RE: SOTW: Saab 9-5 Aero HOT

[AlexS]

aeropilot said:

P2BS said:

Rollcage said:

For the manual at least I'm sorry to say that they can be surprisingly economical

40mog achievabke with care.

Not the auto with a stage 1 remap... prob about 1/2 of 40mpg.

Nope, not with the 5-speed auto. I owned a 5-speed Aero auto for some 6 years previously, and on my out-of-London-and around the M25 commute to Herts and back via north London and the dreaded North Circular, I used to average 26-27mpg.

32-35mpg was easily attainable on a run, as long as you kept it below three figures

My automatic 9-5 aero estate is easily capable of 35mpg on a long run with the cruise set around 75ish. The longer term average is just over 29, but is helped by generally not using the car for commuting (and when I do it is mainly motorway with a bit of dual carriageway) and few short journeys.

[MC Bodge]

A Mate of mine had a 9-5 HOT Aero. It went like stink, especially above "The Ton", but proudly represented Sweden at wheelspinning and understeer -I believe that a stiffer rear ARB makes a big difference.

[legalknievel]

Somebody buy it! Immediately!

[Quhet]

Absolutely love this, I'm hoping to upgrade to a 9-5 after my next car...

[6fire]

This shed makes the Saab 9-5 aero HOT manual I bought just before Christmas for £890 look like even more of a bargain! Ok mine is slightly leggier, but has full SH, Abbot Racing tweaked suspenders and no body work damage at all. In fact it's in great condition. My local Saab specialist has just given it a clean bill of health.

A truly epic car!

Edited by 6fire on Friday 4th January 17:11

[JREwing]

6fire said:

This shed makes the Saab 9-5 aero HOT manual I bought just before Christmas for £890 look like even more of a bargain! Ok mine is slightly leggier, but has full SH, Abbot Racing tweaked suspenders and no body work damage at all. In fact it's in great condition. My local Saab specialist has just given it a clean bill of health.

A truly epic car!

Edited by 6fire on Friday 4th January 17:11

I'm jealous

[rallycross]

Question for the 9-5 experts which is the better diesel 9-5 model to go for?
I like the idea of the 3.0 V6 diesel should be quite smooth and has plenty of power, any known issues on the 3.0D? Also is that 3.0 engine used in any other models?

There is also a 1.9Td and 2.2 diesel any known problems with them?

[otolith]

rallycross said:

Question for the 9-5 experts which is the better diesel 9-5 model to go for?
I like the idea of the 3.0 V6 diesel should be quite smooth and has plenty of power, any known issues on the 3.0D?

I was quite interested in the 3.0 V6 diesel, and there was one for sale locally, so I did a bit of research. And then ran quickly in the opposite direction!

[Bonefish Blues]

It's a brave person that goes for the V6 diesel - a litany of issues here. 2.2's as old as the hills, and sounds like it, too but very reliable. 1.9's the best of the 3, subject to the usual caveats about modern diesels.

Uksaabs forum will give you lots of helpful info.

[Cosworth750]

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t...

Some experiences on there from 3.0 V6 owners.

[Minemapper]

Even from Stockton, that's a good bargain. Loved driving my dad's Saabs.

[JREwing]

rallycross said:

Question for the 9-5 experts which is the better diesel 9-5 model to go for?
I like the idea of the 3.0 V6 diesel should be quite smooth and has plenty of power, any known issues on the 3.0D? Also is that 3.0 engine used in any other models?

There is also a 1.9Td and 2.2 diesel any known problems with them?

If you want the V6, get a Vectra with it is the advice I've heard. Apparently many issues related to overheating due to a cramped engine bay.

[maxdb]

I really would be tempted to get this but wish it had a longer MOT on it.

[aka_kerrly]

rallycross said:

Question for the 9-5 experts which is the better diesel 9-5 model to go for?
I like the idea of the 3.0 V6 diesel should be quite smooth and has plenty of power, any known issues on the 3.0D? Also is that 3.0 engine used in any other models?

There is also a 1.9Td and 2.2 diesel any known problems with them?

the 2.2 is agricultural and a very old/basic design, which does have it's advantages. The 1.9D is far far better unit.

[P2BS]

I had the 2.2TiD as my 2nd 9-5; great car, not too slow, but loud on tickover. Not bad on fuel either. Chain engine, so no cambelt changes to pay for!
The 3.0TiD avoid avoid avoid. Some people may have good experiences with them, but a hell of a lot of people have been stung.
The 1.9 (from Sept.2005) is the Fiat 16v 150bhp lump (as in the Vectra/Alfa's); the 120bhp 1.9 is better, but that's only in the 9-3. The 16v in the 9-5 needs EGR fettling, DPF removing to make reliable. Plenty of high milers out there though, so it is a proven engine - with well documented weaknesses.

[Ianm83]

Hi guys

This is my car, all i can say is thanks for all the kind words and to pheads for picking my add. The phone has not stopped ringing all afternoon.

In answer to a few queries, the auto box returns an average of 25mpg and will do 42 if youve got the patience for it on a run.

As for the understeer etc, its a big old car, if you want one for b road blasts you made the wrong choice. Mot an awful lot lives with it on the motorway for the money (look up its 3rd gear pull times)

Thanks again

Ian

[tezzer]

If I had a grand sitting spare, I'd be up the road to Stockton tonight.

[DippedHeadlights]

Had an almost identical car but about a year younger for about a year when it was a 3 year old.
Echo most of the comments here, by 2002 the oil issue was known and sorted. I had rear bushes replaced under warranty which transformed handling, from factory they often had too much toe-in which made the back feel very skitty.
Traction could be a problem on some surfaces. Economy I remember being in to the 30s so pretty good.
For the size and space it's an incredibly chuckable car, reminded me of a Mk2 Golf GTi, great fun on the twistys and felt smaller than it was.
I didn't like the Xenon lights, the cut-off felt too sharp and too low for fast night driving.
Overall though good image, practical, safe, would certainly have one again.
There was once a bit of a concentration of 9-5 and earlier 9000 owners around Bristol - there were a couple of good independent specialists there that made ownership easier, the main dealers were muppets.

[aeropilot]

JREwing said:

rallycross said:

Question for the 9-5 experts which is the better diesel 9-5 model to go for?
I like the idea of the 3.0 V6 diesel should be quite smooth and has plenty of power, any known issues on the 3.0D? Also is that 3.0 engine used in any other models?

There is also a 1.9Td and 2.2 diesel any known problems with them?

If you want the V6, get a Vectra with it is the advice I've heard. Apparently many issues related to overheating due to a cramped engine bay.

9-5 engine bay is no more cramped than a Vectra

The 3.0Tid is only worth a punt, if the car comes with documentation that proves it had a dealer fitted engine factory engine replacement dated after 2004, which would mean it has one of the 'fixed' engines.
These engine replacements cost Saab over £8k at the time, and they did a few and generally these post 2004 replacement engines appear to have held up well

If no documentation, then run a mile, as has been said.

[DippedHeadlights]

That's right, the GM V6 of that era had a number of issues due to manufacturing cost cutting from new. Didn't they try to save money by change a timing pulley from alloy to plastic and it would disintegrate at high rpm and take the engine with it, there were also coolant leaks, (porous block ?).
A friend who worked for Opel told me at the time the V6 engines were "Scheiße" pronounced shy-str which is a good clue as to the English translation!