Which Saab Would Owners Never Buy Again? The Answers Were Brutally Specific

When SaabPlanet asked its Facebook community a deliberately uncomfortable question – Which Saab would you NEVER buy again, and why? – the answers did not turn into a simple “attack” on one model. Saab owners rarely think that way.

Instead, the thread became a compact ownership report. Some readers named a specific model year. Others blamed a gearbox, an engine, rust, parts availability, or a car that had clearly been neglected long before they bought it. A large group refused the premise entirely, saying they would buy every Saab they had owned again.

That split is important. The discussion was not about which Saab is “bad.” It was about which Saab, in real ownership, crossed the line from character into frustration.

The Saab 900NG Took the Hardest Hit

The Saab NG900 appeared more than once, and usually for the same reason: it sits in a difficult place in Saab history. It carries Saab styling cues and turbocharged personality, but many owners judge it through the filter of GM-era compromises.

Several comments pointed directly at Opel or GM-related components, especially the clutch system, cabin controls, and the feeling that some hardware around the drivetrain was not always equal to the torque and character of Saab’s turbo engines. One owner was clear that the T5 engine itself was not the problem. The criticism was aimed at the surrounding components, not the powerplant.

That is a familiar view among Saab owners. The NG900 can be enjoyable, fast enough, and very usable, but compared with a well-sorted Classic 900 or later OG 9-3, some drivers feel it lacks the mechanical confidence they expect from the badge.

The most repeated technical complaint was the self-adjusting clutch cable, a small part that can ruin the ownership experience when it fails repeatedly. HVAC controls were also mentioned, which shows how many owners remember not just catastrophic failures, but daily irritations.

Early 9-3 Models Divided the Room

The first-generation 9-3 and the early second-generation 9-3, especially 2003 to 2005 cars, also drew criticism. One owner called his 2004 9-3 2.0t the least reliable car he had owned, despite having owned several other Saabs from the 1990s and 2000s.

The complaints were not uniform. Some owners blamed rust, others electrical issues, timing-chain trouble, or simply the feeling that the car was not as solid as an older 9000. One comparison was especially telling: a 2003 9-3SE may have been quicker, more nimble, and better equipped, but it did not feel as substantial as a 1996 9000 CSE.

That sentence captures one of the central tensions in Saab ownership. Newer is not automatically better. More equipment is not the same as durability. Better handling does not always replace the bank-vault feel of an older platform.

At the same time, the 9-3 was not universally condemned. Owners of later B207-powered cars defended them, especially when properly maintained. One reader with a 2007 9-3 Convertible and a 2009 9-5 Estate said both cars still run perfectly with regular service. In other words, the 9-3 did not lose the argument. It simply exposed how much the individual car’s history matters.

Diesel Saabs Remain a Sensitive Subject

Diesel Saabs triggered short, blunt answers. “Diesel,” “TiD,” “2.2 TiD,” and “1.9 TiD 9-5” appeared as models or drivetrains some owners would avoid.

The reasons were not always explained in detail, but the pattern was obvious. For some Saab purists, diesel never felt like the natural Saab formula. For others, the issue was not philosophy but maintenance: specialist knowledge, aging fuel systems, electronic pump problems, EGR and intake contamination, and the simple fact that many diesel Saabs now survive in mixed condition.

The 2.2 TiD drew particular criticism, with one reader suggesting that too many examples have already disappeared and that competent repair support is becoming harder to find. Another comment pushed back, arguing that some fuel-pump electronics issues can be repaired cheaply. That exchange says a lot. Diesel Saab ownership depends heavily on local expertise, parts access, and the previous owner’s maintenance discipline.

The 1.9 TiD and TTiD engines have their defenders, especially in Europe, but the Facebook thread showed that diesel remains one of the most polarizing Saab categories.

Automatic Gearboxes Were Another Red Line

Several readers did not reject a model. They rejected automatic Saab ownership.

One owner referred to automatic gearboxes as a source of nightmares. Another mentioned a 1970 Saab 99LE automatic that developed problems at only 38,000 miles. A base 900 8-valve four-door automatic and a Saab 99 automatic were also named, with one simple verdict: too slow.

This is partly mechanical and partly cultural. Saab enthusiasm has always had a strong manual-transmission core. Turbo boost, front-wheel-drive traction, and driver involvement are central to the way many owners understand the brand. An automatic Saab can be comfortable and durable in the right specification, but for some owners, it removes too much from the experience.

The Saab 9-5ng: Admired by Some, Rejected by Others

The 2010-2011 Saab 9-5 NG produced some of the sharpest reactions. One reader mentioned the rear LED light bar as enough reason to avoid it. Others went much deeper, pointing to parts availability, repair cost, timing-chain-guide failure, EVAP codes, fuel-pump housing problems, turbo failure, and a general feeling that the car did not feel like the Saab they expected.

That is the tragedy of the NG 9-5 in miniature. It is one of the most dramatic-looking late Saabs, and in the right specification it can feel like a proper final chapter. But it arrived at the worst possible time. Production volume was limited, the company collapsed soon after, and today parts supply can turn an otherwise desirable car into a financial and logistical risk.

The NG 9-5 is not disliked because it is invisible or boring. It is criticized because owners know what it could have been – and what it can cost when it goes wrong.

The Saab SUVs Still Carry the Badge Debate

The Saab SUV question appeared as well. One reader mentioned “the Saab SUV,” and the replies quickly separated the 9-7X from the 9-4X.

That distinction matters. The 9-7X is still treated by many enthusiasts as a rebadged Chevrolet TrailBlazer wearing Saab cues. The 9-4X, although also GM-based and closely related to Cadillac hardware, is often judged more favorably because it feels better integrated and more convincing as a Saab product.

The comments showed that the 9-7X remains the easiest target in these debates. For many owners, the issue is not SUV format alone. It is whether the engineering, interior feel, and driving character justify the badge.

Some Answers Were About Bad Cars, Not Bad Models

A few replies were model-specific but clearly tied to one unlucky example. A 2003 9-5 Linear sedan in Canada was described as the worst Saab one owner had driven, mainly because it left him stranded. Yet the same person contrasted it with a 2001 9-5 wagon that served reliably for years.

Another owner hated his 9000 Turbo but admitted it may simply have been a lemon. Others mentioned rust, timing-chain failures, or cars that blew up soon after purchase. These are not always model verdicts. Sometimes they are warnings about buying the wrong example.

And that may be the most honest conclusion from the entire thread: with Saab, condition often matters more than reputation.

The Other Camp: “There Is No Saab I Would Not Buy Again”

A strong countercurrent ran through the discussion. Many owners refused to name a Saab they would avoid. Some listed multiple cars – 99 Turbo, 900 Turbo, 9000, 9-5, 9-3 – and said they would happily own them again. Others said the only Saab they regretted was the one they sold.

That response is very Saab. Even when the thread invited criticism, a large part of the community turned the question into a defense of ownership itself. Not blind loyalty, but selective loyalty. They know the weak points. They know the parts issues. They know the repair bills. And many would still go back.

The Real Answer

The most frequently criticized cars were not surprising: NG900, some early 9-3 models, diesel Saabs, automatic cars, the NG 9-5, and the 9-7X. But the reasons were more useful than the names.

Owners were not simply rejecting models. They were rejecting poorly supported drivetrains, weak surrounding components, rust-prone examples, bad previous maintenance, high parts costs, and cars that no longer matched their idea of what a Saab should feel like.

That is why the thread worked. It did not produce a single “worst Saab.” It produced something more valuable: a map of where Saab ownership becomes risky when emotion outruns inspection.

What Saab Owners Say Their Cars Still Do Better Than New Cars

The debate about which Saab models owners would avoid buying again naturally raised another question: if Saab ownership can be demanding, why do so many people still refuse to replace these cars with something newer?

That answer came from another SaabPlanet community discussion, where nearly 400 owners explained what their Saabs still do better than most new cars. The replies were unusually specific: long-distance seats, real cockpit controls, Night Panel, winter confidence, turbo mid-range torque, useful cargo space, and the kind of driver connection that modern screen-heavy cars often dilute.

It is a useful counterpoint to the “never buy again” debate. Saab owners can be brutally honest about weak models, repair bills and parts headaches, but the same community still knows exactly why a well-kept 900, 9000, 9-3 or 9-5 remains difficult to replace.