1979-1993 & 94 Conv [Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
 | [Main C900 Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Re: Switching Teams Posted by Saana88 [Email]  (#207)  [Profile/Gallery]
(more from Saana88) on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:41:57
In Reply to: Switching Teams, OregonSlaab, Thu, 23 Mar 2006 00:48:41 Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup |
If you can find one below 100k, you're in luck. While you're at it, ship a few dozen up to NY for me.
Personally, I like 1990. Larger pinion bearing, LH 2.4, still 2.0 liter, 900-style seats. That's a personal choice. With the introduction of 9000-style front seats in 1991, you gained the power option and a narrower floor console.
Lots of "nagging" items were introduced post-1991, or at least this is how it seems to me. The shift linkage was changed to one with a rubber "brick" in it, and as long as that brick didn't flex too much on you, it is more precise, otherwise it's another thing to look after. The same applies to the heater bypass valve, introduced in mid-1991. If it works, it's fine, but they have a habit of dissolving inside and they complicate an otherwise workable heater hose setup. Not to mention they made these cars for 20 years without that in there. The 2.1 liter motor (1991- non-turbos) was a little more sensitive; if you never changed the coolant the head gasket would erode and eventually fail much more easily than the 2.0. I know that doesn't apply to your turbo. The fuel tank was enlarged sometime in 1991 from 16.6 gallons to 18; I think that will put you just barely over a 50/50 weight balance when it's completely full, and that's why Saab didn't do it. I like that one, but that's because I'm a mileage freak, and counting the number of gas stations I can pass in 550 miles is even more fun than counting how many gas stations I can pass in 480 miles. And finally, I like my (pre-'92) instruments with more numbers on them. I'm not saying the instruments on my convertible are any less readable, just a styling choice for me. The classics are fairly worker-friendly, but you MUST know your way around them, no exceptions. As for the purdy part, you may find yourself falling in love with the shape of the windshield, the forward-opening hood (that comes off with two bolts yet is safe in any type of collision), the backwards (not sideways) motor, or just the sheer engineering mastery. As other posters have alluded to, you can not hard-shift the gearbox or put a ridiculous amount of torque through it or it will fail. I think of it as the difference between myself (~32 MPG all the time) and a bimmer owner. Do you really need to get there that little insignificant bit quicker? If not, why trash the machinery?
End of divergence. To me the perfect Saab would either be a '93 commemorative edition hatch, an '86 convertible (manual of course), a '91 SPG without the skirts (more of a surprise), or a 1990 base 3-door with no miles on it, just to be able to not worry about buying a car for the next two decades. Keep it in shape, because they're not making that shape anymore.
(With a 1988 base 900 and a 1992 S convertible, I'm perfectly content as it is. I'm thinking of driving the 4-door through the summer this year just to put as many miles on it as I can before it rusts, and to keep those miles off of the convertible. 202k is just the beginning of what this machine is capable of, and I'm committed until the bitter end.)
, Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:41:57 <-- Viewing This Message
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
