Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 20:04:30 GMT From: "Bob H" <iamafigmentnopsamurimagination.net> Subject: Re: My test drives of 9-3 Linears
"ma_twain" <ma_twainnopsamo.com> wrote in message news:400AB4CC.1010607nopsamo.com... > > > Bob H wrote: > > > Drove two new 9-3 Linears yesterday, both automatics. > > > > -2003 with 17"s, too much tendency to follow road irregularities; squirrelly > > at high highway speeds (90 mph) > > > > -2004 with 16's: eliminated 95% of the tendency, and about 90% of the > > squirrelliness > > > > Both car interiors seemed somewhat loose fitting, like trim parts were > > rubbing and jiggling over the worse roads (that shuffling sound over the > > bumps and poor patches), and weren't tightly assembled, or poorly designed, > > or both. The dash area seemed tight, it was aft that seemed loose. The > > interior just felt somewhat like a flivver to me. But maybe that's just me. > > > > Struts on the 03 sounded noisy, and also sounded like something was loose > > underneath whacking the floor pan- probably easily adjusted. The strut > > noisiness was worrisome, though. > > > I am sorry to hear this about the quality of the 2003/2004 9-3s. For > that price, you would think these issues would have been eliminated. > Did you test drive any other Saab 9-3s, just in case you might have > found two lemons? The two samples, except as noted, drove similarly. There was nothing about them I would describe as lemon-like. Their characteristics//unexpected noises as noted did not appeal to me and perhaps could be cured with dealer adjustment. As a matter of fact the sales manager told me the dealership bought back two cars with 17's, so unhappy were the owners. And he offered to swap 16's onto the 2003 at no charge. He did not dispute the road noise. He suggested I try a 9-5, but after having read complaints about excessive road noise above 60 mph in it, I declined citing unacceptable depreciation issues. > I prefer the Classic Saabs, primarily because the design. I have not > noticed the squirrelly handling and suspension noise with my Classics > that you found with the new 9-3s - and my Classic have well over 100,000 > miles each. > > > > > > Decent acceleration. Gas hungry when pushed, though. Smallish fuel tank if > > you plan on driving somewhat aggressively, or like to stomp it, or cruise > > over the limit. > > > > What do you mean by "gas hungry"? I get 26 mpg (US) with a 900 SPG in > combined city/highway driving. I found it very easy to burn gas quickly when pressing the vehicle to accelerate and drive fast. The fuel gauge indicator seemed to drop as fast as the one in the hungry eight cylinder engined vehicle which I frequenly "push". As it should. The slushbox undoubtedly did not help matters any. Very easy to trash the EPA ratings. I simply thought that it would be more economical even when thrashed somewhat, what with the engine size. But I suppose to generate that much power from that size engine, it would required respectable amounts of fuel under turbo-charged conditions. Bottom line: if the road noise was (largely) absent, I would be driving it next week. > > > Steering boost was a bit too high, but not objectionably. Handling is right > > on for FWD. > > > > Loved the size both inside and out. > > > > Was all set to do a deal on the loaded 2003 with 200 miles. Sweet pricing. > > > > What killed it for me was the tremendous road noise infiltrating the cabin > > (both cars) at both low and high speeds, no way could I live with that. > > Sounded louder than the 03 Malibu rental I drove last summer. And the > > Malibu's interior seemed better screwed in place. I was really surprised at > > this on both vehicles (the '04 had 11 miles on it). > > > > > > GM's cost cutters have shown their faces, and the sight is not pretty. > > > > After spending about 4 hours researching this car on the 'net, I really > > wanted to fall in love with it. But the cost-cutters stole that joy from me > > and stole a sale from their employer. > > > > Next stop: the Acura store. > > > > > > > > > >
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
