War Of The Noses – Saab 900 (classic)

Okay. You’ve voted for your preferred Saab 9-5 nose and your preferred Saab 99 nose. What about the most popular Saab ever made – the classic Saab 900?

The classic Saab 900 started with a flattish nose that was an evolution of the late 1970’s Saab 99. In the late-80’s the Saab 900 got a more slanted nose.

Which one do you prefer?

The early, flatter nose:

Early Saab 900

…..Or the later, slightly more slanted probiscus:

Late Saab 900


Here’s your poll:

[poll id=”17″]


The results of the first two polls have been very interesting. I’m still working on my theory and I think there are various factors in play when it comes to the preferred look of each car.

Thanks for participating!

And of course, comments are open.

You may also like


  1. Almost a toss up for me — each one works equally well for their respective front designs.

  2. much of a muchness here. I’ll go earlier as I like the simplicity, and I prefer the silver to the red. SHallow reasoning, but whatever.

  3. I owned an 84 Turbo for almost 10 years, but I still slightly prefer the slanted nose with the more compact bumpers. They made the car 50mm shorter.

  4. Is the 900 Aero becoming a real collectable classic? Looking more and more like it is headed that way…if so, the older car would be considered more ‘pure’?

  5. suppose the preference is age related. So far I’ve voted in all three instances like the majority of voters did.

  6. The flat-noser in pic 1 has a much more attractive colour scheme, but all other things being equal it’s the slant-nosed c900 for me, folks.

    Pretty tough call cos I love ’em both, just as the fact that the early 99s are the purest design doesn’t stop me coveting a mid-70s EMS on minilite wheels like it’s a hoard of Viking treasure.

    That’s 1 original versus 2 revisions for me in this exercise so far 🙂

  7. Thing about the early version is that it was really functional. There weren’t many cars with oversized bumpers that actually looked like the belonged on the car, especially in the US with our peculiar requirements. But the early 900 self repairing bumpers looked fine and worked like magic. Bumpers, in the real world, get bumped. Some places, they get bumped a lot. By contrast, the cobbled together later version with its fussy bumper extensions and its silly little clips and fittings that fell off if you looked at them funny, or the paint on the bumpers which faded or cracked, or those headlight buckets and bushings which were always disintegrating, it was just too much bother. Form follows function. Give it to me early style.

  8. I voted for the later version.
    I owned a black three-door 1988 900i a few years ago and it was a beauty. 🙂

  9. I own an ’87 slant nose so am a bit biased I guess! 🙂 I do like the original also, but the slightly more aero front of the later car just pips it for me. Both lovely though. 🙂

    1. Don’t stress about the theory – there’s nothing big or groundbreaking there. Just some thoughts I had and I wanted to see if they were shared by the wider public 🙂

  10. Liked the slant when it debuted, but after 20, some odd, years of trying to get the side bumper extensions to stay on and fixing headlamp mounts when someone taps the front bumper, I greatly prefer the early style with real bumpers! Interesting to see how many folks are converting their later cars to “flat nose”, these days!

  11. Although the later cars were superior in most respects, especially brakes, I like the early vertical nose cars and the real bumpers, so forgiving and easily changed, not that they often needed to be changed. Give me a late C900 converted to early nose/bumpers and you’d have the ultimate road warrior. And the ’86 SPG in Edwardian Gray? Best looking Saab sedan evah.

  12. I’m fairly biased as I own the flat front (Swade’s old 900 turbo). It’s a classic look… Especially with the burgundy interior. Future classic hopefully!