Talk:Saab 9-3

US-Market Focus Needs to be Addressed As Sited
For the second generation it was noted back into 2010 that the article had a focus on the US market. I believe this needs to be addressed, to be honest if we look at the trim levels sold around the world it is made up of Linear, Arc, Vector and Aero. We don't need to refer to these as 'US-market and Non-US market", all throughout the article are references like "In the US market" and "In the United States, but not in most countries". I believe this needs to be re-written to show a worldwide view with a secondary focus on particular markets. The section on the 2004 model in particular is bad as it refers to the Vector name being used but lack citation. More important for 2004 was the launch of the convertible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaaaplay (talk • contribs) 05:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Picture wanted
I would LOVE to add a picture of the iconic 9-3 convertible in "lime yellow" if anyone can find one without copyright (the Saab corporate photos are under their exclusive copyright). -- stewacide


 * That would be the Viggen version of the 9-3 (a.k.a. 'the banana') - MH 2004/05/04
 * What model year specifically? Pre-2003 or post 2004?.  I can probably get a picture. --Viscouse June 29, 2005 15:55 (UTC)

---

Also I don't know anything about the previous generation (as written the article is about the current one only) - I hope somebody can help... -- stewacide

Third Generation?
I think it's a mistake to name model year 2008 the third generation. It's not a new generation, it's a facelift. Nothing more than that. Olert 20:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That depends. The Turbo X is very different in that it has 4WD. Since it's refered to as "Saab Turbo X" rather than "Saab 9-3 Turbo X" perhaps it should even be split out into it's own article if there is enough material for it. // Liftarn
 * In swedish wiki, this is marked as same generation (2nd), I think its just facelift not totally new generation...--&mdash; Typ932T 08:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The generations should be fixed, now there is wrong engines in 2008, 9-3 has only 2 generations, 2008 is just facelift --Typ932 T&middot;C 01:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Bull-Doser has once again reverted the edits, and added the non-existing third generation. Can this be stopped somehow? The Turbo X is just a tweaked version of the regular Aero. Kinda lika the BMW M3, only less powerful. Adding 4WD does not make it very different car. - 85.226.146.105 (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry! I took care of it and removed the third generation reference, turning it into a 2008 Facelift.heat_fan1 (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Will the new 93 in 2012 be a third generation or a new model altogether as it will be named 32, not 9-3 and in a all new model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benrp (talk • contribs) 02:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Might be worth mentioning that the Turbo X is lowered further from the Aero, produces substantially more boost from the turbo, and a modified exhaust system so that it doesn't seem quite so ... Written off as a facelift. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.136.126 (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Viggen Torque Steer
I removed the following from the Viggen section:
 * (However, the unpleasant torque steer effect can be significantly reduced by adding some upgraded aftermarket parts.)

Aftermarket parts can have a number of dramatic effects on the performance of a car. However, the mechanical condition of the car as it rolls off the assembly line is the circumstances under which the vast majority of drivers will experience that car. My car can post sub-6 second 0-60 times with "some upgraded aftermarket parts," but that's not really unique or relevant to the article about it. --76.26.206.64 01:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC) KeplerNiko

Diesel engine
A diesel engine (the one fitted to my father's 93) is mentioned in the article but not the list of engines. All I know is that its a 2.2 turbo diesel, I'll try and add it if I can find it.

STOP posting horse power in PS and K/W. please it doesnt make sense to most of us and is not adding anything to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.6.127 (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I absolutely concur that it makes no sense to still use horsepower. It is not a scientifically used unit and not defined in the SI. Further, in contrast to Watt, it's former defintion seems to differ somewhat amoung states. Incidently, it is not K/W, but kW, like in kg or kJ. Thyl Engelhardt 213.70.217.172 (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally Thyl, definition is not spelt defintion and among is not spelt amoung ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate123 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Ward's engine
Not sure if this is correct. The lemma for Ward's states the 3.6 l engine, not the 2.8 l. While they are based on the same basis, it goes without saying that a bigger displacement and no turbo will change the characteristics of the engine significantly. Thyl Engelhardt

Prices
Should we remove those price lists per WP:PRICES, I dont see any reason for them. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 17:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Saab 9-3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071120053451/http://www.paragonexpo.com:80/310_Vehicle_Gallery.html to http://www.paragonexpo.com/310_Vehicle_Gallery.html/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081010232742/http://www.edmunds.com:80/insideline/do/Features/articleId=132946 to http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=132946

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to split the page into two generations
The page is seems very much cluttered, I think the information would be best laid out if we had a main page with a summary of both generations and links to their main page. Aaaaplay (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There is not a lot of material, and I just made it a titch clearer. The table of contents provides enough clarity imho.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  18:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Saab 9-3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120228031103/http://www.saabsunited.com:80/2012/02/the-last-saab-to-be-built.html to http://www.saabsunited.com/2012/02/the-last-saab-to-be-built.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saabmedia.net/models/9-3/pressinfo/2008-SS-SC/specifications/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120228031103/http://www.saabsunited.com:80/2012/02/the-last-saab-to-be-built.html to http://www.saabsunited.com/2012/02/the-last-saab-to-be-built.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)