Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:37:15 GMT From: Bob <uctraingLOWSPAMnopsamanet.com> Subject: Re: Advice on 95 900 SE V6
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 11:46:20 +0100, "Grunff" <grunffnopsam.com> wrote: >IME, people who are long-standing Saab owners on the whole dislike the >ng900, and particularly dislike the GM V6 (non Saab). These people have >usually owned/worked on c900s, and maybe 9000 and 9-5s. If you dislike it because GM had/has a hand in it, then you pretty much have to buy pre-1993 Saabs forever. That won't work for all of us. Even without the NG900 bias (I own one, I like them), I'd recommend against the 1995 as there were some issues back then. It's much better to buy a '97 or later when some of the "new build" problems had been worked out. I'd lean towards a turbo. >As you'll soon guess, I'm one of those people. I find the ng900 less well >built, and significantly more work than an c900 or a 9000. The addition of >the awful GM V6 just completes the package. The V6 is definitely not a high point. I'd avoid it. >FWIW, if the head work which you describe has been done well, then several >of the engine's weaknesses have been addressed - you have new head gaskets, >new timing belt, new tensioner, etc. Was the timing belt done around 30-35K and then it went at 63K ? Or did they just let it go and it blew at 63 K ? If they missed the belt at 35K, it doesn't sound like they have much of a watch on regular maintenance. The factory pays for these belts (in general) and it's a well known issue for anyone with a V6. If, OTOH, the belt went after the normal service around 35K, that would be better in terms of how they maintained the car ie., they did what they were supposed to do but it broke anyway. I can't recall if the official change intervals are 30/60/90 or 35/65/95. Bob
