Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 13:30:05 GMT From: Bob <uctraingLOWSPAMnopsamanet.com> Subject: Re: 1999 9-5SE 170hp 4 cylinder MPG?
On 04 May 2002 16:15:30 GMT, aj023nopsamcom (AJ023) wrote: >Hello. I am in the market for another car. I was reading the car magazines >and consumer reports, and the 1999 Saab 9-5SE got nice writeups and also had >the best reliability of the Euro sedans to boot. Is the 4 cylinder engine the >better engine in terms of reliability and maintanence over the 6 cylinder? The 4-cyl is a long term Saab engineered engine. The 6-cyl is a GM that the corporation stuffed into a Saab for marketing reasons. The 4 cyl turbo gets a lot more respect than the 6 cyl. Unless they've made a correction, the 6-cyl requires timing belt changes every 30K miles... with the factory paying for the first 3 if you also buy the standard (per) 30K service ($450 or more) >Also in terms of fuel economy, I noticed that the rated MPG figures here in the >USA are actually on par with some 6 cylinder engines. Is it true that this 4 >cylinder car would cost the same in fuel as one of those 6 cylinder cars? It's a powerful Turbo. When you compare the amount of power you get from the engine to a 6 with comparable power, I think you'll find that the 4 actually gets better mileage. It all depends on how often you like to feel the turbo rush :-) >would have thought that since its a 4 cylinder, it would be alot cheaper in >fuel costs than any 6 cylinder engine. Not a lot, perhaps a little, depends how much your foot is in it. Bob