Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 09:39:48 -0400 From: doug <douglas75nopsamntmail.com> Subject: Re: 9-5 or Passat
david, I just replaced my 97 900SE with a Passat GLX. The loaded Passat costs less than a stripped base 900/9-3. The base Passat 4cyl turbo costs only $22,000. They are nice cars. I cannot comment on reliability because it only has 2,000 miles on it. But, anything would be better than my 900 which was in the shop 10 times in 8 months and rattled like a Pinto! The Saab 9-3 is a better car than the Passat if somebody is interested in having a hatchback. It scores better on the skidpad and dragstrip then the Passat, but the Passat might just out handle the Saab on bumpy roads and feels like it is not working as hard as the Saab in hard acceleration. Get the Saab 9-3 if you must have a hatchback, like the styling and they give you a hell of a deal (at least 3000 rebate or barely over invoice). Saab will probably put a huge rebate on the 9-3 at the end of the year to get rid of them and then your resale value will fall through the floor. 1997 and 1998 900 SE's can be had for $19-$22 with minimal miles. Get the 9-5 if you can afford it; it is a sweet car. Get the Passat if you can live with the styling, and want a nice car that costs less than the 9-3 and is almost as large inside as a 9-5. -Doug david r. wrote: > i love my 92 900, as i loved my 84 900S before that. i never > intended to ever look at a volkswagen..then i saw (and drove) the > passat. i was amazed at how refined and substantial the car was. a silky > smooth transmission, no rattles or squeaks, good handling, surprising > room and acceleration (i drove the turbo 4) with solid breaking, and no > apparent vices. it was also quiet, thanks to an aerodynamic body and > lots of sound-deadening material. the Cd of .27 is lower than that of > the 9-5 which is .29. my friend also gets around 28mpg combined...33 on > the highway. it does, however, take premium fuel. my only gripe was that > the back seats were VERY firm...they could have used softer padding, and > a bit more of it. > as for the 9-5, i truly enjoyed driving one. the pickup was > phenomenal, and you got the sense they really crafted the car right this > time. however, after the horrors of the '87 9000 and the '94 900, i > would be very wary of a first year saab, regardless of how nice it was. > the passat has been a best selling car in europe for over a year and > since it shares parts with the audi A4, the components are a known > quantity. > some other considerations...right now VW is the 4th largest automaker > in the world (behind GM, ford, and toyota). saab is the smallest car > manufacturer in the world. when it comes to parts availability, repair > costs, and dealership options, i would think VW would get the nod. > also, while saabs are known by their owners to be incredibly safe > cars, insurance companies like to target us because the cars (by design) > crumple easily and cost a lot to repair. the passat recently won best in > category for a variety of crash tests....this should translate into a > lower insurance rate. i have no idea how the passat would fare in saabs > "real world" crash scenarios, but there was minimal cabin intrusion in > the simulated tests, and VW actually revised some of it's safety > material and retested because they weren't satisfied the first time > through and wanted a better score...something to admire, surely. > finally, there is the issue of price. the difference between the two > cars in terms of cost is significant. if you opt for the turbo 4 > cylinder, the difference is astounding. i have always loved the > personality of my saabs. i have always thought i would be driving them > for life...but the cost of being a saab owner keeps climbing, and the VW > passat is proof that attractive, high quality alternatives exists. if i > had to choose today, i'm not sure which car i would buy...but i think it > might be the passat. > > david
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |