Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 13:02:44 +0100 From: "DervMan" <thedervmannospaml.com> Subject: Re: 9000 CS vs. Aero...what's the difference?
"Nasty Bob" <speedypancakenospamail.com> wrote in message news:1154716026.555607.189940nospam2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > Jon R. Pickens wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'd found a '97 9000 Aero that I was going to buy, but the seller was >> less than motivated to be rid of it. > > That's understandable :) > > >> What's the difference between the two cars? > > The Saab 9000 was available in 5 basic flavours - > 2.0 litre low pressure turbo (LPT) > 2.3 litre LPT > 2.0 litre Full pressure trubo (FPT) > 2.3 litre FPT > 2.3 litre FPT Aero (Hot) > > If you like fast cars, hold out for a 2.3 FPT or Aero. > If you like to cover a lot of miles in comfort go for the LPT's. The > LPT's or "eco-power" models have turbos, but use them mainly to help > efficiency so they get slightly better mpg. The book shows a difference of under two miles per gallon comparing the 2.0 turbocharged 9000s... but the naturally aspirated model felt gutless and the turbo felt much better, despite there only being 20 bhp between the two (2.0na: 130 bhp, 132 lbsft and the 2.0tc, 150 bhp and 157 foot pounds). > I used to have the 2.0 CS LPT. Recently got an Aero & the difference is > incredible. The LPT covered 0-60 in around 10 secs, my Aero does it in > just over 6.0 so I find it a lot more fun to drive :) IMHO 9.5 seconds for the LPT and 6.7 seconds for the Aero, but both scrabble for grip at the front end... In gear difference is huge, at least in the dry: I always found the Aero would wheelspin under even moderately aggressive driving. That's down to technique, of course... I'd take the opposite view. Sure, the Aero is huge fun, don't get me wrong... but it's driven at the wrong end. Both offer the traditional 9000 benefits (huge inside, comfortable, so on and so forth). I'd take the mild turbo model... -- The DervMan www.dervman.com
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
