On September 4, 2026, MotorTrend reopened an unusually useful window into Saab’s past. The magazine republished a comparison originally printed in its June 2004 issue under the headline Air Force Three. The participants were the Audi A4 Cabriolet 3.0, Mercedes-Benz CLK320 Cabriolet and the newly introduced Saab 9-3 Arc Convertible.
For Us, the value of this test is not simply that a 9-3 finished third. What makes it worth revisiting 22 years later is that the journalists were evaluating these cars when all three were current products. There was no nostalgia surrounding Saab, no collector market, no knowledge of what would happen to the company eight years later and no need to preserve the reputation of a discontinued marque. MotorTrend’s staff had three new premium convertibles, drove them back to back and judged them according to the expectations of the American luxury car market in 2004.
That makes the comparison especially revealing. It tells us where Saab stood when buyers could walk into dealerships and genuinely cross shop a 9-3 Convertible against an A4 Cabriolet or a CLK. It also shows where MotorTrend thought Saab matched its German rivals and, perhaps more importantly, where the magazine believed Trollhättan still had work to do.
Saab Was Not Treated as an Outsider
The first point is easy to overlook because we now know how the Saab story ended. MotorTrend did not introduce the 9-3 as an eccentric Scandinavian alternative sitting outside the established premium class. It simply placed the Saab beside Audi and Mercedes as one of three new four seat luxury convertibles competing for the same customer.
The pricing explains why. The Saab 9-3 Arc Convertible started at $40,690. The Audi A4 Cabriolet 3.0 started at $42,520, while Mercedes asked a substantially higher $52,770 for the CLK320 Cabriolet. Once MotorTrend added equipment intended to bring the cars closer together, the tested Saab came to $45,614, the Audi to $46,735 and the Mercedes to $54,910.
Saab therefore entered this comparison only $1,121 below the Audi in tested form. It was not being evaluated as the cheaper alternative that could be excused for rough edges because of a large price advantage. MotorTrend expected the 9-3 to deliver premium quality because Saab was charging premium money.
This context is important when reading the harsher comments later in the article. The journalists were not asking whether the Saab was good value compared with a mainstream convertible. They were asking whether someone carrying roughly $46,000 into a showroom had a convincing reason to choose the Saab instead of the Audi.
A Very Different Route to Almost Identical Performance
The mechanical comparison makes Saab’s position even more interesting. Audi brought a naturally aspirated 3.0 liter V6 producing 220 hp and Mercedes used a 3.2 liter V6 with 215 hp. Saab arrived with the familiar Swedish solution: a high pressure turbocharged 2.0 liter four producing 210 hp and 221 lb ft of torque.
On paper, that put the Saab two cylinders and roughly one liter of displacement behind each German competitor. On the test track, however, the difference virtually disappeared.
| MotorTrend test | Audi A4 Cabriolet 3.0 | Mercedes CLK320 | Saab 9-3 Arc Convertible |
|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 220 hp | 215 hp | 210 hp |
| Curb weight | 3,800 lb | 3,800 lb | 3,700 lb |
| 0 to 60 mph | 7.2 sec | 7.2 sec | 7.2 sec |
| 0 to 100 mph | 19.5 sec | 18.9 sec | 18.5 sec |
| Quarter mile | 15.4 sec at 91.1 mph | 15.3 sec at 91.9 mph | 15.3 sec at 92.5 mph |
| Skidpad | 0.81 g | 0.77 g | 0.78 g |
| Figure eight | 27.5 sec | 28.0 sec | 27.8 sec |
All three reached 60 mph in exactly 7.2 seconds. More interestingly, as speeds increased, the turbocharged Saab actually began to pull ahead. It reached 80 mph in 11.9 seconds, 90 mph in 15.0 and 100 mph in 18.5, the quickest figure of the trio at each of those points. Its quarter mile speed of 92.5 mph was also the highest.
MotorTrend’s specification table puts another number beside that performance: 105.6 hp per liter. Audi managed 73.9 and Mercedes 67.2. Saab enthusiasts hardly need a lesson in why Trollhättan favored turbocharging, but the comparison shows how effectively that philosophy worked against much larger naturally aspirated engines in an actual contemporary test.
The Saab Was Quick Enough. Refinement Cost It the Comparison
This is where the article becomes more useful than a simple ranking. MotorTrend did not put the Saab third because it lacked performance. The instrumented results make that impossible to argue. Instead, the 9-3 lost points in precisely the areas that premium car journalism was increasingly emphasizing during the early 2000s: structural rigidity, cabin materials, control logic, noise suppression and the sense that every response had been polished before the car reached the customer.
The magazine acknowledged that the new Convertible represented a major improvement over the previous generation. Saab claimed an increase of almost 200 percent in bending and torsional stiffness, and one MotorTrend logbook comment compared its solidity favorably with much less rigid convertibles of the period. Yet when the testers moved directly from the Saab into the Audi and Mercedes, they still noticed movement through the steering wheel and rearview mirror on rough surfaces.
That distinction matters. The new 9-3 Convertible could be dramatically better than the old one and still fall short of the benchmark established by its newest German competitors. MotorTrend was judging relative progress, not simply Saab’s improvement over itself.
Even Their Criticism of the Handling Was Complicated
The steering drew another criticism familiar to anyone who has read period reviews of performance oriented Saabs. MotorTrend found the initial response around center very quick, to the point that drivers could apply too much steering input when first entering a corner. Yet the same journalists also recorded that once they adapted to the steering ratio, the chassis behaved well.
The measured results support that assessment. The Saab’s 0.78 g skidpad result put it ahead of the Mercedes at 0.77 g, although behind the Audi’s 0.81 g. Around MotorTrend’s figure eight, the Saab again finished between them, recording 27.8 seconds compared with the Audi’s 27.5 and Mercedes’ 28.0.
More revealing than either number was the testers’ observation that the Saab felt more stable and planted than the CLK during enthusiastic cornering. They also noted that the chassis maintained its grip without drama. In other words, the 9-3 did not receive third place because the Mercedes was a better handling car. MotorTrend explicitly thought it was not.
The Mercedes finished second because its strengths were elsewhere. Its structure felt exceptionally solid, the ride was more luxurious, the V6 was smoother and its cabin communicated the expensive character expected from a Mercedes. At nearly $55,000 as tested, however, MotorTrend also considered it too expensive relative to the other two.
The Audi is probably the most important car in the comparison if we want to understand MotorTrend’s verdict on Saab. The A4 Cabriolet did not dominate because it crushed the others in acceleration. It could not. All three recorded the same 0 to 60 mph time, while Saab was actually stronger at higher speeds.
Instead, Audi won by combining enough of everything. MotorTrend preferred its steering, chassis behavior, structural rigidity, seats, dashboard design, material selection, rear seat space and top down refinement. It also cost only slightly more than the Saab.
By 2004, Audi had become especially strong in one area that shaped automotive journalism for years afterward: perceived interior quality. MotorTrend’s own 2004 Car of the Year coverage praised Volkswagen and Audi for setting standards in interior design, fit and finish. That same standard clearly influenced this convertible comparison.
Against the Audi, MotorTrend described the Saab cabin as too dark and insufficiently luxurious. The combination of black surfaces, matte finish wood and metallic effect trim did not communicate the same richness to the testers. They also found some of Saab’s controls unnecessarily complicated, particularly the radio.
For Saab owners today, this may be the most culturally interesting part of the article. A Saab cockpit was designed around its own logic, with controls grouped according to function, an instrument panel shaped around the driver and several solutions that made sense after familiarity rather than during a short showroom demonstration. That does not invalidate MotorTrend’s criticism. It shows that Saab and the journalists were sometimes using different definitions of what a premium interior should accomplish.
One Cupholder Impressed Them, One Handbrake Bit Back
MotorTrend also picked up details that would probably disappear from a modern specification comparison. The folding cupholder caught their attention immediately. Its theatrical movement from the dashboard was exactly the sort of small Saab solution that made the car feel different from its competitors.
The integrated handbrake received less affection. Saab designed it to visually merge with the passenger side grab handle when released, giving the center console a cleaner appearance. MotorTrend liked the idea but reported that the mechanism occasionally pinched fingers. The observation is almost trivial, yet it is useful because it shows how thoroughly the testers were moving between the three cabins and comparing everyday interactions rather than merely recording performance numbers.
They also noted Saab’s convertible specific climate control function, which changed operating strategy when the roof was lowered. On the other hand, they judged the Saab the noisiest and windiest of the three during direct roof down comparisons without wind blockers installed. Saab offered its wind deflector as a $495 dealer accessory.
There Is Another Important Detail: MotorTrend Tested an Arc – Not Aero
The Saab in this comparison was a 9-3 Arc Convertible with the optional five speed automatic and 16 inch wheels. MotorTrend itself noted that Saab also offered the higher specification Aero with 17 inch wheels and a six speed manual transmission.
For enthusiasts, it is tempting to stop there and imagine that an Aero would have reversed the order. We should resist doing that because the original test gives us no evidence that it would. An Aero could certainly have changed some of the performance and chassis impressions, but it would not automatically have corrected the structural movement, top down wind noise or the testers’ criticism of the interior presentation.
The Arc is actually useful for another reason. It shows how MotorTrend saw a relatively normal 9-3 Convertible rather than the sportiest configuration Saab could provide for a favorable magazine result. This was close to the car an American premium convertible buyer might actually encounter in a showroom.
The Harshest Sentence Is Also the Most Valuable
MotorTrend eventually summarized the Saab as an energetic and well equipped performer that felt less polished than its competitors. One editor went further, arguing that it was difficult to imagine an unbiased customer driving both the Saab and Audi and then choosing the Swedish car.
For a Saab publication, it would be easy to ignore that sentence or spend several paragraphs trying to disprove it. Doing so would miss the reason this archive is valuable. We already know why Saab enthusiasts choose Saabs. The more interesting question is why someone without that attachment might have chosen an Audi instead in 2004.
MotorTrend gives us a clear answer. The 9-3 had the speed, competitive handling, styling, equipment and a lower price. Audi delivered those qualities with a level of structural polish and interior finish that required less explanation during a short test drive. That is a significant distinction when selling premium cars to customers who are not already loyal to the brand.
Old Road Tests Are Valuable Because the Journalists Did Not Know the Ending
We have used this approach before on SaabPlanet because contemporary journalism can reveal something that retrospective reviews cannot. In our examination of Car and Driver’s 1993 evaluation of the first GM era Saab 900, the value was not simply the performance data. The article showed what journalists thought about Saab’s controversial transition while it was actually happening, before years of enthusiast debate hardened into established positions.
The same applies to our look at the occasion when MotorTrend drove all three generations of the Saab Sonett back to back. Those period observations preserve reactions that are difficult to reconstruct decades later, when rarity, collectability and affection inevitably change the way an old Saab is perceived.
The 2004 Convertible comparison deserves the same treatment. Arthur St. Antoine and the MotorTrend team were not evaluating the 9-3 as a preserved piece of Saab history. They were evaluating a new $45,614 luxury convertible against two German cars parked beside it.
The most important result, therefore, may not be first, second or third place. It is the comparison itself. Saab was close enough to Audi in price, equipment and performance that one of America’s major automotive magazines considered them direct competitors. Mercedes occupied the more expensive end of the group, but all three were presented as legitimate participants in the same premium four seat convertible segment.
At the same time, the article exposes a problem Saab would continue to face. Engineering distinction did not always translate directly into the kind of perceived luxury that German premium brands had become exceptionally good at selling. A sophisticated turbo four could match two V6 engines. A lighter front wheel drive chassis could outperform the rear wheel drive Mercedes in several handling tests. Clever climate control programming and unusual cabin solutions gave the Saab its own character.
Yet none of those strengths could prevent a tester from stepping into the Audi, touching its materials, driving it over the same road and deciding that the German car felt more complete.
That does not make the MotorTrend verdict definitive, and it certainly does not make it comfortable reading for every Saab enthusiast. It makes it useful. Twenty two years later, we can separate brand loyalty from contemporary evidence and see exactly what the journalists saw: a Saab 9-3 Convertible fully capable of running with German premium competitors, sometimes beating them in measurable performance, but losing the comparison because MotorTrend believed Audi had integrated its performance, refinement and presentation more convincingly.
For anyone trying to understand where Saab really stood in 2004, that is far more informative than simply remembering that it finished third.
