Wow, it is too rare...

Saab 900 (2nd Generation) was based on Opel Vectra (B), which also failed Euro NCAP crash test in 1997. And Saab 9-3 (1st Generation) was a facelift of Saab 900 (2nd Generation).

i dont think they are that bad actually, similar cars like the bmw e36 actually got a worse rating by ncap. folksam the insurance company credited the car as quote "well abouve average" we have simply forgotten how unsafe cars used to be.

They were thinking this; "HELP!!" The original 900 was a revised 99, which was designed in the 1960s, desperately showing its age, in need of replacement. This is very expensive, they didn't have much money, and a shortened 9000 looked wrong. The problem is that GM doesn't appear to waste much time worrying about quality and "brand identity", and SAAB weren't given free rein - or the budget - to take their existing platforms and parts, and revise them to be "built like a tank" or drive better. The entire story of SAAB under GM ownership - and afterwards - is essentially one of sabotage, a small company trying to make something good that they're proud of while their owner makes it impossible to do so or survive as a company.

@@moukka1760 Saab 900 (2nd Generation) has a one star and a half, BMW 3 Series (E36) also has a one star and a half. The safety of E36 and 2nd generation 900 is similar. In moderate overlap frontal crash test the driver won't survive in both cars.

@@HOONIGAN2011-jt4oz they will probably survive, but be seriously injured. The driver gets worse g loads in the BMW according to ncap in the front offset, but it's a small difference. They are both similar, but according to folksam the car is somewhat better ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯