Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:54:54 GMT From: nospamnospame.rr.com (Kevin Rhodes) Subject: Re: 2001 9-5 V6 3.0L - a good buy with GM engine?
>> My Mom's 2000 9-5 V6 SE Wagon has had no problems. It is a low mileage car. > >But what made her pick the 9-5 V6 when it's not faster than the 4-cyl, yet uses >more fuel? The V6t is most assuredly faster than the original 170hp version of the 2.3t, and not a whole lot slower than the 2.3T 230hp Aero motor if the Aero is an automatic. Particularly at around town speeds the lack of turbo-lag and stronger low rpm torque of the V6 make it feel MUCH faster than either of the 2.3s. It is also quieter and smoother running, particularly at idle in gear. I have 61K on my 2000 V6t wagon, zero issues with the motor. Zero issues with the whole car, for that matter! I personally know 3 people with sludge victim early 2.3t cars, I would not touch one of those unless it had gold-plated service records. Sadly, that is almost never the case in the US, land of Jiffy lube servicing. I do feel that maintained properly there is nothing wrong with the 2.3t, but people just don't treat care, especially as something like 85% of them were leased. BTW, the official differance in EPA highway mileage for the V6 vs. 4 is *1* mpg! I get 28-29mpg with my wagon on trips, can't complain. Kevin Rhodes Westbrook, Maine 00 9-5 SE V6t Wagon 91 BMW 318is 74 Triumph Spitfire
