Good morning, Autopians, and happy Friday! Today’s Shitbox Showdown takes us deep in the heart of Texas, and just a little bit outside our normal price range, to look at a pair of seldom-seen stickshifts.
But first, let’s see what you made of our Iowa pickups:
I’m not surprised. That 300 six/manual combo is a winning formula every time I put one up. I’m a little torn on this choice myself; I’m a Chevy guy when it comes to trucks, but my own Chevy truck is a full-size with a four-speed stick, so I see the appeal there. I guess if I had to replace my truck, and these were my options, I’d probably go Ford as well.
All right. Today’s cars are, well, weird. Which is fitting, because they’re both for sale in the Austin, Texas area. Both are manuals, both are in reasonably good shape, and neither one is anything like a common sight on the road. Let’s take a look.
2002 Subaru Baja – $6,500
Engine/drivetrain: 2.5 liter overhead cam flat 4, five-speed manual, AWD
Location: San Marcos, TX
Odometer reading: 159,000 miles
Runs/drives? Indeed
Subaru’s second attempt at a ute/pickup wasn’t exactly a hit. Based on the Outback wagon, the Baja was a cool idea that everybody kinda liked, but nobody bought. Subaru only sold about 30,000 of them. And I think most of them were yellow. In fact, I’m not entirely sure I’ve ever seen one in another color.
Subaru’s earlier pickup, the BRAT, famously had four seats, two of them in the bed, facing backwards. Why? Because if it had four seats, it was a passenger car instead of a light truck, and therefore avoided the infamous “chicken tax.” The Baja avoided the chicken tax by having four doors, and by being built in Indiana. It also has a pickup bed about half the size of the BRAT’s, limiting its usefulness as a truck, which might have accounted for its weak sales.
This first-year Baja is in decent shape, with just a few cosmetic blemishes. It is missing the skin on its fuel filler door, and there is a wrinkle on the left front fender. It looks like part of the grille might be missing too. It’s nice and clean inside, though, and the seller says it runs well.
Like nearly all Subarus, the Baja is powered by a flat-four engine, this one displacing 2.5 liters, and driving all four wheels through a five speed manual gearbox. Despite the tough-guy stance, this is no off-road vehicle; like the Outback, it’s basically just a jacked-up car. I’ve often wondered why Subaru abandoned the idea of low-range 4WD, which they made available briefly in the ’80s. Would a little more off-road prowess have saved the Baja? We’ll never know.
2007 Saab 9-3 2.0T – $5,400
Engine/drivetrain: Turbocharged 2.0 liter overhead cam inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Austin, TX
Odometer reading: 111,000 miles
Runs/drives? Sure does
It’s no secret that we here at the Autopian are fans of Saab (I know, it’s SAAB, but it looks wrong). The Swedish airplane-maker-turned-automaker created some bizarre gems over the decades that appeal to our offbeat car sensibilities in a way few other marques do. Recently, our publisher, Matt Hardigree, seems to have caught a rather severe case of Saab Fever, and has been carpet-bombing the Autopian Slack channel with Craigslist and Facebook listings. So naturally, when I spotted this lovely snow-white 9-3 Turbo for sale, I had to feature it, just to enable his obsession a bit.
The second-generation 9-3, a continuation of the 99/900 lineage, is pretty in an understated way, and by all accounts an excellent car to drive. GM’s stewardship of Saab toned down some of the weirdness, though a few trademark touches remain, notably the ignition switch in the center console between the seats. Saab has always done excellent interiors, and this low-mileage 9-3 sure does look like a nice place to be.
The seller makes a big deal of the car being a manual, which I suppose marks them as One Of Us, though I would dispute the claim that this car is hard to drive or requires an especially skilled hand. The manual Saabs I’ve driven in the past were all very well-mannered and congenial dance partners on the road, and I expect this one is no different. Perhaps the hyperbole is just meant to discourage lookie-loos.
The seller notes some peeling clearcoat, but aside from that this Saab appears to be in excellent shape. It suffers from Unnecessary Roof Rack Syndrome, but that’s an affliction that can easily be remedied. I’m not saying that I’ve found the perfect inexpensive used Saab for Matt, but he could do worse.
And that’s our week! Have a great weekend, everyone, and join us next week for more questionable automotive choices. In the meantime: Subaru or Saab? Discuss.
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
“..Saab (I know, it’s SAAB, but it looks wrong).”
If we leave aside the not at all straightforward questions of how the company referred to itself and to its automotive division at various times and instead just ask how it referred to the cars themselves, for the most part it used SAAB through 1969 and Saab after that.
They weren’t particularly consistent in this, though, so I prefer to go by model number and call each production car through the Model 97 (the Sonett II, V4, and III) a SAAB and each production car from the Model 99 forward a Saab. This is purely arbitrary on my part, so if someone else wants to make a different choice I will, of course, be entirely unreasonable in this matter.
Subarus seem to involve too much sacrifice for not enough gains in their engineering and design.
What has AWD ever done for *you?*
Clearly the SAAB (…yeah, that does look weird) is the better value and I’ve always thought those models were very easy on the eyes.
But I’ve always, weirdly, wanted a Baja even though I have no use for a vehicle like that (does anyone? maybe someone who carries a large Tupperware bin with them everywhere…). Hell, I like the new Santa Cruz for the same reason.
Tough choice — the Baja is cool and one in good shape is rare. It’s the same for the 9-3. I think the price is a little high given it isn’t an Aero, but the manual helps. It’s in excellent shape for a pre-facelift 9-3NG and they are known to be very reliable.
Oh, and forgot to mention – it’s a 2007, which is probably the best year for these as you have the updated interior and the classic exterior.
This one is hard for me, I love Saab, and typically do not care much for Subaru, but the Baja is an exception. At the end of the day, neither will be reliable most likely, but both will be fun, just in very different ways. I went Baja due to the better color, and the less obnoxious ad. The Saab ad was just incredibly off putting and I want nothing to do with it. Also, I am car shopping at the moment for a cheap beater and these are both within a couple hours of me. I thought about going to check out the Baja, but found a cheaper, crappier car closer last night that I think I am going to stick with.
Not a fan of Subaru, even though yellow is a cool color, so I voted Saab
The Subaru is a more interesting vehicle to me, one that I could see myself driving, but in this experiment, the Saab is the better deal. Nicer condition and cheaper. Were the prices flipped, I might be convinced to go for the Baja.
My heart said SAAB. Owned a 1986 900 Turbo hatchback. Hands down, the best vehicle I ever had. Economical, practical, just sporty enough, and attractive. Daily driver for 30 years and 500,000 miles with no maintenance problems. Engine was never apart and still on original clutch when I retired the car. I’d be driving it today if it hadn’t been submerged in three major floods while parked at work. Still ran like a champ when I donated it to the Kidney Foundation, but, alas, the frame did not survive the dunkings and it was ready to break in half. Really sad to see it trucked away.
That said, my inner child wants the Baja, even it does have an engine prone head gasket failure. If it had the turbo, I’d feel better, not for the power, but because the turbo had a more robust head gasket. C’est la vie. You pays your money and you takes your chances.
That’s wonderful and amazing. How’d the gearbox and synchros hold up? Usually those or the gears or general internals are the Achilles heel on the manual transmission.
I attribute the transmission longevity to my superior shifting skill … just kidding. The first two years of the SAAB’s life was spent in Germany bombing down the autobahn between home and work, so not much shifting after up to speed. Later, when I brought it home, I ended up living 75 miles from work and commute was mostly highway. So, again, not much shifting while rolling up beaucoup miles. The last half of its life I’d moved to a location where I was barely putting 5000 miles a year on it, so most of its mileage was frontloaded in its younger years. Plus, I religiously followed the SAAB scheduled maintenance plan. That and gentle driving habits got her to 500k with no problems.
I’m going to buy that Baja and name it Stonks, because it’s gonna yield sweet dividends no matter whenever I sell it.
I’ll take the Baja, because it’s yellow, and fun, and the world needs more of that.
There are at least 5 Bajas driving around my city of 200k. Only two of them are yellow! A black, a silver, and a maroon round it out.
There’s a black turbo auto with 157k for sale in Pennsylvania right now for $9k, so this seems like a deal too.
It pains me to say no to a Baja/mini truck in general, but this has to go to the Saab. It’s going to be an exponentially more engaging car to drive, it has lower miles, and the interior isn’t a penalty box. I (sort of) get the appeal of Subarus, but even in the nicer trims their interiors have never been anything to write home about. They weren’t back then and they still aren’t now.
Also, my dad had the previous gen 9-3 hatchback in black with a manual so this hits me right in the nostalgia. It was a cooler car than I could grasp at that age and I used to love riding in it. However everyone except my dad complained that it was a difficult transmission. My mom used to stall it all the time and it was ultimately one of the reasons why she made him get rid of it in favor of a Volvo. So I’ve seen some evidence that their transmissions can be fussy.
But who cares. Gimme da Saab. I’ll figure it out.
The Baja is a niche vehicle. If you need something with that layout and AWD there’s no competition. But for most people the FWD SAAB is more than enough. I also have a fondness for SAABS, since my Dad drove a 3 cylinder model (I forget the number) since before I was born until I was about five. So I was raised with one.
Yellow Baja beats white Saab for me. The Saab is probably almost as engaging to drive as the ad implies, but it looks really generic and the utility of a small bed would be nice.
Is a Subaru’s engine really “overhead” cam? Isn’t it more like “alongside head” cam?
“In the general vicinity of the head” cam.
2.5L IGVHC Engine
Outboard of head cam design
There is no such thing as an unnecessary roof rack. Sometimes there’s one that you don’t need at the moment. They barely take any space at all in the garage when not in use.
I’d take the SAAB in a minute, and keep the roof rack for my fishing kayaks. I’d add a trailer hitch to haul mountain bikes and pull a small utility trailer. This one’s half kitted out for me already.
Sans rack, I’d still take the classy SAAB over the excessive cladding on the Subaru. It’s going to be a hell of a lot more comfortable and fun to drive, and a GM era SAAB is probably more reliable, too. In my experience, Subarus aren’t anywhere near as reliable as other Japanese brands.
It’s a stick and it’s the best color (yellow – the best color because it doesn’t stick to your fingers as much), so it’s the Subie for me.
That’s a quote from the play Fools, BTW.
Having owned two of this generation 9-3 (a 2006 2.0T manual sedan and a 2009 2.0T manual wagon) and something of a caretaker for two others (2006 2.0T auto wagon & 2011 2.0T auto sedan), these are really great cars. I put 200k miles on the 2006, including autocross, ice racing, and HPDEs where I surprised a few Boxsters ( https://youtu.be/8B1D5YF-it4 especially with a “stage 0” tune, the 2.0T is quick with a great mid-range) with no major failures (at least not caused by the HPDEs – lots of cooked front brakes and damaged front strut mounts from those). That car was sold at 220k miles, still running great, to buy the 2009 wagon for more space. I had that car for about 35k and was trouble-free after taking care of a little deferred maintenance when I sold it a few years later at about 190k miles.
They suffer from the stigma of being a “rebadged Malibu”, but honestly everything you see and touch on the 2006 and earlier ones is unique to Saab, while 2007+ gain some GM bits like the radio and electrical bus but these actually improve the ownership experience since parts availability is better and you don’t have to deal with the somewhat finnicky optical CAN bus in the earlier cars. Most wear and mechanical components still have good availability due to commonality with other GM vehicles, although getting some of the electronic modules is getting more difficult, such as key & ignition pairs, ECUs etc. There are still some specialists out there that have the Saab-specific Tech-II tools to pair these parts to the car, but I’d check to see where the nearest ones to you are before buying one now.
Shifting the manual trans on these (both 5 and 6-speed) is quite easy – they have a pretty heavy dual-mass flywheel and a good engine controller that helps keep them from stalling. By the same token, the gearbox doesn’t like being rushed but can be very smooth. Shift feel isn’t stellar but isn’t bad, and the 5-speed has a very big 1-2 gap that takes some getting used to, but the midrange torque of the 2.0T keeps this from being a big issue.
As compared to a Subaru Baja… I’d take the Saab both due to the familiarity, ease to work on, cheaper price and that mid-range torque curve, but that could easily go the other way if I did more rally-x than HPDEs etc
A buddy of mine had a Baja. It was black, actually, not yellow. It was also maintenance nightmare. I’ll take my chances finding Saab parts, and go with that one.
I was supposed to fly to Austin last week but got sick. Thankfully, I didn’t see this or I might be driving it home…
I have someone local who can store it for you for a little while.
DO IT, MATT. DO IT.
Ah yes, good to see the Bad Decision Support Group is still active in our community.
It’s a 2007 9-3 with the 2.0 and F40!
The only ‘bad decision’ you can make with it is trying to use the cupholders instead of just showing them off.
Whoops, forgot to add this to my initial reply:
DO IT, MATT. DO IT.
Hell, I am local and would be happy to go pick it up for you and store it in San Antonio until whenever!
This has nothing to do with the specific cars here, but I’ve been thinking with all the small-truck articles everywhere nowadays, often people say “Subaru tried that and no one bought it” referring to the Baja – but we’re talking about Subaru which was still pretty niche in the 2000s, the Legacy it was based off of was something of an also-ran in the family sedan segment still. A four-cylinder truck at the time was still more of a fleet buy over a V6 and turbocharging was an exception, now a turbo 4 is the norm for small trucks. All that to say, I don’t think it should be a crystal ball for future small trucks.
Anyway on to the cars at hand – the Saab ad is a bit silly, but I can appreciate that it isn’t all the other buzzwords people throw in ads – like LOADED! (it’s not, actually looks pretty low spec) or GAS SAVER (it’s not bad but 30 mpg highway on the original sticker, with premium gas, not really a car to save at the pump with).
Might just be the grille and fuel filler door that are throwing me on the Baja, but the Saab seems a little better of condition. And I don’t like the color combo on the Baja even though I know it was basically the intro paint scheme. That said, the Baja I can get more utility out of, and should I sell it I think it will be more wanted than a pretty plain 9-3 – so went Baja.
The “LOADED!” vehicles really bother me. I saw someone selling a Telluride the other day claiming it was loaded with “almost every option.” It was a low trim that had maybe most options that are available on that particular trim. The seller was asking for about top trim new price with a few thousand miles on it. That one seemed particularly bad, given a person could spec a new one and see the lies.
I assume the trick works, though, because it is constant.
The GAS SAVER ones might be true if you’re comparing against something like a SuperDuty dually.
I also thought the Baja was the better choice for utility purposes.
Yeah, it seems like leather and a moonroof are the key features that get sellers to say that in an ad, but even sometimes just having power features and a backup cam seem to do it. It’s easy for me to look past because I know what to look for, but it’s annoying all the same. Maybe we should bring back newspaper style character limits – XLNT CND!
Gas saver pops up often, but the tipping point for me was when it was on a LeBaron V6 convertible ad on one of the showdowns a couple months ago. A new Chevy Traverse has a higher EPA estimate than that LeBaron did! But like you say about the Super Duty – sellers seem to just throw that in on anything not an SUV, or say RAV4 and smaller for crossovers.
You can’t really get a “LOADED” Kia without buying the highest trim. I noticed this when I bought my Seltos, and looking at the build options for the Telluride, there are vanishingly few extra optional add-ons. Kia’s method is to get you to buy the next trim level up to get the options you want. So unless they’re talking about custom floor mats or other dealer add-ons, there really is no such thing as a LOADED Kia unless it’s the highest trim.
Exactly. I think this was an S with the sunroof. The only option available on that trim, but at least 3 trims below fully loaded (if you count X-Line and X-Pro separately, like 6 or 7 below fully loaded). I don’t actually want a Telluride, but I have a nearly fully loaded Niro (top trim for that year, no sunroof) because I want those features they lock in the higher trims.
Baja all the way today.
Both are good choices. I just went with the SAAB.
I’m not a huge fan of the later GM SAABs (except for the last 9-5), but I have concerns about deferred maintenance on the Baja. Plus, the 9-3 seems to be especially well-preserved. We’ll take it, and dump those roof racks in the nearest Walmart parking lot.
Dump the excellent condition, original, SAAB-branded roof racks in the Wal-Mart lot?
You hate money, or what?
SAAB all day every day.
Ignore how safety conscious SAAB was, ignore the quality of their stuff.
The Subaru is a Subaru. A) it will give you absolutely no problems for 200k miles B) it will try to bankrupt you, no matter how much preventative maintenance you put into it. There is no middle-ground.