did my post not convey the message that the vehiche was ****

No. People settling for mediocrity is a huge problem for me.

And I understand how you feel about the car, but there are plenty of people who dissagree. Other people's opinions on automobiles and the way they choose to spend money really shouldn't be a huge problem for you. I like the car because it looks nice and drives well, and I really don't care if the BMW 3-series is faster and handels better.

As long as I'm happy, quite frankly thats all that matters.

...Anyway, it is a mute point. I'm not a huge Saab fan, as I'd be buying a Chevrolet or Volkswagen LONG before making the trip to the Saab dealer. I'd buy one used, but thats about as far as my Saab buying habits would go...

 

[1X83Z]

Other people's opinions on automobiles and the way they choose to spend money really shouldn't be a huge problem for you.

I didn't post a single bit of opinion regarding the 9-5, save for the fact that it's the worst car on sale, which I'd hope my post demonstrates. I'm dealing in fact here - just fact. And people whose opinions dictate that the 9-5 is a decent car after all this time shouldn't be allowed to have opinions.

Yeah, it's a decent used buy, but there's such better stuff out there.

 

[YSSMAN]

Yes, but fact alone doesn't mean everything. If I was to base everything on fact, I wouldn't be driving a Jetta. They aren't built particularly well, they are outperformed by damn-near everything in it's segment, and quite frankly is an overpriced model... Just like the 9-5.

But I bought my Jetta not based on fact, but because I liked the looks of the car, and because I liked the way that it drove. I could buy a Honda Civic or Mazda Protoge based on your pilosophy of buying a car, but that wouldn't suit my tastes.

I'm sure you bought your Volvo for many of the same reasons, mainly because you liked it and it suited your tastes in automobiles. Certainly there are cars from BMW and Audi that outperformed it for similar ammounts of money, but obviously you went with a different model.

 

[1X83Z]

But I bought my Jetta not based on fact, but because I liked the looks of the car, and because I liked the way that it drove. I could buy a Honda Civic or Mazda Protoge based on your pilosophy of buying a car, but that wouldn't suit my tastes.

No - "the way that it drives" most certainly has a basis in fact. The 9-5 trails the vast majority of its competitors in that area too. And don't even make me bring up the torque steer issue.

I'm sure you bought your Volvo for many of the same reasons, mainly because you liked it and it suited your tastes in automobiles. Certainly there are cars from BMW and Audi that outperformed it for similar ammounts of money, but obviously you went with a different model.

No - my Volvo was the quickest four-door sedan I could've had with the cash I had. That and the fact that it's loaded to the freaking brim with stuff are the reasons I got it. In all situations, I buy the best that I can afford. People with Saab 9-5s don't.

 

[YSSMAN]

Yes, most Saabs have torque steer. But how many average Saab buyers are going to actually expirience it on a regular baisis, given their "need" to drive quickly? I can't think of many on a personal level, as most of them are older friends who just want a nice car that can be driven briskly.

Either way, we really aren't getting anywhere with this. Saab fans are Saab fans, and I know that neither you nor I could ever completely understand why they love Saabs so much. I suppose it is nearly the same thing with me and Chevrolets or Volkswagens, and even you with your, well, whatever the hell it is that you like...

 

[1X83Z]

Either way, we really aren't getting anywhere with this. Saab fans are Saab fans, and I know that neither you nor I could ever completely understand why they love Saabs so much.

You're right. I'd ask them, but I'm not allowed inside the synagogue.

 

[niky]

As M5Power doesn't even like his own car...

But seriously, many Saab fanatics are like Porsche fanatics. They view the idiosyncracies as the whole raison d' etre for the car. In other words, you lose some of those idiosyncracies for something more practical, safe or useable, and they will call it a defilement of the brand.

And according to the most hardcore of fans, there hasn't been a "real" Porsche or Saab for the past twenty years or so...

There is something about them... but it's more a matter of taste than any inherent quality that might lift them above any other car. Unfortunately, it's been a long time since Saab has ever managed to capture the Saab philiosophy, to put it into a package in such a way as to convince buyers to take the plunge. Unlike the modern Volvo, they don't have a catchy tagline.

 

[YSSMAN]

What, "Born from Jets" isn't good enough for you? (lol)

 

[niky]

Maybe if it has a real perspex cockpit, it would be.

 

[YSSMAN]

...But you can shut all the lights off in the interior like a jet and use a HUD system... (lol)

 

[niky]

Ah... my favorite way to drive. I miss the dimmer on my old Mazda.

 

[1X83Z]

My Volvo has a dimmer. It sucks. I think the difference between its and the Saabs', though, is that on Saabs it dims all but the speedo. Perhaps their one cool feature - though it's negated by the key in the center console for any and all drunken passengers to rip out when they please.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

Meh, I've only ever had one real opinion about Saabs.

There's a well known term for buying one. It's called "coming out of the closet".

Seriously, though, Saab has "made" one good car ever. It was called 9-2X Aero. And it was only good because it was just a WRX wagon with a nicer front end and no stupid roof rails.

 

[YSSMAN]

Seriously, the 9-2X is a joke. A friend of mine has one, and quite frankly it is one of the dumbest cars I've ever been in. The Saabaru is a good example of GM stretching their arms with their former alliances, and thank God they didn't use the B9 Tribeca to do their next crossover as well.

If Saab has done anything right it has always been the 900/9-3 sedans. Strong performance, good ride quality, good levels of refinement, and an overall enjoyable expirience behind the wheel makes the car a winner. Although our current 9-3s (Epsilon-based) aren't nearly as good as the models that have preceeded it, a car like the 9-3 SportCombi is just the kind of quirky Saab we've been without for so many years.

 

[1X83Z]

Meh, I've only ever had one real opinion about Saabs.

There's a well known term for buying one. It's called "coming out of the closet".

Whenever the discussion turns to Saabs, I always tell the same joke:

Q: What's the hardest part about owning a Saab?
A: Telling your friends that you're gay.

Seriously, the 9-2X is a joke. A friend of mine has one, and quite frankly it is one of the dumbest cars I've ever been in.

Explain why. I like the 9-2X. I also like the 9-7X and the 9-3 SportCombi. I will never buy any of these vehicles because I like women, but I like them. Why is the 9-2X "a joke"?

 

[Dave A]

I must say you have a very different perspective of Saab's than we do over here, not that we worship them or anytihng but I don't see the "gay" connection, not that we label people because of their car anyway though, cough cocks drive Porsches cough .

 

[Tornado]

Explain why. I like the 9-2X. I also like the 9-7X and the 9-3 SportCombi. I will never buy any of these vehicles because I like women, but I like them. Why is the 9-2X "a joke"?

Not that I agree with YSSMAN over the other the 9-5, but the 9-2X was useless in that it as a Saab, with build quality that was about par with all of GM's other products, or that "thing" that makes Saab's Saabs. taken as a Subaru, it was a spongy, old-man version of a sports car. It was a shameless rebadging that did nothing for either company. The 9-7x was different, in that it was the best version of the vehicle it was badged as otherwise (barring the Bravada).

 

[1X83Z]

It was a shameless rebadging that did nothing for either company.

I can't understand why you'd say this. I think it was better-looking as a Saab (compared to the Impreza) and had a significantly better interior. Furthermore, reliability was improved (for Saab), performance was quite good, and the vehicle added much-needed all-wheel drive to the Saab range. I really thought the 9-2X was a relatively good Saab and it definitely did something for Saab.

The 9-7x was different, in that it was the best version of the vehicle it was badged as otherwise (barring the Bravada).

I don't get why people defend the Bravada like it was some sort of martyr. The vehicle was an uglier, more expensive GMC Envoy and I'm glad it's gone. Yes - the 9-7X is the best version of that model, but it's too damn expensive to be truly competitive. The Rainier and Envoy are the best all-rounders and the Trailblazer isn't far behind. It's a very good product.

I must say you have a very different perspective of Saab's than we do over here,

Only car enthusiasts brand Saabs for gays - most people recognize it as just another German brand, undeterred by the fact that it's Swedish.

 

[Tornado]

I can't understand why you'd say this. I think it was better-looking as a Saab (compared to the Impreza) and had a significantly better interior. Furthermore, reliability was improved (for Saab), performance was quite good, and the vehicle added much-needed all-wheel drive to the Saab range. I really thought the 9-2X was a relatively good Saab and it definitely did something for Saab.

All of your points are true. But we must remember one thing: The only people who buy Saab's in America are Saabphiles, and most of the people that buy Rexes are car enthusiasts. The car pissed off Saabphiles because they knew it wasn't a Saab. It pissed off WRX buyers because they didn't care if it was a better car in general (which I agree, it was), as it wasn't as sporty or fun to drive as the Rex was.
​

I don't get why people defend the Bravada like it was some sort of martyr. The vehicle was an uglier, more expensive GMC Envoy and I'm glad it's gone.

Maybe because many view Oldsmobile as a whole as a martyr for GM. But, until the Rainer came out the Bravada was viewed as the best version of the GMT360.

 

[YSSMAN]

Explain why. I like the 9-2X. I also like the 9-7X and the 9-3 SportCombi. I will never buy any of these vehicles because I like women, but I like them. Why is the 9-2X "a joke"?

Why not like the 9-2X? Well for one, it isn't a Saab. Granted, its nicer than the WRX and is a good looking car, but it still doesn't feel like a Saab. Everything is too Japanese, and really when it comes down to it, you would be better off buying a fully loaded WRX wagon than a 9-2X, IMO. Either way, the S40 is better!

I don't have a problem with the 9-7X, as I quite like it. I'm happy they didn't go with the B9 Tribecca version they had talked about, even if the GMT360 platform is horribly out of date. Although the 9-7X clearly caters to Saab owners who were looking for something bigger than their 9-5 wagons, they did a good job overall by making it seem like a completely different SUV. We have an Envoy, and I'd gladly take the 9-7X any day over the GMC.

As for the 9-3 SportCombi, it is argueably the most Saab-ish Saab on sale today. Pick up the 2.8T, and you've got a winner. A comparison test between it and the V50 is long overdue, and it would be an interesting one at that...

 

[1X83Z]

All of your points are true. But we must remember one thing: The only people who buy Saab's in America are Saabphiles, and most of the people that buy Rexes are car enthusiasts. The car pissed off Saabphiles because they knew it wasn't a Saab. It pissed off WRX buyers because they didn't care if it was a better car in general (which I agree, it was), as it wasn't as sporty or fun to drive as the Rex was.​

But that was the magic of it - it brought new buyers to Saab!

Maybe because many view Oldsmobile as a whole as a martyr for GM. But, until the Rainer came out the Bravada was viewed as the best version of the GMT360.

Well, the Envoy was the best.

Why not like the 9-2X? Well for one, it isn't a Saab.

By this logic, Mercury shouldn't exist.​

 

[YSSMAN]

Whats the deal with the Envoy? We have one, it isn't all that special. Shes an '03 SLT, and quite frankly, I liked the Trailblazers we drove better than the Envoy. Of course, it wasn't my decision, as my stepmom is missing a few brain-cells... She traded in her Altima for the Envoy because she didn't feel "safe" and felt she needed "more space" with an SUV. Mind you, this is about the time gasoline hit $3.15 a gallon, and well, shes an idiot.

Its a good-looking truck, but thats about all I'd give it over any of it's cousins (9-7X not included here).

 

[1X83Z]

Whats the deal with the Envoy? We have one, it isn't all that special.

It's a midsize SUV. It sells in gigantic, almost scary volumes. It's not intended to be special - just "competent" - which it is, to a large degree.

 

[Tornado]

But that was the magic of it - it brought new buyers to Saab!

But those new buyers were still less than it would have been if the Saab faithful had just bought them.

By this logic, Mercury shouldn't exist.

By every logic Mercury houldn't exist.