Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 14:45:59 GMT From: hootspanopsamp.org Subject: Re: Saab 9-5 versus late model 9000
Kind of felt that the 9000 was a little undervalued on the used market but have heard about some reliability issues -- auto tranny's for example. When and if did they start using GM auto tranny's?? In article <38D7CE1F.7FBB8ABCnopsamsafish.com>, johsnopsamsafishnospammail.com wrote: > > > hootspanopsamp.org wrote: > > > > I'm interested in buying a late model 9000. Anyone know what the > > differences are between the last 9000 and the 9-5? For some reason > > Consumer Reports recommends the 9-5 but doesn't have anything on the > > 9000? > > > > 9000CS: Hatchback versatility, spacious, looks racy. > > 9-5: Independent rear suspension, possibly softer. > > I have never driven a 9-5, but for me the hatchback is important. > With folded rear seats, the 9000CS can easily take my mountain bike. > There is an 9-5 estate version, it is well designed, but still > an estate car. 9000CS suspension is firm, some would say hard, but > the Saabs always had some of the best car seats, so the comfort is > excellent. > > If money affects your decision, then I would imagine that 9000's > are much cheaper to buy. These cars are really a bargain for what > they offer. Compare prices with used mercs and beamers and see > what you get. > > Johannes > -- Ask those who Ask those who .......... ......... Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |