Date: 23 Jan 2005 13:20:12 -0800 From: bunker90nospamail.com Subject: Re: Time to update
Peter Wilkins wrote: > On 19 Jan 2005 19:36:28 -0800, bunker90nospamail.com (bunker90) wrote : > > >Howdy guys. I've been the proud owner of a 85 900i for about the last > >8 years. It's been a fantastic car and I love it dearly. However, its > >getting towards the time that I'll be looking to upgrade and I'd > >really like to stick with Saab. I guess I'm looking at 9-3's & 9-5's > >from between 1998-2001. I was wondering if you guys had any tips on > >what to look for as far as known problems go, which is the better > >all-round car (9-3 or 9-5), whats the preferred engine etc.? I know a > >lot of these are a matter of personal opinion but all educated > >opinions and general information are much appreciated. > >I know you guys must get a lot of these sort of queries and they could > >be annoying but I figured this would be the best place to ask. > >Thanks in advance for anything you have to offer! > > > >Cheers, > > > Hi Rob, > > I too am a long time Saab fanatic. I got my first Saab in 1973, a 2 > door 99, and have had several flavours of 99 and 900 since, for a > total (I think) of about 12. > > At one time I had 4: two 99's and two 900's, 99's for the kids and > 900's for the wife and me. I skipped the 9000 (not really a Saab) and > got a 1998 9-5SE, with no plans for getting rid of it for a few years > yet. > > I found the 9-3 too small for all the things I wanted to do (carry > three grandkids and all their swim gear for one), so got the 9-5 > instead, but the 9-3 is OK for a small family. I thought about the > 9-5 wagon but it wasn't available for another 6 months, and the 9-5 > boot (trunk) is pretty big, so got the sedan. Convertables are for > idiotic poseurs. > > With the 9-5 I got the turbocharged 2.3 l engine. I thought the 6 had > too much understeer and the 2.0 wasn't available here in the 9-5. It > would be OK in the 9-3. > > I have had very few major problems with any of my Saabs. The 99's > tended to drop their roof linings, but that was easy to have reglued. > One 99 and one 900 had the automatic transmission fail at around > 80,000km. My 9-5 had a turbocharger which started to blow white smoke > after 2 years, but Saab replaced it for free under warranty before it > failed completely. (3 yr warranty on Saabs in Oz) > > I would recommend a 1999 or later 9-5SE if you want luxury and space, > or a 9-3 if the budget is a bit light. But remember, the more > expensive and highly equipped cars are better value when bought second > hand, as they depreciate more than the base models. Go for an Aero! > > -- > Regards, > Peter Wilkins Thanks for the reply Peter! Always nice to see a fellow Aussie about the place. I had a bit of a look around over the weekend but there arent that many decent second hand models around down here in Adelaide. A trip East to Melbourne may be warranted. I did see an imaculate 2000 9-5SE, fully optioned with 40k on the clock, absolutely beautiful but at $29k a little more than I'm looking to spend. I'm hoping to keep it closer to $20k. As for the size, I'm a single man so the 9-3 wouldnt be a problem. Annother thing I was wondering though is how the late model 900's stack up against the 9-3/5's? As for the roof lining, I've had to have mine re-fitted twice in my 900i! My only real complaint about that car is that I just dont think the older models were cut out for Australian summers, plenty of cracks and warping in the dash etc. I'm with you on the convertibles as well!