Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 18:52:00 +0100 From: "Simon Watkins" <siwatkinsnopsamorg> Subject: Re: Looking at 9-5, should I go 2.0 or 2.3?
DC <d_b_cohenNOd_SPAMnopsamail.com.invalid> wrote in message news:094fcdc1.d02eac3fnopsamex0104-028.remarq.com... > Opinions wanted, please. I am looking to get a 9-5, either a new > one on lease or a 1-2yr old model (finance is unclear as yet). > > What I can't decide on is the engine. I have read that the 2.0 > is a smoother unit than the 2.3, and performance wise there is > not much in it. However, the spec fiend in me can't help feeling > a 2.3 would be a better bet. DC I've owned 3 9-5's now - all of them 2.0 Litre models. The first two were with the manual gearbox, the current one with Auto. The engine is great. Lovely and smooth - my Father owns a 6 cyl BMW and he thought my engine was also a 6 Cyl the first time he got a ride in it. It is lovely and flexible, good on fuel and a more than adequate workhorse for the car. The current model with the Auto is good too. I don't miss the manual gearbox like I thought I would, and I sure wouldn't go back having owned this one for a while - and I used to be the worst manual gearbox advocate on the planet! I don't think you'll be disappointed with the 2.0 if you go for it. I had a test drive of a 2.3 and I didn't notice a lot in it, if anything. It ended up being a choice for me - a 2.3 manual, or a 2.0 auto. I'm pleased with my choice. Simon > > I've yet to test drive yet, though I had a 2.0lpt 9-3 about six > months ago and thought it was great - lighter vehicle, though, I > would have thought. > > Anybody got any thoughts? > > David. > > * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * > The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free! >
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |