[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
 | [Main General Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Totally different cars... Posted by Justin VanAbrahams [Email]  (#32) [Profile/Gallery]
(more from Justin VanAbrahams) on Sun, 10 Mar 2002 16:23:45
In Reply to: Re: If you had choice 900 or 9000, Bob Taylor, Sun, 10 Mar 2002 10:07:14 Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup |
900s and 9000s are completely different cars, each with its own pros and cons, pluses and minuses. I've owned nine of ten 900Ts and four 9000Ts at this point... the car I drive the most is my '88 9kt which just recently crossed 250,000 miles.
900s are, out of the box, more capable handlers. But that's nothing that good suspension on a 9000 won't fix. Their suspension setups are almost identical, though while 9000s have MacPhearson struts up front instead of the preferred double a-arm, they also have improved rear suspension with better axle location. So, it's a tradeoff.
9000s are faster in a straight line, mostly due to improved an improved intercooler design (substantially) and a more efficient gearbox. I've found, in general, a 9000 to be more easy to tune than a 900 since the starting platform is slightly more sophisticated and a little more flexible. But, 9000s suffer from quite a bit more torque steer than a 900, which can get annoying.
In my experience, 9000s are more reliable. 9000s tend to be very solidly built and well-engineered, whereas 900s are fundementally date back to the '60s in many aspects and not everything holds up so well. My 900s all nickle-and-dime me - little things break on a pretty regular basis. My 9000s all hit me with rare but expensive bills. In terms of major expenses, c900s seem to mostly lunch transmissions, whereas 9000s seem to eat heater cores and blower motors, occasionally but rarely an ACC computer. Little stuff - c900s seem to go through things like air mass meters, idle control valves, and heater control valves on a regular basis, whereas 9000s seem to mostly have problems with window regulators. On the interior, 900s invariably have a sagging headliner, dashboard cracks, and peeling vinyl on the dash fascia, whereas 9000s always have screwed up fabric door panel inserts and leaky sunroofs.
Sooo... in the end, you gotta decide what kind of repair you want to do, and what kind of a car you want to drive. Early 9000s are shorter than but wider than a c900. They are immensely huge on the *inside* compared to a c900. 9000s can haul wider and taller stuff, 900s can haul longer stuff. If I had to sleep alone in my car, I'd buy a c900, if I was camping with my gf, I'd buy a 9000. If I planned on hotrodding the car on a budget, I'd buy a 9000, with no budget a 900. If I had to own only one car, I'd buy a 9000, but if I had to own only one Saab I'd buy a 900.
-Justin
posted by 66.123.9...
, Mon, 11 Mar 2002 09:54:36, Sun, 10 Mar 2002 16:23:45 <-- 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.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
