|
hi all,,,i am thinking of buying a saab probably a turbo one,,maybe a diesel if i am convinced they a bit better than petrol one,,,but to be honest its only a weekend car i am after,,,so a petrol i reckon be better,so was wondering if they any good,,,a nice looking car though,,and i wont consider a bm or a4 as the whole town full of them,need to be a wee bit different,,,oh and alfas out of running too,,,,,,,thanks james.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 12/12/2007 at 00:55
|
A diesel Saab is just a Vectra in drag, the older petrol turbos are the Triumph -designed engine, the newer petrol turbos use a GM engine (ie Vauxhall).
If you like them then get one, but you'd find a turbo, petrol or diesel, Vectra less expensive and more reliable.
|
I don't know whether RT writes from experience, or whether his 'Vectra in drag' slur is merely something he's read elsewhere. Either way, I ran a non-turbo 2.0 9-3 as a company car from 1998 to 2002 and liked it very much. I've also driven a fair few Vauxhalls and, whatever parts they may have in common no-one would mistake one for the other.
Over four years and 55,000 miles (more if you count the 900 I had before the 9-3) I came to appreciate the Saab for its space, especially its headroom, its seats, a boot that took full-size suitcases standing upright, and a superbly ergonomic dashboard - the parrots like the term 'cliff-face' but it works brilliantly. You also don't have to put up with the key fob tickling your knee while you drive.
In all that time, the biggest part that broke was the power steering pump; the next biggest was a headlamp bulb. I found Saab dealers and mechanics pleasant and knowledgeable people to deal with - although I concede that I wasn't paying their bills! Search the forum here and you'll find advice on independent specialists.
Part of what I like about Saabs is precisely that not everyone 'gets' them. I remember reading John Simister's Independent review of the 2.0 LPT in 1999, in which he said that although it didn't tick all the usual 'compact-exec' boxes, he really liked it. That's why I was disappointed when Saab went me-too with the 9-3 saloon; the hatch was anything but me-too, and that was part of the fun.
|
So the "new" Saab 900, later re-named Saab 9-3, wasn't a Vectra-A (Cavalier 3) floorpan and interior pressings with the same suspension, steering, transmission, brakes, electrical systems ? To a Cavalier man it all looked incredibly familiar, apart from the Triumph-designed engine.
Interestingly many of the common parts are cheaper from a Saab parts department than a Vauxhall one!
|
|
That old 'it's just a Vectra' nonsense always comes up, usually from people who've never owned both cars. I've owned quite a few Saabs ( currently have a 1999 9-5) and always like them. No more or less reliable than most other cars but they seem to elicit more brand loyalty than a lot of other cars. They also tend to be quite a bit cheaper when used than other cars of similar type so make a great used buy. I'd echo the helpful dealer comment. My dealings with Saab main dealers have always been pleasant experiences, although I normally use an independent to keep costs down.
Edited by lordwoody on 12/12/2007 at 12:31
|
So the "new" Saab 900, later re-named Saab 9-3, wasn't a Vectra-A (Cavalier 3) floorpan and interior pressings with the same suspension, steering, transmission, brakes, electrical systems?
Car journalists love to write about 'shared DNA' but so often the differences matter more than the similarities. After all, we humans have about 99% of our DNA in common with chimpanzees; about 95% in common with mice - a far higher proportion, I'd bet, than the overlap between 9-3 and a Cavalier. But do you tell your spouse who's found a rodent in the kitchen "Oh don't worry, it's just a human in drag"?
Yes, the mechanical bits are important, but so much of the satisfaction of owning a vehicle derives from the seat you sit in, the fabrics you touch, the radio display up where you can see it - things that genuinely do distinguish the Saab from its Vauxhall cousin.
Incidentally, I was sceptical too when the 900 gave way to the 9-3, but having lived with both, I can assure you it was far more than a name change - there were significant improvements to the mechanical bits too. And the 9-3 was 8mm shorter, so it was easier to park. }:---)
|
|
Is this the model that they had to weld the bulkhead back on under warranty.
|
'Is this the model that they had to weld the bulkhead back on under warranty. '
Incorrect. The problem was with hairline cracks around the steering column opening that were repaired under warranty with out of warranty cars being fixed FOC as well. Search for associated threads for advice.
If you're going for a petrol car try to get a turbocharged version. The 9-3 is much better quality than the Vectra of the day with better image & residuals. Our 9-3 Convertible was a good car, and had a very nice leather interior, the seats were probably the best I've encountered for a car of it's class & quality. (In 1999 it cost around £25k new..........)
|
|
|
Is this the model that they had to weld the bulkhead back on under warranty.
Yes the bulkhead-mounted steering rack is a dumb idea which causes cracking of the bulkhead on some cars. Saab usually contribute 50% of the repair cost and will often do it f.o.c.
Several aftermarket companies make a steering rack brace which is supposed to stop it from happening. I've been thinking of getting one fitted but not got round to it.
|
I have a 2.2 diesel which is a rough old thing at idle and not as economical as some from the same era - if you only want a weekend car stick to petrol. 150bhp LPT is supposed to be a good balance between performance/economy, but I drove a 9-5 LPT and thought it a bit sluggish compared to my chipped diesel.
If I did less miles and wanted a petrol 9-3 I would get at least a 185bhp HOT turbo. Then again the LPT can be chipped to give a similar output.
The handling is not its strongest suit, it can be quite easily upset by road irregularities mid-corner etc., depends how fast you want to drive it. Abbott Racing sell a handling kit, this is what they say about it: www.abbottracing.com/2003/tuning/9-3/chassis/9-3_v...m
I drive mine quite quickly but dont bomb round corners like I used to, so I think the standard set up is adequate for my mainly motorway commuting.
I also use an independant specialist for servicing as main dealer prices are quite steep so not justifiable on an old car.
Check out the reliability thread on www.saabscene.com . Mine has been more reliable than some I think, the only failure item in 3.5 years/ 65k miles is the heater box, other than that its only needed oil/ filters/ tyres/ brakes (car now on 141k miles) .
Also check out the Saabscene.com forum about bulkhead cracking, its a sticky topic at the top of the 9-3 page. I think it put someone off buying one in a thread last week!
;o)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had a diesel 9-3 SE in 2001 as a company car. I agree with most of the positive comments, especially about things being different and just right when you started to use them, e.g. Tonka toy buttons on radio meant no fiddling, or taking your eyes off the road to see them. The diesel would easily out distance a Golf GTI once it was rolling. However, the Cavalier underpinnings mean it is not no boy racer-mobile, so buy a hot hatch if you want that. The Saab was much better finished than my girlfriend's Merc C-class, which was positively tinny by comparison. Wonderful, solid cruiser, fantastic space: I loaded it right up to the windows once with laminated flooring panels, which it pulled with no handling problems at all. I then checked and realised I'd hugely overloaded it. I suffer from a bad back, and with a high mileage to do, the seats were the best I could find on anything, absolutely wonderful.
Downside: if you don't do a high mileage, go for a petrol: after 20k and 11 months, the diesel was tractor-like, causing the dash to rattle, a pipe on the turbo to come loose three times, leaving me in limp home mode (no other faults!). But 33-38 mpg, and not too noisy when you're moving.
For weekends, I'd strongly consider a convertible.
|
|
|
|
Well,,thanks for all the comments,,,no horror stories here then,,,,I think I would go for the petrol,,one I reckon one of the hot turbos,,,I think thats the one with a red (t) ,????,anyway I am in no rush and will have a good look about,,,thanks again for all the comments guys,,
|
Isn't it the capital T that signifies the hot versions?
I was given a passenger ride in a 9-3 Viggen a few years back and it scared the stuffing out of me - stupidly quick, but taking in every corner in a huge sweeping mass of understeer in the process. Don't get me wrong, it seemed precise but just required a very different approach to your typical hot hatch.
|
For the 98-02 cars, the designations were:
small case 't' - Low Pressure Turbo, 150bhp;
large case 'T' - standard turbo, 185bhp;
'HOT' - High Output Turbo, 205bhp (i mixed this up yesterday);
Viggen was 225bhp from a 2.3 litre engine, all others were 2.0 litre.
I think for the 9-3 saloon range in 2003, some of the engines were GM Ecotec; before 2003 they were all chain-cam Saab engines.
The trim levels go: base, S, SE, Aero. And there are 3 door and 5 door versions. I saw a classifieds ad a while back which said, "Saab 9-3 2.0 S - Sport, top of the range". Which was a load of carp, thats next to bottom of the range!
The Viggen got a lot of stick in road tests, saying the chassis could not cope with the power and had loads of torque steer. Abbott sell their 'Viggen Rescue Kit' to correct this and I think quite lot of owners of the higher output and modified cars have this or equivalent parts fitted.
Rich..
Edited by Rich 9-3 on 13/12/2007 at 13:12
|
the chassis could not cope with the power and had loads of torque steer
Ah.. I'd assumed wandering onto the other side of the road was part of the line :)
|
I think the important point to get across is that the Aero HOT models are powerful front-wheel- drive cars. Even the idolised Focus RS is often singled out as having too much power through its front wheels - despite the limited slip diff.
The Saab is nowhere near as 'sorted' as the Focus, but it does give you a very nice cabin and plenty of poke for a modest outlay. The image of a powerful Saab as opposed to a Focus RS, or even a Scooby could not be more different!
|
|
|
|
