Good morning! Today we have two station wagons from a country famous for meatballs, candy fish, a world-class chef, ready-to-assemble furniture, and some of the catchiest tunes of the 1970s. But I’m really only supposed to write about cars, so I guess we’ll stick to those.
Yesterday I showed you an odd couple of vehicles that didn’t really have anything to do with each other, and based on the comment and vote counts, they both kind of went over like lead balloons. The Blazer won handily, despite its higher price, probably mostly because it’s drivable.
The Blazer would be my choice as well. Yeah, I know, there are “better” small SUVs out there, but I’ve long had a soft spot for the baby Blazer, especially in two-door form. And the beefed-up ZR2 is the one to have.
You’ll be happy to know that today’s choices are much more closely matched in age, size, shape, and price. They also both hail from Sweden, have turbocharged engines, and sit just a little bit on opposite sides of the 200,000-mile mark. Let’s check them out.
1997 Volvo 850 GLT – $2,500
Engine/drivetrain: Turbocharged 2.4-liter dual overhead cam inline 5, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: West Orange, NJ
Odometer reading: 214,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
The Volvo 850 series sits at a weird point in the make’s history, after the drivetrains modernized and went front-wheel-drive, but before the styling actually became, well, stylish. They’re still boxy, still good, but no longer resemble farm trucks underneath. And as the old RWD boxes age out and increase in value, the 850 is becoming a good way to get that square Volvo coolness for less.
This is the GLT model, with a turbocharged 190 horsepower version of Volvo’s inline five. I think we’d all rather see this engine sitting alongside a five-speed manual, but the Aisin four-speed automatic Volvo uses in these cars has a pretty good reputation. It has 214,000 miles on it, and the seller says it has been carefully maintained and runs well. It does currently have a check-engine light for a secondary air pump failure, but if you don’t need to smog test it, there’s no hurry in getting that fixed.
One huge upgrade from the 240 to the 850 was the interior. It still has that good Volvo no-nonsense design, but it no longer looks so brutalist. This one is in pretty good shape considering how many miles are on it; the leather is a little rough, but that’s what those sheepskin seat covers are for.
Outside, it looks pretty good. There are a few bad spots in the clearcoat, but it’s mostly shiny. A check for rust underneath is in order, but I sure don’t see any problem areas in the photos. And I really like the color; too many of these are silver or beige.
2000 Saab 9-5 V6 – $2,250
Engine/drivetrain: Turbocharged 3.0 liter dual overhead cam V6, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Portland, OR
Odometer reading: 190,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Inconsistencies in ads are something I’ve gotten used to in this line of work. Usually I catch them, and the ones I let slip through, you all can be counted on to find for me. Sometimes, though, a mistake is so egregious that you’d have to be blind to miss it. The seller of this car calls it a 2000 model in some places and a 2006 in others, and in the ad headline refers to it as a “Soap” instead of a Saab. It can’t be a 2006 model, because the V6 engine was discontinued after 2003, so I’m assuming 2000 is correct. And I don’t know where the hell Soap came from.
The V6 in question is a weird design, but what else would you expect from Saab? It’s an Opel design, with an unusual 54 degrees between the cylinder banks, and if that weren’t strange enough, only one bank’s exhaust powers the turbocharger. It works, though; it puts out 200 horsepower to the front wheels, in this case through a four-speed automatic. The seller says it runs and drives well, but we don’t get much more information than that.
Inside, it features some of Saab’s greatest hits, including a center-console-mounted ignition switch, an upright arms-out-straight driving position, and a special “night mode” for the instrument panel, quirks which are endearing if you like them and just plain weird if you don’t. It looks like it’s in really nice condition inside. The seller lists a whole bunch of options on it, but doesn’t specify how many of them work. I guess you’ll have to try them out and see.
Outside, it’s my favorite turn-of-the-century Saab color, a really nice washed-out green. It’s subtle, but stands out more than plain old silver would. Most of it looks pretty good, but there are some bad spots in the paint on the bumpers that tell of parking altercations in its past. Not a big deal, of course, especially for the price.
Seeing these two makes me nostalgic for a time when the car market was more diverse. Volvo still exists, of course, still good from what I hear, but no longer boxy, and nowhere near as charming. And we all know Saab’s story; it might be the least-deserved death since Barb in Stranger Things. But if you want to relive the market as it was 25 years ago, the cars are still here, and they’ve held up pretty well, it looks like. So what’ll it be – the Swedish car, or the, um, Swedish car?
(Image credits: sellers)
I owned that very Saab! Except mine had a tan interior. Same year, same color, Sun Green, though with the tan interior. It was *excellent*. I owned it for four years from ’04 to ’08, and 40K to 85K. The only issue I had with it besides routine maintenance was a leaky oil filter housing cover. Which on the V6t is cake to DIY. In fact nearly everything is easier on the V6t, it fits in the engine bay better than the turbo fours did (I also owned a 9-5 Aero wagon). It does have a timing belt, but given that the early 9-5s liked to eat timing chains on occasion that is almost a bonus. And they don’t sludge, unlike the fours. The v6t is smooth as a baby’s ass, unlike the agricultural fours (or Volvo’s five), more than effortlessly quick enough, and surprisingly economical with 30+mpg easily attainable on a trip. IMHO, the best choice of motors for a 9-5 if you are going to have an automatic anyway. A manual Aero is more fun, but the V6t suits the car rather better.
https://flic.kr/p/2tiqtp
https://flic.kr/p/2tiqwP
I had the next generation of the Volvo, a 2004 V70 2.4. It sucked. The older ones were not better. Nothing like as good to drive as the Saab even after a complete suspension and subframe rebuild, and much more wedded to the dealership for all things electronic, though I don’t think the older ones are quite as bad in that respect. One of the most expensive cars to run I have ever owned, despite being the simplest version of the car. Never again.
So for me, the Saab all day long, even with some bits being a bit hard to get these days. BTW, about the only factory “option” you could get on the ’00 V6T was ventilated seats, which this car doesn’t have. Otherwise, they were all top-spec SE trim. My car didn’t have them either, sadly, though it did have the cool sliding load floor, which was a surprisingly useful dealer-installed item. And mine had the “lightwood” dash.
This is why you shouldn’t post classified ads straight from your phone. Autocorrect shows no appreciation for brands that have been dead for years.
Edit – actually, never mind. Just tested and my iPhone recognized Saab just fine. They just didn’t bother to proofread.
I really want both – but the leather is destroyed in that Volvo, so I chose the Saab.
But I’d still take either one.
I wanted an 850 when they came out, but was in my 20’s and broke. My best friend’s brother got one new (he married a doctor, so not broke). I did get a (real) turbo Saab. That car fucking ripped. Those Opel-Saabs are just sad and kind of upsetting. Having lived in Germany for some years, I know Opels are kind of crappy, it’s what you get if you’re cheap, and you get what you pay for. Jeder Popel fährt ein Opel, as they say. I’m going Volvo.
One of the best cars I’ve ever owned was a 90’s (ish) 740 Turbo Wagon. To this day the most comfortable seats I’ve had the pleasure to sit on. I vote Volvo.
I loved my turbo 740 wagon, but my mechanic always warned me that anything after the 900 series was “not a real Volvo” the RWD Volvos are simply enough and will have parts support for running as long as you can buy gas and it doesn’t rust. The later cars, between the changes in ownership and gratuitous changes in design and engineering don’t seem like as good a deal.
Sure looks nice though.
I’d love a SAAB wagon too, just not this one.
Both of these are frustratingly close to ideal, but perhaps a little newer than the sweet spot for either brand.
Volvo I guess.
My ’92 745T had an interior that looked as though the leather and carpet had been set upon by a pack of balverines. The seat heaters? Nope. Driver’s seat (manual adjustment) was stuck on one spot on its track, too.
Still by far the most comfortable car I’ve owned.
Second was my NG900, but only because my 855’s S70-or-something driver’s seat was also stuck, in that case just too far back for me to operate the clutch without moving my whole ass. The guy I bought it from was at least 2″ shorter; I don’t know how he did it.
Anyway, went Volvo today because that V6 scares me more. A turbo-four Saabwagon would’ve been harder to pass up.
I can’t choose! I loved my father’s S70 (what the 850 sedan became) but I also rather liked my father in law’s 9-5 Aero wagon (and my own 9-3 wagon). I think I’ll have to go Saab for the night panel.
I picked Volvo, but it was a hard choice. I’m a sucker for clean first-gen 9-3 Aero or Viggen models.
If a car manufacturer wants me to leave work and purchase a brand new car tonight, the Volvo is what they need to bring to market. Look at the space behind that third row. That’s what we call “road trip ready” my friends.
I’ll take the Saab story…way more interesting brand/car than Volvo. I just like these better. I’d probably swap in a manual for more fun
I like the Volvo better, and would take it over the SAAB even with a warning light if it checked out to be as rust free as a Pacific northwest car. But I highly doubt that is the case.
I voted for the SAAB mainly because a true Swedish wagon must have roof rack rails, and because I’d buy it today if it included free shipping.
Both seem a smidge overpriced for their age and mileage. Volvo for sure. Parts availabilities and the general reliability both launch it over the saab. It also has a nice color and the interior looks fairly welcoming despite the mileage.
It’s gonna be the Saab for me. I love the boxy 90s Volvos, but this one is not worth the price. Not even close.
My best friend has a 2000 Saab 9-5 Aero wagon with a manual transmission that he lets me drive when I visit and I do enjoy that car. So my choice was pretty easy. He also has a lovely manual Viggen convertible that’s a joy to drive. So choosing the Saab was easy.
With that said – he’s decided he’s had enough of Saabs and Audis and he’s starting to replace with Honda products.
I owned a 1999 V70 and it was a money pit. Bought it from my neighbor, and it took me 2 months to get it smogged, the ECU wouldn’t reset to ready after a battery disconnect. The SM from the local Volvo dealership lived in the neighborhood, he drove it for a week, and couldn’t get it to reset. I was on the phone with the DMV for 4 hours until I got someone who could help me. They had me take it to the “smog judge” at the local community college auto shop to override the failed smog tests. Then it ate the wiring harness, the ECU took a crap, the radiator, coil pack failed, every six months there was another four figure repair at the local independent Volvo shop or dealer. It got rear ended and the cost just to fix the sagging rear bumper mechanically totalled the car. I gave it to my sister in law for her last year at UCLA and have only purchased new Japanese vehicles since. But I still voted Volvo because it had incredibly comfy seats and was perfect for road trips when it worked.
Mark, this is top level pandering to your readership. This place loves some Swedish wagons. Keep up the good work
I like both but I’m going with the Volvo. I like the colour better and for a transverse FWD layout, I prefer an inline engine over a V engine.
Also the Volvo is likely to have easier parts/service.
I’ll take the Saab, and enjoy it until the expense and scarcity of parts makes me regret my decision.
So just a test drive, then?
likely.
This era Saab will never not be ugly,
this eraVolvo will never not be boxy, so.. Boxy wins.I’m torn between wanting to complain that SAAB lost its way with the discontinuation of the two-stroke and that Volvo lost its way with the discontinuation of production in the Netherlands so I’ll have to sit out this one. Please be assured I’m still grumpy about both, though.
By this metric, you should be voting Volvo. Saab no longer made two-strokes in 2000, but Volvo still made cars in the Netherlands in 1997. This 850 was probably made in Belgium, though.