We're thinking of trading in the Passat now that it's approaching 160k miles and we've had it over four years - time for a change!
An alternative I hadn't really considered till now is the Saab 9-5. They have a reputation for being very comfortable, and according to the CBCB, chassis issues (understeer) seem to have been sorted out from 2001 on, ditto the steering rack mount issue. However it seems there may be cause for concern with the EGR valve sticking closed, as well as intermittent build quality issues. Saab do well in JD Power but poorly in Warranty Direct. Having said that, nearly every car review I read seems to throw up a long list of potential problems and I'm starting to think that I'll just have to take a bit of a risk with my hard-earned.
So - does anyone have experience of this car with this engine (120 bhp 2.2 TiD)? How easy is it to rectify/monitor EGR valve problems? I assume it's a common-rail (meaning I'll probably have to limit use of biodiesel to a percentage), but how much of a difference would I notice from my Passat TDi 110, considering that VAG engines tend to be a bit more powerful than the badge says? I'd like a bit more performance than I currently have, but can't afford a truly quick car (wonder how easy/costly this engine is to remap). I see from Autotrader that there's one at a dealer near me for £4995 with 82k miles on the clock. Probably £4k with trade-in. Worth considering, or avoid like the plague?
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmm, doughnuts ...
|
|
We have a petrol 9-5 estate 2001. I don't know anything about the diesel version but we find it a very comfortable long-distance car. Good performance but only 30 mpg. Seats are great and it has a good ncap rating which is important to us. I don't think engine build quality is what it was on Saabs but almost every car we thought of buying also had it's own issues. They are good used buys as they depreciate so heavily, but you need a good independant as dealers are expensive.
|
|
|
I don't have experience of the 95 with the 2.2 engine, but did have a 93 sport saloon with this engine. I did not have any problems with my engine in 30K miles, that said it is a nail of an engine, meaning loud and unrefined but durable and trouble free generally. Economy will probably be poorer than the Passat but not terrible, I used to get around 45 MPG at normal motorway speeds. If you do almost entirely motorway driving the 2.2 diesel won't matter, but around town this engine is a pain, as you feel you are driving a John Deere tractor rather than an exec saloon !
This aside, I think the 95 is a great car and sadly probably the last true SaaB there will ever be.
|
|
|
I assume it's a common-rail (meaning I'll probably have to limit use of biodiesel to a percentage) but how much of a difference would I notice from my Passat TDi 110 considering that VAG engines tend to be a bit more powerful than the badge says?
Sorry I don't know much about these cars, but just wanted to say this isn't a common rail engine.
As for performance, a friend had it in a Vectra and it went very nicely. I would imagine it will be more than a match for the 110 Passat.
Cheers
DP
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
97 Ford Fiesta 1.4 16v Chicane (for sale)
|
My FiL has a 9-3 with the 2.2TiD (about 70K miles on a 52 or 53 plate)
Last month it cost him nearly £4K after the turbo blew up. (admittedly he foolishly had it recovered to the main dealer and then left it there to be repaired.)
My Parents have a 9-5 with the 1.9 150bhp diesel and are very happy with it (its an 06 I think)
The eralier 95 has poor space in the rear, the newer ones are much better.
|
Drive it first and make sure you can live with the engine. I love the 9-5 - everything you've heard about Saab comfort is true - but I wouldn't have a 2.2 TiD. Not only does it sound horrible, but it's not particularly quick and the din will put you off using what performance it has. In your price range, I'd rather have one with the 2.0 LPT engine, which isn't particular quick either but is civilized and should give you low-30s mpg. You could even retro-fit a Saab-approved Hirsch performance upgrade for £900 or so, but I'm not sure I'd bother.
The new 1.9 CR diesel is utterly different, and very nice - but you have to live with the post-2005 nose, which is, well, challenging. You won't get one for £5,000, though.
|
|
All the reports that I have heard is that the 1.9 is soooo much better than the 2.2
|
I have a 9-3 with basically the same engine. Its one of the more agricultural diesels, non-common rail. Rough from a cold start but improves when warm, and less intrusive when at cruising speed. A mate recently said mine was quieter than his PD Passat, ha! He actually said, "is this a diesel?". Mine used to rattle my teeth out at idle but the dealer adjusted the idle speed slightly so its much better now.
These engines are a bit of an unknown quantity on biodiesel. I heard of someone running a 9-5 on a 50% blend but dont know how it has gone for him in the long term; but Saab UK told me not to use more than 5% (as they would). I have tried 20% blends in mine without trouble but not long term as I havent got a local source of bio.
The inj. pump is the Bosch VP44 which got a reputation for failures years ago when ULSD was first introduced and they are not the best apparently, just ask Armitage Shanks.
Mine is the older 115bhp version, the later 9-3 ones were 125bhp, I dont know why they rated the 9-5 lump in between at 120bhp. The later 125 in the 9-3 was much improved with a better injection pump (more reliable?) and a variable geometry turbo, and I think the 9-5 got these mods but you would have to check.
I have got a tuning box on mine which gives a claimed 140bhp, and it feels quicker than my Dads A4 Tdi 130, so it is okay to drive. To be honest without the box I would probably have sold it some time ago as without it the engine was a bit laggy and slow, and fuel consumption was not great. If the 9-5 has the variable turbo then it should be much better in this respect.
In standard tune I expect it will be a little bit quicker acceleration than a Passat Tdi 110 (judging by the one A4 tdi 110 I drove before I bought my 9-3). If you chip it it should be much quicker. For comparisons sake mine is noticeably quicker than a petrol 9-5 LPT. Had one recently as a courtesy car and the performance I thought was disappointing.
Bought mine with 75k on the clock and have done nearly 60k in 3 and a bit years and its been exceptionally reliable. Needs 2 services a year due to 9k intervals but I think the later 9-5 will have the intervals extended to 12k miles. So costs me a bit over £500 p.a. for good quality servicing but has never broken down. Has not needed anything other than wear and tear items; apart from a replacement heater control box.
I don't know about EGR problems, ie. mine hasnt! I thought that has been more an issue on the 3.0 V6 diesel? Mine has had a minor quibble from perished spillback pipes, which is quite common, but I've not had to replace them yet (cheap job to have them replaced). And my injection pump has not failed (fingers crossed).
I dont know that much about 9-5s in general, as mine is a 9-3. Mine has the rough engine and the ride and handling is not great, but I think 9-5's are supposed to handle better?
I would agree, test drive one and see what you think to the engine, both from a cold start then after it has warmed up...
|
|
|
In terms of engine refinement I guess it's all relative - I'm not bothered by the sound of my Passat TDi (plain old direct injection, not PD), which people tend to regard as sounding like a bag of nails, so it may not make much difference. I want to use 100% biodiesel if I can, which hasn't been an issue on the Passat at all but might not be possible with the 1.9 JTD engine - shouldn't be a problem if the 2.2 isn't CR. The exploding turbo sounds a bit worrying though ...
Will test drive this afternoon and see what I think. If I can live with the engine noise and the car is quick enough for me (i.e. a bit quicker than the Passat to help make up for the slightly poorer economy), it might do the job. Need to be reasonably confident that I'm not in for a big bill soon after buying though.
Thanks for all the responses so far, please keep them coming!
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmm, doughnuts ...
|
|
The Saab 2.2TiD is the short-lived GM 2.2DTi engine used in Vectra and Omega - it's not common rail.
|
Andy, have a look on Saabscene.com in the 9-5 section there is loads of information including sticky topics on reliability and a 9-5 buyers guide. With reference to exploding turbos, AFAIK these engines do not have a reputation for it; a turbo can fail on any car can't it. Just like the injection pump is an expensive failure but in 3 years of looking on Saabscene I have only seen I think 4 reported instances of them failing on 9-3's.
Main dealers servicing is expensive, I take mine to an independant, Nottingham Saab. I got a quote of around £500 for one particular main dealer service and the indie quoted about £320 for the same service, so that was it.
Do bear in mind that they are not the most reliable of cars, saabscene may give you a feel for this, when I said mine had been exceptional I did mean it seems it may be an exception to the norm. I have not had the problems some owners have had (touching wood and crossing fingers when I type this!).
The GM 2.2 tdi engine is apparently an old Isuzu van engine which supposedly has balancer shafts in it (not that you'd know?!). The lack of refinement doesnt really bother me, but it obviously puts some people off. It was first fitted in the 9-3 in 1998 so its old tech but I presume the 9-5 got the updated version.
One bonus is that it has a cam chain, not a belt, so you should never have to replace that.
Economy wise its not as good as some engines from the same era and not as good ar CR or PD engines. I get low to mid 40s mpg with the tuning box fitted (less without), my driving is 60% fast motorway commuting. On long steady 60mph runs it will do low 50s mpg, but I dont do many of those journeys.
Good luck with it. ;o)
|
|
|
|
Make sure the air con works, its know to suffer punctures and leaks on the 9-5
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
Make sure the air con works its know to suffer punctures and leaks on the 9-5
Er, really? I've been hanging loose in the 9-5 forum on Saabscene for 4 years and it hasn't come up as a regular problem - it must be just about the only thing that hasn't !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andy, you could do worse than poke around the dedicated 9-5 forum on www.saabscene.com and do a few searches to look at other people's experience - at least one person has asked the same question as you.
My experience of the same engine in a 9-3 agrees with other peoples - it's the first and only diesel I've ever owned, but I did 60k in 3 three years as a company car. Bit rough, but economical, flexible, and a good motorway cruiser. It will obviously have it's performance blunted in the heavier 9-5, but it is probably the most reliable and trouble-free engine fitted to the 9-5. Whether you would be happy with the vibration, only you can tell. The 9-5 in general is good value for it's size and comfort levels.
|
|
The dash & instrument cluster look like something out of the eastern block c.1983
|
|
Utter rubbish, Perleman. Try it - it works.
|
|
Friend has a 9-3 Aero. Clutch has gone at 32000m. SAAB have given a time of six weeks to source a replacement.
|
Hi all,
Took it for a test drive, and while I liked the full leather cabin, with very efficient aircon and steering wheel controls, very comfortable seats and an ergonomically sound driving position, the engine was more asthmatic than a fish out of water in a pub before the smoking ban. Couldn't believe that it was rated at 120 bhp, it was significantly less responsive than my TDi 110. This was quite possibly due to a fault with the specific car I drove, but when it took 17 seconds to reach 60 mph I knew this car wasn't the one for me! Top speed in fourth was 75, and it took a while to get there. I wonder if the injectors or turbo might have been faulty.
The dealer said it had had new brake pads fitted, by God it needed still better ones - I know each car drives differently but in order to get any sort of response from them I really had to shove the pedal with my whole leg, not just my foot. It actually scared me, even when driving at moderate speeds.
Engine noise was tolerable enough that I think I could live with it no problem - however overall cabin noise from engine/wind/tyres wasn't as good as either my Passat or Leon - found myself having to raise my voice more than in either of them. The ride was more forgiving than either of my two cars (I have Koni suspension in the Passat) and it handled better than the Passat anyway. Funny, even though the Passat is a very front-heavy car, it felt as though the nose of the Saab was longer and that I had more of it to steer coming out of junctions etc. Nothing that I couldn't get used to though.
Overall I haven't been put off the idea of a 9-5 with this 2.2 TiD engine, but if I test drive another and find the brakes or engine are as unresponsive as the one I tried today then I'll definitely cross it off my list.
Thanks for all the replies guys and I'll keep you posted!
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmm, doughnuts ...
|
|
There is simply no way that a car of this size and class should be powered by a 120bhp diesel engine, no way at all. For this reason alone I would simply not consider it - rivals from Audi, BMW, etc all have engines far more suited to this type of car (We'll pretend the 1.9 TDI 130 A6 - another ridiculous engine/car choice - doesnt exist for the sake of arguement here).
|
We'll pretend the 1.9 TDI 130 A6 - another ridiculous engine/car choice>>
That's just daft! The 330nm torque of a 1.9 130 A6 gives it reasonable performance and overtaking power though it is not that refined, the problem with the Saab in question is thet despite being a 2.2 it is only 280nm well below class average.
|
|
|
|
Couldn't believe that it was rated at 120 bhp it was significantly less responsive than my TDi 110. This was quite possibly due to a fault with the specific car I drove but when it took 17 seconds to reach 60 mph I knew this car wasn't the one for me!
snipquote!
You should certainly try another - there is no way that it should take 17 seconds to 60! And brakes have always been a strong point of Saabs, the 9-5 is no exception. If it had literally only just had new pads fitted, then they may have been bedding in.
Persevere, there are few that don't like the 9-5 to drive, and with the 2.2TiD engine you won't get the mechanical woes afflicting some of the petrol engines.
|
The tope speed in fourth and the acceleration time (they let you do a 0-60 on a road test?) are way down on what they should be.
It's basically a very comfortable car and a reasonable engine, capable of much better than that. There is something wrong with this one, look at another.
|
"they let you do a 0-60 on a road test?"
Heheh - he wasn't in the car. I always do an acceleration test for 0-60 through the gears, 40-60 in third/fourth and 50-70 in fourth/fifth. I normally do an emergency stop test too, but was too scared to this time round!
I agree there must have been something wrong with this car - like I say, my supposedly less powerful diesel Passat would have left it for dead. I haven't discounted the Saab yet, quite liked it in fact apart from the engine & brakes in this particular example, but would need to find a "right" one. Was getting very worked up about an Alfa Sportwagon yesterday - there's a five year old 2.4 JTD with just 50k miles for £5495 at a nearby main dealer - but logged into the Alfa owners club forum and the technical section for the 147, 156 and 159 ran to 600 pages ... too many electrical niggles, flat batteries, MAF problems etc for me! Shame, I'd love one.
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmm, doughnuts ...
|
Brake pads take about 100 miles to properly bed in, which is probably why the dealer told you they'd just been changed. This is exacerbated if the discs are scored.
--
I read often, only post occasionally
|
|
|
|
|
|
