Ms3 Vs 9-2x

[CHICO2003]

And in the other corner...

I never really cared much for the 9-2x aero. Sure, underneath its tasteful, yet conservative saab styling is the heart of a WRX but... I just never could get past the fact that it was a "station wagon". I thougth that if I had owned one, I'd always mentally compare it to the much more aggressive styling of the WRX sedan. Knowing I could have bought one of those for about the same price wouldn't have sat right with me.

Last year GM/Saab sold the hell out of these. I forget the specifics but, in the end, there were something like $6k worth of savings. I personally know a few people who "took advantage" of this pricing. I use quotes because, in my mind, all GM/Saab really did was adjust the pricing to where it should have been to begin with. Styling differences aside, there weren't many tangible differences between saab's version ans subaru's. Why then charge a $3-$5k premium? Just so you can say you drive a "saab"? Clearly that wasn't enough because, at the MSRP, these cars sold like s***.

Even still, it was a heck of a value. If you were a fan of the wagon look, it was practically a no-brainer. If I had been, I might have pulled the trigger. But again, I just couldn't get past the looks.

Fast forward a year and a lot has changed while a lot has stayed the same. As for the pricing... GM/Saab has brought back similar savings. While it may not be quite as good, a $5k rebate aint too shabby. Thanks to Mazda, I may not be a fan (per se) but I'm certainly not against wagons. In fact, the more I read (and think) about having one, the more inclined I'd be to own one. The right one.

For me, that's a rather short list. It includes just two cars. Both cars have a similar look, similar performance characteristics (I'm assuming) and offer a similar value (with the current incentives).

I'm curioius as to what everyone's thoughts are. I'd love to wait until the MS3 comes out so I can potentially buy one. While there are a few things that 'grind my gears' about the car, with its huge upside, I know I can live with them. It's the kind of car I could easily see myself owning for the next 5+ years. However, in waiting for that car, I'd be passing up an equally (some may say even sweeter) deal in the 9-2X Aero. Keep in mind that this version has the same engine as the WRX (2.5L VV 230hp) and same steering as the Sti. (why, I have no clue) This arguably makes it an even better deal than last year's non-vv model.

I was going to post specs for comparrison sake but my search came up empty. Most of us have a good idea as to what each car is capable of so it's probably irrelevant. I personally feel that, despite the Mazda's considerable power advantage, that the 2 cars will have similar performance #s, with the Mazda most likely having a slight edge. The Saab's obvious edge (for some) is its awd system. Though it can be over-rated, most would agree that, all things being equal, it's the better choice.

Try to put your bias aside and vote for the car you think is the best pound for pound wagon.

 

[WetsuitxNinja]

Hard decision. For me I dont think I need AWD. Never snows where im at, only time I see snow is if I go to the mtns. Then if there is snow, Ill be prepared for it yada yada.

AWD = higher drivetrain loss so you will be getting even less whp.

If I lived in a climate where there was snow on the ground for a good portion of the time I would definately go with the 9-2

 

[seanw]

Uh, did your search include Edmunds? Well, anyway, here are '06 specs and the most important one is lbs/hp: 13.9. The MS3 is 12 lbs/hp. Similar performance characteristics? Not stock, anyway. There is just no way the Saabaru is going to feel anywhere near as good when you put the pedal to the floor for a quick boost fix. AWD might, I say MIGHT, make the Saabaru handle better, but nearly all the MS3 reviews to date are giving it pretty big kudos in the cornering department. No Saabaru for me, thanks. MS3 FTW by a wide margin.

Exterior
Length: 175.6 in. Width: 66.7 in.
Height: 57.7 in. Wheel Base: 99.4 in.
Ground Clearance: 6.1 in. Curb Weight: 3208 lbs.
Gross Weight: 4210 lbs.
Interior
Front Head Room: 39.7 in. Front Hip Room: 53.3 in.
Front Shoulder Room: 52.7 in. Rear Head Room: 37.3 in.
Rear Shoulder Room: 52.9 in. Rear Hip Room: 51.9 in.
Front Leg Room: 42.9 in. Rear Leg Room: 33.7 in.
Luggage Capacity: 27.9 cu. ft. Maximum Cargo Capacity: 62 cu. ft.
Maximum Seating: 5
Performance Data

Performance
Base Number of Cylinders: 4 Base Engine Size: 2.5 liters
Base Engine Type: Horizontally Opposed Horsepower: 230 hp
Max Horsepower: 6000 rpm Torque: 235 ft-lbs.
Max Torque: 3600 rpm Maximum Towing Capacity: 1000 lbs.
Drive Type: AWD Turning Circle: 35.4 ft.

Fuel Data

Fuel
Fuel Tank Capacity: 15.9 gal.
EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway)
Manual: 21 mpg / 27 mpg Automatic: : 20 mpg / 25 mpg
Range in Miles: (City/Highway)
Automatic: 318 mi. / 397.5 mi. Manual: 333.9 mi. / 429.3 mi.

 

[dread]

I like the wheels on the 9-2x better but that is it

 

[CHICO2003]

Uh, did your search include Edmunds? Well, anyway, here are '06 specs and the most important one is lbs/hp: 13.9. The MS3 is 12 lbs/hp. Similar performance characteristics? Not stock, anyway. There is just no way the Saabaru is going to feel anywhere near as good when you put the pedal to the floor for a quick boost fix...

...Fuel Data

Fuel
Fuel Tank Capacity: 15.9 gal.
EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway)
Manual: 21 mpg / 27 mpg Automatic: : 20 mpg / 25 mpg
Range in Miles: (City/Highway)
Automatic: 318 mi. / 397.5 mi. Manual: 333.9 mi. / 429.3 mi.

Uh, no. My search didn't bring me to Edmunds since the specs you listed (fuel capacity and all) could be had virtually anywhere. As for my theory that the "performance characteristics" should be similar, I'm basing this loosely on the performance of the WRX sedan. Granted, the Saabaru is a bit heavier (by about 200lbs) - Now, just so nobody is confused, the 9-2 doesn't have a CURB weight of 4200lbs. You listed the gross weight (but curiously, no curb) so, to be fair, both the wrx sedan and 9-2x weigh in roughly the same... give or take an average size male that is. Will that make a diference? Probably... but I doubt it'll be catastrophic. Unfortuneately, as much as the various publicatons like to test the acceleration of the WRX, none seem to be too interested in the 9-2X. As such, I was only able to find specs on that car. If anyone has any times (from a reputable source) please list them.

http://www.car-stats.com/stats/showstats/showstatsgivenid.aspx

As you can see, 5.4 and 14.1 (drivetrain loss from the awd and all) isn't too shabby. This was the 2002 variant, mind you, that was about 70lbs lighter. That weight, however, I believe is made up for in the overall quality of the car not to mention, with the larger engine, the potential for near sti-esque performance (for little $$$) is there.

HP/lb doesn't always tell the whole story. A good example of this is how the Legacy GT (especially the spec B) beat out the MS6 in one of the big magazine's (I think it was C&D) comparrison tests. Despite the Mazda's considerable hp advantage, the LGT (weighing about 100lbs lighter) accelerated just as fast, handled far better and just 'felt' like the faster, more agile car. If you haven't already, I'd encourage you to read that article. It may shed some light on how the #s don't always tell the whole story.

Considering the fact that we do not have any actual stats on the MS3, one can only go by Mazda's claim that it will accelerate to 60 in "less than 60 seconds". As vague as that might be, at this time at least (Edmunds mpg specs aside) it seems like these 2 cars may offer "similar" types of "performance characteristics".

 

[jbiird317]

obviously everyone here is going with the ms3 (including myself), I think the styling of the 9-2x is decent and the power is not that bad but not really all the great either. The problem i have with it though is that it is not that different from the rest of the Slaabs on the road, the best part about the ms3 is that it is clearly different than just about any other car out on the road right now (mazda or otherwise).

 

[DeanSweet]

I'm with Jbiird317 on this one.
Both have +&-'s but how many speed3's will I see a day in good ole' Springboro? Prolly none, I see 92-x's everywhere...

 

[CTGrey02]

They're decent cars, mix of a WRX and STi suspension, better interrior. I remember with the GM employee pricing plus deal they had about a year ago people were getting them for like 16,000 dollars. Insane. For the amount of time it snows here though, is it really needed? You'll basically be paying for extra gas year round for an area that gets maybe 15-20 snow days a year. I'm wondering what the difference in insurance is between the 3, the WRX and the SAAB. WRX's insurance cost has gone up big time due to everyone buying and driving them like idiots.

 

[02PROTEGE2.0]

all the pix of the back end of the 9-2 make it look like an impreza wagon...

f that.

 

[CHICO2003]

all the pix of the back end of the 9-2 make it look like an impreza wagon...

f that.

I hate the impreza wagon. Styling-wise, it's about as attractive as the russian chick from Dodgeball. The saab, on the other hand, I feel has much cleaner lines and (as far as the rear end is concerned) a much cleaner look.

Still not nearly as nicely styled (or aggressive looking) as the 3 though... that C pillar on the Saab/Subaru drives me crazy. If you squint your eyes, you can see a sedan. Reminds me of the accord wagons in the 90s... Literally, all they did was add a window to the back of their sedan. fugly as all hell

 

[seanw]

Uh, no. My search didn't bring me to Edmunds since the specs you listed (fuel capacity and all) could be had virtually anywhere. As for my theory that the "performance characteristics" should be similar, I'm basing this loosely on the performance of the WRX sedan. Granted, the Saabaru is a bit heavier (by about 200lbs) - Now, just so nobody is confused, the 9-2 doesn't have a CURB weight of 4200lbs. You listed the gross weight (but curiously, no curb) so, to be fair, both the wrx sedan and 9-2x weigh in roughly the same...

Uh, look again, curb weight is there and is listed as 3208. My point is that the specs were easy to find and lead to at least one important comparison. To me the lbs/hp ratio is definitely a major portion of the story even if not the whole story. 0-60 and 1/4 mile times depend a lot on the driver and the exact numbers are really just about bragging rights. Since, I'm not carrying a stop watch with me most days, I don't care nearly as much about exactly how fast a car does 0-60 or the 1/4 mile as I do about how it feels getting there. I know I'll definitely be able to feel and appreciate the difference in acceleration b/t a ratio of 14 lbs/hp and a ratio of 12.

I take your point about being able to increase the power on the Saabaru for not too much money, but not about overall quality. If the MS3 is built as well as the MS6, I'd be plenty happy with it. I'd have to look at the Saabaru in person, but Edmonds says it's WRX through and through and not very impressive.

 

[jred321]

on paper, i'd go with the MS3. the only thing the saab has going for it is awd which, with winter tires and a careful right foot, isn't much of an advantage. but i'd have to drive either to be sure, i imagine the saab is a bit more numb feeling which i don't like and softer, but i'd at least test drive it before making my decision

 

[CHICO2003]

Uh, look again, curb weight is there and is listed as 3208. My point is that the specs were easy to find and lead to at least one important comparison. To me the lbs/hp ratio is definitely a major portion of the story even if not the whole story. 0-60 and 1/4 mile times depend a lot on the driver and the exact numbers are really just about bragging rights. Since, I'm not carrying a stop watch with me most days, I don't care nearly as much about exactly how fast a car does 0-60 or the 1/4 mile as I do about how it feels getting there. I know I'll definitely be able to feel and appreciate the difference in acceleration b/t a ratio of 14 lbs/hp and a ratio of 12.

I take your point about being able to increase the power on the Saabaru for not too much money, but not about overall quality. If the MS3 is built as well as the MS6, I'd be plenty happy with it. I'd have to look at the Saabaru in person, but Edmonds says it's WRX through and through and not very impressive.

Ok, despite the urge, I'm not starting this with an 'uh'. haha But serously, you really think the hp/lb ratio is MORE important than the actual acceleration times? That seems rather nutty to me since, being a numbers guy, the numbers simply don't lie. Faster is faster, case closed. Now, I realize the driver factors into it a bit... that's why, when making a comparrison, I don't cross the boundaries of different publications. You mentioned Edmunds... As much of a fan as I am, they must have the slowest damn drivers around! On the contrary, MT seems to be the fastest. So you're right, certain factors.. .factor in. However, when a mag like C&D does a comparrison like the one I referred to, the fact that a car like the MS6 (with it's power/weight advantage) STILL got clobbered in the shoot-out, it's clear that there is more to a car than simply 'hp/lb' ratios.

If done by a trusted source, things like 0-60, 1/4 mile & skidpad tell a large part of the story. It's an unbiased, factual account of the car's "performance characteristics". Sure, the 'feel' of a car will vary... I remember a certain magazine saying that while the MSP wasn't nearly as fast as the WRX, it FELT faster. Personally, I think they were smokin crack cuz that's just not true. (and I own an MSP) But I digress....

My main point is, the 'feel' of a car is highly subjective. The times it produces is not, for the most part. If I'm going to judge a car I haven't driven yet, I think I'd take my chances with the actual times the experts have posted versus drawing a conclusion soley based on the hp/lb ratio.

 

[CHICO2003]

Alright... It's pretty clear that the MS3 is hands-down the winner here. s***... it wasn't even close! Granted, this site is just a tad biased, but I suppose I see it the same way. Always tough to judge a car that isn't even out yet, but I think we all have a pretty good idea as to what we can expect.

Do you think the results would reverse if a similar poll was posted on a Subaru or Saab message board? I'm willing to bet that they feel (whether it's right or wrong) that AWD isn't quite as over-rated as the majority of you do. I'm somewhat on the fence about it myself. The only AWD "car" I've ever owned is the Honda Element I currently own. It's got all-season tires and easily handled better than my FWD MSP (with blizzak snow tires). Though some of us here in the northeast don't think we get that much snow, I think it's easy to say that in September. I know I personally wouldn't have even been able to get to work last year if it hadn't been for the Element so I guess I disagree a bit with the notion that AWD isn't quite as valuable as we've been led to believe.

Having been in a 9-2x before, I can attest that the build quality is well ahead of my MSP and, while not as stylish, on par with the 3. Back in '05, Saab actually redesigned the interior for these cars... which Subaru brought back to their fleet as well. So, while it may not be a BMW, it's certainly better than the original WRX.

The timing on this sort of sucks.... It would have been great to drive these cars back to back. As it stands, I'm still on the fence. I'm going to drive one this weekend and then test drive a WRX. If they seem the same, I may get one.

 

[CTGrey02]

Wait... you already have a AWD car to beat around in the winter? Why even consider it then? I car pool with my wife to Hartford every day and we always take my beater unless it snows, in the snow her 03 Sante Fe is more than up to it... and my Focus is plenty fine in snow and sleet as well. I seriously can't see the point in having two AWD vehicles when you can have a better performing vehicle that's just as veristal the rest of the time.

 

[jred321]

i have to say, after driving my car all last year on nokian hakka rsi's in every storm we got, awd is over rated. the msp with nokian hakka q's would have had no problems at all. awd is def more fun and maybe you can go a bit faster (had to go to work in the storm we got on a sunday in hartford where we got i think 15" of snow and was still doing 70 the whole way), but fwd with a limited slip will still get you there. the only drawback i would see from the ms3 is the low end power. the msp didn't have much power so it was easy to control, the ms3 is different and might just spin tires.

either way, i think you're in a win-win situation and neither car is a bad choice

 

[seanw]

Despite the Mazda's considerable hp advantage, the LGT (weighing about 100lbs lighter) accelerated just as fast, handled far better and just 'felt' like the faster, more agile car. If you haven't already, I'd encourage you to read that article. It may shed some light on how the #s don't always tell the whole story.

Considering the fact that we do not have any actual stats on the MS3, one can only go by Mazda's claim that it will accelerate to 60 in "less than 60 seconds". As vague as that might be, at this time at least (Edmunds mpg specs aside) it seems like these 2 cars may offer "similar" types of "performance characteristics".

I read every article out there about the MS6 and all the comparos. Quite a back and forth and might come out differently now that the Mazda recall smoothed out the power curve. Anyway, when the rest of the numbers are as close as they are, I'll take the power/weight ratio as the deciding factor since it is the MOST objective. Of course, numbers get you into the dealer, but the final decision should be based almost solely on a test drive. I'll shut up now.

 

[deepfriedsushi]

Find the article that MotorTrend did a while back when they compared the 9-2x and the Volvo V50. I think that article gives a very good insight on what the 9-2x would be like. They kept comparing the 9-2x to the wrx wagon, rather than the V50, because they were saying how "soft" it was. To me, it felt like they were saying that the 9-2x was an old man's wrx.

The MS3 and the 9-2x are also marketed to different people too. The MS3 has more of a hyper, get going fast, speed around corners kind of attitude; same with the wrx. But the 9-2x seems to be a more calm type of car.

I think its just personal preference. What kind of car are you really going for? Not necessarly a compact wagon, but are you looking for one thats more performance and sport oriented (MS3)? Or are you looking for a fast wagon that will get you places with relatively more comfort (9-2x)?

 

[theice]

As far as the being rarely seen comments, I see way more 3 hatch's around than 9-2x's. I think I've seen one of the Saab's ever and it caught my eye as being different. The ms3 does not look much different than a regular 3 at least from what I've seen.

Either car is a winner in my book. I do love that 2 tone leather in the Saab though.

 

[mountjonas]

the mazda3 has always looked bloated to me. great numbers coming out of the mazdaspeed, but i can't get over the look. the saabaru is a little too understated and the impreza is so ugly i can't help but like it.