So the votes are cast, the verdict is in. Sort of.
I hope no-one’s looking for some momentous enlightenment here. I had a theory and wanted to see if other people agreed. That’s all.
My theory was this:
That’s it.
The theory started as I pondered the Saab 9-5. I’ve long said that we’ll look at getting a Saab 9-5 wagon when our 9000 bites the dust. But which 9-5?
Saab steadily de-contented the cars after a time, either through directly removing some items or through declining material quality. Cars from the early 2000’s seem to be best equipped as standard and with the highest quality finish when new. But you have to balance that equipment level against the age of the car and with the age comes the nose difference.
As I looked at the two noses, I came to the conclusion that I really liked the earlier 9-5 nose a bit more than the later one. There’s something very composed and elegant about that silver grille that looks good to me from all angles. When I see the later nose, with it’s color-integrated grille surround, something fails to click with me.
I think the 9-5 Aero looks good with the later nose, but the lesser models look like they have their chin poking out, like they’ve made a funny face for a photo.
Then I got thinking about other models.
The Saab 96 is an obvious one where the first iteration was the best. This is the only one for which I showed three generations. In fairness, I should have just made it a question between the second and third generation and left the bullnose out. Why? Because the second and third generations shared the V4 engine. The bullnose didn’t. The V4 necessitated a longer nose so if you want a V4, you don’t get a bullnose to choose from.
I think the Saab 99 looks much more elegant in it’s earlier form. I can understand people favouring the later form because that’s where the 99 really made its name. But the earlier form looks so clean.
My ideal Saab 99 would be an early-form body with a turbo engine, just like this one! It’s owned by a friend in Sweden named Anders S (his brother Peter has a red one just as nice! 🙂 )
—
When it comes the 900, I’m a little biased. I owned an early version of the Saab 900. It was one of the first 16V cars with the oxblood leather interior and the flat-nose version of the car had me from day 1.
In fairness, though, I also owned a later slant-nosed model in Sweden. I actually had a much better ownership experience with that car, but still prefer the look of the earlier flat-nose versions.
As an aside, I do wonder how much people’s personal ownership experience influenced their vote(s). I also wondered whether people voted just on the nose, and how many on their opinion on the whole vehicle. Did the wheels influence you, for example?
The 9-3 SS and the Saab 9000 are probably the two exceptions to my own theory that I would agree with.
I thought the 9-3 SS vote would be closer but I understand the later nose winning by a large margin. I reckon Dan P summed up the problem with the early 9-3 SS quite well:
I think the original design is great, timeless from many angles and just a beautiful organic shape. What I’ve never liked and puts me off buying one a little is the front lights. They don’t wrap around enough and sit too square on the nose, and it’s out of character compared to the og9-3 and the 9-5.
The overall shape of the 9-3 SS is nice but the front seemed un-finished. The later nose on the 9-3 gave the car more purpose, more aggression IMHO.
Same with the 9000. I like the earlier front but the later nose gave the car a more distinct identity. In comparison, the earlier front looks a little bit generic.
——
None of this is to say that people shouldn’t like one version or the other. The Saab 99 is a prime example. If you’re going to buy a Saab 99, buy a 99EMS or Turbo and love what is a magnificent front face. The earlier one looks more elegant to me, but the later cars are still beautiful to look at and a much better mechanical package.
Did my theory match the popular vote? Not really.
Saab 9-5 – I picked the early nose. The vote was close, but the majority picked the later, more integrated nose.
Saab 99 – I picked the early nose. The vote was overwhelmingly in favour of the later nose by a margin of 2 to 1.
Saab 900 – I picked the earlier nose. A lot of people agreed with me, but the vote was still firmly in favour of the later, more slanted nose.
Saab 96 – We all picked the early nose on that one. Despite there being three entries, the bullnose got 61% of the vote. I’m surprised it didn’t get more, to be honest.
Saab 9000 – I think the later nose was an improvement and the people agreed, but only just. The later design won….. by a nose. 87 votes to 79. There’s a lot of love for the early nose there, which maybe supports my theory, even if I wouldn’t have voted for it.
Saab 9-3 SS – I figured this one would be close, but it was an 83% vote for the later nose.
The bottom line
Saab has always had a strong design ethic and it’s no surprise that both their early designs and their refreshed designs are popular with the Saab faithful.
How to explain the discrepancy in the votes? Well, we’re all individuals. We all think differently. There might be something in the fact that some of the later designs that I dislike involve moulded rubber bumpers (Saab 96 and 99). Maybe I’m just into older cars.
Whatever the explanation, I’m happy with my theory and happy to know that all of Saab’s front-end designs are appreciated by the fans.
Thanks for playing.
