1985-1998 [Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
[Profile/Gallery]
, Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:47:02
Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup
Great topic for discussion!!
I don't own a 9-5, but I have owned 2 9000s (1991 and presently a '96 9000 CS), and I have a good friend who owns a 2000 9-5. As to your questions:
1. Reliability: a 9-5 will probably be slightly more "reliable," if only because it will be newer and probably have less miles on it than a 9000. Both of my 9000s have been automatics, and the ZF automatic supplied in the 9000s is definitely a weak link - don't expect to get much more than 100,000 miles out of the ZF automatic transmission (there are always exceptions), and I have heard of some ZFs having to be rebuilt at 50,000 miles. Also, the heater cores in 9000s seem to be weak and need to be replaced more frequently than in other SAAB models. Everything else in my 9000s has been very reliable, but I service my cars by the book. Don't know what the reliability issues are for the 9-5 - check the 9-5 board on this site. I understand the 9-5 automatic transmission (Aisen-Warner, made in Japan) is considerably more reliable than the 9000 ZF unit.
2. Ease of Service: Neither 9000 or 9-5 will be as easy to service in the engine compartment area as a classic 900, due to the transverse engine arrangement. I have heard mechanics at my dealership curse the accessibility of the V-6 engine in a 9000; don't know if they have the same issues with the V-6 in a 9-5. I have also heard them say that dropping the engine/transmission in a 9000 is much easier than in a 9-5 - something about the ease of removing the subframe in a 9000 that the engine/transmission sits on. Other than that, I haven't heard anything about any significant differences between the two models.
3. Driving impressions: Ah, here we get to the meat of the matter. Both drive well, but I think the 9000 gives an impression of being a bigger, more luxerious car than the 9-5, and I don't mean that in a bad way. Bumps and highway irregularities seem less noticable in a 9000 to me, with no loss in handling response. Also, I am a big guy (6'2", 230 lbs), and the 9000 seems much roomier inside to me - I am very comfortable in a 9000, but I feel somewhat cramped in a 9-5. The 9000 has lots of leg room in the back seat, while the 9-5 is more like a 9-3. I think some of this has to do with the fact that the 9000's interior profile is more square and "box-like" while the 9-5 really tilts in from the beltline up, resulting in less interior room from the shoulders up. Can't speak to this issue in the 9-5 wagon, since I've never driven one. I would guess that the increased amount of interior space in the wagon would make it feel more "open." To me, the 9-5 feels more mainstream while driving (meaning more like lots of other good sedans), while the 9000 has a "unique" feel to it, and thus is more "SAAB-like." Moving from a classic 900 to a 9000, you will still know it is a SAAB, while the 9-5 feels (again, to me) more like a very good Japanese sedan, with some European touches. Plus, I like the fact that the 9000 has a more aggressive look than the 9-5, which I think is more "generic" sedan looking. And of course the 9000, while it looks like a sedan, has that amazing load-carrying ability and flexibility of a hatchback.
You might consider posting this same question on the 9-5 bulletin board - might get some very different responses there!
posted by 65.204....
, Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:47:02, Fri, 10 Jan 2003 17:46:59, Thu, 9 Jan 2003 14:26:47
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.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
