Spain’s Automóvil tested four very different European coupés in 1999. The Saab was the least expensive, lightest and fastest of them-but the original verdict also reveals what today’s youngtimer buyers should examine before choosing between the 9-3, BMW 328 Ci, Peugeot 406 Coupé and Volvo C70.
In 1999, Spanish magazine Automóvil gathered four coupés that reached roughly the same advertised power level through four distinctly different engineering strategies.
The newly introduced BMW 328 Ci brought a naturally aspirated inline-six, rear-wheel drive and the expectations attached to the E46 generation. Peugeot supplied the Pininfarina-designed 406 Coupé with a 3.0-liter V6. Volvo’s C70 2.5T used a low-pressure turbocharged five-cylinder to create a more relaxed grand-touring character.
Saab arrived with the smallest engine and the lowest price.
The Saab 9-3 SE 2.0TS Coupé used a transverse 2.0-liter turbo four officially rated at approximately 197 hp. On Automóvil’s rolling road, however, the test car produced nearly 218 hp-more than the BMW, Peugeot or Volvo and roughly 21 hp above Saab’s stated figure.
That result was only the beginning. The Saab recorded the quickest acceleration, highest measured top speed, lowest test weight and best power-to-weight ratio. It also had the most versatile cabin and cost substantially less than its rivals.
Yet Automóvil did not declare it the winner.
The Spanish testers found that the 9-3’s front tires could not always convert its turbocharged output into useful corner-exit speed. They noted pronounced understeer on tighter roads, weaker low-rpm response in fifth gear and the highest fuel consumption when driven aggressively.
More than a quarter-century later, those observations make the comparison particularly useful. It does not merely show which car was fastest when new. It identifies the original strengths that a surviving example should still possess-and the weaknesses that age, poor tires, worn suspension or questionable modifications can amplify.
Similar Power Figures, Completely Different Personalities
The comparison appeared in Automóvil’s “Todo Coupés” section and was written by Juan Collín. The magazine treated the BMW as the established reference because the previous 328i had occupied a privileged position among medium-size European performance cars.
The official outputs suggested a closely matched group:
| Model | Factory rating | Engine |
| BMW 328 Ci | 190 hp | 2.8-liter inline-six |
| Peugeot 406 Coupé V6 | 191 hp | 3.0-liter V6 |
| Saab 9-3 SE 2.0TS | 197 hp | 2.0-liter turbo four |
| Volvo C70 2.5T | 190 hp | 2.4-liter low-pressure turbo five |
The BMW’s engine received the strongest praise for refinement. Its power arrived smoothly from low engine speeds, and the straight-six remained willing as the tachometer climbed. The gearbox was also considered the most direct and precise in the group.
Peugeot’s V6 was described as smooth and pleasant, although it delivered its best work higher in the rev range. The 406 Coupé’s powertrain was less forceful than the Saab’s but well matched to its progressive chassis.
Volvo had deliberately avoided an aggressive turbo calibration. The C70’s low-pressure five-cylinder produced little perceptible delay and felt closer to a larger naturally aspirated engine than to the more abrupt Saab.
The 9-3 offered the strongest sensations but demanded more attention from its driver. Boost arrived with greater force, and the engine’s behavior changed noticeably depending on gear selection and engine speed.
For a present-day buyer, that distinction remains relevant. A healthy 9-3 2.0TS should not feel flat or hesitant once boost develops. Its acceleration should build decisively and cleanly. Irregular delivery, surging, smoke or inconsistent boost should not be dismissed as normal turbo character.
The Dyno Result That Changed the Comparison
Automóvil’s technical center used a Bosch FLA203 chassis dynamometer to measure all four cars.
The Saab produced 217.6 hp at 5,620 rpm, rounded here to 218 hp. It was the strongest result in the test by a clear margin.
| Model | Factory rating | Measured output | Measured torque |
| BMW 328 Ci | 190 hp | 197 hp | 214 lb-ft / 290 Nm |
| Peugeot 406 Coupé V6 | 191 hp | 189 hp | 191 lb-ft / 260 Nm |
| Saab 9-3 SE 2.0TS | 197 hp | 218 hp | 225 lb-ft / 305 Nm |
| Volvo C70 2.5T | 190 hp | 198 hp | 208 lb-ft / 281 Nm |
The Peugeot was the only car that fell slightly below its factory rating. BMW and Volvo exceeded their quoted figures modestly, while the Saab produced approximately 10 percent more power than advertised.
Its torque result was equally significant. At 225 lb-ft, the Saab exceeded the BMW’s measured 214 lb-ft despite giving away two cylinders and nearly 0.8 liter of displacement.
The Saab was also the lightest test car:
| Model | Test weight |
| Saab 9-3 SE 2.0TS | 2,989 lb / 1,356 kg |
| BMW 328 Ci | 3,214 lb / 1,458 kg |
| Volvo C70 2.5T | 3,333 lb / 1,512 kg |
| Peugeot 406 Coupé V6 | 3,393 lb / 1,539 kg |
That combination produced a power-to-weight ratio the other three could not match. The Saab carried approximately 13.7 lb for each measured horsepower, while the BMW carried roughly 16.1 lb.
The numbers explain why a good 9-3 2.0TS can still feel unusually quick today. Its performance did not depend solely on an optimistic factory acceleration claim. The test car combined more measured power with substantially less mass.
For buyers considering modified examples, the same result provides a warning. The standard car already placed heavy demands on its front tires. Additional boost without corresponding attention to tires, dampers, bushings and brakes can make the car faster on paper while diminishing its usefulness on the road.
The Saab Was Fastest in Every Major Acceleration Test
The 9-3 reached 62 mph in 7.11 seconds, narrowly beating the BMW’s 7.38-second result. Peugeot required 8.39 seconds, while the heavier Volvo completed the run in 8.69.
The standing-kilometer figures followed the same order:
- Saab 9-3 SE 2.0TS: 27.47 seconds
- BMW 328 Ci: 28.04 seconds
- Volvo C70 2.5T: 29.14 seconds
- Peugeot 406 Coupé V6: 29.25 seconds
Measured maximum speed also favored the Saab. It reached 147.7 mph, or 237.76 km/h, compared with 147.2 mph for the BMW. Peugeot and Volvo both remained close to 141.7 mph.
The combined 12–75 mph acceleration test through second and third gears produced perhaps the clearest indication of the Saab’s real-world strength. The 9-3 required 10.71 seconds, more than a second quicker than the BMW and nearly two seconds ahead of the Peugeot.
The result changed when the cars were left in fifth gear at low speed.
Starting from approximately 31 mph in fifth, the Saab recorded the slowest 400-meter and 1,000-meter times. The BMW responded more cleanly because its naturally aspirated six-cylinder did not have to wait for boost, and its gearing better suited that particular test.
The Saab’s relatively large gap between second and third was also mentioned. Selecting the correct gear was essential: keep the engine within its effective boost range and the 9-3 was the strongest car; ask it to accelerate from low rpm in a tall gear and the BMW felt more immediate.
A buyer should therefore test the Saab in several conditions, not merely perform one full-throttle run. Acceleration through second and third should be forceful, but the engine should also accept moderate throttle without hesitation, abrupt spikes or inconsistent response.
High-Speed Stability Was Better Than Tight-Road Agility
The Saab’s acceleration advantage did not continue unchanged into the handling section.
On fast, open curves, the testers credited the 9-3 with considerable composure. The car remained stable, predictable and resistant to sudden changes in attitude. That characteristic made it convincing on high-speed roads where the driver could use the engine without repeatedly asking the front tires to combine hard acceleration with substantial steering lock.
Tighter and more winding roads exposed the compromise.
The magazine reported noticeable understeer and repeated traction loss under power. With approximately 218 measured hp passing through the front wheels, the tires had to divide their grip between steering and acceleration.
The rear of the car remained secure, but it contributed little to rotating the 9-3 into a corner. Once the front tires began to slide, the driver’s primary options were to reduce throttle or wait for the steering angle to unwind.
The Volvo also understeered, although its softer boost delivery made it easier to manage. The TRACS system mentioned in the original article belonged to the Volvo and operated only at lower speeds; it was not a Saab system in this comparison.
The Peugeot and BMW offered more dynamic finesse. The 406 Coupé was praised for accurate behavior, effective suspension tuning and progressive responses. The BMW remained the most neutral and adjustable, benefiting from its rear-wheel-drive layout and better steering precision.
For today’s buyer, worn components can distort those original differences. A 9-3 on old or mismatched tires will understeer earlier than the test car did. Weak dampers, deteriorated suspension bushings or poor wheel alignment can turn predictable front-end push into vague and inconsistent behavior.
A well-maintained example should still feel secure and planted. It should not wander under braking, pull aggressively under acceleration or require constant steering correction on a straight road.
The Brakes Were Better Than the BMW’s
The Peugeot recorded the shortest stop from 87 mph, requiring 234.6 feet, or 71.5 meters.
The Saab followed closely at 237.4 feet, or 72.36 meters. Volvo needed 241.3 feet, while the BMW required 259.4 feet.
Although Automóvil preferred the Peugeot’s pedal feel and found that the two Swedish cars became softer during repeated hard use, the Saab’s measured stopping distance was competitive. It stopped almost seven meters sooner than the BMW.
A potential buyer should read this result as a baseline rather than assume that every surviving car will reproduce it. Brake fluid age, tire quality, rotor condition and the type of replacement pads fitted over the years can substantially change pedal response and stopping consistency.
The correct question is not whether the car still uses its original components. It is whether the current system delivers straight, repeatable braking without vibration, pulling or a long pedal.
The Most Practical Car Was Also the Least Expensive
One of the original Saab photo captions described the 9-3’s interior as the most spacious and versatile of the four.
Unlike its three rivals, the Saab did not use a conventional trunk. Its large rear hatch and folding rear seat gave it cargo flexibility much closer to a practical three-door car, without removing it from the coupé discussion.
The BMW, Peugeot and Volvo offered stronger visual separation between passenger compartment and luggage area. The Saab offered a body that could carry bulky items without asking its owner to abandon performance or long-distance comfort.
That practicality remains one of the strongest arguments for the 9-3 as a usable youngtimer. It can function as a weekend car without becoming helpless when luggage, tools, spare wheels or larger purchases need to be carried.
The driving position was also rated favorably. The seats offered good comfort and support, while the available adjustment made it easy to establish a suitable relationship between the steering wheel, pedals and controls.
BMW’s seats and overall driving position received the highest marks. BMW and Volvo also held a small advantage in perceived finish, but the Saab remained close. Peugeot’s cabin showed more visible links to the regular 406, even though the quality of construction itself was considered acceptable.
For buyers today, cabin condition often reveals more than odometer mileage. Excessive wear on the driver’s seat, steering wheel, pedal rubbers and switchgear should correspond reasonably with the claimed history. The hatch area should be checked for water entry, damaged trim and evidence that the car has spent years carrying heavy or poorly secured loads.
The Historical Price Supports the Saab’s Value Argument
The Spanish-market Saab 9-3 SE 2.0TS was listed at 4,995,000 pesetas, equivalent to approximately €30,000 at the later fixed peseta-to-euro conversion rate.
The other listed prices were:
- Peugeot 406 Coupé V6 base version: 5,437,000 pesetas, approximately €32,700
- Peugeot 406 Coupé V6 Pack: 5,952,000 pesetas, approximately €35,800
- BMW 328 Ci: 6,100,000 pesetas, approximately €36,700
- Volvo C70 2.5T: 6,450,000 pesetas, approximately €38,800
These are nominal conversions rather than inflation-adjusted modern values, but the hierarchy is clear. The Saab was approximately 1.1 million pesetas cheaper than the BMW and 1.45 million cheaper than the Volvo.
All four cars came with a one-year unlimited-mileage warranty.
Standard Saab equipment included ABS, a driver airbag, front side airbags, climate control, remote central locking, active front head restraints, power windows, power-adjustable mirrors, automatic headlight leveling, headlight washers, alloy wheels and front fog lamps.
The passenger airbag was still optional in the listed Spanish specification, priced at 35,840 pesetas. Other options included heated and power-adjustable front seats, leather upholstery, an electric sunroof, cruise control with an onboard computer, metallic paint and an Aero body kit.
A Super Sport package combined the Aero kit, rear spoiler, 16-inch wheels, sport seats and a leather sport steering wheel.
Those details matter when evaluating originality. A surviving car with period factory equipment, correct wheels, intact aerodynamic pieces and documented specification may deserve more attention than one assembled later from unrelated cosmetic parts.
Fuel Consumption Revealed the Cost of Using the Turbo
During the magazine’s aggressive road-driving measurement, the Saab consumed approximately 14.4 mpg US, or 16.3 liters per 100 km.
The BMW returned 18.8 mpg, the Peugeot 16.8 mpg and the Volvo 15.2 mpg under the same conditions.
Across the complete test, the Saab averaged approximately 22.7 mpg, or 10.35 liters per 100 km. BMW recorded 26.3 mpg, Peugeot 23.9 and Volvo 23.5.
The results undermine the assumption that the smallest engine must also be the most economical. When the Saab’s turbocharger was used repeatedly, fuel demand rose sharply.
A modern buyer should not expect contemporary turbocharged-engine efficiency from a late-1990s performance car. More important than chasing one ideal consumption figure is checking whether the car’s fuel use is consistent, whether it reaches operating temperature correctly and whether the engine runs cleanly under both light and heavy throttle.
What Each Car Offers a Youngtimer Buyer Today
The original result can be used as a practical filter for deciding which of the four cars best suits a present-day owner.
The BMW 328 Ci remains the choice for a driver who values chassis balance, naturally aspirated response, precise gear selection and rear-wheel-drive behavior. Its original advantage was not outright speed but consistency across every category.
The Peugeot 406 Coupé V6 combines the most distinctive exterior design with a chassis the Spanish testers considered genuinely rewarding. It is the alternative for someone who wants Pininfarina styling without accepting a purely decorative grand tourer.
The Volvo C70 2.5T offers the most relaxed interpretation of the group. Its low-pressure turbo engine, substantial construction and calm responses suit long-distance use better than aggressive cornering.
The Saab 9-3 SE 2.0TS is the performance-and-practicality choice. It delivered the best acceleration, highest measured speed, strongest dyno result and largest usable cargo area while costing the least when new.
Its weaknesses are equally specific. It asks more from the front tires, responds strongly to tire and suspension condition, uses considerable fuel under boost and rewards correct gear selection.
That makes condition more important than specification alone. A carefully maintained standard car may be more satisfying than a higher-output example with questionable software, tired suspension and mismatched tires.
Why the BMW Won – and Why the Saab Remains the More Surprising Result
Automóvil ultimately regarded the BMW as the reference and the most complete package.
It did not have the lowest price, largest interior or best acceleration. It won because its engine, gearbox, steering, chassis balance and driving position worked together with fewer compromises.
The Peugeot received strong praise for its road behavior and design. The Volvo was respected for construction quality, comfort and its refined grand-touring character.
The Saab occupied the most numerical position in the test. It was the lightest, least expensive, most powerful and fastest car of the four.
It was also the car with the clearest mechanical tension. Its engine could produce more performance than the front axle could always exploit, particularly on a tight road. That did not make it an unsuccessful coupé. It made its priorities unmistakable.
For a youngtimer buyer, the comparison remains useful because it establishes what each car was supposed to do before age and maintenance history changed the equation.
A good Saab 9-3 2.0TS should still feel exceptionally strong for a 2.0-liter car, stable at speed, comfortable over distance and far more useful than its coupé profile suggests. It should also remind the driver, through its steering and throttle response, that approximately 218 hp is being asked to leave the road through the same two tires responsible for changing direction.
That combination kept the 9-3 from defeating the BMW in the magazine’s final judgment.
It is also the reason the Saab remains the most intriguing car in the test.
The Peugeot doesn’t paint anything there
All of those are great cars, but the Saab was different from the crowd, even then.