Who am I to question the matter (!!!) but Der Eigentümer sagt, das Auto wäre im top-Zustand doesn’t sound to me quite right. I see it, rather, as a matter of sequence of tenses, that Der Eigentümer sagte, das Auto wäre im top-Zustand would be OK, and there’d be no difference in the degree of doubt felt by the seller between Der Eigentümer sagt, das Auto sei im top-Zustand and Der Eigentümer sagte, das Auto wäre im top-Zustand. it is, rather, to repeat myself, a matter of sequence of tenses. Sei is present Konjunktiv; wäre is past Konjunktiv: the degree of doubt they express is not different (as I understand the matter). Because sagte has been used, wäre follows. Konj 1 would be rendered in English as The owner says it’s in excellent condition; Konj 2 would be The owner said it’s in excellent condition. (The owner said it was in excellent condition would also be possible, but is in excellent condition is better here.)
I think I know what you're getting at.
The reason why you're getting a strong sense of past tense from the word 'wäre' is, because you primarily associate it with "wäre -> war = past tense". That is normal because you are obviously very familiar and comfortable with grammatical tenses. And you are right, 'wäre' is Konjunktiv 2, Präterit (Konjunktiv 2, Präsens does not exist).
For a native German-speaker, however, it is the meaning of Konjunktiv 2 that jumps into your face and not the grammatical tense!
I think there is no direct comparison of Konjunktiv1/2 to the english language, because you only have one subjunctive mood, right?
I believe the most accurate translation of the Konjunktiv 2 meaning is:
Der Eigentümer sagte, das Auto wäre im top-Zustand. -> The owner said that the car should be [or: would be] in excellent condition.
reverse translation: should be = sollte sein, would be = würde sein
Yes, that's not a literal translation and the english versions could have different meanings, but yet, it conveys the speaker's concerns that are implied in the german sentence.
Because sagte has been used, wäre follows.
Nope, this assumption is wrong.
The grammatical tenses between first and second clause are independent!
The first clause "
Der Eigentümer sagt/sagte," is just a description of the original speaker and the way he expressed the statement in question (e.g. "
Der Eigentümer sagte/dachte/glaubte/meinte/etc,"). This part is actually always some form of past tense when you use indirect speech, after all you are reporting somebody elses statement!
When you do use present tense here (which is very normal usage, too), then it just indicates that the statement is considered to be a 'timeless fact'.
In the actual indirect speech clause "
, das Auto wäre im top-Zustand." the grammatical tense is supposed to follow the tense of the original statement.
The example above used present tense in active speech, but let's look at this:
Karl sagt: "Das Auto war in hervorragendem Zustand (bis meine Freundin ne Delle reingefahren hat)."
then, my (not so good) sales pitch in Konjunktiv 1 is:
Der Eigentümer sagte, das Auto sei in hervorragendem Zustand gewesen, bis seine Freundin ne Delle reingemacht hat. (..und sie durfte anschließend auch nie mehr fahren!)
meaning: Te owner said the car has been (or: used to be) in excellent condition up until his girlfriend put a dent in it.
For completeness and clarity, here's another very common example for future tense:
direct speech: Er sagt: "Morgen wird es regnen."
indirect, future, Konjunktiv 1: Er sagte, es werde morgen regnen.
indirect, future, Konjunktiv 2: Er sagte, es würde morgen regnen.
Konj 1 would be rendered in English as The owner says it’s in excellent condition; Konj 2 would be The owner said it’s in excellent condition. (The owner said it was in excellent condition would also be possible, but is in excellent condition is better here.)
I don't quite agree, as per descriptions above. Better don't compare it too closely with english subjunctive! But for argument's sake, Konjunktive 2 seems more similar to Past Subjunctive: "The owner said it were in excellent condition."
But I guess this form is very rarely used today and sounds archaic, isn't it??