Welcome back! I’m still on the road, and I found today’s contestants while bumping along through construction on the Ohio Turnpike (don’t worry; I wasn’t the one driving). I found a Swedish convertible, and, hey look at that, a Swedish convertible!
Yesterday’s Iowa projects kind of surprised me. I expected that Thunderbird to go down in flames, and in fact it lost, but it actually put up a decent fight. Is it just that the Beetle is non-operational? Forty-one percent of you can’t actually like that thing, can you?
I try to be as impartial as I can when presenting cars and find something nice to say about each of them, but now that this particular showdown is in the record books, I can be forthright about that Thunderbird: It’s an abomination. It’s hideous. And it’s ridiculous that someone put that much effort into making a common six-cylinder T-Bird look that ugly.
Moving on: By 2008, Sweden’s two best-known automakers, Saab and Volvo, were owned by GM and Ford, respectively. But both parent companies were wise enough to let the marques do their own thing; these could easily have been re-bodied Fusions and Malibus. Fortunately, they’re not; they’re cool, classy drop-tops that have slid far enough down the depreciation curve to be attainable by the likes of us. Let’s check them out.
2008 Saab 9-3 Convertible – $4,500
Engine/drivetrain: Turbocharged 2.0 liter dual overhead cam inline 4, five-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Kingston, PA
Odometer reading: 125,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives great
All right; what I said before about corporate non-interference doesn’t quite apply to this car. It shares no parts with the Saabs of old; it’s based on GM’s Epsilon platform, and powered by a version of GM’s Ecotec engine. But it’s still a Saab at heart. The ignition switch is in the center console behind the shifter, and it still has those wonderful Saab ergonomics. Sadly, you’ll have to take my word for it, because this is the only photo we get of this car’s interior:
The seller says it runs and drives great, and has had “recent maintenance work done,” but doesn’t elaborate on what. There aren’t a whole lot of details in this ad, actually. But we do get this nice artsy night shot with the top down, so obviously the top works fine:
From what I can see, it’s in good condition outside, but since it’s a Pennsylvania car, you’d be wise to check for rust underneath. Ordinarily, I’d say “It’s a convertible; it has never seen salt,” but Saabs are really good in the snow.
2008 Volvo C70 – $4,200
Engine/drivetrain: Turbocharged 2.5 liter dual overhead cam inline 5, six-speed manual, FWD
Location: Orion Township, MI
Odometer reading: 99,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well, but has some issues
Over on the Ford/Volvo side of things, we have this second-generation C70, which unlike its predecessor came only as a retractable hardtop convertible. The top was developed with Webasto, famous for sunroofs, and manufactured by Pininfarina, famous for some of the most beautiful cars ever made. The result is one of very few convertibles, hard- or soft-topped, that looks good with the top up as well as down.
The C70 is based on the same platform as the S40 sedan and is powered by Volvo’s transverse inline five-cylinder engine. Both turbocharged and naturally-aspirated versions were available; this being a T5 model, it has the turbo, as well as a six-speed manual transmission. Sporty stuff, especially from typically frumpy Volvo.
The seller says it runs and drives well, but the check-engine light is on, and the car makes a whirring noise after it warms up. The seller thinks it’s a belt, but that doesn’t sound right to me. Maybe a bad bearing in an idler pulley, but that wouldn’t set off a CEL. Or maybe the two aren’t related.
They do say that everything works, including the complex power top mechanism, so that’s encouraging. It looks pretty clean both inside and out, and it hardly has any miles on it. But it’s a Detroit car; as with the Saab, a check for rust underneath is warranted.
Neither Saab nor Volvo is owned by American companies anymore; Volvo is part of Geely, and Saab no longer exists. The cars, however, endure, and in the case of these two, thrive. Neither one is perfect, but neither one is a wreck either. The choice is yours.
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
Both are good options. I took the Volvo due to Manual, only reason.
I’ll take the Saab. I always liked GM era Saabs. They may not be as good or interesting as earlier Saabs, but I think they look nice. The ignition switch in the center console is also cool.
“The result is one of very few convertibles, hard- or soft-topped, that looks good with the top up as well as down.”
I’m going to respectfully disagree. I like how the C70 looks with the top down, but I think it looks very awkward with the top up. The rounded roof and C pillar look weird. The proportions of the car look off; the top and side windows appear too small compared to the rest of the car. I also think the creases between the roof panels are too prominent; I don’t think they could have done anything about that, but it is still ugly. I think the previous generation soft top C70 looks much better with the top up.
Volvo is great, but Saab is my one, true love. So it’s the Saab for me. I don’t really have any objective reasons to be honest.
It’s a “Detroit car” yet nothing is held together by zipties. I’m not convinced.
On yesterday’s pole. I voted for the thunderbird, but not because I liked it. I would not want to drive it. I figured it was the lesser of two evils. I don’t trust disassembled projects. It might as well be a roller for all the work you will likely have to do, but it is priced higher. Also as a Californian I don’t have DT’s tolerance for rust.
Four seater convertable with a stick? Sign me up!
Volvo, for two reasons. One, it’s manual. Two, I had a huge crush on a girl who had a C70 drop top that I knew in college. It was purple over tan and it was sweet. Unfortunately nothing ever came of it. She was a friend of my sister’s and my sister absolutely forbade any of her friends from canoodling with me and mine. It was dumb. Anyway she’s now a radiologist.
So, I guess you never saw the top down?
Not a once, I am afraid
I had a hard time picking the saab and I’m a saab lover with more patience for GM saabs than most. Without the saab motor it’s a hard sell for me.
Volvo, and I’m betting on an idler pulley and an unrelated sensor. It’s just cooler all around and seems less tethered to the parent company than the Saab (which seemingly drips GM to me).
Both have positives and negatives. Both are a great price. I picked the Saab because I’ve never owned one and I’ve had a Volvo before (V70R)
Normally, I fly with jets because I’m a SAAB guy through and through…but I like the retractable hardtop of the C70, el manuel transmisión, and the I5 is rock solid. So, today, I run with the mooses…or moose? Meese?
I vote moosen.
A moose bit my sister…
That sounds like Bullwinkle. Props for the Python reference.
When a moose bites, things can get a bit Rocky fast…
It’s Badenov when they just try to gore you.
Well done my friend. Well done.
As a serial volvo owner, it’s volvo all day for me. That t5 is super easy to work on and Vida (diagnostic software) is easily available. Whiteblocks can eat miles and miles without major issues as long as you take care of the PCV and timing belts regularly. The turbos are very reliable, the top is known to be very reliable.
The rarity of a manual really sells it. There are so few T5s with a MT–I know, I’ve been looking for one recently. Additionally, only the manual has a LSD up front; autos get an open diff. If you wanted to do some upgrades, it’s a decent place to start from. .
manual m66 fwd’s got an LSD? i learn something new every day!
next mod on my v70 t5m is an lsd. better safety in the wet and slop, and i like my roads like i like my sloppy joes- extra shloppy
Am I the only one who voted Saab BECAUSE it’s basically a GM parts bin special? I assume they kept the esoteric parts to a minimum, at least where it matters, and is therefore not a total nightmare to fix.
I don’t think it is. I think the engine and trans were unique to Saab, no body panels are shared with anything, ditto for the interior pieces, you may get away with some sensors or switchgear, but that’s about it.
I was thinking engine and trans, if they’re unique then I’d like to change my vote please 🙂
I took the 30 seconds to look into it. I am dumb, and you are safe. The 2.8 V6 was not sold in any other USDM car, but the 2.0 is a parts bin special. I am even more happy I went for the Saab now!
right, the 2.0 Turbo is related to the one used in the Cobalt SS
Hi my name is Dave and I’m a Saab 9-3 owner. This is the 12 step meeting right?
Ok so the GM Saab has been a relatively reliable car up until the end. For “packaging “ the wizards thought that bolting the ecu to the intake manifold under the hood was a smart move Heat? Vibration? What could possible go wrong.
For a long while we were sourcing used ones and reprogramming them. Lucky the old Saab dealer in Portland Gary Small (their website saabstory) were stand up and would guarantee the used ones for a year.
Recently somebody started is Re manufacturing “new” ones now but it’s a grand for a car of dubious value.
It’s my kids daily to school and it’s safe so easier to fix what you have vs an unknown.
He is off to college and this silver six speed big T turbo hooptie is heading toward a Gambler 500 run near you soon.
Ooof. Very GM of them to get the fundamentals right and then bolt a computer to something hot.
I trust GM’s mechanicals slightly more than I trust Ford’s, so I’ll go for Saab.
The only mechanicals these vehicles share is the chassis/ platform design, and when Ford borrowed the T5 for the Ford Focus RS. Otherwise these Volvos and the Mazda3 were very different cars, even down to the quality of the metal and body work. The Mazda3 had massive rust problems, and the Ford had transmission issues. The Volvo is by far the most solid of the bunch, and this is one of the best drivetrains they ever made.
That said, these Volvo interiors were drab grey plastic and the dash feels cramped. The SAABs were nicer to spend time in.
Am I crazy or are both of these screaming deals? Tough call between the two, I’d drive either, but picked Volvo for the 3-pedals.
2000s saabs can be had for very little money, and are a great value.
Volvo. All day, every day, and twice on Sunday.
I don’t want a saab story, especially a warmed-over Epsilon.
I’m voting Volvo because of hardtop and manual, but in my heart it is neither as I’m not a convertible guy.
The Opel is in better condition than the Ford, so I chose the Saab
Nice comparo! As the former owner of the previous generation C70 (but a coupe) I would probably stay away from both unless you are really into either brand and can wrench on it. Even then I would think twice.
I did the smart thing and bought an 06 Solara convertible in this same color combo actually. It has over 200,000 miles on it and runs so quietly I have to look at the tach or accidentally restart it. It has also been a MI car its entire life and has no rust.
Any issues with my Solara? Nope. Oh wait, one of the center console lights burned out. I do the timing belt service on schedule. No leaks, have only replaced brake pads and rotors in 200K miles.
It is very similar mechanically to my 05 Highlander which has been very solid – perhaps peak Toyota. I do regret not getting the dash cover replaced during the recall but mine looked great at the time and still looks good – I was worried that the dealer would mess something up. It turns out there is a market for dash covers for Solaras – who knew?
For someone looking for a reliable convertible – the correct answer is Solara.
The Volvo is objectively the better pick. It’s got the better top. The better transmission. It looks better. But I’ve always had a thing for orphans and Saabs specifically. Saab it is!
Better top is debatable, I love going on road trips in convertibles, and you lose the trunk with the Volvo top down, and can’t even drop the top if stuff is in the trunk, and as I always keep an emergency kit and jumper cables in the trunk that would be quite annoying. I would almost always go soft top over hard due to that, but I get there are also many advantages of a hard top.
Normally, as a 30 year owner, I’d vote Saab, but this isn’t really a Saab, if not a bad car overall.
The Volvo has two large advantages: manual transmission and a network of coast-to-coast dealers that can repair it if need be. Plus, its convertible top is more secure than the Saab’s canvas hat.
It’s Volvo for the win, top down.
I’d rather have the Saab…
…but then I’d take the Volvo because manual
…but back to the Saab because of the Volvo’s CEL and noises, and that interior pic looks like this belongs to someone who had no interest in keeping their car clean.
So I’d take the Saab, despite the automatic, but live in continual disappointment about it.
How did you download my internal monologue when making my decision?!
A stick AND a hardtop?!? Volvo all the way!! I bet the CEL can be fixed.
Alright! Now this is a showdown I can get behind. Truly you can’t go wrong with either of these, I have looked at and driven both and love both, just never quite pulled the trigger on getting either. All things being equal I would prefer the Saab. I like the look better, especially on the facelifted final gen like this, but then the Volvo has the coveted manual… But it also has some maintenance concerns… This is a hard choice for all the right reasons. I am still going Saab, just because a CEL in a Volvo makes me too nervous. I would show up and run the code myself before actually making a decision but the Saab seems the better buy today.
Volvo, for sure. A CEL doesn’t have to be the end of the world, and neither does the noise from underhood. These were nice cars, pretty reliable as far as I know, and the manual transmission puts it over the top.
I would leave the top up permanently, BTW. Just in case.