Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:29:13 GMT From: Johannes <johsnospam-spam-sizefitter.com> Subject: Re: 2001 9-5 V6 3.0L - a good buy with GM engine?
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?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |