Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 11:47:48 +0200 From: Shane & Lotta <lotta.osterholmnopsamnet.se> Subject: Re: Just ordered 9-5
Hi Mike, I've tested the 9-5 and I can assure you that the 170 hp version has got plenty of get up and go in the manual version. If you are driving an automatic then the 200 hp version is definitely the bee's knees. Maintenance is every 20,000km so that is pretty much industry standard. The 9-5 is a far superior car in nearly every way compared to the 9-3 (face lifted 900) and 9000. Some consider the 9000 the last true Saab but they forget that that car was a joint project with Lancia, Fiat and Alfa Romeo. Even though roughly 50 to 60% of the components in the 9-5 are sourced from the GM parts bin they are in places that make no difference. Those that give a Saab it's qualities are designed and made by Saab itself. The 9-5 is the best screwed together Saab ever, and has the highest quality of any Saab. The 9000 is long in the tooth and is essentially a 1984 design so no way can it compete alongside a 9-5. The 900 is a cheaper Saab and runs on an older chassis and so it isn't as dynamic to drive as the 9-5. The 900 was plagued by a whole host of teething problems when it was launched in late 1993 which have all subsequently been eliminated from todays 9-3. Here in Sweden this caused Saab a lot of bad publicity regarding the 900's quality and new and repeat sales suffered. Saab knew it couldn't afford another round of quality problems with the 9-5, because of the media attention here in Sweden, and headhunted a Volvo quality expert to get things right with the 9-5. You are the benefactor as like I said before the 9-5 has the most stringent quality controls of any Saab in history. Hope this was of some interest. Shane Williams wrote: > Hey all, > > Just ordered my first Saab (a 9-5). Would be interested in any info > from fellow Saab owners like: > > 1. Is the 2.3, 170 hps turbo ballsy enough? > 2. How's the maintenance sched? > 3. Has anyone else test driven a 9-5? Opinions vs. the 900 and 9000. > > Any other info you'd think I'd be interested in. > > Thanks, > > Mike
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
