Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:26:46 -0600 From: SD <sdnospamailspam.com> Subject: Re: 2001 9-5 V6 3.0L - a good buy with GM engine?
On 3/23/2006 3:29 PM, Johannes wrote: > > SD wrote: >> On 3/23/2006 11:43 AM, Johannes wrote: >>> Dave Hinz wrote: >>>> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:07:39 GMT, Johannes Andersen <johsnospamfitter.com> wrote: >>>>> SmaartAasSaabr wrote: >>>>>> There is no denial that the four-cylinder 9-5's are suffering from many >>>>>> engine failures as a result of oil sludging, from overly infrequent oil >>>>>> changes, low quality oil and a crap PCV system, as well as a faulty >>>>>> batch of turbochargers on the initial LPT 4-cyl cars. From a strict >>>>>> reliability point of vue, the V6 "GM" engine is light years better. And >>>>>> that engine is a Saab specific item anyway with an assymetrical >>>>>> turbocharger, only one on the road with that kind of setup. Sure you >>>>>> have to change the timing belt every 100 000 km like any other timing >>>>>> belt car... >>>>> You're a troll, yes? >>>> He might be, but I don't see anything glaringly factually wrong in the >>>> above. ??? >>> Many engine failures? Is it really that big a problem if you change oil >>> at sensible intervals e.g. never more than 5000 miles. And why would anybody >>> with a turbo use low quality oil? These are just standard turbo issues, so >>> the V6 turbo isn't better in that respect. And 100 000 km between timing >>> belts is stretching it a bit. >> 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? I believe all USA SE Wagons of that time had the V6.
